La Palma, California, Sales Tax Increase, Measure JJ (November 2016)
| Measure JJ: La Palma Sales Tax Increase |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
 Approved
|
| Topic: |
| Local sales tax Expires in: Never |
| Related articles |
| Local sales tax on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California Orange County, California ballot measures City tax on the ballot |
| See also |
| La Palma, California |
A sales tax increase was on the ballot for La Palma voters in Orange County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was approved.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of establishing an additional one percent sales tax to fund city services, thereby increase the total sales tax rate in the city to 9 percent. |
| A no vote was a vote against establishing an additional one percent sales tax to fund city services, thereby leaving the total sales tax rate in the city at 8 percent. |
Election results
| Measure JJ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 3,775 | 60.34% | ||
| No | 2,481 | 39.66% | ||
- Election results from Orange County Elections Office
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]
| “ |
Shall Ordinance No. 2016-1, establishing a one percent sales tax, to remain in effect until ended or modified by the voters, and raising an estimated $1,500,000 annually for any and all governmental purposes of the City, which may include any general fund services such as police patrols and crime prevention; 9-1-1 emergency response; and street maintenance/pothole repair; with the requirement for public audits and disclosures of all funds spent, be adopted?[2] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the La Palma City Attorney:
| “ |
The La Palma City Council has placed a measure on the ballot for the November 8, 2016 general municipal election (the “Measure”), asking the City’s voters to approve an ordinance enacting a 1% City “transactions and use” tax, which is commonly known as a “sales tax”. If approved by La Palma’s voters, the Measure would impose a City tax that would add one cent to the cost of a $1.00 item purchased in La Palma; the City would begin collecting that sales tax on April 1, 2017. Sales taxes are levied on the sale or use of tangible personal property sold at retail. Retailers collect the tax at the time of sale and remit the funds to the State Board of Equalization, which distributes the tax revenues in accordance with statutory requirements. The current tax on sales by retail sellers in La Palma is 8% of the retail sale price. The City receives 1% of this 8%, with the remainder of the tax revenue allocated for State, County and school purposes. This Measure would authorize the City to impose an additional 1% sales tax, to increase the total sales tax rate on retail sales in La Palma from 8% to 9%. If the Measure passes, a consumer purchasing taxable items in La Palma costing $10,000 after April 1, 2017 would pay an additional $100. The City estimates that the proposed sales tax will generate an additional $1,500,000 annually, but the actual amounts raised will vary based on the level of retail sales occurring in La Palma. All revenue generated by this Measure would be placed in the City’s general fund and be available to fund any and all City services, programs and projects, including but not limited to police protection, recreational programs and street maintenance. Under current law, all revenue generated by the proposed sales tax would be protected from being diverted from the City and its services, programs and projects, because the California Constitution prohibits the State Legislature from reallocating, transferring, borrowing or otherwise using the proceeds of any tax imposed or levied by a local government solely for its purposes. A “Yes” vote is a vote in favor of adopting this Measure to authorize the proposed 1% City sales tax, while a “No” vote is a vote against adopting the 1% City sales tax. If a simple majority of the voters voting on the Measure vote “Yes,” then this Measure will be approved and the ordinance authorizing the 1% City sales tax will be adopted. This Measure will take effect ten days following the date on which the La Palma City Council declares that the Measure was approved by a majority of the La Palma voters voting on the Measure at the November 8, 2016 election. The above statement is an impartial analysis of the Measure. If you desire a copy of the ordinance or Measure, please call the La Palma election official’s office at (714) 690-3334, and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you.[2] |
” |
| —La Palma 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]
- Gerard Goedhart, Mayor
- Michele Steggell, Mayor Pro Tem
- Peter L. Kim, Council Member
- Mark Waldman, Former Mayor
- Steve Shanahan, Council Member
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[1]
| “ |
Protect La Palma’s quality of life and public safety services - Vote YES on JJ! YES on JJ provides reliable, locally-controlled funding for priorities our community has identified as being important: • Keeping our City clean and graffiti-free • Maintaining 911 Emergency Response, crime prevention and police investigation services • Maintaining public parks and recreation facilities including our courts, fields, and playgrounds • Preventing gang activity and drug-related crimes • Maintaining public infrastructure: our streets, storm drains, and sidewalks YES on JJ Keeps Taxpayer Funds Local – by law, Sacramento can’t touch this money. YES on JJ Maintains Our Local, La Palma Police Department – La Palma is one of the few small cities in Orange County with its own police department - guaranteeing proactive neighborhood police patrols and one of the lowest 911 emergency response times in the County. YES on JJ allows us to maintain our own local police department with officers who know our community and make your safety their first and only priority. YES on JJ Keeps La Palma A Special Place To Live – La Palma is a special place to live with an outstanding quality of life. The City has responded to a major drop in revenues by reforming employee pensions, reducing the workforce by 20%, reducing employee pay, delaying infrastructure maintenance, and cutting City services, including a reduction in police officers. Even with these cuts, the City continues to have a structural deficit. There is simply no more room to cut and keep our community a safe, clean place to live. YES on JJ protects our quality of life and keeps La Palma the special community it is for residents and families. Join City Council members and residents from all walks of life -- vote YES on JJ to preserve La Palma‘s high quality of life and public safety services.[2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[1]
- Keith Nelson, Citizen Committee on La Palma’s Sustainability; Chairman and Former Mayor
- Robert Carruth, Citizen Committee on La Palma’s Sustainability Member
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[1]
| “ |
Demand responsible action from our City Council. Don’t pay their PENSION TAX. Vote NO on JJ! Proponents are not being transparent that they will spend your money on employee PENSIONS, not police patrols, park improvements or street maintenance. In 2015 alone, we paid the Police Chief $255,605, City Manager $223,704, a Police Sergeant $204,643, and Community Development Director, who manages only two employees, $183,365. In the past three years this Council granted five uncontested employee promotions which pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more in lifetime PENSION benefits. In the past twelve years we’ve paid over $15,000,000 into PENSIONS and still owe $12,381,116 in unfunded liability. Rising PENSION costs for a few dozen employees have forced cuts to our parks, recreation, and infrastructure. The Council majority ignored the Citizen Committee’s STRONG recommendation to evaluate proven, cost-effective police alternatives and instead spent $80,000 on a community survey designed to trick voters to support a tax. Their goal is to preserve status quo. Structural deficits require structural solutions. Their remedy? Another PENSION TAX! Proponents do not disclose they returned $1,791,071 in tax rebates to one business since 2014. Now they need you to pay $1,500,000 more annually to counteract their flawed deal. We already pay income, property, sales, and utility user taxes and now they want us to pay millions more. Every time you buy a drink, or eat a meal in La Palma, or purchase a vehicle anywhere, this PENSION TAX makes it more expensive. Scare tactics predict slow emergency response and more crime without a tax. Don’t buy the lie. There are sustainable, proven solutions that keep us all safe. Proponents want you to pay more because they did less. Make the council do its job. Demand genuine structural solutions. NO on JJ![2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a vote of the governing officials of La Palma, California.
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms La Palma Local sales tax. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
Footnotes
| |||||
