CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
“Just to note, sales tax started in California in 1933. It was 2.5%. It is now a lot more and increasing it again is really the essence of a disturbing trend. And if you look at most of the cities facing bankruptcy or in bankruptcy, they all have a higher sales tax than we do now, it didn’t help them and it’s not going to help Carmel. In fact, you are just going to end up really unfairly gouging citizens and our visitors of this great town and you are doing so in a down economy, it’s just not right. And this town is a major destination and we all depend on those visitors for much of our revenue and increasing the sales tax makes us much less competitive to other destinations.”
“Recently, I have looked at the verbiage that will appear on the ballot describing the sales tax increase and what it will pay for, and go through maintenance, roads, street, police and fire, and then at the very bottom you got the real reason for the sales tax increase and that’s the massively, unsustainable pension obligations CalPERS. Now without question, I’m sure all you have the best intentions for the tax increase, the issuance of bonds, but unless you address the real problem, you’re never going to escape that specter of insolvency. You need to have pension reform or at least begin to talk about it otherwise this is all for nothing. So I humbly request you look into some kind of pension reform. Thank you for your time.”
FISCAL IMPACT: There are no immediate savings anticipated from the implementation of this two-tier system as the reduced contribution rate applies only to new hires. Long term savings will be realized, however, as staff turnover occurs.
Source: STAFF REPORT, Jason Stilwell, City Administrator, 6 March 2012.
Petition: “As a business owner and/or a citizen in Carmel-by-the-Sea, I am opposed to any sales tax increase.”
California State Board of Equalization
History of Sales & Use Tax Rates
Effective Date
|
End Date
|
State Rate
|
Local Rate
|
Combined Rate
|
07/01/11
|
Current
|
6.25%*
|
1.00%*
|
7.25%
|
4/01/09
|
6/30/11
|
7.25%*
|
1.00%*
|
8.25%
|
7/01/04
|
3/31/09
|
6.25%*
|
1.00%*
|
7.25%
|
1/01/02
|
6/30/04
|
6.00%
|
1.25%
|
7.25%
|
1/01/01
|
12/31/01
|
5.75%
|
1.25%
|
7.00%
|
7/15/91
|
12/31/00
|
6.00%
|
1.25%
|
7.25%
|
1/01/91
|
7/14/91
|
4.75%
|
1.25%
|
6.00%
|
12/01/89
|
12/31/90
|
5.00%
|
1.25%
|
6.25%
|
4/01/74
|
11/30/89
|
4.75%
|
1.25%
|
6.00%
|
10/01/73
|
3/31/74
|
3.75%
|
1.25%
|
5.00%
|
7/01/73
|
9/30/73
|
4.75%
|
1.25%
|
6.00%
|
7/01/72
|
6/30/73
|
3.75%
|
1.25%
|
5.00%
|
8/01/67
|
6/30/72
|
4.00%
|
1.00%
|
5.00%
|
1/01/62
|
7/31/67
|
3.00%
|
1.00%
|
4.00%
|
7/01/49
|
12/31/61
|
3.00%
|
3.00%
|
|
7/01/43
|
6/30/49
|
2.50%
|
2.50%
|
|
7/01/35
|
6/30/43
|
3.00%
|
3.00%
|
|
8/01/33**
|
6/30/35**
|
2.50%
|
2.50%
|
** Sales tax only. The use tax was enacted effective July 1, 1935.
California City & County Sales & Use Tax Rates
Data Last Updated: 7/2/2012
Data Last Updated: 7/2/2012
Location
|
Rate
|
Counties
|
7.250 %
|
||
7.250 %
|
||
Del Rey Oaks*
|
8.250 %
|
|
8.250 %
|
||
7.250 %
|
||
8.250 %
|
||
7.750 %
|
||
8.250 %
|
Data Last Updated: 7/2/2012
Counties
|
Rate
|
Location
|
7.250 %
|
Aromas
|
|
7.250 %
|
||
7.250 %
|
Bradley
|
|
7.250 %
|
||
7.250 %
|
||
7.250 %
|
||
7.250 %
|
||
7.250 %
|
Castroville
|
|
7.250 %
|
Chualar
|
|
7.250 %
|
Del Monte Park (
|
|
7.250 %
|
||
7.250 %
|
Gonzales*
|
|
7.250 %
|
||
7.250 %
|
Jolon
|
|
7.250 %
|
||
7.250 %
|
Lockwood
|
|
7.250 %
|
Lucia
|
|
7.250 %
|
||
7.250 %
|
Moss Landing
|
|
7.250 %
|
Pajaro
|
|
7.250 %
|
Parkfield
|
|
7.250 %
|
||
7.250 %
|
Presidio of
|
|
7.250 %
|
||
7.250 %
|
Prunedale
|
|
7.250 %
|
Royal Oaks
|
|
7.250 %
|
San Ardo
|
|
7.250 %
|
San Lucas
|
|
7.250 %
|
||
7.250 %
|
Spreckels
|
|
7.250 %
|
||
7.750 %
|
||
7.750 %
|
||
8.250 %
|
Del Rey Oaks*
|
|
8.250 %
|
||
8.250 %
|
||
8.250 %
|
California City and County Sales and Use Tax Rates
1 comment:
The City’s Annual Budget:Reserve Funds ratio ($13 million:$10 million) suggests that citizens (residents and visitors) are overtaxed, not undertaxed.
Full consolidation of the police department similar to the arrangement with the Carmel Fire Department and the City of Monterey Fire Department should be seriously considered with the aim of reducing costs.
Carmel should evaluate compensation and payroll for city managers and other city employees. Compensation should be based on factors including market forces, village’s population, size of budget, cost of living and number of government employees. Changing existing compensation policies could result in significant savings.
Because the City has a decade-long record of fiscal mismanagement (ex. unnecessary consultants, legal fees, et. cetera) and hiring and promoting city employees based on favoritism, not merit, the City should demonstrate competent fiscal management of $13 million General Fund revenues annually and $10 Reserve Funds prior to being entrusted with any additional taxpayer dollars.
Post a Comment