San Francisco, California, Proposition C, Gross Receipts Tax For Homelessness Services (November 2018)

Proposition C: San Francisco Gross Receipts Tax for Homelessness Services Initiative
The basics
Election date:
November 6, 2018
Status:
Approved
Topic:
Local business tax Amount: 0.175% to 0.69% on gross receipts/1.5% administrative office tax Expires in: No expiration
Related articles
Local business tax on the ballot November 6, 2018 ballot measures in California San Francisco County, California ballot measures City tax on the ballot
See also
San Francisco, California

A gross receipts tax initiative to fund homelessness services was on the ballot for San Francisco voters in San Francisco County, California, on November 6, 2018. It received 61 percent approval, and San Francisco city officials certified the measure as approved. A lawsuit was filed arguing that the measure required a two-thirds (66.67 percent) supermajority vote to pass. A superior court ruling sided with city officials and stated a simple majority was sufficient. It was appealed and the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District upheld the superior court's ruling on June 30, 2020.

A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing the city and county of San Francisco to fund housing and homelessness services by taxing certain businesses at the following rates: 0.175 percent to 0.69 percent on gross receipts for businesses with over $50 million in gross annual receipts, or 1.5 percent of payroll expenses for certain businesses with over $1 billion in gross annual receipts and administrative offices in San Francisco.

A no vote was a vote against authorizing the city and county of San Francisco to tax businesses at the above rates to fund housing and homelessness services.

Aftermath[edit]

City attorney seeks court order to validate Proposition C[edit]

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed paperwork in San Francisco Superior Court on January 28, 2019, seeking a court order to validate Proposition C. Herrera defended the use of a simple majority requirement for the measure after a lawsuit challenged the requirement.^[1]

Withholding of initial Proposition C funds[edit]

Following the election, San Francisco Controller Ben Rosenfield stated that initial funds from Proposition C—estimated to reach $300 million per year—would be frozen due to a legal dispute regarding the vote requirement for the measure's passage.

The outcome of Proposition C was disputed through a legal challenge concerning whether the tax, proposed through a citizen initiative, required a simple majority vote or a two-thirds supermajority vote for approval.

Vote requirement for special taxes proposed through citizen initiatives[edit]

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

Superior court ruling and appeal[edit]

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman ruled on July 5, 2019, that two measures (both called Proposition C) on the San Francisco ballot in June and November of 2018 were properly certified as approved by city officials. Schulman ruled that Proposition C (June 2018) and Proposition C (November 2018), which proposed tax increases for specific purposes, required a simple majority for approval because they were put on the ballot through a citizen signature petition. The ruling stated that the two-thirds supermajority vote requirement for local special taxes in California applies to tax measures referred to the ballot by lawmakers but not to citizen initiatives.^[2]

Christin Evans, a supporter of November’s Proposition C, said, “Obviously, we’re thrilled. We felt that Prop. C was on firm legal ground from the beginning, and the judge’s opinion left no question that voter-led initiatives will be possible going forward to allow the people to help shape city policy.”^[2]

Rex Hime, president of the California Business Properties Association and representing the Howard Jarvis association and the California Business Roundtable, said, “We are disappointed in today’s ruling but will continue to fight to uphold the will of the voters. Prop. 13 and Prop. 218 are unambiguous — voters want a two-thirds vote requirement for special taxes. We will be filing an immediate appeal.”^[2]

Appellate court ruling on Proposition C (November 2018), 2020[edit]

On June 30, 2020, a panel of three California First District Court of Appeal judges upheld Judge Schulman's ruling and said that the city was correct to apply a simple majority requirement, rather than a two-thirds supermajority requirement, to Proposition C.^[3]

California Supreme Court denial to review rulings, 2020[edit]

On September 9, 2020, the California Supreme Court denied a request to review the lower courts' rulings.^[4]

California appeals court ruling on Proposition C (June 2018), 2021[edit]

In August 2018, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate Proposition C, alleging that it required a two-thirds supermajority requirement to pass. On January 27, 2021, the First District Court of Appeal ruled that the supermajority requirement did not apply to Proposition C and only applied to measures placed on the ballot by the city council, board of supervisors, or school board. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association President Jonathan Coupal said the group was prepared to sponsor an initiative to require a two-thirds supermajority vote of the people for local tax increases for specific purposes.^[5]

On April 28, 2021, the California Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the ruling on Proposition C (June 2018), leaving the lower court ruling in place and allowing the city to continue collecting the tax and to spend the revenue from the tax.^[6]

Fresno Measure P ruling[edit]

In Fresno, a judge ruled that special sales tax initiative Measure P required a two-thirds supermajority to pass despite being put on the ballot through a signature petition drive. Click here to read more.

The ruling was appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. In December 2020, the Fifth District Court of Appeal overturned Judge Gaab's ruling and stated that the measure required approval from a simple majority to pass. Representatives of the city said that it would not appeal the ruling further. The Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled that California's Proposition 218 (1996) does not apply to tax measures put on the ballot through a citizen initiative signature petition drive.^[4][7]

Background and arguments[edit]

An August 2017 California Supreme Court decision raised questions about how to interpret the state constitution’s voting requirements for special taxes proposed through citizen initiatives.

California voters approved Proposition 218 in 1996, adding Article XII C Voter Approval For Local Tax Levies to the California Constitution. The article includes the requirement that local governments may only enact, extend, or increase a special tax with a two-thirds (66.67 percent) supermajority vote of the electorate.^[8][9] Following the passage of Proposition 218, the two-thirds supermajority vote requirement was applied to legislative referrals, referendums, and citizen initiatives.

In August 2017, however, the California Supreme Court ruled in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland that one requirement contained in Article XIII C—that general taxes must be put on the ballot during general elections—did not apply to citizen initiatives. The court categorized taxes imposed by citizen initiatives as separate from taxes imposed by local governments. This ruling brought the two-thirds (66.67 percent) supermajority vote requirement into question for special taxes proposed through citizen initiatives.

City and county officials in San Francisco argued that the court's 2017 decision meant that a simple majority—not a two-thirds supermajority—was required for the approval of local citizen initiatives, including tax measures that designate funds for specific purposes. Based on those arguments, the city certified the measures as approved. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit against the city and county in August 2018 stating that the commercial rent tax for childcare initiative did not receive sufficient votes.^[10]

The association stated the following on its website:^[10]

“	Because the tax is expressly for a special purpose, it required a 2/3 vote of the city’s electorate under both Propositions 13 and 218. But it did not pass by that margin. Rather, the tax proposal, designated as Measure C, received a scant 50.87% vote.[11]	”
—Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Del Norte Deputy County Counsel Joel Campbell-Blair defended the simple majority requirement in the following statement regarding Measure C, the Hotel Tax Increase for Crescent City Harbor District (November 2018):^[12]

“	Based on the reasoning of the California Supreme Court in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, it is County Counsel’s position that, because Measure C was submitted to the electorate by voter initiative, rather than a local government, a simple majority is sufficient for approval, even though it is a special tax. Measure C has therefore passed.[11]	”
—Del Norte Deputy County Counsel

Initiatives in 2018 to establish special taxes[edit]

In 2018, eight local citizen initiatives in California proposing special taxes were approved by more than a simple majority but less than a two-thirds (66.67 percent) supermajority vote. Local officials declared two of the measures to be defeated based on the two-thirds supermajority requirement. The other six measures were certified as approved. In one case, Oakland Measure AA, the impartial analysis of the measure stated that it required a two-thirds supermajority vote for approval, but the city council certified the measure as approved after it received 62 percent approval. Measure AA was ruled unenforceable by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Ronnie MacLaren on October 15, 2019. MacLaren wrote that "the court determined that the city is barred from enforcing Measure AA because the ballot measures prepared by the City unambiguously advised voters that Measure AA would require two-thirds of the votes to pass."^[13] These measures are listed below:

• Avalon, California, Measure T, Traveler Tax to Fund Hospital Initiative (April 2018)
• Del Norte County, California, Measure C, Hotel Tax Increase for Crescent City Harbor District (November 2018)
• Downieville Fire Protection District, California, Measure C, Parcel Tax (June 2018)
• Fresno, California, Measure P, Sales Tax for Recreation and Arts (November 2018)
• Oakland, California, Measure AA, Education Parcel Tax Charter Amendment (November 2018)
• San Francisco, California, Proposition C, Commercial Rent Tax for Childcare and Early Education (June 2018)
• San Francisco, California, Proposition G, Parcel Tax for the San Francisco Unified School District (June 2018)
• San Francisco, California, Proposition C, Gross Receipts Tax for Homelessness Services (November 2018)

Election results[edit]

Proposition C: San Francisco Gross Receipts Tax for Homelessness Services Initiative
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		215,491	61.34%
No		135,835	38.66%

Results are officially certified.

Measure design[edit]

Tax rates by business type[edit]

Prior to the election, maximum business tax rates on gross receipts in San Francisco ranged from 0.16 percent to 0.65 percent. Proposition C was designed to increase these rates by an additional tax of between 0.175 percent and 0.69 percent, based on business activity type as outlined in the San Francisco Business and Tax Regulations Code. The table below shows the tax rate under Proposition C by business activity classification.^[14][15]

The descriptions of each business activity classification below are provided with further description by the San Francisco Treasurer and Tax Collector here.

Business activity set	Tax increase
Retail/Wholesale Tade, Certain Services[16] (Section 953.1)	0.175%
Biotechnology, Clean Teachnology, Food Services, Information, Manufacturing, Transportation/Warehousing (Section 953.2)	0.500%
Accomodations, Utilities, Arts/Entertainment/Recreation (Section 953.3)	0.425%
Administrative/Support Services, Private Education/Health Services, Miscellaneous[17] (Section 953.4)	0.690%
Construction (Section 953.5)	0.475%
Financial Services, Insurance, Professional/Scientific/Technical Services (Section 953.6)	0.600%
Real Estate/Rental/Leasing Services (Section 953.7)	0.325%

Administrative office tax rate[edit]

Certain businesses classified under Section 953.8 with administrative offices in San Francisco, at least $1 billion in gross receipts, and at least 1,000 employees nationwide would be required to pay an annual homelessness administrative office tax (rather than a gross receipts tax) at a rate of 1.5 percent of payroll expenses.^[14][18]

Tax revenue allocations[edit]

Proposition C was designed to establish the Our City, Our Home Fund, to be administered by the mayor and the board of supervisors and monitored by an advisory committee. The San Francisco Controller estimated that tax revenues under Proposition C would total between $250 million and $300 million annually.^[19] Tax revenues would be allocated in the following manner, according to the proposition:^[14]

• At least 50 percent to permanent housing through the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD)
• At least 25 percent to mental health services for homeless individuals through the Department of Public Health
• Up to 15 percent to homelessness prevention through MOHCD or the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (HSH)
• Up to 10 percent to short-term shelters through HSH

Text of measure[edit]

Title and summary[edit]

The title and summary were as follows:^[20]

“

ADDITIONAL TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS OF BUSINESSES TO FUND HOMELESS SERVICES The City collects a gross receipts tax on businesses. That tax is generally based on the total gross amount a business receives in San Francisco. The maximum rates for the City's gross receipts tax range from 0.16% to 0.65%, depending on the business' activities. Certain businesses with more than $1 billion in total gross receipts, 1,000 employees nationwide, and administrative offices in San Francisco pay the tax based on the amount of their payroll instead of gross receipts. For these businesses, the tax rate is 1.4% of their payroll expense. Some businesses, including certain non-profit organizations, banks, and insurance companies, are exempt from the tax. This measure would impose an additional tax on businesses' gross receipts. The additional tax would apply only to gross receipts above $50 million. For most businesses, the rate of the additional tax would vary between 0.175% and 0.69% depending on the business activities. For businesses that pay the tax based on their payroll, the measure would impose an additional tax of 1.5% on those businesses' payroll expense. The additional tax generally would not apply to: businesses exempt from the City's existing gross receipts tax, and gross receipts that a business receives from commercial rents if a ballot measure adopted in June 2018 requires the business to pay tax on those gross receipts. This measure would require the City to deposit all the revenue from the additional tax into a new special fund (“Fund'). The City could use up to 3% per year of the tax revenue to administer the tax, and could use the remaining money in the Fund only for the following purposes: Up to 50% for programs that help homeless people secure permanent housing, including rental subsidies lasting up to five years; construction, rehabilitation, acquisition, and operation of permanent housing with supportive services; and acquisition and operation of single-room occupancy buildings; Up to 10% for programs that help homeless people secure short-term shelter; Up to 15% for programs serving people who have recently become homeless or are at risk of becoming homeless; and Up to 25% to provide mental health services to homeless people with severe behavioral health impairments, such as mental illness or drug or alcohol addiction. The Board of Supervisors would determine each year how to distribute tax revenues in the Fund between these categories. The measure would also create an advisory committee to make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor on the uses of the tax revenues. The measure would state the voters' intent that revenue from the additional tax will supplement existing City funding for programs serving homeless people and preventing homelessness, instead of replacing or reducing that funding. [11]

”

Impartial analysis[edit]

The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the San Francisco Controller:

“	Should the proposed ordinance be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would generate new tax revenue of approximately $250 million to $300 million annually beginning in 2019. The proposed tax is dedicated for defined homeless services, including housing, shelter, prevention, and mental service services. The City currently assesses a business tax on approximately 13,000 companies in the city, the majority of which is based upon a given company's gross receipts. This current tax is expected to generate approximately $880 million in fiscal year (FY) 2018-19 for the City's General Fund. The proposed ordinance would establish an additional dedicated tax on gross receipts for approximately 300 to 400 of these businesses, at a rate between 0.175 percent and 0.69 percent of gross receipts above $50 million, depending on business type. Businesses subject to the proposed tax currently comprise approximately 15 to 20 percent of the city's job base and pay approximately 40 percent of the city's business taxes. The revenues generated would be deposited into the Our City, Our Home Fund to be used for specific homeless services. Housing programs, including short-term rent subsidies, permanent supportive housing, and permanent rent subsidies would be allocated at least 50 percent of expenditures, or $125-150 million annually. Short-term residential shelters and hygiene programs would receive up to 10 percent, or $25-30 million annually. Prevention programs for those at-risk of becoming homeless or who have recently become homeless would receive up to 15 percent, or $38-45 million annually. Lastly, mental health services for homeless individuals would be allocated at least 25 percent, or $63-75 million annually. In FY 2017-18, the City allocated approximately $380 million for similar services. The measure also creates the Our City, Our Home Oversight Committee to monitor the administration of the special fund and to make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and Mayor's Office to ensure the fund is administered in accordance with the proposed ordinance. [11]	”
—San Francisco Controller[19]

Full text[edit]

The full text of the measure is available here.

Support[edit]

Supporters[edit]

The following individuals were the official proponents of the initiative petition:^[21]

• Lauren Hall
• Jacquelynn Evans
• Christin Evans

The following individuals signed the official argument in support of Proposition C:^[22]

• Jennifer Friedenbach, Coalition on Homelessness
• Samantha Lew

Campaigns and endorsements[edit]

Our City, Our Home led the campaign in support of Proposition C.

The campaign reported $5,748,189 in contributions, as of November 2, 2018.^[23]

A full list of groups and individuals that endorsed a "yes" vote on Proposition C can be viewed here.

Business leader endorsements[edit]

Our City, Our Home named the following business leaders as supporters of Proposition C:^[24]

• Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce
• Chuck Robbins, CEO of Cisco Systems
• Tom Collom, co-owner of The Market and Small Foods

Arguments[edit]

The following official argument was submitted in favor of Proposition C:^[22]

“	Proposition C is the key to solving homelessness in San Francisco now. This bold plan was created by the people the front lines of the homeless and affordable housing crisis every day. It's a real solution — not more City Hall window dressing. Prop C will give us back the San Francisco we love: where homeless people, including those who are disabled, elderly, families and mentally ill, are taken care — and where we can all walk safely and securely in a clean and dignified city. It starts by asking the City's very largest corporations — not regular San Franciscans — to pay additional revenue to fund these services. These top 1% companies, paying on income above $50 million per year, many of whom just received a huge tax break from Donald Trump, can afford to do more. It then dedicates the funding directly to building permanently affordable homes, preventing evictions, mental health and substance use treatment, hygiene programs and shelters. This money CANNOT be by City Hall politicians for any other purpose. Proposition C would: Protect 7,000 San Franciscans from losing their homes Move more than 4,000 househoIds off the streets and into affordable homes Provide intensive mental health care and substance use street-based for over 4,000 severeIy impaired individuals Fund bathrooms and sanitation centers across the city Give the 1,000 peopIe on our wait fist tor shelter each night a place to sleep off the street Bring back the clean, safe, beautiful streets San Franciscans deserve Proposition C is our last, best chance to homelessness, address the housing affordability crisis and protect the city we love. The homeless crisis hurts all of us. Please join us and vote Yes on C. Affordable Housing Alliance Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods Mental Health Association of San Francisco United Educators of San Francisco Chinatown Community Development Center GLIDE Foundation San Francisco Tenants Union SEIU 1021 Coalition on Homelessness[11]	”
—Official Support Argument

Opposition[edit]

Campaigns and endorsements[edit]

No Plan, No Accountability, No on Prop C, sponsored by the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, led the campaign in opposition to Proposition C. The campaign reported $1,363,921 in contributions, as of November 2, 2018. Major contributors included Stripe, Visa, and Paul Graham.^[23]

The following group(s) and individuals opposed Proposition C:

• San Francisco Republican Party^[25]
• San Francisco Mayor London Breed^[26]
• Senator Scott Wiener^[26]

A full list of groups and individuals endorsing the No on Prop C campaign can be viewed here.

Business leader opposition[edit]

The following business leaders opposed Proposition C:

• Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter and Square^[27]
• Patrick Collison, CEO of Stripe^[28]
• Paul Graham, venture capitalist^[29]

Opponents[edit]

The following individuals signed the official argument in opposition to Proposition C:^[22]

• John Bozeman, BOMA San Francisco
• Paul Murre

Official argument[edit]

The following official argument was submitted in opposition to Proposition C:^[22]

“	Vote NO on Proposition C. San Francisco already spends more than $382 million a year on homelessness with little accountability and poor results. San Francisco city government already spends more per capita — $12,551 per person — and more addressing homelessness than any big city in America. But it's hard to argue San Franciscans are getting good value or acceptable results for the money spent. That's why Prop C is such a bad idea. It proposes the largest tax increase in San Francisco history — $300 million per year — with no plan for spending the money nor any accountability measures for the dozens of agencies that will receive the funding. The City's own homelessness czar has said that, while they do "God's work," there is a duplication of services and a lack of accountability among the more than 70 agencies currently providing homeless services under contract to the city. If, as Einstein said, "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result," voters would be ill-advised to vote for Prop C expecting change. Even worse, the City's own analysis of Prop C by the San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development says it is likely to cost many middle-class jobs in retail and manufacturing across the city. Homelessness is the biggest problem facing San Francisco, but we'll never fix it without an innovative plan and reform of the current system — and Prop C contains none of these. Our newly elected Mayor London Breed has a unique opportunity to bring the city together to pursue a consensus-based plan and put it before voters if it requires more money. Until then, join President of the San Francisco Council of District Merchants Henry Karnilowicz*, Small Business Leader Gwen Kaplan, Former San Francisco Democratic Party Chair Mary Jung, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, the San Francisco Committee on Jobs, the Building Owners and Managers Association of San Francisco and Supervisor Katy Tang and vote NO on Prop C. John Bozeman, Building Owners and Managers Association of San Francisco *Title for identification purposes only[11]	”
—Official Opposition Argument

Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

This measure was put on the ballot through a successful citizen initiative petition, led by the group Our City Our Home SF. The group submitted 28,000 signatures to the San Francisco Department of Elections on July 9, 2018. They needed 9,000 valid signatures to place the measure on the ballot.^[30]

See also[edit]

Local measures Local measures in 2018 Local business tax on the ballot City tax on the ballot San Francisco County measures

California November 6, 2018 measures in California Local ballot measures, California San Francisco, California

News and analysis State and local preemption conflicts Measures advancing national agendas

External links[edit]

• Search Google News for this topic
• San Francisco County Elections Office website

Footnotes[edit]

v • e Local ballot measures in California Counties Alameda • Alpine • Amador • Butte • Calaveras • Colusa • Contra Costa • Del Norte • El Dorado • Fresno • Glenn • Humboldt • Imperial • Inyo • Kern • Kings • Lake • Lassen • Los Angeles • Madera • Marin • Mariposa • Mendocino • Merced • Modoc • Mono • Monterey • Napa • Nevada • Orange • Placer • Plumas • Riverside • Sacramento • San Benito • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San Joaquin • San Luis Obispo • San Mateo • Santa Barbara • Santa Clara • Santa Cruz • Shasta • Sierra • Siskiyou • Solano • Sonoma • Stanislaus • Sutter • Tehama • Trinity • Tulare • Tuolumne • Ventura • Yolo • Yuba Analysis Laws governing local ballot measures in California • Ballot measure information on California county websites • Costs of administering local elections • Required approval rates for local California ballot measures 2021 March 2 • May 4 • June 8 • June 29 • August 31 2020 March 3 • April 14 • May 5 • June 2 • June 23 • August 25 • November 3 2019 February 26 • March 5 • March 19 • March 26 • April 9 • May 7 • June 4 • August 27 • November 5 2018 January 23 • January 30 • February 27 • March 6 • June 5 • November 6 2017 January 10 • February 28 • March 7 • March 28 • April 4 • April 11 • May 2 • May 9 • May 16 • June 6 • July 11 • August 22 • August 29 • October 17 • November 7 2016 January 26 • February 23 • March 8 • April 12 • April 19 • May 3 • June 7 • November 8 2015 January 6 • February 24 • March 3 • March 10 • March 24 • April 14 • May 5 • May 19 • June 2 • June 23 • August 25 • September 1 • October 6 • November 3 • November 17 2014 February 4 • February 11 • March 4 • April 8 • May 6 • June 3 • July 8 • September 2 • November 4 2013 March 5 • March 12 • April 2 • April 9 • May 7 • May 21 • June 4 • June 11 • June 18 • July 2 • July 16 • July 23 • August 27 • November 5 2012 February 7 • March 6 • March 13 • April 6 • April 10 • May 1 • May 8 • June 5 • July 10 • August 28 • September 18 • November 6 2011 January 25 • March 1 • March 8 • April 5 • April 12 • May 3 • June 7 • June 21 • July 12 • August 30 • November 8 • November 15 • November 22 2010 January 12 • February 2 • February 23 • March 2 • March 9 • April 13 • May 4 • May 25 • June 8 • June 15 • June 22 • July 13 • August 24 • August 31 • September 21 • November 2 2009 January 13 • February 24 • March 3 • March 10 • April 21 • May 5 • May 19 • June 2 • June 9 • June 16 • June 23 • June 30 • July 21 • August 4 • August 25 • August 28 • November 3 • November 17 • December 8 • December 15 2008 February 5 • March 4 • April 8 • June 3 • June 24 • July 22 • August 26 • November 4 2007 March 6 • May 7 • November 6 2006 March 7 • April 11 • May 2 • June 6 • November 7 Political topics Advisory votes • Binding arbitration • Business taxes • City charters • Election and voting laws • Gambling • Gann overrides • Hotel taxes • Incorporations • Immigration • Jurisdictional boundaries • Labor • Marijuana • Marijuana taxes • Mottos • Municipal bonds • Parcel taxes • Pensions • Project-Labor Agreements • Recall • Red light cameras • Rent control • Salaries of local officials • Sales taxes • School bonds • Term limits • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes • Zoning and land use Tax measures Business taxes • Hotel taxes • Marijuana taxes • Oil and gas • Parcel taxes • Real estate transfer taxes • Sales taxes • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes

v • e Local taxes on the ballot in California Business taxes • Hotel taxes • Marijuana taxes • Oil and gas • Parcel taxes • Real estate transfer taxes • Sales taxes • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes