HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06051990 - 1.58 r
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS L Contra
FROM:
Costa
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
DATE: May 29, 1990 County
'�.�;;-C LT'
SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 38 (Cortese)
SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECO14VEMATION
Indicate that the Board of Supervisors continues to OPPOSE ACA 38
by Assemblyman Cortese which would provide an alternative to the
pending Alcohol Tax Initiative and place a lower level of alcohol
tax into the State Constitution than is being proposed in the
initiative effort.
BACKGROUND:
On April 3 , 1990 the Board of Supervisors voted to oppose ACA 38
by Assemblyman Cortese. On May 9, 1990 the measure was amended.
Current statutory law places an excise tax on alcoholic
beverages. These taxes have not been raised for many years. The
Legislature has been unable to generate the will to increase
these taxes. As a result, Assemblyman Connelly has headed up an
initiative effort which would place on the ballot a substantially
increased level of tax on alcoholic beverages. It now appears
that this initiative has qualified for the November 1990 ballot.
The initiative would raise about $800 million a year, nearly all
of which would be dedicated to specified drug, alcohol and health
care programs at the local level. The proposed initiative effort
is an initiative statute which simply increases the level of tax
which is now in the statutes and specifies how much of the
increased tax will go to each of the specified programs.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:"e8 YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): 1&a4
ACTION OF BOARD ON Oune 5, 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: ATTESTED "
Please see Page 3 .
PHIL BAT ELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY ,DEPUTY
M382 (10/88)
The alcoholic beverage industry has convinced Assemblyman Cortese
and 16 co-authors, including the Speaker of the Assembly and the
Majority Leader of the Senate, to amend ACA 38 to provide for an
alternative increase in the alcohol tax. (The Committee analysis
done for the hearing on April 4, 1990 lists as supporters of ACA
38 the California Beer and Wine Wholesalers Association, the
Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. and the Wine Institute) .
The intent is apparently to place ACA 38 on the November 1990
ballot along with the Alcohol Tax Initiative, assuming the
initiative has now qualified for the ballot.
As amended May 9, 1990, ACA 38 does all of the following:
1 . Locks into the Constitution the present level of alcoholic
beverage taxes and then imposes a surtax on these taxes.
BEVERAGE PRESENT PROPOSED
TAX SURTAX TOTAL
(all figures are cents per gallon)
Wine - 140 or less alcohol
Effective July 1, 1991 1 19 20
Wine - More than 14% alcohol
Effective July 1, 1991 2 18 20
Beer
Effective July 1, 1991 4 16 20
Distilled Spirits - Proof strength or less
Effective July 1, 1991 200 130 330
Distilled Spirits - More than proof strength
Effective July 1, 1991 400 260 660
2 . The proceeds from the surtax would be deposited in the State
General Fund for allocation as the Legislature might
determine. There is an uncodified statement of intent that
the portion of the additional revenues which would go to the
schools under existing law may be made available to combat
the use of illegal drugs and alcohol abuse by improving the
long-term effectiveness of educational programs.
For the portion which is not allocated for use by the
schools there is an uncodified statement of intent urging
that the funds be made available to California counties and
other local agencies for stronger law enforcement and the
prevention, arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of
drunken drivers, for the prevention of the possession, use,
or sale of illegal narcotics or controlled substances, for
medical treatment, including emergency trauma care, mental
health and long-term rehabilitation and recovery programs as
well as for educational programs. We do not believe that
this statement of intent, other than as may be accepted by a
court as an expression of the intent of the voters, is in
any way binding on the Legislature in terms of restricting
their ability to appropriate the funds for any legitimate
public purpose.
3 . ACA 38 increases the State ' s Gann Appropriations Limit by
.the amount of revenue received from the surtax on alcoholic
beverages. It does not, however, increase the Gann
appropriation limit of the counties for the same purpose.
4. The estimate of the revenue which would be produced by the
surtax is as follows, according to the staff from the Board
of Equalization:
Revenue Increases in Millions of Dollars
199.1-92 fiscal year and thereafter
Wine $ 17. 9
Beer $114.7
Distilled Spirits $ 52.0
TOTALS $184. 6
These amounts of revenue should be placed in perspective.
The proposed Alcohol Tax Initiative would raise an estimated
$800 million annually, more than four times as much as would
be raised by ACA 38.
5. ACA 38 provides that if it and the Alcohol Tax Initiative
both qualify for the November 1990 ballot, whichever measure
receives the most votes shall prevail and the other measure
shall have no effect.
Those who have been advocating support for the Alcohol Tax
Initiative should oppose ACA 38 on the following grounds:
* . Specific levels of taxes should not be locked into the State
Constitution. This is an appropriate subject for statutes
and is being placed in the Constitution solely to preempt
the Alcohol Tax Initiative.
* : The level of tax increase which is proposed in ACA 38 is
much too small to address the level of problems our
communities have with drug and alcohol abuse.
* . The revenue in ACA 38 would not be committed to any
particular program and therefore would not necessarily do
anything to assist in prevention, treatment or law
enforcement efforts directed at alcohol and drug abuse.
*. Any future effort to increase the tax on alcoholic beverages
would require a Constitutional amendment to be qualified for
the ballot and voted on by the people. Given the . past
reluctance of the Legislature to increase alcoholic beverage
taxes it is likely that any future efforts to increase the
tax on alcoholic beverages would require an initiative
campaign to qualify a Constitutional amendment for the
ballot, a lengthy and expensive effort.
cc: County Administrator
Health Services Director
Drug Program Administrator
Alcohol .Program Administrator
Les Spahnn, SRJ. Jackson, Barish & Associates