City Mgm't Offers Councilmembers These Tax Hike Ballot Options, Will Ask On Jan. 26 If They Want To Do Nothing, Seek Further Info...Or Put A Tax Increase Measure Of Some Kind On Ballot
LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.
(Jan. 15, 2015, 10:40 p.m.) -- As reported first (again) by LBREPORT.com on December 22, a City Council item agendized three days before Christmas ostensibly to discuss citywide "infrastructure needs" at which five of nine Councilmembers present (Price, Supernaw, Mungo, Andrews absent) asked city management to provide options for "new sources of revenue" has developed into a full scale City Hall effort to seek a tax increase -- type and amount still publicly unspecified -- from Long Beach voters.
City management has agendized an item for the Jan. 26, 2015 City Council meeting at which the Council can either "receive and file" (take no action) on a management memo describing "revenue measure options" OR direct the City Manager to provide additional information relative regarding "revenue measure options" OR direct the City Attorney to prepare "any and all documents necessary" for a possible revenue [tax increase] measure in the City, to be returned to the Council for a vote to place the measure on a ballot.
[Scroll down for further.]
The turn of events virtually assures that the proposed tax increase will become an issue in Council elections in districts 2, 6 and 8 (district 4 has no ballot opposition or announced write-in opposition.)
The January 26 Council item comes just weeks after the Council voted (without dissent) to bind LB taxpayers citywide to annual escalating costs (CPI) to rebuild LB's Civic Center using a transaction that avoids approval by a vote of the people. The Council failed to pursue a more modest seismic retrofit of LB's less than 40 year old City Hall which would have had fixed annual costs and required approval by a vote of the people.
"Should the City Council wish to proceed with a ballot measure, action would be needed to determine the measure type and tax amount, the ballot measure language, and the timing of the ballot initiative. The information provided in the Revenue Measure Options presentation could serve as the basis from which the City Council could start its deliberations on a potential tax measure in the City," management's Jan. 26 agendizing memo states. (For full memo, click here.)
Advertisement
Advertisement
The Jan. 26 agenda item attaches a memo quietly sent by management to the Mayor and Councilmembers dated Jan. 13 -- the date of Mayor Garcia's "State of the City" message -- detailing how the Council could put such a tax increase measure on the ballot and the level of voter approval required for passage, along with a planned "Power Point" presentation. Unlike Mayor Foster in 2008, Mayor Garcia isn't taking the lead on the issue publicly.
In his State of the City message, Garcia didn't mention a tax increase; he simply listed items he said he'd like to "work with the Council" on: infrastructure improvements, restoring a Fire Engine to Station 8 (Belmont Shore) and restoring LBPD's South Division [a budget cost saving measure for which Garcia voted for FY13 that LBPD management told the public wouldn't affect police staffing levels.]
Such varying items could funded through a General Tax Increase for General Tax purposes...but if approved by voters as a General Tax, it could then legally be spent by Councilmembers for whatever general purposes they wish after voters enact it.
Advertisement
Advertisement
City management's Jan. 13 memo to the Mayor/Council indicates the following potential elections for a tax increase and the level of voter approval required:
If in June, 2016:
For a General Tax for General Tax purposes (can be spent basically as a Council majority wishes): Five Councilmembers can place it on the ballot for City's June election (coinciding with possible Council runoffs in districts 2, 4, 6 and 8) and it could be enacted with a simple voter majority (50%+1).
For a Special Tax for Specified Purposes: Five Councilmembers could place it on the ballot for the June election and it would require 2/3 voter approval.
For Nov. 2016 state/federal election or any other election:
For a General Tax for General Tax purposes (could be spent basically as a Council majority wishes): A Council majority vote could put it on the ballot BUT it would require a unanimous Council vote declaring a "fiscal emergency" for approval by a simple voter majority (50%+1).
For a Special Tax for Specified Purposes: A Council majority could put it on the ballot and it would require 2/3 voter approval.
Advertisement
Advertisement
[City management Jan. 13 memo text] Timing. The next general election for the City is the April 12, 2016 Primary. However, the filing deadline is January 15, 2016, which is too late to put an item on the April ballot as there would not be sufficient time to craft a measure and take action at the City Council to place the measure on the ballot. The following general election is the June 7, 2016 Run-off election. Even if this election is not conducted due to the results of the April primary, this is considered a general election for the purposes of voting requirements. In order to meet the filing requirements for the June election, the City Council will need to adopt a resolution in February to meet the March 11, 2016 filing date, Filing as early as possible prior to the March 11 filing date is recommended as there is a possibility that if the County has too many ballot initiatives, it will exclude the items that were submitted at a later time. Depending on the measure chosen for a general election, it would require a simple majority vote of the
City Council to call for a general or a special tax, or a two thirds vote of the City Council for a Transaction and Use Tax or General Obligation Bond, For the electorate to ultimately approve the tax, it would require either a majority vote for a general tax or a two thirds vote for a special tax, Parcel Tax, or a General Obligation Bond.
The last opportunity for a regularly scheduled election this year is the November 8, 2016 election, which would be considered a special election for the City for the purposes of voting requirements. In order to meet the filing requirements for the November election, the City Council will need to adopt a resolution in July to meet the August 12, 2016 filing date. Depending on the measure, it would require a simple majority vote of the City Council to call for a for a special tax, a two thirds vote of the City Council for a Transaction and Use Tax or a General Obligation Bond, or a unanimous vote of the City Council and declaration of fiscal emergency for a general tax. For the electorate to ultimately approve the tax, it would require either a majority vote for a general tax or a two thirds vote for a special tax, Parcel Tax, or a General Obligation Bond. The City Council could also choose to call a special election. A special election would follow the same voting requirements as the November election described above.
Management's memo includes Power Point slides listing what it calls "Tax Measure Options" as follows:
Parcel Tax
Utility User Tax – Existing & Potential
Local Sales & Use Tax
(Transaction & Use Tax)
Business License Tax
Oil Barrel Tax
Oil Severance Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax
Parking Tax
Real Property Transfer Tax
Admissions Tax
(Details for each type of tax on Power Point slides included in management's memo at this link.
Under "Considerations for Tax Measures," management's Power Point state:
Parcel Tax (New)
Predictable and reliable
Usually viewed as another form of property tax
Utility User Tax (Increase and/or New)
Relatively large tax base
Based on commodities, some of which are in decline
Local Transaction & Use Tax (Increase)
May affect consumer shopping habits
Sensitive to economic conditions -- grows in a strong economy and declines in a recession
Business License Tax (Increase)
Revenue increase relatively small compared to other options
Oil Taxes
Perceived to impact very few taxpayers directly
May result in decreasing oil production in Long Beach
Transient Occupancy Tax (Increase)
Increase could be detrimental to convention bookings and tourism
Revenue increase relatively small compared to other options
Parking Tax (New)
Few private parking lots; revenue relatively small for private lots
Could have high costs to administer
Real Property Transfer Tax (Increase)
Implementation benefits the County at the cost of the property owner
Revenue increase relatively small compared to other options
Admissions Tax (New)
Could be detrimental to special events booking and participation
Revenue increase relatively small compared to other options
Funding Mechanisms for Infrastructure
Limited to real property acquisition and improvements
Under "Next Steps," management's Power Point slides state:
Should the City Council wish to proceed with a ballot measure:
Decide on measure type and tax amount
Develop ballot measure language
Determine timing of ballot measure
The next general election for the City is the April 12, 2016 Primary. However, filing deadline is January 15, 2016.
The following general election is the June 7, 2016 Run-off election:
Adopt a resolution in February to meet March 11, 2016 filing date
Depending on the measure, it would require a simple majority vote or a two thirds vote of the City Council
The November 8, 2016 election would be considered a special election for the City
Adopt a resolution in July to meet August 12, 2016 filing date
Depending on the measure, it would require a simple majority vote of the City Council for a special tax, a two thirds vote of City Council for a Transaction and Use Tax, or a unanimous vote of Council and declaration of fiscal emergency for a general tax
In 2008, then-Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske refused to go along with Mayor Bob Foster's desire to have the Council declare a "fiscal emergency" which would have let City Hall impose a parcel property tax for what Foster called "infrastructure" purposes with 50%+1 voter approval. Councilwoman Schipske's action effectively required City Hall to get 2/3 voter approval for a parcel tax.
Mayor Foster raised over $700,000 to mount a campaign in support of the tax; he appeared at various community meetings at which he fielded audience questions but declined to debate a speaker(s) in opposition one on one. Former Redevelopment Agency boardmember Terry Jensen was willing to debate Foster, but denied the opportunity, instead spoke separately at a number meetings (including at the Long Beach Press Club, where an empty chair was left for Foster), detailing what he viewed as serious flaws in the measure. Meanwhile, the LB Taxpayers Association, led by Tom Stout and Kathy Ryan, dogged Foster across the city at his appearances and distributed fliers and signs.
On Nov. 4, 2008, despite being seriously outspent and coinciding with the high turnout Nov. 2008 Presidential election of Barack Obama, the parcel tax failed to receive the required 2/3 voter approval and barely received a majority vote (52.86%.)
Developing...with further to follow on LBREPORT.com.
