California 2023-2024 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB2443

Introduced
2/13/24  
Introduced
2/13/24  
Refer
2/26/24  
Report Pass
4/24/24  
Refer
4/29/24  
Refer
4/29/24  
Report Pass
5/8/24  
Report Pass
5/8/24  
Engrossed
5/16/24  
Engrossed
5/16/24  
Refer
5/16/24  
Refer
5/16/24  
Refer
5/29/24  
Refer
5/29/24  
Report Pass
6/10/24  
Report Pass
6/10/24  
Refer
6/10/24  
Refer
6/10/24  
Refer
6/11/24  
Refer
6/11/24  
Refer
6/12/24  
Report Pass
6/26/24  
Report Pass
6/26/24  
Refer
6/26/24  
Refer
6/26/24  
Report Pass
7/3/24  
Report Pass
7/3/24  
Refer
8/22/24  
Refer
8/22/24  
Enrolled
8/29/24  
Enrolled
8/29/24  
Chaptered
9/29/24  
Chaptered
9/29/24  
Passed
9/29/24  

Caption

Transactions and use taxes: Cities of Lancaster, Palmdale, and Victorville.

Impact

If enacted, AB 2443 will enable the cited cities to enhance their tax revenues to support countywide transportation projects and general services, potentially improving public infrastructure. The bill allows city councils to propose the tax via ordinance, with voter approval required for implementation. It also establishes a repeal date of January 1, 2029, for the provisions in the absence of a voter-approved ordinance, thereby ensuring that the legislation is only temporary unless renewed through voter engagement.

Summary

Assembly Bill 2443, introduced by Juan Carrillo, is focused on amending regulations surrounding transactions and use taxes specifically for the Cities of Lancaster, Palmdale, and Victorville. The bill allows these cities to impose a transactions and use tax at a maximum rate of 1%, which may exceed the usual combined tax limit of 2% if certain conditions are satisfied. This legislation responds to the critical needs related to transportation infrastructure and general services in these areas, indicating a legislative intent to bolster local funding mechanisms available to the cities while addressing their unique fiscal challenges.

Sentiment

Sentiment around the bill appears constructive, with proponents likely viewing it as a vital tool for enhancing local governance and funding for important municipal projects. Support for AB 2443 seems to stem from recognition of the fiscal limitations that local governments face in addressing transportation needs and infrastructure improvements. However, there may also be concerns about the efficacy and implications of increasing tax burdens within these communities, especially if it leads to conflicts over funding priorities and governance.

Contention

A notable point of contention surrounding AB 2443 could involve discussions on the appropriateness of allowing cities to exceed the established tax rate limits set by state law. Critics might argue that such flexibility could lead to uneven tax burdens amongst residents compared to other jurisdictions, influencing debates on local taxes and regional equity. Moreover, the reliance on voters to approve the tax introduces an additional layer of uncertainty about its future, hinging upon public approval and participation in municipal governance.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB3259

Transactions and use taxes: City of Campbell: City of Pinole: County of Solano.

CA AB1256

Transactions and use taxes: County of Humboldt.

CA AB2453

Transactions and use taxes: Ventura County Transportation Commission.

CA SB1349

Transactions and use taxes: County of Contra Costa.

CA SB335

Transactions and use taxes: County of Santa Clara.

CA AB723

Transactions and use taxes: County of Alameda: Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District.

CA SB732

Transactions and use tax: South Coast Air Quality Management District.