Albany, California, Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax, Measure O1 (November 2016)
| Measure O1: Albany Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
 Approved
|
| Topic: |
| Local business tax Expires in: Does not expire |
| Related articles |
| Local business tax on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California Alameda County, California ballot measures City tax on the ballot |
| See also |
| Albany, California |
A sugar-sweetened beverage tax measure was on the ballot for Albany voters in Alameda County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was approved.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of establishing a general tax of one cent per ounce on sugar-sweetened beverages. |
| A no vote was a vote against establishing a general tax of one cent per ounce on sugar-sweetened beverages. |
Election results
| Measure O1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 6,282 | 71.66% | ||
| No | 2,485 | 28.34% | ||
- Election results from Alameda County Registrar of Voters
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]
| “ |
Shall an ordinance enacting a one cent per ounce general tax, providing approximately $223,000 annually with no expiration date, on the distribution of sugar-sweetened beverages and sweeteners used to sweeten such drinks, but exempting: (1) sweeteners typically used by consumers and distributed to grocery stores; (2) drinks and sweeteners distributed to small retailers; (3) milk products, 100% juice, baby formula, alcohol, or drinks taken for medical reasons, be adopted?[2] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Albany City Attorney:
| “ |
The City Council has placed before the voters the question whether to approve an ordinance enacting a permanent tax of one cent ($0.01) per ounce on the distribution in Albany of sugarsweetened beverages and the added-calorie sweeteners used to make them. The tax on added-calorie sweeteners would be calculated based on the number of ounces of sweetened beverage that would typically be produced using that sweetener. The tax would be payable by the distributor, not the customer. A full copy of the ordinance text is printed in these ballot materials. Beverages Sugar sweetened beverages whose distribution would be subject to the tax would include sugar-sweetened beverages, like soda, energy drinks, and presweetened tea, that contain at least 2 calories per fluid ounce. Certain beverages would not be subject to the tax: • Baby formula • Beverages in which milk is the primary ingredient • Liquids sold for use for weight reduction as a meal replacement • Medical beverages (beverages used as oral nutritional therapy or oral rehydration electrolyte solution for infants and children), • Beverages containing only natural fruit and vegetable juice • Alcoholic beverages. Added-calorie sweeteners Added-calorie sweeteners would include any edible product that is perceived as sweet and adds calories, and is used to make sugar-sweetened beverages, including but not limited to sucrose, fructose, glucose, other sugars, and high fructose corn syrup. Added-calorie sweeteners would not include natural, concentrated, or reconstituted fruit or vegetable juice or any combination thereof. Applicability and exemptions The tax would apply to: • distribution of sugar-sweetened beverages to stores and restaurants; • distribution of sweeteners to restaurants; and • distribution of sweeteners to stores where they are used to make sugar sweetened beverages for customers. The tax would not apply to: • distribution of sweeteners to food stores; • distribution of sugar sweetened beverages or sweeteners to small retailers -- those with less than $100,000 in annual gross receipts. Expenditure of Tax Proceeds and Annual Audit Because this measure does not legally restrict the use of tax revenue for any particular purposes, it is classified as a "general tax". The proposed Ordinance requires the City Council to conduct an annual process for soliciting advisory recommendations from a variety of organizations and individuals regarding expenditure of the tax proceeds. The City's independent auditors would provide an annual report reviewing the collection, management and expenditure of tax revenues. Duration of Tax The proposed ordinance does not contain an expiration date. A "Yes" vote is a vote in favor of the tax. A "No" vote is a vote against the tax. This measure would be approved if a majority of the votes cast on it are "Yes" votes.[2] |
” |
| —Albany City Attorney[3] | ||
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Support
Supporters
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[3]
- Jon Guhl, Albany Restaurant Owner
- Robert S. Lieber, R.N.
- Dr. Patricia Low, Member, Board of Education, Albany Unified School District
- Rochelle Nason, Council Member, City of Albany
- Dr. Immi Song, D.D.S., M.S.
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[3]
| “ |
Please vote YES to protect our children’s health. Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that consumption of sugary drinks causes widespread health problems, starting in childhood. In addition to diabetes, obesity, tooth decay and heart disease are also linked to sugary drink consumption. Two of every five Americans are now predicted to develop diabetes in their lifetimes as the epidemic spreads. To help address this, this measure places a 1 cent per ounce tax on distributors (not on consumers) on the volume of high-calorie, low-nutrition sugary drinks and syrups they sell. It does not tax natural fruit or vegetable juices, milk products, baby formula, or drinks taken for health reasons. It is NOT a sales tax. It is estimated that the tax may generally reduce the availability of sugary drinks in Albany and help shift people to healthier beverages. Additionally, the measure will generate needed revenue for Albany that can be spent on physical fitness, health and nutrition programs, or on other priorities identified by residents. These activities can save lives by preventing diabetes and other sugary drink related disease. It is estimated that the tax will raise $223,000 a year or more. By passing this measure the City of Albany will unite with the efforts of neighboring cities in our region. Berkeley passed and successfully implemented a similar measure in 2015 that is now funding nutrition and health programs, and Oakland and San Francisco are voting on similar measures in this election. This measure requires the City Council to hold an annual public process to consider how best to spend the funds raised by tax. Participation by public health professionals, a representative from the schools, several city bodies is called for. Vote YES for health.[2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[3]
- Sanjeev Dhungel, Owner, Everest Kitchen
- Jas Sikand, Owner, Albany Hill Mini Mart
- Sarata Mike Uong, Owner, Royal Grand Coffee
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[3]
| “ |
Berkeley just tried this tax, and it is not working. The cost of sodas is not going up in many instances in Berkeley stores – it is the cost of groceries that are going up. The politicians call it a tax on sodas. If you do the research for yourself you will find that is not true. The reason why the Berkeley measure is not working is that instead of being imposed directly on beverages, the tax is imposed on “distributors,” including small business owners. This is because state law restricts the ability of local governments to impose a sales tax directly on most beverages. Nothing prevents this tax from being passed on to any item in grocery stores and restaurants. Small businesses will be forced to pass this tax on to customers – meaning higher food and grocery prices. So even if consumers don’t buy sodas, their grocery bills could still go up. Senator Bernie Sanders disagrees with these types of regressive taxes, saying it is “…a regressive grocery tax that would disproportionately affect low-income and middle-class Americans." The politicians say this tax is about health, but not one penny is dedicated to health programs. The official ballot states, “This general tax will provide revenue to be available for the general governmental needs.” Neighborhood grocers, restaurant owners and concerned residents oppose Measure O1 because it is a tax on food and groceries. We have more important problems to solve in Albany, the last thing we need is a grocery tax that will make our city even more expensive. Enough is enough - Vote NO on the Grocery Tax, No on Measure O1. [2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a vote of the governing officials of Albany, California.
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Albany Local business tax. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Alameda County, "November 8, 2016 General Election Local Measures," accessed October 12, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Alameda County, "Measure O1," accessed October 28, 2016
| |||||
