Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08031999 - D5 TCS. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Phil Batchelor,County Administrator Anne Cain,Acting County Librarian DATE: July 29, °1999 SUBJECT: LIBRARY TAX BALLOT MEASURE RECOMMENDATION: 1. RECEIVE report from County Administrator and Acting County Librarian regarding the proposed tax measure to fund County Library services. 2. OPEN the public hearing on whether a tax measure to fund County Library services should be placed on the March 7, 2000 ballot, RECEIVE any testimony the public wishes to offer and once all testimony has been received, CLOSE the public hearing. 3. DETERMINE whether to place on the March 7, 2000 ballot a measure that would ask the voters to approve a tax for County Library services. Determine if the tax is to be: A. A 1/8 of a percent sales tax B. In effect for eight years C. placed on the March 7, 2000 ballot D. Revenue will be used to support a countywide increase in library service levels and remaining revenue will be allocated to the regions based on a formula of 50% circulation and 50% population. 4. CONSIDER the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A), which is what the voters will actually be voting on, making any changes the Board considers necessary and DIRECT staff to return a final draft of the ordinance to the Board on August 17, 1990 for further consideration. 5. DIRECT staff, within the parameters agreed upon by the Board of Supervisors, to prepare the necessary Resolution implementing the tax and allocating the revenues, and return a final draft to the Board of Supervisors for further consideration on August 17, 1999. A preliminary draft resolution (Attachment B) is attached for the 'Board's review. This draft will be refined and revised based on the Board's discussion and will be before the Board again on August 17, 1999. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENTX YES SIGNATURE: � '' ✓ y a RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ® RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE_ APPROVE_ OTHER SIGAJATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON AUGUST 3, 1999 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: SEE, ADD4NDUM FOR BOARD ACTION X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT �C Vit.. � I HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED AYES: NOES: ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON ABSENT: ABSTAIN: THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Anne Cain,Actln County Librarian ATTESTED 646-6423 cc: County Library PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Administrator AND CO TY ADMINISTRATOR County Etactions County Counsel BY %' DEPUTY Board of Supervisors July 29, 1999 Library Tax Ballot Measure Page 2 6. DIRECT staff, within the parameters agreed upon by the Board of Supervisors, to prepare the necessary Resolution placing the measure on March 7, 2600 ballot, and return a final draft to the Board of Supervisors for further consideration on August 17, 1999. A preliminary draft resolution (Attachment C) is attached for the Board's review. This draft will be refined and revised based on the Board's discussion and will be before the Board again on august 17, 1999. 7. REVIEW the draft ballot language (Attachment D), and PROVIDE any direction to staff on the preferred language and DIRECT staff to return proposed final language for the ballot measure to the Board of Supervisors for further consideration on August 17, 1999. FINANCIAL IMPACT Election Cost The estimated cast of the election for the library tax is between $10,000 - $100,000 depending on the total number of items on the ballot. The cost of the election is to be paid by the County and may be charged to ballot measure revenues. New Revenues If a 116 of a percent sales tax increase is approved by the voters, revenue increase to the Contra Costa County Library is estimated to be $10,365,000. BACKGROUND MEASURE A Leasure A on the June 2, 1996 ballot was a proposal to increase the sales tax in Contra Costa County by 1/8 of a percent for a period of 16 years, with all revenues being dedicated to the provision of enhanced library services by the Contra Costa County Library and the Richmond Public Library. The revenue generation, resource allocation and service programs were approved by the Board of Supervisors and regional Library Boards. Leasure A received 64.5% of the vote, 2.2% short of the 213 needed to pass. Measure A received a total of 206,479 votes of which 134,552 were Yes votes. In order to pass, 4,295 No voters would have needed to vote Yes, assuming the same voter turnout. There were a total of 222,610 votes cast in the June 2 election with Measure A being voted on by 93.7% of the voters. doter turnout was 45.2%. If the vote count were done not including the City of Richmond, 192,297 votes would have been cast on Leasure A, with 122,956 votes, or 63.9%, voting Yes, Attachment E is the final vote count for Leasure A, including regional, city and unincorporated area totals. REGIONAL LIBRARY BOARDS MEETINGS Three Joint Regional Library Board meetings have been held since the June 1996 election. Can July 2, 1996 the five Regional Library Boards met in joint session to review the results of Measure A and consider future ballot measure options. Staff' presented information on revenues for both sales and parcel taxes, service programs for two levels of parcel taxes, and issues and a timeline for placing a ballot measure on the November ballot. Brad Senden, from the Center for Community Opinion, presented further details on the outcome of Measure A and compared vote results with the poll conducted in Fall 1997. Members of the regional boards expressed their concerns about placing a ballot measure on the November ballot. gAbos801doc 7/29/99 "?:i 4 AAS ADDENDUM TO ITEM Das August 3, 1999 On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered options for funding for the County Library system, including placing a measure on the March 2000 ballot increasing the sales tax by 1/8 cent for eight years. The following persons presented testimony: Anne Grodin, City of Lafayette, 21Mountain View Lane, Lafayette; John Wolfe, Contra Costa Taxpayers, Association, 820 Main Street, 'Martinez; Alan Smith,4823 Boxer Blvd, Concord; Stanford White, P.J. Box 3505, Walnut Creek; Henry L. Clarke, Local#1, Martinez; Walt Lautenberger, Lafayette Taxpayers Association., 3979 S. Peardale Drive, Lafayette; Frank Barham, M.D., 843 Avalon Ave, Lafayette; Alice Barham, Friends of the Lafayette Library, 843 Avalon Ave, Lafayette. Following further discussion, the Board took the following actions: CONTFLNIJED to August 17, 1999, a hearing to consider options for placing a treasure on the March 2000 ballot including increasing the sales tax by 1/8¢ for eight years for the County Library; DIRECTED staff to prepare necessary documents for the Board's consideration. Board of Supervisors July 29, 1999 Library Tax Ballot Leasure 'age 3 On September 17, 1998, the Joint Regional Library Boards met to review ballot measure options, including the cost of an election. Cost estimates for all possible election dates in 1999 would be approximately$800,000 to $1 million based on estimates provided by the Elections Department of$2 per registered voter. Due to the high cost of holding an election in 1999, no recommendation was made. On May 20, 1999, the Joint Regional Boards met and agreed to recommend that the Board of Supervisors place a 1/8 percent sales tax on the Lerch 7, 2000 ballot that would be in effect for 8 years. The Joint Regional Boards also agreed to use the same countywide expenditure plan and formula developed for the June, 1998 ballot measure. VOTER POLL The Center for Community Opinion conducted a survey of 600 voters in Contra Costa County July 13 - 17, 1998. The poll surveyed preferences for a sales tax vs. a parcel tax for the library, tested for the dollar amount of a parcel tax that would get two-thirds of the vote, and asked what services people want to see improved. It also asked why voters voted a particularway on Measure A and what would have changed their vote. The poll provided the following results: Support for a $24 parcel tax with a 6-year sunset received support from 62.2% of those interviewed,following the presentation of the statement of the needs faced by the library. Support for a sales tax is slightly stronger now than last October when the last poll was conducted. Support for a parcel tax appears to be unchanged. Tax tolerance for a library proposal remains low and the actual dollar amount voters would support for the libraries appears to have declined. To be successful across all five regions, the parcel tax rate would have to be set at or below$14 per year. A six-year sunset appears to increase support for any library tax. The existence of a large State budget surplus does have an influence on voter reaction to a local tax increase. Attachment F is the poll summary. ELECTION ISSUES COMPANION ALLOT MEASURES FOR GENERAL INCREASE IN SALES TAX Attachment G is a memorandum from County Counsel Vic Westman regarding Coleman v Co of Santa Clara. In summary the memo states: Under Coleman v County of Santa Clara, 64 Cal. App 4th 662 (1998) additional library expenditures could be funded: 1) if a majority of voters in a regularly scheduled or emergency declared election (Proposition 218) approve a County-aide increase of not less than one-quarter of one percent in the sales tax, the proceeds of which augment the County general fund and 2) if use of such additional funds for the library is clearly discretionary with the Board, even though an advisory measure demonstrates that the voters would like the additional funds spent on libraries. The key points are the following: simple majority vote required for increase in sales tax proceeds of sales tax augment County general fund * sales tax increase could not be no less than one-quarter (1/4) of one percent advisory measure could demonstrate that voters would like funds spent on library but use of additional funds clearly discretionary with Board gAbos803.doc 7/29/99 11:14 AM Board of Supervisors July 29, 1999 Library Tax Ballot Measure Page 4 The County has the authority to impose additional sales taxes up to 1.5%; currently the County only imposes additional taxes at the 1% level. Therefore, the sales tax could be increased by up to .5%. Currently a general increase in the sales tax can only be done in increments of 1/4%. Measure A proposed a 1/8% increase in the sales tax. In order to call a countywide quarter cent sales tax election, the proposal must be approved by four of the five members of the Board of Supervisors. TIMELINE In order to insure that the measure is placed on the March 7, 2000 ballot in a timely manner with all the necessary legal actions taken the following timeline is necessary: August 3 Public hearing on library tax ballot measure December 7 Last regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting for final adoption of ordinance and resolutions relating to library tax ballot measure December 10 Deadline for the Board of Supervisors to place a measure on the ballot and file the measure with the Elections Department. December 13 Deadline to submit ballot arguments to Elections Department. December 15 Last day to amend or withdraw the ballot measure. December 23 Deadline to submit rebuttals to Elections Department. March 7 Election Day ATTACHMENTS AttachmentA Draft Ordinance Attachment B Draft Resolution Implementing Tax and Allocating revenues Attachment C Draft Resolution Placing Measure on Ballot Attachment D Draft Ballot Language Attachment E Measure A Final Vote Count Attachment F Voter Survey results July 1998 Attachment C County Counsel Memo on Santa Clara sales tax elections gAbos803.doc 7129/99 11:14 AM July 29, 1999 Members, Board of Supervisors Attached is the material on the library ballot measure. Attachments A, B, and C are, in fact, the ones that were approved by the Bard last year for the June 1998 ballot measure. Staff was unable to complete the preliminary revisions in time to get thew included with this Board Order. As the Board Carder indicates, final revised versions of these documents will be returned to the Board on August 17, 1999 based on the discussion next Tuesday. Claude Van Marter Assistant County Administrator ATTACHME fT A ORDINANCE NO. 98- S A_"�l ORDINANCE ADDING ARTICLE 64-2.8 TO CHAPTER 64-2 OF DIVISION 64 OF TITLE 6 OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CODE,IMPOSING A COUNTYWIDE TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX TO SUPPLEMENT FUNDING FOR PUBLIC,LIBRARIES, TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: Section 1m Title and Summary. This Ordinance will be known as the"Contra Costa County Public Library Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance." If approved by the voters,this Ordinance will impose a transactions and use tax to be applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of Conte Costa County, the proceeds of which are to be used exclusively for public library programs, operations, construction,acquisition,facilities, and equipment- within Contra Costa County. Such revenues shall be used only to supplement existing, expenditures for public libraries and shall not be used to supplant existing funding for the support of public libraries. Section 2, Submission to the Voters; Voter.Approval; Operative Dated Upon approval by at least four members of this Board,the provisions of this Ordinance are to be submitted to the voters of Contra Costa County for approval in order that the transactions and use tax can become operative, as provided by revenue and Taxation Code section 7286.59. As provided by Revenue and'Taxation.Code Section. 7286.59, the tax submitted to the voters by this Ordinance will take effect only if at least two-thirds of the electors voting on the measure at the June 2, 1998 election approve. If approved,the provisions of this Ordinance authorizing the levy of the one-eighth of one percent(0.125%)transactions and use tax will become operative on the later of October 1, 1998 or the first day of the first calendar quarter following the execution of the State Board of Equalization contract in accordance with Section 5 of this Ordinance. Section.3. Provisions of Contra Costa County Corse Regarding Public Library Transactions and Use Tax Chapter 64-2 of the Contra Costa.County Code is amended to add Article 64-2.8, including Sections 64-2.802 through 64-2:822, to read as follows: ARTICLE 64-2.8 CONTRA COSTA C®1..,NT'Y PUBLIC LIBRARY TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX I 64-2.802 Purpose. This Ordinance is adopted to achieve the following, among other,purposes and directs that its provisions are interpreted to accomplish those purposes: (a)To impose a orae-eighth of 1 percent(0.12511/o)retail transactions and use tax according to the provisions of Part 1.6(commencing with Section 725 1)of Division 2 of the revenue and Taxation Code, as specifically authorized by Section 7286.59 of Chapter 2.98 of part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation'Code, (b) To adopt a retail transactions and use tax Ordinance which incorporates provisions identical to those of the Sales and Use Tax Law of the State of California insofar as those provisions are consistent with the requirements and limitations contained in Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the revenue and Taxation Code; (c)To adopt a retail transactions and use tax Ordinance which imposes.a tax and provides a measure for it that the State Board of Equalization can administer and collecf' in a manner that adapts itself as fully as practicable to,and requires the least possible deviation from, the existing statutory and administrative procedures followed by the State Board of Equalization in administering and collecting the California Sales and Use Taxes; (d)To adopt a retail transactions and use tax Ordinance which can be administered in a manner which,to the greatest degree passible,will be consistent with the previsions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code,will reduce the cost of collecting the transactions and use taxes and simultaneously will reduce tine burden of record keeping upon persons subject to taxation under the provisions of this Ordinance. (e)To adopt a retail transactions and use tax Ordinance that provides funding for public library programs,operations, construction, acquisition, facilities, and equipment within Contra Costa County. Such revenues shall.be used only to supplement existing expenditures for public libraries and shall not be used to supplant existing funding for the support of public libraries. 64-2,8114 Transactions Tax Rate. For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County at the rate of one-eighth of one percent({1.125%) of the grass receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in the territory on and after the operative date of this Ordinance. 64-2.846 place of Sale. 2 For the purposes of this Ordinance, all retail sales are consummated at the place of business of the retailer unless the tangible personal property sold is delivered by the retailer or his or her agent to an out-of-state destination or to a common carrier for delivery to an out-of-state destination. The gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery charges,when such charges are subject to the state sales and use tax,despite the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no permanent place of business in the State,or has more than one place of business,the place or places at which the retail sales are consummated will be determined under males and regulations to be prescribed and adopted by the State Board of Equalization. 64-2,808 Use Tax Mate. An excise tax is imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in this County of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and after the operative date of this Ordinance for storage,use or other consumption in the territory of the County at the rate of one-eighth of one percent(0.125%)of the sales price of the property. The sales price shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to state sales tit-.. use tax despite the place to which delivery is made. 64-2.810 Adoption of Provisions of State Law. Except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance and to the extent that they are inconsistent with the provisions of Fart. 1.6 of Division 2 of the revenue and Taxation Code, all of the provisions of Part 1 (commencing with Section 600 1) of Division.2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code are adopted and incorporated by this reference. 64-2.812 Limitations on Adoption of State Law and Collection of Use Taxes. (a)In adopting the provisions of fart 1 of Division 2 of the revenue and Taxation Code,wherever the State of California is named or referred to as the taxing authority,the name of this County will be substituted for it. However,the substitution will not be made when; (1) The word "State"is used as a part of the title of the State Controller, State Treasurer, State Board of Control, State Board of Equalization, State Treasury, or the Constitution of the State of California; (2)The result of that substitution would require action to be taken by or against this County or any agency, officer, or employee of it rather than by or against the State Board of Equalization, in performing the functions incident to the administration or operation of this Ordin<.�ce; (3) In those sections, including, but not necessarily limited to, sections 3 referring to the exterior boundaries of the Mate of California,where the substitution would be to: ((a)) Provide an exemption from this tax with respect to certain sales, storage,use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not otherwise be exempt from this tax while such sales, storage, use or other consumption remain subject to tax by the State under the provisions of part 1 of Division 2 of the.Revenue and Taxation Code. ((b)) Impose this tax with respect to certain sales, storage,use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not be subject to tax by the State under the provisions of that Code. (4) In Sections 6701,6702 (except in its last sentence), 6711, 6715 6737, 6797 or 6828 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (b)The word "County"will be substituted for the word"State" in the phrase "retailer engaged in business in this State"in Section 6203 and in the definition of thif phrase in Section 6203. 64-2.814 Permit Not Required. If a seller's permit has been issued to a retailer under Section 6067 of the Revenue and Taxation Code,this Ordinance will not rewire an additional transactor's permit. 64-2.816 Exemption and Exclusions. (a)There will be excluded from the measure of the transactions tax and the use tax the amount of any sales tax or use tax unposed by the State of California or by any city, city and county or county pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Unifonn Local Sales and Use Tax Law(part 1.5 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code) or the amount of any State administered transactions or use tax. (b) There are exempted from the computation of the amount of transactions tax the gross receipts from. (1) Sales of tangible personal property other than fuel or petroleum products to operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside the county in which the sale is made and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property under the authority of the laves of California,the United States, or any foreign government; (2) Sales of property to be used outside the County which is shipped to a point outside the County, pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point by the 4 retailer or his or her agent, or by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a consignee at such point. For the purposes of this subsection, delivery to a point outside the County will be satisfied•. ((a)) With respect to vehicles(other than commercial vehicles subject to registration under Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000)of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed according to Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code,and undocumented vessels registered under Chapter 2 of Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840)of the Vehicle Code, by registration to an out-of-County address and by a declaration under penalty of penury, signed by the buyer,stating that such address is,in fact, his or her principal place of residence;and ((b)) With respect to commercial vehicles, by registration to a place of business out-of-County and declaration under penalty of ger ury, signed by the buyer,stating that the vehicle will be operated from that address. (3)The sale of tangible personal property if the seller is obligated to furnish the property for a fixed price under a contract entered into before October 1, 1998. (4)A lease of tangible personal property which is a continuing sale of such property, for any period of time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by the lease before October 1, 1998. (5) For the purposes of subsections (3) and(4)of this section,the sale or lease of tangible personal property will be deemed not to be obligated under a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice,whether or not such right is exercised. (c) There is exempted from the use tax imposed by this Ordinance,the storage, use or other consumption in this County of tangible personal property: (1) The gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to a tax under any state administered transactions and use tax Ordinance; (2) Other,than fuel or petroleum products purchased by operators of aircraft and used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property for Dire or compensation ander a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued under the laws of California,the United States or any foreign government. This exemption is in addition to the exemptions provided in Sections 6366 and 6366.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code: (3) If the purchase is obligated to purchase the property for afixed price 5 under a contract entered into before the operative date of this Ordinance; (4) If the possession of, or the exercise of any right or poorer over, the tangible personal property arises under a lease which is a continuing purchase of such property for any period of time for which the lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by a lease before the operative date of this Ordinance; (5)For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4) of this section,storage,use, or other consumption,or possession of, or exercise of any right or power over,tangible personal property will be deemed not to be obligated under a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised; (6) Except as provided for in subsection(7), a retailer engaged in business in the County will not be required to collect use tax from the purchaser of tangible personal property,unless the retailer ships or delivers the property into the County or participates,w-ithin the County in making the sale of the property, including, but not limited to, soliciting or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a place of business of the retailer in the County or through any representative, agent,canvasser, solicitor, subsidiary,or person in the County under the authority of the retailer; (7)"A retailer engaged in business in the County's will also include any retailer of the following vehicles subject to registration under Chapter I (commencing with. Section 4000)of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed according to Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, or undocumented vessels registered under Chapter 2 of Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840)of the Vehicle Cade. This retailer shall be required to collect use tax from any purchaser who registers or licenses the vehicle, vessel or aircraft at an address in the County. (d)Any person subject to use tax under this Ordinance may credit against that tax any transactions tax or reimbursement for transactions tax paid to a county imposing, or a retailer liable for a transactions tax under Dart 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code with respect to the sale to the person of the property,the storage, use or other consumption of which is subject to the use tax. 64-2.818 Amendments to the revenue and Taxation Code. .Ail amendments to Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, effective a.l."ter the date of adoption of this Ordinance and relating to sales and use takes, will automatically become a part of this Ordinance to the extent consistent with Fart L6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code; but, no such amendment will operate to affect the rate of tax imposed by this Ordinance. 64-2.820 Enjoining Collection Forbidden. 6 No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process will issue in any suit, action or proceeding in any court against the Mate of California or the County, or against any officer of the Mate of California or the County, to prevent or enjoin the collection under this Ordinance, or Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the revenue and Taxation Code, of any tax or any amount of tax required to be collected. 64-28822 Use of the Taxes. The proceeds of any and all factions and use taxes shall be used exclusively for public library programs,operations, construction, acquisition,facilities,and equipment within Contra Costa County. Such revenues shall be used only to supplement existing expenditures for public libraries and shall not be used to supplant existing funding for the support of public libraries. A portion of the total transactions and use taxes collected countywide shall be allocated to the City of Richmond Public Library. That portion shall be determined by the percentage of sales and use¢ generated in the incorporated area of the City of.. -- Richrnond for the prior fiscal year as set out in the most current edition of the State Board of Equalization published document entitled.."Taxable Sales in Californias Sales and Use Tax Annual Report". The balance of the total amount of transactions and use taxes collected each fiscal year shall be allocated to the Contra Costa County Library. Such revenues shall be used exclusively for public library programs, operations,construction, acquisition, facilities, and equipment within Contra Costa.bounty. Such revenues shall be used only to supplement existing expenditures for public libraries and shall not be used to supplant existing funding for the support of public libraries. .Each jurisdiction named in this section shall be responsible for its portion of any hosts of administering this tax. Section 4. Expenditure Placa. Proceeds of the Library Tax will be spent according to this flan. The expenditure plan is intended to provide Contra Costa County and Richmond with public libraries that are on a par with those operated in other Bay Area communities. Funding under the Plaza is intended generally to: l) restore library services,programs,operations and facilities which were eliminated due to severe budgetary cutbacks, 2) maintain existing library services, programs, collections, operations and facilities and 3) improve, upgrade and expand library services, programs,operations and facilities to 7 all areas of the County, including(but not limited to)areas presently unserved and underserved. Specific projects for which the revenues from the transactions and use tax may be expended include(but are not limited to); A. Restoring,maintaining and improving local public;library services throughout the county. B. Restoring,maintaining and increasing open hours at the Contra Costa County Libraries and the Richmond Public Library. C. Restoring,maintaining and increasing the book and materials budgets at the Contra Costa County Libraries and the Richmond Public Library. D. Restaging,maintaining,developing and increasing service programs for user populations, including(but not limited to)children,teens, adults, geographically remote users,physically challenged users,and the business community. Prcig m`i may include(but are not limited to) adult and family literacy programs, outreach proaTarns and volunteer programs at the Contra Costa County Libraries and the Richmond Public Library, B. Acquiring and replacing library furniture, fixtures and equipment at the Contra Costa County Libraries and the Richmond Public Library, P. Acquiring,renovating and constructing library facilities for the Contra Costa County Libraries and the Richmond Public Library. G.Restoring, maintaining and in proving computer systems and library technology needs at the Contra Costa County Libraries and the Richmond public Library. Section 5. Contract with State. Before October 1, 1998, Contra Costa County will contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all functions incident to the administration and operation of this transactions and use tax Ordinance; provided,that if Contra Costa.County has not contracted with the State Board of Equalization before October 1, 1998, it will nevertheless reach such an agreement, with the operative date of the contract being the first day of the first calendar quarter follo Ni.ng tl:e execution of the contract. Section. S. Election Costs. 8 Payment for the costs of the election shall be the responsibility of Contra Costa County. The City of Richmond is being asked to contribute according to the percentage of natal County-wide tax revenues that the City expects to receive if the tax is approved. Section ?. Implementing Policies and Regulations. Upon approval of this Ordinance by two-thirds of the voters,the public libraries within.Contra Costa County may adopt policies and regulations and take such other action consistent with this Ordinance as may be necessary for the implementation of the one-eighth of one percent.(0.125%)transactions and use tax authorized by this Ordinance. Section:Sa 2l3 Voter Approval; Effective and Operative Date If Approved by a Voters. This Ordinance, adopting and submiting to the voters a Library transactions and use tae;.,will take effect 30 days after adoption by this Board. The tax submitted to the voters by this Ordinance will take effect according to law only if at least two-thirds-of F electors voting on the measure at the June 2, 1998 election approve. If approved.,the provisions of this Ordinance authorizing the levy of the one-eighth of 1 percent(0.125%) transactions and use tax will become operative on the later of October 1, 1995 or the first day of the first calendar quarter following the execution of the State Board of Equalization contract in accordance with Section 5 of this Ordinance. Section 9. Termination Date. .. This Ordinance will terminate on September 30, 2€314. /V .Section 10.- Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance and the application of such provision to anther persons or circumstances shall not be affected. Section 11. Publication. This Ordinance is to be published once within fifteen(15)days after its passage, in the Centra Costa Tinges, a newspaper of general circulation in Contra Costa County. PASSED A?vD ADOPTED by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors at 9 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors at its regular meeting on Feb 24, 1998,by the following vote: YES: Supervisors Uilkereia, Gerber, DeSaulnier, Canc ami.Ila, Rogers NOES: MANIMS Non- ABSENT: MMAINIAM lone ABSTAIITED:WAM&W None Jirn!, ogershair an Contra Cos County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: February 24, 1995 lu.l Batchelor, Clerk of Board of Supervisors By: r Deputy C= .aoc-2./3/98 1€1 ATTACHMENT B THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Resolution on Feb ru= l C , 19 9 8 , by the following vote: AYES- Supervisors Uilkema, Gerber, DeSaulnier, Canci milia, Rogers DOES. None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mane RESOLUTION NO. 98/ 8 9 SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF LIBRARY TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX AND ALLOCATION OF REVENUES FOR COUNTY LIBRARY PURPOSES WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has approved Ordinance No. -08 m 8 which would impose a transactions and use tax of one-eighth (113) cent, pending voter approval on June 2, 1999, and WHEREAS, such ordinance provides for a split of transactions and use tax proceeds between the Contra Costa County Library and the Richmond Public Library, and WHEREAS, such ordinance provides that the State Board of Equalization deducts administrative costs prior to distributing transactions and use tax proceeds, and WHEREAS, such ordinance provides an expenditure plan for the proceeds of the transactions and use tax. NOW, THEREFORE, this Surd RESOLVES that: I. The County Auditor is directed to distribute the proceeds from the transactions and use tax to the Contra Costa County Library and the Richmond Public Library. 2. The County Auditor and County Treasurer are directed to establish a special revenue fund for the County Library proceeds from the transactions and use tax. This fund will be entitled to retain interest earnings on any investment. If no investments are made from this fund, then a proportionate share of pooled interest on mailable cash will accrue to this fund. 3. The County Library proceeds from the transactions and use tax will be allocated for expenditure as follows: 1, Base Level Services a) All branch libraries shall be open 48 hours per week; the Central Library shall be open 60 hours per week; the outlets shall be open 34-36 hours per week b) The materials budget shall be $2 per capita c) Additional technology, including 100 personal computers d) County wide costs for fixed and service program support, reserves adequate to assure consistent service and one time costs RESOLUTION NO. 98/59 IMPLEMENTATION OF LIBRARY TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX AND ALLOCATION OF REVENUES FOR COUNTY LIBRARY PURPOSES 'age 2 . Regional Resource Allocation Remaining revenues after funding the above base services shall be allocated to each region according to the formula of: 50% per capita, based on the population of the Library legion as of the preceding January I 50% total circulation, based on the circulation of library materials the preceding fiscal year The per capita and circulation 'variables will be revised annually. Such regional revenues shall be used for library services within each region as determined by the respective Regional Library Boards. 4. The County Librarian, as part of the annual budget process, is directed to prepare and submit a budget request which includes revenues to and expenditures from the special revenue fund that incorporates the decisions made by the Regional Library Boards about the use of such revenues, . It is the clearly stated intent of the Board of Supervisors to enact the decisions regarding the new revenues made by the Regional Library Boards. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY of AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE CRATE SHOWN., ATTEST: February 10, 1998 Phi THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,%, ALIFOR I Adopted this Resolution on Feb. 10, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Uilkema, Gerber, DeSaulnieT, Canciamilla, Rogers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Call of Flection and � Approval of Ballot } RESOLUTION NO. 98158 Measure for Library 3 (R+TC Sec. 7286.59; Gov. Sales Tax C. Secs. 53722+53724) Whereas, this Board finds that the public libraries of Contra Costa County provide unique and valued cultural and educational services to the citizens of the County; and Whereas, the public libraries of Contra Costa County have suffered due to funding constraints in recent years; and Whereas, the legislature enacted Chapter 33 of the Statutes of 1997, adding Section 7286.59 to the Revenue and Taxation Code, to allow a transactions and use tax ("sales tax")to be imposed at the rate of one-eighth of one percent (0.125%) for the purpose of supplementing existing expenditures for public libraries if an Ordinance submitting the tax to the voters is approved by four votes of this Board and then approved by two-thirds of those voting at an election held throughout the County; and Whereas, this Board finds there is a need to supplement existing expenditures for the public libraries of Contra Costa County and desires to implement a one-eighth of one percent (4.125%)transactions and use tax("sales )to be unposed throughout the County beginning October 1, 1998 and operating through September 3Q, 2414. NOW, THEREFORE, this Board RESOLVES that: 1. Concurrent with the adaption this day of an ORDINANCE ADDING ARTICLE 64-2.8 TO CHAPTER 64-2 OF DIVISION 64 OF TITLE 6 OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CODE, IMPOSING A COUNTYWIDE TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX TO SUPPLEMENT FUNDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES,TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE 8 .d. RESOLUTION NO. 98/58 � _ t a STAB BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, this Board hereby calls a County- wide special tax election to be consolidated with the June 2, 1993 State- wide primary election, in accordance with Government Code Sections 53722 and 53724 and all applicable provisions of the Elections Code and other lave. 2. The Contra Costa County Registrar of Voters is designated as the Election Official for the election, and the County Clerk, Elections Division, is hereby authorized and directed to provide all notices and take all other actions necessary to holding the aforenoted election} including (but not limited to) providing notices of times within which arguments for and against are to be submitted. The costs of said election are to be paid by the County. A contribution from the City of Richmond will be made wording to the percent of taxes the City is expected to receive. 3. The ballot measure attached as Exhibit A hereto is hereby approved for said election. 4. if the election is approved by the requisite two-thirds vote, the County Librarian is authorized and directed to enter into a contract, in the form required by the Mate Board of Equalization, under which the Mate will administer the aforesaid tax, Said contract is to be entered into in time that the tax can be collected beginning October 1, 1995. ATTEST: Phil Batchelor, Clerk of Board of Supervisors February 1.0 , 1998 By: Deputy a 2 b s EXHIBIT A ALLOT MEASURE FOR JUNE 2, 1998 ELECTION ON A COUNTY-WIDE LIBRARY SPECIAL SALES TAX To maintain and improve local neighborhood libraries by buying books, educational materials, technology and computers to increase and make more consistent the number of hours local libraries will be open's to improve educational programs for children, adults and seniors and to maintain, improve and expand community libraries, shall Ordinance 98-8 of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors be approved to impose a sales tax at the rate of one-eighth of one percent? e° gAballot98N.doc 2/12198 ATTACHMENT EXHIBIT A BALLOT MEASURE FOR MARCH 7, 2000 ELECTION ON A COUNTY- WIDE LIBRARY SPECIAL SALES TAX To maintain and improve local neighborhood libraries by buying books, educational materials, technology and computers; to increase and make more consistent the number of hours local libraries will be open; to improve educational programs for children, adults and seniors and to maintain, improve and expand community libraries, shall Ordinance 99- of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors be approved to impose a sales tax at the rate of one-eighth of one percent? gAba11ot00\exh;bita.doc 7/29/99 0 u� ess � m 0 w � 0 Mm 0 --at 0 z ' 0 0 z 0cn � r X m a; > r— M 0 w a)z - L cry tie CD -4 N tT1 rte- Z CA 03 M sss 0) � �' M to co stems z ch 40 co 0 -4 tea '. c �; m m �e res Rs z m o� m = - 0 ® + 0 X � —i C -4 -y z z V' z 0 0, z o 0 z Fn 0 0 0 0r W 937 971 rM 9!.$ e C33 s 'ri N W C33 C�3 C3 00 CTS `-4 i 0 m as C73 WCD (D 9�3 W M -4 0 co -1 W'z z X CD W u3 ccr W cis 0 m C Z c- --i z i La EiT W n3 Cb N) 0) CD 00 CO CP OD C) t� c co �a CJS W a .-4 O CS3 -.Z c3 . o 0 0 n ocn o w — o 0 (.0 0 4o " L f en CBi p Wco C9) a W 0) C7 Co a 9J -+ CLS W -a k CS 00 W 0) IN. .ty C7 .3 CJa AS m " Ul W -.t x -Al. CD Co CB1 co co A' 971 �? m m m m 0) -1 al .L+. CS) CBI 0) 0) cn � -� W C-11 N C) W C7 W C3) 00 W -a w CBI o' a a o a a a o o a o 0 0 a 971 9'71 tD z 9'f 1 cin C '00 z r X a w W w > z x Za t o o 0 C Z :` C io mz o . G) "#' C W ® � -" C z m � z C o r a r- Z' c M ® ' 0 0 0 m 0 �f z m z ® m 0 c en M "a > cn N V —i --4 to -.4 al co A Q'; co oa 4 0 tit * co cn tai P. to coo t j 137 W to Z, m m w X ^+ 1 cocn b. r37 co N) � A 4 -4 tom. � 0 > fl€ ® Q) z W M Ka Ev cn N 4 A (3) � �.t C) — � C� (.0 00 m 4 cn co t1s CK) 41 w Cil C> -1 4 A W --s 133 tri C) w 03 est 00 CO. (D US cn 0) (3)cn db c® cs 00 .a w z co ("I - « 0) ow CD to ab0 '0 m =4 (3) 00 Co ra c,, e.s iia oo cam (A w --j rnN) (c, N) N3wcn rj z c:) C> a) sM -4 CD co cn w C) w co c� cn c.7 c, f'o M m M 0 m (ft to M M cn tv cn to cn A cn c) cn (Jn Z > cssWN) � CI -b C) -a00N) toQ7m "� o a a cr a a o c o 0 0 0 a a M > t`v Z cLi w m 6 0 — — -r� z m z > ''� z m 0 C) Z z z 0 0 — 0 � C m m 0 z m (a7 Cl)' M < > N C) 43) Oct) z 0 > z (03 _ M w cncisQ 0 11) t4l cn w W 00 W in 8£9 C 3l; l� LJ A N LTt 47s C7t 43t K) 4p c"f V 00 w io A 3�J PSS Ln j 477 -a 07 40 Lo -.f to N3 z O -1 437 Lo L) L l fa7 Co N) w cn 43t Lai $ p1°I' R m G7 t77 437 w V to M 0) 0) 43) � w � Gffi A 1V oa N La` 25 CC5 �F C�7 ' W CO a o 0 0 0 o d o o m v \ a \ \ \ j 0 m tv z cn `� m 0 p Cf5 t07z � � � 0 ZZ Z s (:) -IC- > � � 3: a m X E C9 ;K _ Z 0 M . X00 ' z M e css c,� r p css ri 0 c i es, es, t35 tsY � C3 ,® C 0 N0) -4N - 0W AW (0 � � MC" -11 CD N) WC) Q0 (D C) c C"S w 0 > 4 0 (a z a z M 'Cn C� (0 C) 10n, ateill, -`� cn W Cn C33 W Co -4 00 0) � N ' M (0 -� co FO i is 00 toN �i W r'4� '4 W 470 .A. Cn al C1. b. a O C� (A W (A 0) (gg co (0 C:� t)'a W a C) W COY -A, m Cn 0 4 W W CJs .A 0000 -a 2NJ co 0 (0 OD � P) (0 -4 � � CSD As -`E d! A OD 13. 40 co Cn (.0 7t3' m f m Ln 0) (37 �# Cil 419 Cn m 0) m CJ`+ 9.� 90 A. N -i C70 p W N 0) -4 p � W Cat to C� b w CT m (D W 00 CU 0 o a fl o a a a a o a o ?v z tt� m ct> 6 00 00m v cMMlu 3ZT. Gamm0 0) m0m m � a —4 0 ® X0 m m 0 0 0 z r 0 ic m � >z —4 � z ® ` Z 0 t OV„' z m 0 cn n M 0) N N ca � c5 (D C) <Vl co m -db %s, -4 i ) (A (n -A 0 C W c0 CD W CO as -tea W -aa CO W N -4 ,Z X1'8 ;q ch c'f N cjs (D -d (o .A. (0 -a co 03 0) W m m 0 > > X , G) -i C cn Z MM a i iS3 -+ #V W N cS3 A N C> -4 W IV -4 03 > D' A w w CS ^.f s C3 N U7 (D (11 (n W -.! to C) t d1 '1 W (D w CS -4 (0 w C3 03 N W -D, t- M w 00 (A # N N W $* N W W W W : Cn 41. W tom: �o io b 0) 0 a w 4, CDw A. 07 C) 0 bi •� N -� zz -1. CYF 213 N t� Cb -1 W Co W ai co co 00 W � " W W .P .ice � C7 W co N C98 V W co Capt (7n C) cn 2V v a, � ! C) cn 213 N C� z CJf C* (o W N cgs 00 N , t 'V m Cb " �0 Q' -.2 -4 W N -a W N W W 03 0o --, to tSD tilW w m Cf N w 0 C) -4 C) W W m m a cl `-d -L -4 10 Cp LO Cr. j -i (P N C3 03 �+ GU A 14 th -.f (n 03 to .tom w to C) co OU co w t3 ce o o a o 0 o a a o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 m i5 z m ATTACHMENT CommunityThe Center for Opinion 231 Madket Place,Suste 235 San Ramon,California 94583 Phone:+1 (800)827-:1466 'Pax:+1 (510)551-76 3 Contra Costa County Library Survey Results July 1998 The following summarizes the result of the 600 interviews conducted in the library's five regions to assess the feasibility of a November tax election and to look at why the June tax proposal failed. 1. The Jure election has had an impact on the electorate. Support for a sales tax proposal is slightly stronger now than it was when we surveyed last October. Support for a parcel tax appears to be unchanged. A. In October, a sales tax received support from 66% of those interviewed (following the presentation of a statement of the needs faced by the library). In October, no sunset was mentioned in connection with the sales tax proposal only the fact that this would be a 1/8th ce et tax increase. In response to last week's interviews, support for a sales tax at the same r ate following the same statement of reed with mention of a six-year sunset was 72.7%. This change may reflect a slight increase in support for a sales tax proposal or may reflect the impact of a six-year sunset on support for a sales tax proposal'. B. In October, a 29 parcel tax received support from 59.9% of those interviewed (following the presentation of a statement of "the. needs faced by the library). In October, no sunset for the tax was mentioned only the annual cost of $29. In response to last week's interviews, support for a 24 parcel tax following the same statement with mention of a six year sunset received support from 62.2% of those interviewed. This difference is not much more than we would have expected from the October results had a rate of $24 been tested instead of 29 and, therefore, we see no real change in support for a parcel tax to support the libraries. 2. A six-year sunset does appear to increase support for any library tax. Those interviewed were asked if a six for a ten year sunset provision: would make them more or less likely to support a library tax proposal. The six-year sunset made Because of our experience with similar tests of sunset provisions,we believe this difference reflects the education of the electorate during tate June campaign more than mention of the six-year sunset. 1 63.2% more likely to support the tax. A ten-year sunset made 53.7% less likely to support the tax. Some of the resistance to a parcel tax is based on how voters view these two taxes. More voters believe that a parcel tax is unfair than believe the same of the sales tax. We asked half of those interviewed to agree or disagree with the statement: Parcel taxes are unfair and should not be used as a way to fund libraries. The other half of those interviewed were asked to agree or disagree with the statement: Sales taxes are unfair and should not be used as a way to fund libraries. Just over one-quarter, 28.7%, agreed or strongly agreed that sales taxes were unfair as presented in this statement. A larger group, 38.2%, agreed or strongly agreed that parcel taxes were unfair. To some degree, therefore, resistance to a parcel tax for libraries is based on a care belief about tax equity. Such beliefs are very hard to change during an election 3. Tax tolerance for a library proposal remains low and, if anything, the actual dollar amount voters would support for the libraries appears to have declined. in October of last year, the results of Tax Test 1 allowed us to concluded that the tax rate for a parcel tax would need to be set at or below 16 per year to be successful. This tax test was duplicated in the most recent survey. The responses collected last week indicate that to be successful across all five regions, the parcel tax rate would have to be set at or below$14 per year. 4. The existence of a large Mate budget surplus does have an i^fluence on voter reaction to a local tax increase. Those interviewed were asked to agree or disagree with the statement: Because the state has a large budget surplus, local taxes should not be increased to improve library services. More than half, 56.5%, agree or strongly agree with this statement. Among the 19.8% who strongly agree with this statement, support for even a $14 per year tax increase is severely depressed. 5. The survey included two open-ended questions to explore why people voted for or against the June library proposal. A. Those opposed indicate that there was not much more the campaign for the tax could have told therm or shown theme A large majority, 70%, of those who said they opposed the June tax measure told us that there was nothing else that might have influenced there to support the tax. Otherwise, those opposed presented an array of personal reasons for opposing the tax. B. Of greater interest are the reasons given by these who said they favored the aurae initiative for their support of the tax. One-quarter of those who supported the tax said they did so because it was needed and important. Another 20.4% said that they supported the proposal because it was for the children of the community. A slightly smaller group, 13.6%, said they supported the proposal because it would help 2 d provide education and knowledge to all. 13.6% and 110.8% sued very specific benefits, like more hours and more books, as the reason they supported the tax. 5. Endorsements do not appear to be as important as the specific benefits of the library tax. We re-tested the impact of saying that funds from the tax would be used to buy more books. As in October, this proposed use of funds has a very strong, positive impact. In October, 84.2% said they would be more likely �o support the tax proposal knowing the funds would be used to buy more books. In last week's interviews, 80% had a similar response. This response contrasts sharply with the 40.5% who said an endorsement from the Taxpayers' Association would make them more likely to support the tax; the 31.7% who reacted positively to Senator Rainey's endorsement and the 25.7% who reacted positively to Assemblyperson Leach's endorsement. J. Bradford Senden Marcia Allinatori July 21, 1998 ATTACHMENT COUNTY COUNSELOS OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 Pine Street, 9th Floor Martinez CA 94553 (925) 335-1833 Fax(925) 646-1978 September 28, 1998 To: Phil Batchelor, Coaiity Administrator �� r From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel By: Dennis Graves, Deputy County Coun Re. Additional library funding from a County-wide increase-.in sales tax and Coleman v Co. of Santa Clary Summaa Under Coleman v County of Santa Clara, 64 Cal.App. 4th 662 (1998), additional library expenditures could be funded 1) if a majority of voters in a regularly scheduled or emergency declared election (Proposition 218) approve a Countywide increase of not less than carie-quarter of one percent in the sales tax, the proceeds of which augment the County general fund and 2) if use of such additional funds for the library is clearly discretionary with the Board, even though an advisory measure demonstrates that the voters would like the additional funds spent on libraries. Introduction This responds to..your-September 15, 1998 memorandum, enclosing the memorandum of Supervisor De ahlnier, asking whether Coleman v County of Santa Clara, 64 Cal.App, 4th662 (1998) might provide a basis for the Board to augment funding for libraries -upon a simple majority voter approval of an increase in the Countywide sales tax. Sackpround: General and Special Taxes New general taxes require only a simple majority voter approval, whereas new special taxes require a two-thirds super-majority approval. (Art. Y111C, Sec. 2(b),(d); Art. X11(A, Sec. 4; Gov. C. Seas. 53722-3.) General taxes are those which are placed in the County general fund and not legally earmarked for a specific purpose. (Art. XIIIC, Sec. `1(a),(d); City and County of Sart Franclsco v Farrell, 32 Cad 47, 57 (1982)). In contrast, the use of special taxes is legally I limited, even if the taxes purport to be general taxes by virtue of being passed through a general fund. (ld.) Unlike cities and counties, which are general governmental jurisdictions, special districts, agencies and authorities are formed to accomplish specific governmental purposes and, accordingly, all special district., agency or authority taxes are deemed special taxes. (See Rider v County of San Diego, 1 C 4th 1,15 (1991); Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v Guardino, 11 C 4th 229, 232 [19951.) A recent library special sales tax proposal for an increase of orae-eighth of one percent obtained a simple majority but failed to get the necessary two-thirds super-Majority approval.' Thus, the distinction between general and special taxes appears to be a critical issue as to funding of the library. Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v Guardino In Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authotrty v Guardino, supra, I I C 4th 220, (hereafter"Guardino') a sales and use tax was-adopted by majority vote after being proposed by a local transportation authority pursuant to Public Utilities Code Sections 180000 et. seq. The Public Utilities Code authorized such a tax under the transactions and use tax law (Rev. +Tax. C. Secs. 7251 et. seq.) but limited the use of the proceeds to the specific putpose of funding transportation projects. (See Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authotity v Guardino, supra, 11 C 4th 220, 232.) Because it was for a local transportation authority pursuant to Public Utilities Code 180000 et. seq and was limited to funding transportation projects, the Guardino tax Jas held . to violate the Government Code Section; 83722 (Prop 62) requirement of two- thirds voter approval of special taxes. (Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v Guardino, supra, 11 C 4th 220, 261.) Coleman v County of Santa Clara and.Advisory Elections After the Guardino decision, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors proposed another tax under the transactions and use tax law(Rev. +Tax.C. Sees. 7280, 7251 et. secs.). (See Coleman v County of Santa Clara, supra, 64 Cal.App. 4th 852, 665 (ftnt. 5); Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v Guardino, .supra, 11 C 4th 220, 250.) Although a non-binding companion advisory vote (`Measure X) indicated the voters wanted the proceeds used for transportation projects, the ballot measure authorizing the tax ("Measure B ) specifically noted that the proceeds of the tax were to be used for general County purposes. (Coleman v County of Santa Clara, supra, 64 CA 4th 662, 666; Cal.Sup.Ct. Review den. 8-26-98.) The tax was proposed under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7286.59, which authorizes a two-thirds voter approval special, sales tax for library funding. 2 A 77.6 percent majority of the voters approved Measure A and 51.8 percent majority approved Measure B. Upon a court challenge, the Sixth District Court of Appeal held that the tax was a general tax requiring only a simple majority approval because the proceeds were placed in the County general fund, were available for general County purposes, and were not legally required to be used for transportation projects. (Coleman v County of Santa.Clara, supra, 64 Cal.App. 4th 662, 672.) Notwithstanding that the Board of Supervisors may have intended to honor the Measure A waters' wishes that the proceeds be used for transportation projects, the Court considered the critical point to be that the Measure A vote was scorn-binding, so that the fund's were not legally required to be used for transportation projects. Use of an Advisory Vote and a !Majority Approval Transactions and Use General Tax to Fund L ibraryServices in Contra Costa County In our opinion, the procedure approved in Coleman also could be used to fund, at the Board's discretion, library services in Centra Costa.County. Thus, the voters would adopt a County-wide transactions and use tax by majority vete, with a tandem advisory vote indicating the desire to use the proceeds for library purposes. While the Board of Supervisors of course may want to honor the expressed desire of the voters, the key to the validity of such a procedure is that the Board is not legally bound to do so. Author+ty for Additional "Sales" gransactions andIlse) Tax 1f such a tax is to be proposed, the Board must have authority to impose the tax within the limits set by the Legislature. Pursuant to the transactions and use tax law (R+TC Secs. 7285, 7251 et. sere, a transactions and use tax totalling 1% is now levied in this County. (R+TC Sec. 7261,7262,7262.2.) The total amount of transactions and use taxes levied in the County cannot exceed 1.5%. (R+TC Secs. 7251.1, 7285.3.) Thus, with voter approval, Contra Costa County could increase the transactions and use tax by as much as .5%, but can do so only in increments of.25%. (See R+TC Sec. 7285.) 2 A .representative of the State Board of Equalization, local Revenue Allocation Section, recently indicated that the Board takes the view that the Revenue and Taxation Code Section 72€5 reference to "0.25 percent or a multiple thereof'means that a lesser amount(eg, one-eighth of one-percent) cannot be imposed pursuant to that Section. Subject to the 1.5% total transactions and use tax limitation of Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7251.1, agone-quarter of one percent (or multiple thereof) "County transactions and use tax* is authorized by Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 7285 et. seq. However, such a tax has not been adopted in this County. It is this authority that would allow the library tax under discussion herein. In addition, the Beard has authority beyond the 1.5% limitation of Revenue and Taxation Cade Section 7251.1 to propose either acane-eighth of one percent or one- 3 As indicated above, if a majority Grote is to suffice the ballot measure should specify that the proceeds of such a tax will be glared in the general fund and legally be available for general county funding purposes. If it is determined that all of the proceeds of a .25% transactions and use tax may riot be required for county-wide library purposes, the accompanying non4)inding advisory measure could indicate additional voter desired public rises. Finally, in order to call a county-wide quarter cent "sales' tax election pursuant to the Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7285, the proposal must be approved by a two-thirds vote of all members of the Board of Supervisors. (See also Gov. C. Sec. 53724(b).) Also, such a general local sales tax. election "shall .be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body." (Cal Const. Art.X11IC, Sec:. (b) [proposition 218].) CC: Board of Supervisors, District Offices Anne Fdlarie Gold, County Librarian C:libsalestx.doc quarter of one percent transactions and use tax for funding public library construction, acquisition, programs, and operations. (R+TC Sec. 72 6.59.) However, this would require a two-thirds grate slake it would be a tax levier( for a specific purpose and thus e deemed a special taxa.°(Art. XIIIC, Sec. 1(d).) This was the tax that-was proposed earlier this year, bort failed to get the required two-thirds approval. " Although often called a sales tax, the tax in question is technically a 'transactions and use taxa Transactions and use taxes are in addition to the 1.25% Countywide local sales and use tax levied pursuant to revenue and Taxation Cade Section 7200 et_ seal. (the Bradley-Burns Uniform local Sales and Use Tax Law). (See R+TC Sec. 7202(a), Ord_ C. Cap. 54--2.) 4 ATTACHMENT EXHIBIT A BALLOT MEASURE FOR A OtdF 7 7q 2000 ELECTION ON A COUNTY— WIDE OUNT dt IDE LIBRARY SPECIAL SALES TAX To maintain and improve local neighborhood libraries by buying books, educational materials, technology and computers, to increase and make more consistent the number of hogs local. libraries will be open; to improve educational programs for children, adults and seniors and to maintain, improve and expand community libraries, shall Ordinance 9 - of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors be approved to impose a sales tax at the rate of one-eighth of one percent? G:AbailotWcxhioita.doc 7/29199 0 m , c X X 0 0 a m m 0 m z 7J 0 m m X > 9z ® z 0 Z 0 'q z ® - f � 6 ! m € > M ` s7a fi g* > CA CA C i (A CA Q -4 m 0 01 -q to z 01 { M w - 92 co zi z ch cn CA co -4 th z th c Q -4bi cc av 0 M a C) m > z m m c z > 0 �� r o Z Z 3� z z z � r, z 0 0 r E M 0 z 0 jc z T 0 z o 0 m Fi 0 V 0 m ® a z> 0 Z �c m E� f Ra tv —a —e _. cap c3 0 Ch ivcsswsss `w a00C3s � p trs C5 w ccs s v cb LT --d 0 CO -4 W Z � m ;ot� tL (M C) aJ W CD 0 w 00 GAS +� z 0 m 4 cn Z (1) 0 M cte cxs 0) -4 W ss 0) 0) —a co 0". ) wtowtocx ?vM (DMuD cp� c C:) M c� c Q � s w t-j w ras � a a� � 5 z ss: A :,n o 0 CP Cn Cn ms m Ia3s P Y Cx + Ca9 z. w w co w (D C) C7 Cat 1�`S 0 c � N) - " to W — CD co w 0? -5. * C) C)t ECJ Eti? tJ '.3J -s zf o _ # d9 int CJt Lo -.4 CJ's Z6 a co (P OD O + tJt t Ln t� CT7 s tg9 C S 'rte '.St L� m CS m SffiY G`3 M C: CJ's CD --1 csa C. m CJ's as (M m z .a. W 0) a, Calf N 6 w C., � t�strotsc� wtssrs %sissm ^3 to a`ts 6 c mo z r- x a W w W °o w > z CA 0 z 0 m m � m -4 a M � c Mm 0 � eM0 0 0 0 z 0 z 0 0 z --iz t 3 0 0� 0 0 B o z 0 m 0 cis X � M 0 cn _c�'o -tea ccs i 4�6 cc cr: 0) 4h. to co ry cr w CO Z s i'i°s m X 3 (0 w cr. 4�1 cn co n; ri) b. > m i s 0 D t m i a E 9? 0z Ytl�lq «i C) R h7 cr, Pt9 !�3 !�, A -41 C� m ca; .A Cm R3 co 6C5;w C+`7 C;! `�; w —i 37 CPi C) wCb -4i M (� to N) N) NOw Pas Nswr> ?w is 7i 0 co co O O O O O O fl G O O O G O © O Chw cc -4 0) n cof1l) ;� wC." � "+1 CS {$;y t31 teJ C7 w to t) 01 w C� G X G m a� IMCi M Ci m m "n orl� Ul Cil (.n E 0) (A Cra > C57 A) on m w "Y 0 m c m N z o` z � _® In i 0 -4 > Z c'a ;a 1 ai � Com' 0 �( � . 171 z3 ` 0 0 0; t 0 ® 0 :0 �S 0 ;a 0, p 00 t m m -� � a m 0 c � e G) 2 M N cs t7s c to w N%00 0) m - Us Z FF X cT> W tai w IQ q cc —.4 0 0 � m 8 X -4 C C M w co 3 .3 i ta: (.n 4 cf5 -� .$a <0 W -4 (0 M -d1 co tai W .1a ns C.P cr cn Ul1 to its r too tz i " ?Q ?.i o ccs a .r. 00 CA � -4W Z --! EZi ..a h3 L'3 tvJ baa �.? th tTE G3 $i 6 �E i tTs CS3 C35 W (33 Coo) �f3 CTs ,z 4 -a co W -4 co .ice c9 C.) 515 o a cx c u o o i o o c c!7 0 -Z` {rg z t`c 6II$ c #71 0 0 Z > Z z n o > o � > M > -4 ® X > c z z 0 Z 0 M 0 im ® X7 IV 0 !CM 0 -40 30 M > z 0 M cn 0 E� s 73 < > i 0 > i > X e i (n Z W z W Ti 8a N !Q i i�V C ?4J >0 «< P a Cn N.) NJ -4 J cn C $b CT; 0 — M to 00 tJ` a � ;u —% tJ to C?t CP W C.0 -4 M i 0) -A n.1 M �$ � wW WtJMN) w Ol4b, A. z to --3 N -a t,) h '-4 c o cin A A © Ca 0a o 0 as o``r.. �, d. \ \ o``... \ �, c•, o \ � CSS .ate to troi 'C.3" -1 01 t) .h> W tom' Cgs .S' co � Ski! co (D p co w CEJ co 00 CD CP tis M �3 at M e73;v� C7a is -4 to (JI tis M U Ul cam+ z P,a E cn (tJ o b M ® to to oo a c a o 0 0 0 o FY9i `o.. `o.. �., q. `oma. \ `o•., o C/g i b�5 cu � z 0 0 0 r- 0 m 5 r, > x > r- 2m mc 0 m M 0 2 M � --q 0 z 0€ € CAm F_ r- Ol z m °a Mi m€ > (D 00 --4%s� -.4 Ml�-IjC� � � C � r�.1 p M a r-+ G2 C CA z to z ED m -< Q V (C ry V ON Co Co 'J V C.11 C8 C39 m w V Q, M to C7 gg` 00 ecs' cra cn m J to Io c -a w to co nmma c a �sC � a a as b. \ \ �. \ c $. i o 0 0• \ c o mE -C3t e9 C7 C4 co w V CO CXR w G z cc V V W ttS -* w r J CrS w $. C co 00 CC? G 88p r'rr i Cc Cil (o CSt w -* SYs o m (D O i N m t� z tp ATTACHMENT The Center for • Opirfion 231 Market Place,Suite 235 San Ramon,California 94583 ?horse:+1 (800)827-1466 "ax:+1 1510'551-703 Centra Costa County Library Surrey Results July €998 .e following suimmarizes the result of the 600 interviews conducted in 'he library's five regions to assess the feasibility of a November tax election and to look at why the June tax proposal failed. . The dune ele ,tion has had an impact on the electorate. Support for a sales tax proposal is slightly stronger now than it was when we surveyed last October. Support for a parcel tax appears to be unchanged. A. In October, a sales tax received support from•, 66% of those interviewed (following the presentation of a statement of the needs faced by the library). In October, no sunset was mentioned in connection with the sales 'tax proposal only the fact that this would be a 1/8`x' cent tax increase. 11r, response to last week's interviews, support for a sales tax at the same rate following the same statement of need with mention of a six-year sunset was 72.7%. This change may reflect a slight increase in support for a sales tax proposal or may reflect the impact of a six-year sunset on support for a sages tax proposal'. B. In Octobers a 29 pard tax received support from 6g.g°!o of those interviewed (following the presentation of a statement of the needs faced by the library). In October, no sunset for the tax was mentioned only the annual cost of $29. In response to last week's interviews, support for a $24 parcel tax following the same statement with mention of a six year sunset received support from 62.2% of those interviewed. This difference is not much more than we would have expected from the October results had a rate c` S24 been tested instead of $29 and, therefore, we see no real charge In suppo:t ,or a parcel tax to support the libraries. 2. A six-year sunset does appear to increase support for any library tax. Those interviewed were asked if a six or a ten year sunset provision would make 'hem, more or less likely to support a library tax proposal. The six-year, sunset rade Because of our experience with similar tests of sunset provisions,we believe this difference reflects-fie education of the electorate during the June campaign more than mention,of the six-year sunset. 1 63.2% more likely to support the tax. A tern-year sunset made 53.7% less 1 ke v to support the tax. Some of the resistance to a parcel tax is based on how voters view these two taxes. More voters believe that a parcel tax is unfair than believe the same of the sales tax. We asked half of those interviewed to agree or disagree with the statement: Parcel taxes are unfair and should rare be used as away to fund libraries. The other half of those interviewed were asked to agree or disagree with the statement- Sales Faxes are unrair and should not be Waseca'as away to fund libraries. Aust over one-quarter, 28.7%, agreed or strongly agreed that sales taxes were unfair as presented ilin this statement. A larger group, 38.2%, agreed or strongly agreed that parcel taxes were unfair. To some degree, therefore, resistance to a parcel tax for libraries is based on a care belief about tax equity. Such beliefs are very bard to change during a; election. 3. Tax tolerance for a library proposal remains low and, if anything, the actual dollar amount voters would support for the libraries appears to have declined. In October of last year, the results of Tax Test 1 allowed us to concluded that the tax rate for a parcel tax would need to be set at or below 16 per year to be successful. This tax test was duplicated in the most recent surrey. The responses collected last week indicate that to be successful across all ;ve regions, the parcel tax rate would have to be set at or below $ 14 per year. 4. The existence of a large State budget surplus does have an inf•.uenC-e on voter reaction to a local tax increase. Those interviewed were asked to agree or disagree with the statement: Because the state has a large budget surplus, local taxes should not be increased to improve library services. More than half, 55.5%, agree or strongly agree with this statement. Among the 19.8% who strongly agree with this statement, support for even a 14 per year tax increase is severely depressed. The survey included two open-ended questions to explore why people voted for or against the June literary proposal. A. Those opposed indicate that there was not mulch more the campaign for the tax could have told them or shown them. A large majority, 70%, of those who said they apposed the June tax measure told us that there was nothing else that might have influenced them to support the tax. Otherwise, those opposed presented an array of personal reasons for opposing the tax. B. Of greater interest are the reasons given by those who said they favored the June initiative for their support of the tax. One-quarter of those who supported the tax said they dies' so because it was needed and important. Another 20.4% said that they supported the proposal because it was for the children of the commursity. A slightly smaller group, 13.610, said they supported the proposal because it would help 2 provide education and knowledge to all. 13.6% and 10.8% sited very specific benefits, like more hours and more books, as the reason they supported the tax. 6. Endorsements do not appear to be as important as the specific benefits of the llbmni tax. We re-tested the impact of saying that funds fror�n the tax would be used to buy more books. As in October, this proposed use of funds has a very string, positive impact. In October, 84.2% said they would be more likely to support the tax proposal knowing the funds would be used to buy more books. In last week's interviews; 80% had a similar response. This response contrasts sharply with the 40.5% who said an endorsement from the Taxpayers' Association would make thea more likely to support the tax; the 311.7% who reacted positively to Senator Rainey's endorsement and the 25.7% who reacted positively to Assemblyperson Leach's endorsement. Je Bradford Senden Marcia Allington July 21, '998 3 ATTACHMENT COUNTY COLINSEL'S OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 Pine Street, 9th Floor Martinez CA 94553 (925) 335-1833 Fax(925) 646--1078 September 28, 1998 To: Phi, Batchelor, Coop_�/Administrator From:: Victor J. Westmar�, County Counsel By: Dennis Graves, Deputy County Coun Re: Additional library funding from a County-wide increase--inn sales tax and Coleman v Co. of Santa Clara Sum.mary: Under Coleman v County of Santa Clara, 64 Cal.App. 4t' 552 (1998), additional library expenditures could be funded 1) if a majority of voters in a regularly scheduled or emergency declared election (Proposition 218) approve a County=wide increase of not less than one-quarter of one percent in the sales tax, the proceeds of which augment the County general fund and 2) if use of such additional funds for the library is clearly discretionary with the Board, even though an advisory measure demonstrates that the voters would like the addivonnal funds spent on libraries. introduction This responds to.your.September 15, 1998 memorandum, enclosing the memorandum of Supervisor De aUlnier, asking whether Coleman v County of Santa Clam, 64 Cal.App. 4 ' 562 (1998) alight provide a basis for the Board to augment funding for libraries -upon a simple majority voter approval of an increase in the County-Vide sales tax. Background: General and Special Taxes New general taxes require only a simple majority voter approval, whereas neva special taxes require a two-thirds super-majority approval. (Art. X111C, Sec. 2(b),(d); Art. X111A, Sec. 4; Gov. C. Secs. 53722-3.) General taxes are those whic are placed in the County general fund and not legally earmarked for a specific purpose. (Art. X111C, Sec. 1(a),(d); City and County of San Francisco v Farrell, 32 Cad 47, 57 (1382)). In contrast, the use of special taxes is legally 1 limited, even if the taxes purport to be general taxes by virtue of being passed through a general find. (Id.) Unlike cities and counties, which are general governmental jurisdictions, special districts, agencies and authorities are formed to a,;complish specific governmental purposes and, accordingly, all special district, agency or authority taxes are deemed special taxes. (See Bider v County of San Diego, I C 4th 1,15 (1991); Santa Mara County Local Transportation Authority v Guardino, 11 C 4th 220, 232 [1995].) A recent library special safes tax proposal for an increase of one-eighth of one percent obtained a simple majority but failed to get the necessary two-thirds super-majority approval.$ Thus, the distinction between general and special taxes appears to be a critical issue as to funding of the library. Santa Mara County Local f ranspodation Authority v Guardino In Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v Guardino, supra, 11 t; 4th 220, (hereafter"Guardino'� a sales and use tax was-adopted by maprilty vote after being proposed by a local transportation authority pursuant to Public Utilities Code Sections 130000 et. seq. The public Utilities Code authorized such a tax under the transactions and use tax law (Rev. +Tax. C. Secs. 7251 et, seq.) but limited the use of the proceeds to the specific purpose of funding transportation projects. (See Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v Guardino, supra, 11 C 4th 220, 232.) Because it was for a local transportation authority pursuant to Public Utilities Code 130000 et. sea and was limited to funding transportation projects, the Guardino tax was held . to "ola.te t`;e Government Code Section 53722 (c'r'op 62) requirement of two- thirds voter approval of special taxes. (Santa Clara County Local Tmansportation Au hority v Guardino, supra, 11 C 4th 220, 261.) Co?eman v County of Santa Clara and Advisory Elections After the Guardino decision, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors proposed another tax under the transactions and*use tax law (Rev. +Tax. C. Secs. 7255, 7251 et. seq.). (See Coleman v County of Santa Clam, supra., 64 Cal.App. 41th 662, 666 (ftnt. 5); Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v Guardino, supra, 11 C 4th 220, 250.) Although a non-binding companion advisory vote ("Measure A") indicated the voters wanted the proceeds used for transportation projects, the ballot measure authorizing the tax ("Measure B') specifically noted that the proceeds of the tax were to be used for general County purposes. (Coleman v County of Santa Clara, supra, 64 CA 4th 662, 666; Cal.Sup.Ct. Review den. 6-26-96.) The tax was proposed wader revenue and Taxation Code Section 7286.59, Wiich authorizes a tyro-thirds voter approval special sales tax for library funding. 2 A 77.6 percent majority of the voters approved Measure A and 51.8 percent majority approved Measure B. Upon a court challenge, the Sixth District Court of Appeal held that the tax was a general tax requiring only a simple majority approval because the proceeds were placed in the County general fund, were available for general County purposes, and were not legally required to be used for transportation projects. (Coleman v County of Santa Clara, supra, 64 Cal.App. 4th 662, 672.) Notwithstanding that the Board of Supervisors may have intended to honor the pleasure A voters` wishes that the proceeds be used for transportation projects, the Court considered the critical point to be that the Measure A vote was non-binding, so that the funds were not legally required to be used for transportation projects. Use of an Advisory Vote and a Majority Approval Transactions and Use General Tax to Fund Library Services in_Contra Costa County In our opinion, the procedure approved in Coleman also could be used to fund, at the Board's discretion, library services in Contra Costa Country. Thus, the voters would adopt a County-wide transac€:ons a; d use tax by majority vote, with a tandem advisory vote indicating the desire to use the proceeds for library purposes. While the Board of Supervisors of course may want to honor the expressed desire of the voters, the key to the validity of such a procedure is that the Board is not legally bound to do so. Authority for Additional "Sales" fTransactions and Use) Tax If such a tax is to be proposed, the Board must have authority to impose t�ze tax within the limits set by the Legislature. Pursuant to the transactions and use tax law (R+TC Secs. 7285, 7251 et. seq), a transactions and use tax totalling 1% is now levied in this Country. (R+TC Sec. 7261,7262,7262.2.) The total amount of transactions and use taxes levied in the County cannot exceed 1.5%. (R+TC Secs. 7251.1, 7285.3.) Thus, with voter approval, Centra Costa County could increase the transactions and use tax by as much as .5%, but can do so only to increments of.25%. (See R+TC Sec. 7285.)2 2 A -representative of the Mate Board of Equalization, Local Revenue Allocation Section, recently indicated that the Board takes the view that the Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7285 reference to 00.25 percent or a multiple thereof' means that a lesser amount(eg, one-eighth of one percent) cannot he imposed pursuant to that Section. Subject to the 1.5% total transactions and use tax limitation of Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7251.1, a on"uarter of one percent (or multiple thereon 'County transactions and use tax` is authorized by Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 7285 et. seq. However, such a tax has not been adopted in this County. It is this authority that would allow the library tax under discussion herein. In addition, the Board has authority beyond the 1.5% limitation of Revenue and Taxation Cade Section 7251.1 to propose either a one-eighth of one percent or one- 3 As indicated above, if a majority vote is to suffice the ballot measure should specify that the proceeds of such a tax will be placed in the general fund and legally be available for general county funding purposes. If it is determined that all of the proceeds of a .25% transactions and use tax may not be required for county-Fide library purposes, the accompanying non-binding advisory measure could indicate additional voter desired public uses. Finally, in order to call a county-wide quarter cent "sales" tax election pursuant to the Revenue and Taxation Code Section 72€35, the proposal must be approved by a two-thirds vote of all members of the Board of Supervisors. (See also Gov. C. Sec. 53724(b).) Also, such a general local sales tax election "shall .be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body." (Ca€ Const. Art.X111C, Sec..2(b) [proposition 218].} CC: Beard of Supervisors, District Offices Anne Marie Gold, County Librarian Calibsalestx.doc quarter of one percent transactions and use tax for funding public library construction, acquisition, programs, and operations. (R+TC Sec. x"28 .59.) However, this would require a two-thirds vote since it would be a tax levied for a specific purpose and thus be deemed a special taxa (.Ort. X111C, Sec. 'I(d).) This was the tax Haat was proposed earlier this year, but failed to get the required two-thirds approval. *' Although often called a sales tax, the tax in question is technically a 'transactions and use tax. Transactions and use tams are in addition to the 1.25% County wide local sales and use tax levied pursuant to revenue and Taxation Code Section 7200 et. seq. (the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use `rax Law). (See R+TC Sec. 7202(a), Card. C. Clap, 64-2.) 4 ATTACHMENT EXHIBIT A BALLOT MEASURE FOR MARCH 7, 2000 ELECTION ON A COUNTY- WIDE LIBRARY SPECIAL SALES TAX To maintain and improve local neighborhood libraries by buying books, educational materials, technology and computers; to increase and make more consistent the number of hours fecal libraries will be open; to improve educational programs for children, adults and seniors and to maintain, improve and expand community libraries, shall Ordinance 99- of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors be approved to impose a sales tax at the rate of one-eighth of one percent? q:A8aE';etJC\exhibiia.ccc 7/29/99 c Co x� �n r.. g ✓� �R � ate+. C!1 i Co 6 0 c m M m CA z f.j t -L W Pts ; :'4 -�► + �c�s s a s � -4§e co 0 z n oa o F::5.oa M 01 M � ° to CA 14 co CD mj �i ap 6s x m -Cx oommomom w' > 00 0 3 _ 0 X °# ; _ z 0 Z0 0 M 9 0;rm Z 0 m a 0 s m s ens rato M -tet , 0 --4 cis Z; � m cisza cowccsa coxwWz>» z a 0 C)cn z ti ;5 Br CYs C� CS3 .SCaJ C a -a M M —� w to m t W Nm h? 0 Co CEJ (C; 01 co -+ C� M w 4 4* P O is :t�- C.P -.aw -oto a Co k) c n to a z, s.: w rfa c to OD efi as zb -.: .s� 0 OD w 0) 0 a w Ij Iry OD -D. N t0 (P -4 C.T. C,J 0) 00 (D C$ 0: m M Cl) sit CP mo CTtty ccsi° C7 -AWUlm-° -R o � Y/,1 Z-4 m m c� co co a TO Z r- x o w w m T m > I � � z � rr �.yusr- 0z (Az _0 5o � < m --� ;a O ff_ a z m -4 z } a 0 11 2 �l 0 lZ � 0 0 00 M r > m za 0 c r- r G+s 0 (n scs Gi' r : stst 4 •t rn sts t� cc �a 4,- M m �& W Cas On JN cp w r C.? .� � � +• 0 > C ; Z C- z J MM ; cs � Ki car r r to .A m :� � C1 �tli -� ens � as .� C.n tc� r ;� �• co c�a t.a r rr w tv r..; w 1'.s C14 � A. ' csa cs� tr: cn cn C O CO C, a� a .a P -s E al �f m 00 co r trf w — M t>a C) r w r r w Gar 0i - ar r g� rn (,I -a r -� z �s � � =ter (,I err C3 sa -a w C) W jh� -. C:� --b €:� s3a i n CCs Gar w 0 Cas Cil 0 Gn Cas C�l r m era CYt Cis CTs cn N Gal caw. cn t. Gn Ci3 Cat (35 ° > t�swr -4cn - C 9) O ®i W W r CD (D coQ 0, Cas' ^4 o a �.t W 0 0 Fes,; 0 < 0t > 0mz X334 gclI 'V ;oC O , 0 - z M 0 0 - 0 .0 0 Cl)) 0 ;a 0. l � m M z 9 E > ' aaa 0 ch m vtwK) co co -,, Ol 0 m P > Z �- 3 -4 c: 2 M tm 0 6� .Ca CFS A $s r j CYs tr, cm CS's j C?�i� tC7 CS? ^wi C59 LXS dCS .�► 3�3 t45 �. 419 Ca C:Y t',T'F m CCas --.3 -r- co ---4 Cfri CP CSS -a CJY Ci`i -$ to -4 (0 V ' z ma i39 Ci9 C� C79 1!S tC3 C.) C+3 f, CJS C3# C,FS m 03 £T3 C�9 C73 "�1 L3: CFS -�.i C.s9 Co ^v'S CS9 Im z a CA CFS -f C'S:a o a a o o c c a a a 371 x Ic v m na z m er 0 -4 0 a i 0 r ZO� --4 > > -u o a o o €0 m z X 2 0 z ;RX _z Z rn Z 0 m X ° M f C0 r M < > i`3 tIt t GC I3t E3b CC ? Q L}7 Uzi m ria - n t� c� ct c W Z z m co 0 rr c> �; 0�+ srs tCs c c tr � crwtncr; w � � t� i -a' co t�� we weesr: �.aw rae �t- JM �aw � s toi 6 � tn�0 Goa) an 3 P (A CO cc m 0 Ili (o C) (D co 3y S.3 CCS --i co as .p. o} '-4 Zi. 0 Cts CSn to cull:m i i m tV CXS fia N) # tSS CC3 6� C3 w J Lt7 Lts, w CXi a cs o c c a c c a• c a a � e ammmozxom 0 0 "Cm { z o o o r- o m 5 r® x > r- 2 0 r- m � C -4 U) Z 0 -4 0 m 0 Lr IV 0 0 MCz t� m � ;arenis 0 00 0 717? s`tt �" � 0 z 0 L i m mi z 0 r 0 M 0 z, m z m 0 4A PnY is r" m t PJis? 4A A C o 93 N Iti3 fifJ i J CLS i c 4!? t : C` M (L3 cc la (P �F NI CST ! -* 45.; C%8 tr) w t.0 (a C.3 co 41, -4 til of to W � -� '-? Z m X C31 CSS '-4 to CLS --a C"G 0'3 0, W m m --a0 > C g r m Z c, C z € 0 -+ Pti3 £ 113 Ci3 db 3ti3 C) "moiy (D F~. --4 a Co to C) `4 * 0 N Cr to C.h 0 CFt w to w CD -.i (D Co N) M w co 0 a Itis #V W .$s� to � CIO z CESS CX3 t7S Oa 313 N CT `J W o ..a 1Tt (A CD C3 W 00 W -'I CLS co co W � .A W w .s is a W co dS °d W C 00CFS cn C33 Zn F-, -i CFS C3 ul a Z (A co co txt tti3 UI CO 113 tai CS #qi i -4 -4 co tj -+ W 11'P W W �. CL3 SY3 QJ --iCLr $9 t#3'W Co C3 ti7 C3 to a d CFt C:3 W C.3 T tl m d "4 m -4 0) m 113 ^,9 w CF3 m 4 V # 6 3 t33?z > r# �1 f Co do CFS a s C3S fti3 m A w t v8 Ls t CFS Co N, z, A C3 C3 . EXW CF3 6G3 CS a o o a a o c o 0 o c o a o o a a Fri r \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \? \ a egg 0 X m nY m cC CD m ATTACHMENT The Center for CommurfAy OlYinion 234 Market Place,Suite 235 San Ramon,California 94583 Phone,+1 (800)527-1466 Fax:+1 (54€3)551-7643 Contra Caste County library Survey Results July °1998 The follo;ging summarizes the reset of the 669 interviews conducted in the library's five regions to assess the feasibility of a November tax election and to look at why the June tax proposal failed. i. The .lune election~ has had an impact on the electorate. 5,u ppo� for a sales tax proposal is slightly stronger now than It was when we surveyed last October. Support for a parcel tax appears to be unchanged. A. In October, a sales tax received support from 66% of those interviewed (following the presentation of a statement of the deeds faced by the library). In October, no sunset was mentioned in connection with the sales tax proposal only the fact that this would be a 1/8th, cent sax increase, in response to last week's interviews, support for a sales tax at the same rare following the same statement of need with mention of a six-year sunset was 72.7%. This change may reflect a slight increase in support for a sales tax proposal or may reflect the impact of a six-year sunset on support for a sales tax proposal'. B. In October, a $29 parcel tax received support from 69.9% of those interviewed (following the presentation of a statement of the, needs faced by the library). In October, no sunset for the tax was mentioned only the annual coast of $29. In response to last week's interviews, support for a 24 parcel tax following the same statement with mention of a six year sunset received support from 62.2% of those interviewed. This differe ;ce is not ;much more than we would have expected from the October results had a rate of $24 been tested instead of $29 and, therefore, we see no real change in support for a parcel tax to support the libraries. 2. A six-year sunset aloes appear to increase support for any library tax. Those interviewed were asked if a six or a ten year sunset provision would make them more or less likely 'to support a library tax proposal. The six-year sunset made f Because of czar experience with similartests of sunset provisions,we believe this cfifferen�.e E�e{�..e cts :he education of the electorate during the June campaign more than mention of the six-year sunset. 1 3.2% more likely to support the tax. A ten-year sunset made 53.7% less likely to support the tax. Some of the resistance to a parcel tax is based on how voters view these two taxes. More voters believe that a parcel tax is unfair than believe the same of the sales tax. We asked half of those interviewed to agree or disagree with the statement: Marcel faxes are unfair and should not be used as a array to fund libraries. The other half of those interviewed were asked to agree or disagree with the stat ement: Sales taxes are unfair and should not be used as a away to fund libraries. Just over one-quarter, 28.7%. agreed or strongly agreed that sales taxes were unfair as presented in t~is statement. A larger group, 38.2%, agreed or strongly agreed that parcel taxes were unfair. To some degree, therefore, resistance to a parcel tax for libraries is based on a care belief about tax equity. Such beliefs are very hard to change during an election. 3. Tax tolerance for a library proposal remains low and, if anything, the actual, dollar amount waters Mould support for the libraries appears to have declined. in October of last year: the results of Tax gest I allowed us to concluded that the tax rate for a parcel tax would need to be set at or below $16 per year to be successful. This tax test was duplicated in the most runt survey. The responses collected last week indicate that to be successful across all five regions, the parcel tax rate would have to be set at or below 14 per year. 4. The existence of a large State budget surplus dues have an influence on voter reaction to a local tax increase. Those interviewed were asked to agree or disagree with the statement: Because the state has a large budget surplus, local taxes should not be increased to improve library services. More than half, 56.5%, agree or strongly agree with this statement. ,among the 19.8% who strongly agree with. this statement, support for even a 14 per year tax increase is severely depressed. 5. The survey included two open-ended questions to explore why people voted for or against the June library proposal. A. Whose apposed indicate that there was not much more the campaign for the tax could have ,old therm or shown therm. A large majority, 70%, of those who said they opposed the June tax measure told us that there pietas nothing else that might have influenced thern to support the tax. Otherwise, those opposed presented an array of personal reasons for apposing the tax. S. Of greater interest are the reasons given by those who said they favored the June initiative for their support of the tax. One-quarter of those who supported the tax said they did so because it was needed and important. Another 20.4% said that they supported the proposal because it was for the children of the community. A slightly smaller group, 13.6%, said they supported the proposal because it would help 2 provide education and knowledge to all. 13.6% and 10.8% sited very specific benefits, like more hours and more books, as the reason they supported the tax. 6. Endorsements des not appear to be as important as the specific benefits of the library tax. VVe re-tested the impact of saying that funds from the tax would be used to buy more books. As in October, this proposed use of funds has a eery strong, positive October,impact. In 84.2% said they would be more likely to support the tax proposal knowing the funds would be used to buy more books. In last week's interviews, 80% had a similar response. This response contrasts sharply with the 4 .5% who said an endorsement from the Taxpayers' Association would make them more likely to support the tax; the 31,7% who reacted positively to Senator l aineys endorsement and the 26.7% who reacted positively to Assernblyperson Leach's endorsement. J. Bradford Sender, Marcia Allington July 21, 1998 3 ATTACH M ENT COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 Pine Street, 9th Floor Martinez CA 94553 (925) 335-1833 Fax(925) 546-1078 September 28, 1995 To: Phil Batchelor, Cour Administrator From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel By: Dennis Graves, Deputy County Coun Re: Additional library funding from a County-wiide increase.-in sales tax and Coleman v Co. of Santa Clara Summary- Under Coleman v County of Santa Clara, 64 Cal.App. 4v' 662 (1998), additional library expenditures could be funded 1) if a majority of voters in a regularly scheduled or emergency declared election (Proposition 218) approve a County-tide increase of not less than orae-quarter of one percent in the sales tax, the proceeds of which augment the County general frond and 2) if use of such additional funds for the library is clearly discretionary With the Board, even though an advisory measure demonstrates that the voters would like the additional funds spent on libraries. introduction This responds to.,your-Septernber 15, 1998 memorandum, enclosing the memorandum of Supervisor De ai inier, asking :whether Coleman v County of Santa Clara, 64 Cal.App. 41) 662 (1998) might provide a basis for the Board to augment funding for libraries -upon a simple majority voter approval of an increase in the County-wide sales tax. Backciround General and Soecial`Faxes New general taxes require only a simple majority voter approval, whereas new special taxes require a two-thirds super-majority approval. (Art. Xll1C, Sec. 2(b),(d); Art. XlllA, Sec. 4{ Gov. C. Secs. 53722-3.) General taxes are those whit-h are placed in the County general fund and not legally earmarked for a specific purpose. (Art. X111C, Sec. 1(a),(d)s City and County of San Francisco v Farrell, 32 C3d 47, 57 (1932)). 1n contrast, the use of special taxes is legally 1 limited, even if the taxes purport to be general taxes by virtue of being passed through a general fund. (ld.) Unlike cities and counties, ,which are general governmental jurisdictions, special districts, agencies and authorities are formed to accomplish specific governmental purposes and, accordingly, all special district, agency or authority takes are deemed special taxes. (See Wider v County of Sari Diego, 1 C 4th 1,15 (1991); Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v Guardino, I I C 4th 220, 232 (19951.) A recent library special safes tax proposal for an increase of one-eighth of one percent obtained a simple majority but failed to get the necessary two-thirds super-majority approval.' Thus, the distinction between general and special taxes appears to be a critical issue as to funding of the library. Santa_Clara Countv Local transportation Authon v Guarding In, Santa tiara County Local Tiansporfafion Authority v Guardino, supra, I°I C 4th 220, (hereafter"Guardino') a sales and use tax was-adopted by majority vote after being proposed by a local transportation authority pursuant to Public Utilities Code Sections 18OOOO et. seq. The Public Utilities Code authorized such a tax under the transactions and use tax lave (Q. +Tax. C. Secs. 7251 et. seq.) but limited the use of the proceeds to the specific purpose of funding ti-ansportation projects. (See Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v Guarding, supra, 11 C 4th 220, 232.; Because it was for a local transportation authority pursuant to Public Utilities Code 130000 et. seq and was limited to funding transportation projects, the Guardino tax was held . to violate the Government Cade Section 53722 (Prop 62) requirement of two- thirds voter approval of special taxes. (Santa Glare County Local Transportation Authority v Guardino, supra, I I C 4th 220, 261.) Coleman v County of Santa Clam and .Advisory Taction, After the Guardino decision, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors proposed another tax under the transactions and'use' tax law(Rev. +Tax. C. Secs. 7235, 7251 et. seq.). (See Coleman v C..ounty of Santa Clam, supra, 64 Cal.App. 4th 652, 666 (fent. 5); Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v Guardino, supra, 11 C 4th 220, 2501.) Although a non-binding companion advisory vote CMeasure Ate) indicated the voters granted the proceeds used for transportation projects, the ballot measure authorizing the tax ("Measure S") specifically noted that the proceeds of the tax were to be used for general County purposes. (Coleman v County of Santa Clara, supra, 64 CA 4th 662, 666; Cal.Sup.Ct. Review den. 8-26-98.) ' The tax was proposed under revenue and Taxation Code Section 7286.59, which authorizes a two-thirds voter approval special sales tax for library funding. 2 A 77.6 percent majority of the voters approved pleasure A and 51.6 percent majority approved Measure B. Upon a court challenge, the Sixth District Court of Appeal held that the tax was a general tax requiring only a simple majority approval because the proceeds were placed in the County general fund, were available for general County purposes, and were not legally required to be used for transportation projects. (Coleman v County of Santa.Clara, supra, 64 CaLApp. 4th 662, 672.) l`Notwithstanding that the Board of Supervisors may have intended to honor the Measure A voters' wishes that the proceeds be used for transportation projects, the Court considered the critical point to be that the Measure A,vote was non-binding, so that the funds were not legally required to be used for transportation projects. Use of an Adviso!y Vote and a Maiority Approval Transactions and Use General Tax to Fund Utbrary Services in Contra Costa County Ir our opinion, the; procedure approved in Coleman also could be used to fund, at the Board's discretion, library services in Contra Costa County. Thus, the voters would adopt a County-wide transactions and use tax by majority vote, with a tandem advisory vote indicating the desire to use the proceeds for library purposes. While the Board of Supervisors of coarse may want to honor the expressed desire &the voters, the key to the validity of such a procedure is that the Board is not legally bound to do so. Authority for Additional 'Sales" (Transactions and Use) Tax If such a tax is to be proposed, the Board must have authority to impose the tax within; the limits set by the Legislature. Pursuant to the transactions and use tax law (R+`l"C Secs. 7285, 7251 et. seq), a transactions tsactions and use tax totalling 1% is now levied in this County. (R+TC Sec. 7261,7262,7262.2.) The total amount of transactions and use taxes levied in the County cannot exceed 1.5%. (R+TC Secs. 7251.1, 7265.3.) Thus, with voter approval, Contra Costa County could increase the transactions and use tax by as much as .5%, but can do so only in increments of.25%. (See R+TC Sec. 7i85.)2- 2 265.)22 A .representative of the State Board of Equalization, Local Revenue Allocation Section, recently indicated that the Soared tapes the view that the Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7285 reference to '0.25 percent or a multiple thereon means that a Lesser amount(eg, cane-eighth of one percent) cannot be imposed pursuant to that Sec uon. Subject to the 1.5% total transactions and use tax limitation of Revenue and Taxation Cade Section 7251.1, a one-quarter of one percent (or multiple thereof) 'County transactions and use tax* is authorized by Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 7255 et. se q. However, such a tax has not been adopted in this County. it is this authority that would allow the library tax under discussion herein. In addition, the Board has authority beyond the 1.5% limitation of Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7251.1 to propose either a one-eighth of one percent or one- . � As indicated above, if a majority vote is to suffice tete ballot measure should specify that the proceeds of such a tax will be placed in the general fund and legally be available for general county funding purposes. if it is determined that all o€the proceeds of a .25% transactions and use tax may not be rewired for county-wide library purposes, the accompanying non binding advisory measure could indicate additional voter desired public apses. Finally, in order to call a county-gide quarter cent "sales" tax election pursuant to the Revenue and Taxation Code Section. 7285, the proposal must be approved by a Nvo-thirds vote of all members of the Board of Supervssors.3 (See also Gov. C. Sec. 53724(b).) Also, such a general local sales tax election Oshall .be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members o€ the gove€Ming body of the local government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body." (Cal Const. Art.X111C, Sec. 2(b) (Proposition 2181.) CC: Board or Supervisors, District Offices Anne Marie Gold, County Librarian C:libsalestx.doc quarter of one percent transactions and use tax for funding public libr�iry construction, acquisition, programs, and operations. (R T C Sec. 728(3.59.) However, this would require a two-thirds vote since it would be a tax levied for a specific purpose and thus be deemed a special tax. °(Art, XllIC, Sec. I(d).) This was the tax that-was proposed earlier this year, but failed to get the required two-thirds approval. " Although often called a sales tax, the tax. in question is technically a 'transactions and use tax. Transactions and use taxes are in addition to the 1.25°l0 County wide local sales and use tax levied pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7200 et_ seg. (the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use 'fax Law). (See +TC Sec. 7202(a); Ord, C. Chap. 54-2.) 4 ATTACHMENT EXHIBIT A BALLOT MEASURE FOR MARCH 7, 2044 ELECTION ON A COUNTY- WIDE LIBRARY SPECIAL SALES TAX To maintain and improve local neighborhood libraries by buying books, educatior1al materials, technology and computers; to increase and make more consistent the number of hours local libraries will be open; to improve educational programs for children, adults and seniors and to maintain, improve and expand community libraries, shall Ordinance 99- of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors be approved to impose a sales tax at the rate of one-eighth of one percent? ObaiictWexhibita.doc 7/29/99 L LA ca o Z 3 z � V o d o cn r to tea z M 0 0 m 0 > >E; C 0i 41 01 M a > s en7s -------------- z 0 � 0 m Z > M > Z Zm � > � � 00 3T9 0Zrol 0 0373 13 >0 `r i 3 z Z 3: z 0 � 373c Mi 10c m € z IV v 0 0 0 F- 10 � m 0 m M i —peva � � usaa Ccs .0 CXR 4a, --40 373 (.0 N) � � c wtofD0) -j tfCsCo --4WZ: m X P4 til A m 0 w w (o (D F w co LAS J�- z 3 f 0 > C 0 z 0 m E cxs t� cn w z < ft�3 wC: Nm --4 -rCPt) cn ODCoaN) t�s3 m � ww — mm — M01ta) � ca;cv w tis w N.7 cr) (.0 co to (A Cc (D M fD o a 8-0 a c o a c o a a a c a a c t3S CSq " --� em t3 "ate 7�s w w z$ as c-, co t� m C7 w m C s m C) N) (D w vw P w N) 7�a cc 4 ca e j 0 � 4k - 0N-) Ctiw -4m �. C) t�n � co m � gacn -tcrw0wwaw Mi � o i m YS3 tab cg's 0) 0? m -,7 (n A t73 tar 0) 0) Cn z > •-' � $� G3 t'�; �1 tii N � w Ln3 ct7 {,Xy � d& w CSY N w C3 w cr, +o w w CJ. `< °$ d a o c a a o o a a o 0 o a 377 cis z to m u� z > 0 z us k m t m z tliM m co � C: U3 a ZZ z > a a 0 -qz €_ 0 z M z Z � 0 0 0 0 T 4 m 0 z m m 0 z m ess � c,.-z —3 to -� � eta .a � _cti ens � c0Cn 0 � comr.) trWMZ m m � sss W Cs� sk cn w rJ rJ ' --j fY3 0 A C c 1 0 z <a — 0 z W m ODWas0� c� > i, fv cr —� a� W (P C� o 4� b, W v CFs Cts C W OD ! M (D ca c a evf�j rJ W N) rj w W M: us V, cn0- Mco 0) a' .� co Z n c o (m o C) o c Co o C® ol C, y3y t�3 i g «� M. "4 HT) co co ?Q (hR3 N 00 co ¢ tt W 03 �£ CJ7 #a Co #�2 ?+J W Cat fi rd rj rj d� -i t) CP -i Ij f, -`f b, W 0 cn W Cas w 0 CS W 0 N) j 0 C'3 m (h al m 0) 05 N CII (Yn CSt A. LTi€ f2a Cn ul z � 4 tJ� -te t -s (0 1 j Ct m cc X83 W WN.) C) Co w W 00 ••.t N 4v � cn c`as to 0 M cr. c Cu C 0 � us 09 > > C) mz0m z Xis C) 0 - 0 Z ® rn � 0 � 0 z a tr: 0 a G—)? tta m 6 ® ic o > r° M 0 m (A z ' e m c�-K3 Ch >I 0 .ac� ass M 'v 01 00 CO �� a� ats .� a M tSB 0 co ve to � P. Ij cap cra cm, tra tsa css c3a ?v -4 cn Z z Q a w w 0 j N c 0 res Low --a Hca --4w cr co (D z � `.4 -ate s� -� �v cep tis cis tv cre � � m � ra zn sig - - atsi �x m ias00 ! co it -4 00 - cc 0 z m 6 OD s OD 2rw � m � 3r- ZZ C) Z r 50 z c 0 C->0 0 0 � > 0 z ;6 z _ Z �. EMS C M Z M > MMC0 oj� : Z 0 M 0 M M 0 —40 ® Z > E M a Pd cn v; ra cn - tt7 o 0 cn tss -ac� NcaCs ce> t� 0 M E s� 0 > t �r 8 E (!3 z gIM M cc 4�i- N v _s N N 0 N � cn 0 .$� > g GT C9 N v^) tC5 tJt t5 d co w W tw' N N PN w M Z6 cs �. tr, CJS US -i 0 CA a p N ,:- M W M to -s `fi -4 -Aa N (D t�, to w .4. N int W C� CS in 0) � w W to — tat tri $ W W t o co ..s Z. N) V � tD (D co co � K) co c t39 -1! -4 -Sh, CO b. tat to �i 0 M; M to tS1 tat `d tS't tJ5 CJt t33 t3; t37 tat Z AJ W 41. N -� t� t o N �1 (D ! -j Cw3 tat t� Ca Ca w C) (o OD -4-M<pp• ce a c a o © a o a a o a -E \ \ \ gygs > s z rn a z000rlom5 r > m > r2m Z r m m m z z o w o ZOOM as 1 o o2t� o � z '� Wxx > Xmc m r m -D � cn F) - � Iar- cn -4 0 oz -, c 0 MZ S > 0 mm z 0 0g? 0 z 0 0 m z m 0 � sus q a Pte°°' -- : 0tom.,^ to '4 -•J tL7 W h5 --a --.f Z ;Cat t n N (D co —a co 0) m w a 0 > >; x C) Z g- z mm -G s0 0 � ter tt7 � -t —, � A s r r� co cr. sS �i 01 0 � 0)4 -4 W t0 M C> -a <0 t0 CD M N W M e� -a 00 a r.> fli w m .t, w w w w w U, 4k. w W to 4.0 n o M d o o cu o (n 0 n 0 0) czDcn ens � u, tv � � �a 0 -4 w w ,- w Co fD w co (D c) m co to _* c -4 -i CD w w m -4 -4 eta4aM (3) z � era ,t es+ w t s t�, w z.. ao co (o ca s e a o a a a e u c c c a c a o c its o (/9 m fJ z u`s Cb m ATTACHMENT The Center for Communky Opinion 231 Market r#ace,Suite 235 Sar.Ramon,,California 94583 Phone:+1 (800)827-1488 Fax:+1 (51 0)551-783 Contra Costa County Library Survey Results July 1998 The following summarizes the result of the 600 interviews conducted in the library's five regions to assess the feasibility of a November tax election and to look at why the June tax proposal failed. —he June election has had an impact on the electorate. Support for a sales tax proposal is slightly stronger now than it was when we surveyed last OctoLber. Support for a parcel, tax appears to be unchanged. A. In October, a sales tax received support from 66% of those interviewed (following the presentation of a statement of the needs faced by the 'library). In October, no sunset was mentioned in connection with the sales tax proposal only the fact that this would be a 1t'6'� cert tax increase. In response to last week's interviews, support for a sales tax at the same r ate following the same statement of need with mention of a six-year sunset was 72.7%. This change may reflect a slight increase in support for a sales tax proposal or may reflect the impact of a six-year sunset on support for a sales tax proposal'. B. In October, a 29 parcel tax received support from 69.9% of those interviewed (following the presentation of a statement of the needs faced by the library). In October, no sunset for the tax was mentioned only the annual cost of $29. In response to last week's interviews, support for a $24 parcel tax following the same statement with mention of a six year sunset received support from 62.2% of those interviewed. This difference is not much: More than we would have expected from the October results had a rate of $24 been tested instead of $29 and, therefore, we see no real change in supper for a parcel tax to support,the libraries. 2. A six-year sunset does appear to increase support for any library tax. Those interviewed were asked if a six,or a ten year sunset provision would make them more or less likely to support a library tax proposal. The six-year sunset made Because of our expenence with sirn- filar tests of sunset provisions,we believe this difference refiecis she education tt or the electorate during the June campaign:more than mention of the six-year sunset. 1 63.2% more likely to support t the tax. A ten-year sunset made 53.7% Ness likely to support the tax. Some of the resistance to a parcel tax is based on how voters view these two taxes. More voters believe that a parcel tax is unfair than believe the same of the sales tax. Vote asked half of those interviewed to agree or disagree with the statement: Farcel faxes are unfair and should not be used as away to fund libraries. The other half of those interviewed were asked to agree or disagree with the staternerit: Sales taxes are unfair and should not be used as a way to fund libraries. Just over one-quarter, 28.7%, agreed or strongly agreed that sales taxes were unfair as presented in this statement. A larger group, 38.2%, agreed or strongly agreedthat parcel taxes were unfair. To some degree, therefore, resistance to a parcel tax for libraries is based on a care belief about tax equity. Such beliefs are very hard to change during an election. 3. Tax tolerance for a library proposal remains low and, if anything, the actual dollar amount voters would support for the libraries appears to have declined. In October of last year; the results of Tax Test 1 allowed us to concluded that the tax rate for a parcel tax mould need to be set at or below 16 per year to be successful. This tax test was duplicated in the most recent survey. The responses collected last week indicate that to be successful across all five regions, the parcel tax rate would have to be set at or below $14 per year. Tsne existence of a large Mate budget surplus does have an influence on voter reaction to a local tax increase. Those interviewed were asked to agree or disagree with the statement: Because the state has a large budget surplus, local taxes should not be increased to improve library services. More than half, 56.5%, agree or strongly agree with this statement. Among the 19.8% who strongly agree with this statement, support for even a 14 per year tax increase is severely depressed. 5. The survey included two open-ended questions to explore why people voted for or against the June library proposal. A. Those opposed indicate that there was not much more the campaign for the tax could have told them or shown them. A large majority, 70%, of those who said they opposed the June tax measure told us that there was nothing else that might have influenced them to support the tax. Otherwise, those apposed presented an array of personal reasons for opposing the tax. B. Of greater interest are the reasons given by those who said they favored the June initiative for their support of the tax. One-quarter of those who supported the tax said they did so because it was ,-seeded and important. Another 20.4% said that they supported the proposal because it was for the children of the community. A slightly smaller group, 13.6/0, said they supported the proposal because it would kelp 2 provide eduction and knowledge to all. 13.6% and 10.8% sited ve r specific benefits, like more hours and more books, as the reason they supported the tax. 6. Endorsements do not appear to be as important as the specific benefits of the library tax. We re-tested the impact of saying that funds from the tax would be used to buy more books. As in October, this proposed use of funds has a very strong, positive impact. In October, 34.2% said they would be more likely �o support the tax proposal knowing the finds would be used to buy more books. in last week's interviews, 80% had a similar response. This response contrasts sharpiy with the 40.5 Who said an endorsement from the `taxpayers` Association would make there more likely to support the tax; the 31.7% who reacted positively to Senator Rainey's endorsement and the 25.7% who reacted positively to Assemblyperson Leach's endorsement. J. S"adfo,"o Sender, Marcia Aflinafon Ju. y 2 1, 98 3 A-FrACHMEN t COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 Pine Street, 9th Floor Martinez CA 94553 (925) 335-1833 Fax (925) 646-1078 September 28, 1996 To: Phil Batchelor, Coin Administrator From: Victor J. Westmane County Counsel By: Bennis Gravest Deputy County Coun Re: Additional library funding from a. County-vide increase._in sales tax and Coleman v Co. of Santa Clara Summa r° : tinder Coleman v County of Santa Clara, 64 Cal.App. 4f" 652 (1998), additional library expenditures could be funded `l) if a maiodty of voters in a regularly scheduled or emergency declared election (Proposition 216) approve a County-wide increase of not less than one-quarter of one percent in the sales tax, the proceeds of which augment the County general fund and 2) if use of such additional funds for the library is clearly discretionary with the Board, even though an advisory measure demonstrates haat the voters would like the additional funds spent on libraries. Introduction This responds to.your--September 15, 1998 memorandum, enclosing the memorandum of Supervisor DeSaulnier, asking whether Coleman v County of Santa Clara, 64 Cal.App. 4th 662 (1998) might provide a basis for the Board to augment funding for libraries upon a simple majority voter approval of an increase in the County-wide sales tax. Back row. General and Special Taxes New general taxes require only a simple maionty voter approval, whereas new special taxes require a two-thirds super-majority approval. (Art, X111C, Sec. 2(b),(d); Ari. X111A, Sec. 4; Gov. C. Secs. 53722-3.) General taxes are those vhid', are placed in the County general fund and not legally earmarked for a specific purpose. (Art. X111Cf Sec. 1(a),(d): City and County of Sara Francisco v Farrel!, 32 Cad 47, 57 (1982)). In contrast, the use of special taxes is legally 1 limited, even if the taxes purport to be general taxes by virtue of being passed through a general fund. (Id.) Unlike cities and counties, which are general gone-nmental jurisdictions, special distracts, agencies and authorities are formed to accomplish specific governmental purposes and, accordingly, all special district, agency or authority taxes are deemed special taxes. (See Rider v County of Sari Diego, 'I C 4th 1,15 (1991); Santa Mara County vocal Transportation Authority v Guardino, I°I C 4th 220, 232 [19951.) A recent library special safes tax proposal for an increase of one-eighth of one percent obtained a sample majority but failed to get the necessary two-thirds super-maior.tt, approval.' Thus, the distinction between general and special taxes appears to be a critical issue as to funding of the library. Santa Mara County Local Transportation Authority v Guarding In Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v Guarding, supra, I I C 4th 220, (hereafter"Guardino') a sales and use tax was-adopted by majoriti vote after being proposed by a local transportation authority pursuant to Pubic Utilities Cade Sections 169666 et. seq. The Public Utilities Code authorized such a tax under the transactions and use tax law (Rev. +`fax. C. Secs. 7251 et. seq.) but limited the use of the proceeds to the specific purpose offunding transportation projects. (See Santa Clam County Local Transportation Authority v Guardino, supra, I°I C 4th 229, 232.) Because it was for a local transportation authority pursuant to Public Utilities Cade 180000 et. sec and was limited to funding transportation projects, the Guardino tax was held . to Violate the Govern went Code Section 53722 (Prop 62) requirement of t��ro- thirds voter approval of special taxes. (Santa Clara County Local Transportation Aufforty v Guarding, supra, 111 G 4th 229, 251.) Coleman v County of Santa Clara and Advisory Elections After the Guardino decision, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors proposed another tax under the transactions and use tax law(Rev. +Tax. C. Secs. 7285, 7251 et. seq.). (See Coleman v County of Santa Clara, supra, 64 Cal.App. 4th 6628 665 (ftnt. 5)q Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v Guarding, supra, I'I C 4th 2268 256.) Although a mora-banding companion advisory vote CMeasure A") indicated the voters wanted the proceeds used for transportation projects, the ballot measure authorizing the tax ("Measure B") specifically noted that the proceeds of the tax were to be used for ge.ieral County purposes. (Coleman v County of Santa Clara, supra, 64 CA' 4th 662, 666; Cal.Sup.Ct. Review den. 8-26-98.) rt The tax was proposed under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7286.59, wl-,ich authorizes a two-thirds voter approval special sales tax for library funding. 2 A 77.6 percent majority of the voters approved Measure A and 51.8 percent majority approved Measure B. Upon a court challenge, the Sixth District Court of Appeal held that the tax was a general tax requiring only a simple majority approval because the proceeds were placed in the County general fund, were available for general County purposes, and were not legally required to be used for transportation projects. (Coleman of County of Santa.Mara, supra, 64 Cal.App. 4th 662, 672.) Notwithstanding that the Board of Supervisors may have intended to honor the pleasure A voters' wishes that the proceeds be used for transportation projects, the Court considered the critical point to be that the Measure A vote ;,rias non-binding, so that the fund's were not legally required to be used for transportation projects. Use of art Advisory dote and aMajority Aooroval Transactions and Use General Tax to Fund Library Services in Contra Costa County In our opinion, the procedure approved in Coleman also could be used to fund, at the Beard's discretion, library services in Contra, Costa County. Thus, the voters would adopt a County-wide transactions and use tax by majority vote, with a tandem advisory vote indicating the desire to use the proceeds for library purposes. While the Board of Supervisors of course may want to honor the expressed desire of the voters, the ley to the validity of such a procedure is that the Board is not legally,bound to do so. Authorih!for Additional "Sales ransactions and Use) Tax If such a tax is to be proposed, the Beard must have authority to impose the tax within the limits set by the Legislature. Pursuant to the transactions and use tax law (R+TC Secs. 7285, 7251 et. seq), a transactions and use tax totalling 1% is now levied in this Counts,,. (R+i C Sec- 7261,7262,7262.2.) The total amount of transactions and use taxes levied in the County cannot exceed 1.5%. (R+TC Secs. 7251.1, 7285.3.) Thus, with voter approval, Contra CostaCounty could increase the transactions and use tax by as much as .5%, but can do so only in increments of.25I. (See R+TC Sec. 7285.)' 2 A .representative of the Mate Board of Equalization, Local revenue Allocation Section, recently Indicated that the Board tapes the view that the Revenue and Taxation Code Section 72.85 reference to"0.25 percent or a multiple thereof" means that a lesser amount(eg, one-eighth of one percent) cannot be imposed pursuant to that Scotian. Subject to the 1.5% total transactions and use tax limitation of Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7251.1, a orae-quarter of one percent (or multiple thereof) 'County transactions and use tax' is authorized by revenue and Taxation Cade Sections 7285 et. seq. However, such a tax has not been adopted in this County. it is this authority that would allow the library tax under discussion herein. In addition, the Board has authority beyond the 1.5% limitation of revenue and Taxation Code Section 7251.1 to propose either a one-eighth of one percent or one- 3 As indicated above, if a majority vote is to suffice the ballot measure should specify that the proceeds of such a tax will be placed in the general fund and legally be available for general county funding purposes. if it is determined that all of the proceeds of a .25% transactions and use tax may not be required for county-vide library purposes, the accompanying non4)inding advisory measure could indicate additional voter desired public uses. Finally, in order to call a county-vide quarter cent "sales" tax election pursuant to the Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7285, the proposal mast be approv6d by a two-th€rds vote of all members of the Board of Supervisor s.3 (See also Gov. C. Sec. 53724(b).) Also, such a general local Sales tax election "shall .be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body." (Cal Const. Art.YlllC, Sec..2(b) (Proposition 218].) CC: Board of Supervisors, District Offices Anne Mane golds County Librarian C:libsalestx.doc quarter of one percent transactions and use tax for funding public library construction, acquisition, programs, and operations. (R+TC See. 728 .59.) However, this w uld require a two-thirds vote since it would be a tax levied for a specific purpose and thus be deemed a special tax.. :(Art. X11 1C, Sec. I(d).) This was the tax that-was proposed earlier this year, but failed to get the required two-thirsts approval. Although often called a sales tax, the tax in question is technically a transactions and Esse tax. Transactions and use taxes are in addition to the 9.25% County-wide local sales and use tax leviedpursuant to Revenue and Taxatj o,q Code Section 7200 et. seq. (the Bradley-Burrs Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law). (See R+TC Sec. 7202(x); Ord. C. Chap. 64-2.) ATTACHMENT EXHIBIT A BALLOT MEASURE FOR MARCH 7, 2000 ELECTION ON A COUNTY- WIDE LIBRARY SPECIAL SALES TAX To maintain and improve local neighborhood libraries by buying books, educational materials, technology and computers; to increase and make more consistent the number of hours focal libraries will be open; to improve educational programs for children, adults and seniors and to maintain, improve and expand community libraries, shall Ordinance 99- of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors be approved to impose a sales tax at the rate of one-eighth of one percent? q:lsbaiectWexhihi?adoc 7/29/99 s� m s 0 0 ' z 0 > M M. z 2 m 0 0 0 Z 5 0 0 o Z 0 € --! 0 M, "n mz z r- M < > m 0 co w m z m a cav tn 0 -4 ns 0 m a W z W M s0 w 0* Q CD m s (n -4 to w M w cn FO P P cc 14 0 0 CA ch cn co ccft � ¢srs -4 W a) 0 r_ co 0 gm w tom c -4 a Ch cm z Ra n Z rn m z m CD Z ;Z > < 40 m a Ga M z > - z 0 r --q0 o c z o ® CDa a z us 0 0 0 M 0 ®® a M r- M < > w 0, J C) cc m -4 mo C7iC31 L a LG7 CLx N CD -E p p co 'a# Lab z z m M f4 wim: f C ' _� � CA z ch 0 W m � ? wo! Z ins cx m 4s s� cr -� ;v Lsx tsa L iv >1 civ � eaesa � c,^ csxe —= e M c� 0 i 0 v ca t,s ca c,x ca z. 4:1 .Cb� e� s, -4 <.n l." rax co -b rax � trJ !• � �'s o o 0 0 o c o C7x cY - E 3 $e3 LT. S�3 hZ Lae .s c,,,x � Lsx 00 w m ca G D CS QvTI C) CO CS) 0 co C7 PJ -> Co w a -rd 4 C7 09 Lai 0) A t. 0 'dl LYx N) F W -i F) N) _a -� -, 111) OD -A6 cr. N) FW CP -4 ccn W 0) 00 Co 0 4 A ccn � Zi m Z3 �x S CS! C7; C7) LYS L) 0) --q LPx m (M M z '> &i -a A W C) C3: Co N L'a (MA m m t m ns z m 0 03 03 cMOzr- A a w w w >; M Z < 0 � z 0 G) w o- E z m � 0 C) I 0 of 0 2 # 00 �# � M fi 0.o 0 � i m 0 -4iE m k m � 0 a cn M n cn m W cat °-E cD —4 LBt CQ 3A 5 CL 00 0 d1 r W (In .#a (11 w N riJ Ss. > 0 > C m Z c— r 5 to z m fj and C ) L eD C LSS CJ N Lr, ELr� cr Lj �seti5 Lca M 00 Kea PV {v NV h3 W f T IJ W R3 CA X# a o 0 o (D 0) c) j Hca c) #C C;)o C:'s CP Itis L,xco w � 0) z o to ?,jnQ w cit c) � -• c-) tQ .s, 03 (A -a -a -tet # "41� � tQ 4 0 (,o CP Lea c� w cc 0 cn m m Kt+ CP M M C.ri " CJI C.Y'F cat -4%� Cn C31 C" LJt z ts� C37 W PV -•a C.T. 9) «a v CrJ CrwSN) C) Cil (D « (YI Cst co --.E V b o 0 0 d a 4 0 Cc, m to z to m 6 a X zz � � 0 > > C, mz 3 0z z# C :0 00 — 0 Z m ;aQ Cs i >3C7 0 -00 -q0 ;a 01 0 ' 11 m -I cn z m M' In mi 0 > to, M E 0 cn . r� cs p —�a, C cc w tj � 0) m -t Z. m mwrjwtvcap€ tis -.jam 0 0 m z 0 > a 0 m 0 Z to C) w M 0 > z N) o <0.om a -A (D � OD to atr � eta - tM co �s pp--4 cr' 4";� tvcrsCn -4mw <0 :1. PiNJo cry � cis vc { r CO >a --4 W v w -4 .31. e0 .tom --.a c,: Mtn amass 00co cov <0 t 07- m m --4 ass W V Cn m 0) cis 0) Z%-q i > -`.f 4't7 '.R � o �c b m� M c m v z tt> m 6 z > r- Z Zi occ— > Orxo C r—a z 0 m z _ z ;q z 0 � Z 0 M z o o f C3 m $> P�! Z y 3 M $C a E E z r- M E ' ? < > 0 cn C € csa Hary css �. w � m NswcoCo to .tbc3 � o Rt 0 > E !> t_ E0 C) -q C 0 U) z err+2 CA z w m Pit xh av0 Yea tis v —� �nwcn � wco � w � �� � M co . JwwwN) N, N) w Ml-4 -4 00 10 - N) i ns ~ 0 tv carwC) 0w m .ttP CID Gss (P C) ,tt, w w ut ose co Vol � nlito0mw � � to -4c9 m eta cn tr cn caa cn cn z > CO 41. ns OD to w G3 s, CD 0 C7 co p 0 cc w 00 00 A t m v z rn m c� ammmozAG$ MMC3 tasty -0x c z000r—om, t° > ; > r- 5; T1 CA 0 ® o z is Z O O zm m � 0 z 0 € r Qo: 0 z ic ® # ® r- cnc z 0 a 10) y M < > o co -1� CA aJS: $� w LSA CS? Cf3 CX3 �i 1J.3 '\t CCS GJ A3 '•3 Z t P 6 ars Ch N •--i C3', 'V C� LCD -� C7: CT3 Cn9 m m ¢ 0 > L) -4 C z m CD 0 " CSi (0 Cr. Gni w of On C. t� c� oaca -� ccacvr Ca -ate "� g w fiF nst.aws� *QAh- Ww �.: w we 4� cam 0 srs cap -sesta -� n: cn •.,r a� .s -tree ta+ c its v) ,t� ch g <sW M i.a -4 i� ass 00 w C W w on Z6 � a Cl C 3 co t-J a a -m a e�a � � cint €v -� c r y ,�y �, t�s �, p e a Z t�? 0 4 -4 0 w N w w .?,S co C33 C Q s CC3. �? to w w co Ca N) OD to m 6� t`2 -4 m -4 CTs (m K) -.9 ep 0) M � p -4 -� :-4 CL` CII 10 U, -% -+ Cat N3 C�CT3 A � � 'd$ CT+ `•3 C,R m r\� Z, w C) Com, co 0 m N z CC cC co m ATTACHMENT T he Center for o opirflon 231 Market Race,Suite 235 Sans Ramon,califomia 94563 Phone:+1 (800)627-.1466 Pax:+1 (510)551-76:3 Contra Costa County Library Survey Results July 1998 t ,e following summarizes the result of the 696 interviews conducted in the library's five regions to assess the feasibility{ of a November tax election and to look at why the June tax proposal failed. ". The June election has had an impact on the electorate. Suppor for a saes tax proposal is slightly stronger now than it was when we surveyed last October. Support for a parcel tax appears to be unchanged, A. lr? October, a sales tax received support from 66% of those interviewed (following the presentation of a statement of the needs faced by tl-e library), In October, no sunset was mentioned in connection with i the sales tax proposal only the fact that this would be a ff8t' cent tax increase, hn response to last week's interviews, support for a sales tax at the same Yate toliowing the same statement of need with mention of a six-year sunset was 72.7%. This change may reflect a slight increase in support for a saps tax proposal or may reflect tate impact of a six-year sunset on support for a sales tax proposal'. B. in October, a 29 parcel tax received support from 69.9% of those interviewed (following the presentation of a statement of th-1 needs faced by the library). In: October, no sunset for the tax was mentioned only the annual cost of $29. in response to last week's interviews, support for a $24 parcel tax following the same statement with mention of a six year sunset received support from 62.2% of those interviewed. This difference is not much more than we would have expected from the October results had a rate of $24 been tested instead of $29 and, therefore, we see no real change in suppoi t for a parcel tax to support the libraries. 1), A six-year sunset does appear to increase support for any library tax. Those interviewed were asked if a six or a ten year sunset provision would make the€r. more or less likely to support a library tax proposal. The six-year sunset made Because of our experience with similar tests of sunset provisions,we believe this difference reflects the education of the electorate during the June campaign more than mention of the six-year sunset. 1 63.2% more likely to support the tax. A ten-year sunset rude 53.7% fess likely to support the tax. Some of the resistance to a parcel tax is ;used on how voters view these two taxes. More voters believe that a parcel tax is unfair than believe the same of the sales tax. We asked half of those interviewed to agree or disagree with the statement: Parcel taxes are unfair and should not be used as a way to fund libraries. The other half of those interviewed were asked to agree or disagree with the statement: Sales taxes are unfair and should not be used as a way to fund libraries. Just over one-quarter, 28.710, agreed or strongly agreed that sales taxes were unfair as presented in this statement. A larger croup, 38.2%, agreed or strongly agreed that parcel taxes were unfair. To some degree, therefore, resistance to a parcel tax for libraries is based on a care belief about tax equity. Such beliefs are very hard to chance during an election;. 3. Tax tolerance for a library proposal remains low and, if anything, the actual dollar amount voters would support for the libraries appears to have declined. In October of last year, the results of Tax Test 1 allowed us to concluded that the tax rate for a parcel tax would need to be set at or below $16 per year to be successful. T h:::,s tax test was duplicated in the most recent survey. The responses collected last week indicate that to be successful across all five regions, the parcel tax rate would have to be set at or below $14 per year. 4. P rye existence of a large sate budget surplus does have an influence on voter reaction to a focal tax increase. Those interviewed were asked to agree or disagree with the statement: Because the state has a large budget surplus, local taxes should not be increased to improve library services. More than half, 56.5%, agree or strongly agree with this statement. Among the 19.8% who strongly agree with this statement, support for even a $14 per year tax increase is severely depressed. 5. The survey included two open-ended questions to explore why people voted for or against the June library proposal. A. These opposed indicate that there was not much more the campaign for the tax could have told them or shown there. A large majority, 70%, of those who said they opposed the June tax measure told us that there was nothing else that might have influenced them to support the tax. Otherwise, those opposed presented an array of personal reasons for opposing the tax. B. Of greater interest are the reasons given by :hose who said they favored the June Initiative for their support of th;e tax. One-quarter of those who supported the tax said they did so because it was needed and important. Another 20.4% said that they supported the proposal because it was for the children of the community. A slichtly smaler group, 13.6%, said they supported the proposa: because it would help 2 provide education and knowledge to all. 13.6% and 10,8% site very specific benefits, like more hours and more books, as the reason they supported the tax. 3. Endorsements do not appear to be as important as the specific benefits of the fibra v tax. We re-tested the impact of saying that funds from the tax would be used to buy more books. As in October, this proposed use of funds has a very strong, positive irnpact. to October, 84.2% said they would be more likely �o support the tax proposal knowing the funds would be used to buy more books. In last week's interviews, 80% ;.ad a similar response. This response contrasts sharply with the 40.5%who said an endorsement from the Taxpayers' Association would make them ;,-yore likely to support the tax; the 31.7% who reacted positively to Senator Rainey's endorsement and the 25.7% who reacted positive y to Assemb yperscn Leach's endorsement. J. Bradford Senden Marcia Allington Ju,ly 2 , X 998 3 ATTACHMENT COUNTY COUNSELS OFFICE CONTRA COSTA A COUN 8 651 Pine Street, 9th Floor Martinez CA 94553 (925) 335-1833 Fax (925) 646-1678 September 28, 1998 To: Phil Batchelor, Coull�(Administrator From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel By: Tennis Graves, Deputy County Coun Re: Additional library funding from a County-vide increase.-in sales tax and Cofemef-I v Co. of Santa Mara Surnmaa Under Coleman v County of Santa Clara, 64 Cal.App. 0 852 (1998), additional library expenditures could be funded 1) if a majority of voters in a regularly scheduled or emergency declared election (Proposition 218) approve a County-wide increase of not less than orae-quarter of one percent in the sales tax, the proceeds of which augment the County general fund and 2) if use of such additional funds for the library is clearly discretionary with the Board, even though an advisory measure demonstrates that the voters would like the additional funds spent on libraries. Introduction This responds to-your'September 15, 1998 memorandum, enclosing the memorandum of Supervisor I:DeSaillnier, asking whether Coleman v C6unty of Santa Clara, 64 Cal.App. 4 662 (1998) might provide a basis for the Board to augment funding for libraries -upon a simple majority voter approval of an increase in the Countywide sales tax. Backciround: General and Special Taxes New general taxes require only a simple majority voter approval, whereas neva special taxes require a two-thirds super-majority approval. (Art. XIIIC, Sec. 2(b),(d); Art. XIIIA, Sec. 4; Gov. C. Secs. 53722-3.) General taxes are those which are placed in the County general fund and not legally earmarked for a specific purpose. (,art. XIIIC, Sec. 1(a),(d); City and County of Sara Francisco v Farrelf, 32 Cad 47, 57 (1982)). In contrast, the use of special taxes is legally I limited, even if the tars purport to be general taxes by virtue of being passed through a general fund. (Id.) unlike cities and counties, which are general governmental jurisdictions, special districts, agencies and authorities are farmed to accomplish specific governmental purposes and, accordingly, all special district, agency or authority taxes are deemed special taxes. (See Rider v County of San Diego, 1 C 4th 1,15 (1991); Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v Cuardino, 1°I C 4th 220, 232 [1995'.) A recent library special sales fax proposal for an increase of one-eighth of one percent obtained a simple majority but failed to get the necessary two-thirds super-majority approval.' Thus, the distinction between general and special taxes appears to be a critical issue as to funding of the library. Santa Mara County Local T ansportation Authority v Cuardino In Santa Mara County Local Transportation Authority v Cuardino, supra, 11 C 4th 220, (hereafter'Cuardino") a sales and use tax was-adopted by majority vote after being proposed by a local transportation authority pursuant to Public utilities Cade Sections 160000 et. seq. The Public utilities Code authorized such a tax under the transactions and use tax law (Rev. + Tax. C. Secs. 7251 et. seq.) but limited the use of the proceeds to the specific purpose of funding transportation projects. (See Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v Cuardino, supra, 'I 1 C 4th 229, 232.) Because it was for a local transportation authority pursuant to Public utilities Cade 139990 et. seq and was limited to funding transportation projects, the Cuardino tax iVas held . to violate the Government Code Section 53722 (Prep 62) requirement of two- thirds voter approval of special taxes. (Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v Cuardino, supra, 'I 1 C 4th 220, 251.) Coleman v County of Santa Clara and Advisory Elections .After the Cuardino decision, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors proposdd another tax under the transactions and*use: tax law(Rev. +Tax. C. Secs. 7235, 7251 et. seq.). (See Coleman v County of Santa Clara, supra, 64 Cal.App. 4th 652., 666 (ftnt. 5); Santa Clara County Local `transportation Authority v Cuardino, supra, 11 C 4th 220, 250.) Although a non-binding companion E advisory vote ("Measure A") indicated the voters wanted the proceeds used for transportation projects, the ballot measure authorizing the tax ("Measure 13') specifically noted that the proceeds of the tax were to be used for general County purposes. (Coleman v County of Santa Clara, supra, 64 CA 4th 662, 666; Cal.Sup.Ct. Review deer. 6-26--98.) ` The tax was proposed under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7286.59, which authorizes a two-girds voter approval special sales tax for library fundina. 2 A 77.6 percent majority of the voters approved pleasure A and 51.8 percent majority approved pleasure B. ,Spon a court challenge, the Sixth District Court of Appeal held that the tax was a general tax requiring only a simple majority approval because the proceeds were placed in the County general fund, were available for general County purposes, and were not legally required to be used for transportation projects. (Coleman v County of Santa.Mara, supra, 64 Cal.App. 4th 662, 672.) Notwithstanding that the Board of Supervisors may have intended to honor the Measure A voters' wishes that the proceeds be used for transportation projects, the Court considered the critical point to be that the Measure A vote was non-binding, so that the funds dere not legally required to be used for transportation projects. Use of an Advisory Vote and a Maio rity Approval Transactions and Use General Tax to Fund Library Services in Contra Costa Count In our opinion, the procedure approved in Coleman also could be used to fund, at the Board's discretion, library services in Contra Costa County. Thus, the voters would adopt a County-wide transactions and use tax by majority vote, with a tandes?� advisory vote indicating the desire to use the proceeds for library purposes. While the Board of Supervisors of course may want to honor the expressed desire of the voters, the key to the validity of such a procedure is that the Board is riot legally bound to do so. Authority for Additional "Sate" (Transactions and Use) Tax if such a tax is to be proposed, the Board must have authority to impose the tax within the limits set by the Legislature. Pursuant to the transactions and use tax law (R+TC Secs. 7285, 7251 et. seq), a transactions and use tax totalling I% is now levied in this County. (R-:-TC Sec. 7261,7262,7262.2.) The total amount of transactions and use taxes levied in the County cannot exceed 1.5%. (R+TC Secs. 7251 A, 7285.3.) Thus, with voter approval, Contra Costa County could increase the transactions and use tax by as € uch as .5%, but can do so only in increments of.25%. (See R+TC Sec, 7235.)2 8 A .representative of the State Board of Equalization, Local Revenue Allocation Section, recently indicated that the Board takes the view that the Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7285 reference to '0.25 percent or a multiple thereof"means that a lesser amount(eg, one-eighth of one rcent) cannot be imposed pursuant to that Section. Subject to the 1.5% total transactions and use tax limitation of Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7251.1, a one-quarter of one percent (or multiple thereof) "County transactions and use tax* is authorized by Revenge and Taxation Code Sections 7285 et. seq. However, such a tax has not been adopted in this County. It is this authority that would allow the library tax under discussion herein. In addition, the Board has authority beyond the 1.5% limitation of Revenue and axation Code Section 7251.1 to propose either a one-eighth of one percent or one- 3 3 As indicated above, if a majority vote is to suffice the ballot measure shop ild specify that the proceeds of such a tax will be placed in the general fund and legally be available for general county funding purposes. if it is determined that all of the proceeds of a .25% transactions and use tax may not be required for countywide library purposes, the accompanying non-binding advisory measure could indicate additional voter desired public uses. Finally, in order to call a county-Wide quarter cert "sales" tax election pursuant to the Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7285, the proposal must be approv6d by a two-thirds vote of all members of the Board of Supervisors. (See also Govt C. Sec. 5W724(b).) Also, such a general local sales tax elections "shall .be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body." (Cal Const. Art.X111C, Sec..2(b) (proposition 218].) CC. Board of Supervisors, District Offices Anne Marie Gold, County Libradan Colbsalestx.doc quarter of one percent transactions and use tax for funding public library construction, acquisition, programs, and operations. (R+TC Sec. 7286.59,) However, this would require a two-thirds vote since it would be a tax levied for a specific purpose and thus be deemed a special €ate. (Art. X111C, Seco 1(d'.) This was the tax that-was proposed earlier this year, but failed to get the required two-thirds approval. " Although often called a sales tax, the tax in question is technically a 'transactions and use tax. Transactions and use taxes are in addition to the 1.2.5% County-wide local sales and use tax levied pursuant to revenue and Taxation Code Suction 7200 et. seq. (the Elradley-burns Uniform Local, Sales and Use Tax Law). (See Rz C Sec. 7202(a), Card. C. Chap. 64-2.) 4