2,960 / 62.4% Yes votes ...... 1,785 / 37.6% No votes

See Also: Index of all Measures

Meaning of Voting Yes/No

A YES vote of this measure means:

A majority "yes" vote allows the Transient Occupancy Tax to continue to be levied at a rate of 10%.

A NO vote of this measure means:

A "no" vote means that the Transient Occupancy Tax will be levied at a rate of 8%.

At the time Ordinance No. 1531 was adopted, the widely accepted legal opinion was that the tax increase did not require voter approval as Proposition 62, which states that tax increases require voter approval, was declared unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal. In 1995 the California Supreme Court, in Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino, upheld the validity of Proposition 62. After the Guardino decision, the Court of Appeal ruled that the holding in Guardino applied to taxes adopted prior to the Guardino decision, but that a three-year statute of limitations applied. More recently, a California Supreme Court case decided this year, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of La Habra, held that the collection of non-voter approved local taxes is a continuing violation, in effect eliminating the three-year statute of limitations. In light of this recent case, the continued collection of the Transient Occupancy Tax is vulnerable to legal challenge. The City of San Bruno proposes to affirm and eliminate any question as to the validity of the 2% tax increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax, from 8% to 10%, that was enacted in 1991 pursuant to Ordinance No. 1531.

A general tax, such as the Transient Occupancy Tax, requires a majority vote and is imposed for general governmental purposes, such as, but not limited to: fire, general administrative, library, parks and recreation, and police services.

Several neighboring cities are placing a similar issue on the ballot. The City's annual revenue from the Transient Occupancy Tax is $1,550,000. The 2% increase from 8% to 10%, approved in 1991, amounts to approximately $310,000 annually.

If the measure is approved, any question as to the validity of Ordinance No. 1531, which increased the Transient Occupancy Tax from 8% to 10%, will be eliminated.

Candidates/Measure M Forum

Tuesday, October 9, 8-9:30 pm, San Bruno Senior Center, 1555 Crystal Springs Road, San Bruno

A recent Supreme Court action related to Proposition 62, approved in 1986, requires the City to obtain voter approval for the 2% Transient Occupancy Tax (hotel) rate increase that was unanimously approved by the City Council in 1991. Measure M simply ratifies the hotel tax rate that has been in place for ten years. Without approval of Measure M, the City could be subject to legal challenges and the annual loss of $310,000 in revenues that support City services.

San Bruno residents should consider the following:

• Measure M only applies to travelers staying at hotels or motels in our City...the hotel tax continues to have no impact on San Bruno homeowners or renters.

• Current total hotel tax revenues of $1,550,000 each year help pay the costs of police and fire services. Without Measure M, nearly $310,000 of these revenues will be lost.

• Measure M will keep the hotel tax rate at the same level as 11 other cities in San Mateo County. Three cities, and San Mateo County, have similar measures on their ballots.

Please join your City Council in voting YES on Measure M.

/s/ Mayor Larry Franzella
Mayor, City of San Bruno

Unnecessary Revenue: Will the sky fall if voters don't approve this tax increase? Of course not! San Bruno got by just fine with an 8% TOT (before 1991).

Comparisons: Portland's hotel tax is 6%. Oregon's average is 7.3%. Hawaii's is 7.25%. Washington's standard hotel tax is only 2% (though special taxes push the average to 5%). California's average TOT was also below 10% until 1992, when cities and counties began a decade of tax hikes.

Lawbreakers: The Supreme Court found 1986's Prop 62 to be constitutional in 1995 (Santa Clara County v. Guardino), affirming that such taxes, raised without voter approval, are indeed illegal. San Bruno nevertheless thumbed its nose at the voters and the Court and continued to collect the 2% overcharge. The city is bowing to the law only now because a new Supreme Court decision (HJTA v. La Habra) has clarified eligibility to sue for continuing to overcharge taxpayers. The illegality of the tax itself was established 6 years ago.

Don't reward these scofflaws with your approval. Vote 'NO'.

/s/ Rose A. Urbach
San Bruno Resident

/s/ Margret Buckley Schmidt
Treasurer, Libertarian Party of San Mateo County

/s/ John J. Hickey
Chair, Libertarian Party of San Mateo County

/s/ Christopher VA Schmidt
Retired Computer Professional

The City of San Bruno thinks so - at least when guests stay in local hotels. Like an embezzler, the city pads hotel bills with a 10% transient occupancy tax ('TOT') which is no more just nor honest than a Mafia protection racket.

And taxing a hotel guest who can't vote against him is the perfect crime, from a politician's point-of-view.

A Legal Question: If the voters passed an initiative (Prop 62 in 1986) which required voter approval of such taxes, was it OK to ignore the law and raise the TOT without a vote?

The City of San Bruno thought so, and stalled for 10 years before putting this tax on the ballot.

Don't encourage this kind of opportunistic pickpocketing. Vote 'NO' and help put a politician on the straight and narrow path.

/s/ John J. Hickey
Chair, Libertarian Party of San Mateo County

/s/ Linden Hsu
Secretary, Libertarian Party of San Mateo County

/s/ Christopher VA Schmidt
Retired Computer Professional

Travelers using our hotels/motels in San Bruno rely on our police, fire, and street and streetlight maintenance. Voting Yes on Measure M means these visitors will continue to pay a fair share of the cost for these services.

Measure M is not a new tax. Measure M affirms, by your voter approval, the hotel tax rate established in 1991.

Ten years ago, the City Council approved a 2% increase in the hotel tax rate. According to widely accepted legal opinion at that time, voter confirmation was not required. When the Supreme Court reversed this opinion in June, your City Council acted immediately and held a special meeting to assure your vote on this ballot measure.

Consider these facts:

• Measure M only applies to travelers staying at hotels or motels in our City...the hotel tax continues to have no impact on San Bruno homeowners or renters.

• Without Measure M, the City will lose nearly $310,000 of revenues that help pay the costs of necessary City services.

/s/ Mayor Larry Franzella
Mayor, City of San Bruno

Section 3.32.010 Tax imposed--Amount--Debt to City.

For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel or motel, each transient is subject to and shall pay a tax in the amount of ten percent of the rent charged by the operator. Such tax constitutes a debt owed by the transient to the city which is extinguished only by payment to the operator or to the city. The transient shall pay the tax to the operator of the hotel at the time the rent is paid. If the rent is paid in installments, a proportionate share of the tax shall be paid with each installment. The unpaid tax shall be due upon the transient's ceasing to occupy space in the hotel. If for any reason the tax is not paid to the operator of the hotel, the tax administrator may require that such tax shall be paid directly to the tax administrator.