California 2019-2020 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB531

Introduced
2/21/19  
Introduced
2/21/19  
Refer
3/7/19  
Refer
3/7/19  
Refer
3/25/19  
Refer
3/25/19  
Refer
4/3/19  
Refer
4/3/19  
Refer
4/22/19  
Refer
4/22/19  
Report Pass
4/25/19  
Engrossed
5/16/19  
Engrossed
5/16/19  
Refer
6/3/19  
Refer
6/3/19  
Report Pass
6/19/19  
Report Pass
6/19/19  
Refer
6/19/19  
Refer
6/19/19  
Report Pass
7/9/19  
Report Pass
7/9/19  
Enrolled
9/5/19  
Vetoed
10/12/19  

Caption

Local agencies: retailers.

Impact

The bill's provisions aim to protect local tax revenues by preventing local agencies from making deals that could undermine the financial interests of neighboring jurisdictions. This regulation is deemed necessary to uphold the integrity of tax collections by ensuring that tax revenues, which are essential for public services, remain within the local government’s reach. By enforcing this, the bill seeks to mitigate potential revenue losses that other cities could experience due to preferential arrangements made by one municipality.

Summary

Senate Bill 531, introduced by Senator Glazer, aims to amend Section 53084.5 of the Government Code concerning agreements between local agencies and retailers. The bill establishes that as of January 1, 2020, local agencies are prohibited from entering into agreements that would result in the payment, transfer, diversion, or rebate of local tax revenues derived from the Bradley-Burns Local Sales and Use Tax Law to retailers in exchange for their continued presence in the area. The changes sparked discussions about the implications for local revenue and retail operations across California's various municipalities.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 531 appears to be a mixture of support and concern. Supporters argue that it fosters fairness among local governments and ensures a more stable tax revenue collection process. They believe it will discourage bidding wars among local agencies to lure retailers with financial incentives at the expense of their neighbors. Conversely, some detractors express concerns that the bill could limit local governments' flexibility in attracting and retaining businesses, which could negatively impact economic development efforts in more competitive markets.

Contention

Notable points of contention focus on the balance between protecting local tax bases and enabling local governments to incentivize business growth. Critics of the bill worry that the restrictions may hinder the ability of certain areas to effectively compete for retailers, especially in regions trying to rejuvenate economically. The fundamental debate centers on the tension between statewide regulation versus local autonomy, with proponents leaning toward standardized rules to prevent interjurisdictional competition that could potentially lead to unequal revenue shares.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA SB1494

Local agencies: Sales and Use Tax: retailers.

CA AB2854

Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law.

CA SB438

Emergency medical services: dispatch.

NJ S1925

Excludes value of certain manufacturer rebates from sales price of motor vehicles taxable under sales and use tax.

CA SB520

Electrical service: provider of last resort.

CA AB235

Endangered species: candidate species: petitions: takings.

SC S0220

Insurance Holding Company Regulatory Act

AZ HB2679

Power; public utilities; UCC; securities