Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

City of Rialto Gas Tax, Measure U (November 2014)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on taxes
Taxes.jpg
Ballot measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot


A City of Rialto Gas Tax, Measure U ballot question was on the November 4, 2014 election ballot for voters in the city of Rialto in San Bernardino County, California. It was approved.

Measure U authorized the city to impose a gas tax of up to $1 per cubic foot of liquid storage capacity for any wholesale liquid fuel storage business.[1]

The tax proposed by Measure U was designed as a general tax, which means revenue from it was designed to go into the city's general fund to be used for an governmental purpose.[1]

Election results

City of Rialto, Measure U
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 4,918 51.24%
No4,68048.76%

Election results via: San Bernardino Registrar of Voters

Text of measure

Ballot question

The question on the ballot:[1]

Shall the City establish an annual business license tax on wholesale liquid fuel storage facilities of up to $1.00 per cubic foot of liquid storage capacity?[2]

Impartial analysis

The following impartial analysis was prepared for Measure U:[1]

Measure U is a general tax measure of the City of Rialto (“City”). Measure U was placed on the ballot by the governing body of the City. If approved by a majority of the voters who vote in the election on November 4, Measure U will establish a business license tax on businesses engaged in owning, operating, leasing, supplying or providing one or more wholesale liquid fuel storage facilities, commonly known as “tank farms.” The Measure will not apply to retail gas stations.

The type of tax proposed by Measure U is an increase to the general tax currently charged to businesses in the City of Rialto, but only on the specific businesses commonly known as tank farms. The rate of the tax is based on the storage capacity of the affected businesses, and not on the actual amount of liquid being stored. The maximum tax rate authorized by Measure U is one dollar ($1.00) per year per cubic foot of storage capacity. The actual annual tax rate would be established by City Council resolution not to exceed the rate authorized by Measure U, and the increased tax could be, but is not required to be, phased in.

The tax will be collected by the City upon issuance of a new business license or upon the annual renewal of a business license.

The City of Rialto currently imposes a business license tax on any business located in the City, pursuant to Chapter 5.04 of the Rialto Municipal Code. Wholesale liquid fuel storage facilities, or “tank farms,” currently pay a business license tax that is based on a wholesale or service rate. In 2013, the total amount of annual business license tax paid by all the tank farms was $117,377.

The business license tax is a general tax. The tax proceeds will be deposited into the City’s general fund and may be used for any municipal purpose.

When and if fully implemented, the business license tax on tank farms generated by Measure U is anticipated to increase tax revenues to as much as approximately $10 million, based on the capacity of tank farms in the City of Rialto.

The tax cannot be increased in the future without voter approval.

A "Yes" vote is a vote in favor of establishing a business license tax on wholesale liquid storage facilities, or tank farms.

A "No" vote is a vote against establishing a business license tax on wholesale liquid storage facilities, or tank farms.

A majority of “Yes” votes is required for Measure U to pass. [2]

—Fred Galante, Rialto City Attorney[1]

Support

Supporters

The following individuals signed the official arguments in favor of Measure U:[1]

  • Joe F. Flores, Small Business Owner
  • Deborah Robertson, Mayor
  • Dale Z. Estvander, Senior Advocate
  • Edward J. Carrillo, Rialto Chamber of Commerce President
  • Dennis Barton, Community Member

Arguments in favor

The following was submitted as the official arguments in favor of Measure U:[1]

A Yes vote on Measure U will finally require the billion dollar oil and gas companies who store their fuel in the “tank farm” on South Riverside to sacrifice just like Rialto residents and small businesses have. If Measure U passes, Rialto residents will get a break in the form of lower utility taxes.

Measure U imposes a business license tax on the fuel stored at the “tank farm” – a facility which costs the city considerably for emergency equipment, personnel and planning.

The $10 million in new revenues generated by Measure U annually will help keep Rialto safe, preserve our quality of life, and ensure our long-term financial future. But it will also allow city leaders to cut the utility users tax by 2%. Since the recession, city funding has changed. Sales and property tax revenues have dropped dramatically since 2007. The result is that 24 police, 18 fire department, and 19 public works jobs have been eliminated or left unfilled.

These cuts have had a real impact on essential city services and our quality of life. We cannot continue to cut our way to prosperity. Rialto needs reliable revenue sources to restore services and improve parks and streets. Measure U will provide that, without additional sacrifices from residents or small businesses.

We expect the billion dollar corporations that occupy the tank farm to try to scare you with claims that Measure U will bring higher gas prices.

Don’t be fooled! The fuel stored at the “tank farm” ships all over the country. Even if they choose to pass the new tax along to its millions of consumers, it would be so spread out that it couldn’t have any noticeable impact on gasoline prices.

That’s why leaders across our community agree - Vote Yes on Measure U – It’s only fair.[2]

—Joe F. Flores, Deborah Robertson, Dale Z. Estvander, Edward J. Carrillo and Dennis Barton[1]

Opposition

Opponents

Donald R. Knabe, a Rialto resident, signed the official arguments in opposition to Measure U.[1]

Arguments against

The following was submitted as the official arguments in opposition to Measure U:[1]

Two years ago City Hall politicians rushed this same type of gas tax measure to the ballot with no public input, and no transparency. These same politicians approved a no-bid contract spending $143,500 of your tax dollars on propaganda trying to sell their flawed, costly measure to the public. Rialto voters didn’t buy it then – and shouldn’t buy it now.

Measure U raises taxes at 27 times its current rate on fuel storage. This extreme tax hike will hurt our local economy risking local jobs and economic revenue our city and our communities depend on. Make no mistake – this hidden gas tax will force companies to leave our city taking tax revenue and jobs to another area.

Measure U will force fuel manufacturers to use storage tanker trucks to meet our energy needs, increasing truck traffic pollution and congesting local streets, roads, and highways. And these additional transportation costs will only serve to keep fuel prices at the pump higher.

Even worse, if fuel is trucked directly from the refineries, then it bypasses the need to be stored. With no stored fuel to tax, the City of Rialto will face an annual loss of 14 million dollars – money we all depend on for police and fire, libraries, street cleaning, infrastructure, and services for seniors and youth. Local businesses and taxpayers will have to make up the difference or the city could face more drastic budget cuts.

Stop more truck traffic. Stop more pollution. Protect local jobs, economic revenue for small businesses, and tax revenue for public safety, other services our communities depend on.

Join taxpayers, small businesses, and community leaders. Please Vote NO on Measure U and help to put a stop to the rising cost of fuel and the risk of additional taxes.[2]

—Donald R. Knabe, Rialto resident[1]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 San Bernardino County Elections Office website, "County 2014 General Election Sample Ballot and Voter Guide," accessed October 31, 2014
  2. 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.