Berkeley, California, City Appropriation Limit Increase, Measure V1 (November 2016)
| Measure V1: Berkeley City Appropriation Limit Increase |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
 Approved
|
| Topic: |
| Gann overrides |
| Related articles |
| Gann overrides on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California Alameda County, California ballot measures Local spending limit on the ballot |
| See also |
| Berkeley, California |
A measure to increase the city's appropriation limit was on the ballot for Berkeley voters in Alameda County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was approved.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of increasing the city's appropriation limit for four years to allow the city to spend all of its revenue. |
| A no vote was a vote against increasing the city's appropriation limit for four years to allow the city to spend all of its revenue. |
Election results
| Measure V1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 47,070 | 87.69% | ||
| No | 6,608 | 12.31% | ||
- Election results from Alameda County Registrar of Voters
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]
| “ |
Shall the City’s appropriation limit under Article XIIIB of the California Constitution be increased to allow expenditure of the proceeds of City taxes and income from the investment of those taxes for fiscal years 2017 through 2020? Financial Implications: This measure would not increase taxes or impose a new tax. It would authorize the City to continue to spend the proceeds of already-approved taxes for FY 2017 through 2020.[2] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Berkeley City Attorney:
| “ |
This measure was placed on the ballot by the City Council. This measure would authorize the City to continue to spend the proceeds of various City taxes, including the Parks Maintenance Tax, the Library Relief Tax, the Emergency Medical Services Tax, the Emergency Services for Severely Disabled Persons Tax, the Fire Protection and Emergency Response and Preparedness Tax, and the Sugar Sweetened Beverage Products Tax, all of which were previously approved by the voters; as well as the Business License Tax, Utility Users Tax, Parking Tax, Transient Occupancy (hotel) Tax, and the Real Property Transfer Tax. Under Article XIIIB of the California Constitution a city is limited to appropriating (i.e. authorizing expenditure of) the amount of taxes (adjusted by an inflation factor) that it spent in the 1986-1987 fiscal year. This limit may only be exceeded if the voters approve the excess expenditures by a majority vote. This constitutional restriction on appropriations (expenditures) is in addition to the constitutional requirement that special taxes must be approved by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the people and general taxes by majority vote. Although the appropriations (expenditure) limit was raised by the voters to allow continued expenditure of the proceeds of voter-approved taxes when those taxes were adopted, voter authorization to raise the spending limit must be renewed every four years. A city has two years to obtain voter approval on this expenditure. After that, the tax increase would have to be returned to the taxpayers within two years. Submitting the measures individually would be cost prohibitive and could confuse voters since the net effect of the measures is to raise the City’s expenditure limit by the amount of taxes previously approved by the voters. For this reason, a single measure would raise the City’s expenditure limit by the aggregate amount of the taxes adopted to date and the income from their investment. Financial Implications: This measure would not increase taxes or adopt a new tax. It would authorize the City to continue to spend tax funds previously approved by the voters or the Council for the purposes specified in voter-approved special taxes and for general governmental purposes such as public safety, infrastructure and public services, for fiscal years 2017 through 2020. [2] |
” |
| —Berkeley City Attorney[3] | ||
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a vote of the governing officials of Berkeley, California.
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Berkeley Gann overrides. 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 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Alameda County, "Measure V1," accessed October 28, 2016
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
