HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/11/2005 - STAFF REPORTS (8) i
1
LOCAL REVENUE ENHANCEMENT OPTIONS
CATEGORY `_ - STATUTORY AUTHORITY, _DEFINITION. -, -' - APPLICATION-- — VOTERAPPROVAL - CITIES THAT HAVE IMPLEMENTED- -
:'' (Examples)
REQUIRED
A special tax is considered a type of tax—not a fee,charge or special
Parcel Tax Government Code 53970 assessment. The amount of the special tax is not limited to the Fire protection,security including police services public 213 Union City,Davis,Sausalito
(Public Safety,Municipal Services) Government Code 53978 relative benefit it provides to property owners or taxpayers. Typically, recreation,street lighting,undergrounding of utilities,library
special taxes are levied on a per parcels basis either according to the services,ambulance services and graffiti abatement
square footage or the parcel or a flat charge.
A Mello-Roos Community Facilities District is a financing tool that local
Me0cs-Roos Tax governments can use to levy special taxes for designated community Ambulance services,recreation programs and library
(Parks Maintenance,Flood Protection) Government Code 53311 improvements,such as freeway interchanges,library services,or services,maintenance of parks,parkways and open space, 213 South Lake Tahoe,Antioch,Carlsbad
recreation programs. flood and storm drain protection services.
Benefit Assessment District Government Code 54703 A benefit assessment is an involuntary charge levied on property to Streets,storm drains,sewers,curbs and gutters,street
(Flood Control,Fire Suppression) Government Code 54710 pay for public improvements,such as roads or street lights,that lights,He suppression,police services that provide a 213 Redlands,Vista,Anaheim,San Diego
Government Code 50078.2 benefit property. special benefit to properties within the district
Streets&Highways
Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District Code 22500 - Maintenance Assessment Districts(MADdi are legal mechanisms s Installation and maintenance of landscaping,recreational
statutes,a Majority Indio,Rancho Mirage,Chino Hills
which property owners within a specified district can vote to assess fountains,general lighting,traffic lights,recreational and
themselves to pay For,and receive,special benefit services. playground courts and equipment,and public reslrooms.
Property Transfer Tax Revenue and Taxation
Code 11901 A real estate transfer tax is a tax levied on the sale of certain classes General Fund Uses Majority Generally Implemented
of property—residential,commercial or industrial—that increases with
the size of the property being sold.
Business License Tax Government Code 37101 A business license tax is a type of excise tax imposed on General Fund Uses Majority Generally Implemented
businesses for the privilege of conducting business within municipal
boundaries.The tax is most commonly based on gross receipts or
levied at a Flat rate.
Admissions Tax Revenue and Taxation An admissions tax is a charge imposed on individuals for the right or
Code 7200 privilege to enter,occupy,or use a seat or space in any facility General Fund Uses Majority Indian Wells,Santa Clara,San Mateo
or event.
Excise Tax Revenue and Taxation An excise tax is's tax on the exercise of one of the incidences of
Code 7203.5 property ownership,'such as the ability to transfer or devise General Fund Uses Majority Vallejo,San Diego
(New Development Tax) property or the ability to use,store,or consume @
Revenue and Taxation A sales tax is a type of excise tax imposed upon the sale of all tangible General Fund Uses Majority Davis,Santa Cruz
Code 7285.9 personal property sold at retail within the jurisdictional limits of the
Sales Tax City The City currently receives 1%of sales. If approved by voters
the City could impose an additional one-quarter(1/4)percent increase
in the sales tax rate
911 Emergency Communication State of California The City Council can impose by Ordinance a fee on local telephone Expansion and upgrade of 911 Telephone System,Mobile None Required
Constitution Article 13[a], service subscribers to recover the majority of its costs to develop, Communications Systems;Alternative 911 Systems for Established by
San Jose,Cupertino,Sunnyvale,Morgan Hill,
Systems Response Fee Section 4 improve,maintain and operate its 911 communications center Backup Capability Palo Alto,Saratoga,San Francisco
P P P p Y Ordinance
State of California Local jurisdictions may levy a special ad valorem tax in excess of 1% General Fund Uses 213 Santa Monica
Property Tax Override Constitution Article 13[a] for the purpose of paying the debt service on debt issuances.
Time Share Occupancy Tax Revenue and Taxation Imposed by City Ordinance on the use of a timeshare interval General Fund Uses Majority Imperial Beach
Code 7280
An impact fee Is a monetary exaction other than a tax or special None Required Generally Implemented
assessment that is charged by the local governmental agency to an
Impact Fees Government Code 66000-660025 applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the Construction of public fa plihes,parks,sewers,and other
purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities infrastructure projects.
related to the development project.
Utility Users Tax State of California Imposed by City ordnance on the amounts charged to residents and General Fund Uses Majority Over 200 cities
Constitution Article 13[c] businesses for electric,gas and telephone service
taxpotential FISCAL YEAR 2005-06 BUDGET DISCUSSIONS
5/8105 MAY 115 2005
MAY -9 2004 POTENTIAL TAX INCREASES
New or Annual Admin Costs
Name Incr Rate Basis Annual Rev City Collector Net to City Avg Cost Basis
1 Parcel Tax $ 100.00 per parcel $ 3,200,000 $ 60,000 N/A $ 3,140,000 $ 100.00 per household/yr
2 Property Transfer Tax $ 1.10 per $1000 900,000 450,000 450,000 110.00 per $100,000 of
(current rate is $1.10 per $1000) of sales price selling price
3 Business License Tax 30% per avg license 234,000 - - 234,000 30.00 per business/yr
(current avg is $100 per license)
4 Admissions Tax $ 0.25 per attendee 700,000 15,000 15,000 685,000 12.00 per household/yr
5 New Development Tax $ 0.40 per square foot 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 800.00 per 2000 sq.ft.
(current rate is $.40 per sq. ft.) of new develop.
6 Sales Tax 0.25% Retail sales 1,850,000 15,725 50,000 1,834,275 40.00 per household/yr
(City currently gets 1% of sales)
7 Emergency Calls #911 $ 1.00 per month 1,237,000 - 10,000 1,237,000 12.00 per phone/yr
(to recover cost of Safety Dispatch) per phone line
8 Property Tax Debt Svc 0.08% Assessed Value 4,160,000 62,000 - 4,098,000 80.00 per $100,000 AV
9 Timeshare Occupancy Tax $ 4.00 per interval/ night 800,000 10,000 10,000 790,000 28.00 per TS week
10 Utility Users Tax 3.00% utility bills 3,480,000 3,480,000 72.00 per household/yr
11 Vehicle Impact Fee $ 0.67 mo trash service bills 200,000 $ - $ - 200,000 $ - reduce other fees
12 Comm Facilities District $ 500.00 per residence per year $ 500.00 per household/yr
(new development only)
6alifornia0ifinance.4om -t• Coleman Advisory Services
Local Revenue Measures November 2004
Thus November, voters in California considered more than 270 local measures' related to local agency
taxes, fees and Financing. One-hundred eighteen (118) of these measures concerned city taxes, fees or funanctng.
Twenty-six (26) concerned counties and thirty-three (33) concerned special districts. There were more than eighty
school measures including 55% school bonds and 2/3 vote special taxes Among the city measures, thirty four
(34) were special taxes or bonds requiring 2/3 voter approval and seventy-three (73) concerned general taxes
requiring majority voter apploval.2
Observations
1. The variety of unique local conditions makes drawing trends and generalizations difficult. There ate
many circumstances that can have bearing on die outcome of a local measure. These vary among
localities and include:
a. The effect of spurious issues and personalities in the community. Have members of the city
council of county board received bad press? Is there a contentious development issue?
b. Local fiscal conditions and levels of service vary. Voters may perceive that the city (or county)
has plenty of revenue or that levels of service are sufficient.
c. Political leaning. Regardless of actual local conditions, populations in different localities differ in
their basic pinlosoplues of government.
d. Local activism The presence or lack of activist citizens to support or oppose a local measure
can have a major effect.
e. Cleat and competent communication from the city/county. Short of advocacy,voters need basic
information to make a decision
2. There are winners and losers in virtually every category of tax measure. Results in all categories in
November 2004 were mixed.
3 Generally, earmarlung a tax for a special purpose (e g. police, fire, EMS, libraries, parks, etc.) is not worth
the 2/3 vote requirement needed to pass a special tax.
4. A/B strategies where a majority vote measure is pared with an advisory measure as to use of funds do
not appear to be worthwhile.
5. Voters are much more amenable to continuing an existing tax that raising a tax.
6. All citizen initiatives to repeal of limit taxes all failed.
Transient Occupancy(Hotel/Motel) Taxes
Residents of twenty cities and four counties faced proposals to increase Hotel Taxes (Transient
Occupancy Taxes) in their jurisdictions. Nineteen of the twenty cities proposed these increases as general taxes,
requiting majority voter approval. One of these nineteen (Cathedral City) added a separate advisory measure
setting aside a portion of the increased revenue for tourism. One of these cities, Palm Dessert, merely ratified a
TOT increase that had been adopted in the 1990s by the city council when the voter approval requirements of
Proposition 62 were in dispute.
The City of South San Francisco TOT increase proposal restricted the revenues for "parks, recreation
and public safety services" and this required 2/3 voter approval.
1 Includes city,county,special district and local school measures.
2 In addition,there were six advisory measures requiring majority approval and five citizen referenda to repeal or restrict local
taxes.
2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616
Phone: 530.758,3952 • Fax: 530.758.3952 L � �
-2- November 30,2004
Among the twenty-two measures requiring a majority vote, eleven passed and eleven failed. Among the
two special taxes, one passed and one failed.
AaTncy Name __ _ _ _ _County _ __ _ _Measure Nar_ Progosal_°/Needs YES°/ NO° Rate
City cf Cathedral City Riverside Cotmry -Measure R _ t increase- __50.0%_ 52.7% 47.3%_d_ 10% to 11%
CttYofCathedrol_Ciry Riverside County MeasureS advisory 5(.0%_ 428°/_.vS7,�" ' 9 Set aside Gen Fund
City cfLlealdsbut Sonoma Coin Measure increase 50.0% 71.8% 28.2% 6 to%to 12%
.°e_ __ _ _ _ �.'_ _ _ _Q. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
City of Indio _ _ _Riverside County Measure 00 ] increase_ _ 50.0% 36 0% ( bd D°1� 9 10%to 12%
_ _ _ _
City of Kerman - _ _ _ - _ Fresno County- Measure T - _ 50.0%_
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
City of Livingston _ - _ _ _ Merced Conrly - Measure G 1 increase 50.0% _53.7% 46.3°/ b 6%to 9%
_ __ .. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _- _ _ -
City of Mission Viefo. _ _ _ OrantLe Couuty _ MeasmeK ] increase 50.0% 39 2/,,rj6�MK" 9_ 8°%to 10%
_ _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ .. _ _ - _
City cf Oakdale Stanislans Comity -Messure, - _ increase_ _ 50.0% 3 9 7°%to 10%
City oFOroville _ - -- - - _Butte Cotmry _ _ Measure P increase 50.0% 40.3%j,�59„,4j, 9 9%to 12%
City cf Pahu Desert _ - - - -Riverside County Measure O 1 ratify_ _ _ 50.0%_ 69.1% 30.9% 6 9%
CuycfPatterson_ _ _ _ _ _ Stanislans County _MeasureB ' __ _ 50.0%_ 55.6°% 44.4% 6 80%
C_lyofRed Bluff _ _ _ _ _ Tehana County _ _MeasureD 1 increase 50.0% 33.3%[i,G`¢G> / 9_ 10%to 12%
City oCSan Diego _ _ _ _ __San Diego County _Measure J 1 increase__ 50 0% 4] 4°/(�4$,b°_„g 9 10.5%to 13%
_City cf San Pablo_ _ _ _ _ _ Contra Costa Count Measure_T _ _ increase_ _ 50.0% 53.0% 47.0°% 6 6%to 12%
City of Sari.Rarnon_ ____ _Contra Costa Count Measure U _ I increase _ 50.0% A8 6%� f4F:1°/'%iy 9 7 25%to 10%
City of Santa Ana - -_ _ _ Oranyo County _ _Measure M _ ] in_crease _50.0% 56.2_% _4_3._8% 6_ 9%to 11%
_City of Santa Monica_ _ _ _ Los Angeles County Meaaue N _ 1_increase_ _ 50.0%- 74.7%_ 25.3% 6_ 12%to 14%
C1tyef Sausalito _ _ _Merin County_ _ Measure S- _ _ increase_ _ 50.0%_ 57.3% T42.2% 6- 10%to 12%
_ _ _
City of Tehaohapr _ _ _ _ Kern County _ _ MeasureT _increase- _ 50.0%_ 39 9/°ltl'; 6,' 9 8%to 12%
City cf West Sacramento - _ Yoto Coanty_ _ _ _Measure T _ 1 increase- - 50 0% 68.2% 31.8% 6_ 4%to 12%
County+ofCalaveras _ - _ _ _Calaveras County -MeasureD _ increase- _ 50.0% 41 8/_fiS8 2%a`i 9_ 6%to 10%
County ofNya - _ _ _ _ - Napa County - _ Measure V ] increase- _ 50.0% 61.9% 38.2°% 6 10.5%to 12%
_ _ _ _ _
CountyofSiskyou_ __ - _ _Siskiyou County_ MeasureM _ ] increase 50.0%_ 38.5_%�i f �_5"hsr 9 8%to l0%
Cfty oC Sonttr San Francisco- _San Mateo County Measure I- - 1-increase- - 66.7%- 69.4%r 30.6% 6 8%to 9%
County of Fresno- _ _ _ _ _ Fresno Canty- Measure J _ __ - _ 66.7%- 44 1/r'S5 5^fys 9- 6%
Real Property Ttnsfer Taxes
Both proposals to increase utility transfers failed. A majority of Berkeley voters said "yes" to Measure K,
but the measure was a special tax requiring 2/3 voter approval.
Property Transfer Taxes
Agencv_Name Coun - __ - _ Measure Name Title - _ _ _ _ _ - -_ _ _Need-YES° NO- - - - - - -
City of Berkeley Alameda County- Measure K Youth Services Special Tax- - 66.7% 53 5% ;dk5s%' 9
- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -
_ _ _ Add OS%to existinw 1.5%tax on transfers$6001000 and over and 1%°to existina axon transfers$1,000,000 and over.
- - - �'-
City of Del Mar _SanDieaoCounty MeasuroN Property TransferTax-_ _ 50.0% 242% 7�$"(,a_4 _ _ _ _
$6/$1000 value of site
Business License Taxes
Twelve cities placed Business License Tax increase proposals on their ballots. In all but two cities, the
increases were for general purposes and required a majority vote. The city of South San Francisco proposal was
to extend its business license tax to billboards and to restrict the use of the increased revenue to "parks, libraries
and public safety." This use restriction made the tax a special tax, requiring 2/3 voter approval. The measure
-3- November 30,2004
failed with a 65.3% "yes" vote. Oaldand's tax on parking lots to fund public safety programs passed with nearlV
70% approval. In other tines, the results were mixed with five measures passing and five failing.
Business License Tax Measures
Agency Name _C_ounty_ _ _ __ _Measure_Na_m_r Title _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _%_Neede YES% NO%
CityofBenicta Solana Coun NleasureR Business License Tax Increase 50.0% 60.7% 39.3% 6
"
City of Blue Lake Humboldt County MeasnreN Business License Tex 500% 49.9%atYtYf` 4
City ofBI ea - - Orange Cotmty_ ^ - - Measure C __Increase Business License Tax--_ - _ _ - - - 50 0%- _39.8%N b(1:2'j 4
-CityDaly City San Mateo County Measure N Business License Tax Increase 50.0%-53.0%- 47 0% 6
-of _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
City of Bast Palo P San Mateo County -- NleasureR Amend Business License Tax-- - - _ _ - - 50.0%- 75.7%- 24_3% 6-
_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
City of Perndale Humboldt County_ -_ Measure P Business License Tax - - _ - - - - - - - _ 50.0%_ 57_2%_42.8% 6
City ofI'ountam V Ormtge ContnTy_ - -- Measure J- Increase Business License Tax-- _ 50 0/0 38.3%I fil7l; Q
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Glyof Oja^ _ - Ventina Cou14
nTy - - _ Measure F_ Modification of Municipal Code_Busn LieI 500/ 48.3%51$13,°( 4-
_ _ . _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ -- _ _ _ - - _ - -
City of Salinas Monterey County- -- Measure C_ Business License Tax-- ^ _ - - _ - - - - - 50 0%_50.9%,49.1% 6
_ _ _ _ _ - _
Cify of San Pranci�San Francisco Cu
ny- ProLosinon K -Business Tax - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50 0/o- 45 6% 54 5%a'. 9
City of Soutli San San Mateo County _ - Meosine J_ Busn Lie Tax on Billboards for Park,Library_ _ 66.7% 65.9% 34i1 ''i 9
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ ^ _ _ _ _ .,
CityofOakltatd Alameda Connly- - - MeasureV Parking Lct Tax for Clime&Fire Pievenlion- 66.7% 69.6% 30,4% 6
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Utwty Uset Taxes
Seventeen cities faced utility user tax measures. All proposals were for general purpose taxes and required
majority voter approval. Voters approved six measures to continue existing taxes. All six proposals in three cities
to increase existing UUTs failed. Only one of seven proposals for new utility user taxes passed.
Uti&ty User Tax Measures
Agency Name_ CounU _ _ -- _ ^ - _ Measure Nam('-Proposal_ _ - - %Needs YES% NO%
City of Cudahy Los Angeles County Measure P continue 50.0% 77.1% 22.9%
City of Grover Bee San Luis Obispo County Measure O I continue 50.0% 81.7% 18 % 6
- -- - - - - - - -- - - -- -- -- - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - ---
City ofPinole Contra Costa County Measure P continue 50.0% 62.3% 37.7% 6
- - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -
City of San Pablo Contra Costa County Measure S I continue/modify 50.0% 72.0% 28.0% b
- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
City of El Cerrito Contra Costa County Measure K I continue/ratify 50.0% 65.3% 34.7% 6
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -
City of Hercules_ Contra Costa County- - Measure L_ _ _I continue/ratify_ _ _ 50.0%_ 76.8% 23.2% b_
77.7. 71 -
City of Berkeley Alameda County Measure J I increase 50.0%a 37.4%;�I i,.,5-.°pg+; 9-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Cityof Kin City MontereyCount MeasureG increase 50.0% 28.2% It7 $'.9/a, 9
g Y - - - - - - - y- .� /
Cit of City MontereyComrt Measure increase 50.0% 34.3/° J' yii 9
Y g Y - - - - -- -y- -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - ° ° J%b� " "`- -- - - ' - - - - - - - - -
- - - - ,ems;
City of Kinf City Monterey Cotmty - - - Measure F - -I^ extend - - - 50.0% 23.5%j�7&`5s1°`,_9
City of Palm Sprin Riverside County Measure V increase 50.0% 25 3%ff7Q: / 9-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - -
City of Salvias Monterey County Measure B - increase 50.0% 34.6/°"Ci5,A,>%d°;: 9_
° o � a
City ofFarmersvil Tulare County MeasureV I new 50.0% 51.2% 48.8% b
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - -
Cut of Fremont Alameda Coun MeasureV I new 50.0% 44.7/°N t °-
0 o , i n
City of Greenfield _Monterey_County_ _ _ _ _Measure_7_ _ _ _l_new- - - - - - - _ 50.0%°- _18_.2% R`b%@ 9_ _
City ofMadera Madera County MeasureM I new 50.0% 28.7%�' ;, ;"nl9
0 o zI-'i n�. .9�:I
City ofMarina_ - Monterey County- -_ Measur e M I new 50.0/0 49.1/o t��4,�y 9_
0 0 ,
- of Santa Pauli Ventura - - - - - - Measure J - _ _I_ _ne_w_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _5_0._0%_ _39_.0%'t
Y _ _ _ County _ ��ldf 9
- 11 r
City of Santa Pauli Ventura County Measure K_ I advisory 50.0% 42.2% 1 9-
_City of Saratoga_ Santa Clara County- _ Measure V_ _I new 50.0%_ 19.2%r >"' 9-
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - _` fA
City of Saratoga Santa Clara County Measure I advisory 50.0% 55.0% 45.1% 6
-4- November 30,2004
Transaction and Use Taxes: Countywide Transportation Sales Tax Measures
There were Len transportation sales tax measures on the ballot. Half extended existing taxes and half
were to increase sales taxes. The five continuation proposals passed, all half cent measures. Voters in Marin and
Sonoma approved new taxes. Sonoma County's proposal, the only cent measure, passed by just a few hundred
votes. Voters in Santa Cruz apparently were persuaded by local environmental groups that argued the plan
dedicated too much money to highway widening.
Countywide Transportation Sales Tax Measures (2/3 voter approval required)
_Cowry Measure NamfTltk _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ YES%_NQ%_
Contra Costa Costa County Measure J Transportation Sales Tax Extension-- 70.5% 29.5% 6
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-Sacramento County MeasureA Transportation Sales Tax Extension-- 74.8% 25.2% 6
San Bernardino County Measure I Transportation Sales Tax Extension-- 79.7% 20.3% 6
San Diego County_ _ Measure A Continuance of the existing half-cent transport- 67_0"/° 33.0% 6
- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -
_San Mateo County MeasureA_ _ Transportation Sales Tax Extension-- 75.7% 24.3% 6
Santa Cruz County - - Measure J - Transportation Improvement Sales Tax_ -- _ - 42.8WL,87,-2Jnt4 9
Solano County MeasureA Transportation juaprovement Sales Tax-_
_Sonoma County Measure M Quarter Cent Transportation Sales Tax-- 67.2% 32.8% 6
o—j s;.ra',7?r—
- - - —
a County- - - - Measure B - - Sales Tax Inc ease for Transportation_ - - - - 40.4/0 59d;6, i -
Marin County MeasureA Transportation Authority 70.8% 29.2% 6
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Transaction and Use Taxes: Countywide Special Tax Measures
There were six county measures to increase sales taxes countywide for special purposes other than
transportation. Three were for public libraries (Fresno, Del Norte and San Luis Obispo), one for the Fresno
County zoo, one for open space in Ventura County, and Law Enforcement in Los Angeles Comity. Of the library
proposals, only the proposal to continue an existing 1/8 cent tax in Fresno county succeeded. New taxes for
libraries in Del Norte (1/8 cent) and San Luis Obispo (1/4 cent) failed. In fact, of the six measures, all failed
except the two in Fresno County. Fresno County voters approved a proposal for a new 1/10 cent sales tax for the
County Zoo. Six in ten voters approved Los Angeles County Sheriff Baca's long effort to pass a tax increase for
law enforcement including additional city and county officers, crime prevention programs, and upgraded
emergency communications systems,but the special tax measure fell short of 2/3 voter approval needed.
Special Transactions&Use Tax Measures(2/3 voter approval required)
Agency Name I Measure Ni Title YES% NO% Rate Sunset
r_ z
County of San Luis Obispo Measure L Save Our Public Libraries Transaction and Use Tax Ordir 48.0%�}52-s�p,�%q_4 -1/4 cent- - -_ -
- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - ^ -
County of Del Norte - - I MeasureA Public Library Transactions&Use Tax _ _ _ _ - - 66.2%1;�'35'5'ut 9 1/8 cent - -_
County of Fresno I Measurell Library Tax Renewal 71.0% 29.0% 6 1/8 cent 7 years
- -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CountyofFresno I Measure Z Save Our Zoo 72.9% 27.1% 6 1/10cent l0years
r,-- - - -
County of Ventura - - MeasureA Open Space District and Quarter Cent Sales Tax-- 48.7%N5t'%5%_, 9 _1/4 cent 10 years
- rt �=; - -
Count cf Los Angeles- - I Measure A- Public Safety,Emergency Response and Crime Preventiot- -59.6%°�[ 9 -1/2 cent - _
Transaction and Use Taxes: General Tax Measures
-5- November 30,2004
Recent changes in the law (SB566 2003) permit a city or county to place a local transactions and use tax
proposal before the voters with a 2/3 vote of the governing board of die agency. In concert with Article XIII of
the State Constitution, a general tax proposal requires majority voter approval. A special tax (earmarked for a
paiticular purpose) requires 2/3 voter approval.
Voters in twenty tzvo cities and five counties considered proposals to increase sales taxes for general
purposes. Among the twenty-two city measures, two cities (Lakeport and Watsonville) placed comparison advisory
measures on the ballot requesting voter advice on the use of the fiends. Of the twenty two measures,ten passed.
Of the five county measures, only Del Norte voters approved its measure.
Transactions and Use Tax: General Tax Measures (Majority voter approval required)
A en�- -c Name _ _ _ __ I Measure Nat Titiq - - - -- - - - - - - -- ^ _ _ _ - _ -YES% NO% Rate
Y- - - -
-- - - - - I Measure Q 1 Cent Sales Tax ___ 44.1%1 559%wi 4 1 teat
City of Capitols, :Measure 1/4 Cent Sales Tax-- 59.7% 40.3% 6 1/4 cent
- '- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5*OrT ---E�- - - - - - - -
-- - -aly City_ _ _ f- -- -e M Transactions and Use Tax _35.0%. $;(1,°' 9 1/4 cent
City - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - -Use Tax - - -- - - - - - - - - - -°
Ci of Delano I Measure P Transaction Use Tax 46.0/o s''y54�1�d{ 9 1/2 cent
City ofFarmersville __ _ 'Measure U_ _ 1/2 Cent Sales Tax _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _64.3'% 35.8% b _ -1/2 cent ,
City of Galt :Measures General Use Sales Tax - 21.5% ,78i6°%� 9 1/4 cent
- i - - - - -- - - -- -- - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -�..- - - - -
City of Lakgiort _ _ _ _ ^ I Measure I- I/2 Cent Sales Tax Increase - - _ _ _ - - - 59.6%0_40_4%°_6 1/2 cent
City of Lakeport I Measure J Use of Sales Tax Funds(ADVISORY) $1.9% 18.1% 6 advisory
--- - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -----r - - - - - --
ty - - - - - - -- - - ^- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- --% ''.'Si� b34 1/4- - -Ci ofMadera 7 Measure L Sales Tax 46.4/o!,�_- - - - -cent
-
Cit of Manteca _ _ _ _ _ =Measure Z_ _ Sales Tax__ 22.00 1/4 cent
City of Montclair :MeasureF Sales Tax Increase 63.3% 36.8% 6 1/4 cent
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _,_�-._ _;y _ _ _ - - --
.,�.-
City of Monterey __ _ - - I Measure K Sales Tax Increase of 0,25%-- ^ _ _ - ^ - --49.1%°t_la5lin'9% 9 _ 1/4 cent
- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_City of Richmond _ _ __ (Measure Q _ Transaction Use Tax_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __59.2% 40.8% b 1/2 cent
r.mar--- - - -
_City of Ridgecre_sI _ _ _ _ I Measure Q _ Transaction Use Tax 35.4% ,6 y6%il 9 _ _3/4 cent
City of Salinas _ I Measure A Temporary Transaction and Use Taxes_- - - -47.8%{i $!�L�l; 4 I/2 cent
- - - - - - -- - -'_�
City of San Juan Bautista ;Measure K Transactions and Use Tax 53.4% 46.6% 6 3/4 cent
1ityofSandCity 7MeasureL Sales Tax of0.5%-- 56.1% 43.9% 6 1/2 cent
- - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
City of Sanger - - - - - - I Measure S- Transactions and Use Tax - - - - - - - - -- -40.-- " } }ot 9 - cent
City - Sebastopol- - - - - f Measure T_ Community Sales Tax-- - - -- - - - - - - 67.4°/-32_6%0_b 1/8 cent-
City - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -
of South Lake Tahoe I Measure Q Sales Tax Increase-- 57.2% 42.8% 6 1/2 cent
-��- - - - - - --
Ci of Watsonville .Measure 1/4 Cent Sales Tax-- 37.2/ot
City of Turlock :MeasureF Transaction and Use Tax-- 49.6% ,!'SU;ll9 _ 1/2 cent
yir -
ty - - - - Q- - - - - - - - - -%'d`G28^I;_9 1/4 cent
- - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - --
CityofWatsonville £Measure R Sales Tax Advisory-- (ADVISORY) 72.6% 27.4% 6 advisory
City of Woodlake 'Measure X Sales Tax Increase _ _ _ _58.2% 41.t�8%t{ 6_ 1/2 cent
City of San Francisco- - - :Proposition J Sales Tax Increase_ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - 42.2% `SFkf'oq 9 - -1/4 cent
- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ciry of San Francisco - -_Proposition O Use of Prop J Funds(ADVISORY)- 60.0%°-40_0% 6 advisory
- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- ,r 11 - - - - --
CountyofColusa (MeasureC Transactions and Use Tax _ 45.6%i' s�h7. ?i 9 _ _1/2 cent
_County of Del Norte_ _ _ __7 Measure C _ Transactions and Use Tax _ _ _ _ _ __74.9% 25.1% 6 _ 1/2 cent
Conn ofTehama MeasureA Use of Sales Tax(ADVISORY) 463%';5 fi' 9 advisory
County ofTehama 'Measure B I/2 Cent Sales Tax for three years - - _ - --27.1%i?=:72,9,"%n}I `� 1/2 cent
- --- - - ^ -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,.._ w•- - - -- ---
x
HmnboldYCounty _ _ _ _ 7 Measure L_ Transaction and Use Tax - - - - _ - -29.9% i,`)1P;00'1 9 - - 1 cent
- '- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '
-6- November 30,2004
Transaction and Use Taxes: City Special Tax Measures
Seven cities decided propose sales tax increases for specific purposes, including five for public safely
(police and/or fire) services. Three of the five public safety special taxes achieved the needed 2/3 vote. In
\Merced and Ukiah, the measures failed despite more than six of ten voters saying "yes," suggesting that these
measures might have passed had they been proposed as majority vote general taxes.
Special Transactions&Use Tax Measures(2/3 voter approval required)
Agency Name County Measure Nam Title YES% NO% Rate
City of Les Banos Merced County Measur e P I/2 Cent Sales Tax for Public Safety 78.0% 22.0% b 1/2 cent_ _ _ _ _
v,a.rt- - - - - -
City of Merced County Measure11 Officer Stephen Gray Memorial Public Safety Act _ 61.7%If i4 t4- 1/2cent
- - - - - - - - -' - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
City of Santa Rosa Sonoma County Measure Police,Fire&Gang Supression 1/4 Cent Sales Tax 70.0% 30.0"% 6 1/4cent
' -- - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - ` - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -
City of Stockton San Joaquin County Measure W Safe Neighborhood Gang And Drug Preventioq Police, 73.6"% 26.4% 6 1/2 cent
- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - ;+. :- - - ^ - -
City of Ukiah _ Mendocino County_ Measur eN __Sales and Use Tax for Public Safety 3,a^I•,��.,-
- 65.5%f� 4_ 1/2_cent
City of Susanville Lassen County- - Measure K Sierra Sports Complex Special Tax- - - - - - - - - 463%"I.ia.... _ I/2 cent_
City of Fl Cajon San Diego County Meastua0 Upgradeof Public Facilities-- 68.7% 31.3% 6 1/2cent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - -
Municipal Service (Parcel) Taxes
Municipal service taxes, often called "parcel taxes" were on the ballot in fifteen cities. Each required 2/3
voter approval. Overall, seven of the fifteen achieved the 2/3 voter approval needed, including three of eight
police/fire/EMS taxes. 'Faxes for libraties in Sacramento and San Jose passed, while one in Berkeley failed. A
municipal service tax in the wealthy community of Piedmont passed, even as one in wealthy Atherton failed.
City Municipal Service(Parcel)Taxes(2/3 vote)
Aqencv Name County Measure Nan Title YES% NO%
' -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- "
City of Albany Alameda County Measure G _Paramedic/Ambulance Special Tax RestructL 80.5% 19.5/ 6
-
City of Berkeley _ - _ Alameda County- Measure M Paramedic Special Tax - _ - __ - _ _ _ - -45.2%li`i
- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
City of Fort Bragg Mendocino County Measure M Special Tax for Fire Equipment-- 69.2% 3o.8% 6
- - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- -' - - - - - ' - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - -
City of Huntington Park Los Angeles County Measure L _Community safety enhancements __ 68.9_% 31.2% 6
City of Manteca - San Joaquin Comity _Measure Y- Manteca Public Safety Measure_ _ __ _ _19.6%J)0'¢,9/ot 9
City cf San Leandro _ _ Alameda County _ _ Measure DD_Police and Fire Parcel T 50_ax _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ .7
City of Perris _ _ _ _ _ Riverside County_ _ Measure ATl_Police&Fire Tax- _
7 .�
City ofYreka Siskiyou County -MeasureT Special Tax for Volunteer Fire Department 53.2%;-:dli:OQ`'. 4
T_own of Fairfax _ _ _ Marin County __ _Measure L _ _MunicipaL Services Tax for Public Safety _57.3%o s421Ngi 4
Town of Paradise Butte County Measure N Animal Control Tax 74.8% 25.2% 6
City of Sacramento Sacramento County Measure X Parcel Tax for Libraries-- 72.4% 27.6% 6
' - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - -- ^ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - --o0"4 City of Berkeley __ _ Alameda County__ yMeasuve L Library Special Tax _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _50.5%o"49i51,g_ _
- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - -- -- ^-
City of San Jose Santa Clara County Meastu'e S Library and Reading Protection Measure-- 66.9% 33.1% 6
_ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _
-City_of Piedmont Alameda County Measure W Parcel Tax Continuation - - 79.5% 20.5% 6
Town of Atherton __ _ San Mateo Cmmty- -Measure 0--Special Tax for Municipal Services _ _ _ _ _ _56.6%;''?43 4 fj 9_
-7- November 30,2004
Parcel tax proposals by special districts faxed worse. Only three of seventeen fire district proposals
achieved the 2/3 voter approval needed. Although both library district parcel taxes passed, only one of six park
district parcel taxes passed. Al in all, just eight of thirty special district parcel taxes succeeded in garnering 2/3
voter approval.
Special District Municipal Service(Parcel)Taxes(2/3 vote)
AgencV Name Coun Measure Na Title YES% NO%
_FIRE SERVICE
Bon ego SprmSs Fine Protection District _ San Diego County_ Measure Z_ _Special Tax fir Fire Protection and Enuilem_ 79.0% 21.0% _6_
El Media Fire Protection District Butte County Measure G Tax Increase-Fire Seivices 65 9/���t 9_ _ _ _ _
Pores[Hill Fire Protecton Dishier _ __ Placer County_ _ _ __Measuve_M _Special Tax_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ 77.9"/° 22.1% 6
_
Gold Ridge Fire Protection District County MeasureU S ecial Tax— 650/ S1UW 9_ _
Halielr jah Junction File Pi olection Dishict Lassen County _ _ Measm�e M _Special Tax_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 97.1% 2.9% 6_ _
Like Shasta Community Services District_ Siskyou County _ _Measure N _Special Tax to Fund Fire Protection&Emer€ 39 6/ E"6001 6 9
kFi^l
Loomis Fire Protection District _ _ — Placer County __ Measure W _L_oainis FPD Tax _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _60 0/ 4#b9� 9_
McCloud Commirwi ty Services District _ Siskyou County _ MeasureP_ _Special Parcel Tax to Ford Fire Protection&_ 42 8/ 7'2°/n 4_
McCloud Commonality— - - - - Services Dis — _ Siskyou Cormty _ Measure Q Special Par cat Tax to Fluid Ambulance Serv_i,_ 32 9/�1,�i9'1✓bt 9
y
Newcastle Fire Protection District _ _ Placer County __ Measure R_ _Special Tax_ _66 4/ $�$"/;'9___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s
I.,
Oakdale Rural Fire Protection Dishict S[anlslaus County Measiu�o S Special Tux_ 64 8/ #5 2f, 9
Penn Valley,Frra Protection District Nevada County__ MeasureR _Special Tax 646/ ,w"/il9_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Pemyn Fire Protection District Placer Comity Measure P Special Tax
5 —
Pine VaOey Fire Pivlechon District _ _ _ San Diego Comity_ _Measure AA Special Benefit Tax for File Protection and E_ 61 8/ 3r4 2`Tgj 9_
Placer County County M Fire Protection Dishlol Placer Coun easure K Special Tax 50 9/d �,7,160� 9_Westwood Cominmriy Services District _ Lassen Comity __ Measmo I_ Parcel Tax _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 64 6/ ;,BE 41ii 9_
Windsor Fire Protection District Sonoma County Measure V Special Tax_ _ _ 59 4/ _� 9_
LIBRARY SERVICES
Altadena Library DistricC Los AiLgOts County_Measine B Parcel tax to replace libmry.fanding 77.3% 22.7% 6_
Counry Servioo Area 10,Zone ETCounty LiIEI Dorado Comity_ Mess ye F_ Change Exismip Library Tax for Apartment i_ 75.0% 25.0% 6
PARK SERVICES
East Bay Regional Park District Zone 1_ _ Alameda County/Cr Measure CC Park Access_Wildfire Protection,Public Safe_ 67.6% 32.4% 6_
McCloud Corimmumty Services District _ Siskyou Comity _ Measure R Special Parcel Tax to Fiord Park&Recreahai_ 22 4/y�7�:d"f; 9_
_Nisenan Recreation and Park District Nevada County__ Measure K Special Tax_ _ 19 7/o�O 3✓-i 9_
San Juan RidU Recreatlon and Park Disnoc Nevada County_ _ Meas r _Special Tax_ _ _ 35.9%V C)4,2% 9
_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
South Sutter Recreation&Park District Sutter County Measure J Special Tax 57 3/° y,,, , 9
Valley Cente_Parks and Recreation District San Diego County_ _Measure CC Special Tax to Acquire O.peu Syaaoe and Park_ _57 3/ x'�"f�sj 9_
_Other
Palm Drive Health Care District_ _ _ _ _ Sonoma County_ _ _Measu re W _Parcel Tax-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 68.8% 31.2% 6_
Tahoe Cemetery Dlstict Placer Can _ _ Measure T_ _Tahoe Cemetery Tax _ _ _ 631/ �$7 /j 9
7 Z
Three Rivers Memorial District __ _ Tulare County _ _ Measure Z_ Three Rivers Memorial Special Tax _ _ _ 61 9/� 'S'7�+°+(nj 9_
McCloud Conmmmii Services District Srskryou County _ Measure S_ _Special Par Gel Tax to Fund Street Lrghln g _29 2/'r� #'l.'`. 9
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Special Distr Alameda County_ _Measure BB Parcel Tax _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 72.5% 27.5% b_ _ ___ _
-8- November 30,2004
General Obligation Bonds with Property Tax Increases
Voters approved five of eleven bond proposals with property tax increases.
City and Special District Bond Measures(2/3 vote)
Agency Name — — Coun — — — — Measure Nam(Title YES% NO% Rate
CityofEscondido San Diego County MeasureP PablieSafety Bond Issue-- 67.5% 32.5% d $15/$100,000AV
Cityof National City Sun Diego County MeasureS PublicSafetyFacility Bon dIssue_ 65.3%" 1�8%,9 $13/$100,000AV
- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o-,..r -n,9
CityofLafayette _ _ _ _ - - _ Contra Costa County MeasureN - Road and Drain Repair Bond- - - - - _ 57.8/°_q_n?3(gi _ $21/$100,000AV
CityofLosAngeles LosAagelesCounty MeasureO CleanWater,Ocat,River,Beach,BayStar 75.8% 24.2% d $10/$100,000AV
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - e- fi- -
CityofLemonGrove- _ _ San Diego County- MeasureR Library Bonds-_ - - - - - _ 62.7/°.�� :/rr,9 $15/$100,0000
CityofMartina -- - - Contra Costa county-Measnre0 Library,Parks&Recreation Bond 61.3%,'391"�9 $30/$100,000AV
CilryorsaulFrancisco San Francisco Coo LitPrtositicmA ABirobtleHousin Bonds 64.6/°�33
Ci ofsan Francisco- San Francisco Conn Pr ositioa B Historical Preservation Bonds 579/° ',,j rr
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -`- 'k9 $L231$IOg000At
BART Alameda Comay Measure AA FanhquakeSafetyBand 67.9% 32.1% d $7.00100,000At
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Palomar Pomemdo Ilealtlr System San Diego County Measure BB Hospital,Emergency Care,Trauma fetter It 69.8% 30.2% b $17.75/$100,00DA
Washington Tovolship Health Care Distric Alameda County Measure FF Bonds-- - - - - - - - - -- - - -70.4%_29.6% d $10/$100,000AV
- - - _ - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
Citizen Initiatives to Repeal of Limit Local Taxes
The November 2004 ballot included six citizen sponsored initiatives in five cities that would repeal or
hmit local taxes. All failed to garner the majority vote needed for passage.
Agency Name _ ___ _ __ _ _ _County_ _ _ _ Measure Name Title YES% NO%
EY y
o 1,9A,9
City ofBuellton _ _ _ _ _ -- _ _ Santa Barbm�e- - - Mee -- - Tax Sunsetlmn- - -- 37- -
- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
CityofMTII Valley_ _ _ -- - _ Riverside County- _ Measure M- _Reseal Utility Users Tax-_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - 41W?.C5%9
City ofMoreno Valley- _ _ _ _ _ _ Riverside County^ - MeasureN _ _Regulations oa Mnaagemen[of Electric Ufildy-_ _49.2%
Y-
City of Watsonville- _ _ _ _ _ _ - Santa Cruz CouV_ Measure T 911 Fee Repeal_Cit�ofWatsonville _ _ _ _ 37_2% 67s °/a_4
Santa Cruz County-_Unincorporated Ares Cruz County_ Measure K _911 Fee Re2oal_Unincoporated Area_ __ _ _ _ 28 8% 7112o/a 4
- -- - - - - - - -- - - -
City of _ _ _ _ San Francisco County Propositiont, _Use of Hotel Tax to Preserve Movie Theaters_ _ _ 25S%o';'aA�,°fk 9
Sources:County elections offices,Smart Voter(bttp://vvvwsmartvoterorg)by the League of Women Voters of California.
6d