BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                            



           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                        AB 210|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           
                                           
                                    THIRD READING


          Bill No:  AB 210
          Author:   Wieckowski (D), et al.
          Amended:  4/23/13 in Assembly
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE  :  5-2, 6/5/13
          AYES:  Wolk, Beall, DeSaulnier, Hernandez, Liu
          NOES:  Knight, Emmerson

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  46-23, 5/9/13 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Transactions and use taxes:  County of Alameda and  
          the County of 
                      Contra Costa

           SOURCE  :     Alameda County Transportation Commission


           DIGEST  :    This bill extends the current authority for Alameda  
          County to adopt an ordinance imposing a transactions and use tax  
          from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020, and allows Contra  
          Costa County to adopt an ordinance imposing a transactions and  
          use tax in the same manner as Alameda County.

           ANALYSIS  :    Existing law allows cities and counties to impose  
          additional sales and use taxes, called transactions and use  
          taxes, up to a combined 2% rate, with voter approval.  The tax  
          must be imposed in increments of 0.125%.  In Alameda County, for  
          example, San Leandro imposes a 0.25% tax; Union City imposes a  
          0.50% tax and Albany imposes a 0.50% tax.  The County also  
          imposes a 0.50% tax for the Alameda County Transportation  
                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                     AB 210
                                                                     Page  
          2

          Improvement Authority; 0.50% tax for the Alameda County  
          Transportation Improvement Authority; and a 0.50% County  
          Essential Healthcare Services tax.  Because the County exceeds  
          the 2% cap, it can no longer impose sales and use taxes.  

          Existing law AB 1086 (Wieckowski, Chapter 327, Statutes of 2011)  
          authorized Alameda County to impose a district tax for  
          transportation programs at a capped rate of 0.50%, only if the  
          ordinance was approved by the voters before December 31, 2013.   
          The ordinance failed with a vote of 66.5% in November, 2012.

          This bill:

          1. Extends the date for Alameda County to adopt an ordinance  
             imposing a transactions and use tax, that exceeds the  
             combined statutory limit of 2%, for the support of countywide  
             transportation programs from January 1, 2014 to December 31,  
             2020, and removes the requirement that the tax be placed on  
             the November 6, 2012 General Election ballot.

          2. Allows Contra Costa County to adopt an ordinance proposing  
             the imposition of a transactions and use tax for the support  
             of countywide transportation programs at a rate of no more  
             than 0.50% that, in combination with other specified taxes,  
             exceeds the 2% statutory limitation.

          3. Requires counties to meet the following criteria before  
             imposing the tax: 

             A.    The ordinance proposing the transactions and use tax  
                must be adopted in accordance with the applicable voting  
                approval requirement.

             B.    The ordinance must be submitted to the electorate and  
                be approved by the voters pursuant to the California  
                Constitution, Article XIIIC.

             C.    The proposed tax must conform to existing law.

          4. Finds and declares that a special law is necessary because of  
             the unique fiscal pressures experienced in the Counties of  
             Alameda and Contra Costa in providing essential  
             transportation programs.


                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                     AB 210
                                                                     Page  
          3

           Comments
           
          Beginning April 1, 2013, there will be 169 local jurisdictions  
          (city, county, and special purpose entity) imposing a district  
          tax for general or specific purposes.  Of the 169 jurisdictions,  
          43 are county-imposed taxes and 126 are city-imposed taxes.  Of  
          the 43 county-imposed taxes, 28 are imposed for transportation  
          purposes. 

          Currently, the district tax rates vary from 0.10% to 1%.  The  
          combined state, local and district tax rates range from 7.625%  
          to 9.50%, with the exception of the cities of La Mirada, Pico  
          Rivera, and South Gate (10%) in Los Angeles County. 
          AB 2321 (Feuer, Chapter 302, Statutes of 2008) expanded the cap  
          for Los Angeles County.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  No   Local:  
           No

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  6/6/13)

          Alameda County Transportation Commission (source)
          Alameda - Contra Costa Transit District 
          California Nevada Cement Association
          Contra Costa County Transportation Authority
          East Bay Regional Park District
          Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority
          Metropolitan Transportation Commission

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  6/6/13)

          California Taxpayers Association
          Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    Proponents state this bill allows  
          Alameda and Contra Costa County to exceed the current 2%  
          combined county rate, it abides by all local voting  
          requirements, and only takes effect if voters approve the new  
          transactions and use tax at an election prior to December 31,  
          2020.

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :    Opponents argue that this bill will  
          further distort the intention and design of California local  
          sales tax by promoting inconsistent rates amongst the counties.   

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                     AB 210
                                                                     Page  
          4

          Additionally, excessive tax rates put the state at a competitive  
          disadvantage and forestall an economic recovery.  
           
           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  46-23, 5/9/13
          AYES:  Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bloom, Blumenfield, Bocanegra,  
            Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon,  
            Campos, Chau, Chesbro, Cooley, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong,  
            Frazier, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gordon, Roger Hernández,  
            Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lowenthal, Medina, Mitchell, Mullin,  
            Nazarian, Pan, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Skinner, Stone, Ting,  
            Torres, Weber, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez
          NOES:  Achadjian, Allen, Bigelow, Chávez, Conway, Dahle,  
            Donnelly, Fox, Beth Gaines, Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Harkey,  
            Jones, Linder, Maienschein, Mansoor, Morrell, Nestande, Olsen,  
            Salas, Wagner, Wilk
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Gray, Hall, Holden, Logue, Melendez,  
            Muratsuchi, Patterson, V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk-Silva, Waldron,  
            Vacancy


          AB:d  6/6/13   Senate Floor Analyses 

                           SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                   ****  END  ****
          



















                                                                CONTINUED