Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Santa Paula, California, Sales Tax, Measure T (November 2016)
| Measure T: Santa Paula Sales Tax |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
 Approved
|
| Topic: |
| Local sales tax Expires in: 20 years |
| Related articles |
| Local sales tax on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California Ventura County, California ballot measures City tax on the ballot |
| See also |
| Santa Paula, California |
A sales tax measure was on the ballot for Santa Paula voters in Ventura County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was approved.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of adopting an additional 1 percent sales tax to improve police and fire services. |
| A no vote was a vote against adopting an additional 1 percent sales tax to improve police and fire services. |
Election results
| Measure T | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 5,145 | 58.37% | ||
| No | 3,670 | 41.63% | ||
- Election results from Ventura County Registrar of Voters
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]
| “ |
Shall a General Sales Tax Ordinance be adopted imposing a one cent (.01) transactions and use (sales) tax for a period of twenty (20) years, generating approximately $2.1 million annually, to improve police and fire services with the remainder devoted to street repair, youth programs and the provision of other city services? [2] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Santa Paula City Attorney:
| “ |
Measure T was placed on the ballot by the City Council and proposes to increase the sales tax within Santa Paula by one cent. California law requires that an increase in the tax be approved by a majority of the voters in Santa Paula. The tax on retail sales in Santa Paula is currently 7.5 percent of the purchase price. The one cent increase proposed by Measure T would authorize a one cent transactions and use tax, increasing the total sales tax rate in Santa Paula from 7.5 percent to 8.5 percent. All revenue from the tax increase proposed by Measure T would go to the City, and not to the State or any other governmental entity. The total tax rate will decrease by one cent in 2036 as a result of a sunset provision in the proposed measure. Measure T would be a “general tax,” meaning that all revenue generated from the proposed sales tax increase would be deposited into the City’s General Fund and would be available for use by the City to pay for general City operations and services, including Police and Fire Services, street repair, and youth programs. The City, however, would not be legally bound in any way to use the tax monies for any special purpose or for any particular facilities or programs. Since this ballot measure proposes a “general tax” rather than a “special purpose tax,” it requires approval by a simple majority of the City’s voters. The tax ordinance requires a five member citizen commission comprised of members appointed by the City Council to annually review and audit expenditures of revenues derived from the sales tax. The report issued by the citizen commission is a public record and must be considered by the City Council at a public meeting. A “yes” vote on Measure T favors increasing the sales tax by one cent. A “no” vote on Measure T opposes an increase in the sales tax.[2] |
” |
| —Santa Paula City Attorney[3] | ||
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:[3]
- Kelsey Stewart, Santa Paula Unified school board trustee
- Alfonso Guilin, ag consultant
- Elvia Hernandez, project coordinator
- Carlos Juarez, retired SPPD lieutenant
- Raymond Mora, SPYFL director
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[3]
| “ |
Santa Paula is rich in culture and history, and we all know that it is a special place to live. We also know that it faces many challenges. We must come together and act now to help move our city forward into a better and brighter future while preserving our strong sense of community. To do that, we need more funding for public safety services, fixing our streets, and youth programs. No one else is going to “bail us out.” The choice is clear: we want and deserve a better future and we will only get there by helping ourselves. We need to invest in Santa Paula! Our efforts as a community, along with a one-cent sales tax, will help solve the problem. Most of us, when we see a penny on the ground, ignore it, yet those pennies add up. For one penny on the dollar we can start making the improvements we need. The proposed one-cent sales tax is a general tax measure for improved police and fire services, street repair, and youth programs. This will allow us to hire more police officers, stabilize funding for the fire department, fix our pothole-riddled streets and create youth programs to steer our kids away from crime. There are no sales taxes on food, medicine or services. A newly created Citizen’s Oversight Committee will assure that the money is spent properly and hold the City Council accountable. We can make a difference! Working together as one community we can create a better place for us all. It is up to each of us to keep our special, people-friendly Santa Paula moving forward so we can live and enjoy our families with pride. Together we can “Transform Santa Paula a Penny at a Time!” We urge you to vote Yes on Measure “T”. [2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[3]
- Steve Smead, business owner
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[3]
| “ |
The City Council of Santa Paula has failed to do its job. Because of this failure they are now proposing a new sales tax of $60,000,000 on the people of Santa Paula. With the passage in June of measure "P" a $79,000,000.00 school bond and the proposed county sales tax measure with a cost of over $30,000,000.00 the tax payers of Santa Paula are facing record tax increase in 2016 and the current Council believes taking more of your money is just fine. Do not be fooled by the claims that the City does not have the funding it needs for public safety. The funds are there but, the Council has failed to properly budget for public safety. The Council promises to use the additional taxes collected to fund public safety but, because this is a general sales tax it only takes 3 votes by the Council to spend general fund revenue any way they want. The Council has proposed a oversite committee which will have NO official authority to determine where the additional taxes are to be spent. Again 3 votes by the Council can and will determine where all general sales taxes will be spent It appears that the firefighters union is happy to trust the Council with the new tax income as they have donated $10,000.00 to pass the tax increase on all of us. Force the City Council to do its job. We do need more police officers, but taking more of our hard earned money is not the solution. The council must have the political will to do what is in the best interest of ALL Santa Paula tax payers. VOTE NO ON MEASURE “T”[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a vote of the governing officials of Santa Paula, California.
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Santa Paula Local sales tax. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Ventura County Clerk and Recorder, "Local Measures November 8, 2016 Presidential General Election," accessed October 17, 2016
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Ventura County Clerk and Recorder, "Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet," accessed October 24, 2016
| |||||
