Long Beach sued the state<\/a> \u2014 asking the court to require the CDTFA to begin collecting the additional tax rate. The month before, a local watchdog group called the Long Beach Reform Coalition sued the city, arguing that the early tax increase was unconstitutional.<\/p>\nLBRC\u2019s case was transferred to the Sacramento County Superior Court in May for coordination with the city\u2019s lawsuit against the state.<\/p>\n
The matter, now, has a conclusion, with Sacramento Superior Court Judge Stephen Acquisto issuing a tentative ruling on the two petitions on Friday, Nov. 7 \u2014 denying the city\u2019s petition and granting the Long Beach Reform Coalition\u2019s instead.<\/p>\n
Long Beach had argued that there was legal ambiguity around the date its own Measure A tax could return to the original rate because it was not only tied to the 2027 date, but also to the \u201csunset date for Los Angeles County Measure H,\u201d according to Acquisto\u2019s ruling. But the judge disagreed.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Court does not find this reading reasonable. The City assigns too much weight to the \u2018sunset\u201d language,\u2019\u201d the ruling said, adding that the mentions of the word \u201csunset\u201d in the original ballot language are only there to define the 2027 expiration date. \u201cThe city\u2019s reading would require the Court to disregard the dates specified in the measure as to render them meaningless.\u201d<\/p>\n
The judge went on to further say that the City Council\u2019s amendment to the Measure A language in an effort to revert the tax rate before the 2027 date \u201cviolates the constitutional prohibition on tax increases without voter approval.\u201d<\/p>\n
The ruling will require Long Beach to hold off on increasing the Measure A sales tax rate to 1% until the original date \u2014 Oct. 1, 2027.<\/p>\n
Long Beach, in a Saturday, Nov. 8, statement, said it had worked collaboratively with the state on the issue.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe recent ruling by a state judge regarding when the city of Long Beach local Measure A tax increase can go into effect brings clarity on next steps for the city,\u201d the statement said. \u201cThe city worked collaboratively with the state to review this issue, and both agreed a judge should review the entirety of the case and the ambiguity surrounding the start date of the increase to 1%.\u201d<\/p>\n
The LBRC, in a statement also released on Saturday, called Long Beach\u2019s response to the situation \u201cdamage control\u201d and argued that the city\u2019s assertion it had worked collaboratively with the CDTFA was \u201cfalse.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNeither in CDTFA\u2019s briefs nor (oral arguments) was there any acknowledgment of any ambiguity in the law whatsoever,\u201d LBRC\u2019s statement said, \u201ceither with regard to the State Constitution\u2019s prohibition on voter unapproved taxation or with regard to the clearly stated rate schedule presented in Long Beach Measure A.\u201d<\/p>\n
The CDFTA\u2019s stance, even in letters sent between the city and its own attorneys before Long Beach filed its March lawsuit, was made clear:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe termination of Los Angeles County\u2019s Measure H does not impact CDTFA\u2019s analysis,\u201d CDTFA attorney Andrew Miller wrote in a Jan. 7 letter, which Long Beach included as evidence in its court filing. \u201cIt does not change the plain language of the ordinance, which states that rate of the City\u2019s TUT will increase to one percent on a particular date, October 1, 2027.\u201d<\/p>\n
LBRC\u2019s statement, meanwhile, also hailed the ruling as a win for taxpayers.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe real question the residents of Long Beach should be asking themselves at this point is, why does a city with such an extreme level of municipal taxation still fail to pave the streets,maintain the parks and provide sufficient public safety?\u201d the statement said. \u201cYet other cities get by, looking far better, with far better services, with far less. Where is all the money going?\u201d<\/p>\n
The city, for its part, argued that it was necessary to take the matter to court since $60 million in yearly tax revenue \u2014 which would be used to fund things like public infrastructure and safety \u2014 were at stake.<\/p>\n
Even when the City Council originally approved the Measure A amendment in December, Mayor Rex Richardson said<\/a>\u00a0the matter was unsettled.<\/p>\n\u201cThere\u2019s legal recourse,\u201d Richardson said at the time, \u201cand there\u2019s a lot of due process still to come.\u201d<\/p>\n
But, he added, the city had to make the decision to comply with state deadlines and not effectively disqualify themselves from collecting the additional tax dollars entirely.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen the County Measure H tax expired, legal ambiguity existed over whether the city\u2019s sales tax should increase immediately, or wait until 2027, and what the intent of the majority of voters was,\u201d the city\u2019s Saturday statement said. \u201cGiven the $60 million in funds for public safety and infrastructure at stake, the city pursued the ruling by the court so as to best represent the interests of the majority of voters who approved Measure A and supported increased investment in public safety and infrastructure.\u201d<\/p>\n
But with that ambiguity now cleared up by the court, Long Beach\u2019s Measure A tax will be raised to the 1%, as was originally intended \u2014 in 2027.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe funds will be available in 2027,\u201d the city said. \u201cTherefore, any new Measure A investments in public safety and infrastructure will be considered at that time.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A tax-related controversy involving Long Beach, California and a local watchdog organization has finally been resolved \u2014 after…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":49665,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[33],"tags":[7,1071,23,131,7188,133,132,137],"class_list":{"0":"post-49664","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-long-beach","8":"tag-california","9":"tag-local-government","10":"tag-local-news","11":"tag-long-beach","12":"tag-long-beach-city-council","13":"tag-long-beach-headlines","14":"tag-long-beach-news","15":"tag-los-angeles-county"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49664","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=49664"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49664\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/49665"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49664"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49664"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49664"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}