Posted on 08/10/2005 2:56:26 PM PDT by SmithL
Most Bay Area counties -- including Contra Costa and Alameda -- collect voter-sanctioned half-cent sales taxes to build new roads, fill potholes and operate buses.
But with state highway money stuck in traffic, those same counties are turning to vehicle registration fees to raise millions more, a tactic under fire from tax watchdogs because the new fees don't need voter approval.
San Mateo County was the first in the Bay Area to implement a "traffic relief fee," adding $4 to vehicle registration costs after the Legislature and governor approved the plan last year.
Pending legislation would let six more counties, including Alameda and Contra Costa Santa Clara, to add a $5 fee in the next year.
The new fees do the same thing as local half-cent sales taxes -- raise money for traffic relief -- but don't require voter approval because, legally, the names and definitions differ.
Under Proposition 218, passed in 1996, taxes need two-thirds voter majority approval, but California courts have maintained that "fees" are something else and don't require the same approval.
"If you're going for a tax then call it a tax and get the people to approve it," said Ken Hambrick of the Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers. "If the people approve it, then that's the will of the majority."
Supporters defend the fees as another tool to buttress dwindling state transportation accounts, which cover half of California's annual highway needs.
Although they don't require voter approval, the fees need broad community support in order to win approval from the Legislature and, eventually, the governor, argued state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, who wrote the first registration fee bill last year for San Mateo County.
There, 21 cities, 11 chambers of commerce and several labor groups lobbied for the bill that allowed the $4 fee to move forward last year, Simitian said. The San Mateo County Transportation Authority approved the fee with a two-thirds vote earlier this year, he said.
Simitian is now carrying another bill to allow a $5 fee in Santa Clara County. He said he has widespread community support from business groups and local officials.
"Measures like this include provisions that ensure accountability and ensure the public gets what it pays for," Simitian said.
The accountability comes in the form of audits and sunset clauses for the fees, Simitian said.
Another bill by Assemblyman Johan Klehs, D-San Leandro, would allow Contra Costa and Alameda counties to tack on a $5 fee to vehicle registration costs, which could raise up to $11 million for East Bay roadway improvements, transportation officials say.
"It would be a big help," said Robert McCleary, head of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
The money would likely be spent to fulfill unfunded state and federal mandates -- such as storm water drain maintenance -- which could free up other funds for road work like filling potholes throughout the county, McCleary said.
Even with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's decision to use gas sales taxes for roads -- a voter-approved measure dubbed Proposition 42 -- McCleary said funding for street and road repairs falls short of the annual need.
If road repairs aren't done quickly, the costs continue to rise as streets crumble. Extra money from registration fees would allow counties to attack the problem sooner, he said.
"You reach a certain point in the deterioration of pavement when you can no longer repair them with patches, you have to rebuild them," he said.
Hambrick said it's unfair to sock Contra Costa County residents with a tax hike, just a year after voters approved a measure to continue the half-cent transportation tax.
"People aren't going to get a chance to vote on the fee," Hambrick said.
Simitian argues the goal is not to "nickel and dime" motorists but to allow transportation officials to pay for traffic-busting measures that otherwise would not be funded.
"Do I want a comprehensive statewide transportation plan that covers everything we need? Absolutely, but am I prepared to wait until hell freezes over for that to happen? No, I am not," Simitian said.
"I am of the view that it's better to light one candle than curse the dark."
will they guarantee the "relief"? or add to it with more carpool lanes
This "it's not a tax, it's a fee" nonsense sounds similar to something that happened in Washington state some years ago. Our state constitution mandates that all gasoline taxes go to road building/maintenance. Our legislature, under pressure from then Governor Mike Lowry, passed a "sales tax on gasoline" and put it in the general fund. Their argument was that it was not a gasoline tax, it was a sales tax on gasoline. Our supreme court shot it down.
I used to get a lot of laughs and thumbs up from my bumper sticker at the time:
Happiness is:
Mike Lowry's Face
on a Milk Carton
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.