At the June 7 election, Long Beach voters will ultimately decide on the fate of two proposed measures that will effectively raise the sales tax within the city by 1 percent.
Measure A is really called a Transactions-and-Use-Tax measure, but as the Signal Tribune reported earlier this year, the tax will likely be noted as a “sales tax” on invoices. The tax is meant to be temporary, and specific language in the measure notes that it will only last for 10 years. If Measure A passes, the tax will be raised by 1 percent for the first six years then drop to one-half of a percent for the next four years. If the sales-tax rates don’t change, shoppers in Long Beach will be paying 10 percent. LA County’s sales-tax rate is currently set at 9 percent.
Measure B is linked to Measure A, and it establishes a rainy-day fund. The first 1 percent of new tax revenue would be set aside in that fund to maintain city services and to balance the budget.
The ballot measures are intended to address the infrastructure costs in Long Beach, which last year were estimated to be $2.8 billion over the next 10 years. The new tax revenue is expected to raise an additional $48 million every year. The tax revenue will also pay for infrastructure costs, 9-1-1 services and police and fire staffing, according to the ballot measure.
It’s not the first time that the City has attempted to address infrastructure needs. Measure I proposed a parcel tax back on the 2008 ballot, but it failed to pass. At that time, then-mayor Bob Foster raised considerable funds toward the campaign and even enlisted the support of his predecessor, Beverly O’Neill, in his campaign.
That measure was staunchly opposed by the Long Beach Taxpayers Association, a grassroots organization with only a few thousand dollars in their coffers. Association founders Tom Stout and Kathy Ryan claim the defeat of the measure as one of their own victories.
This year, current Mayor Robert Garcia has enlisted the support of his two predecessors, Foster and O’Neill. His finance report has noted that as of May 21, his campaign in favor of the measure has raised $389,191.67 and spent $340,141.06. While this time there are three groups opposing the measure, none of them has likely spent anywhere near that amount. So far, no campaign-finance reports have been submitted by any opposing group. City Clerk Maria de la Luz Garcia said in a statement to the Signal Tribune earlier this year that a committee formed to support or oppose a measure must file with the Secretary of State’s office as well as the Long Beach City Clerk’s office if independent expenditures total $1,000 or more.
The founders of the Long Beach Taxpayers Association remember well the arguments in favor of the parcel tax eight years ago, and they still reject the notion that Long Beach needs their tax dollars.
“It seems like no matter how much money has come back,” co-founder Stout said, “we’re still in the position that there’s not enough money to spend on infrastructure.”
Co-founder Ryan agrees. She wondered aloud why the City didn’t continue to press the issue of infrastructure costs over the last eight years, if they were indeed a priority.
“If it was that important [in] 2008 to put a measure on the ballot!what happened?” Ryan asked in a phone interview. “Why wasn’t it important throughout these years?”
Ryan acknowledged that the City underwent a recession at that time, but she said if the expenses were increasing every year, it could have been addressed earlier at a lesser cost. Both Ryan and Stout criticized the pension costs to the City as well as the fact that the council had already approved to build a new civic-center complex. They also noted that unions had contributed a significant amount to the campaign to pass Measures A and B.
Others have voiced concerns that the general sales tax allows the city council to spend the potential tax revenue on other priorities, rather than on the infrastructure projects they promised.
Not everyone serving on the council dais under Foster’s administration back in 2008 who support the need to pay for infrastructure actually support Measures A and B. Former 8th District Councilmember Rae Gabelich said in a phone interview that she favored Measure I eight years ago but isn’t in favor of Measure A.
“This City needs to find additional revenue to be the kind of city that most of us want to live in,” Gabelich said. She also voiced apprehension about tax revenue that will go into the general fund and criticized the decision to approve a new civic center.
Third District Councilmember Suzie Price addressed concerns over the revenue in a phone interview. She noted that the council has identified infrastructure projects and agreed upon a resolution stating that the measure’s intent is to raise money specifically and exclusively for public safety and infrastructure, “although legally that money could be spent on a different cause.”
She did warn that the city could find itself in an emergency or a natural disaster, where there would be an expense that the city officials could not foresee.
“I don’t think that the residents would want the city officials’ hands tied in terms of funding options that may be available to them to address a crisis situation,” she said, adding that, absent that situation, the general tax will be spent in a specific way.
She did acknowledge that there will be two committees to oversee how the tax money will be spent.
“The role of both the citizen-advisory committee and then the established budget-oversight committee would be to approve any expenditure, make sure they’re in line with the stated intent before they go to council for a vote,” she said. “So it’s additional layers of scrutiny, if you will, prior to that money being spent on anything.”
The Presidential Primary Election is scheduled for this Tuesday, June 7, and the polls that day will open at 7am and close at 8pm.
