Tag: transfer tax

Is sales tax for transportation the wrong approach?

Dan Allison1 Comment

There are three ideas for transportation funding floating around, for the 2026 ballot, though none have been formalized. All rely on sales tax.

  • Sacramento Transportation Authority (SacTA) may create a ballot measure to fund transportation. It would be in addition to the existing Measure A, and might fund transportation infrastructure for infill housing, which has not been done before. As an agency-sponsored measure, it would require 2/3 vote to pass.
  • Sacramento Metro Rail and Transit Advocates (SMART) and Mayor Darrell Steinberg have drafted measure that would fund active transportation, transit, and housing. It would probably be for the county, but could be just for the City of Sacramento. As a citizen initiative, it would require only 50% + 1 to pass, a much more achievable vote.
  • SacRT it considering a measure for transit and related active transportation that might cover only a part of Sacramento County, the more transit-supportive part, probably the cities of Sacramento and Elk Grove. As an agency-sponsored measure, it would require 2/3 vote to pass.

Sales taxes are regressive, meaning that low-income people pay a much larger percentage of their income to sales tax versus high-income people. Most organizations which lead with equity are opposed to further sales tax increases, feeling that enough is enough.

In Sacramento County, with a strong anti-tax voice in the low density unincorporated county, it is difficult though not impossible to reach the 2/3 threshold. The 2016 transportation sales tax fell short of 2/3. Measures to fund schools districts are more likely to pass. A complicating issue is that Elk Grove recently passed a sales tax measure to fund many purposes, one of which is transportation. Folsom and Rancho Cordova have sales taxes for which it isn’t clear to me whether any goes to transportation.

General purpose sales tax measures, which may list uses but are not required to follow those lists, only require 50% + 1 to pass. That flexibility is both a feature and a danger, since a government may shift sales tax income from what they said it would be spent on to other purposes.

Though I have not heard parcel taxes being discussed, they are another source of funding, though they are also regressive because they are a flat rate per parcel, not based on the value of the parcel.

Two other types of tax which are progressive, meaning that high-income people pay a higher percentage of income than low-income people, are income tax and property tax. Income tax does fund transportation at the state level, but income taxes are not available to cities, counties, and special districts. Property tax can fund transportation, though due to Prop 13 which limits property tax, it mostly goes to schools and public safety. For Sacramento County in 2023, the chart below shows allocations. The ‘Public Ways and Facilities, Health, and Sanitation’ category goes mostly to Health, with Public Ways and Facilities being less than 20% of that category. This chart does not include school districts within the county, which also rely on property tax.

Transfer taxes, which are based on the value of a property when it is sold, are progressive. These have been discussed in a number of places in California, though not locally so far as I have heard. I am not aware of any existing transfer taxes that fund transportation, though they do fund a number of other government functions. The state levies a transfer tax throughout the state, and that income goes into the general fund.

Any county, city or special district can bond against property tax, meaning that they can expend money now and pay it back over time from future property tax income. Again, Prop 13 limits the usefulness of this by suppressing property tax income, but does not preclude it. If Prop 5 on the 2024 ballot passes, cities, counties, and special districts will be able pass bond measures with a 55% vote rather than 2/3 vote, though the proposition raises the bar on transparency and types of expenditures. Though Prop 5 is intended primarily to fund housing, it could fund transportation, and there is a logical nexus with transportation that supports housing.

For other posts on transportation funding, see category Transportation Funding.

Prop 5 bonding for transportation?

Dan Allison1 Comment

Proposition 5

A Yes on 5 website offers details in support of the proposition. The arguments against, on the voter information guide, are just the standard anti-tax voice, so isn’t useful to this post, but you can read your guide if you are interested. Prop 5 was placed on the ballot by the legislature, as a result of two legislative resolutions. The proposition is entitled “Proposition 5: Allows Local Bonds for Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure with 55% Voter Approval.“

The proposition would change the voting threshold from two-thirds, 67%, to 55%, for ballot measures by cities, counties and special districts (does this include SacRT?) that bond against property taxes for the purposes of affordable housing and public infrastructure. The proposition does not directly raise property taxes, nor would local bonding measures directly raise taxes, though since the bonds have to be repaid with interest, property taxes could eventually go up within the limits sets by other legislation. This has nothing to do with sales tax, which remains at two-thirds for govenment proposed sales taxes, and 50%+1 for citizen proposed measures.

The history of the proposal development indicates that it is more about affordable housing than public infrastructure, but infrastructure is definitely allowed, and could easily be justified when that infrastructure supports affordable housing. It can also apply to transportation infrastructure. The specific language in the ballot measure related to infrastructure is “construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure”, which is pretty open-ended. More specifically, the proposition lists the following infrastructure uses:

(I) Facilities or infrastructure for the delivery of public services, including education, police, fire protection, parks, recreation, open space, emergency medical, public health, libraries, flood protection, streets or highways, seaports, public transit, railroad, airports, and
(II) Utility, common carrier or other similar projects, including energy-related, communication-related, water-related, and wastewater-related facilities or infrastructure.
(III) Projects identified by the State or local government for recovery from natural disasters.
(IV) Equipment related to fire suppression, emergency response equipment, or interoperable communications equipment for direct and exclusive use by fire, emergency response, police, or sheriff personnel.
(V) Projects that provide protection of property from sea level rise.
(VI) Projects that provide public broadband internet access service expansion in underserved areas.
(VII) Private uses incidental to, or necessary for, the public infrastructure.
(VIII) Grants to homeowners for the purposes of structure hardening of homes and structures, as defined in state law.

The reason for raising this issue is that taxes based on property are progressive, meaning that people with higher incomes and therefore higher value property, pay more in taxes. Sales taxes are regressive, meaning that low-income people pay a higher percentage of their income on taxes than do higher income people. Proposals to increase the sales tax in Sacramento County have been resisted by many who think we have runs out that option and need to turn to options that are not regressive, like property tax.

I prefer pay-as-you go expenditures from most transportation projects, except for a few which are very expensive and of clear benefit to everyone. There are few transportation projects that would or should quality for this. The transportation projects we most need going forward are many small fixes, not the mega-projects done in the past which tend to be motor vehicle projects. But some transit projects could be or should be bonded. The problem with bonding is that interest payments raise the cost to about 1-1/2 times the project cost, depending on the bond length and bone rates, and that money goes to wall street investors, not to the project.

I am in favor of the proposition. It gives local governments, and therefore citizens, control over how they spend their property tax, rather than being constrained by statewide controls that were implemented by anti-tax interests.

If the proposition passes, would it be the solution, or a solution, to funding affordable housing and transportation infrastructure instead of or in addition to sales tax or other taxes and fees? I don’t know, but I do think it is worth exploring. Though the proposition applies to local measures on the same ballot, there are no transportation measures of any sort on the 2024 ballot in Sacramento Couny. There may be in 2026, as a Sacramento Transportation Authority new Measure A transportation sales tax, or a SacRT sales tax for transit with a limited geography, a citizen measure sales tax for housing, transportation, and active transportation (the SMART/Steinberg proposal), or other ideas that have not yet come forward. A property transfer tax has been discussed, which is another progressive tax. The state has a property transfer tax, as do other entities. It isn’t clear to me whether Sacramento County or any of the cities within the county have transfer taxes.