• Add-On Sales Taxes (Transaction and Use Taxes). Voters in 68 cities and three counties considered general purpose majority vote add-on sales tax rates ranging from 1/4 percent to 1 ½ percent. Sixty-one were approved including all those that extended without increasing an existing sun-setting tax. There were eight add-on sales tax measures earmarked for specific purposes including two extensions of previously approved rates and three countywide measures for transportation improvements. Voters in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties approved a 1/8 percent tax for CalTrain. Four measures, all in more rural locations, could not achieve the two-thirds vote threshold required for special tax increases.
• Transient Occupancy (Lodging) Taxes. There were 22 measures to increase Transient Occupancy (Lodging) Taxes (TOT), including 20 for general purposes (majority approval) and two two-thirds vote special taxes. The small central valley towns of Farmersville and Tulelake, among the few cities in California not to have a TOT, failed in their proposals for new taxes.
• Admissions Tax. Voters in the island city of Avalon approved a $2 per passenger surcharge on visitors with the proceeds to go to their hospital.
• Cannabis – Local Excise Taxes. There were 27 measures* taxing cannabis, all majority general purpose except in San Joaquin County where the tax increase was earmarked for “early childhood education and youth programs, including literacy, gang reduction, after-school programs, and drug prevention, with emphasis on children facing the greatest disparities, and promoting public health, homeless mitigation, and enforcing cannabis laws.” That measure is failing narrowly.

*An initiative measure legalizing cannabis businesses in Solana Beach would have “authorized” a 1.5 percent “sales tax.” As structured in the citizen drafted initiative, the tax would have been illegal and could not have been implemented. It is not included here. The measure failed.

• Business Operations Taxes. There were seven business operations tax measures other than the cannabis tax measures, all majority vote. All but Lynwood’s unusual “for-profit hospital” tax passed.
• Property Transfer Taxes. Voters in six charter cities considered increasing their taxes on transfers of real estate. All but one passed.
• Utility User and Transfer Taxes. Voters in ten cities and one county unincorporated area considered measures to increase or continue utility user taxes for general purposes. Voters in Pasadena authorized the continued transfer of 12 percent of annual revenue from their electric utility to support general fund services such as police, fire, paramedics and parks.
• General Obligation Bonds. There were eleven non-school general obligation bond measures totaling $1.9 billion. Five passed. In all, $1.3 billion in local non-school general obligation bonds were approved. The largest, San Diego’s $900 million measure for affordable and homeless housing failed.
• Parcel Taxes. There were 30 non-school parcel tax measures for a variety of public services. Fourteen passed.

The passage rates this election are dramatic in comparison to the anomalous March 2020 election. In March, 96 of the 239 local tax and bond measures passed (40 percent), a dramatically lower overall passage rate compared to prior elections. The March results were, it appears, not so much due to a trend as to the pre-pandemic over-expectations of communities that March 2020 would be a favorable climate for such proposals. In the last presidential primary election, June 2016, 81 percent (72/89) of measures passed, including 91 percent of school bonds (42/46). But this perception led to a record number of attempts in March 2020, including many more chancy proposals that would likely not have made it to the ballot in another time.

The numbers at this November general election appear more in line with historic trends both in number of proposals and passage rates. The volume and make-up of measures in this election was somewhat lower than the previous two presidential and gubernatorial general elections in 2018 and 2016, but comparable to years prior. The drop off in proposed measures was specific to certain types of measures: 1) those with higher vote thresholds, and 2) cannabis tax measures.
The 79 proposed sales tax measures (including eight special taxes) is comparable to November 2018 (69) and November 2016 (89) and the 71 majority vote sales taxes is actually the highest of this type of tax proposal at any election, ever. Cannabis taxation has been hot for the last several years since legalization and the drop-off in those measures is essentially a function of this area of taxation and regulation running its course.

There were fewer special tax measures, reflecting the difficulty of achieving two-thirds voter approval in a more uncertain time. There were just 35 non-school parcel taxes and general obligation bonds on local ballots compared to 52 in November 2018 and 51 in November 2016.

The results of this election are notable for their normalcy in a time that is not normal. The number of measures and overall passage rates were more consistent with prior general elections, a bounce back from the dismal March 2020 results. Although, as noted, those results were largely a result of vastly more attempts in a pandemic infused election no-one foresaw.

Once again, the success of most local measures points out some important best practices:

• Step up your community engagement efforts especially around your budget process to help people understand the complete picture of your financial condition, direction, your priorities and challenges.
• Pick one. Don’t pile on with multiple measures. They will drag each other down.
• If possible, consider a majority vote general purpose tax measure, not a parcel tax or special tax requiring two-thirds approval. You’ll find the general tax much easier to deal with in the budget too.
• Get professional help. Consultants can spark your community engagement efforts and bring outside credibility. Pollsters can help you gage what’s important to the community and if a measure is worth the effort. Attorneys can help you write the measure correctly to avoid embarrassing mistakes.
• Talk to your colleagues – like those in CSMFO. Many successful measures go in tandem with similar measures in neighboring districts, cities or the county.

Learn from the experiences of others.

Read Michael’s full report of local tax and bond results including those of schools with more maps and charts, lists of measures and a commentary by FM3 Research here.