Photo Credit: abc7.com

With a cautiously optimistic tone, Gov. Jerry Brown preached prudence on Thursday morning during his annual State of the State address.

The speech — courteous in its brevity, clocking in at under 20 minutes — touted accomplishments and initiatives, like a budget surplus, several credit upgrades, a rainy-day fund, increased education spending and a raise in the minimum wage. However, it was most notable for its call to pay down existing obligations before creating new ones.

“The challenge is to solve today’s problems without making those of tomorrow even worse,” Brown told a packed Assembly floor, arguing the need for preparedness for life’s uncertainty. “In that spirit, you are not going to hear me talk today about new programs. Rather, I am going to focus on how we pay for the commitments we have already made.”

On the budget — Brown released his version earlier this month — the popular Democratic governor said that state economists predict that the next recession, if only of average intensity, “would cut our revenues by $55 billion over three years.”

“That is why it is imperative to build up the rainy-day fund, which was recently overwhelmingly approved by the voters, and invest our temporary surpluses in badly needed infrastructure or in other ways that will not lock in future spending,” Brown said.

Brown’s budget had revenue exceeding expectations by $3.6 billion, with most of the money being tucked into the rainy-day fund, according the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

While all the talk of fiscal restraint is likely to appease some concerns from the right, there was plenty to like for those on the left. On inequality, Brown touted a raise in the minimum wage, an Earned Income Tax Credit, paid sick leave and other traditionally Democratic priorities, including expanded access to health care under the Affordable Care Act.

“Most importantly – and this is truly monumental – we have wholeheartedly embraced the Affordable Care Act,” Brown said. “This is an historic achievement. It will provide health security to so many who could not otherwise afford it.”

Brown asked that legislators consider the revised managed care organization tax, a greater explanation of which can be found here on the California Chamber of Commerce website.

Brown applauded the 51 percent increase in education spending since 2011 and spoke of the need for increased funding for roads. He touted the Paris climate agreement and the Prop. 1 water bond, noting the bond’s passage as one of the “bright spots in our contentious politics.”

The transcript can be found here.

The proposed budget can be found here.

The LAO’s analysis of the budget can be found here.

The puzzle — how to get more money from drivers when you want them out of their cars?

The problem of raising money from diminishing use of a product is becoming endemic in California. Previously, I’ve written that agencies that rely on tobacco tax revenue are scrambling for more money as tobacco use drops off. In the same vein, water agencies are watching their budgets shrink as consumers use less water in response to the drought.

With better mileage per gallon of gasoline for newer cars and the introduction of electric vehicles, gas tax revenue has been reduced.

The conundrum continues if seeking gas and diesel tax increases and maybe even a mileage charge on vehicles goes forward at the same time city and state planners concoct strategies to keep vehicles parked in the garage.

A proposal introduced Monday by the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Business Roundtable, the California Association of Counties, the League of California Cities, and the California Alliance for Jobs representing construction unions would raise revenue for infrastructure from gas tax and diesel tax increases, boosts in vehicle registration fees as well as cap-and-trade money.

The L.A. proposal is designed to get drivers out of their cars — but opponents of the plan say it will do nothing more than lead to congestion and frustrated drivers. As someone who has seen a nearby street lose a lane to bicycle traffic, I can attest to that concern.

Senate Bill 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, is designed to reduce greenhouse gases by encouraging developers to build housing close to public transportation.

Advocates might argue both approaches are needed — more revenue to build and fix roads, fewer cars on the roads to reduce wear and tear on the asphalt.

But duel efforts to raise taxes and limit driving could make for disgruntled drivers and angry voters.

Senate Bill 1021, introduced by state Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, would allow school districts to impose different parcel tax rates on different types of property. That means commercial, industrial, residential and multifamily residential could see different tax bills for properties of equal value.

SB1021 is essentially split-roll at the local level, Jennifer Barrera, a policy advocate for the California Chamber of Commerce, explained on CalChamber’s website. It would allow school districts to pass parcel taxes just against commercial property.

Alameda County’s parcel tax overturned by courts

The bill comes in response to a controversial parcel tax adopted in Alameda County that was ultimately thrown out by the courts. In 2008, more than two-thirds of Alameda County voters approved Measure H, which imposed a $120 parcel tax on residential and small commercial properties and a substantially higher parcel tax — up to $9,500 a year — on large commercial parcels.

Last June, a unanimous state appeals court overturned the parcel tax. In Borikas v. Alameda Unified School District, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco found that the parcel tax violated the requirement that taxes “apply uniformly to all taxpayers or all real property within the district.”

The bill’s author said that the issue is one of local control, granting local districts the power to set different tax rates for each community’s needs.

“Under the recent court decision, school districts can no longer apply higher or lower rates to parcels based on commercial, industrial, or residential classification of the parcel,” Wolk’s office argued, according to the Senate’s legislative analysis. “SB1021 restores this needed local control by allowing school district boards to structure its tax according to local values and priorities.”

CalChamber: Unfair job-killer bill

Opponents of the bill include CalChamber, the California Business Properties Association, the California Association of Realtors, the California Grocers Association, the California Mortgage Bankers Association, the Family Winemakers of California, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association and the California Building Industry Association. The opponents are worried SB1021 will lead to school districts targeting parcel taxes on businesses and commercial property owners.

“At a time when California officials should be doing everything in their power to attract and retain jobs, this legislation takes exactly the opposite approach by targeting employers for even higher taxes if they stay here,” said David Kline, vice-president of the California Taxpayers Association. “This bill would allow a free-for-all parcel tax system, with no limits on what rates school districts could levy, and would create opportunities for massive tax hikes targeted at businesses of all sizes.”

The state’s business leaders and taxpayer advocates also say the bill is an end run around Proposition 13, the state’s landmark 1978 initiative that placed a cap on property taxes. With other “add-on” property taxes and fees, such as parcel taxes, Mello-Roos fees, and assessment districts, many property owners pay substantially more than Prop. 13’s base rate of 1 percent of the property’s value.

Higher rate applied to different properties

In addition to applying different tax rates to commercial and residential properties, SB1021 authorizes school districts to target individual owners for higher tax rates. Under the bill, school districts would be allowed to treat multiple parcels of real property as one parcel for tax purposes.

“Under this provision, a school district could aggregate multiple, smaller parcels owned by one owner to capture all the properties under a square footage parcel tax,” CalChamber warned in a recent legislative alert. “Additionally, a school district could impose a parcel tax based upon the use of one parcel within multiple parcels owned by the same owner, even if those other parcels are not used for the same purpose.”

Despite recent national headlines of the state’s declining business climate, the legislature is expected to pass the bill, in part because it only requires majority approval of the Legislature. Traditionally, most tax increases are subject to two-thirds approval. However, SB1021 isn’t technically a tax increase, according to the legislature’s attorneys.

However, Gov. Jerry Brown is running for re-election and likely would veto the tax increase. In his 2010 campaign, he promised that no new taxes would be imposed without voter approval. And when he campaigned for Proposition 30, which increased taxes $7 billion, he insisted it would be temporary. SB1021 would allow permanent tax increases.