Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-06-2014 B4 Ballot Measure Check InCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager Prepared By: Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager Christine Dietrick, City Attorney SUBJECT: REVIEW OF BALLOT MEASURE LANGUAGE AND A DRAFT ORDINANCE TO EXTEND THE “ESSENTIAL SERVICES TRANSACTION (SALES) AND USE TAX” – THE CITY’S LOCAL HALF-PERCENT SALES TAX – AND DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES. RECOMMENDATION Review and consider the following items, and provide direction to staff, as appropriate. 1. Draft ballot measure language to extend the local half-percent sales tax, originally approved in 2006 with an eight-year sunset clause (Attachment 1). 2. Draft amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 that would be proposed to the voters by a ballot measure ordinance to extend the local sales tax measure for an additional eight year period (Attachment 2). 3. Issues relating to alternative revenue measures, including the possibility of replacing the current general purpose measure with a new special purpose tax. 4. Procedural requirements to place a tax measure before the voters. REPORT IN BRIEF On April 1, 2014, a majority of the City Council directed staff to prepare language for a possible extension of the Essential Services Measure (Municipal Code Chapter 3.15), which will sunset in March 2015 if it is not extended during the November 2014 General Election. The Council’s direction followed the presentation of a final report by the Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee (LRMAC). This committee was an ad-hoc advisory body appointed by the City Council to make a recommendation to the Council regarding the possible extension of the current half-percent sales tax. The purpose of this agenda item is to present draft language for the revenue measure, and discuss potential alternatives raised during Council’s consideration of this issue on April 1, 2014. Council gave direction to staff by a 3-2 vote (Carpenter and Smith opposed). During discussion staff was asked about the procedural requirements for the Council to place a measure on the ballot. Government Code Section 53724, and Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7285.9, require a two-thirds majority of the Council to place a fiscal measure on the ballot. However, there is case law holding that these requirements do not override a charter city’s authority over the conduct of its local elections. Those requirements are discussed in more detail later in this report to inform Council’s discussion of its alternatives with regard to the procedures for placing a revenue measure on the November ballot. If the Council chooses to do so, analysis by the City Attorney has determined that the Council may place a revenue measure on the ballot by a simple majority vote. May 6, 2014 B4 B4 - 1 Essential Services Measure Check-In Page 2 Additionally, at its April 15, 2014 City Council meeting there was concurrence that this agenda item should be broadly framed to allow further discussion of alternatives to the majority direction, including consideration of a special purpose revenue measure to fund capital improvement projects. As a result, this report includes information relevant to special purpose taxes for discussion. Additional features that could be associated with either a general or special purpose measure (such as, but not limited to, a citizen oversight advisory body and/or advisory ballot measures) are also within the scope of reasonable topics for discussion by the City Council. DISCUSSION Extension of the Essential Services Measure 1. Ballot Measure Language Attachment 1 includes the language proposed to be placed on the ballot to extend the current half-percent local sales tax. The draft language is very similar to the ballot measure approved in 2006 with 64.77% of the vote. Some language that is no longer relevant has been eliminated; including references to restoring eliminated sworn police positions and a full-time fire marshal since these objectives have been accomplished (either partially or fully). Consistent with City Council direction on April 1, 2014 a specific reference to funding projects in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) has been added. This also reflects the fact that over the past seven years, 60% of Essential Services Measure funding ($17 million through June 2013) has been allocated to CIP projects. In addition, a specific reference was added to the draft ballot language to indicate how expenditure decisions are made – “through the City’s public goal setting and budget process.” 2. Ordinance Revisions The Essential Services Measure is codified as Chapter 3.15 of the City’s Municipal Code. The ballot measure ordinance proposed to the voters, if approved, will amend this Municipal Code chapter to extend the effective date of the ordinance for an additional eight years (to March 31, 2023), and incorporate other changes directed by Council. Attachment 2 includes a legislative draft version of Municipal Code Chapter 3.15, as it would be amended by the voters if a renewal measure consistent with current Council direction were approved. The changes include an additional accountability provision that requires the City to track and account for Measure Y separately to provide a clear and easy way for the public to access information about how the tax revenue is spent (See Attachment 2, Section 3.15.020.A). Consideration of Changes to the Purpose of the Essential Services Sales Tax The City Council may wish to discuss other changes to the ordinance, including changes to its purpose. However, according to the scientific public opinion research that was conducted in December 2013, 64% of the likely voters surveyed said they would definitely or probably vote B4 - 2 Essential Services Measure Check-In Page 3 yes to extend the current local sales tax. After the following statement is read, support for the measure increases to 72%: On an annual basis, Measure Y raises about six million dollars for the City’s General Fund. Measure Y funds help pay for city services, including police, fire prevention, traffic congestion relief, repairs to city roads and storm drains, senior services, neighborhood code enforcement, city parks maintenance, and purchase and maintenance of open space. This is a substantial level of support expressed for the items identified in the current measure. As a result, only minor changes are recommended to the purpose of the revenue measure. Attachment 2 includes the legislative draft version of SLOMC Chapter 3.15. Proposed changes are minor and are intended to reflect current conditions, and an increased focus on capital improvement projects. Procedural Requirements Relevant to Placing a Fiscal Measure on the Ballot As highlighted in the Background section of this report, Government Code Section 53724 and Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7285.9 require a two-third majority of the legislative body to place a fiscal measure on the ballot (see Attachment 3). However, according to California appellate court authority decided in 2001, charter cities are not bound by State law procedural requirements in this matter. See Traders Sports, Inc. v. City of San Leandro (available in Council reading file or online). The premise that charter cities have unabridged authority to define the rules and regulate matters of inherently local concern is known as the “home rule doctrine.” Under this doctrine, charter cities are empowered by the California Constitution to “adopt and enforce ordinances that conflict with general state laws,” provided the subject of regulation is one of local, and not of statewide, concern. In the San Leandro case, the court found that the California Constitution lays out four “core areas” that are defined as municipal affairs (and supersede any conflicting state statute). The four core areas include: 1) the procedures for conducting municipal elections; 2) procedures for enacting municipal ordinances; 3) the levy of municipal taxes; and 4) local exercise of the initiative power. The City of San Luis Obispo previously has availed itself of the home rule prerogative when it adopted its ordinance defining the procedures by which the Council may call all-mail ballot elections, which broadened the on any date established by the Council, rather than just those dates established under the State Elections Code. Here, the City’s charter includes specific language relevant to the procedures by which the Council may enact ordinances, including taxing ordinances. Section 506 (Majority Rule) of the City’s charter provides that “No ordinance, resolution or motion shall be passed or become effective without receiving the affirmative vote of at least three (3) members of the Council.” Charter Section 604 (Effectiveness) provides that “…taxing ordinances, may go into effect at the will of the Council.” Finally, Charter Section B4 - 3 Essential Services Measure Check-In Page 4 504 provides that “The Council shall determine its own rules of procedures.” The provisions of the Government Code and Revenue and Taxation Code that include the two thirds-legislative body approval requirements are procedural requirements, which implicate the four core areas of charter city control. However, it is important to note that while the provisions of the two codes are very similar, there is no decided case interpreting the Revenue and Taxation Code provision in the home rule context. Thus, while the analysis is likely the same, there is no concrete authority addressing the applicability to charter cities. In evaluating the City’s circumstances as compared to the facts of the San Leandro case, there do not appear to be significant distinctions and there is no countervailing case authority to suggest an analysis of procedural requirements in this case would yield a different conclusion than that reached by the San Leandro court. Additionally, the City Attorney requested a peer review from election law experts with the firm of Richards Watson and Gershon. The independent peer review confirmed the conclusions reflected her. Based on the City Attorney’s analysis of the procedural requirement and the current facts, as well as the analysis of the peer review, it appears that the Council could act to place a revenue ballot measure before the voters on a majority vote of the Council pursuant to its charter authority based on clear authority under the Government Code and analogous reasoning under the Revenue and Taxation Code. Finally, the current sales tax ordinance approved by Measure Y includes an “operability clause” in its purpose section, which provided that the measure would become operative “if two-thirds of the council and a majority vote of the electors voting on the measure, vote to approve the establishment of this new general purpose revenue source at an election called for that purpose” (San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 3.15.020(A)). That previous measure was approved by two thirds of the Council and a majority of the voters and became operative pursuant to that procedure. If the Council were to provide direction to staff that it wishes to place a measure before the voters on a simple majority vote, the operability clause of the successor measure proposed to the voters would need to be modified to reflect the majority approval requirement, as opposed to the previously adopted two-thirds requirements. Otherwise, a measure placed before the voters on a simple majority vote would fail to become operative, even if approved by a majority of the voters. Special Purpose Tax Alternative Revenue from a special purpose tax must be used in the manner specified by the ballot language and adopting ordinance. Two-thirds of the voters (more than 66.67 percent) must vote yes for the measure to be passed. The Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee was provided information on revenue ballot measures (Attachment 4) and discussed special purpose taxes during their deliberations, and unanimously agreed that the City’s revenue measure should be a general purpose, not a special purpose tax measure. The following reflects the reasoning of the committee in support of their recommendation: 1) General Purpose requires a simple majority. Under State law, a special purpose tax requires a two‐thirds majority of the vote, whereas a general purpose requires a simple majority. Majority rule should decide. Measure Y required a simple majority vote and passed with 64% approval. It is recommended that a renewal measure follow the same path. A general purpose tax is the most commonly used and most successful. B4 - 4 Essential Services Measure Check-In Page 5 2) It gives the City flexibility to address changing conditions and preferences. General purpose revenue provides flexibility to allocate sales tax money based on particular circumstances facing the community at any given time. The City can respond to changing conditions and shifting priorities over time. 3) The community can affect how the money is used. City residents have opportunities to directly participate in the process of deciding how City resources are spent. The City Council has established a comprehensive public goal‐setting and budget process that serves as a model for other cities. At the April 1, 2014 meeting the City Council discussed the LRMAC recommendations and gave staff direction to return with draft ballot language for a general purpose tax measure for Council consideration. In addition, on April 15, 2014, Council asked that this discussion be noticed broadly enough to permit Council consideration of a special purpose tax measure. As background, in 2006, Measure Y received a broad coalition of support from a variety of segments in the community. Measure Y passed with 64.7 percent of the vote. The following table shows the success rates for general purpose vs. special purpose taxes in the most recent 2013 election, and since 2001 (red line on chart). Special purpose measures are pursued when there is a specific need identified for the funding while the tax is in effect. Cities with across-the-board needs normally pursue general purpose taxes. As shown above, general purpose taxes are proposed more frequently, and are more likely to succeed. Examples of ballot language for successful special purpose taxes in other communities are as follows: • City of Huron: To hire additional police officers for crime suppression and prevention, increased police patrols to protect neighborhoods, schools and parks and to purchase necessary related equipment or facilities to expand police protection services, shall the City of Huron enact a One Cent ($0.01) sales taxes requiring that revenues received from such sales tax be used exclusively for public safety purposes? • Lake County: Shall Article VI be added to Chapter 18 of the Lake County Code imposing a one-half of one per cent (0.50%) transaction and use tax (sales tax) to implement a Healthy Lake Tax for the County of Lake for a maximum period of ten (10) years with all B4 - 5 Essential Services Measure Check-In Page 6 revenues locked-in exclusively to combat aquatic weeds, algae, invasive mussels, and fund wet land restoration and water quality projects with an expenditure plan with citizen oversight for revenues generated? In contrast, Measure Y is a mechanism to help pay for any of the services and projects supported by the General Fund. In practice, the Measure Y ordinance requires the City to identify the specific expenditures that the revenues will be used for in its budget documents, and then audit and report out those expenditures on an annual basis. Attachment 4 includes a memo provided to the LRMAC with an overview of tax measures across California. FISCAL IMPACT If the City Council ultimately directs staff to place an extension of the current revenue measure on the November 2014 ballot, the cost will be approximately $4,060. If the Council decides to put forward a new revenue measure, such as a special purpose tax, or a general purpose tax with a different rate, the cost would range between $50,000 and $150,000 as assessed by the State Board of Equalization (BOE) for the initial costs associated with administration of a new tax. The final cost depends on how many jurisdictions have new tax measures approved because the BOE cost is split among the jurisdictions with new taxes. ALTERNATIVES The Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee has recommended an extension of the existing one-half percent local sales tax, however, a wide variety of alternatives are available to the City Council, as follows: 1) Special purpose tax; 2) General or special purpose tax with a different rate; 3) 8-Year sunset clause, or an alternative time frame; 4) Advisory ballot measure; 5) Revisions can be directed to the purpose of the revenue measure, as stated in Municipal Code Chapter 3.15.020 (See Attachment 2); 6) Revisions can be directed to the accountability provisions included in the revenue measure, as listed in Municipal Code Chapter 3.15.040; 7) Others offered by members of the public, such as but not limited to a citizen oversight committee or revised accounting principles. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft ballot measure language 2. Legislative draft of Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 3. Relevant statutory provisions 4. Memo to LRMAC: Local Revenue Measure Overview PROVIDED FOR THE COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE ONLINE Traders Sports, Inc. v. City of San Leandro t:\council agenda reports\2014\2014-05-06\ballot measure check in (dietrick - codron)\measureycheckin(car).docx B4 - 6   Attachment 1    Draft 2014 San Luis Obispo Essential Services Measure Extension: To protect and maintain essential services – such as neighborhood street paving; traffic congestion relief; public safety; flood protection; senior services and facilities; neighborhood code enforcement; open space preservation; and other capital improvement projects and vital services – shall Chapter 3.15 of the City’s Municipal Code be amended to extend the current one-half cent local sales tax for eight years, with citizen oversight, independent annual audits, and expenditures determined through the City’s public goal-setting and budget process? Legislative Draft 2014 San Luis Obispo Essential Services Measure Extension: To protect and maintain essential services - such as neighborhood street paving and pothole repair; traffic congestion relief; public safety, including restoring eliminated traffic patrol, Fire Marshal and fire/paramedic training positions; flood protection; senior citizen services/ and facilities; neighborhood code enforcement; open space preservation; and other capital improvement projects and vital general purpose services - shall Chapter 3.15 of the City’s Municipal Code be amended to extend the sales tax be increased bycurrent one-half cent local sales tax for eight years only, with citizen oversight, and independent annual financial audits, and expenditures determined through the City’s public goal setting and budget process? B4 - 7 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 2   1  Chapter 3.15 ESSENTIAL SERVICES TRANSACTIONS (SALES) AND USE TAX Sections: 3.15.010 Title. 3.15.020 Purpose. 3.15.030 Eight-year sunset. 3.15.040 Fiscal accountability provisions—Citizen oversight and independent annual financial audits. 3.15.050 Transactions (sales) tax rate. 3.15.060 Use tax rate. 3.15.070 Operative date. 3.15.080 Contract with state. 3.15.090 Place of sale. 3.15.100 Adoption of provisions of state law. 3.15.110 Limitations on adoption of state law and collection of use taxes. 3.15.120 Permit not required. 3.15.130 Exemptions and exclusions. 3.15.140 Amendments. 3.15.150 Enjoining collection forbidden. 3.15.010 Title. This chapter shall be known as the “city of San Luis Obispo essential services transactions (sales) and use tax ordinance.” The city of San Luis Obispo hereinafter shall be called the “city.” This chapter shall be applicable in the incorporated territory of the city. (Ord. 1495 § 1, 2006) 3.15.020 Purpose. This chapter is adopted to achieve the following, among other purposes, and directs that the provisions hereof be interpreted in order to accomplish those purposes: A. To protect and maintain essential services— such as neighborhood street paving and pothole repair; traffic congestion relief; public safety, including restoring eliminated traffic patrol, fire marshal and fire/paramedic training positions; flood protection; senior citizen services and facilities; neighborhood code enforcement; open space preservation; and other capital improvement projects and vital general purpose services—by B4 - 8 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 2   2  establishing a general purpose retail transactions and use tax of one-half percent in accordance with the provisions of Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and Section 7285.9 of Part 1.7 of Division 2, which authorizes the city to adopt this general purpose tax chapter, which shall be operative if two-thirds of the council and a majority vote of the electors voting on the measure, vote to approve the establishment of this new general purpose revenue source at an election called for that purpose. B. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax chapter that incorporates provisions identical to those of the sales and use tax law of the state of California insofar as those provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements and limitations contained in Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. C. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax chapter that imposes a tax and provides a measure therefor that can be administered and collected by the State Board of Equalization in a manner that adapts itself as fully as practicable to, and requires the least possible deviation from, the existing statutory and administrative procedures followed by the State Board of Equalization in administering and collecting the California State sales and use taxes. D. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax chapter that can be administered in a manner that will be, to the greatest degree possible, consistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, minimize the cost of collecting the transactions and use taxes, and at the same time minimize the burden of recordkeeping upon persons subject to taxation under the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 1495 § 2, 2006) 3.15.030 Eight-year sunset. The authority to levy the tax imposed by this chapter shall expire in eight years (March 31, 2023) from the operative date of this chapter, unless extended by the voters. (Ord. 1495 § 3, 2006) 3.15.040 Fiscal accountability provisions—Citizen oversight and independent annual financial audits. Along with the city’s ongoing commitment to citizen involvement as a fundamental principle of good government, specific citizen oversight and fiscal accountability provisions are hereby established as follows: A. Accounting and Tracking Expenditures. The funds collected through the City of San Luis Obispo essential services transactions (sales) and use tax ordinance shall be accounted for and tracked by the City Treasurer separately to facilitate citizen oversight. B4 - 9 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 2   3  A.B. Independent Annual Financial Audit. The amount generated by this new general purpose revenue source and how it was used shall be included in the annual audit of the city’s financial operations by an independent certified public accountant. B.C. Integration of the Use of Funds into the City’s Budget and Goal-Setting Process. The estimated revenue and proposed use of funds generated by this measure shall be an integral part of the city’s budget and goal-setting process, and significant opportunities will be provided for meaningful participation by citizens in determining priority uses of these funds. C.D. Annual Community Report. A written report will be provided annually to every household in the community detailing how much revenue is being generated by the measure and how funds are being spent. D.E. Annual Citizen Oversight Meeting. An invitation will be extended each year to the entire community inviting them to participate in a forum to review and discuss the use of the revenue generated by this measure. City staff will also be available to meet with any group that requests a specific briefing with their members to discuss and answer questions about the revenues generated by the measure and their uses. (Ord. 1495 § 4, 2006) 3.15.050 Transactions (sales) tax rate. For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated territory of the city at the rate of one-half percent of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in said territory on and after the operative date of this chapter. (Ord. 1495 § 5, 2006) 3.15.060 Use tax rate. An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in the city of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and after the operative date of this chapter for storage, use or other consumption in said territory at the rate of one-half percent of the sales price of the property. The sales price shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to state sales or use tax regardless of the place to which delivery is made. (Ord. 1495 § 6, 2006) 3.15.070 Operative date. “Operative date” means the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than one hundred ten days after the adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter: April 1, 2007. (Ord. 1495 § 7, 2006) 3.15.080 Contract with state. B4 - 10 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 2   4  Prior to the operative date, the city shall contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all functions incident to the administration and operation of this transactions and use tax chapter; provided, that if the city shall not have contracted with the State Board of Equalization prior to the operative date, it shall nevertheless so contract and in such a case the operative date shall be the first day of the first calendar quarter following the execution of such a contract. (Ord. 1495 § 8, 2006) 3.15.090 Place of sale. For the purposes of this chapter, all retail sales are consummated at the place of business of the retailer unless the tangible personal property sold is delivered by the retailer or his agent to an out-of-state destination or to a common carrier for delivery to an out-of-state destination. The gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the state sales and use tax, regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no permanent place of business in the state or has more than one place of business, the place or places at which the retail sales are consummated shall be determined under rules and regulations to be prescribed and adopted by the State Board of Equalization. (Ord. 1495 § 9, 2006) 3.15.100 Adoption of provisions of state law. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and except insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, all of the provisions of Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code are hereby adopted and made a part of this chapter as though fully set forth herein. (Ord. 1495 § 10, 2006) 3.15.110 Limitations on adoption of state law and collection of use taxes. In adopting the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code: A. Wherever the state of California is named or referred to as the taxing agency, the name of this city shall be substituted therefor. However, the substitution shall not be made when: 1. The word “state” is used as a part of the title of the State Controller, State Treasurer, State Board of Control, State Board of Equalization, State Treasury, or the Constitution of the State of California. 2. The result of that substitution would require action to be taken by or against this city or any agency, officer, or employee thereof rather than by or against the State Board of Equalization, in performing the functions incident to the administration or operation of this chapter. B4 - 11 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 2   5  3. In those sections, including, but not necessarily limited to, sections referring to the exterior boundaries of the state of California, where the result of the substitution would be to: a. Provide an exemption from this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not otherwise be exempt from this tax while such sales, storage, use or other consumption remain subject to tax by the state under the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code; or b. Impose this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property, which would not be subject to tax by the state under the said provision of that code. 4. In Sections 6701, 6702 (except in the last sentence thereof), 6711, 6715, 6737, 6797 or 6828 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. B. The word “city” shall be substituted for the word “state” in the phrase “retailer engaged in business in this state” in Section 6203 and in the definition of that phrase in Section 6203. (Ord. 1495 § 11, 2006) 3.15.120 Permit not required. If a seller’s permit has been issued to a retailer under Section 6067 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, an additional transactor’s permit shall not be required by this chapter. (Ord. 1495 § 12, 2006) 3.15.130 Exemptions and exclusions. The following transactions shall be exempted and excluded: A. There shall be excluded from the measure of the transactions tax and the use tax the amount of any sales tax or use tax imposed by the state of California or by any city, city and county, or county pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the amount of any state-administered transactions or use tax. B. There are exempted from the computation of the amount of transactions tax the gross receipts from: 1. Sales of tangible personal property, other than fuel or petroleum products, to operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside the county in which the sale is made and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property under the authority of the laws of this state, the United States, or any foreign government. B4 - 12 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 2   6  2. Sales of property to be used outside the city which is shipped to a point outside the city, pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point by the retailer or his agent, or by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a consignee at such point. For the purposes of this section, delivery to a point outside the city shall be satisfied: a. With respect to vehicles (other than commercial vehicles) subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, and undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code by registration to an out-of-city address and by a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, stating that such address is, in fact, his or her principal place of residence; and b. With respect to commercial vehicles, by registration to a place of business out-of-city and declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, that the vehicle will be operated from that address. 3. The sale of tangible personal property if the seller is obligated to furnish the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this chapter. 4. A lease of tangible personal property, which is a continuing sale of such property, for any period of time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by the lease prior to the operative date of this chapter. 5. For the purposes of subsections (B)(3) and (4) of this section, the sale or lease of tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised. C. There are exempted from the use tax imposed by this chapter, the storage, use or other consumption in this city of tangible personal property: 1. The gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to a transactions tax under any state-administered transactions and use tax ordinance. B4 - 13 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 2   7  2. Other than fuel or petroleum products purchased by operators of aircraft and used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property for hire or compensation under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this state, the United States, or any foreign government. This exemption is in addition to the exemptions provided in Sections 6366 and 6366.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California. 3. If the purchaser is obligated to purchase the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this chapter. 4. If the possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, the tangible personal property arises under a lease which is a continuing purchase of such property for any period of time for which the lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by a lease prior to the operative date of this chapter. 5. For the purposes of subsections (C)(3) and (4) of this section, storage, use, or other consumption, or possession of, or exercise of any right or power over, tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised. 6. Except as provided in subsection (C)(7) of this section, a retailer engaged in business in the city shall not be required to collect use tax from the purchaser of tangible personal property, unless the retailer ships or delivers the property into the city or participates within the city in making the sale of the property, including, but not limited to, soliciting or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a place of business of the retailer in the city or through any representative, agent, canvasser, solicitor, subsidiary, or person in the city under the authority of the retailer. 7. A retailer engaged in business in the city shall also include any retailer of any of the following: vehicles subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, or undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code. That retailer shall be required to collect use tax from any purchaser who registers or licenses the vehicle, vessel or aircraft at an address in the city. B4 - 14 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 2   8  D. Any person subject to use tax under this chapter may credit against that tax any transactions tax or reimbursement for transactions tax paid to a district imposing, or retailer liable for, a transactions tax pursuant to Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code with respect to the sale to the person of the property the storage, use or other consumption of which is subject to the use tax. (Ord. 1495 § 13, 2006) 3.15.140 Amendments. All amendments subsequent to the effective date of this chapter to Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sales and use taxes and which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and all amendments to Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, shall automatically become a part of this chapter; provided, however, that no such amendment shall operate so as to affect the rate of tax imposed by this chapter. (Ord. 1495 § 14, 2006) 3.15.150 Enjoining collection forbidden. No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action or proceeding in any court against the state or the city, or against any officer of the state or the city, to prevent or enjoin the collection under this chapter, or Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, of any tax or any amount of tax required to be collected. (Ord. 1495 § 15, 2006)   B4 - 15 Attachment 3 § 53724. Tax proposal; ordinance or resolution; requirements Currentness (a) A tax subject to the vote requirements prescribed by Section 53722 or Section 53723 shall be proposed by an ordinance or resolution of the legislative body of the local government or district. The ordinance or resolution proposing such tax shall include the type of tax and rate of tax to be levied, the method of collection, the date upon which an election shall be held on the issue, and, if a special tax, the purpose or service for which its imposition is sought. (b) No tax subject to the vote requirement prescribed by Section 53723 shall be presented at an election unless the ordinance or resolution proposing such tax is approved by a two-thirds vote of all members of the legislative body of the local government or district. (c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the election on any tax proposed pursuant to this Article shall be consolidated with a statewide primary election, a statewide general election, or a regularly scheduled local election at which all of the electors of the local government or district are entitled to vote. (d) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), the legislative body of the local government or district may provide that the election on any tax proposed pursuant to this Article shall be held at any date otherwise permitted by law. The local government or district shall bear the cost of any election held pursuant to this subdivision. An election held pursuant to this subdivision shall be deemed at the request of the local government or district calling such election, and shall not be deemed a state mandate. (e) The revenues from any special tax shall be used only for the purpose or service for which it was imposed, and for no other purpose whatsoever. § 7285.9. Procedures to levy, increase or extend for general purposes; rate Currentness The governing body of any city may levy, increase, or extend a transactions and use tax for general purposes at a rate of 0.125 percent or a multiple thereof, if the ordinance proposing that tax is approved by a two-thirds vote of all members of that governing body and the tax is approved by a majority vote of the qualified voters of the city voting in an election on the issue. The governing body may levy, increase, or extend more than one transaction and use tax under this section, if the adoption of each tax is in the manner prescribed in this section. The transactions and use tax shall conform to Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251). B4 - 16 Page 1   LOCAL REVENUE MEASURE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Memorandum       TO: Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee FROM: Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager Prepared By: Ryan Betz, Public Works Analyst SUBJECT: Local Revenue Measure Overview – Nuts and Bolts Background Local revenue measures, typically in the form of a tax or bond, have become more common among cities and counties throughout the state of California. Since 2001, over 2,200 local revenue measures have been placed before local voters with about a quarter of them related to city or county general purpose taxes. There are two types of local measure taxes: 1) a general purpose tax and 2) a special purpose tax. General purpose tax revenues can be used to fund any scope of projects and services that are part of a City’s general fund expenditures. Special purpose taxes are used to fund a specific project or service. General Purpose vs. Special Purpose General Purpose Special Purpose Requires 50% +1 to pass (Majority Vote) Requires 2/3 (66.7%) majority to pass (Supermajority Vote) Money goes into the General Fund and is, therefore, more flexible in its final allocation. Examples: TOT, UUT’s, Sales Tax Money is allocated for specific projects/local benefits typically outlined in an expenditure plan Limited fiscal accountability provisions Fiscal accountability provisions can be built into the measure Election Timing: Can only be put on the ballot during regularly scheduled Municipal Elections Election Timing: no restrictions Attachment 4 B4 - 17 Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee   Page 2   When using general and special purpose taxes, cities and counties have several revenue raising options, including utility user taxes, hotel taxes and add-on sales taxes. The following table lists the voter approval requirements for each type of revenue raising option: Approval Requirements for Local Revenues ype Governing Body Approval Voter Approval City or county “general” taxes (revenues used for unrestricted purposes) If consolidated with a regularly scheduled election of members of the legislative body: • 2/3 for transactions & use taxes • Other taxes: 2/3 for general law cities; majority for charter cities. If not consolidated, unanimous declaration of “emergency” required. Majority City or county “special” taxes (revenues used for specific purposes) Majority (2/3 for transactions & use taxes) 2/3 Property assessments Majority Majority of affected property owners. Votes weighted by assessment liability Property—related fees Majority 2/3 of voters or majority of affected property owners Fees—all other Majority None   Benchmark Cities - General Purpose Add-On Sales Tax Measures City Sales Tax Rate (2013) County Sales Tax Rate (2013) Monterey 7.5% 7.5% (Monterey County) Santa Maria 8.25% 8.0% (Santa Barbara County) Napa 8.0% 8.0% (Napa County) San Luis Obispo 8.0% 7.5% (San Luis Obispo County) Palm Springs 9.0% 8.0% (Riverside County) Santa Cruz 8.75% 8.25% (Santa Cruz County) Santa Barbara 8.0% 8.0% (Santa Barbara) Paso Robles 8.0% 7.5% (San Luis Obispo County) Davis 8.0% 7.5% (Yolo County) Other Cities in SLO County For Comparison (Non-Benchmark) Arroyo Grande 8.0% Atascadero 7.5% Grover Beach 8.0% Morro Bay 8.0% Pismo Beach 8.0% San Luis Obispo County 7.5% Attachment 4 B4 - 18 Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee   Page 3   9% 91% Sales Tax  Rate California Population Percentage Paying 7.5% ‐ 7.99% Percentage Paying 8.0% and over San Luis Obispo's Sales Tax Rate = 8.0% Of the cities in California (incorporated or unincorporated places), 64% (45% + 19%) have a sales tax rate between 8% and 10%. Of the benchmark cities, only the City of Monterey (7.5%) has a sales tax rate below San Luis Obispo’s. As of January 1, 2013, the standard statewide rate is 7.50%. In terms of population, the residents of San Luis Obispo are among the 91% of Californians who are paying 8% or more in sales tax, while only 9% of California’s population is paying less than 8.00% in sales tax. 55% of Californians currently pay a sales tax greater than 8%. Furthermore, if Measure Y sunsets, the residents of San Luis Obispo will be among the bottom 9% of Californians in the percentage of sales tax they pay. Attachments: 1. Revenue Measures 2012 by California City Finance 2. 2012 General Revenue Measures 36% 45% 19% Sales Tax  Rate California Cities 7.5%‐7.9%8.0%‐8.9%9%‐10% San Luis Obispo's Sales Tax Rate = 8.0% Attachment 4 B4 - 19 CaliforniaCityFinance.Com Local Revenue Measures in California November 2012 Results The November 6, 2012 presidential election featured 368 local measures in California on questions including land use development, government organization, bond authorizations and tax increases. Among these were 240 measures seeking approval for taxes, bonds or fees, including three by initiative. Three other measures sought by initiative to reduce previously approved taxes. This volume of local measures is quite comparable to the number of local measures on each of the last two presidential election ballots in California. In November 2008, there were 233 revenue measures including 116 school bonds and taxes. In November 2004, there were 249 revenue measures including 86 school bonds or taxes. K-12 schools districts and community colleges requested total of $14.429 billion in 106 separate bond measure authorizations for school bonds to construct facilities, acquire equipment and make repairs and upgrades. There were 25 measures to increase or extend school parcel taxes. Among the 109 non-school local revenue measures were seven general obligation bond measures and 36 special taxes and parcel taxes requiring two-thirds voter approval. There were 35 proposals to extend or increase transactions and use taxes (so-called add-on sales taxes) and 24 proposals to increase or extend non-school parcel taxes. 2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616 Phone: 530.758.3952 • Fax: 530.758.3952 © 2012 Michael Coleman City General Taxes 60 County General Taxes 6 City Special Tax or G.O.Bond 15 County Special Tax 12 SpecDistr 16 School ParcelTax 2/3Vote, 25 School Bond 106 Proposed Local Revenue Measures November 2012 Majority Vote 2/3 Vote Final February 6, 2013 © 2012 Michael Coleman *Vacaville's Measure M combined a business license tax, parcel tax and hotel tax. It is counted here as a "General Tax - other" UtilityUsers Tax MajVote, 8 HotelTax MajVote 17* SalesTax MajVote, 28 General Tax-Other 4* PropTransf Tax MajVote 1 UUT 2/3vote 1 SalesTax 2/3vote 7 ParcelTax 2/3vote 24* SpecialTax-Other 2/3vote, 4 G.O. Bond 2/3vote, 7 BusinessTax MajVote 7* Types of Non-School Local Tax Measures November 2012 Attachment 4 B4 - 20 Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 2 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman Overall Passage Rates Following post-election night canvases and recounts, five additional 55% school bond measures and one additional two-thirds vote school parcel tax were declared passing. This brings the total number of passing measures to 178 of the 240 tax/revenue measures proposed. The rate of passage of school measures slightly exceeded historic passage rates. Final results indicate 90 of the 105 55% school bonds passed. The one two- thirds vote school bond passed as well as 16 of the 25 school parcel taxes. Local non-school majority vote tax measures did somewhat better this election than in prior years with 52 of 66 passing. Among the failing measures were three taxes proposed in San Diego County cities as a part of marijuana dispensary initiatives. These taxes on the sale of marijuana probably could not have been implemented had they passed. Among the 43 non-school special taxes, parcel taxes and bonds requiring two-thirds voter approval, 19 passed, a very similar passage rate compared to past elections. Local Revenue Measures November 2012 Total Pass Passing% City General Tax (Majority Vote)604880% County General Tax (Majority Vote)6467% City SpecialTax orG.O.bond (2/3 Vote)15533% County (Special Tax) 2/3 Vote 12758% Special District (2/3)16744% School ParcelTax2/3 251664% School Bond 2/3 11100% School Bond 55%1059086% Total24017874% Redux by intitative300% *One school bond required two-thirds aproval. It passed. 64% (17/26) 85% (90/105*) 0%20%40%60%80%100% 2/3 Vote Tax / bond 55% Vote Bond Percent Passing School Tax & Bond Measures November 2012 Since 2001 81% Since 2001 60% Attachment 4 B4 - 21 Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 3 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman General purpose tax measures fared especially well, especially add-on sales taxes (local transactions and use taxes). Parcel taxes and G.O. bonds had a much more difficult time, mostly, it appears, due to the two-thirds supermajority vote thresholds. Five of the 25 non-school parcel taxes failed to even garner 50% yes votes. Passing and Failing City / County / Special District Measures by Type November 2012 Local Add-On Sales Taxes (Transaction and Use Taxes) 44% (19/43) 79% (52/66) 0%20%40%60%80%100% Special Tax 2/3 Voter Measures General Tax Majority Vote Measures Percent Passing City / County / Special District Tax & Bond Measures November 2012 Since 2001 66% Since 2001 47% Attachment 4 B4 - 22 Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 4 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman Twenty five cities and three counties proposed general purpose majority vote add-on sales tax rates ranging from 1/8 percent in Santa Clara County to one percent in several cities. Voters approved all but three of these measures. There were seven add-on sales tax measures earmarked for specific purposes. Five of these were county- wide measures. All seven received over 60% yes votes, but four fell short of the two-thirds approval needed including transportation measures in Alameda and Los Angeles and two measures related to roads and water quality in Lake County. Transactions and Use Tax (Add-on Sales Tax) - General Tax - Majority Approval Agency Name County Rate Sunset YES%NO% Albany AlamedaMeasure F1/2 cent 79.0%21.0%PASS Culver City Los AngelesMeasure Y1/2percent10 yrs 76.6%23.4%PASS Lathrop San JoaquinMeasure C1cent 76.0%24.1%PASS Salinas MontereyMeasure E1/2centextend 75.7%24.3%PASS Carmel MontereyMeasure D1cent 10yrs 75.4%24.6%PASS Nevada City NevadaMeasure L3/8cent 5yrs 74.2%25.8%PASS Sebastopol SonomaMeasure Y1/2cent 8yrs 70.8%29.2%PASS Williams ColusaMeasure G1/2centextend 70.5%29.5%PASS Rio Vista SolanoMeasure O3/4cent 5yrs 70.2%29.8%PASS Moraga Contra CostaMeasure K1cent 20yrs 70.1%29.9%PASS Orinda Contra CostaMeasure L1/2cent 10yrs 69.1%30.9%PASS Vacaville SolanoMeasure M1/4cent 5yrs 69.0%31.0%PASS Commerce Los AngelesMeasure A A1/2percent 67.3%32.7%PASS Fairfield SolanoMeasure P1cent 5yrs 66.5%33.6%PASS Grass Valley NevadaMeasure N1/2cent 10yrs 66.3%33.7%PASS La Mirada Los AngelesMeasure I1cent 5yrs 66.0%34.0%PASS County of San MateoSan MateoMeasure A1/2cent10years 64.6%35.5%PASS Sacramento SacramentoMeasure U1/2cent 6yrs 63.1%36.9%PASS Paso Robles San Luis Obis Measure E1/2cent 12yrs 59.0%41.0%PASS Measure FAdvisory 71.3%28.7%PASS Hollister San BenitoMeasure E1centextend5yrs 57.4%42.6%PASS County of Santa ClaraSanta ClaraMeasure A1/8cent 10yrs 56.3%43.7%PASS Trinidad HumboldtMeasure G3/4cent4/1/2013 for 4yrs 55.4%44.6%PASS Healdsburg SonomaMeasure V1/2cent 10yrs 55.4%44.6%PASS Half Moon BaySan MateoMeasure J1/2 cent 3yrs 53.9%46.1%PASS Capitola Santa CruzMeasure O1/4cent 50.8%49.2%PASS Yucca ValleySan BernardinMeasure U1cent 48.2%51.8%FAIL County of PlumasPlumasMeasure D1/4cent 4yrs36.2%63.8%FAIL Maricopa (224 voters)KernMeasure R1cent 10yrs32.6%67.4%FAIL Attachment 4 B4 - 23 Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 5 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman Transient Occupancy (Hotel) Taxes There were eighteen measures to increase or expand Transient Occupancy (Hotel) Taxes. All but three passed. Plymouth voters also approved a companion advisory measure that expresses the preference that “the additional revenues be used primarily for the purpose of repairing and maintaining the city’s roadways.” Transactions and Use Tax (Add-on Sales Tax) - Special Tax - Two-Thirds Approval Agency Name County Rate Purpose Sunset YES%NO% County of NapaNapaMeasure T1/2centstreets (was flood)extend 25yrs after 2018 74.4%25.6%PASS County of MarinMarinMeasure A1/4centopenspace 73.6%26.4%PASS County fo FresnoFresnoMeasure B1/8centLibrary extend16yrs 71.8%28.3%PASS County of AlamedaAlamedaMeasure B11/2c+1/2c=1centtransportationextends&incr65.5%34.5%FAIL County of Los AngelesLos AngelesMeasure J1/2centtransportationextend30yrs64.7%35.3%FAIL County of LakeLakeMeasure E1/2centwater quality 62.2%37.8%FAIL Clearlake LakeMeasure G1cent streets/roads 61.1%38.9%FAIL Transient Occupancy Tax Tax Measures: All General Majority Vote Agency Name County Rate YES%NO% Santa CruzSanta CruzMeasure Q+1%to11%82.1%17.9%PASS Vacaville SolanoMeasure L+2%TOT*80.1%19.9%PASS CarpinteriaSanta BarbaraMeasure E+2%to12%77.6%22.4%PASS Menlo ParkSan MateoMeasure K+2%to12%73.6%26.4%PASS County of Santa CruzSanta CruzMeasure N+1.5%to11%72.1%27.9%PASS Goleta Santa BarbaraMeasure H+2%to12%71.5%28.5%PASS Exeter TulareMeasure M+4%to8%66.2%33.8%PASS Garden GroveOrangeMeasure Y+1.5%to14.5%66.1%33.9%PASS County of AmadorAmadorMeasure Q+4%to10%60.5%39.5%PASS Coronado San DiegoProposition F+2%to10%60.5%39.5%PASS Plymouth AmadorMeasure R+4%to10%57.5%42.5%PASS Measure SAdvisory 65.0%35.0%PASS Solvang Santa BarbaraMeasure Z+2%to12%57.2%42.8%PASS Santee San DiegoProposition U+4%to10%56.6%43.4%PASS Buellton Santa BarbaraMeasure D+2%to12%54.8%45.2%PASS Willows GlennMeasure Q+2%to12%52.9%47.2%PASS Pomona Los AngelesMeasure V+2%to12%48.2%51.8%FAIL County of PlumasPlumasMeasure C+2%to11%41.1%58.9%FAIL Red Bluff TehamaMeasure A10% camping/RV39.6%60.4%FAIL *measure is an "excise tax" also includes BLT, etc. Attachment 4 B4 - 24 Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 6 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman Utility User Taxes Voters in ten cities considered measures to increase or expand utility user taxes. Several of the proposals were to modernize existing taxes on telecommunications and among these, five proposed a reduction in the tax rate as a part of effectively expanding the tax base to wireless communications. Chico is one of very few cities to have rejected this approach at the polls. Among the ten measures, only Citrus Heights earmarked the tax for specific purposes. But voters rejected the proposed increase. Voters in Arcata approved a novel UUT, a 45% tax on excessive electricity use aimed at home grow houses. Business License Taxes There were eight business license tax measures, including two proposals to tax sugared beverages, a new idea among local measures in California. A proposal to increase local taxes on “businesses engaged in the manufacture, piping, refining, storage and wholesale distribution of petroleum products” failed in Rialto. The sugared beverage taxes were resoundingly rejected. Companion measures in both cities that expressed the preferred use of the funds for particular programs did not help. Six other measures passed easily. Utility User Taxes Agency Name County Rate %Needed YES%NO% BerkeleyAlamedaMeasure Q same7.5%expand/reduce50.0%84.5%15.5%PASS San Luis ObispoSan Luis ObispoMeasure Dto4.8%from5%expand/reduce50.0%83.5%16.5%PASS DowneyLos AngelesMeasure D 5%to4.8%expand/reduce50.0%79.4%20.6%PASS PinoleContra CostaMeasure M 8%extend50.0%78.7%21.3%PASS Los AlamitosOrangeMeasure DD6%to5%expand/reduce50.0%69.5%30.5%PASS ArcataHumboldtMeasure I45% on excessive electric usenew 50.0%69.0%31.0%PASS BellflowerLos AngelesMeasure P 2%increase50.0%61.3%38.7%PASS Needles*San BernardinoMeasure T+2.5%-2.5%fee=no changevalidate/extend50.0%51.4%48.6%PASS Chico ButteMeasure J 5%to4.5%expand/reduce50.0%46.9%53.2%FAIL Citrus HeightsSacramentoMeasure K+1.75%to4.25%increase66.7%44.2%55.8%FAIL Business License Tax Measures: Majority Vote General Agency Name County Rate YES%NO% Vacaville*SolanoMeasure L 80.1%19.9%PASS Rancho CordovaSacramentoMeasure Lcardrooms 79.3%20.7%PASS NeedlesSan BernardinoMeasure Stax on Marijuana 79.3%20.7%PASS ArtesiaLos AngelesMeasure Mgeneral incr 78.0%22.0%PASS San FranciscoSan FranciscoProposition Egross rcpts 70.6%29.4%PASS Rialto San BernardinoMeasure Von petrol busn47.1%52.9%FAIL *measure is an "excise tax" also includes TOT, parcel tax Sugared Beverage Taxes Agency Name County YES%NO% RichmondContra CostaMeasure N 33.1%66.9%FAIL El MonteLos AngelesMeasure H 23.2%76.8%FAIL Attachment 4 B4 - 25 Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 7 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman Property Transfer Tax A proposal to increase the property transfer tax in Pomona failed. Pomona pursued the ill-advised approach of placing multiple tax measures on the ballot at once: a hotel tax, a parcel tax (2/3 vote), and this property transfer tax. All failed. Parcel Taxes and Special Taxes (non-school) There were 25 parcel taxes including 13 in special districts, ten in cities, and two in counties. Under a state constitutional provision included in Proposition 13 (1978), parcel taxes require two-thirds supermajority approval. Ten of 25 measures passed. Among these ten, six extended – but did not increase – existing parcel taxes. An initiative measure to revise and reduce a fire parcel tax in Newcastle was rejected by voters in that community. The measure received 61% approval but required two-thirds approval. Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Taxes Property Transfer Taxes Agency Name County Measure Na Rate YES%NO% PomonaLos AngelesMeasure Wfrom $1.10 to $2.2024.6%75.4%FAIL City, County and Special District Parcel Taxes (2/3 vote) Agency Name County Amount Purpose YES%NO% Vacaville*SolanoMeasure L$58/parcelgeneral -extend 80.1%19.9%PASS Circle XX Community Services District CalaverasMeasure D+$100to$400roads 78.3%21.7%PASS Santa Monica Mountains Rec Consv AuLos AngelesMeasure HH$24/parcelopen space 76.2%23.8%PASS Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictSanta ClaraMeasure B$56/parcelwater -extend 72.7%27.4%PASS Ross Marin Measure D$950/parcelgeneral -extend/red 72.3%27.7%PASS Groveland Community Services DistrictTuolumneMeasure G$70/parcelEMS -extend 69.4%30.6%PASS Piedmont AlamedaMeasure Yvariesgeneral -extend 68.7%31.3%PASS Santa Monica Mountains Rec Consv AuLos AngelesMeasure MM$19/Parcelopen space 68.1%32.0%PASS Cayucos Fire Protection DistrictSan Luis ObispoMeasure C$25/parcelFire/EMS -extend 67.9%32.1%PASS Wildomar RiversideMeasure Z$28/parcelparks/rec 66.8%33.2%PASS Mesa Parks Firehouse Community Park AMarin Measure E$49/parcelparks/rec65.4%34.6%FAIL County of Alameda AlamedaMeasure A1$12/parcelzoo 62.7%37.3%FAIL Rancho Adobe Fire Protection DistrictSonomaMeasure Z+$60/parcelFire/EMS62.6%37.4%FAIL Petaluma SonomaMeasure X$52/parcelparks/rec61.1%38.9%FAIL Pomona Los AngelesMeasure X$37/parcelLibrary 60.2%39.8%FAIL Berkeley AlamedaMeasure O$0.00779/sqftpools 59.7%40.4%FAIL Guadalupe Santa BarbaraMeasure I$20/parcellibraries 56.5%43.5%FAIL McCloud Community Services DistrictSiskiyouMeasure Q$12/parcelLibrary 52.7%47.3%FAIL Contra Costa County Fire Protection Dist Contra CostaMeasure Q$75/sfuFire/EMS52.5%47.6%FAIL Black Mountain Fire and Emergency RespSiskiyouMeasure P$30/parcelFire/EMS50.0%50.0%FAIL Spalding Community Services DistrictLassenMeasure V$70/parcelFire/EMS46.4%53.6%FAIL County of El Dorado El DoradoMeasure L$17.58/parcelLibrary -extend44.3%55.7%FAIL Laguna Beach OrangeMeasure CC$120/parcelopen space44.1%55.9%FAIL Lassen Community Library DistrictLassenMeasure W$28/parcelLibrary 42.7%57.3%FAIL Indian Wells RiversideMeasure R$171/parcellighting/landscapin 26.8%73.2%FAIL Attachment 4 B4 - 26 Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 8 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman Four counties had measures to extend $1 per motor vehicle charges to fund abandoned vehicle abatement programs. These charges were once imposed by the County Boards of Supervisors as fees without a vote of the people. The passage of Proposition 26 in 2010 requires voter approval as taxes of any extension of these charges. All four measures passed. General Obligation Bonds There were seven local general obligation bond measures in three cities and three special districts. The three passing measures are all in the San Francisco Bay Area. Voters in Berkeley approved a bond for critical drainage and water quality improvements but turned failed to garner the two-thirds approval needed for a parks improvement bond. A hospital bond in Fremont and a parks and environmental clean-up bond in San Francisco also passed. County of MendocinoMeasure G$1/veh 78.8%21.2%PASS extend County of ButteMeasure H$1/veh 73.4%26.6%PASS extend County of CalaverasMeasure B$1/veh 70.9%29.1%PASS extend County of AmadorMeasure U$1/veh 68.8%31.2%PASS extend Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Tax (Fees prior to Prop26 of 2010) - 2/3 voter approval required City, County and Special District Bond Measures (2/3 vote) Agency Name County Amount YES%NO% Berkeley AlamedaMeasure M$30 milliondrainage/waterqu a 73.3%26.7%PASS Washington Township Health Care Distri AlamedaMeasure Z$186 millionhospital 73.0%27.0%PASS San Francisco San FranciscoProposition B $195million park/rec/env-clean 72.0%28.0%PASS Berkeley AlamedaMeasure N$19.4millionpark/rec 62.1%37.9%FAIL El Medio Fire Protection DistrictButteMeasure M$1millionfire 56.5%43.5%FAIL Rio Dell HumboldtMeasure J$2millionstreets 54.9%45.1%FAIL Truckee Donner Recreation and Park DistNevada/PlacerMeasure J$8.52millionparks/rec54.1%45.9%FAIL Attachment 4 B4 - 27 Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 9 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman School Parcel Taxes School parcel taxes fared better than non-school parcel taxes. The ballot included 25 local school parcel taxes. Sixteen passed. San Leandro USD’s tax passed by 24 votes after training in the election night tally. Historically, around four out of five school parcel tax measures are approved. Fiscal Referenda Local voters in effect rejected three citizen advanced measures to overturn or alter existing taxes. The approval of Measure AA in Huntington Beach validates the city’s taxes extended to the annexed area of Sunset Beach. School Parcel Taxes (2/3 voter approval) Agency Name County Rate YES%NO% Berryessa Union School Distric t Santa ClaraMeasure K$79/parcel 77.3%22.7%PASS Arcata Elementary School Distri HumboldtMeasure E$49/parcel 77.3%22.7%PASS West Contra Costa Unified Sch oContra CostaMeasure G7.2c/sf 74.7%25.4%PASS Little Lake City USD Los AngelesMeasure TT$48/parcel 74.1%25.9%PASS San Francisco Community CollegSan FranciscoProposition A$79/parcel 72.5%27.5%PASS West Sonoma County Union HigSonomaMeasure K$48/parcel 72.3%27.7%PASS Shoreline Unified School DistricMarin/SonomaMeasure C$185/parcel 71.5%28.5%PASS Sebastopol Union School DistricSonomaMeasure O$76/parcel 71.4%28.6%PASS Mill Valley School DistrictMarinMeasure B$196/parcel 70.4%29.6%PASS Santa Barbara Elementary SDSanta BarbaraMeasure B$48/parcel 69.6%30.4%PASS Centinela Valley Union High SchLos AngelesMeasure CL2c/sf 69.5%30.5%PASS Davis Joint Unified School Distr Yolo/SolanoMeasure E$204/parcel 68.9%31.1%PASS Santa Barbara Unified SDSanta BarbaraMeasure A$45/parcel 68.6%31.4%PASS Martinez Unified School Distric t Contra CostaMeasure C$55/parcel 67.7%32.3%PASS Ventura Unified School DistrictVenturaMeasure Q$59/parcel 67.1%32.9%PASS San Leandro Unified School DisAlamedaMeasure L$39/parcel 66.8%33.3%PASS Pacific Grove Unified School Dis MontereyMeasure A$65/parcel66.4%33.6%FAIL Fort Ross School DistrictSonomaMeasure L$48/parcel65.4%34.6%FAIL Contra Costa Community Colle g Contra CostaMeasure A$11/parcel64.8%35.2%FAIL Three Rivers School DistrictTulareMeasure I$60/parcel61.6%38.4%FAIL Chabot-Las Positas Community Alameda/Contra Measure I$28/parcel62.5%37.5%FAIL San Bruno Park SD San MateoMeasure G$199/parcel58.5%41.5%FAIL Westside Union SD Los AngelesMeasure WP$96/parcel53.6%46.4%FAIL Mohave Unified School DistrictKernMeasure N$42/parcel50.4%49.6%FAIL Pleasant Ridge Union School Di NevadaMeasure K$92/parcel36.7%63.3%FAIL Referenda concerning municipal fees or taxes Agency Name Rate YES%NO% Newcastle Fire Protection DMeasure Kretain existing tax structure 61.5%38.5%FAIL Huntington BeachMeasure Zretain PropProp13 Property Tax rate for employee retirement 49.6%50.4%FAIL Huntington BeachMeasure AAretain taxes on annexed Sunset Beach area 84.0%16.0%PASS Attachment 4 B4 - 28 Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 10 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman School Bonds There were 106 school bond measures on the ballot for a total of over $14.429 billion in bonds. All but one required 55% approval. Final tabulations show 91 of the measures passed for bonds totaling $13.279 billion, among these a $2.8 billion bond in San Diego. School Bond Measures Agency Name County Amount YES %NO% Inglewood USD Los AngelesMeasure GG$90million 85.9%14.1%PASS Oakland Unified School DistrictAlamedaMeasure J$475million 84.9%15.1%PASS Earlimart School District TulareMeasure H$3.6million 81.3%18.7%PASS Alum Rock Union School DistrictSanta ClaraMeasure J$125million 78.8%21.2%PASS Pacific Elementary School DistrictSanta CruzMeasure M$0.83million 78.0%22.0%PASS Ocean View School District VenturaMeasure P$4.2million 77.4%22.6%PASS Jefferson Elementary SD San MateoMeasure I$67.5million 76.2%23.8%PASS Little Lake City USD Los AngelesMeasure EE$18million 75.8%24.2%PASS Hueneme Elementary School DistrictVenturaMeasure T$19.6million 75.7%24.3%PASS McFarland Unified School DistrictKernMeasure M$25million 75.2%24.8%PASS Arcata Elementary School DistrictHumboldtMeasure F$7million 74.8%25.2%PASS South Bay Union School DistrictSan DiegoProposition Y$26million 74.3%25.7%PASS Soledad Unified School DistrictMontereyMeasure C$40million 73.7%26.3%PASS Mt. Pleasant School District Santa ClaraMeasure L$25million 73.6%26.4%PASS Jefferson Union High SD San MateoMeasure E$41.9million 73.5%26.5%PASS Mendota Unified School DistrictFresnoMeasure M$19million 73.3%26.7%PASS Palmdale SD Los AngelesMeasure DD$220million 72.8%27.2%PASS Washington Unified School District FresnoMeasure W$22million 72.5%27.5%PASS Covine-Valley USD Los AngelesMeasure CC$129million 72.4%27.6%PASS Stockton Unified School DistrictSan JoaquinMeasure E$156million 72.1%28.0%PASS Whittier Elementary SD Los AngelesMeasure Z$55million 71.9%28.1%PASS Bellflower USD Los AngelesMeasure BB$79million 71.6%28.4%PASS Delhi Unified School District MercedMeasure E$8million 70.8%29.2%PASS East Side Union High School DistrictSanta ClaraMeasure I$120million 70.5%29.5%PASS San Jose Unified School DistrictSanta ClaraMeasure H$290million 70.3%29.8%PASS Cerritos CCD Los AngelesMeasure G$350million 69.9%30.1%PASS San Bernardino City Unified San BernardinoMeasure N$250million 69.6%30.4%PASS Folsom Cordova Unified School District SacramentoMeasure P$68million 69.4%30.6%PASS Rancho Santiago Community College DistOrangeMeasure Q$198million 69.3%30.7%PASS Standard School District KernMeasure Q$11.2million 69.2%30.8%PASS Lancaster USD Los AngelesMeasure L$63million 68.8%31.2%PASS Sacramento City Unified School DistrictSacramentoMeasure Q$346million 68.8%31.3%PASS Roseland School District SonomaMeasure N$7million 68.2%31.8%PASS Sanger Unified School DistrictFresnoMeasure S$50million 68.1%31.9%PASS Hemet Unified School District RiversideMeasure U$49million 68.0%32.0%PASS Santa Monica-Malibu USD Los AngelesMeasure ES$385million 67.7%32.3%PASS El Camino CCD Los AngelesMeasure E$350million 67.6%32.4%PASS Rowland USD Los Angeles/Or Measure R$158.8million 67.6%32.4%PASS Somis Union School District VenturaMeasure S$9million 67.4%32.6%PASS Chula Vista Elementary School DistrictSan DiegoProposition E$90million 66.9%33.1%PASS Attachment 4 B4 - 29 Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 11 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman School Bond Measures (continued) Agency Name County Amount YES %NO% Pajaro Valley Unified School Dis Santa Cruz / MoMeasure L$150million 66.7%33.3%PASS San Carlos SD San MateoMeasure H$72million 66.7%33.3%PASS Sacramento City Unified School SacramentoMeasure R$68million 66.6%33.4%PASS Burlingame Elementary SDSan MateoMeasure D$56million 66.4%33.6%PASS Visalia Unified School DistrictTulareMeasure E$60.1million 66.1%33.9%PASS Oxnard School DistrictVenturaMeasure R$90million 65.6%34.4%PASS Brawley Elementary SDImperialMeasure S$7.5million 65.3%34.7%PASS Gravenstein Union School DistriSonomaMeasure M$6million 65.1%34.9%PASS Coachella Valley Unified Schoo l Riverside/ImperiMeasure X$41million 64.6%35.4%PASS Castaic USD Los AngelesMeasure QS$51million 64.5%35.5%PASS Caruthers Unified School Distric FresnoMeasure C$12million 64.3%35.7%PASS Morgan Hill Unified School Dist Santa ClaraMeasure G $198.25million 64.0%36.0%PASS Panama-Buena Vista Union SchoKernMeasure P$147million 63.7%36.3%PASS West Contra Costa Unified Sch oContra CostaMeasure E$360million 63.5%36.5%PASS Redondo Beach USDLos AngelesMeasure Q $63million 63.4%36.7%PASS Chico Unified School DistrictButteMeasure E$78million 63.3%36.7%PASS Temple City USD Los AngelesMeasure S$128.8million 63.1%36.9%PASS Temecula Valley Unified School RiversideMeasure Y$165million 63.0%37.0%PASS Escalon Unified School DistrictSan JoaquinMeasure B$19.5million 63.0%37.0%PASS Nuview Union School District RiversideMeasure V$4million 63.0%37.0%PASS Chaffey Joint Union High SchooSan BernardinoMeasure P$848million 62.9%37.1%PASS Solano Community College DistrYolo/SolanoMeasure Q$348million 62.3%37.7%PASS Wilmar Union School DistrictSonomaMeasure P$4million 62.3%37.7%PASS Alvord Unified School DistrictRiversideMeasure W$79million 61.8%38.2%PASS Antioch Unified School DistrictContra CostaMeasure B$56.5million 61.6%38.5%PASS Westside Union SD Los AngelesMeasure WR$18.5million 61.4%38.6%PASS Kings Canyon Joint Unified Sc h Fresno/TulareMeasure K$40million 60.8%39.2%PASS Wheatland Union High School DYubaMeasure U$9million 60.8%39.2%PASS San Diego Unified School DistricSan DiegoProposition Z$2800million 60.3%39.8%PASS La Habra City School District OrangeMeasure O$31million 60.2%39.8%PASS Fortuna High School DistrictHumboldtMeasure D$10million 60.0%40.0%PASS Perris Union High School DistricRiversideMeasure T $153.42million 59.5%40.5%PASS Spreckels Union School District MontereyMeasure B$7million 59.0%41.0%PASS Tustin Unified School DistrictOrangeMeasure S$135million 58.8%41.2%PASS San Juan Unified School District SacramentoMeasure N$350million 58.3%41.7%PASS St. Helena Unified School DistricNapaMeasure C$30million 57.6%42.4%PASS Templeton Unified School Distri San Luis ObispoMeasure H$35million 57.3%42.7%PASS Lindsay Unified School DistrictTulareMeasure L$16million 57.1%42.9%PASS West Hills Community College DFresno/KingsMeasure L $12.655million 56.8%43.2%PASS Ripon Unified School DistrictSan JoaquinMeasure G$25.2million 56.6%43.4%PASS Grossmont-Cuyamaca Communi San DiegoProposition V$398million 56.5%43.5%PASS Cajon Valley Union School DistrSan DiegoProposition C$88.4million 56.4%43.6%PASS Weaver Union School DistrictMercedMeasure G$9million 56.1%43.9%PASS Coast Community College Distri OrangeMeasure M$698million 56.0%44.1%PASS Attachment 4 B4 - 30 Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 12 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman School Bond Measures (continued) Agency Name County Amount YES%NO% Anderson Union High School DistrictShastaMeasure C$12.3million 55.9%44.1%PASS Lynwood USD Los AngelesMeasure K$93million 55.7%44.3%PASS San Dieguito Union High School DistrictSan DiegoProposition AA $449million 55.5%44.5%PASS Sonora Union High School District TuolumneMeasure J$23million 55.3%44.8%PASS Dehesa School District San DiegoProposition D$3million 55.2%44.8%PASS San Ramon Valley Unified School DistrictContra CostaMeasure D$260million 55.2%44.8%PASS Summerville Union High School DistrictTuolumneMeasure H$8million 55.1%45.0%PASS MiraCosta Community College DistrictSan DiegoProposition EE$497million54.8%45.2%FAIL Del Mar Union School DistrictSan DiegoProposition CC$76.8million54.3%45.7%FAIL Ocean View School District OrangeMeasure P$198million53.9%46.1%FAIL Willows Unified School DistrictGlennMeasure P$14.7million53.8%46.2%FAIL Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School Di Riverside/SanBeMeasure O$98million50.6%49.4%FAIL Fountain Valley School DistrictOrangeMeasure N$23.5million49.8%50.2%FAIL Ramona Unified School DistrictSan DiegoProposition R$66million49.5%50.5%FAIL Porterville Unified School DistrictTulareMeasure J$90million48.6%51.4%FAIL Butteville Union School DistrictSiskiyouMeasure R$3.5million46.3%53.7%FAIL Santa Ynez Valley High SD Santa BarbaraMeasure L$19.84million46.2%53.8%FAIL Knightsen Elementary School DistrictContra CostaMeasure H$3million45.1%54.9%FAIL College SD Santa BarbaraMeasure K$12million44.1%55.9%FAIL Mountain Empire Unified School DistrictSan DiegoProposition G$30.8million43.9%56.1%FAIL Elk Hills Sc hool District (114 voters)KernMeasure O$6.2million43.0%57.0%FAIL Gridley Unified School DistrictButteMeasure G$11million36.7%63.3%FAIL Attachment 4 B4 - 31 Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 13 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman Other Measures of Interest re: Local Government Finance and Governance Appointed City Clerk, Treasurer, Administrator There were ten proposals to make clerk or treasurer/auditor offices to professional appointments of the agency elected governing board. Charter Cities Voters in three cities considered becoming charter cities. Local Ballot Box Reaction to Citizens United Five local measures were approved declaring that corporations are not persons. The Richmond measure reads: “Should Richmond’s congressional representatives be instructed to propose, and Richmond’s state legislators instructed to ratify, an amendment to the United States Constitution to provide that corporations are not entitled to the Constitutional rights of real people, and that there should be limits on all spending in political campaigns, including ballot measures and "independent" expenditures?” Appointed City Clerk / City Treasurer / etc. Agency Name YES%NO% County of YoloMeasure H Appt/Consolid Auditor/Control 65.8%34.2%PASS Chico Measure L appt clerk 64.4%35.6%PASS Sutter Creek Measure T appt clerk 61.4%38.6%PASS Exeter Measure N appt clerk 52.5%47.5%PASS Exeter Measure O appt treasurer 49.5%50.5%FAIL Lincoln Measure H appt treasurer 48.4%51.6%FAIL Concord Measure J appt treasurer 47.1%52.9%FAIL County of San MateoMeasure C appt controller40.5%59.5%FAIL Taft Measure S appt clerk 30.3%69.7%FAIL County of Los AngelesMeasure A Appt Assessor - Advisory22.3%77.8%FAIL Charter City City YES%NO% EscondidoProposition P47.1%52.9%FAIL Costa MesaMeasure V40.7%59.3%FAIL Grover Beach Measure I 50.2%49.8%PASS Corporations are Not Persons Agency Name YES%NO% Chico Measure K 58.1%41.9%PASS Arcata Measure H 81.6%18.4%PASS Richmond Measure P 72.4%27.6%PASS San Francisco Proposition G 80.7%19.3%PASS County of MendocinoMeasure F 73.3%26.7%PASS Attachment 4 B4 - 32 Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 14 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman Observations At the local government level, voters can usually connect the direct consequences of the passage or failure of a tax measure to specific public services or facilities – rather than just dollar values. This confidence and understanding in what the money will do is essential to passing a measure. By contrast, a source of the failure of many statewide tax measures has been voter uncertainty about what the funds will truly be used for, that the government has done reasonably the best it can with the revenues it already receives, and what the consequences are of passage or failure in terms of specific important public services and facilities. The success of most city majority vote general purpose tax proposals in this election demonstrates this. Most of the successful city or county measures were majority vote general purpose taxes in cities where a majority of the voters were apparently confident that the money is necessary and trusted their local elected leaders to use it well. They had seen enough of the city’s efforts to balance their budgets with existing resources and believed those efforts were sincere and that the additional tax revenue is necessary and worth paying. On the other hand, very few non-school super-majority taxes are passing these days except for extensions of existing taxes. But supermajority vote parcel taxes for schools continue to pass – about two out of three succeed – consistent with what we have seen historically. As for school bonds, 91 of 106 bond measures passed, slightly exceeding historic passage rates. ************ For more information: Michael Coleman 530-758-3952. coleman@muni1.com Source: County elections offices. mc Attachment 4 B4 - 33 General Revenue Measures 2012 Below is a selection taken from among all measures concerning revenue in the 2012 General Election. The information includes: county, city, date the measure was voted on, measure letter number, and whether or not it passed. All measures are passed by a simple majority unless otherwise noted. All measures that passed are denoted in green and all measures that did not pass are in red. ALAMEDA 11/6/2012 Albany Measure F Pass To maintain and provide city services and facilities, including: Fire and Police protection, safety, and emergency response Recreational programs, parks, playgrounds, and open space Senior and youth programs and facilities Community development and environmental preservation and other general city services and facilities, Shall the City of Albany enact a one-half cent sales tax, with annual independent audits, to end after eight years, with all funds spent only in Albany? COLUSA 11/6/2012 Williams Measure G Pass Shall the City of Williams continue to collect a one-half percent sales tax to help preserve the safety and character of Williams, by funding essential services such as road maintenance, fire/police services, and other general governmental purposes? CONTRA COSTA 6/5/2012 Hercules Measure O Pass To address Hercules’ Fiscal Emergency, stabilize city finances, offset budget shortfalls/the impact of State budget cuts on local services, prevent reductions to the number of police officers/crime investigators, protect/maintain crime prevention, childcare, youth sports and recreation programs and other general City services, shall the City of Hercules establish a ½ cent sales tax legally ending after 4 years, with Independent Citizens’ Oversight, Independent Audits and no money for Sacramento? CONTRA COSTA 6/5/2012 Pittsburg Measure P Pass To provide funding that stays in Pittsburg and cannot be seized by the State, to be used for Public Safety, gang prevention, job creation programs for local residents, to keep the Senior Center open, to maintain other City services, shall the City of Pittsburg enact a temporary, half-cent sales tax for five years, reduced to one-quarter cent for five years, then the increase be terminated, altogether, with citizens’ oversight, mandatory audits and consistent community reporting? CONTRA COSTA 6/5/2012 San Pablo Measure Q Pass To provide funding that cannot be seized by the State, but will stay in San Pablo for such things as Public Safety, gang prevention, youth services, job creation and job training programs for local residents (including the disenfranchised) and all other general city services, shall San Pablo enact a temporary half- cent sales tax for 5 years, reduced to one-quarter cent for 5 years, then terminated altogether, with citizens’ oversight, mandatory audits, and consistent community reporting? CONTRA COSTA 11/6/2012 Moraga Measure K Pass To keep local streets from falling into disrepair and maintain Town services, including: fixing potholes and cracks; maintaining neighborhood police patrols and response times; repairing neighborhood streets; maintaining recreation programs for youth and seniors; other general Town services, shall the Town of Moraga enact a one-cent sales tax for 20 years with authority to incur debt to accelerate infrastructure projects, with annual audits, citizens’ oversight, no funds for Sacramento and all funds spent only for Moraga? Attachment 4 B4 - 34 CONTRA COSTA 11/6/2012 Orinda Measure L Pass To help protect and maintain city services, including repairing failing roads, fixing potholes, improving traffic safety on local streets, fixing drains, and providing for other city services, shall the City of Orinda enact a one-half cent sales tax, for 10 years, with financial audits, public review of all expenditures, and a citizens’ oversight commission? HUMBOLDT 11/6/2012 Trinidad Measure G Pass Shall a 3/4 cent increase in the transaction and use tax in the City of Trinidad be approved for four years, starting on April 1, 2013. KERN 6/5/2012 Ridgecrest Measure L Pass To help prevent additional cuts and maintain City of Ridgecrest services, including: city streets and pothole repair; police officers and neighborhood police patrols; 9-1-1 emergency response times; and crime prevention and investigation; and other city services, shall the City of Ridgecrest enact a 3/4 cent sales tax, for five (5) years, requiring a citizen's oversight committee, annual independent audits, with all funds for City of Ridgecrest services only, no funds for Sacramento? KERN 11/6/2012 Maricopa Measure R Fail Shall there be enacted in the City of Maricopa an additional temporary sales tax rate increase of one percent (1%) which will end after ten (10) years, the proceeds of which shall be used to preserve essential general governmental services including, but not limited to street and road improvements, police and fire protection, parks and recreation and other City General Fund Services? LOS ANGELES 11/6/2012 Commerce City Measure AA Pass Shall the ordinance imposing a one half of one percent (½%) transactions and use (sales) tax to offset severe state budget cuts and provide funding for such things as police and fire service, repair, maintenance and improvement of streets, sidewalks, public facilities, parks, libraries and other city services, with all revenues staying in the city and spending reviewed by a citizens’ advisory panel and independently audited, be approved? LOS ANGELES 11/6/2012 Culver City Measure Y Pass To offset state budget cuts, preserve quality neighborhoods and ensure effective 911 emergency response by retaining firefighters, police officers, and paramedics; fixing potholes/streets; maintaining parks, community centers, storm drains; continuing after school programs, senior services, graffiti removal, arts/cultural programs, and other general services, shall Culver City enact a half-cent sales tax, automatically expiring after ten years, requiring independent financial audits, all funds used locally, and no money for Sacramento? LOS ANGELES 11/6/2012 La Mirada Measure M Pass To preserve our quality of life and maintain local, city services, including: neighborhood police patrols/911 response times; crime/gang prevention programs; repair potholes/keep streets from falling into disrepair; senior services/facilities; after-school programs for children/teens; and other general city services, shall the City of La Mirada enact a one cent sales tax, for 5 years, that cannot be taken by Sacramento, with citizens’ oversight, annual independent audits, will all funds spent only in La Mirada? MONTEREY 6/5/2012 Greenfield Measure X Pass To prevent potential reduction of services to the Police Department, restore Police staffing and services; maintain the financial viability of the City; ensure adequate park maintenance, restore City Hall service hours and return Recreation Programs for youth; shall the City of Greenfield enact a one cent sales tax, which will sunset in 5 years, and be subject to review by an Oversight Committee, annual financial audits and public expenditure reports? Attachment 4 B4 - 35 MONTEREY 6/5/2012 Soledad Measure Y Pass To protect and maintain local services, such as neighborhood police patrols, investigation and gang suppression officers, fire and 9-1-1 emergency response times, streets and parks maintenance, recreation programs and other general City services, shall the City of Soledad enact a one percent (1%) sales tax, for five (5) years, reviewed by a citizens' oversight committee, annual independent audits, and all funds for Soledad and no funds for Sacramento? MONTEREY 11/6/2012 Carmel-by-the-Sea Measure D Pass Shall Carmel-by-the-Sea increase transaction and use tax (sales tax) by 1% for 10 years, with an annual independent audit, to maintain essential services including fire, ambulance and police response times; fund capital needs including streets, beach, parks, forest and trails; increase code compliance; maintain libraries, Sunset Center and other public facilities; address CalPERS pension liabilities and other debt; and provide other general City services? MONTEREY 11/6/2012 Salinas Measure E Pass To preserve essential services and facilities in Salinas, including: crime and gang prevention; keeping libraries open; emergency response, police, fire, paramedics; fixing streets and sidewalks; parks and recreation for youth and seniors; and other city services; shall the City of Salinas renew its existing sales tax (Measure V) to provide ongoing local funds to be used only in Salinas, protected from State takeaways, with independent citizens’ oversight and annual audits? NEVADA 11/6/2012 Nevada City Measure L Pass 2/3 required To preserve the safety, public services and quality of life in Nevada City, shall a three-eighths cent per one dollar retail transactions and use tax (sales tax) be temporarily imposed and collected within the City of Nevada City for a period of five (5) years to be used for general municipal purposes, including funding for essential eservices such as police, fire, parks and trails, and general community services? NEVADA 11/6/2012 Grass Valley Measure N Fail 2/3 required For such general fund purposes as restoring police and fire staffing, replacing police and fire equipment, and repairing City streets, shall a half-cent ($0.005) transactions and use tax ("sales tax") be adopted, requiring yearly review by an independent auditor and by a Citizens Oversight Committee, provided the tax must end in 10 years and may end sooner if other City sales taxes return to 2007 levels before then? SACRAMENTO 11/6/2012 Sacramento Measure U Pass City of Sacramento Essential Services Protection Measure To restore and protect essential public safety services, including 9-1-1 response, police officers, gang/youth violence prevention, fire protection/emergency medical response, and other essential services including park maintenance, youth/senior services, and libraries, shall the City enact a one-half cent sales tax for six years with all revenue legally required to stay in the City's General Fund, none for the State, with independent annual financial audits and citizen oversight? SAN BENITO 11/6/2012 Hollister Measure E Pass Shall an ordinance be approved enacting a one percent (1%) sales tax for the purpose of funding general city services, such as police, fire safety, gang intervention and prevention, recreation programs, and street and parks maintenance, that will automatically expire five years after its operative date and that will require annual review and public report on revenues and expenditures by an independent citizens' oversight committee? SAN BERNARDINO 11/6/2012 Yucca Valley Measure U Fail To protect local property values and preserve our small town atmosphere by funding local community services such as: reducing the cost for property owners to connect to the sewer system; maintaining 9-1-1 Attachment 4 B4 - 36 response/neighborhood police patrols; maintaining neighborhood streets; and, other town services; Shall the Town of Yucca Valley enact a 1 cent sales tax for thirty years, with all funds for Yucca Valley only, requiring independent taxpayer oversight, annual audits, and funds protected by law from Sacramento? SAN JOAQUIN 11/6/2012 Lathrop Measure C Pass To preserve the City’s long-term financial stability and maintain City and public safety services, including police patrols and fire protection; 9-1-1 emergency response; rapid response to gang violence, robberies and burglaries; park safety; youth/senior services; job creation and other city services, shall the City of Lathrop enact a 1¢ sales tax with all money for Lathrop and no money for Sacramento, requiring independent Citizens’ Oversight and published annual audits? SAN LUIS OBISPO 11/6/2012 El Paso De Robles Measure E-12 Pass To provide funding that cannot be seized by the State, but will stay in Paso Robles for such things as street repair, maintenance, and improvement, and other vital city needs, shall the City of Paso Robles enact a temporary one half of one percent sales tax which will expire in 12 years? SAN MATEO 11/6/2012 Half Moon Bay Measure J Pass To provide funding only for the City of Half Moon Bay that can be used to enhance our Library, increase street maintenance, improve senior services, invest in business development and tourism, improve Smith Field recreational facilities, help fund the new Main Street bridge and improve other general city services, shall the City of Half Moon Bay pas a temporary half-cent general sales tax that will expire after 3 years, with citizens' oversight? SANTA BARBARA 6/5/2012 Santa Maria Measure U Pass To offset state budget cuts and maintain/restore essential services, such as: neighborhood police patrols/firefighter staffing; at-risk youth programs, gang/drug suppression/enforcement; improving 9-1-1 emergency medical response times; preventing floods through levee repair; and other vital city services, shall the City of Santa Maria enact a ¼-cent sales tax that can’t be taken by the State, expiring in nine years, requiring taxpayer oversight, annual independent audits, with all funds used locally in Santa Maria? SANTA CRUZ 11/6/2012 Capitola Measure O Pass Shall a City of Capitola permanent sales tax increase of one quarter of one percent be adopted to pay for disaster recovery and to maintain general services including public safety and street improvements? SOLANO 11/6/2012 Fairfield Measure P Pass To address the City of Fairfield’s Fiscal Emergency, offset significant budget cuts and state financial takeaways, and maintain City services, including neighborhood police patrols, firefighters, 9-1-1 response times, crime, drug and gang prevention programs, maintenance of streets, medians and street lights, parks and recreation services, and other general services, shall an ordinance be adopted to enact a one cent sales tax for five years, with citizen’s oversight, annual independent audits and all funds spent only in Fairfield? SOLANO 11/6/2012 Rio Vista Measure O Pass For a period of five (5) years, shall a three-quarter cent’ transactions and use tax to pay for general services for the City of Rio Vista, including police, fire, land-use planning and other city services, be adopted? SOLANO 11/6/2012 Vacaville Measure M Pass In order to protect essential City services from further reductions such as police programs to fight domestic violence, child/elder abuse, gang activity and neighborhood crime; fire/paramedic services for quick emergency response times; street lighting for safety; and other services, shall City of Vacaville Attachment 4 B4 - 37 Ordinance No. 1844 be approved to enact a quarter-cent transactions and use (sales) tax for five years, with all funds staying locally with the City of Vacaville? SONOMA 6/5/2012 Sonoma Measure J Pass To preserve the safety, public services and quality of life of Sonoma, and provide funding for essential services such as police, fire and emergency medical services, street and road maintenance and repairs, flood prevention, park and open space maintenance, graffiti abatement and other general community services, shall an ordinance be adopted temporarily increasing the City sales tax by one-half of one percent for a term of 5 years, with all funds to be spent locally? SONOMA 11/6/2012 Healdsburg Measure V Pass To stabilize City finances, offset declining revenues and the loss of redevelopment, and maintain and protect essential City services, shall the City of Healdsburg adopt an ordinance enacting a one-half of one percent transactions and use tax, automatically expiring in ten years, with annual audits and review, and with all funds spent locally for the benefit of Healdsburg residents? SONOMA 11/6/2012 Sebastopol Measure Y Pass To help preserve the safety, public services and quality of life of Sebastopol, and provide funding to maintain essential general fund services such as police, fire, street and road maintenance and repairs, flood prevention, park and open space maintenance, and other general community services, shall an ordinance be adopted increasing the City transactions and use tax by one half of one percent for a term of eight (8) years? Special Taxes: Require 2/3 majority for passage ALAMEDA 6/5/2012 Alameda Measure C Fail 2/3 required To maintain neighborhood crime patrols, fire protection and 911 emergency response; improve earthquake preparedness; replace an unsafe fire station; establish a citywide Emergency Operations Center, a joint police/fire training facility, library, cultural and recreational facilities, shall the City of Alameda enact a one-half cent sales tax, with all revenue staying in the City, mandatory annual audits and public expenditure reports? ALAMEDA 2/7/2012 Piedmont Measure M Fail 2/3 required Shall Chapter 20F be added to the Piedmont City Code providing for a new 10-year Special Municipal Sewer Surtax, as more specifically set forth in Ord. 699 N.S. which is on file with the Piedmont City Clerk? ALAMEDA 6/5/2012 Alameda Measure C Fail 2/3 required To maintain neighborhood crime patrols, fire protection and 911 emergency response; improve earthquake preparedness; replace an unsafe fire station; establish a citywide Emergency Operations Center, a joint police/fire training facility, library, cultural and recreational facilities, shall the City of Alameda enact a one-half cent sales tax, with all revenue staying in the City, mandatory annual audits and public expenditure reports? ALAMEDA 11/6/2012 Berkeley Measure O Fail 2/3 required Shall a special tax of $0.00779 per square foot of improvements on land in Berkeley be authorized to fund maintenance and operation of the replacement Warm Water and Willard Pools, if a bond measure funding construction of those pools is adopted? ALAMEDA 11/6/2012 Piedmont Measure Y Pass 2/3 required To maintain essential police, fire, and paramedic service, to prevent the reduction in maintenance in City parks, green spaces and other public areas, and to prevent the loss of youth, family, and senior recreational and safety services, shall the City of Piedmont continue to authorize a parcel tax, replacing Attachment 4 B4 - 38 the existing Municipal Services Tax, as is more specifically set forth in Ord. 707 N.S. which is on file with the Piedmont City Clerk? FRESNO 6/5/2012 Parlier Measure S Fail 2/3 required To preserve the safety and quality of life of the City of Parlier through City services - including law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical response - and to ensure that all taxpayers are treated fairly, shall the City enact a Utility Users Tax in the amount of 5%, while including protections for senior citizens, and ensuring that all funds remain local? KERN 3/6/2012 California City Measure M Pass 2/3 required Shall a city-wide special tax of up to $150.00 per lot or parcel be approved for each of ten (10) fiscal years beginning July 1, 2012, for (1) police operations, training and supplies, personnel, equipment, law enforcement, dispatch, code enforcement, and animal control, and (2) fire prevention and suppression operations, training and supplies, firefighter and paramedic personnel, equipment and supplies? LAKE 11/6/2012 Clearlake Measure G Fail 2/3 required Shall the City of Clearlake impose a retail transactions and use tax at the rate of one percent (1%) within the City to be used for repair and maintenance of City streets and roads and other transportation services and code enforcement, and shall the appropriations limit for the City of Clearlake for roadway repair and maintenance and code enforcement be increased for Fiscal Year 2012-2013 by the amount of the tax proceeds received by the City during that period. LOS ANGELES 11/6/2012 Pomona Measure X Fail 2/3 required To provide revenue dedicated to the City of Pomona Library services, and operation of the Library no fewer than 38 hours per week, shall the City of Pomona ordinance adopting a special parcel tax of $38.00/parcel and/or residential unit, providing for annual adjustments commencing July 1, 2013, be approved by the voters? MARIN 6/5/2012 Ross Measure C Fail 2/3 required Shall the voters of the Town of Ross adopt an ordinance authorizing from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2016, the levy of a special tax for public safety services in an amount not to exceed $1000 per dwelling unit for single family residential uses and not to exceed $1000 per parcel for multi-family, commercial or other non-residential uses, and increasing the Town’s appropriations limit by the amount of the special tax proceeds? MARIN 11/6/2012 Ross Measure D Pass 2/3 required Shall the voters of the Town of Ross adopt an ordinance replacing the prior municipal services tax with a special tax for maintaining public safety services for a period of four years at a lower maximum rate of $950 per dwelling unit for single family residences and $950 per parcel for all other uses, and increasing the Town’s appropriations limit by the amount of the special tax proceeds? ORANGE 11/6/2012 Laguna Beach Measure CC Fail 2/3 required Shall an ordinance be adopted to impose a parcel tax of $120 per year on each parcel of property in the City, unless exempted, for a twenty-year period for the acquisition of land for the permanent preservation of open space with the City? RIVERSIDE 11/6/2012 Indian Wells Measure R Fail 2/3 required Shall the ordinance of the City of Indian Wells authorizing the City to impose, levy, and collect a Special Parcel Tax of $171 on all taxable property within the City, commencing July 1, 2013, providing for annual adjustments for inflation, and suspending the existing assessments levied on property within Landscape and Lighting District No. 91-1, be adopted to provide sufficient revenues for the maintenance and servicing of citywide public landscape improvements? Attachment 4 B4 - 39 SACRAMENTO 11/6/2012 Citrus Heights Measure K Fail 2/3 required Shall an ordinance be adopted to modify the City's existing Utility User Tax to treat taxpayers equally; and to temporarily increase the current rate by 1.75%, for 10 years, for the following restricted uses: additional police officers, programs to prevent youth crime/violence, police equipment and technology, and resurfacing city streets? SANTA BARBARA 11/6/2012 Guadalupe Measure I-2012 Fail 2/3 required To provide critical funding for library staffing, facilities and service, shall a parcel tax of $20.00 per year be imposed on all parcels of real property in the City of Guadalupe for eight years? SONOMA 11/6/2012 Petaluma Measure X Fail 2/3 required Shall the City of Petaluma ordinance enhancing specific park and recreation projects, making trail/field safety improvements and playgrounds more accessible, repairing/replacing outdated, deteriorating facilities, and establishing new recreational opportunities by levying a fifteen-year parcel tax of $52 annually for single-family homes; with specified amounts for multi-family and other properties; exemptions for seniors and others, with resulting revenue remaining local (exempt from state use), annual audits, and oversight by an independent citizens' committee, be adopted? Attachment 4 B4 - 40 COUNCIL MEETING: � � 106'ZoJ ITEM NO.: 60id"ft- ,'6 b`j (avre✓� rcx �1 Statement in Support of Measure Y Renewal Lauren R. Brown 7 Chuparrosa Drive San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Measure Y was passed by the voters in 2006 with 64% of the voters approving. Part of the reason for support this strong was that there was a sunset clause with Measure Y with expiration due in 2015. The reason for this was to permit the voters the opportunity to evaluate if the City managed its finances sensibly and used the added revenues in an effective way and then be given the opportunity to vote once again on any proposed extension. What's the record of the past 8 years? I believe there is convincing evidence that the city, under the leadership of multiple Councils, two City Managers and City Staff, have indeed conducted the city affairs in a very effective way. There have been efforts to control city expenditures. There has be a carefully thought -out approach to setting budgets and ensuring a sound financial foundation for city operations and to meet the expectations of our citizens for services. For comparison, there are well -known examples of other cities where there has not been this long -term attention to maintaining financial health. I strongly advocate for the renewal measure to be a General Purpose tax that would require 50% margin. To make it a tax that would be specific to certain projects is far less desirable in that a considerably higher percentage of voter support is required. But the more important reason is that it would seem imprudent for this Council to presume that they can accurately forecast the actual needs of our community for the next 8 years. Far better to trust that we will continue to have sensible leadership that has characterized our city during the time that Measure Y has been in effect. Should there not be sufficient support on the City Council for a General Purpose Tax measure then I suggest that a citizen initiative be considered to place such a measure on the ballot. I believe there is sufficient support to be able to gain the necessary number of signatures in time for the election. Respectfully submitted Lauren R. Brown Kremke, Kate From: Sent: To: Subject: Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk F }yc IPalnn//��St.reet San Luis Ob1spo, CA 93401 tel 1805 7811102 Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:08 PM Kremke, Kate FW: Measure Y renewal From: Marx, Jan Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 11:09 AM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: Measure Y renewal Agenda correspondence From: John Grady [mailtoJohngradySCd)yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 10:57 AM To: Council ALL Subject: Measure Y renewal Dear Mayor and Council Members, MAY U 6 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE sate J I®I ►�I _Item# Q-/4 It is with great dismay that I read you may consider placing the renewal of the Measure Y tax on the ballot with only a 3 vote council majority. While City Attorney Dietrick cites precedence that a charter city may have this authority, a vote by fewer than 4 of the 5 council members to place this measure on the ballot skirts the spirit of the law if not the letter of the law. I think attorney Stew Jenkins makes a strong case in his letter to the council on this subject. Additionally, to place a local tax measure on the ballot without a super majority vote of the council calls into question the real need for the additional revenue. I think holding yourselves to a higher standard of 4 votes encourages greater collaboration and compromise amongst yourselves. It will help eliminate frivolous or non essential tax measures from ever going to the people and it offers greater assurance to the community that any tax measure submitted for their approval has passed stringent council scrutiny and has overwhelming support amongst their elected representatives. If council is able to achieve this super majority vote to place the renewal of Measure Y on the ballot then I urge one significant change to its wording - the removal of the sunset provision. Measure Y was first passed in 2006 at a time when the city faced dwindling state fiscal resources and the economy was spiraling into recession. This tax (per the ordinance) was to expire in 2015, not go back to the people for an eight year extension. Today our financial climate is much improved and the outlook for future growth and tax revenue is much brighter than in 2006, both on the state and local level. If we are not able to remove the band aid of the additional tax revenue that Measure Y provides now, in an economic climate much improved from that of 2006, how will we be any better able to do so eight years hence? In fact, the longer you extend our reliance on Measure Y revenue, the bigger our, city's budget will grow, the larger our city's staff will become, and the greater our city's payroll and pension costs will rise. We will be much more dependent upon Measure Y tax revenue in eight years than we are today. So in truth, the longer we have Measure Y revenue coming into the city's coffers the harder it will become to live without it. I can already hear the city council's deliberations eight years from now with threats of draconian cuts to services that will take place should Measure Y not be renewed yet a third time! If not now, then when will we ever wean ourselves from this tax? So please, do the right thing today on two counts. First, don't put the possible renewal of Measure Y on the ballot without a 4 (or 5) vote council majority. To do otherwise would only set the bar lower for future councils with regards to bringing votes for local tax revenues to the people. You need to take the high ground. Second, be honest with the folks that this tax will be permanent and remove the sunset clause. Our city will only become ever more dependent on this revenue, not less dependent. Be up front with the voters and admit this is a permanent tax. Thank you. John Grady San Luis Obispo, CA Goodwin, Heather From: Lichtig, Katie Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 3:56 PM To: Mejia, Anthony; Goodwin, Heather Subject: FW: Measure Y renewal For distribution to the city council. Katie Lichtig City Manager City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249 E klichtig @slocity.org T 805.781.7114 slocity orc From: John Grady Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 5:56:46 PM To: Council ALL Subject: Measure Y renewal Dear Mayor and Council Members, AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date S — 4- - L4 item# -- It is with great dismay that I read you may consider placing the renewal of the Measure Y tax on the ballot with only a 3 vote council majority. While City Attorney Dietrick cites precedence that a charter city may have this authority, a vote by fewer than 4 of the 5 council members to place this measure on the ballot skirts the spirit of the law if not the letter of the law. I think attorney Stew Jenkins makes a strong case in his letter to the council on this subject. Additionally, to place a local tax measure on the ballot without a super majority vote of the council calls into question the real need for the additional revenue. I think holding yourselves to a higher standard of 4 votes encourages greater collaboration and compromise amongst yourselves. It will help eliminate frivolous or non essential tax measures from ever going to the people and it offers greater assurance to the community that any tax measure submitted for their approval has passed stringent council scrutiny and has overwhelming support amongst their elected representatives. If council is able to achieve this super majority vote to place the renewal of Measure Y on the ballot then I urge one significant change to its wording - the removal of the sunset provision. Measure Y was first passed in 2006 at a time when the city faced dwindling state fiscal resources and the economy was spiraling into recession. This tax (per the ordinance) was to expire in 2015, not go back to the people for an eight year extension. Today our financial climate is much improved and the outlook for future growth and tax revenue is much brighter than in 2006, both on the state and local level. If we are not able to remove the band aid of the additional tax revenue that Measure Y provides now, in an economic climate much improved from that of 2006, how will we be any better able to do so eight years hence? In fact, the longer you extend our reliance on Measure Y revenue, the bigger our city's budget will grow, the larger our city's staff will become, and the greater our city's payroll and pension costs will rise. We will be much more dependent upon Measure Y tax revenue in eight years than we are today. So in truth, the longer we have Measure Y revenue coming into the city's coffers the harder it will become to live without it. I can already hear the city council's deliberations eight years from now with threats of draconian cuts to services that will take place should Measure Y not be renewed yet a third time! If not now, then when will we ever wean ourselves from this tax? So please, do the right thing today on two counts. First, don't put the possible renewal of Measure Y on the ballot without a 4 (or 5) vote council majority. To do otherwise would only set the bar lower for future councils with regards to bringing votes for local tax revenues to the people. You need to take the high ground. Second, be honest with the folks that this tax will be permanent and remove the sunset clause. Our city will only become ever more dependent on this revenue, not less dependent. Be up front with the voters and admit this is a permanent tax. Thank you. John Grady San Luis Obispo, CA Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk of sm) Im "; omspo 990 Palm Street Sari l uis Obispo, CA 93401 iel 1805,181-7102 Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:51 PM Goodwin, Heather FW: Item B -4 - Revenue Measure Item B -4 May 6 Hampian.pdf MAY 0 6 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date M IItem# 6 4 From: Ken Hampian [mailto:kchampianC5gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:50 PM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Subject: Item B -4 - Revenue Measure My letter regarding this matter is attached. Thank you. May 6, 2014 Item: B -4, Review of Ballot Language and Sales Tax Extension Dear Mayor and Council Members: I offer ten points for your consider tonight: Your actions tonight are not only very important in terms of policy, but leadership too. Regarding leadership, the message an elected board sends through words and actions heavily influences how citizens view their local government - positive or negative. 2. If a council models conflict and unyielding positions when addressing differences, many in the community will follow suit and thoughtful problem solving erodes, along with trust. Revenue measures launched in such an atmosphere get fewer votes and often, they fail. 3. If the renewal of Measure Y fails, the community will be harmed. That's a fact. It is simply not possible to eliminate over $6 million in General Fund revenue (virtually overnight) with an impact that is only neutral. 4. Every Council member took a pledge to protect the community and, therefore, get in "harms way." Councilmembers should at least try to find common ground in order to collectively support a renewal measure. S. Councilman Carpenter has expressed worry that the apparent option of placing a measure on the ballot with a 3 -2 vote will eliminate any "... compromise and deliberation by council" and "discussion ... to get all five of us on the same page." 6. This discussion can happen tonight and a compromise can be reached if council members sincerely seek it. I suggest that you start with the Chamber of Commerce position (now backed by the Downtown Association). It is reasonable and addresses many of the concerns expressed on April 1. While the special vs. general purpose measure question is a reasonable one to debate, a special measure will not pass. Successful special purpose measures have everything going for them including a specific, compelling and agreed upon community capital need. This is not the case in SLO. And consider this: In 2006, Measure Y had everything going for it and the measure passed by 64 %. Without belaboring the differences (although I could), things are very different and less favorable today. 67% support is simply out of reach. 8. A reason that some have articulated for supporting a special purpose measure is a greater investment in CIP. Even though Measure Y funds are general purpose in nature (and were never promised exclusively to CIP by the City), a most of the funds have been allocated for capital improvement purposes - including large allocations technically classified as "operating" that reactivated our withered street and storm drain maintenance programs. 9. Overall, Measure Y allocations have been used for excellent purposes - purposes that were identified by the community as top priorities. If there is doubt that this will happen in the future, accountability and transparency provisions can be enhanced further - and the community can decide for themselves. Which leads to my last point... 10. We talk a lot about trusting the community, but here's where the rubber meets the road: If a compromise regarding ballot language cannot be reached tonight, can all council members at least support giving voters the last say? By crafting separate motions to make possible unanimous support for a public vote, trust in the ultimate wisdom of citizens can be demonstrated. Thank you very much for your consideration. Ken Hampian Goodwin, Heather MAY 0 6 2014 From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 11:12 PM To: Goodwin, Heather; Kremke, Kate Subject: Fwd: May 6, 2014 Council Agenda 134 - Measure Y Attachments: Jenkins 5 -5 -14 Letter Measure Y proposed Xtntion.pdf; ATT00001.htm Agenda Correspondence item B4 Begin forwarded message: AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date SSW l y Item #� From: "info" <inf6kstewienkins.com> To: "Mejia, Anthony" <amejia ,slocity.org> Cc: "jankianmarx.com" <janAJanmarx.com >, "ianmarxkstanfordalumni.org" <janmarxkstanfordalumni.org >, "mavourneenkeharter.net" <mavourneenkcharter.net >, "dancarpslokyahoo.com" <dancarpslonyahoo.com >, "carlynpekgmail.com" <carlynpcggmail.com >, "ibashbaugh a,chartennet" <Jbashbaughncharter.net> Subject: May 6, 2014 Council Agenda B4 - Measure Y Good evening Mr. Mejia, Mayor Marx, Council Members: Please find attached my letter of today's date, in digital pdf format, for your consideration as you address a proposal from the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and City Attorney of a draft ballot measure and amendments to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Chapter 3.15. I hope this letter is informative and may help you make appropriate decisions. A hard copy of the letter will be provided to Mr. Mejia for the City's official records Tuesday morning. Best Regards, Stew Jenkins Law Office of Stewart D. Jenkins 1336 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 541 -5763 Fax: (805) 547 -1608 E -Mail: infokstewjenkins.com Anthony Mejia, City Clerk Mayor Jan Marx, & Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 STEW JENKINS ATTORNEY ( 70n1t4 .:L'aro zf< , A'anniwf 1336 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Phone: (805) 541 -5763 FAX: (805) 547 -1608 May 5, 2014 John Ashbaugh, Dan Carpenter, Kathy Smith, C'arlyn Christianson Re: SLO 5 -6 -14 Council Agenda Item 134; proposal for referral to the general election Ballot of a renewal of sunsetting local half -cent sales tax (Measure Y). Dear Mayor Marx, Council Members and Mr. Mejia: I write to address whether, or not, the City Council is free with only 3 votes to direct the City Clerk to place on the November Ballot a measure proposed by City Manager Lichtig, Assistant City Manager Condron, and City Attorney Dietrick to renew a city sales tax which would otherwise sunset in 2015. The Measure Y city sales tax had been put oil the ballot during the fiscal emergency in 2006 that caused the State for several years to cease providing our city with trtany of the funds the State has now restored. A fair reading of the 2006 Ballot statement shows that Measure Y was adopted by voters based on assurances that (l) the funds were needed and would be used for filling potholes, paving streets, capital improvements, and services that had been lost because of withdrawal of State funding, (2) the extra tax would sunset April 1, 2015, and (3) the tax would be levied "so long as the tax is approved by two - thirds of the city council and a majority of the voters .... "' Imbedded in the text of Measure Y, S1_,O voters adopted sections of California's Government Code which also require a two - thirds vote of the City Council to place a local tax on the ballot. Moreover, the City Council (then made up of Paul Brown, John .Ewan, Christine Mulholland, Allen Settle, and Dave Romero) followed the dictates of California Proposition 62 in adopting the resolution placing Measure Y on the ballot for adoption by the voters of San Luis Obispo: More than two- thirds of the council (in fact all five members) then supported the measure as necessary for the fiscal health of the City in the face of the State's fiscal emergency. 1 understand the City Council has been told that a Court of Appeals case involving a tax levied by the Bay Area charter city of San Leandro on pistol dealers permits a bare majority of the San Luis Obispo City Council to place a general local sales tax on the ballot in spite of Government Code § 53724 (b) [part of California Proposition 62, adopted 1986].` The erroneous First District 1 See the Impartial Analysis of Measure Y, authored by former City Attorney Jonathan Lowell, appearing in the November 7, 2006, Ballot Statement, particularly for the third condition of approval. ` 55%oCSan Luis Obispo Voters joining voters state -wide to puss Proposition 62. www.stewjenkins.com Court of Appeal opinion of Trader ,Sports, Inc., v. City of San Leandro 3 appears to be an abaration that probably would not have been upheld had the California Supreme Count accepted an properly pleaded petition for review. The opinion's conclusion that chartered cities are exempt from the requirements of § 53724 is riot in line with other better reasoned authorities addressing Proposition 62; and particularly is not in line with the reasoning of the California Supreme Court addressing other aspects of Proposition 62. The First District Court of Appeal's interpretation relied on a false distinction that Proposition 62, as a statutory rather than constitutional enactment, could not condition the power of charter cities to adopt local taxes. That reasoning is not supported (anti i5 substantially undercut) by the California Supreme Court decision of Santa Clara County Local 7'ransportolion Authority v. Guardinot, and by lloward Jarvis tai payers Association v. C.'ou►aly o/ Orange', and Borikas v. Alameda Unified School District', to natne a few authorities. Some of the concepts that affect your decision should be familiar to Members of the City Council who followed the litigation in the recent case of SLO Homeless Alliance v. City of •San Lute Obispo.. Though California Constitution, Article XI, 5 5 gives charter cities the ability to adopt ordinances "with respect to municipal affairs" which "supersede all laws inconsistent therewith" the courts have recognized that Article Xi, §7 puts a protective brake on the § 5 powers of charter cities by requiring that a charter city's ordinances can not be "in conflict with general laws." In other words, the State Legislature may "preempt" all cities, including charter cities, by expressly or impliedly `Occupying" the field.' As will become clear, stage voters can directly enact (and have enacted) statutes by voter initiative preempting; how charter cities place local tax issues on the bal lot. A thorough examination of the California Supreme Court's decision of S� ►n /ca Clara County Local Transportation Authority i�. Guardino reveals that the state Supreme Court has recognized that the state's electors constitutionally have all of the same power of the Legislature to Occupy the field ol'when and under what conditions local governments can levy, collect, or extend a local tax. The petitioning; transportation authority in that case, not being; a chartered city, had made the argument that an equal protection concept was offended because "Proposition 62 cannot constitutionally apply to charter cities." Justice Mosk, author ofthe opinion, dismissed the argument saying "Assioning argztendo that the petitioner's minor premise is correct ­ i.e., that Proposition 62 is constitutionally inapplicable to charter cities, as the voters were told in the ballot materials — petitioner's conclusion still does not fellow. "s In short, the Supreme Court had no opportunity to, and did not decide;, whether charter cities were excluded from the dictates of Propostion 62's statutes conditioning, placement of local tax measures on the ballot. What is evident is that Justice Mosk, and the ballot materials 'presented by the proponents of Proposition 62, recognized that it had been placed on the state -wide ballot to overturn a 1982 Supreme Court decision concerning a charter city's adoption of ' `leader Sfrorts•, inc_, v_ City gl'San Leandro (2001) 93 CMth 37, 'S'anta Clarct Cuunfy Local Transportation Authority v. Gnar•dino (1982) 11 C'a1.4 "' 220, 5 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Counly of Orange (2003) 10 CA4th 1375. RorikiLv r. Alttnieda Utrifieel.S.,hool District (20 13) 214 CA4th 135. See particularly two of the cases critical to the SLO Homeless Alliance case of City of CitY oiLufa.rewe v. C'ounn' Of Conow Costa (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 749 ( "Whenever the Legislature has seen fit to adopt a genered scheme fur the re,gtdation ol'a particular subject, the entire control over ivhatever phases of the subject arc• corered bv.Mite legislatiem causes casfar as local legislation is cunc•erned." Citing In re Lane) and O'Connell v. C'iti, ol•Stoc•kion, 41 CalAili I06I, 1068, 1076 -1077. In both these cases state statutory preemption caused local ordinances of charter cities related uniquely to municipal affairs to be declared void; and (his concept applies with equal force to SLOW Chapter 3.15, A See I 1 Cal.0' 220, 260 -261, emphasis wkle d; Justice Mosk was viewed as one (:)('the L.,iberal members of the Court. www.stewJenkins.com a local tax in disregard of Proposition 13.9 Justice Mosk observed: In any event, on this question we agree with Justice Holmes that "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." (Citation omitted) The manifest parpose of f'ro1.)o.sition 62 cis a whole was to increase the control of the citizenry over local taxation by requiring voter approval of all new local taxes imposed by all local governmental entities: the measure defines broadly and inclusively both the taxes (S 53721) and the entities 53720) to which it aplrlies. [Emphasis Added] Seel l Cal.4'i' 2201, 231. ... [T]he argument did confirm that the measure was intended to affect all types of' local taxes, telling the voters at the outset that "A YES vote on PropOsition 62 gives back your right to vote on any tax increases proposed by your local governmentti." (Ballot Parnp., Proposed Stats. and Amends. to Cal. Const, with arguments to voters, Gen.Elec. (Nov. 4, 1986), argument in favor of Prop. 62, p. 42, italics added.) Similarly, the Legislative Analyst told the voters that Proposition 62 "establishes new requirements for the adoption of new or higher general and special taxes by local agencies." (Id., analysis by Legislative Analyst, p. 40, italics added.) [Emphasis the Court's] Seel l Cal.4a, 220, 237. The structure of Proposition 62's enactments makes clear that two different two -step processes are imposed state -wide for voter control over local taxation, including taxes imposed by a charter city, which must be observed; each process requires a two - thirds vote at one point or another. (1) Government Code § 53722 and § 53724 permit a city council to propose a special tax for dedicated purposes [such as.for road, sewer, water system, and infrastructure improvement] by a bare majority, with adoption requiring two - thirds of the electorate voting to approve the dedicated tax. Thus the special purpose for which the tax is being levied must be important enough to two - thirds of the voters to approve the local tax on top of State taxation. (2) Government code § 53723 and § 53724 permit a city to propose a general tax when two- thirds of the representatives of the voters (the city council) agree that a general local tax needs to be Ievietl, Such a requirement is designed to give voters the assurance that a local general tax is viewed by their elected representatives as so necessary that they should adopt it in addition to State levies, 1 urge each of the Council Members, and the City Clerk, to .keep faith with the prornises made to the voters when Measure Y was adopted, and to keep faith with Proposition 62. If there are not at least 4 Council Members satisfied that an undedicated general city sales tax should be levied, the Council should not adopt the measure for placement on the ballot as a general tax and the treasure May not lawfully be certified by the Clerlr'111t,4 having been adopted. Sinl_y, �tl'44 �4nkli7 .�-�f f See 1 1 Cal.a`h 220, 231 [Justice .Nlosk notes that the provisions Gov, C. } 53720 carefully defined the kinds of local governments to which Proposition 62 would apply - and a reading of that section and the Ballot Materials presented to voters shows that those definitions include "a charter city" and cited to the prior decision of ('itY and Count). of.S`irn Francisco v. Farrell (1982) 32 Cat.3d 471. www.stewjetikins.com 3 Kremke, Kate _ iatfM�:; s.'a / From: Mejia, Anthony APR 17 2014 Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 2:11 PM To: Kremke, Kate — = Subject: FW: Council Correspondence for May 6 (RE: Measure Y renewal) Agenda Correspondence Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk 999 F'aIni StrE',OL San Luis Obispo, CA 9.340 taiu7817102 From: Kevin P. Rice [mailto:kricesloCs1gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 2:02 PM To: Council ALL Cc: Mejia, Anthony Subject: Council Correspondence for May 6 (RE: Measure Y renewal) Dear Mayor and Council Members: AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date 5- l 1- Item# ' �- The Council SHOULD disclose the city attorney's opinion regarding Traders Sports v. City of San Leandro (2001), 93 Cal.AppAth 37 htt : / /Iaw.just a.com /cases /californitt/caa 4th/93 /37.htinl). Apparently, our city attorney believes only three, not four, council votes are required to place a Measure Y sales tax renewal measure on the November election ballot. I am aware and agree that legal memoranda written by the city attorney are privileged public records not subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act, according to Roberts v. City of Palmdale (1993), 5 CalAth 363 (]ittp: / /law.itistia.com/ cased 'california /cal4th/5 /363,html). In Roberts v. City of Palmdale, the Court wrote: "We conclude that a local governing WE is the holder of the attorne client rivile a with respect to written legal opinions by the governing body's attorney, and may assert the privilege under the Public Records Act without alleging that the writing is relevant to pending litigation under section 6254, subdivision (b). " (Emphasis added.) Hence, YOU, the City Council hold the privilege and are free to take action to disclose the city attorney's opinion. REASONS FOR DISCLOSURE: FIRST, there is a "smell" (or odor) that exists when the City Council pursues an action based upon undisclosed legal theory. This "smell" is that the underlying legal theory must somehow be vulnerable or flawed in some manner. If the city attorney's opinion regarding Traders Sports v. City of San Leandro is truly sound, righteous, and good public policy, then the City Council should be willing to share it with the public. SECOND, this situation is unlike usual situations where the City Council is protecting the public from existing litigation or liability. The City Council should not waive its privilege in such usual situations as it has a duty to protect the public treasury from liability. But the City Council has not yet taken any action pursuant to the city attorney's position in this situation. There is a very real sense that the City Council is "hiding the marble" from public view. Is our standing strong? If the City Council does take action, are we vulnerable? THIRD, then, the City Council SHOULD disclose the city attorney opinion so that the public can ascertain the solidity of Traders Sports v. San Leandro, and weigh in on the matter. FOURTH, the City Council ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT proceed pursuant to Traders Sports based upon legal theory which has not been scrutinized and affirmed by further experts and the public, thus lending confidence to the electors and the action under consideration. Please do not place San Luis Obispo in a vulnerable legal position! It is far better to reach compromise than to proceed precariously. Sincerely, Kevin P. Rice San Luis Obispo (805) 602 -2616 COUNCIL MEETING: 0&1 Melia, Anthony MAY 0 2 2014 ITEM NO.: From: Charlene Rosales <charlene @slochamber.org> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 3:37 PM To: Marx, Jan; Christianson, Carlyn; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Smith, Kathy Cc: Mejia, Anthony; Lichtig, Katie; Codron, Michael Subject: May 6 Agenda Correspondence re. Measure Y Renewal Attachments: SLO Chamber of Commerce re. Measure Y Renewal 5.2.14.pdf Mayor Marx and City Council Members, Please find attached our letter regarding the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce's position regarding Measure Y Renewal. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you, Charlene Rosales Director of Governmental Affairs San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 895 Monterey St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 p (805) 786 -2770 f (805) 543 -1255 www.slochamber.org : www.visitslo.com : www.slo- business.com facebook.com/slochamber: @ slochamber 895 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3278 Ermina Karim, President/CEO May 2, 2014 City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Subject: Measure Y Renewal Dear Mayor Marx and City Council Members, The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce wishes to state its position regarding the renewal of the current half -cent sales tax. This is an issue of great interest to the Chamber and we were highly active in the initial passage of Measure' in 2006, enthusiastic about the possibilities these additional funds would have to protecting and maintaining vital community services. First, some background perspective. In November 2013, our Board of Directors formed a Measure Y task force composed of a diverse set of volunteers to study the issue of renewal and provide guidance to the Chamber's Board. Since last November, Chamber volunteers - including members of our task force, Issues Evaluation Committee, Executive Committee and Board - have studied this issue extensively, resulting in at least 85 volunteers devoting dozens of hours to in depth analysis and deliberation. In addition, Chamber volunteers and staff have attended every Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee ( LRMAC) meeting, community forum and City Council meeting where Measure Y was discussed. There have also been very regular conversations with elected officials, community members and Chamber members who have shared their insights and concerns with us. Many of our members have expressed concern about whether Measure Y revenue was used as promised. Without a doubt, we could not have predicted the magnitude of the recession, and our City had no control over the outside arbitrator's decision. The infusion of Measure Y money during that time provided an important buffer to San Luis Obispo so that we did not see severe cuts to service like many other communities have suffered. After its own study and analysis, the LRMAC made a thoughtful recommendation to Council to place another half -cent general sales tax on the ballot with an eight -year sunset clause. Learning from our experiences in the last six years, the Chamber believes this recommendation can be further strengthened to ensure greater accountability and transparency. It is the Chamber Board's unanimous position to support renewal of a general half -cent sales tax measure with an eight - year sunset clause that incorporates a citizen's oversight committee. We strongly urge that this citizen's oversight committee be composed of individuals with related expertise that will meet no less than twice a year and perform reviews of regular independent audits. T 805.781.2670 slochainbei org F 805.543.1255 visilsloxom r slochamber @slochamber.org slo- buiness.com 895 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3278 Ermina Karim, President/CEO The Chamber's endorsement includes additional recommendations for the City to consider that would strengthen the City's financial health. We urge the adoption of a long -term public commitment by our City Council to further address personnel costs, including escalating pension obligations. We want to see our City create a meaningful plan of action to address the challenges that face San Luis Obispo, much as they face so many communities in California and throughout the United States. A sound plan would provide overarching guidance to the complex challenge of operating San Luis Obispo in a way that is responsive to residents' needs, disciplined in good economic times, and sustainable during volatile downturns. We are also asking for more overall transparency in the City's financial management that incorporates tools such as a user - friendly online dashboard to allow better public understanding of the City's financial activity including fund balances, capital improvement project updates, employee cost changes and other municipal metrics. We believe these requests will set the stage for the intended uses of the general tax funds, better community engagement on spending priorities, and the City's overall financial long -term health. The Chamber's support of Measure Y is underpinned by the belief that our community becomes better with this revenue. The revenue supports important improvements in San Luis Obispo and provides resources to further resident priorities that improve our town's quality of life. When we look back eight years from now, we want to see that the general tax revenue was devoted to important investments in capital improvements, exceptional delivery of services, clean and safe neighborhoods, the acquisition of open space, and a strong local economy that supports jobs and housing. We want to see a city that is strong financially and has reversed the upward trend on unsustainable costs. We believe that this vision is possible if we — our elected leadership, the residents and the business community - collectively come together to achieve it. Sincerely, �M W , l'lem9 Tim Williams Chair of the Board Clint Pearce Vice Chair, Economic Development Barry VanderKelen Chair, Measure Y Task Force Donna Lewis Vice Chair, Legislative Affairs Chris Richardson Kris Yetter Vice Chair, Community Affairs Immediate Past Chair Bob Stets Treasurer T 805.781.2670 F 805.543.1255 E slochamber @slochamber.org Ermina Karim President /CEO Cheryl Cuming Vice Chair, Membership /Operations Kathy Eppright Board Counsel "loclrunb f or( 005 ;iacolll slo -bi linces corn 2.11E COUNCIL MEETING: b5 �� { ITEM NO.: & L1 subvv�tiAi< 4 W f�UY�Li{ f Pv i A� Proposed 2015 TAX Revenue Enhancement Financial' sup•, , Oversight Commission Appointed by: SLO City Council with Council Liaison & Alternate providing significant direction Chair: Citizen Member of Investment Oversight Committee Members: Chair plus 6 members, at least two CPAs with no contracts with the City of SLO. Possible citizen representatives (not staff) of Downtown businesses, neighborhood leadership Purpose: To provide transparency /approval of staff recommendations of expenditures of revenue tax enhancement dollars approved by taxpayers. - To report to the SLO City Council with minimal staff involvement and maximum citizen accountability. - Staff to propose a budget of all Measure Y expenditures to the Committee for approval on an annual basis. - Staff to detail individual proposed expenditures in preparation for each individual Measure Y project presented to SLO City Council. Meetings: - Quarterly meetings for education and updates on SLO financial status of the tax. - Meetings called to consider the use of Measure Y dollars proposed to the City Council when they cannot be integrated into quarterly meetings. Fiscal Impact: All members to be compensated $50 per meeting or stipends equal to the Planning and Architectural Review commissions. Proposed by Kathy Smith, SLO City Council Member 516114 Kremke, Kate From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:12 PM To: Kremke, Kate Subject: FW: Downtown Support for Local Revenue Measure Attachments: DowntownAssociationSupportsRevenueMeasure05 .06.14.13df T zJ— MAY 0 6 2014 Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk . city of Im's of.�Ispo 990 Balm Street San I uis Obispo, CA 93401 tOi 1805,781,7102 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date 15A.,71114 Item #Lel— From: Dominic [ma ilto: Dom inic(Uowntownslo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:07 PM To: Marx, Jan Cc: Mejia, Anthony; Lichtig, Katie; Codron, Michael; Johnson, Lee; Horch, Robert; Storton, Keith; Ermina Karim; Charlene Rosales; Greg Coates; Beau Cram; Joanne Currie; Carl Dudley; Jules DuRocher; Landy Fike; Josh Haring; Kannyn January; Amy Kardel; Marshall Ochylski; Pierre Rademaker; Gary Stevenson; Erica Stewart; Kimberly Walker Subject: Downtown Support for Local Revenue Measure Good Afternoon Mayor Marx, At the direction of the Board of Directors for the San Luis Obispo Downtown Association, I am forwarding you the official position for the local revenue measure that will be discussed tonight at the City Council meeting. Please find attached a letter for you to review and share with your colleagues. If you or any of your fellow council members have any questions or concerns as to the position of the Board, I invite you to call me or anyone of our board members. Thank you for your careful consideration of a very important issue that affects the businesses and livelihood of many of our community's residents. Sincerely, Dominic Tartaglia Executive Director SLO Downtown Association l ] 08 Garden Street, Suite 210 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 541 -0286 Dominica,downtownslo.com www.DowntownSLO.com San Luis Obispo Downtown Association PO Box 1402 San Luis Obispo California 93406 Phone 805 -541 -0286 Fax 805- 781 -2647 www.downtownsloxom 06 May 2014 To: Mayor Jan Marx and City Council Members From: Dominic Tartaglia, Executive Director San Luis Obispo Downtown Association Re: REVIEW OF BALLOT MEASURE LANGUAGE AND A DRAFT ORDINANCE TO EXTEND THE "ESSENTIAL SERVICES TRANSACTION (SALES) AND USE TAX" — THE CITY'S LOCAL HALF- PERCENT SALES TAX — AND DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES The San Luis Obispo Downtown Association is appreciative of the benefits that our community, both within and outside of our district, has received as a result from the funds generated by Measure Y. Since 2006, the downtown core of San Luis Obispo has benefited from projects that include replacement of failing infrastructure, re- surfacing of existing streets, improved public safety benefits and greater access to and from the area by motorists, public transit and pedestrians /cyclists alike. All of the aforementioned projects can be attributed to the simple fact that Measure Y funds were available to the City Administration to put to use toward improving San Luis Obispo. The Downtown Association recognizes that we are but one neighborhood among many and yet we still benefited from this extensive effort to improve all neighborhoods. As the Board of Directors for the San Luis Obispo Downtown Association, 14 members of the downtown community have had many meetings to discuss the benefits and detriments of an extension of this revenue measure. To date, the Downtown Association has not taken a formal position on the revenue measure. Rather, they have voiced a strong opinion that this should be a matter that the present council submits to ballot in the coming election, regardless of individual support for the particular measure. The Board of Directors felt very strongly that this is an important decision that affects our entire community and the public should be given the opportunity to exercise their right to vote on this matter. Tonight, the Council has an opportunity to place this measure on the 2014 ballot and the Downtown Association still feels strongly that the Council allow the voice of the citizens be heard at the polls, regarding the fate of Measure Y. After reviewing the proposed draft language in the staff report, the San Luis Obispo Downtown Association Board of Directors urges that the Council put a general revenue measure on the ballot for the November election. As we San Luis Obispo Downtown Association PO Box 1402 San Luis Obispo California 93406 Phone 805 -541 -0286 Far 805 -781 -2647 www.downtownslo.com represent a large number of businesses in the community we also work closely with the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce and share many of the same concerns as their Measure Y Taskforce. Specifically, we believe that it is in the best interest of our community to support a general revenue measure with an 8 -year sunset clause complete with a citizen oversight committee of individuals that are familiar with the financial and political elements of such a revenue measure. The Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Association also both ask that this council adopt a long -term public commitment to further address escalating pension obligations and personnel costs so that it may help guide sound fiscal policy that the residents will certainly benefit from. Again, we agree with Chamber of Commerce in regard to a user- friendly online dashboard that will grant users an opportunity to understand how the City of San Luis Obispo is utilizing funds to improve our community through comprehensive financial metrics. This will not only keep our public apprised of useful information but should provide the transparency that the public has repeatedly expressed concern for. Tonight, as you carefully consider this matter with your colleagues please recognize the implication that this sales tax has on local small businesses and residents. The power of a half -cent sales tax is staggering when you look at the cumulative value of Measure Y funds and the projects and services that benefited from the infusion of those funds and consequently benefited the local businesses and residents. The ability to capture funds from tourists, commuters and guests and reinvest them in our community has resulted in a town renowned for being one of the brightest, happiest and most desirable communities in the world and we hope to see that presence continue to grow in the community with the help of a general purpose tax measure extension in November. Sincerely, � ��— � V. Dominic Tartaglia Executive Director, San Luis Obispo Downtown Association CC: SLO Downtown Association Board of Directors Katie Lichtig, City Manager Michael Codron, Lee Johnson, Robert Horch and Captain Keith Storton (Downtown Champions) Ermina Karim and Char Rosales, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce