Burbank, California, Measure T, Utility Funds Transfer Charter Amendment (June 2018)
| Measure T: Burbank Utility Funds Transfer Charter Amendment |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| June 5, 2018 |
| Status: |
 Approved
|
| Topic: |
| Local utility tax and fees Expires in: Never |
| Related articles |
| Local utility tax and fees on the ballot June 5, 2018 ballot measures in California Los Angeles County, California ballot measures |
| See also |
| Burbank, California |
A utility funds transfer charter amendment was on the ballot for Burbank voters in Los Angeles County, California, on June 5, 2018. It was approved.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of continuing the practice of including a fee in retail electric rates to fund the transfer of up to 7% of Burbank Water and Power’s (BWP) gross annual sales of electricity to the city’s general fund. |
| A no vote was a vote against continuing the practice of including a fee in retail electric rates to fund the transfer of up to 7% of Burbank Water and Power’s (BWP) gross annual sales of electricity to the city’s general fund. |
Election results
|
Burbank Measure T |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
15,969 | 81.10% | ||
| No | 3,721 | 18.90% | ||
-
- Results are officially certified.
- Source
Text of measure
Ballot question
The ballot question was as follows:[1]
| “ |
To maintain essential City services/infrastructure like police, fire, parks, libraries, streets and street lighting, shall the measure be adopted amending the City of Burbank Charter to continue the past practice of transferring not more than 7% of Burbank Water and Power’s gross annual sales of electricity, paid by retail electric rate payers, providing approximately $12.5 million annually to the City’s General Fund until ended by voters, with all money spent to benefit Burbank residents?[2] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Burbank City Attorney:
| “ |
If a majority of Burbank voters approve this measure, new Charter Section 610A (“§610A”) will continue the existing practice of including a fee in retail electric rates to fund the transfer of no more than 7% of Burbank Water and Power’s (BWP) gross annual sales of electricity to the City’s General Fund in order to pay for essential City services. In 1958, Burbank voters amended the Charter to allow this transfer (§610). For decades, retail electric rate payers funded these transfers through a fee in rates with a percentage embedded in rates, a percentage as a line item to the rates or a combination. In 2016, Charter §610 was challenged in court. The court determined the fee is a tax, subject to Burbank voter approval; and ordered the City to stop collecting the fee. City has appealed, which suspends the court’s order. Since the ruling, BWP continues to collect the fee and make transfers to the General Fund. Council is placing transferred amounts into a holding account, pending final resolution. Although voters approved a Charter amendment to §610 in 2007, the court found voter-approval requirements for a tax were not met because §610 did not explicitly authorize funding the transfers from retail electric rate payers. City Council placed this Measure on the ballot to add Charter §610A -Utility Department Transfers- to resolve the court’s ruling. §610A explicitly approves the existing practice of including a fee in retail electric rates to fund the transfers to the General Fund as follows:
The estimated, annual revenue generated from the fee and transferred to the General Fund is approximately $12.5 million. Transferred amounts pay for fire, police, street repairs, street lighting, libraries, park/recreation programs/facilities. A "no" vote means §610A is not approved and will not go into effect. Without passage of §610A and if City loses the court appeal, the fee to fund the transfers must stop, resulting in no money to fund future transfers to the General Fund. A “no” vote will likely result in a $12.5 million reduction in the General Fund, reflecting the annual revenue loss. A “yes” vote adds §610A to the Charter continuing the long-standing funding mechanism for the approximately $12.5 million annual transfer to the General Fund. Passage of this Measure will not increase retail rate payers’ bills because current rates already include the cost of the transfers. A “yes” vote results in continued funding of the General Fund transfers, paying for essential City services.[2] |
” |
| —Burbank City Attorney[3] | ||
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a vote of the Burbank City Council.
See also
|
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ County of Los Angeles, "Statewide Direct Primary Election - Measures Appearing on the Ballot," accessed April 14, 2018
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ City of Burbank, "Measure T Impartial Analysis," accessed April 14, 2018
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | 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 |
| |||||
