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.

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.

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.

“The measure exceeds the scope of the power to amend the Constitution via citizen initiative” – CA Supreme Court

“Today’s ruling is the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory…the California Supreme Court has put politics ahead of the Constitution” – Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability

By Allen D. Payton

In response to a lawsuit by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state legislature, the California Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled, today, Thursday, June 20, 2024, the measure known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act amounts to an illegal constitutional revision and removed it from the November election ballot. However, proponents vowed to continue to explore their legal options and efforts to minimize

According to Ballotpedia, “The initiative would have amended the California Constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes. The initiative would have also required new or increased taxes to be passed by a two-thirds legislative vote in each chamber and approved by a simple majority of voters. It would also have increased the vote requirement for local taxes proposed by local government or citizens to a two-thirds vote of the local electorate. The increased vote requirements for new or higher taxes would have not applied to citizen-initiated state ballot measures. As of 2024, state tax increases require approval by a two-thirds vote in each chamber or a simple majority vote at a statewide election

In addition, a ‘yes’ vote on the measure would have supported “amending the state constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes and to require new state taxes proposed by the state legislature to be enacted via a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval and new local taxes to be enacted via a two-thirds vote of the electorate.”

However, according to the Associated Press, “The biggest impact…would have been that the measure threatened to retroactively reverse most tax increases approved since Jan. 1, 2022. Local governments warned they would have lost billions of dollars in revenue that had previously approved by voters. And it would have threatened recent statewide tax increases.”

Proponents

Proponents of the measure, Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability, self-described as “a bipartisan coalition of homeowners, taxpayers and businesses committed to ensuring California remains affordable for families and accountable to its voters,” led the campaign in support of the initiative.  The campaign explained the initiative, saying, “The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act will give voters the right to vote on all future state taxes and holds politicians accountable for new fees and other increased costs paid by working families and all Californians. The measure increases accountability by requiring politicians to spend new or higher tax revenue on its intended purpose. It will provide much-needed relief to families, farmers, and business owners, helping them to combat the growing cost-of-living crisis facing all Californians.”

Supporters included the California Business Roundtable, California NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development Association, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The campaign had received $17.8 million in contributions.

According to the NAIOP, the measure would have given “voters the right to vote on all future state taxes and holds politicians accountable for new fees and other increased costs paid by working families and all Californians.” It would have increased “accountability by requiring politicians to spend new or higher tax revenue on its intended purpose. It will provide much-needed relief to families, farmers, and business owners, helping them to combat the growing cost-of-living crisis facing all Californians. The Act doesn’t cut any current state or local government funding. It simply gives voters the right to vote on all future tax increases and stops working families from paying billions more in “hidden taxes” imposed by unelected bureaucrats.  They are currently gathering signatures and will need $70 million in fundraising efforts to pass the ballot measure in November of 2022.”

View materials on the proposed ballot measure.

Supporters Respond, Will Seek Legal Options, Continue Efforts

In response to the court’s ruling, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) campaign issued the following statement from Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) and Matthew Hargrove, president and CEO of the California Business Properties Association:

“Today’s ruling is the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory. Governor Newsom has effectively erased the voice of 1.43 million voters who signed the petition to qualify the Taxpayer Protection Act for the November ballot. Most importantly, the governor has cynically terminated Californians’ rights to engage in direct democracy despite his many claims that he is a defender of individual rights and democracy. Evidently, the governor wants to protect democracy and individual rights in other states, but not for all Californians. 

We are disappointed that the California Supreme Court has put politics ahead of the Constitution, disregarding long-standing precedent that they should not intervene in an election before voters decide qualified initiatives.

Direct democracy and our initiative process are now at risk with this decision, showing California is firmly a one-party state where the governor and Legislature can politically influence courts to block ballot measures that threaten their ability to increase spending and raise taxes. Using the courts to block voters’ voices is the latest effort from the Democrats’ supermajority to remove any accountability measures that interfere with their agenda – a failed agenda that continues to drive up the cost of living with little accountability and few results. 

This ruling sends a damning message to businesses in California and across the country that it is politically perilous to invest and grow jobs for the future. 

In light of this ruling and the state’s large budget deficit, a huge amount of tax increases are on the way that are sure to make California’s cost of living even higher. 

We will continue to explore our legal options and fight for the people’s right to hold their government accountable through direct democracy.” 

———–

Opponents

The measure was opposed by Governor Newsom, CA Attorney General Rob Bonta, FSCME California, SEIU California State Council, California Special Districts Association, California State Association of Counties, and League of California Cities. Graham Knaus, executive director of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), said, “This deceptive initiative would undermine the rights of local voters and their elected officials to make decisions on critical local services that residents rely upon. It creates major new tax loopholes at the expense of residents and will weaken our local services and communities.”

Bonta had relabeled the measure’s title to, “Limits Ability of Voters and State and Local Governments to Raise Revenues for Government Services. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.” The summary he required to be included on signature petition sheets read as follows: “For new or increased state taxes currently enacted by two-thirds vote of Legislature, also requires statewide election and majority voter approval. Limits voters’ ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by raising vote requirement to two-thirds. Eliminates voters’ ability to advise how to spend revenues from proposed general tax on same ballot as the proposed tax. Expands definition of ‘taxes’ to include certain regulatory fees, broadening application of tax approval requirements. Requires Legislature or local governing body set certain other fees.”

In spite of that, supporters were still able to gather the required signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. The signature gathering occurred in 2022.

Court’s Decision

According to information about the case #S281977 entitled LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. WEBER (HILTACHK) on the state Supreme Court’s website, it “presented the following issues: (1) Does the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) constitute an impermissible attempted revision of the California Constitution by voter initiative? (2) Is this initiative measure subject to invalidation on the ground that, if adopted, it would impair essential government functions?”

The court wrote in its unanimous opinion, “we conclude that the TPA would clearly ‘accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision’ of the (state) Constitution. The measure exceeds the scope of the power to amend the Constitution via citizen initiative.”

“It is within the people’s prerogative to make these changes, but they must be undertaken in a manner commensurate with their gravity: through the process for revision set forth in Article XVIII of the Constitution,” the decision continued.

The court concluded by “directing the (CA) Secretary of State to refrain from taking steps to place” the initiative “on the November 5, 2024 election ballot or to include the measure in the voter information guide.”

However, Section 3 of that Article clearly reads, “The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.” Coupal of the HJTA was asked to explain what the court is referring to and what other approach or process should the proponents have followed. He did not respond prior to publication time.

See Court ruling, here.

For more information about the ballot measure and the coalition that supported it visit www.taxpayerprotection.com.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.

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 hosted by League of Women Voters 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

Pittsburg Councilwoman 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.

To be discussed Tuesday night January 30, 204

Plus, 7 other items including Wilson’s gas station moratorium, repealing city cruising ban due to new state law; presentations on homeless services, Community Response Team

By Allen D. Payton

During a special meeting Tuesday night, Jan. 30, 2024, the Antioch City Council will receive three presentations including one on Unhoused Resident Services and discuss eight items requested by council members including a possible ballot measure for infrastructure and/or programs under agenda Item 5. requested by Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe, and a moratorium on new gas stations, proposed by Mayor Pro Tem and District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson.

The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. and be held at the Nick Rodriguez Center, 213 F Street in Rivertown.

The other two presentations will be on the City’s Youth Services Network and on the California Violence Intervention and Prevention (CALVIP), the City’s Community Response Team and raising awareness against domestic violence.

On the gas station moratorium discussion under agenda Item. 10, city staff offers basic options that the Council could consider including: a temporary moratorium on approval of new gas stations or a ban on new gas stations. In addition, the City could consider a ban on the expansion of new pumps at existing gas stations.

The other six items requested by council members for discussion and possible placement on a future council meeting agenda for votes include the following items:

4. Discussion on the Antioch Alert System requested by District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica.

6. The Contra Costa County A3 Miles Hall Crisis Call Center requested by District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker.

According to the staff report, A3 is the county’s approach to providing behavioral health crisis services to anyone, anywhere, at anytime in the county. Annual Measure X sales tax revenue supports the center, mobile response teams and connection to follow-up care for those in crisis. A3 has grown from a pilot project in 2021 to now operating 24/7. Currently, A3 responds to about 200 calls and dispatches 30 mobile teams per week. They helped over 2,900 callers in 2022 and expect that number to grow to more than 4,500 people this year.

7. Hiring incentives for city employees requested by Hernandez-Thorpe.

8. Permits for landlords renting to family members requested by Barbanica.

9. Discussion on the City’s official poet laureate program requested by Torres-Walker.

11. Repealing the City’s ban on cruising. According to the brief description of the agenda item, staff is recommending that the City Council direct staff to prepare an ordinance to repeal the City’s local ban on cruising, set forth in Section 4-5.1009 of the Antioch Municipal Code (AMC), which is now preempted by State law effective January 1, 2024.

Cruising Now Legal in California

According to the city staff report by City Attorney Thomas L. Smith, “On October 13, 2023, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 436, which amends Section 21100 by removing subdivision (k) “Regulating cruising” from the traffic matters that local agencies may regulate. Effective January 1, 2024, cruising bans adopted by cities are no longer authorized under State law. Therefore, cruising is a legal activity within the State of California. Existing City bans are now preempted by State law.”

State Senator Steve Glazer was absent for the vote but State Assemblyman Tim Grayson, who is running for Glazer’s seat, voted for the bill.

Community Response Team Report Details

According to the Community Response Team report, since Oct. 2022, they have responded to 1,600 Dispatch calls of which they had 51 accompanied the Antioch Police Department, 573 Welfare Checks and 293 for Mental Health Related Services. In addition, most of the calls were made during the hours of 6am-11pm, with 12pm-5pm being the peak hours of conducted services.

No votes will be made during the meeting just direction to staff. See complete meeting agenda.

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.

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.

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.