California 2023-2024 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB3259

Introduced
2/16/24  
Introduced
2/16/24  
Refer
3/21/24  
Refer
3/21/24  
Report Pass
3/21/24  
Report Pass
3/21/24  
Refer
4/1/24  
Refer
4/1/24  
Report Pass
4/18/24  
Refer
4/23/24  
Report Pass
5/6/24  
Engrossed
5/23/24  
Engrossed
5/23/24  
Refer
5/24/24  
Refer
5/24/24  
Refer
6/5/24  
Refer
6/5/24  
Report Pass
6/11/24  
Refer
6/11/24  
Refer
6/11/24  
Report Pass
6/26/24  
Report Pass
6/26/24  
Refer
7/3/24  
Refer
7/3/24  
Refer
8/8/24  
Report Pass
8/8/24  
Report Pass
8/8/24  
Refer
8/8/24  
Refer
8/8/24  
Refer
8/29/24  
Enrolled
8/31/24  
Enrolled
8/31/24  
Chaptered
9/28/24  
Chaptered
9/28/24  
Passed
9/28/24  

Caption

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

Impact

The bill impacts state taxation laws by creating an exception for the specified cities and county, permitting them to exceed previously established tax limits. It introduces a mechanism for local governance to increase their revenue potential in light of unique fiscal pressures, particularly for funding essential services like road repairs and transportation infrastructure. Additionally, it stipulates that if no ordinance or citizens initiative is approved by January 1, 2029, this authorization will be repealed, suggesting a sunset provision built into the bill.

Summary

Assembly Bill 3259, introduced by Wilson, addresses the authority of local government entities in California, specifically the City of Campbell, City of Pinole, and County of Solano, to impose a transactions and use tax. The bill authorizes these municipalities to implement a transactions and use tax at a rate of up to 0.5% that may exceed the existing combined tax limit of 2%, provided they meet specific procedural requirements, including voter approval. This measure seeks to enhance the fiscal capabilities of these municipalities, allowing them to address local needs more effectively.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 3259 appears generally positive among supporters who advocate for increased local control over fiscal matters. They believe that empowering local governments with the ability to raise funds through increased taxation can better meet the demands of their constituents. However, there may also be a degree of contention among those who view the expansion of local tax authority as potentially leading to a burden on taxpayers, especially if the taxes are deployed ineffectively. This duality indicates a nuanced perspective on local versus state governance concerning economic support.

Contention

Notable points of contention involve the balance between providing necessary funding for local initiatives and the potential for taxpayer fatigue due to increased taxation. Critics may argue that allowing cities to impose additional taxes could complicate the tax landscape for residents and businesses, prompting concerns over the cumulative tax burden. The necessity for approval by the electorate mitigates some of these concerns, placing the decision-making power directly in the hands of the voters, which could either strengthen community trust or lead to political friction based on the outcomes of such initiatives.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB2443

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

CA AB1613

San Mateo County Transit District: retail transactions and use tax.

CA AB1092

Health care service plans: consolidation.

CA AB2598

Crimes: money laundering.

CA SB319

Criminal justice statistics: reporting.

CA SB1349

Transactions and use taxes: County of Contra Costa.

CA AB3010

California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law.

CA SB335

Transactions and use taxes: County of Santa Clara.