California Proposition 11, Rules Governing Local Sales and Use Taxes (1998)
| I • II • III • IV • V • VI|
VII • VIII • IX • X • XA
XB • XI • XII • XIII • XIII A
XIII B • XIII C • XIII D • XIV • XV • XVI • XVIII • XIX • XIX A • XIX B • XIX C
XX • XXI • XXII
XXXIV • XXXV
Proposition 11 said that municipalities could enter into sales tax revenue-sharing agreements with other local governments as long as the governing bodies of those governments agreed. Prior to Prop 11, voters in areas with proposed revenue-sharing agreements had to consent to the arrangement.
Of voters who cast a vote in this election, 1,313,195 or 15.23% did not cast a vote on Proposition 11.
Impact of Proposition 11
At the time that Prop 11 was approved in 1998, the California Constitution allowed counties and cities to enter into contracts to share their sales tax revenues from the so-called Bradley-Burns sales tax rate and from other add-on sales taxes as long as a majority of voters in each affected jurisdiction agreed to the revenue-sharing contract.
- In 1997-98, Californians paid $29 billion in sales tax.
- The state sales tax rate was 6%.
- There was a uniform local rate of 1.25%. This uniform local rate is known as the Bradley-Burns rate.
- Municipalities had optional local "add-on" rates.
- The minimum sales tax rate in any jurisdiction was 7.25%.
Proposition 11 authorized local governments to enter into revenue-sharing agreements if that agreement was approved by a two-thirds vote of each affected jurisdiction's governing body, rather than by a majority vote of the voters in the affected jurisdictions.
|I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XA • XB • XI • XII • XIII • XIII A • XIII B • XIII C • XIII D • XIV • XV • XVI • XVIII • XIX • XIX A • XIX B • XIX C • XX • XXI • XXII • XXXIV • XXXV|
Proposition 11 amended Section 29 of Article XIII. In the text below, the new parts of Section 29 appear in italics.
| SEC. 29. (a) The Legislature may authorize counties, cities and counties, and cities to enter into contracts to apportion between them the revenue derived from any sales or use tax imposed by them which that is collected for them by the State. Before any such the contract becomes operative, it shall be authorized by a majority of those voting on the question in each jurisdiction at a general or direct primary election.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), on and after the operative date of this subdivision, counties, cities and counties, and cities may enter into contracts to apportion between them the revenue derived from any sales or use tax imposed by them pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law, or any successor provisions, that is collected for them by the State, if the ordinance or resolution proposing each contract is approved by a two-thirds vote of the governing body of each jurisdiction that is a party to the contract.
The ballot title was:
The official ballot summary said:
- "This measure would authorize local governments to voluntarily enter into sales tax revenue sharing agreements by a two-thirds vote of the local city council or board of supervisors of each participating jurisdiction."
The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 11. That estimate was:
- No net change in total sales tax revenues going to cities and counties.
- Potential shift of sales tax revenues among cities and counties.
There were no campaign contributions either for or against Proposition 11 which were reported to the Secretary of State.
Path to the ballot
|Votes in legislature to refer to ballot|