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 6/20/13)
Alameda County Transportation Commission (source)
Alameda - Contra Costa Transit District
Bay Area Rapid Transit
California Nevada Cement Association
Cities of: Albany, Dublin, Fremont Hayward Livermore,
Pleasanton, San Leandro,
and Union City
Contra Costa County Transportation Authority
East Bay Regional Park District
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/20/13)
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.
CONTINUED
AB 210
Page
4
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.
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 6/20/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED