Belmont, California, Sales Tax, Measure I (November 2016)
| Measure I: Belmont Sales Tax |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
 Approved
|
| Topic: |
| Local sales tax Expires in: 30 years |
| Related articles |
| Local sales tax on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California San Mateo County, California ballot measures Local sales tax on the ballot |
| See also |
| Belmont, California |
A sales tax was on the ballot for Belmont voters in San Mateo County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was approved.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of enacting an additional 0.5 percent sales tax to provide funds for general city services. |
| A no vote was a vote against enacting an additional 0.5 percent sales tax to provide funds for general city services. |
Election results
| Measure I | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 7,018 | 55.24% | ||
| No | 5,687 | 44.76% | ||
- Election results from San Mateo County Elections Office
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]
| “ |
To provide local funding for maintaining general City of Belmont services/facilities such as fixing potholes, repairing 69 miles of city streets, maintaining 911 emergency response, repairing deteriorating storm drains, reducing traffic congestion/improving public safety on neighborhood streets, shall Belmont enact a 1/2 cent sales tax providing $1,300,000 annually for 30 years, requiring citizens' oversight, independent audits, with all funds for local City of Belmont services and no funds for Sacramento? |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Belmont City Attorney:
| “ |
Measure I places before the voters the question whether to approve an ordinance enacting a temporary transactions and use ("sales") tax within the City of Belmont. The tax rate would be one-half of one percent (0.50%) of the retail sales price or 1/2 cent for an items that costs $1, and is estimated to initially generate additional city revenue of $1,300,000 annually. The tax would remain in effect for thirty years. The tax proceeds would be deposited into the City's general fund and cannot be legally taken by the State. The Measure's funds would be available to support the full range of municipal services such as infrastructure repair and improvement, 911 emergency response, recreation facilities, and other City services. The City Council placed the measure on the ballot on July 26, 2016, by unanimously adopting Resolution 2016-080. The full text of the ordinance is printed in these ballot materials. Currently the sales tax rate on retail sales in Belmont is 9.0% of the purchase price. The City's share of the total sales tax rate is 1.0%. The remainder goes to the State, the County, and various other agencies. The sales tax rate will fall to 8.75% on January 1, 2017 when a 0.25% portion of the rate retained by the State under Proposition 30 expires. The City will continue to receive its 1.0%. If approved by the voters, the measure would enact a 0.50% transaction and use tax which would increase the total sales rate on retail sales in Belmont to 9.25% with a likely effective date of April 1, 2017. The City's share of the total sales tax rate would increase to 1.5%. The existing sales tax is levied on the sale or use of tangible personal peroperty sold at retail, with certain limited exceptions. Retailers collect the tax at the time of sale and remit the funds to the State Board of Equalization, which administers the tax. Sales tax proceeds from this measure would be levied, collected, and administered in the same manner as the existing sales tax. Because this measure does not legally restrict the use of tax revenue to any specific purpose, it is classified as a "general tax", not a "special tax." The tax proceeds may be used for any valid municipal governmental purpose. The Measure requires an independent auditor to prepare an annual audit report reveiwing whether the tax revenue has been collected and administered in accordance with the law. The report will be a matter of public record. The measure also calls on the City Council to form a Citizen Advisory Committee to monitor and report on how the tax is spent. This committee will be subject to open meeting laws. Only the voters may extend the tax or increase the rate. The provisions of the measure may be amended without a vote of the people. A "Yes" vote is a vote in favor of the tax. A "No" vote is a vote against the measure. The Measure will be approved if it receives a simple majority of "Yes" votes. |
” |
| —Belmont City Attorney[1] | ||
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:[1]
- Eric Reed, Mayor
- John Violet, Belmont City Treasurer
- Nelson Corteway, Immediate Past President, Belmont Heights Civic Improvement Assoc.
- Ulla Foehr, Parks and Recreation Vice Chair
- Alan Sarver, President, Sequoia Union High School District Board of Trustees
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[1]
| “ |
Protect our LOCAL services. Vote "Yes" on I! Belmont is a special place to live with an amazing quality of life but our infrastructure is deteriorating. Belmont's streets are ranked worst in the County and in the bottom 8% in the Bay Area. Vote Yes on I. Belmont's 50 year old storm drain system is inadequate, flooding and damaging our roads during major storms. Some neighborhoods don't even have storm drains. Vote Yes on I. Yes on I keeps your taxpayer dollars LOCAL to fund OUR needs and priorities such as: Yes on I fixing potholds and repairing the worst of our 69 miles of crumbling streets and sidewalks. Yes on I repairing deteriorated storm drains, protecting the environment and water quality by reducing runoff. Yes on I maintaining 911 emergency response times. Yes on I maintaining the quality of life services we all expect and deserve. Yes on I provides a reliable source of local funding to address badly-needed infrastructure repairs now, before they become even more expensive in the future. Yes on I helps ensure that visitors who add wear and tear to our roads will share thecost. Sacramento has a history of taking Belmont revenues. By law, every penny of Measure I must be spent on our LOCAL needs and cannot be taken by Sacramento politicians. Here's what Measure I won't do: Measure I is not a tax on your home or property. Measure I is not applied to food purchased as groceries or prescription medications. Measure I includes strong fiscal accountability provisions including a Citizens' Committee to review and report on expenditures and mandatory annual independent financial audits by a certified public accountant to ensure funds are spent responsibly as promised. Join a unanimous City Council, Mayor and your neighbors. Vote "Yes" on I. |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[1]
- Timothy Strinden, Retired Federal Auditor
- Dave Warden, Vice-President, Mid-Peninsula Water District
- Tran Tran, Financial Controller
- Bill Larsen, Retired Criminal Prosecutor
- Gordon M. Seely, Ph.D., Professor of History Emeritus
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[1]
| “ |
Belmont officials claim there is a "crisis" and "emergency" requiring a sales tax increase. Yet the City's financial condition is the best it's been in many years. Expected new revenues are more than adequate to bring the City's infrastructure (mainly streets and storm drains) up to par. Furthermore this is a general tax - not earmarked for infrastructure. The City could use it for any purpose. In fact, the City cannot legally say now how the funds will be used. We are giving the City a "blank check" which can be spent on employee salaries, pensions, and literally whatever City Hall wants over the next 30 years. Belmont's financial reserves have increased by more than $6 million over the past six years to $9.7 million which could be spent on streets and storm drains. This improving revenue trend will only accelerate in future years with new development projects contributing $2-$3 million more each year! This includes an estimated $1.5 million per year in hotel taxes alone from the new Marriott and Hilton hotels. Belmont could raise another $700,000 each year just by increasing its hotel tax rate to 12% - matching most surrounding cities - with no added burden on our residents or businesses. Estimated yearly revenue increases from new projects include approximately $260,000 in property taxes, $231,000 from Crystal Spring Uplands School (CSUS), and $300,000 in rent from a new Clear Clannel digital billboard! These new revenues are much higher than the $1.3 million the City expects to raise from this proposed tax. Increasing our sales tax rate to 9.5% would make Belmont's rate higher than all the cities in San Mateo County but one! This high sales tax will hurt our local retail businesses. This sales tax increase is not needed and should be rejected. Vote NO on Measure I! |
” |
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a vote of the governing officials of Belmont, California.
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Belmont Local sales tax. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
Footnotes
| |||||
