SB 762 creates a narrow, city‑specific exception that lets the City of Hercules place a transactions and use tax of up to 1 percent on the ballot (by council ordinance or citizen initiative) that would not count toward the State’s 2 percent combined limit on local taxes under Section 7251.1. The tax must otherwise follow the procedural and substantive rules of the Transactions and Use Tax Law (Part 1.6).
Separately, the bill amends Government Code Section 66647 to expand allowable uses of the Bay Fill Clean‑Up and Abatement Fund so that, when the Legislature appropriates money, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (or its executive director) may spend on enforcement and on technology, services, programs, and personnel that directly support removal, cleanup, resource enhancement, and enforcement activities.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 762 authorizes Hercules to impose a voter‑approved transactions and use tax up to 1 percent that is exempt from the 2 percent combined cap in Section 7251.1 and requires the tax to conform to the Transactions and Use Tax Law except for that cap. It also expands the permissible uses of the Bay Fill Clean‑Up and Abatement Fund to include enforcement and related technology, services, programs, and personnel, subject to legislative appropriation.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the City of Hercules, local voters, retailers and other sellers doing business in Hercules, and the State entities that administer local transactions and use taxes. It also affects the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission by widening what it can spend from the Bay Fill Clean‑Up and Abatement Fund.
Why It Matters
The bill gives one California city a path to raise additional local sales tax revenue beyond the statutory combined cap, creating an exception to statewide rate uniformity. At the same time it channels more flexibility toward enforcement funding for Bay cleanup work—both changes with operational and administrative implications for tax collection, compliance, and environmental program budgeting.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 762 inserts a new Chapter 3.13 into the Revenue and Taxation Code that is narrowly written to apply only to the City of Hercules. The chapter permits Hercules to put a transactions and use tax on the ballot—either following a City Council ordinance that sends the measure to voters or via a citizens’ initiative—and caps that local rate at 1 percent.
The unusual wrinkle is that the tax, if adopted, is explicitly excluded from the statutory combined‑rate calculation found in Section 7251.1, meaning the local combined rates in Hercules may exceed the 2 percent cap that applies elsewhere.
Mechanically, the new language forces conformity with California’s Transactions and Use Tax Law (Part 1.6) for every procedural and substantive element except for the Section 7251.1 rate limitation. In practice that means the city must follow Part 1.6’s filing, ballot language, administrative, and remittance rules, but the tax’s contribution to the combined cap is disregarded.
The statute distinguishes between council‑initiated measures (which require the council to adopt an ordinance before placing the measure before voters) and citizen initiatives (which proceed without that ordinance step), preserving the two pathways that local tax measures typically use.The bill’s other substantive change amends Government Code Section 66647 to enlarge the Bay Fill Clean‑Up and Abatement Fund’s authorized expenditures. Under the amendment, funds—when appropriated by the Legislature—may be spent not only for removing fill and resource enhancement but also for enforcement and for technology, services, programs, and personnel that directly support cleanup, abatement, and enforcement activities.
That change does not itself appropriate money; it simply expands what the commission or its executive director may spend the fund on if and when the Legislature provides dollars.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Creates a City of Hercules–specific transactions and use tax authority (new Chapter 3.13) allowing a voter‑approved tax of up to 1 percent.
Requires the tax to comply with the Transactions and Use Tax Law (Part 1.6) except it removes the tax from the combined‑rate calculation in Section 7251.1.
Allows adoption either by City Council ordinance submitted to voters or by citizen initiative; the measure must be approved by the electorate under the applicable constitutional voting threshold.
Amends Government Code Section 66647 to permit Bay Fill Clean‑Up and Abatement Fund expenditures for enforcement and for technology, services, programs, and personnel that directly support cleanup and enforcement, but only when the Legislature appropriates funds.
Includes an express legislative finding that a special statute is necessary because of Hercules’ unique fiscal needs, making this an explicit single‑jurisdiction carve‑out.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates a transactions and use tax authority exclusively for Hercules
This chapter gives Hercules the statutory authority to place a transactions and use tax on the ballot, limited to 1 percent. It is a narrow, city‑specific grant rather than a statewide change—carefully framed so only Hercules may rely on it. For compliance officers and municipal finance teams, the key implication is that Hercules can lawfully seek additional sales tax revenue beyond the statewide combined cap, but the measure must satisfy all other Parts 1.6 requirements.
How the tax gets on the ballot and conformity requirements
Subdivision (a) distinguishes between council‑initiated and citizen‑initiated routes: the City Council must adopt an ordinance to place a council measure before voters, while citizen initiatives bypass that step. Regardless of route, the tax must otherwise conform to Part 1.6’s procedural and administrative rules—filing, ballot language, administration, reporting—so the Board of Equalization (or successor tax agency) and local administrators will apply familiar processes even though the rate sits outside the combined cap.
Exclusion from the combined rate limitation
Subdivision (b) states explicitly that any transactions and use tax imposed under this chapter is not to be counted for purposes of Section 7251.1’s combined local rate limitation. Practically, that produces a bookkeeping exception: the Hercules tax increases the local effective rate for taxpayers within city limits but does not reduce room for other local taxes under the statutory 2 percent ceiling—an accounting distinction with real consequences for businesses operating across city borders.
Special statute declaration for Hercules
The bill contains a express finding that a special statute is necessary because Hercules has unique fiscal needs. That language is procedural and constitutional: it justifies the single‑city exemption under Article IV, Section 16 of the California Constitution and signals that the Legislature did not intend this to be a model for statewide change without separate legislative action.
Expands permissible uses of the Bay Fill Clean‑Up and Abatement Fund
The amended Section 66647 broadens the fund’s allowable expenditures to include enforcement and items that directly support cleanup and enforcement—technology, services, programs, and personnel—subject to legislative appropriation. This is not an appropriation; rather, it gives the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (or its executive director) statutory authorization to spend on a wider set of activities if the Legislature allocates money to the fund.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- City of Hercules — Gains a designated revenue option to raise up to 1% in local transactions and use tax beyond the 2% combined cap, increasing fiscal flexibility for local projects.
- Local voters in Hercules — Receive a direct say (via ballot approval) over an additional local revenue source that funds city priorities.
- San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) — Receives expanded statutory authority to spend Bay Fill Clean‑Up Fund dollars on enforcement and on technology, services, programs, and personnel that support cleanup when the Legislature appropriates funds.
- Local public programs and capital projects in Hercules — Stand to benefit if the city places and voters approve the tax, creating a potential new funding stream for municipal services or infrastructure.
Who Bears the Cost
- Retailers and other in‑city sellers — Face higher effective tax collections and additional compliance obligations if Hercules adopts the tax, including updating point‑of‑sale systems and remittance processes.
- Consumers in Hercules — Will pay higher prices on taxable transactions within city limits if the tax is approved.
- State and local tax administrators — Must track, administer, and report an exception to the combined rate cap, creating extra accounting and audit workload to ensure the Hercules carve‑out is applied correctly.
- Neighboring jurisdictions and multi‑jurisdictional businesses — Could see competitive distortions or compliance complexity when transactions cross borders into a jurisdiction with an atypical tax treatment.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between local fiscal autonomy and statewide tax uniformity: the bill gives one city more ability to raise revenue via a sales‑style tax while preserving the letter of California’s combined‑rate rules elsewhere, trading statewide simplicity and predictability for a narrow municipal funding flexibility that creates administrative and competitive complexity.
The bill creates a precise legal exception for one city, which raises three implementation issues. First, excluding a local tax from the combined‑rate calculation is an accounting maneuver that complicates collection and reporting: the state’s tax agency will need clear rules to separate the Hercules‑specific rate in remittance statements and audit procedures.
Second, the bill allows voter approval but does not change substantive tax mechanics; businesses will still collect the tax at point of sale, so cross‑border transactions and allocation rules (e.g., delivery versus pickup) will require careful administrative guidance to avoid double taxation or gaps.
On the Bay Fill Clean‑Up Fund side, the change broadens what the commission may spend money on but does not appropriate funds. That leaves a gap between authorization and budgeting: enforcement and personnel will only materialize if the Legislature allocates funds.
Also, the statutory phrase "directly support" is open to interpretation—does a broad public outreach program or shared IT system qualify? The commission and Department of Finance will likely need policy guidance to draw lines.
Finally, by legislating a single‑city carve‑out, the bill sets a precedent that could invite requests from other jurisdictions, generating political and administrative pressure that the statutory finding attempts to foreclose but cannot fully prevent.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.