California City, California, Parcel Tax, Measure B (June 2017)
| Measure B: California City Parcel Tax |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| June 6, 2017 |
| Status: |
 DefeatedMajority required: 66.67% |
| Topic: |
| California parcel tax Expires in: 3 years |
| Related articles |
| California parcel tax on the ballot June 6, 2017 ballot measures in California Kern County, California ballot measures City tax on the ballot |
| See also |
| California City, California |
A parcel tax measure was on the ballot for California City voters in Kern County, California, on June 6, 2017. It was defeated.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of extending the existing parcel tax—a kind of property tax based on units of property rather than assessed value—for another three years. |
| A no vote was a vote against extending the existing parcel tax for another three years. |
A two-thirds (66.67%) vote was required for the approval of Measure B.
Election results
| Measure B | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| No | 848 | 53.84% | ||
| Yes | 727 | 46.16% | ||
- Election results from Kern County Elections
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]
| “ |
In order to fund police, fire, and code enforcement services, shall the existing special parcel tax be extended for an additional three years (through tax year 2020-2021) at a rate not to exceed the existing rate of $150 per lot or parcel, generating approximately $7.5 Million in annual funding for public safety?[2] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the California City City Attorney:
| “ |
Measure B would extend the City's existing special parcel tax. The special parcel tax was first adopted by the voters in 2007. The tax was readopted by the voters in 2012. The final authorized collection of that tax approved in 2012 will occur in Tax Year 2017-18. This Measure would continue the tax for three additional years. The actual rate will be set each year by the City Council, but could not exceed the current rate of $150 per parcel. The tax would potential generate $7.5 million annually. However, because of the history of delinquencies, the City anticipates the tax revenue would be approximately $6 million annually. If this Measure is approved, the final year of the Tax would be Tax Year 2020-21. Any extension beyond that year would require voter approval at a future election. Proceeds of the tax could be used by the City only for (1) police operations, training and supplies, personnel, equipment, law enforcement, dispatch, code enforcement, animal control, and facilities, (2) fire prevention and suppression operations, training and supplies, firefighter and paramedic personnel, equipment and facilities and (3) code enforcement services. The Finance Director of the City would file an annual report with the City Council stating the amount of taxes collected, the amount expended, and the purpose of the expenditures. The tax would be collected on the annual Kern County property tax bill. The tax would apply to all lots and parcels within the boundaries of the City other than lots and parcels that (i) are exempt from this tax pursuant to the Constitution or laws of the United States or of the Constitution or laws of the State of California or (ii) are exempt from the ad valorem property tax or have an ad valorem property tax liability of zero. This measure was placed on the ballot by the City Council. It requires two-thirds voter approval for passage.[2] |
” |
| —California City City Attorney[1] | ||
Support
Supporters
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[1]
- Mayor Jennifer Wood
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[1]
| “ |
Vote in Favor of Special Tax Measure B Protecting our public with police, fire and code enforcement is among the most important things that a city can do. That is why the City Council placed this matter on the ballot. Our city simply cannot afford cuts to public safety. If the existing parcel tax expires, the city will annually lose an estimated $6 million dollars of revenue that is currently used solely to pay for police and fire - we must not allow such a drastic cute to our public safety budget. Unless the tax is extended, there would undoubtedly be substantial cuts to police, fire and code enforcement services. We cannot let that happen. The existing special tax has a maximum of $150 per parcel ($12.50 per month). If you do not own the land, you do not pay the tax. The tax must be paid even by those that live outside the city. The City Council will have the ability to reduce the tax should it wish to do so. And this is important because the tax will be extended only for three years. During that time, medical marijuana businesses will move into town, and they will start paying more and more in taxes - the City Council will be able to reduce the parcel tax. While nobody likes to pay taxes, this is a tax we need. For only $12.50 per month (which amount could be less), we all essentially get a real life insurance policy - a policy that actually protects our safety, our possessions, and our loved ones. We need the tax. We will all be better off.[2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[1]
- Dana John ("D.J.") Twohig, taxpayer advocate - resident
- Jane Riding, business owner
- David Stafford, builder
- Fred Whitney, business owner
- Alvin Hutson, retired
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[1]
| “ |
Vote Against Special Parcel Tax Measure "B" Vote No on Measure B Local government performance with taxpayers' money is out of control; lacks essential strategic fiscal planning and is poorly managed. Send a message to put police and fire back into the general fund where it belongs! A no vote will send a message to strengthen the general tax base to ensure revenue predictability in the general tax base for valued public safety personnel. Recent ordinance allowing medical cannabis businesses are forecast to generate millions into the general fund next year. Send a message to local government, STOP special tax dependency! Vote No on Measure B California City history of excessive special taxes have not improved overall fiscal sustainability, nor attracted investment in the community; however government spends millions of your taxpayer money on pet projects, engineers, attorneys, and consultants year after year. The real question is simple: can we trust the City Officials with more taxpayers' money? Taxpayers have cut liabilities and made difficult budget choices. Shouldn't the City live within its means? Vote No on Measure B Adding specil tax burdens will continue eroding property values. Kern County Auditor reports property values have tumbled hundreds of millions dating back to Y2007 special tax levy. Last year Assessed Valuation plundered $94 Million! Fairness is essential The general tax base is unsustainable because of failed economic policies and special taxes; over 15,000 properties are tax delinquent effective January 10, 2017. Another parcel tax levied on the overburdened backs of taxpayers is equivalent to fiscal insanity! Why promote economic instability by repeating same destructive forces on the general tax base? Vote No on Measure B[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a vote of the city council of California City, California.[1]
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms California City California parcel tax Measure B. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
Footnotes
| |||||
