My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2006-06-05
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2006
>
AgdaPkt 2006-06-05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/7/2006 11:29:01 AM
Creation date
6/1/2006 3:05:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
6/5/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
185
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />WHAT ARE THE "SPILLOVER" FUNDS? <br /> <br />Since 1971, state law has provided that rev- <br />enues from the growth in sales tax on gasoline, to <br />the extent they exceed the growth in other sales <br />tax revenues, are to be transferred to the Public <br />Transportation Account for public transit capital <br />and operations. These funds, commonly known as <br />the "spillover," do not flow to Proposition 42 and <br />neither the Traffic Congestion Relief Program nor <br />Proposition 42 has any impact on the spillover. <br /> <br />In recent years, the Legislature has diverted <br />$694 million of these spillover funds to the general <br />fund and other purposes. <br /> <br />The Transportation Development Act of 1971 <br />created a statewide funding program for local <br />public transportation services and facilities. One <br />feature of this act involved the lowering of the <br />state's sales tax rate by y,. percent and the exten- <br />sion of the sales tax to gasoline, which had not <br />been previously subject to the sales tax. This <br />action was intended to be revenue neutral, but the <br />act provided that any excess revenues to the state <br />from this change would be transferred to the <br />Public Transportation Account. <br /> <br />The Board of Equalization and the Department <br />of Finance are charged each year with <br />determining the amount of the spillover: the <br />difference between (a) a 5 percent state sales tax <br />applied to all taxable goods except gasoline, and <br />(b) a 4% percent state sales tax applied to all <br />taxable goods including gasoline. Essentially, the <br />spillover is generated when gasoline prices in- <br />crease at a faster rate than all other taxable items. <br />Hence we are presently seeing unprecedented <br />amounts of revenue in the spillover. <br /> <br />Neither the Traffic Congestion Relief Program <br />of 2000, nor Proposition 42 altered the spillover <br />provisions. Proposition 42 captures the sales tax <br />on gasoline not subject to the spillover that had <br />previously gone to the state general fund. Proposi- <br />tion 42 revenues grow in tandem with the overall <br />growth in total taxable sales. Proposition 42 does <br />not interfere with the spillover. <br /> <br />From its inception until FY 1985-86, the <br />spillover provided revenues to public transit. But <br />there was no spillover during most of the subse- <br />quent 17 years. Over the last three years, the <br />spillover has generated a significant source of <br />funds that help the state deal with its general fund <br />problems. This recent period of critical funding <br />shortfalls initiated the diversion of the spillover <br />funds to the general fund. <br /> <br />Current law provides that such diversions, <br />though limited, will continue in FY 2006-07. Under <br />the FY 2005-06 Budget Agreement (now codified <br />in Revenue and Taxation code 7102), in FY 2006- <br />07, the first $200 million of spillover would go to <br />the state general fund. Any additional spillover <br />revenue up to $125 million would go to the BATA, <br />and any revenue beyond that to the Public Trans- <br />portation Account <br /> <br />Under the administration's proposal, the funds <br />would be used to finance transportation pro- <br />grams, a logical connection with sales tax on <br />gasoline. The administration notes that specific <br />provisions of Revenue and Taxation Code Section <br />7102 provide that the allocation of the spillover <br />may be altered with a 2/3 vote of each house, and <br />they argue that this proposal is consistent with <br />the intentions of current law. <br /> <br />Opponents of the Governor's proposal argue <br />that spillover revenues are most needed for public <br />transit when gas taxes are high and people seek <br />alternative forms of transportation to their auto- <br />mobiles. Opponents also note that this proposal <br />is unprecedented in its use of the spillover as a <br />long term on-going resource that in effect relieves <br />fiscal burden on the general fund. The spillover <br />has been diverted to the general fund in recent <br />years, but only as a one-time remedy (or several- <br />time remedy as the case may be) to the state's <br />fiscal crisis. The expectation among most ob- <br />servers has been that when the state's fiscal <br />condition is restored, that the spillover will once <br />again be transferred to the Public Transportation <br />Account as was intended in the Transportation <br />Development Act of 1971. <br /> <br />Visit the League's Official Website--www.cacities.org <br /> <br /> <br />PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 11 <br />May 26, 2006 - Issue #21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.