News

Despite looming deficit, Santa Clara County supervisors reject sales tax hike for the November ballot

Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian opposed the idea of a sales tax measure on the November ballot. Photo by Veronica Weber.

The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors will not place a sales tax measure on the November ballot this year, after two supervisors on Tuesday pushed back on the idea of taxing residents to backfill the county's budget during the coronavirus pandemic.

Supervisors voted 3-2 to put the five-eighths percent sales tax measure on the ballot at the Aug. 4 meeting, falling short of the supermajority needed to approve a general use tax, with supervisors Joe Simitian and Mike Wasserman opposed. Both worried that the county already has a high tax rate, and a sales tax measure would be regressive and disproportionately affect residents who can least afford it.

"There is just a limit to how much we can appropriately pile up on them," Simitian said.

Originally proposed by Supervisor Cindy Chavez, the sales tax would have generated an estimated $250 million each year for five years. County officials say the money would be much-needed relief to offset massive deficits through 2025, ranging between $383 million and $428 million each year, and would help to pay for the county's public health response to the virus.

The money would at least be partially used to help pay for COVID-19 testing and contact tracing, emergency services, child care and rental assistance, according to a county staff report, though supervisors have broad discretion on how to use general tax revenue. During the recovery, the proceeds could also be used to invest in small businesses and employment for those who have been hit hard by the pandemic.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Mountain View Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

The coronavirus has been a one-two punch to Santa Clara County's budget, with spending going up and revenue dropping at the same time. The public health crisis has caused a retraction in economic activity across the Bay Area and the state, reducing revenue by hundreds of millions of dollars, and county officials say they have spent over $165 million on the COVID-19 response so far. It's still unclear how much of that spending will be reimbursed through state and federal emergency relief.

Supervisor Dave Cortese said he supported the sales tax, calling it one of the few ways they can provide relief during an economic meltdown worse than the Great Recession in 2008. He said he doesn't want to face members of the community, particularly the safety net population, and think that he failed to take action when it was needed most.

"I feel like we need to do something, because we know what's coming," Cortese said. "It will be very difficult to effectively do it later."

Numerous county nonprofit leaders urged supervisors to put the measure on the ballot and let voters decide whether to pass the sales tax. Similar letters from the Children's Health Council, Community Solutions and the Asian Americans for Community Involvement all praised the county's public health response to COVID-19, but said the "unprecedented" impact on health, economic security and emotional well-being will be a serious problem if the county is out of money.

"I don't really like sales taxes, but we don't have a lot of choices," said Steve Eckert, CEO of Alum Rock Counseling Center. "These extraordinary times cause us to consider every measure possible."

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

But Simitian, a vocal opponent of sales tax measures in recent years, said he couldn't support the proposal. He worried that, because it was a general tax, there would be no guarantee that the tax revenue would fund important COVID-19 relief programs. What's more, he said it's a hard case to make to voters that the county needs more of their money when the county's budget has ballooned by 84% over a period of seven years.

Santa Clara County residents already pay a total of 9% in sales tax, the majority of which is imposed by the state (7.25%), followed by the Valley Transportation Authority (1.625%) and the county (0.125%). Tacking on the proposed five-eighths cent sales tax would boost the tax rate to 9.625%, putting it well above any other city or county in the Bay Area. Santa Clara County even needed special legislation from the state, passed in 2017, to go above and beyond 9% sales tax.

"We are already at the top of the charts in terms of tax burden with sales tax," Simitian said. "The whole reason there was special legislation in 2017 that gave our county and another the ability to go over and above was because we were maxed out."

Wasserman opposed the measure, saying he believes it would add an additional tax burden to all residents, including business owners and their employees. He said the county needs to do what many of its own residents have done during the coronavirus pandemic and cut back on spending.

"Right now businesses and families and employees are having to make very tough choices with the dollars they have," Wasserman said. "The county is now going to have to make very tough choices with the dollars we have. It's only fair."

One alternative proposed at the meeting was to place a "special" tax measure on the November ballot that would also raise the sales tax rate by five-eighths of a percent for five years, but would require the tax revenue be spent specifically for COVID-19 purposes. The measure would only require approval by three supervisors to make it on the ballot, circumventing the locked 3-2 vote by supervisors.

Trouble is, special tax measures have a much higher threshold to pass, and would require two-thirds majority support from voters in November. Chavez said the polling data shows it would be difficult to meet that threshold, and that she doesn't see a way to push it over the two-thirds majority. The idea was rejected without a vote.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Despite looming deficit, Santa Clara County supervisors reject sales tax hike for the November ballot

by / Mountain View Voice

Uploaded: Tue, Aug 4, 2020, 1:54 pm

The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors will not place a sales tax measure on the November ballot this year, after two supervisors on Tuesday pushed back on the idea of taxing residents to backfill the county's budget during the coronavirus pandemic.

Supervisors voted 3-2 to put the five-eighths percent sales tax measure on the ballot at the Aug. 4 meeting, falling short of the supermajority needed to approve a general use tax, with supervisors Joe Simitian and Mike Wasserman opposed. Both worried that the county already has a high tax rate, and a sales tax measure would be regressive and disproportionately affect residents who can least afford it.

"There is just a limit to how much we can appropriately pile up on them," Simitian said.

Originally proposed by Supervisor Cindy Chavez, the sales tax would have generated an estimated $250 million each year for five years. County officials say the money would be much-needed relief to offset massive deficits through 2025, ranging between $383 million and $428 million each year, and would help to pay for the county's public health response to the virus.

The money would at least be partially used to help pay for COVID-19 testing and contact tracing, emergency services, child care and rental assistance, according to a county staff report, though supervisors have broad discretion on how to use general tax revenue. During the recovery, the proceeds could also be used to invest in small businesses and employment for those who have been hit hard by the pandemic.

The coronavirus has been a one-two punch to Santa Clara County's budget, with spending going up and revenue dropping at the same time. The public health crisis has caused a retraction in economic activity across the Bay Area and the state, reducing revenue by hundreds of millions of dollars, and county officials say they have spent over $165 million on the COVID-19 response so far. It's still unclear how much of that spending will be reimbursed through state and federal emergency relief.

Supervisor Dave Cortese said he supported the sales tax, calling it one of the few ways they can provide relief during an economic meltdown worse than the Great Recession in 2008. He said he doesn't want to face members of the community, particularly the safety net population, and think that he failed to take action when it was needed most.

"I feel like we need to do something, because we know what's coming," Cortese said. "It will be very difficult to effectively do it later."

Numerous county nonprofit leaders urged supervisors to put the measure on the ballot and let voters decide whether to pass the sales tax. Similar letters from the Children's Health Council, Community Solutions and the Asian Americans for Community Involvement all praised the county's public health response to COVID-19, but said the "unprecedented" impact on health, economic security and emotional well-being will be a serious problem if the county is out of money.

"I don't really like sales taxes, but we don't have a lot of choices," said Steve Eckert, CEO of Alum Rock Counseling Center. "These extraordinary times cause us to consider every measure possible."

But Simitian, a vocal opponent of sales tax measures in recent years, said he couldn't support the proposal. He worried that, because it was a general tax, there would be no guarantee that the tax revenue would fund important COVID-19 relief programs. What's more, he said it's a hard case to make to voters that the county needs more of their money when the county's budget has ballooned by 84% over a period of seven years.

Santa Clara County residents already pay a total of 9% in sales tax, the majority of which is imposed by the state (7.25%), followed by the Valley Transportation Authority (1.625%) and the county (0.125%). Tacking on the proposed five-eighths cent sales tax would boost the tax rate to 9.625%, putting it well above any other city or county in the Bay Area. Santa Clara County even needed special legislation from the state, passed in 2017, to go above and beyond 9% sales tax.

"We are already at the top of the charts in terms of tax burden with sales tax," Simitian said. "The whole reason there was special legislation in 2017 that gave our county and another the ability to go over and above was because we were maxed out."

Wasserman opposed the measure, saying he believes it would add an additional tax burden to all residents, including business owners and their employees. He said the county needs to do what many of its own residents have done during the coronavirus pandemic and cut back on spending.

"Right now businesses and families and employees are having to make very tough choices with the dollars they have," Wasserman said. "The county is now going to have to make very tough choices with the dollars we have. It's only fair."

One alternative proposed at the meeting was to place a "special" tax measure on the November ballot that would also raise the sales tax rate by five-eighths of a percent for five years, but would require the tax revenue be spent specifically for COVID-19 purposes. The measure would only require approval by three supervisors to make it on the ballot, circumventing the locked 3-2 vote by supervisors.

Trouble is, special tax measures have a much higher threshold to pass, and would require two-thirds majority support from voters in November. Chavez said the polling data shows it would be difficult to meet that threshold, and that she doesn't see a way to push it over the two-thirds majority. The idea was rejected without a vote.

Comments

Dan Waylonis
Registered user
Jackson Park
on Aug 4, 2020 at 8:19 pm
Dan Waylonis, Jackson Park
Registered user
on Aug 4, 2020 at 8:19 pm
9 people like this

No. This is not reasonable, especially in light of the fact that the "[...] budget has ballooned by 84% over a period of seven years". Cut the county spending. Just like everyone else has cut their own spending.


SRB
Registered user
St. Francis Acres
on Aug 4, 2020 at 9:22 pm
SRB, St. Francis Acres
Registered user
on Aug 4, 2020 at 9:22 pm
4 people like this

A bit hypocritical for Joe Simitian and Mike Wasserman to oppose the County Sales Tax. "Both worried that the county already has a high tax rate, and a sales tax measure would be regressive and disproportionately affect residents who can least afford it." ...yet both had no problem endorsing an equally regressive sales tax for Caltrain ....minutes before.


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Aug 5, 2020 at 8:47 am
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Aug 5, 2020 at 8:47 am
1 person likes this

I totally agree with my County Supervisor and others who "worry about" the regressive nature of general sales taxes (and same-per-property-size 'parcel taxes'). I especially agree with elected officials who VOTE NO on this type of revenue, rather than 'just talk'. If you don't walk the walk, 'talking the talk' just don't matter!

THANKS JOE!

[now - a county wide general sales tax on real estate - a Transfer Tax - based on a very small percentage of the Sale Price. That is a form of Sales Tax that hits wealth, and that I could support]


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Aug 5, 2020 at 11:34 am
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Aug 5, 2020 at 11:34 am
Like this comment

As a business trained person, I find "sales" taxes to be the worst approach because all that does is encourages the wealthy to shop for the places with the lowest sales taxes and make purchases there.

Or what really does happen is that large purchases are done out of the country and brought here. Since there is no way to enforce taxes on that action.

I wish we would simply have a transaction tax on all money transactions. This includes buying and selling stocks, bonds, in kind product sharing. Like whether a landlord shares ownership with a third party service provider like Zeus Living or AirBnB.

If this were done at say 10% and a person bought $100,000 worth of stock than $10,000 would be collected and the point of investment. Granted, this would "depress" stock prices, but many investors would likely be a lot more careful in investing anyway because they pay up front the cost of the purchases. It may "slow" down transactions as well, but that is not necessarily bad given people with think more carefully on their investments too.

There is an argument that acting too fast is the largest risk to markets, involving speculation. Speculation is simply gambling in another word. And a lot of business today involves gambling with other peoples money. This is called leverage. Leverage is debt. Which means people are gambling with money they don't even have. This was fine until the crisis of COVID.

COVID is disrupted so much that the debt is collapsing all businesses that are not able to be called "essential" as long as COVID reigns over us. The financial sector is developing such a toxic level of credit regarding all kinds especially business, similar to the housing crisis, that it will see this house of cards come down.

The only way out of this is to accept the permanent loss of values, in effect right off the toxic debt. And we cannot try the same solution as 2007 because it was in actuality a failure. We never recovered the values, jobs, or earnings up to the level we should have been without the crisis that was made by the people involved in the Great Recession.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.