[Austin/Gonzales/Richardson/Lowenthal agendizing memo text] Request the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance establishing a temporary Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax for general purposes at the rate of 1% for six years then declining to .5% for four years on the sale and/or use of all tangible personal property sold at retail in the City, to be placed on the ballot at the June 7, 2016 municipal election, and any and all documents related thereto. The tax will sunset after 10 years.

Also request the City Attorney to prepare a "rainy day" fund ballot measure so that the first 1% of any new revenue source created is placed into a special fund to be used to offset the impact of future recessions.

[Scroll down for further.]

Unmentioned in the Austin/Gonzalez/Richardson/Lowenthal agendizing memo: such a tax increase would make Long Beach one of L.A. County's highest sales tax cities and, if approved by voters, wouldn't legally guarantee the infrastructure and public safety uses the Councilmembers recite.

Councilmembers Austin/Gonzalez/Richardson/Lowenthal request that the City Attorney prepare "an advisory resolution to accompany the Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax to specify the council's intention to prioritize infrastructure repairs and restoration of public safety resources when allocating those funds." But an "advisory" resolution, despite its legalistic appearance, wouldn't and couldn't legally guarantee those uses or any other specific uses; the measure would substantively remain a general tax that current and future Councils could spend for any General Fund items they subsequently choose.

The Council could legally ensure the proposed tax revenue is used for specific purposes by using the taxpayer-protective mechanism championed by the late Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann and added to the CA Constitution by a statewide vote: specify certain uses in the tax measure itself which the public can enact with a 2/3 vote.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Nearly all L.A. County cities, including Long Beach, currently charge 9% sales tax. Avalon, Commerce, Culver City, El Monte, Inglewood, San Fernando and Santa Monica and South El Monte currently charge 9.5%; only La Mirada, Pico Rivera and South Gate currently charge 10%. Nearly all Orange County cities charge 8%. [Source: State Board of Equalization website listing cities by County at this link.]

Sales taxes are considered "regressive" taxes in the sense that they impact low income residents the hardest. (Spending several dollars more a month on consumer purchases goods might not matter much to a Naples resident, but could matter very much to some working class and poor families.)

City Hall's actions to advance the now-proposed general sale tax increase began with nearly no prior public discussion [apart from annual budget discussions] on December 22, 2015 through a Council "study session" item on city infrastructure needs. With a bare minimum quorum of five Council members present and low news visibility three days before Christmas, city management presented a Power Point slide show (without a backup memo agendized before the meeting for public review) contending the City needs $2.8 billion in infrastructure work over ten years, in response to which Councilman Austin stated:

"Let's put it out there...Show us how to get there; how do we fix it? And I think this Council may need to consider options for identifying sources of revenue to make needed investments in infrastructure and other important city services. And so what I'm asking for staff is, can you guys come back in the next few weeks, in the early part of next year, with some information to help guide this Council on a decision in that regard?" Assistant City Manager Tom Modica replied "if that's something the Council would like, we can certainly provide that."

Advertisement

Advertisement

Two days earlier, Austin released a list of current and former electeds endorsing his bid for a second Council term. including Mayor Garcia, four Council incumbents (Gonzalez, Price, Uranga and Richardson), three former Councilmembers (Neal, Lerch and Topsy-Elvord), LB Schoolboard members Kerr and Williams, LBCC Trustees Kellogg and Otto, Congressmembers Hahn and Alan Lowenthal, State Senators Lara, Hall and Mendoza, former state Senator Karnette and former Ass'ymember Bonnie Lowenthal, incumbent Ass'y speaker Rendon and Ass'ymembers O'Donnell, Gomez, Gipson and Jones-Sawyer, Sr.

Also endorsing Austin's re-election bid are two major city employee union PACs (police and firefighters) whose contracts will be coming up for negotiation; the Council voted last year to extend a contract the city's non-public safety employee union into the second half of 2016.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The Austin/Gonzalez/Richardson/Lowenthal Feb. 16 agenda item released Feb. 12 parallels a Feb. 11 letter from Mayor Garcia, co-signed by former Mayors Bob Foster and Beverly O'Neill, urging the Council to put a sales tax increase on the June ballot (text here.) The letter attached survey results in a format common to campaign advocacy releases ("to interested parties") without details frequently provided in non-advocacy surveys -- including the full list of questions asked and answers received document here. The document doesn't disclosed who ordered the survey without a Council vote or who paid for it. The survey results released by Mayor Garcia claim widespread public support for the City's current course and for a tax increase for infrastructure and public safety. The survey began a few days after Garcia delivered his Jan. 13 State of the City message reciting a bright future but citing public safety and infrastructure needs without tax increase specifics.

On Jan. 26, the Council scheduled a special meeting at which city management reported (in response to Austin's and the Council's Dec. 22 stated desire for "revenue" increases) on various types of tax increases and ballot timing options (June or November.)

A special meeting of the Council is also agendized for Feb. 23 for items not yet made public; its speculated subject matter (due for release Tuesday Feb. 16) may include a vote to adopt a formal resolution to put the City Hall written tax increase on the ballot with other related items. An early March deadline looms if the Council presses ahead with putting its desired tax increase on the June ballot instead of November.

If put on the June ballot, the proposed tax increase could coincide with elections in the Council districts 2, 6 and 8, where three candidate races in April could require June runoffs.

City Hall's actions seeking voter approval to increase LB's sales tax come just weeks after the Council voted (without dissent) to enter into a transaction to rebuild LB's Civic Center without seeking voter approval. The Council-approved Civic Center transaction requires sending annual increasing LB taxpayer payments to a private developer/operator for 40+ years without seeking bids or inviting presentations from experts [independent of city management] on a City Hall seismic retrofit that could have been financed with fixed annual bond payments with voter approval.

Developing.