Contra Costa Herald

News Of By and For The People of Contra Costa County, California

Housing, transit advocates decry $20 billion regional housing bond measure pulled from Bay Area ballot

By Leave a Comment

Photo source: Transform

Transform’s leader calls it “a tragic missed opportunity” and “major setback for our climate and transportation goals”; labels opponents who successfully challenged measure, “extremist anti-housing and anti-government activists”

“RM4 barely polled 54% before we even had a chance to open our mouths about it. Are 46% of the citizens of the Bay Area ‘extremist anti-housing and anti-government activists’?” – 20 Billion Reasons campaign opposition leader Gus Mattammal

By Allen D. Payton

In an email to supporters and an announcement this week, Jenn Guitart, Executive Director of Transform decried the removal of the $20 billion Bay Area housing measure from the November ballot and demonized those who successfully challenged it. According to polling commissioned by the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority which placed the measure on the ballot, they found that only 54% of likely voters supported the bond. That’s much lower than the 66.7% support of voters required for it to pass. (See related articles here and here)  CCH: (See related articles here and here)

Labeled “What It Means for Our Movement” Guitart’s email and identical announcement on the Transform’s website read:

On Wednesday morning, the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) unanimously voted to remove Regional Measure 4 from the 2024 ballot. The measure would have raised $20 billion to alleviate the Bay Area’s housing and homelessness crisis. Unfortunately, the measure was scuttled in response to a series of eleventh-hour challenges by extremist anti-housing and anti-government activists. This is a tragic missed opportunity for voters to say yes to urgently needed affordable housing and homelessness funding.

This decision is heartbreaking for Transform and other housing advocates, and, more importantly, for the hundreds of thousands of people in our region who now must wait longer for the affordable housing and homelessness solutions Bay Area residents need and deserve.

The decision is also a major setback for our climate and transportation goals. By funding the construction of over 40,000 new affordable homes near transit, the measure would have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by over three million tons and spurred an additional five million transit trips per year.

While it is frustrating that a well-resourced group of naysayers halted progress on housing and homelessness this election, Transform and our partners will continue to build the necessary power to win big on these critical issues.

Looking Forward

All is not lost in the fight for affordable housing. Transform and our partners will be working hard to pass Prop 5 this November, which will lower the voter approval threshold for housing and public infrastructure bond measures (from a two-thirds vote) to 55%. This measure is critical to advancing future affordable housing bond measures across the state.

Beyond November, our region continues to face significant challenges, from the housing and homelessness crisis to a looming transit fiscal cliff. New regional funding measures for both transportation and affordable housing are urgently needed. Passing both measures in the coming years will take unprecedented collaboration, creativity, and courage.

Transform will play a leading role in both these efforts as we continue our work to empower communities of color, innovate solutions, and advocate for policies and funding — all with the aim of helping people thrive and averting climate disaster. And we will need supporters like you in this fight to build up the necessary resources, political will, and movement organizing to beat the anti-taxers in future election cycles.

In the meantime, get ready to vote yes on Prop 5 in November, and stay tuned for future calls to action in the fight for housing, transportation, and climate justice for our region.

Transform Executive Asked Why She Demonized Measure’s Opponents

Guitart was asked why she would demonize the opponents to the measure when it only polled at 54% support prior to it being placed on the ballot, which is much lower than the 2/3rds vote currently required and also less than the 55% threshold required for a future vote should Prop 5 pass. She was also asked if she’s claiming 46% of the public who opposed it in the poll are also “extremist anti-housing and anti-government activists” and isn’t she risking angering those who opposed the measure from the start, some of whose support will be needed for passage of a future ballot measure.

Guitart was then asked with such a low level of support, shouldn’t the measure have been revised before it was placed on the ballot in order to address some of the concerns of the opposition to ensure a better possibility of it passing.

She was also asked instead wouldn’t it be better if Transform worked with the opponents to try and find common ground or a ballot measure that will be less anathema to them for a possible future vote or to achieve her organization’s goals

Finally, Guitart was asked if she is willing to offer a public apology to the measure’s opponents, revise her public statement removing the swipes at them and tone down the divisive rhetoric.

However, in response Guitart shared that she is unable to respond right now due to a family issue but wrote, “I will pass your concerns on to our team.”

Ballot Measure Opponent Leader Responds

When asked about the swipes at the opponents made by Transform’s executive director, Gus Mattammal, the leader of the opposition campaign, 20 Billion Reasons, responded, “I have a couple of responses to that characterization:

1) 20 Billion Reasons comprised Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents – the entire political spectrum. And to be clear, Democrats were about half the group.

2) Almost everyone in the group has willingly voted for tax increases before, so it’s silly to label folks as ‘anti-tax’. If someone comes to you with an idea for a pizza with pickles, sardines, and mayonnaise, and you say ‘um, no thanks!’, does that make you anti-pizza? Or are you just anti- “this particular idea for pizza”?

No one in this group is against well-constructed policies to alleviate housing unaffordability. Unfortunately, nothing about Regional Measure 4 was ‘well-constructed policy’.

3) RM4 barely polled 54% before we even had a chance to open our mouths about it, and the polling was destined to only go down from there. That means 46% of the voters were against this from the beginning. Are 46% of the citizens of the Bay Area ‘extremist anti-housing and anti-government activists’? I’m a registered Republican, and I feel like our fortunes as a party would be very different here in the Bay Area if that were true.”

About Transform

Founded in 1997 as Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition (BATLUC), according to the organization’s website, Transform works “with organizations, advocates, and community members for improved transportation and housing policies and funding. Together, we can invest in climate and equity, promote innovative transportation, support transportation shifts, and address climate-related housing issues.”

The group claims to have moved “the Overton window”, which is an approach to identifying the ideas that define the spectrum of acceptability of governmental policies that says politicians can act only within the acceptable range, “steadily toward equity and climate resilience.”

They, “envision vibrant neighborhoods, transformed by excellent, sustainable mobility options and affordable housing, where those historically impacted by racist disinvestment now have power and voice.”

For more information about Transform visit www.TransFormCA.org or call (510) 740-3150.

City of Lafayette explains use of property taxes

By Leave a Comment

Source: City of Lafayette

As council asks voters to increase sales tax

By City of Lafayette

Have you ever wondered where the revenue from property taxes goes?

As seen in the above graphic, the largest share (57%) goes to school districts, including the community college; 14.1% goes to the Contra Costa Fire District; 11.1% to the County; 3.9% to utilities (EBMUD & CentralSan); 3.4% to parks (including the East Bay Regional Park District); and 3.9% going to various other public agencies (including BART).  The City of Lafayette receives only 6.67%.  Thus, for a single-family house assessed at $1M, while the property owner will pay $10,000 annually for the Countywide tax; the City receives only $670.

“People think that because Lafayette is considered an affluent community with expensive homes that, the City must get plenty of money from property taxes,” says City Manager, Niroop K. Srivatsa; “however, that is not the case.”

In fact, the City of Lafayette receives a lesser percentage of the Countywide property tax revenue than most surrounding cities. “Many people are surprised to learn that the distribution of property tax varies widely among the incorporated cities,” Srivatsa points out.  In Contra Costa County, the rate ranges between 5.4% to 27.7%.”  As to why that is, the answer is somewhat complicated, but goes back to 1978 when Prop 13 was passed.  At that time, the City had not imposed any local property taxes while other cities had.  When Prop. 13 standardized the Countywide general 1% rate, cities got the same percentage of the Countywide tax that had previously been levied locally.   That percentage was zero in the case of Lafayette.  Over the course of the next 10 years, Lafayette’s rate has increased to the current 6.67%, and that is where it has been for the last 36 years.

When asked if the City can get a larger share of these property taxes, the City Manager answers, “Unfortunately No.”  She explains, “100% of the general property tax has been accounted for; thus, increasing Lafayette’s share would mean decreasing another agency’s share, which would be virtually impossible.”

Even with this “low” allocation, the City’s number one source of revenue is still property taxes, generating approximately $7M each year – about 35% of the total General Fund revenue. With the addition of other funding sources like sales tax, franchise, and service fees, the City provides Lafayette residents with important public services such as:

  •  Maintaining public streets and storm drains in their present condition and providing timely pothole repair.
  •  Wildfire preparedness activities.
  •  Keeping the number of sworn police officers at the current level
  •  Providing services for senior citizens.
  •  Landscaping and maintaining City parks, open spaces, paths, and playfields.
  •  Traffic safety programs for all public road and pathway users, including people driving, biking, and walking.
  •  Continuing support for our community partners like the Chamber of Commerce and the Lafayette School District.

However, mostly due to inflation, the City is now facing a deficit of more than $2M annually.  Without additional revenue, City officials will have to make difficult decisions about which programs and services to cut back or altogether eliminate.

As part of the budgeting process, City leaders evaluated several possible options for generating additional revenues. They determined that instead of asking voters to raise property taxes by an average of $200 per parcel, they are asking the voters to authorize a 1/2% increase in the City’s Sales Tax, which amounts to one-half of a penny for every taxable dollar spent locally.

A half-cent increase will generate approximately $2.4 million annually; enough to close the budget deficit and maintain the status quo but not enough to address new or unfunded projects and programs.  A sales tax is paid by visitors who dine and shop in Lafayette, as well as by residents; therefore, funds are brought into the community to benefit Lafayette residents by people who reside outside the City.

If authorized, Lafayette Sale Tax will increase from 8.75 to 9.25%, which is less than the rates in Moraga and Orinda.

The funding Measure will appear on the November 5, 2024 ballot. Passage requires simple majority support (50%, plus 1 vote).  Revenues from the Measure will be placed into the City’s General Fund.  The City Council will appoint an Oversight Committee to monitor the way these monies are spent, and there will be an annual audit, which will be made available to the public.

The City Manager concludes, “Our goal is to keep pace with existing services and programs, while maintaining the City’s finances.”

As previously reported, the Lafayette City Council is asking voters to approve a half-cent sales tax increase to 9.25% on the November 5th ballot. They claim it’s needed due to inflation, unfunded state mandates and would last seven years.

About The City of Lafayette

Lafayette is a charming small community located in Contra Costa County, 30 miles from The City of Oakland. It’s known for its beautiful green hills, excellent schools, and miles of hiking trails, making it an attractive place to live. The City has a population of more than 25,000 highly educated residents, with 75.2% of them holding a bachelor’s degree or higher. Additionally, 73.6% of the homes in Lafayette are owner-occupied. The median home value is $1,914,700, while the median household income is $219,250. The total area of the city is 15.22 square miles.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Lafayette Council places sales tax measure for city services on November ballot

By Leave a Comment

City manager claims 1/2-cent increase to 9.25% needed due to inflation, unfunded state mandates; would last 7 years

On July 22, 2024, the Lafayette City Council placed a funding measure on the November 2024 ballot, asking Lafayette voters to authorize a local sales tax increase of 1/2 cent (half a penny for every $1 spent locally) for seven years to maintain the current level of City services.  This measure will require a 50% +1 vote to pass.

At a previous City Council meeting, City Manager, Niroop K. Srivatsa, explained that due to inflation, prices on everything from materials, to insurance, to labor have continued to increase. Furthermore, the State continues to impose a number of unfunded mandates. As a result, the City is facing a structural deficit of more than $2M annually, beginning in fiscal year July 2024-25.

If approved by voters in November, all the revenue from the sales tax would go directly into the City’s General Fund; The General Fund provides funding for City services and facilities including:

  • Maintaining public streets and storm drains and providing timely pothole repair.
  • Sustaining wildfire preparedness activities.
  • Maintaining the number of sworn police officers at the current level.
  • Services for senior citizens.
  • Maintaining city parks, open spaces, paths, and playfields.
  • Traffic safety improvements on our streets and roads for all users including people driving, biking and walking.
  • Continuing support for our community partners like the Chamber of Commerce and the School District.

Lafayette’s current sales tax rate is 8.75%. If voters approve a ½ cent sales tax measure, Lafayette’s rate will increase to 9.25%, equal with the rate in Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek and lower than Orinda, Moraga, and Concord. The new rate would go into effect starting April 1, 2025, for seven years.

“The half cent (1/2%) increase, if approved by Lafayette voters, would generate approximately $2.4 million annually, which, according to current projections, is enough to maintain the level of service presently being provided. If the voters do not pass the measure, the Council will have to make difficult decisions about which programs and services to reduce or eliminate,” said Administrative Services Director Tracy Robinson. “Filling a $2M annual deficit is approximately 10% of the City’s General Fund, and it would require cuts across all City departments, including police, public works, planning, engineering, parks and recreation, and administration,” Robinson added.

“One reason the City Council chose to place a sales tax measure on the ballot is because sales tax is paid by visitors who dine and shop in Lafayette, so funds would be brought into the community from people who reside outside the community but who utilize our public infrastructure and services,” explained Vice Mayor Wei-Tai Kwok.

For many years, the City has been able to balance its budget, build a healthy emergency reserve, and operate frugally, however the current state of the economy coupled with unfunded State mandates that cities are obligated to fulfill have all contributed to the structural deficit. The City has foregone new projects recently and froze the hiring of four staff positions, however, the City Council believes that the additional cuts in expenses to address the $2M deficit would negatively impact Lafayette residents, so instead are asking voters to consider increasing the sales tax rate for seven years.

More information about the City’s financial situation and the funding measure is available on the City of Lafayette’s website at www.lovelafayette.org/FiscalSustainability

 

2024-25 County Assessment Roll shows over $11 billion increase in property tax base

By Leave a Comment

For total of $278.83 billion, San Ramon has greatest amount with about 10% of total

Martinez had highest increase at over 6%

“…the highest to date in Contra Costa County’s history” – Gus Kramer, County Assessor

By Office of the Contra Costa County Assessor

The “2024-2025” Assessor’s “Close of Roll Affidavit” was signed by Gus S. Kramer, Assessor, and subscribed and sworn to the County Clerk-Recorder’s Office, on June 28, 2024. The 2024-2025 Assessment Roll has been delivered to the County Auditor, as required by law.

Source: Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office

The increase to the local tax base for 2024-2025 is over $11.16 billion. This represents a 4.17% increase in assessed value and brings the total net local assessment roll to more than $278.83 billion. The 2024-2025 assessment roll is the highest to date in Contra Costa County’s history.  Of that amount $233.28 billion was from within the 19 cities and the balance from within the unincorporated areas of the county.

Cities with the largest increases in assessed value include Antioch, Oakley and Martinez with increases ranging from 4.99% and 5.21% to 6.09%, respectively. San Ramon, Concord and Walnut Creek saw the lowest assessed value increases ranging from 2.97% down to 1.45%. The assessment roll now consists of 380,681 parcels, an increase of 1,239 over the previous year.

Property value assessed increases by city. Source: Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office

Of the 19 cities in the county San Ramon has the greatest Gross Assessed Value, which includes both secured and non-secured at $28.63 billion, followed by Walnut Creek at $27.13 billion, Concord with $23.64 billion, Richmond with $21.42 billion, Danville with $18.13 billion and Antioch with $16.72 billion in assessed value.

“I would like to acknowledge and commend the employees of the Assessor’s Office for their continued dedication and hard work which resulted in the completion and delivery of the 2024-2025 assessment roll,” Kramer wrote in his annual letter to the Board of Supervisors.

UPDATE: Later, the County Assessor explained, some of the increases in the assessed values are due to the sales in new home developments and resale of older homes at higher prices, Kramer explained. “This doesn’t mean taxes are going up,” Kramer stated.

His letter and the complete 2024-2025 Assessment Roll Reports can be found, here.

Why does California’s gas tax keep increasing?

By Leave a Comment

State’s excise tax on gasoline increased July 1 from 57.9 to 59.6 cents per gallon and from 44.1 to 45.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel.

No end in the law to annual increases based on state CPI

By Allen D. Payton

If you’re not already aware, the State of California gas tax increased today, July 1, 2024 according to the announcement in May by the Department of Tax and Fee Assessment (CDTFA). According to that notice as reported by the California Taxpayers Association, the state’s excise tax* on gasoline increased today “from 57.9 cents per gallon to 59.6 cents per gallon and from 44.1 cents per gallon to 45.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel.”

According to the California Transportation Commission, “the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 1 (Beall, 2017)…increasing transportation funding and instituting much-needed reforms. SB 1 provides the first significant, stable, and on-going increase in state transportation funding in more than two decades.”

Contra Costa’s representatives at that time split on the bill, with then-Assemblyman Jim Frazier, who was chairman of the Assembly Transportation Committee, and Assemblyman Tim Grayson voting in favor, and State Senator Steve Glazer voting against.

Source: AAA

As of Monday, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), which updates prices daily, drivers in Contra Costa County are paying an average of $4.869 per gallon of regular unleaded gas, while today’s Bay Area average is $4.943, California’s average is $4.794 and the national average is $3.491 per gallon.

Taxes & Fees in the Price for a Gallon of Gas

According to data from the California Energy Commission, drivers are now paying 90 cents in taxes per gallon of gas:

  • $0.596 on state excise tax
  • $0.184 on the federal excise tax
  • $0.10 cents on more state and local sales taxes
  • $0.02 for a state underground storage tank fee

Plus, $0.51 for state environmental programs fee for a total of $1.41 in taxes and fees per gallon of gas.

Source: CDTFA

But why does the state gas tax keep increasing each year? It’s due to the passage of a bill in 2017, not a vote of the people, as some folks misremember. According to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), State Senate Bill 1 (SB1) entitled the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, “was passed by a two-thirds majority in the California Legislature and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown in 2017. As the largest transportation investment in California history, SB 1 is expected to raise $52.4 billion for transportation investments statewide over the next decade.” It marked “the first increase in the state excise tax on gasoline since 1994.”

It requires the CDTFA to annually adjust the rate by the increase in the California Consumer Price Index (CPI) which is as calculated by the Department of Finance (CDFI). According to the CADFI, the CPI “measures price changes in goods and services purchased by urban consumers.  The all urban consumer (CPI-U) represents the spending patterns of the majority of the population which includes professionals, the self-employed, the poor, the unemployed, and retired people, as well as urban wage earners and clerical workers (CPI-W).  The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) compiles and publishes the CPI for the Los Angeles area monthly, the Riverside area bimonthly, San Diego County bimonthly, the San Francisco area bimonthly, and the nation each month.  A California CPI is calculated…as a population-weighted average of the BLS-published local area CPIs. The California CPI formula was developed by the California Department of Industrial Relations (CADIR).”

According to the CDIR, the CPI “Is a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a fixed market basket of goods and services. The CPI provides a way to compare what this market basket of goods and services costs this month with what the same market basket cost, say, a month or year ago.” This year, the California CIP was determined to be 3.3% in February and 3.8% in April.

History of Recent CA Gas Tax Increases

In addition, according to details provided by the CDTFA, “*Effective July 1, 2010, under the Fuel Tax Swap Law, purchases and sales of gasoline are exempt from the state portion of the sales and use tax rate (then 6 percent), and a corresponding increase in the excise tax rate on that gasoline was imposed.” Then, “Effective November 1, 2017, Senate Bill 1 imposed an additional $0.12-per-gallon gasoline tax.” Finally, “Effective July 1, 2020, Senate Bill 1…requires CDTFA to annually adjust the rate by the increase in the California Consumer Price Index.”

Proposed Use of Funds

The majority of the revenue from the state gas tax is intended for “Local Street and Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation” at $1.5 billion per year over 10 years and $1.9 billion for “State Highway Maintenance and Rehabilitation.”

Also, according to the MTC, “In the Bay Area, most of this money will be directed to cities, counties and public transit agencies to tackle the enormous backlog of maintenance and repairs for local streets, roads and transit systems. SB 1 money also will be available for new projects, including bicycle and pedestrian improvements.”

Asked if the law sunsets and the annual increases end or if they continue indefinitely a staff member for CDTFA responded, “CDTFA is required by law to adjust the motor vehicle fuel and diesel fuel excise tax rates annually based on the California Consumer Price Index as calculated by the Department of Finance.  SB1 did not include a sunset date.”

For additional information on SB1 see the answers by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to the Frequently Asked Questions, here and by the California State Controller’s Office, here. Read the 2022 article by the CED entitled What Drives California’s Gasoline Prices.

Public asked to participate in CalTrans test on DeSaulnier’s per mile “Road Charge” to replace gas tax

By Leave a Comment

Video screenshot source: Caltrans

Due to purchase and use of hybrid and electric vehicles

Receive up to $400 in gift cards for 6-month Pilot program beginning Aug. 2024

By Allen D. Payton

Caltrans has launched a test on the proposed per mile Road Charge to possibly replace the state’s current gas tax and invites the state’s drivers to participate. The Pilot program will last six months and participants can earn up to $400 in gift cards.

With the passage of Senate Bill 1077 introduced in 2014 by then-State Senator (now-Congressman) Mark DeSaulnier, California began investigating a long-term, sustainable transportation funding mechanism as a potential replacement to the gas tax, known as a “road charge” due to the advent of hybrid and electric vehicles. As of 2022, state officials estimate that there were about 1.1 million electric cars and 1.3 million hybrids on California roads.

Source: Caltrans

Taking direction from the Legislature, California completed the largest road charge research effort to date piloting more than 5,000 vehicles that reported in excess of 37 million miles over a nine-month duration. According to the program’s report, the statistics only serve to reinforce Californians’ desire for mobility, a safe and reliable transportation system, and an improved overall quality of life. Below please find the California State Transportation Agency’s release of the California Road Charge Pilot Program final report.

History of Transportation Funding

According to the Road Charge Pilot Program Summary Report, Nearly all of the 350 billion miles driven each year on California’s highways and roads are  powered by gasoline or diesel fueled vehicles. Historically, the taxes on those fuels provided the majority of the revenue required to maintain and operate our transportation network. As future consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel declines, due to increased fleet efficiency, California will be challenged to sustain its $2.5 trillion economy. Continuing to depend on a consumption-based transportation model, while at the same time adopting policies to increase vehicle fuel efficiency and promote the reduction of vehicle miles traveled, puts into question the long-term viability of the gas tax as a sustainable revenue model.

Source: Caltrans

Historically, transportation funding has been impacted by two main factors: inflation and vehicle fuel efficiency. Until this year, with the passage of the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill 1), the state gas tax had not been adjusted for inflation since 1994, which significantly reduced its purchasing power. Senate Bill 1 adjusted fuel rates for past inflation and includes future inflation adjustments: hence, solving the inflation issue and delaying the expected transportation funding shortage by a decade or more. However, the impact of improving vehicle fuel efficiency remains an issue, especially as new vehicles sold in the coming decades are expected to be much more fuel efficient.

The report claims, “Without Senate Bill 1’s inflation adjustments, the transportation funding shortfall would be quickly approaching. The new Senate Bill 1 revenues, as illustrated in Figure 1, stabilize the state’s short-term transportation infrastructure funding needs and provides time to explore alternatives to continued reliance on fuel taxes.”

Source: Caltrans

How Transportation Funding Works

Currently, it costs approximately $8.5 billion annually to maintain California’s roads.

  • Approximately 80% of highway and road repairs are funded by a tax on gasoline charged at the pump when you buy gas. The more gas you buy, the more you pay in gas taxes and the more you contribute to highway and road repairs.
  • On average, Californians pay about $300 a year in state gas taxes.
  • Various state fees also support transportation. Trucks pay weight fees and zero-emission vehicle owners pay $118 each year, and all vehicle owners pay a transportation improvement fee.
  • Some counties also charge a local sales tax to further invest in road and transit needs or have tolls on bridges or certain highways.
  • The public may also pass state bonds to invest in additional transportation needs.

What is Road Charge?

California relies on gas tax and other fuel tax revenues to fund its roadway maintenance and repairs. But as cars get more fuel efficient or use other energy sources, such as electricity and hydrogen, the gas tax will no longer fund the infrastructure California needs. California is researching a potential gas tax replacement that’s both sustainable and equitable: road charge. A road charge is a “user pays” system where all drivers pay to maintain the roads based on how much they drive, rather than how much gas they purchase. Under a road charge, all drivers share roadway maintenance and repair costs based on what they actually use. (https://dot.ca.gov/programs/road-charge)

  • California could replace the gas tax with a mileage-based user fee charged to drivers who use the roads. The more you drive, the more you pay for highway and road repairs. The less you drive, the less you pay.
  • Everyone would pay their fair share for road repairs based on how much they drive, not the kind of car they own.
  • California is working to develop a road charge program that is fair, transparent, and sustainable so that it meets our road maintenance needs now and in the future.

Most States Pursuing Vehicle Miles Traveled Taxes

According to the Tax Foundation, most states are taking steps toward a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax. “Oregon was the first state to begin research into VMT taxes in 2001 and was the first to implement a program in 2015. Four states now have active programs for passenger vehicles and four other states have active programs targeting heavy commercial vehicles (Oregon has both), with pilot programs carried out in 16 states. Only Hawaii has a mandatory program, which requires EVs to participate by 2028 and all light vehicles by 2033.”

Video screenshot source: Caltrans

Calculator Compares Road Charge vs. State Fuel Tax Costs

The “Road Charge” vs. gas tax calculator for a sample cost comparison of paying the current gas tax of $0.579 per gallon as of July 1, 2023, versus a per mile road charge offers options of $0.02, $0.03 and $0.04. At two cents per mile the Total Monthly Road Charge would be less than the Total Monthly State Fuel Tax for a gas-powered vehicle. But at three cents per mile, the monthly cost of the Road Charge would be greater than the current fuel tax.

For a 2024 Chevrolet Equinox EV driven an average of 1,000 miles per month the Road Charge annual costs would be $240 at two cents, $360 at three cents and $480 at four cents per mile versus the current $118 annual fee. The calculator “Does not include any federal or local taxes” and shows, “Rates are hypothetical and would be set by the California Legislature.”

Video screenshot source: Caltrans

Participate in 2024 Road Charge Collection Pilot

The Road Charge policy idea is still being explored and developed. The public’s input and ideas can help inform what the best way might be to implement a program in California. Drivers are asked to participate in the 2024 Road Charge Collection Pilot and earn up to $400!

  • Receive up to $400* in gift cards
  • Participate for 6 months; Aug 2024 – Jan 2025
  • Pay road charges each month
  • Gas tax refunded end of pilot
  • Take 2 surveys to tell us about your pilot experience

*Complete all required activities throughout the Pilot and earn up to $400: $100 distributed in September 2024 and up to $300 will be distributed in February 2025.

To learn more and participate in the pilot program visit https://caroadcharge.com/engage/contact-us-pilot/, call (916) 619-6283 toll-free or email info@caroadcharge.com.

 

 

Contra Costa’s Measure X sales tax: Living Up to the Promise?

By Leave a Comment

Zoom discussion Feb. 16 sponsored by League of Women Voters, Contra Costa County Library, Contra Costa TV

Voters passed Measure X, a new countywide 20-year, half-cent sales tax to support health and human services for our neighbors and families, in November 2020. The ballot measure language stated that the intent of Measure X is “to keep Contra Costa’s regional hospital open and staffed; fund community health centers, emergency response; support crucial safety-net services; invest in early childhood services; protect vulnerable populations; and for other essential county services.” Learn whether it’s living up to what was promised to voters in a Zoom discussion on Thursday, February 16 at 4 p.m.

How is the Board of Supervisors providing accountability to the public about the impact of the tax monies? What did we learn from this first year of sales tax allocations? What does this mean for the future? A panel of experts will discuss what was funded by Measure X and what gaps remain:

  • John Gioia, Contra Costa County Supervisor
  • Marianna Moore, Chair of the Measure X Community Advisory Board
  • Kanwarpal Dhaliwal, Co-Director of RYSE, a non-profit for Richmond youth
  • Sara Gurdian, Contra Costa County Budget Justice Coalition

Shanelle Scales-Preston will moderate the panel discussion.

Decisions about the first year’s Measure X allocations, as analyzed by the Measure X Community Advisory Board, will be presented as well as the remaining gaps they identified. Other topics will include changes to the Advisory Board’s bylaws and any barriers encountered during the first year.

Register for the Zoom webinar with your email here.

REGISTER FOR THIS EVENT »

Information on how to access the Zoom webinar will be sent to your email address 24 hours before the program.

The Library will provide closed captioning for this event. The program will be recorded and posted on the following sites after the meeting:

LWVDV YouTube channel

Contra Costa County Library YouTube channel

Sponsors include the League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley, the League of Women Voters of West Contra Costa County, the Contra Costa County Library and Contra Costa TV.

Contact programs@lwvdv.org for more information.

MTC to seek legislature’s approval to place Bay Area Transportation tax measure on 2026 ballot

By Leave a Comment

Photo by MTC.

To generate at least $1 to $2 billion annually; priorities include transit, safer streets and roads, resilience

Commissioners considering a variety of tax options

By John Goodwin & Rebecca Long, Metropolitan Transportation Commission

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) on Wednesday, Jan. 24, 2024 voted to pursue legislation in Sacramento this year that would enable Bay Area voters to consider a transportation revenue measure as early as November 2026.

The proposed measure aims to advance a climate-friendly Bay Area transportation system that is safe, accessible and convenient for all. This includes preserving and enhancing public transit service; making transit faster, safer and easier to use; repairing local streets and roads; and improving mobility and access for all people, including pedestrians, bicyclists and scooter and wheelchair users.

The vote was approved unanimously by all members present. There are 21 commissioners with three non-voting members. Oakland Mayor Sheng Tao and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan who are voting members were both absent during the vote.

State Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco earlier this month introduced what is known as a spot bill that will be used as the vehicle for authorizing placement of the proposed measure on a future ballot in each of the nine Bay Area counties. The first opportunity to amend Wiener’s Senate Bill 925 will be in mid-February.

While the Commission has not yet identified a revenue source for the proposed measure, MTC Chair and Napa County Supervisor Alfredo Pedroza noted that he and his colleagues are considering a wide range of options.

“Voters traditionally have supported transportation through bridge tolls or sales taxes. Bridge tolls are not an option in this case and we think it’s smart to look at more than a regional sales tax. We’re proposing a few options so we have enough flexibility and enough time to get it right.”

Tax Options & Projected Revenue

Legislators, and MTC staff and commissioners, will consider several options for generating revenue. These may include a sales tax, an income tax, a payroll tax, a square footage-based parcel tax, a Bay Area-specific vehicle registration surcharge with tiered rates based on the value of the vehicle or a regional vehicle-miles traveled charge (VMT) charge subject to prior adoption of a statewide road usage charge not sooner than 2030.

MTC staff recommend raising at least $1 billion to $2 billion per year for robust investments in safe streets and other capital improvements, to improve and expand transit service, and to help Bay Area transit agencies operate their services.

Goals of the Regional Transportation Measure

The revenue measure’s core goal is to advance a climate-friendly transportation system in the Bay Area that is safe, accessible and convenient for all. Focus areas include:

  1. Protect and enhance transit service. Ensure that current resources are maintained and used effectively; and enhance service frequency and areas served.
  2. Make transit faster, safer and easier to use. Create a seamless and convenient Bay Area transit system that attracts more riders by improving public safety on transit; implementing the Bay Area Transit Transformation Action Plan; and strengthening regional network management.
  3. Enhance mobility and access for all. Make it safer and more accessible for people of all ages and abilities to get to where they need to go. Preserve and improve mobility for all transportation system users, including people walking, biking and wheeling.

Proposed Expenditure Categories

  1. Transit transformation: sustain, expand and improve transit service for both current and future riders; accelerate customer-focused initiatives from the Bay Area Transit Transformation Action Plan and other service improvements that are high priorities for Bay Area voters and riders; and help fund the transition to zero-emission transit.
  2. Safe streets: transform local streets and roads to support safety, equity and climate goals, including through pothole repair, investments in bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure, safe routes to transit and other safety enhancements.
  3. Connectivity: fund mobility improvements that close gaps and relieve bottlenecks in the existing transportation network in a climate-neutral way.
  4. Climate resilience: fund planning, design and/or construction work that protects transportation infrastructure and nearby communities from rising sea levels, flooding, wildfires and extreme heat.

Transportation Measure Highlights

This measure reflects feedback from Commissioners, key legislative leaders and other stakeholders, including:

  • Improving transit coordination by strengthening MTC’s role as regional transit network manager;
  • A focus on Bay Area Transit Transformation Action Plan (TAP) action items and other customer facing policies that would benefit from a regional approach, such as ambassadors to assist riders and support a safe atmosphere;
  • Flexibility in the amount of revenue requested, as well as the way that funding could be generated;
  • Flexibility in spending priorities as the region’s needs evolve with time; and
  • The “North Star” vision statement, which includes greenhouse gas emission-reduction tools, such as:
    • A Transportation Demand Management mandate that encourages Bay Area employees to commute to work in ways other than driving to work alone; and
    • A limitation on how money could be spent on highway-widening projects.

Just as MTC commissioners have proposed a range of tax options, so too have they identified multiple expenditure categories.

“We recognize that we’ll be asking voters to take on a heavy lift,” acknowledged Pedroza. “The big lesson from COVID is the need to transform both our transit network and the way we pay to operate it. But we also need to transform our local streets and roads to fix potholes and make the roads safer for walking and biking. We need to improve connectivity and do it in a way that doesn’t encourage people to drive more. And we need to make our transportation infrastructure more resilient to rising sea levels, flooding, wildfires and extreme heat.”

Measure Vision Statement

The commissioners also adopted the following Vision Statement for the measure: “The Bay Area needs a world-class, reliable, affordable, efficient and connected transportation network that meets the needs of Bay Area residents, businesses and visitors while also helping combat the climate crisis; a public transit network that offers safe, clean, frequent, accessible, easy-to-navigate and reliable service, getting transit riders where they want and need to go safely, affordably, quickly and seamlessly; local roads are well maintained; and transit, biking, walking and wheeling are safe, convenient and competitive alternatives to driving; enhancing access to opportunity, lowering greenhouse gas emissions, strengthening the region’s economy and improving quality of life.”

To learn more about the proposed tax measure click, here. To read the supporting documents considered by the Commissioners click, here.

MTC is the transportation planning, financing and coordinating agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

 

California is not East Berlin. A wealth tax in the Golden State would expedite the exodus

By Leave a Comment

By Jon Coupal

Note: This column first appeared in The Press-Enterprise. Republished with permission.

Daily news reports on the great “California Exodus” are not just from conservative outlets. Left-leaning publications such as the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle have recently reported on the outmigration of upper-income citizens who, even if not billionaires, still generate a lot of income tax revenue.

Earlier this month the California Legislature held a hearing on Assembly Bill 259 which would lay the foundation for the imposition of a wealth tax. The companion legislation to AB 259 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would, among other things, effectively sweep away Proposition 13’s limits on taxing property.

Fortunately, the idea that California would be the first in the nation to impose a highly unpopular wealth tax is so radical that the proposal was rejected by Democrats as well as Republicans on the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee. It didn’t take long for the Democrat chair of the committee to shuffle the bill to the “suspense” file where bad legislation goes to die.

Coincidentally, the wealth tax hearing occurred on the same day that Gov. Newsom released his proposed budget. Things got a little sparky during the presentation with Newsom pushing hard against the Legislative Analyst’s figure of a $68 billion deficit. Newsom contends that the deficit is “only” $38 billion. (But hey, what’s a $30 billion difference between friends).

Newsom saved his most animated criticism for those who highlight the state’s shortcomings, including the significant outmigration of California’s most productive citizens. He especially targeted the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, which has never been reticent about commenting on the state’s well-deserved reputation for anti-business bias.

But to his credit, Newsom rejected the notion of a wealth tax – at least for now. For taxpayers, it matters little whether the governor’s stance is motivated by politics or a sincere policy position. Either way, we’ll take it.

The problems with the wealth tax proposal – even as half-baked as it is – are legion. But one issue should be especially troubling to anyone who believes both in fiscal restraint and basic constitutional freedoms. That is, could a wealth tax be applied to people who voluntarily leave the state for the specific purpose of avoiding California’s highest-in-the-nation income taxes? AB 259 contains a provision that applies the wealth tax to every “wealth-tax resident,” defined as someone who “is no longer a resident, and does not have the reasonable expectation to return to the state.”

The question here is not whether a resident of another state can be taxed when they have a “nexus” to California, for example income earned in California or owning property in the state. Rather, what about someone who no longer has any connection to California? The proposal to tax wealth on such people would likely be deemed to violate the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

More fundamentally, an “exit tax” could be construed as an impairment to the right to travel. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in 1958 in Kent v. Dulles that citizens have a liberty interest in the right to travel: “[t]he right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment …”

Setting aside the practical and legal problems with this or any wealth tax proposal, a fundamental problem is the signal it sends to all productive California taxpayers as well as those in other states who might consider moving here.  California already has a horrible reputation for its treatment of taxpayers and businesses, why would we even consider another punishing tax?

The proponents of the wealth tax need to be reminded that, as much as they might want to prevent citizens from leaving, California is not East Berlin. The U.S. Constitution will not allow the state government to build a wall to keep citizens in, and then shoot tax bills at them when they try to escape.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

 

Want to serve on the Contra Costa Measure X sales tax Community Advisory Board?

By Leave a Comment

February 23 deadline to submit application

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is seeking applicants for appointment to the Measure X sales tax Community Advisory Board. The Measure X Community Advisory Board (MXCAB) was established on February 2, 2021 following passage of the countywide sales tax measure providing general purpose revenue for County programs.

The Supervisors are seeking diverse representation from individuals with broad experience with programs that align with the Measure’s voter-approved purpose “to keep Contra Costa’s regional hospital open and staffed; fund community health centers, emergency response; support crucial safety-net services; invest in early childhood services; protect vulnerable populations; and for other essential county services.”

The main responsibilities of the Measure X Community Advisory Board are:

  • Providing input on the scope and methodology of the regular written assessment of community needs and priorities;
  • Using the assessment findings to develop general funding priorities to be recommended to the Board of Supervisors on Measure X net revenues available for allocation;
  • Receiving annual status reports on the implementation, milestones, impact, and outcomes of Measure X funded programs;

Appointments for seven (7) At-Large and five (5) At-Large Alternate seats will be considered at the Board of Supervisors Finance Committee, with public interviews scheduled March 4, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. To have your application considered at the March Finance Committee meeting, please submit an application online by February 23, 2024 at 5:00 p.m.

For further information, please call Emlyn Struthers, Deputy County Administrator, at (925) 655-2045 or Emlyn.Struthers@cao.cccounty.us.