Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Revenue topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee directs staff to develop parking and use-tax options for possible November ballot
Summary
After an extensive presentation on revenue options, Pasadena’s finance committee asked staff to return to the July 13 council meeting with concrete proposals on a parking tax and a use (sales/use) tax, and to include a real property transfer tax for consideration only if a pending state ballot initiative is withdrawn.
The finance committee spent the largest portion of its June 22 special meeting on potential revenue sources and directed staff to return with concrete proposals for a possible November 2026 ballot.
Finance Director Karen Schneider presented a menu of options: an available quarter-cent of use tax (estimated at about $11 million annually), parcel tax and benefit-assessment districts (each estimated up to roughly $20 million depending on structure), a business gross-receipts tax (staff estimate ≈$20 million), retail-vacancy penalties ($1–5 million), a real property transfer tax (estimated $1–4 million at a 1% assumed rate), and a parking tax (estimated $1–5 million depending on scope). Schneider also reviewed practical constraints, required studies for certain measures, and the county/state timing for placing measures on the November ballot.
Council members widely discussed the parking tax as a near-term, politically viable option. Speakers noted the regional draw to the AOYO/Royal (including Rose Bowl traffic) and the fact that many nonresidents use city facilities; they proposed resident exemptions, permit programs, and dedicating parking-tax revenue to roads and sidewalks. Several council members said a parking tax would be easier to explain to voters than a general sales-tax increase and that a targeted nexus to streets maintenance could increase public acceptance.
Members expressed concern about the limited calendar before the county deadline for November placement and the amount of public vetting available. Council member Cole and others urged focusing staff work on a parking tax and use tax for near-term consideration, deferring more complex business gross-receipts proposals to a later cycle where stakeholders can be consulted.
The committee formally requested that staff return to the July 13 council meeting with more specific proposals on a parking tax and a use tax and to include a real property transfer tax if a competing state initiative is withdrawn. The motion passed and staff will prepare draft language, revenue estimates, and implementation options for council consideration.
Key practical items staff was asked to include: projected annual revenue ranges, proposed exemptions or resident-permit mechanics, legal constraints on taxing certain parking spaces, distribution plans (for example dedicating a portion to street repair), and a timeline for voter placement and implementation.
