Model California Ordinance
Imposing a Business License Tax on
Sales of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages
November 2014
The National Policy & Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood Obesity (NPLAN) is a project of
ChangeLab Solutions. ChangeLab Solutions is a nonprofit organization that provides legal information
on matters relating to public health. The legal information in this document does not constitute legal
advice or legal representation. For legal advice, readers should consult a lawyer in their state.
Support for this document was provided by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
© 2014 ChangeLab Solutions
changelabsolutions.org
l
nplan.org
Table of Contents
3
Introduction
14
Model Findings
18
General Business Tax Ordinance
35
19
Model General Tax Ordinance
27
Model Election Resolution for General Tax Ordinance
31
Model Election Resolution for Advisory Measure
Special Business Tax Ordinance
36
Model Special Tax Ordinance
45
Model Election Resolution for Special Tax Ordinance
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 2
Introduction and Report
This model legislation to impose a local tax on sugar-sweetened beverages is based on
ChangeLab Solutions’ legal research and analysis, as well as the research and evidence base
linking excessive consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (“SSBs”) and overweight/obesity
and chronic disease. It is intended to inform public health advocates’ understanding of the law
and relevant policy issues as they work to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened
beverages and to raise funds for programs designed to treat or prevent obesity.
This Model Local Legislation Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales of SugarSweetened Beverages (“Model Legislation”) addresses the steps for passing a tax in a
California city or county. The Model Legislation is specific to California for three reasons.
First, California has a very particular and complicated body of laws governing the steps that
must be taken to pass a tax. Second, California has a tradition and culture of policy
experimentation at the local level—among its nearly 500 cities and 58 counties—and
ChangeLab Solutions wants to provide local public health advocates with the tools for
promoting policies to reduce SSB consumption. Third, ChangeLab Solutions is located in
California and has particular expertise in the state’s laws. While the Model Legislation is
specific to California, the general principles discussed, as well as much of the specific
language of the Model Legislation, are applicable to communities across the country. Public
health advocates considering a local tax on sales of sugar-sweetened beverages should
consult with a local attorney with knowledge of their state’s laws to adapt the Model
Legislation for their specific state.
This Introduction and Report summarizes ChangeLab Solutions’ nonpartisan analysis of the
research on these issues and the rationale for a dedicated tax as an effective policy intervention.
Our presentation of this Model Legislation, including this Introduction and Report, is based on
our independent and objective analysis of the relevant law, evidence, and available data, and
should enable readers to draw their own opinions and conclusions about its merits.
The Obesity Epidemic and the Role of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages
More than two thirds of adults1 and nearly one third of youth aged two to nineteen years2 in
the United States are overweight or obese. Over the last thirty years, obesity and overweight
rates have soared in all age groups, particularly among children–more than doubling for
preschoolers and more than tripling for children ages six to eleven and adolescents ages
twelve to nineteen.3,4 After decades of steady increase, adult5 and childhood6 obesity rates
appear to have leveled off. Between 2008 and 2011, eighteen states had statistically
significant decreases in obesity rates for low-income preschoolers.7 Nonetheless, existing
obesity rates are still staggeringly high, especially for low-income people and people of
color. African-American and Latino adults have higher obesity and overweight rates than the
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 3
overall U.S. population.8 Similarly, twenty-one percent of Latino children and adolescents
and twenty-four percent of African-American children and adolescents are obese, compared
to fourteen percent of white children.9 Variation in obesity rates across income is complex,
but generally obesity rates decline as income increases for both adults and children.10,11
The increases in overweight and obesity over the last thirty years correspond to increases in
calorie consumption. American adults consume as many as 570 more calories per day on
average than thirty years ago, an increase of over thirty percent.12 Children also consume more
calories – on average about 108 more calories per day, an increase of approximately six
percent.13 This increased calorie consumption has not been offset by increases in physical
activity. In fact, fewer than half of adults14 and fewer than one third of adolescents15 in the
United States meet physical activity guidelines of 150 minutes a week and an hour a day,
respectively.16 All other things being equal, a small, persistent energy imbalance of as little as
fifty calories per day can result in up to a five-pound weight gain over the course of a year.17
Many of these additional calories are coming from sugar-sweetened beverages.18 Sugarsweetened beverages (“SSBs”) are beverages that have added caloric sweeteners of any kind,
and include sweetened fruit juices, fruit drinks,19 carbonated sodas, sports drinks, energy
drinks, and flavored milks.20 Between 1977 and 2001, energy intake from SSBs for all age
groups increased 135 percent.21 While SSB consumption has decreased in recent years,
particularly among children and adolescents,22 consumption rates remain high.
On any given day, roughly half of the American population over age two drinks at least one
SSB and twenty-five percent consume at least 200 calories from SSBs.23 One study by the
Centers for Disease Control found that sixty-three percent of high school students report
consuming at least one SSB on a daily basis.24 In another study, eighty-one percent of
children age six to eleven consumed at least one SSB on the surveyed day.25 The most
common SSBs consumed by children and adolescents were fruit drinks and non-diet
carbonated soft drinks.26 The disparities in obesity rates by income and race and ethnicity are
mirrored in SSB consumption. African-Americans and Mexican-Americans report
consuming more SSB calories than whites for both sexes and most age groups.27 AfricanAmerican children and adolescents are more likely to consume 500 or more calories a day
from fruit drink SSBs than whites; and low-income children are more likely to consume 500
or more calories a day from all SSBs than high-income children.28
SSB consumption is associated with long-term weight gain and increased obesity rates
among adults, and children and adolescents.29,30,31 Conversely, intervention research suggests
that reductions in SSB consumption are significantly associated with weight loss.32,33
Associations between soda consumption and overweight have been found in children as
young as two years old; one study found that the odds of two-year olds who consumed at
least one soda a day being overweight increased more than three-fold compared to children
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 4
who consumed no soda.34
SSB consumption is also associated with an increased risk in adults of chronic diseases such
as diabetes,35,36,37,38 metabolic syndrome,39 and heart disease.40,41 A recent study of youth
with type 1 diabetes found that increased consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages was
associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease risk factors.42 SSB consumption in
children is associated with dental caries,43,44 asthma,45 decreased milk consumption,46,47,48
and inadequate intake of nutrients, including calcium, iron, folate, magnesium, and vitamin
A.49,50,51,52 Soda consumption in particular is also associated with lower bone mineral density
in girls53 and a higher risk of bone fracture among girls.54, 55
Some published research has not found associations between SSB consumption and adverse
health outcomes. A meta-analysis of twelve studies of SSB consumption and weight gain
among children and adolescents found no significant association.56 Similarly, a risk analysis
found no relationship between BMI and consumption of soda sold in vending machines in
schools.57 Two studies analyzing different federal data sets also reported no negative
association between SSB consumption (specifically soda) and calcium intake.58,59 However,
much of the published research reporting no adverse effect of SSB consumption on nutrition
and health – including the studies cited herein—is funded by the beverage industry and has
been refuted by subsequent research.60, 61, 62
The health care costs associated with obesity are staggering, with estimates (in 2008 dollars)
ranging from $147 billion per year63 to $186 billion per year.64 Nearly half of these costs are
paid by Medicare and Medicaid. 65 These costs continue to rise and costs to treat obesityrelated diseases are projected to increase by as much as $48 to $66 billion annually by
2030.66 In addition, lost productivity due to obesity among U.S. workers is estimated to cost
another $43 billion per year.67
Many factors contribute to the obesity epidemic and there is no single solution to reverse it.
However, the weight of the evidence suggests that SSB consumption is a contributing factor
to high rates of overweight and obesity among all age groups and that policy and program
solutions that reduce SSB consumption can help address this issue.
Imposing Local Taxes on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages
No single policy or program will substantially reduce SSB consumption or radically improve
health; rather, a collection of strategies are needed to create environments where people can
be healthy. As part of a multipronged effort to reduce obesity and related chronic health
conditions, many communities are exploring a range of programmatic and policy approaches
to reduce SSB consumption. These approaches include media campaigns, organizational
wellness initiatives, limiting sales of SSBs on government property, restricting sales of SSBs
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 5
in schools, and retail-based strategies such as limiting SSB portion sizes. A discussion of the
myriad of approaches to restricting SSB consumption can be found on our website at:
www.changelabsolutions.org/childhood-obesity/SSB-regulation.
This Model Legislation is intended to be used by public health advocates who would like to
propose a local tax as one strategy to potentially reduce consumption of SSBs and raise
revenue. While this model addresses the unique features of California law as it applies to city
and county taxes, the general principles may be applied to local jurisdictions in other states.
Public health advocates are advised to consult a local attorney with knowledge of their state’s
laws to apply this model to their particular state.
Taxes as a Policy Solution to Reduce Sugar-Sweetened Beverage
Consumption and Provide Funds to Prevent Obesity
Sales of carbonated beverages, including regular and diet soda are subject to sales tax in
thirty-four states and the District of Columbia.68 Nationwide, the average state sales tax rate
is 5.17 percent.69 Public health experts argue that existing taxes are insufficient to effectively
reduce SSB consumption or obesity rates.70, 71, 72, 73 Instead, experts argue that significant
excise taxes or fees are needed to change consumer behavior. Excise taxes are usually
imposed on a distributor or producer and typically increase the shelf price of a product,
which has a greater impact on consumer decision making than sales taxes, which are not
added until the time of purchase. Excise taxes are also considered simpler to enforce and
collect, and it is easier to designate how revenues will be used.74
Available research suggests that excise taxes on SSBs could effectively reduce SSB
consumption and obesity prevalence, although the size of the effect varies by the size of the
tax and which beverages are taxed.75 Modeling studies suggest that a national penny-perounce SSB tax could reduce per capita caloric intake from SSBs by twenty-four percent76 and
SSBs servings per day by fifteen percent.77 Research also suggests that a penny-per-ounce
SSB could result in an annual 1.5 percent reduction in obesity prevalence and reduce new
cases of diabetes by 2.6 percent over ten years.78 Similarly, it is estimated that a tax-created
twenty percent increase in the price of SSBs could reduce the prevalence of obesity in adults
and overweight in children by three percent each.79 However, another study found a six
percent soft drink tax would not lead to changes in BMI, obesity prevalence, or soft drink
calorie consumption, in part because consumers may substitute other high-calorie drinks for
soft drinks; this study’s authors suggest that a higher tax on a range of SSBs, not just soft
drinks, is needed to be effective.80 While SSB taxes are a promising policy intervention,
because the impact of such taxes on consumer behavior and health is unknown, a tax strategy
should be considered in conjunction with other policy and programmatic approaches.
Available research also suggests that increased taxes on SSBs have the potential to raise
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 6
significant revenue. Modeling studies suggest that a national penny-per-ounce SSB tax could
raise $13 billion per year in new tax revenue81, 82 and reduce medical costs by $17 billion a
year.83 It is important to note the inherent conflict in the dual aims of SSB taxes to decrease
consumption and generate revenue. If SSB taxes have the effect of reducing consumption of
SSBs, tax revenues designated to fund anti-obesity programs will also be reduced.84
Opponents of SSB taxes often argue that such taxes are regressive in nature because they
place a higher burden on low-income consumers; however, some research suggests that this
is not the case. For example, one study estimated that a tax-induced forty percent increase in
SSB prices would translate to an average of only $30 more per household per year in food
costs, with higher-income households paying the largest share of this increase.85 Another
study found that while low-income consumers purchase more SSBs than higher-income
households, the relative tax burden may not in fact be higher.86 Nonetheless, like many taxes,
an SSB tax is technically regressive, and to address the concerns that higher taxes on SSBs
will place a greater burden on lower-income households, many proponents of SSB taxes
support earmarking tax revenues for anti-obesity policies and programs in the communities
most burdened by the obesity epidemic.87 In a number of polls, proposals that require SSB
tax revenues go toward anti-obesity programs and/or health care costs have garnered much
greater public support than taxes without earmarked revenue.88
Policies that regulate sales of SSBs can also implicate tensions between the government’s
duty to protect individual liberty and its duty to promote and protect public health and
wellbeing. Opponents of SSB-related policies often argue that the restrictions unnecessarily
and excessively intrude on personal freedoms and are part of a broader paternalistic effort to
legislate lifestyles.89,90,91 A common argument is that individuals should be left to exercise
individual choice and responsibility when it comes to what they eat and drink. These policies
are cast as creating a dangerous slippery slope: what personal liberty will be restricted next in
the name of public health? Public health advocates counter that choices are not made in a
vacuum but are influenced by the broader environment and collective action is needed to
increase opportunities to make healthy choices.92
Policies that target specific products like SSBs can also spark intense political debate. For
example, in September 2012, the New York City Board of Health enacted a rule prohibiting
New York City’s food service establishments, including restaurants, bodegas, street carts,
delis, fast-food franchises, and movie theaters, from selling sugar-sweetened beverages in
any cup or container capable of holding more than 16 ounces.93 The American Beverage
Association and other trade groups filed a lawsuit that challenged the Board of Health’s
authority to unilaterally ratify the portion cap rule. The New York State Conference of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”) and the Hispanic
Federation filed a joint amicus brief in support of the American Beverage Association. In the
brief, the NAACP and Hispanic Federation assert that the soda rule “arbitrarily discriminates
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 7
against citizens and small business owners in African-American and Hispanic communities”
who have to compete with 7-Eleven and other convenience stores, which are excluded due to
an exemption in the law.94 These groups also argued that the ban is “a superficial and
ineffective attempt” to address a complex health problem that disproportionately affects
African Americans and Latinos.95 In June, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals held that
the New York City Board of Health “exceeded the scope of its regulatory authority” and
struck down the rule.96 The debate over the New York portion cap rule placed public health
advocates at odds with longtime political allies on the issue of obesity prevention, an
uncomfortable position for many in the public health community.
Legal Considerations and Procedural Requirements
There are many different types of taxes, and public health advocates considering a local tax
on SSBs should understand several important distinctions. Most broadly, governments
impose a tax on a person, business or property to raise revenue for general public needs.
Sales taxes are imposed on consumers when they purchase products. Although the seller is
responsible for collecting a sales tax on behalf of the state or local government, an essential
element of a sales tax is that it is passed on to the consumer. In contrast, an excise tax is often
imposed on the business of selling a consumer product. Most state tobacco taxes, for
example, are excise taxes.
California law includes a statewide, comprehensive tax scheme that effectively prohibits a
local sales tax on a specific product like SSBs. (For a detailed discussion of why California
law effectively bars a local sales tax on SSBs, see “Why Not a Sales Tax?” below.)
Therefore, in California, a local business license tax, which is an excise tax, is a city or
county’s only viable option for imposing a tax on SSBs. A local sales tax on SSBs may be
allowable in other states; public health advocates outside of California should consult a local
attorney with knowledge of their state’s laws. Below, we discuss many of the legal
considerations and procedural requirements specific to California for adopting a local
business license tax based on the total sales of a specific class of products.
Local Business License Taxes
A business license tax, sometimes referred to as a business privilege tax or gross receipts tax,
is an excise tax imposed on persons or entities for the privilege of conducting business within
a city or county. Cities may impose a business license tax on business activities that occur
within the city’s jurisdictional boundaries,97 and county governments may impose a similar
tax on business activities in the unincorporated areas of the county.98 Since local
governments only have jurisdiction over taxable events taking place within their boundaries,
most likely the tax will be imposed on retailers based on sales of sugar-sweetened beverages
to consumers. However, in some instances it may be possible to levy the tax on distributors,
based on their sales to retailers within the city or county.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 8
Business license taxes are typically levied either at a flat rate or based on gross receipts and it
is fairly common for cities and counties to impose the same tax amount on all businesses
within a defined class or type, such as professional services.99 A business license tax can also
be imposed on businesses engaging in a specific type of activity, such as sales of
automobiles100 or sales of firearms or ammunition,101 and could be imposed on businesses
that sell sugar-sweetened beverages based on the gross receipts from those sales. While a
local government has substantial discretion to determine what businesses to tax and at what
levels, there must be some rational basis for the distinctions made between businesses.102
When considering a business license tax proposal, it is important to note that California state
law prohibits local governments from imposing a business license tax on certain types of
organizations, such as clergy or religious organizations.103 In addition, local taxes on sales of
certain products, such as cigarettes and tobacco products, are preempted by California state
law.104 However, there is no analogous state law prohibition against localities imposing a
business license tax on businesses that sell sugar-sweetened beverages.
Most California cities and counties have already adopted one or more business license tax
ordinances. A business license tax on SSBs may be imposed in addition to other business
license tax requirements, whether such other taxes are based upon gross receipts, square
footage, number of employees, or some other measure of business activity. More than one
business license tax may be applied to a given type of business; this does not constitute
impermissible double taxation.105
Why Not a Sales Tax?
Most people are familiar with sales taxes, which are based on a percentage of the sales price of
taxable items, computed at the time of purchase, and collected from shoppers by the retailer. While
a local sales tax on SSBs might make sense in certain states, California’s tax law does not allow it.
Every city and county in California imposes a sales tax that is administered and collected by the
State Board of Equalization under the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law
(“Bradley Burns Law”). The California Legislature enacted the Bradley Burns Law in 1955 to
achieve statewide uniformity in rates and practice with regard to sales and use taxes. The Bradley
Burns Law contains a comprehensive taxation scheme for California cities and counties and
mandates, among other things, a fixed tax rate and a long list of certain provisions in local taxation
ordinances.
Theoretically, California cities and counties may choose whether or not to comply with the BradleyBurns tax scheme. Those who comply, however, are entitled to participate in a state tax collection
and administration system managed by the State Board of Equalization. This system relieves local
governments of the burden of collecting and administering local taxes. The system is so beneficial
to local governments that opting out has become essentially impossible.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 9
Since California cities and counties participate in the statewide sales tax system, local sales taxes
must include and exempt the products that are included in and exempted from the statewide sales
tax. While food products are generally exempt from sales taxes, a portion of the sales of food sold
through vending machines (including beverages) is subject to sales tax. Carbonated beverages
also are specifically non-exempt, so these products are subject to sales tax as well.
Additional sales taxes on “food products” beyond those already in state law are prohibited by the
California Constitution, so neither the state nor local governments may impose additional sales
taxes on food products.106
California cities and counties cannot broaden the range of beverages subject to the sales tax; they
cannot increase the sales tax rate on specific sugar-sweetened beverages; and they cannot
earmark the portion of the proceeds of the sales tax that come from sugar-sweetened beverages.
Earmarking the revenue for public health goals would have to be accomplished through a business
license tax on those who sell the beverages, rather than a sales tax on those who buy them.
General Taxes Versus Special Taxes
There are two different ways for a California city or county to adopt a local business license
tax, both of which require voter approval. A business license tax on SSBs may be adopted as
a general tax, which may be enacted by a simple majority of qualified voters. The revenues
from a general tax may not be restricted for a particular purpose, and must go into a city’s
general fund to be available for any municipal purpose.107 Alternatively, a business license
tax on SSBs may be adopted as a special tax. Revenues from a special tax must be restricted
to the specified purpose, and a special tax requires a two-thirds vote to pass.108
As a practical matter, this means that while it requires a lower ratio of “yes” votes to pass a
general tax, it may be more difficult to motivate voters when the revenues are not earmarked
for a particular use. Conversely, while voters may be more motivated to vote for a tax
measure if the revenues from that tax may only be used for something they care deeply about,
it can still be quite difficult to muster a two-thirds vote.
Advisory Measure Approach
Another strategy for California cities and counties is to accompany a general tax measure
with an advisory measure. While the general tax would still require a simple majority vote,
the advisory measure asks voters to indicate their preference that revenues from the general
tax be used for a particular purpose. An advisory measure is not binding, and may not restrict
use of general tax funds. The theory behind an advisory measure—which only indicates voter
preference and does not have any legal effect—is that voters will be more motivated to vote
in favor of a general tax if they expect that the city council or county board of supervisors
will honor voter preference and allocate the general tax revenues to voter-approved purposes.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 10
Use of advisory measures is specifically authorized by California Elections Code § 9603 “for
the purpose of allowing voters . . . to voice their opinions on substantive issues, or to indicate to
the local legislative body approval or disapproval of the ballot proposal.” A general tax measure
does not become a special tax measure solely by virtue of being accompanied by a related
advisory measure.109 Use of an advisory measure as a companion to a general tax measure will
not convert the general tax measure into a special tax measure requiring two-thirds approval,
provided that (1) the general tax measure clearly and unequivocally indicates that the tax
revenues will go into the general fund, and (2) the companion advisory measure clearly
indicates that it is not binding and does not legally restrict use of the general tax revenues.
Adopting this Model Ordinance
Local taxes in California may be proposed in one of two ways: by gathering signatures from
registered voters (similar to the process for statewide ballot initiatives), or by having the
legislative body pass an ordinance or resolution that sets forth the proposal. Either way,
voters must ultimately approve the proposal.
Public health advocates outside of California considering a local tax on sales of sugarsweetened beverages should consult with a local attorney with knowledge of their state’s
laws to adapt the Model Legislation for their specific state.
Putting the Tax on the Ballot
A city council or county board of supervisors must adopt an ordinance or resolution that sets
forth the type of tax and rate, and other specific information.110 For a general tax, the ordinance
or resolution proposing the tax must be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the members of the
legislative body.111 There is no similar legislative supermajority requirement for special taxes,
and a special tax on gross receipts from sales of sugar-sweetened beverages could be placed on
the ballot through a majority vote of the legislative body.112 For charter cities,113 the city
council may place the tax on the ballot (regardless of whether it is a general tax or a special
tax) through a majority vote unless the city charter provides otherwise.114 A tax can also be
placed on the ballot via the initiative process through the gathering of signatures from
registered voters of the jurisdiction, similar to the process for statewide ballot initiatives.115
Approval of the Tax by the Electorate
California law requires that once on the ballot, a general tax must be approved by a majority
of the electorate—the residents of a city or the unincorporated areas of a county.116 The vote
on a general tax must be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for
members of the governing body of the local government, except when an emergency
requiring an earlier election is declared by a unanimous vote of the legislators present.117
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 11
A special tax must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate,118 and unlike general
taxes, there are no constitutional timing restrictions on elections to approve special taxes. A
special tax must also include mandatory accountability measures: a statement of the “specific
purposes” of the tax; a requirement that tax proceeds be used only for that purpose; “the
creation of an account into which the proceeds shall be deposited;” and requirements for
annual reporting of receipts, expenditures, and “the status of any project required or
authorized to be funded” by the measure.119
California’s Proposition 26120 did not amend these procedural requirements, nor did it amend
the definitions of “general tax” and “special tax.” (Proposition 26 broadened the overall
definition of “tax” so that more government charges would be subject to the procedural
requirements set forth above.)121
Drafting and Administrative Considerations
Imposing a business license tax on businesses that sell sugar-sweetened beverages (or
another specific product) involves many administrative and practical considerations.
When creating a tax, several choices must be made: the amount of the tax and the basis of the
tax (i.e., flat rate or based on gross receipts from sales of sugar-sweetened beverages);
defining the beverages subject to the tax and exceptions; and whether to specifically earmark
the proceeds of the tax for particular uses and how to do so (i.e., whether to create a special
tax and trigger the 2/3-voter-approval requirement). In addition, all businesses that are
subject to the tax must be issued a “business license” or “certificate” by the city or county,
and, as with any tax, collection and enforcement mechanisms must be instituted.
It is important to work within the existing city or county tax structure, and to collaborate with
the agencies that will be responsible for administering the tax law. For example, making it
clear what beverages are subject to the tax will help retailers comply by remitting the proper
amount of tax, and will also aid in enforcement.
Using the Model Documents
This model includes two sets of documents, one for a general business license tax and one for
a special business license tax. We have also included a model resolution for an advisory
measure to accompany a general tax measure. While it is not necessary to accompany the
general tax measure with an advisory measure, it may improve the likelihood of passing the
general tax measure and will also express the electorate’s preference for how the proceeds
are used. Since a special tax is already restricted to a particular purpose, there is no need to
include an advisory measure for a vote on a special tax. We have also included model
findings, which are appropriate for both the general and special tax measures.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 12
The Model Documents for the general business license tax include:
 Model General Tax Ordinance
 Model Election Resolution for General Tax Ordinance
 Model Election Resolution for Advisory Measure
The Model Documents for the special business license tax include:
 Model Special Tax Ordinance
 Model Election Resolution for Special Tax Ordinance
These model documents are intended to be used as templates by completing the blanks as
prompted and making other revisions necessary to fit the enacting city or county’s particular
municipal or county code as well as the city or county’s specific choices, e.g., tax rate, use of
proceeds, etc. Public health advocates will need to determine where this ordinance fits into
the existing municipal or county code in order to fill in the blanks indicating which article
will be amended when adding this ordinance. For example, a particular municipal or county
code may have an article on “Finance” or “Revenues” or even “Business License Taxes.” In
some instances, alternate language is offered or blanks have been left for the language to be
customized to fit the needs of a specific local jurisdiction. In other instances, the options are
mentioned in annotations (“comments”) following the legal provisions.
The model ordinances are drafted with the assumption that the enacting city or county
already has a comprehensive municipal or county code, including definitions (e.g., for
“person”), general provisions pertaining to business license taxes, as well as administrative
remedies that may be used to challenge application of a business license tax.
We have included some specific statutory references as information only, and not as legal
advice. Enacting cities and counties should seek guidance from their city attorney or county
counsel and local election official. We strongly recommend consulting local county election
officials at least four to six months prior to the scheduled election date to determine the
deadlines for adopting the resolution, submitting the city attorney or county counsel’s
impartial analysis, submitting arguments for and against the measure, and any other
applicable requirements.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 13
Model Findings
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 14
Model Findings
The [City Council/Board of Supervisors] of [City/County] of [________________] finds that
obesity and diabetes are urgent and costly public health challenges facing the nation, the
State of [insert state of city/county], and the [City/County] of [________________]. More
than two thirds (69.2 percent) of adults122 and nearly one third (31.8 percent) of youth aged
two to 19 years123 in the United States are overweight or obese.
[Insert state of city/county] ranks [insert rank] on adult obesity rates among states; [insert
percentage] of [insert state of city/county] adults are obese. [Insert state of city/county] ranks
[insert rank] among states on obesity rates for children ages [insert age range]; [insert
percentage] of [insert state of city/county] children ages [insert age range] are obese.
In the [City/County] of [________________], [insert percentage] of adults and [insert
percentage] percent of children were overweight or obese in [insert year]. 29 million people
in the United States have been diagnosed with diabetes,124 and [insert percentage] of [insert
state of city/county] adults have been diagnosed with diabetes.
COMMENT: See www.fasinfat.org/states/ for state-specific data for all 50 states, including adult
and childhood obesity rates and state ranks, and adult diabetes rates and state ranks. See
www.countyhealthrankings.org/ for county-specific data on overweight and obesity. See
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/BRFSS-SMART/index.asp for data on select metropolitan areas.
The [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] further finds the obesity epidemic
disproportionally affects low-income people and people of color, with higher overweight and
obesity rates among low-income people and African-Americans and Latinos.125,126,127,128
The [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] further finds that rates of overweight and
obesity have risen dramatically in the United States in the last 30 years, particularly for
children; obesity rates more than doubled among preschoolers and more than tripled for
children ages six to eleven and adolescents 12 to 19.129,130 Research suggests that childhood
obesity rates may be improving among 2- to 4-year olds in some states.
In [insert state of city/county] obesity among preschoolers [was unchanged/significantly
decreased/significantly increased] – from [insert percentage] to [percentage] – between
2008 and 2011.131 In 2011, [insert percentage] of [insert state of city/county] youth aged 10
to 17 were obese and [insert percentage] of [insert state of city/county] high school students
were obese.
COMMENT: See www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6231a4.htm?s_cid=mm6231a4_w for
state specific data on changes in obesity rates for 2- to 4-year olds between 2008 and 2011. See
www.fasinfat.org/states/ for state-specific data on childhood obesity rates for all 50 states.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 15
The [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] further finds that obese children are at least
twice as likely as non-obese children to become obese adults. Research indicates that the
likelihood of an obese child becoming an obese adult increases with age: obese adolescents
have a greater likelihood of being obese adults, as compared to obese children.132,133,134
Obese adolescents are also at increased risk of becoming severely obese adults.135
The [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] further finds that adults consume as much
as 570 more calories136 and children consume on average 108 more calories per day than 30
years ago.137 Many of these additional calories come from sugar-sweetened beverages
(SSBs).138 On any given day, half of the U.S. population over age two drinks at least one
SSB and 25 percent consume at least 200 calories from SSBs.139
The [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] further finds that consumption of SSBs by
children and adolescents in [insert state of city/county] is similarly high. [Insert percentage]
of 2- to 17-year olds in [insert state of city/county] report drinking at least one SSB every
day. This rate of daily SSB consumption varies significantly by age: [insert percentage] in
adolescents, ages 12 to 17; [insert percentage] of children ages 6 to 11; and [insert
percentage] of children ages 2 to 5. On average, [insert percentage] of children aged 2 to 17
living in [insert the City/County] of [________________] consume at least one SSB per day.
COMMENT: Check with your local or state health department for county level SSB consumption data.
The [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] further finds that SSBs such as non-diet soft
drinks, energy drinks, sweet teas, and sports drinks offer little or no nutritional value but
contain large quantities of added sugars. For example, a 12-ounce can of soda contains the
equivalent of approximately 10 teaspoons of sugar. The American Heart Association
recommends limiting consumption to no more than 36 ounces of SSBs per week.140
The [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] further finds that SSB consumption is
associated with long-term weight gain and increased obesity rates in all age groups.141,142,143,144
Adults who drink one or more sodas per day are 27 percent more likely to be overweight or
obese than those who do not drink soda.145 For each additional can or glass of SSB that
children consumed per day, their chance of becoming obese increased by 60 percent.146
SSB consumption is also associated with increased risk in adults of chronic diseases
including diabetes,147,148,149,150 metabolic syndrome,151 and heart disease.152,153 In children,
SSB consumption is associated with dental caries,154,155 decreased milk consumption,156,157,158
and inadequate intake of nutrients.159,160,161,162
The [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] further finds that obesity-related health
conditions cost the nation billions of dollars in health care costs; adult overweight and
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 16
obesity is estimated to cost as much as $147 billion in direct health care costs nationally, or
almost 10 percent of all medical spending, per year, and continues to rise.163 Childhood
obesity alone is estimated to cost $14 billion annually in direct health expenses, and children
covered by Medicaid account for $3 billion of those expenses.164 Children treated for obesity
are roughly three times more expensive for the health system than the average insured
child.165 In [insert state of city/county], [insert percentage] of medical expenditures—or
[insert dollar amount] in 2009 dollars—were attributable to obesity, including [insert dollar
amount] in Medicare and Medicaid spending.166 Overweight, obesity, and physical inactivity
were estimated in [insert year] to be associated with an additional [insert dollar amount] per
year in lost productivity in [insert state of city/county].
COMMENT: Medical spending estimates are provided in Trogdon JG, Finkelstein EA, Feagan CW,
and Cohen JW. “State- and Payer-Specific Estimates of Annual Medical Expenditures Attributable
to Obesity.” Obesity, 20(1): 214-220, 2012. Available at
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2011.169/pdf. Availability of lost productivity
estimates vary by state.
The [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] further finds that a [general/special]
business license tax on commercial retail sales of SSBs in the [City/County] of
[________________] has the potential to reduce the consumption of SSBs and obesity
prevalence if the tax is substantial and results in a price increase for SSBs.
Include the following two paragraphs if proposing a special tax:
The [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] further finds that a special business license tax on
commercial retail sales of SSBs can also provide a dedicated source of funding for programs and
services that prevent obesity, including programs in communities, schools, and childcare settings
that help make nutritious foods more affordable and accessible and provide safe and healthy
places for people to engage in physical activity.
A special business license tax on commercial retail sales of SSBs can also provide a dedicated
source of funding for preventive medical services, including nutrition and obesity counseling and
screening for obesity-related diseases such as diabetes.
It is the intent of the [City Council/County Board of Supervisors], by proposing the
[general/special] business license tax on commercial retail sales of SSBs, to diminish the
human and economic costs of obesity in the [City/County] of [________________]. This
measure is intended to discourage excessive consumption of SSBs [include if proposing a
special tax: and to create a dedicated revenue source for programs designed to prevent and
treat obesity and reduce the burden of resulting health conditions including diabetes].
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 17
General Business Tax Ordinance
Model General Tax Ordinance
Model Election Resolution for General Tax Ordinance
Model Election Resolution for Advisory Measure to Accompany
General Tax
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 18
Model General Tax Ordinance
The [City Council/Board of Supervisors] of the [City/County] of [________________] does
ordain as follows:
COMMENT: This is introductory boilerplate language that should be adapted to the conventional
form used in the jurisdiction.
SECTION I. Findings.
COMMENT on Findings: A draft ordinance based on this model legislation should include
“findings” of fact that support the purposes of the legislation. The findings section is part of the
ordinance and legislative record, but it usually does not become codified in the municipal code.
The findings contain factual information supporting the need for the law – in this case, documenting
the potential benefits of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. Model findings supporting this
model legislation are included in this document after the introduction. Communities may select
findings from that list to insert here, along with additional findings addressing the specific
conditions in the particular community.
SECTION II. Article [xxx] of the [Municipal/County] Code is hereby amended to add a new
Chapter [xxx] to read as follows:
CHAPTER XXX. BUSINESS LICENSE TAX ON THE SELLING OF SUGARSWEETENED BEVERAGES
Sec. [XX.010]. Definitions.
In addition to the definitions appearing in chapter [xxx] of this code, the following
definitions shall apply to this chapter:
(--) “Caloric Sweetener” means any substance containing calories, suitable for human
consumption, that humans perceive as sweet, and includes, without limitation,
sucrose, fructose, glucose, other sugars, and fruit juice concentrates. “Caloric
Sweetener” excludes Non-Caloric Sweeteners.
(--) “Consumer” means a customer who purchases or receives a sugar-sweetened
beverage for consumption or another purpose other than resale.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 19
(--) “Nonalcoholic Beverage” means any beverage that contains less than one-half of
one (.05) percent alcohol per volume.
(--)
“Non-Caloric Sweetener” means any substance that contains fewer than five
(5) calories per serving, suitable for human consumption, that humans
perceive as sweet, and includes, without limitation, aspartame, saccharin,
stevia, and sucralose.
COMMENT on definition of “Non-Caloric Sweetener”:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the use of terms like “no-calorie” and
“calorie free” as nutrient content claims. This definition of “Non-Caloric Sweetener” aligns
with the FDA’s definition. (21 C.F.R. 101.60.) For a discussion of calorie content claims,
see section 101.60 of the following:
www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/21cfr101_08.html.
(--)
“Sugar-Sweetened Beverage” and “SSB” mean:
COMMENT on definition of “Sugar-Sweetened Beverage”:
The following definition is very broad and intended to include all beverages containing any
amount of added Caloric Sweetener, with specific and limited exceptions. The definition
can be tailored to meet community needs; which beverages to include is a policy decision.
Subparagraph (2) lists some beverages that are exempt from the regulation. Which
beverages to exclude is a policy decision; this list of exemptions can be modified at the
discretion of policymakers and public health professionals.
The default definition of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage includes all beverages with any
amount of added Caloric Sweetener; it is not necessary to specifically exempt beverages
that do not contain added Caloric Sweetener. For example, plain water, coffee, or tea, with
no added Caloric Sweetener do not need to be included in the exemption list. On the other
hand, if you would like to exempt flavored milk, you would need to include language to
effectuate that exemption (see below).
This definition only applies to nonalcoholic beverages, which is defined. As an alternative to
the definition included, the term “nonalcoholic beverages” could be defined to mean those
beverages that are not subject to taxation under the State’s alcoholic beverage tax, if
applicable.
Some jurisdictions may prefer to include a specific list of beverage types subject to
regulation. For a comprehensive list of the types of beverages that may merit regulation,
see Healthy Eating Research’s Recommendations for Healthier Beverages, released in
March 2013 and available at:
www.healthyeatingresearch.org/images/stories/comissioned_papers/her_beverage_recom
mendations.pdf.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 20
(1) Any Nonalcoholic Beverage, carbonate or noncarbonated, which contains any added
Caloric Sweetener, but excludes a beverage which would not be a Sugar-Sweetened
Beverage but for the fact that a consumer adds a Caloric Sweetener to it after
purchase, whether or not that Caloric Sweetener is provided by the Taxpayer.
COMMENT on milk with added Caloric Sweetener:
Some jurisdictions may wish to exempt milk with added Caloric Sweetener, such as
chocolate or strawberry milk, in order to be in line with school policies or for other reasons.
Many public schools serve these milks to students as part of the National School Lunch
program. Under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) updated the meal patterns and nutrition standards for the National School
Lunch and School Breakfast Programs, including the fluid milk requirements. The USDA
allows school to offer unflavored or flavored fat-free milk and unflavored low-fat (one-percent
milk fat or less). [1]
The public health community is divided over whether flavored milk has a net positive impact
on health. Research funded by the dairy industry suggests that flavored milk consumption
among children is associated with greater calcium intake and lower consumption of other
sugar-sweetened beverages, as compared with children who do not drink flavored milk.[2] On
the other hand, the Institute of Medicine recently found that most Americans, except girls
between the ages 9-18, obtain sufficient calcium and vitamin D (both found in milk) from their
diets. This same IOM study indicated that more calcium and vitamin D consumption is not
necessarily better and cautioned against over-consumption of the nutrients.[3] This guidance,
combined with a growing concern about overconsumption of added sugars and calories,
leads some in the public health community to argue against encouraging flavored milk
consumption, especially among children.
Flavored milks are Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, which are as a whole linked to weight gain
and chronic disease. Due to the lack of independent research clearly demonstrating a net
positive health impact of flavored milk consumption, this model treats flavored milk as a
sugar-sweetened beverage that is subject to the tax. As a matter of policy, you may wish to
include an exemption for flavored milk, and if so, consider the following definitions:
“Milk” means any beverage whose principal ingredient by weight is natural liquid milk, which
is secreted by an animal and consumed by humans. For purposes of this definition, “milk”
includes natural milk concentrate and dehydrated natural milk, whether or not reconstituted.
“Milk substitute” means a plant-based beverage in which the principal ingredients by weight
are (i) water and (ii) grains, nuts, legumes, or seeds. For purposes of this definition, “milk
substitutes” include but are not limited to soy milk, almond milk, rice milk, coconut milk, hemp
milk, oat milk, hazelnut milk, flax milk.
______________
[1] See National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program: Nutrition Standards for All Foods Sold in
School as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, 78 Fed. Reg. 39068 (Interim
Final Rule, June 28, 2013) (to be codified at 7 CFR 210.11).
[2] Johnson RK, Frary C, and Wang MQ. “The Nutritional Consequences of Flavored-Milk Consumption
by School-Aged Children and Adolescents in the United States.” Journal of the American Dietetic
Association, 102(6): 853–856, 2002.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 21
[3] Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. Dietary Reference Intakes: Calcium, Vitamin D.
Washington DC: National Academies Press, 2010.
(2) Exceptions. “Sugar-Sweetened Beverage” and “SSB” do not include:
(a) A beverage consisting of one hundred (100) percent natural fruit or vegetable
juice with no added Caloric Sweetener. For purposes of this paragraph, “natural
fruit juice” and “natural vegetable juice” mean the original liquid resulting from
the pressing of fruits or vegetables, or the liquid resulting from the dilution of
dehydrated or concentrated natural fruit juice or natural vegetable juice;
COMMENT on juices:
Whether to exempt diluted juices from regulation is a matter of policy. Jurisdictions
should note the following when deciding whether to exempt diluted juice beverages:
o Many diluted juice beverages do not contain any vitamins or minerals that would
make the beverage healthier. These beverages use the juice as a Caloric
Sweetener.
o Diluted juice beverages may contain added Caloric Sweetener in addition to water
and other ingredients. If some diluted beverages are exempt, jurisdictions should
carefully consider whether diluted juice beverages with Caloric Sweetener should
be regulated. [1]
If diluted juice is exempted from the definition of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage, please
note that those beverages will be exempted from all regulation under this ordinance; in
addition, for consistency, you might also consider excluding fruit juice concentrate from
the definition of Caloric Sweetener.
______________
[1] See the FDA’s food labeling regulations pertaining to beverages containing fruit or vegetable
juice (21 C.F.R. 101.30), available at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2008-title21-vol1/contentdetail.html.
(b) A dietary aid, which means a liquid product manufactured for use as:
(i) An oral nutritional therapy for persons who cannot absorb or metabolize
dietary nutrients from food or beverages;
(ii) A source of necessary nutrition used as a result of a medical condition; or
(iii) An oral electrolyte solution for infants and children formulated to prevent
dehydration due to illness;
(c) Infant formula; and
(d) Sweetened Medication.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 22
COMMENT on threshold amount:
Some jurisdictions may want to exempt lower calorie beverages despite the fact that
they contain caloric sweetener, because they are seen as a healthier alternative to
higher calorie beverages.
If your community wants to exempt lower calorie beverages from regulation even
though they do contain added Caloric Sweetener, the definition of Sugar-Sweetened
Beverage can be amended to exclude beverages that fall under a threshold amount of
added Caloric Sweetener. To do so, add the following to this list of exceptions:
(e) Beverages containing less than [___] grams of added Caloric Sweetener per [__]
ounces of beverage.
If you decide to include such a threshold exemption, the exact threshold amount is a
policy decision for your jurisdiction. A threshold amount of 4.2 grams of added caloric
sweetener per 8 ounces would be the equivalent of one teaspoon of white granular
sugar per 8 ounces. It is also important to consider practical and administrative issues if
you use this exemption: will the businesses in your jurisdiction be able to administer the
policy effectively and efficiently?
(--) “Taxpayer” means any person who is subject to the business license tax imposed by
this chapter.
Sec. [XX.020]. Business License Tax on the Business of Selling Sugar-Sweetened
Beverages.
(a) Every person engaging in or conducting any business in the City that involves
selling, serving, or otherwise providing sugar-sweetened beverages to
consumers shall pay a business license tax of [___] cent(s) per ounce of sugarsweetened beverage sold, served, or otherwise provided in the course of
engaging in or conducting the business in the City. This license tax is in
addition to any other business license tax otherwise owed by the person for
engaging in business in the City. This license tax does not apply to the sale of
sugar-sweetened beverages at wholesale.
COMMENT on amount of tax: The amount of the tax is a policy decision for
legislators. This model includes a tax per ounce of sugar-sweetened beverage sold.
Alternatively, the tax could be calculated based on the exact amount of sugar in the
beverage. For more information on determining the amount of the tax, please refer to
the “Comment on Imposition of Tax” in section “__-5” of ChangeLab Solutions’ Model
Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Legislation, available at
www.changelabsolutions.org/publications/ssb-model-tax-legislation.
(b) For the purposes of this chapter, a person sells, serves, or provides a sugar-
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 23
sweetened beverage when the person:
(1) Sells a sugar-sweetened beverage to a consumer, including consumer selfservice, as part of the conduct of a business;
(2) Serves a sugar-sweetened beverage to a consumer, including consumer selfservice, as part of the conduct of a business;
(3) Dispenses or allows a consumer to obtain a sugar-sweetened beverage from
a vending machine or similar device, as part of the conduct of a business; or
(4) Permits a consumer to remove a sugar-sweetened beverage from the
premises of the business, as part of the conduct of a business.
Sec. [XX.030]. Exceptions.
The tax imposed by Section [XX.020] shall not apply to:
(a) Any person who is not subject to taxation by the [City/County] under the laws of
the United States or the State of California.
(b) Any person under the age of 18 who is operating a business with fewer than
$500 in annual gross receipts.
Sec. [XX.040]. Collection.
(a) The tax imposed by section [XX.020] shall be due and payable when and as
provided in chapter [___] of this code for other business license taxes due from
a taxpayer and shall be calculated based upon the volume of sugar-sweetened
beverages sold, served, or provided during the reporting period.
(b) The [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] may by ordinance require one
or more businesses to calculate and pay the tax on a more frequent basis to
ensure the effective enforcement of this chapter. Such an ordinance shall not
constitute an increase of the tax.
Sec. [XX.050]. Enforcement.
(a) Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, the tax imposed by section
[XX.020] shall be administered in the same manner as other taxes imposed
under chapter [____] and, without limitation, taxes imposed under section
[XX.020] shall be subject to the same delinquency penalties, appellate process,
and other enforcement provisions set forth in chapter [___].
(b) The [Finance Director] may prepare and issue regulations interpreting this
chapter to facilitate its enforcement.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 24
Sec. [XX.060]. Use of Proceeds.
The proceeds of the tax imposed by section [XX.020] shall be deposited in the
[City/County]’s general fund and shall be available for any lawful [City/County] purpose.
COMMENT on Use of Proceeds: Expressly stating that the revenues will be “deposited in the
[City/County]’s general fund” and “available for any lawful municipal purpose” is essential to qualify
this measure as a general tax subject to a simple majority vote rather than a special tax requiring a
two-thirds vote. Amending this provision without consulting with your city attorney, county counsel,
or a municipal tax law expert may leave this ordinance vulnerable to legal challenge.
Sec. [XX.070]. Declaration of Purpose.
This chapter is enacted solely to raise revenue for municipal purposes and is not intended for
the purpose of regulation. It shall apply to all persons engaged in business in the
[City/County]. The tax imposed by this chapter is a general tax for purposes of Article XIII C
of the California Constitution.
This chapter does not authorize the conduct of any business or activity in the [City/County],
but merely provides for the taxation of such businesses or activities as they occur.
COMMENT on Declaration of Purpose: This provision is also intended to ensure that this
measure is construed as a general tax, and that it is not a regulation and does not operate as
authorization to conduct sales of SSBs. Amending this provision without consulting with your city
attorney, county counsel, or a municipal tax law expert may leave this ordinance vulnerable to legal
challenge.
Sec. [XX.080]. Not a Sales & Use Tax.
The tax imposed by this chapter is a tax upon the privilege of conducting business within the
[City/County]. It is not a sales tax or use tax or other excise tax on the sale, consumption, or
use of sugar-sweetened beverages.
COMMENT on Sec. [XX.080]: This provision is intended to ensure that this measure is construed
as a general business license tax and not another form of taxation, e.g., sales tax, use tax, or other
excise tax. Amending this provision without consulting with your city attorney, county counsel, or a
municipal tax law expert may leave this ordinance vulnerable to legal challenge.
Section 3. Amendment of Ordinance. To the extent allowed under Article XIII C of the
California Constitution, this Ordinance may be amended by the [City Council/County Board
of Supervisors] without a vote of the people, except that voter approval shall be required for
either of the following: (i) any amendment that increases the amount or rate of tax beyond the
levels authorized by this Ordinance or (ii) any amendment that reduces the tax rate below [___]
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 25
cent(s) per ounce or significantly reduces the base of business activity subject to the tax.
COMMENT on Amendment of Ordinance: Complete the blank as indicated with the proposed
cents-per-ounce tax rate entered for Section XXX.020. Apart from this, amending this provision
without consulting with your city attorney, county counsel, or a municipal tax law expert may leave
this ordinance vulnerable to legal challenge.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance
is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
remaining sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this ordinance shall
nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The People of the [City/County] of [__________]
hereby declare that they would have adopted each section, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sentences,
clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable and, to
that end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.
COMMENT on Severability: Apart from filling in your city or county’s name as indicated, amending
this provision without consulting with your city attorney, county counsel, or a municipal tax law
expert may leave this ordinance vulnerable to legal challenge.
Section 5. Majority Approval; Effective Date. If approved by a majority of those voting on
the ballot measure to enact this Ordinance, it shall be considered as adopted upon the date that
the vote is declared by the [City Council/County Board of Supervisors], and shall go into effect
ten (10) days after that date.
COMMENT on Effective Date: Cal. Elections Code §§ 9217, 9122 provide that an ordinance
passed by a majority of voters “shall be considered as adopted upon the date that the vote is
declared by the legislative body [e.g., a city council or county board of supervisors], and shall go
into effect 10 days after that date.”
Section 6. California Environmental Quality Act Requirements. This Ordinance is
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code
section 21000 et seq., because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
enactment of this Ordinance would have a significant effect on the environment (Pub.
Resources Code § 21065; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15378(b)(4), 15061(b)(3)) and because the
Ordinance involves the approval of government revenues to fund existing services (Pub.
Resources Code § 21080, subd. (b)(8); CEQA Guidelines § 15273(a)(4)).
COMMENT on CEQA Requirements: Amending this provision without consulting with your city
attorney, county counsel, or a CEQA expert may leave this ordinance vulnerable to legal challenge.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 26
Model Election Resolution for General Tax Ordinance
RESOLUTION NO. ___________
COMMENT: This model resolution should be used for placing a measure on the ballot to enact the
General Tax Ordinance. It must be approved at least 88 days before the date of the election. (Cal.
Elections Code § 9222.) Election procedures, however, vary from county to county: be sure to
check with local county election officials well in advance.
A RESOLUTION OF THE [CITY COUNCIL/BOARD OF SUPERVISORS] OF THE
[CITY/COUNTY] OF [_______________], CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING [_______],
20[__] AS THE DATE FOR A [MUNICIPAL/COUNTY] ELECTION ON A
PROPOSED BALLOT MEASURE SEEKING VOTER APPROVAL OF A GENERAL
BUSINESS LICENSE TAX ON COMMERCIAL RETAIL SALE OF SUGARSWEETENED BEVERAGES IN THE [CITY/COUNTY], ESTABLISHING POLICIES
AND PROCEDURES IN CONNECTION WITH THE ELECTION, AND
REQUESTING THAT THE CHIEF ELECTIONS OFFICIAL FOR THE COUNTY
OF [_______________________] CONDUCT THE ELECTION.
WHEREAS, the [City/County] of [______________] imposes business license taxes upon
businesses in the [City/County]; and
WHEREAS, the [City/County]’s business license taxes are imposed to raise revenue and not
for regulation; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by
reference (the “Ordinance”) would impose a business license tax on persons engaged in the
commercial retail sale of sugar-sweetened beverages in the [City/County]; and
COMMENT: Attach the completed General Tax Ordinance as Exhibit A.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section [9222/9140] of the California Elections Code the [City
Council/County Board of Supervisors] may submit the Ordinance directly to the voters; and
WHEREAS, following notice and public hearing on [_______], 20[__], the [City
Council/Board of Supervisors] adopted this Resolution to order a general [municipal/county]
election on the Ordinance for [_______], 20[__] (the “Election”), at which it will submit to
the qualified voters in the [City/County] a measure that, if approved, would enact the
Ordinance and thereby establish a business license tax on the commercial retail sale of sugarsweetened beverages in the [City/County].
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 27
COMMENT: We strongly recommend consulting local county election officials at least 4-6 months
prior to the scheduled election date to determine the deadlines for adopting the resolution,
submitting the city attorney or county counsel’s impartial analysis, submitting arguments for and
against the measure, and any other applicable requirements.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the [City Council/Board of Supervisors] of
the [City/County] of [_________] that:
1. The [City Council/Board of Supervisors] hereby orders the Election and submits the
attached Ordinance to the qualified voters of the [City/County] as a ballot measure to
approve a general business license tax on commercial retail sales of sugar-sweetened
beverages in the [City/County] (the “Measure”). This Resolution constitutes the order
of the [City Council/Board of Supervisors] to call the Election on [_______], 20[__].
2. The proposed type of tax, the rate of the tax, and the method of collection of the tax is
set forth in the Ordinance, the full text of which must be printed and made available
to voters pursuant to Section [9223/9119] of the California Elections Code.
3. The ballot language for the proposed Measure shall be submitted for a “Yes” or “No”
vote as follows:
“Shall an ordinance be adopted to impose a business license tax of [____]
cent(s) per ounce on persons engaged in the commercial retail sale of sugarsweetened beverages in the [City/County]?”
4. Pursuant to Section [9217/9122] of the California Elections Code, if a majority of
qualified voters of the [City/County] voting on the Measure vote in favor of the
Measure, the Ordinance will become a valid and binding ordinance of the
[City/County].
5. The [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] requests that the [Board of
Supervisors and] Chief Election Official for [___________] County (“County”)
conduct the Election and consolidate it with any and all other elections to be held in
the County.
6. The [City/County] Clerk is authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this
Resolution with the [Board of Supervisors and] Chief Election Official for the
County.
7. The [City Attorney/County Counsel] is authorized and directed to prepare an impartial
analysis of the measure, as required by Section [9280/9160] of the California
Elections Code.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 28
8. The [Mayor/President of the Board of Supervisors] is authorized to select two
members of the [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] to prepare a written
argument, not to exceed 300 words, in favor of the Measure on behalf of the [City
Council/County Board of Supervisors], as specified in Section [9282/9162] of the
California Elections Code. At the discretion of the [Mayor/President of the County
Board of Supervisors], the argument may also be signed by members of the [City
Council/County Board of Supervisors] or citizen associations or individual voters,
subject to the limitations in Sections [9282 and 9283/9162 and 9164] of the
California Elections Code. If an argument is filed against the Measure, the
[Mayor/President of the Board of Supervisors] is also authorized to select two
members of the [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] to prepare a written
rebuttal argument, not to exceed 250 words, which also may be signed by members of
the [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] or citizen associations or individual
voters, subject to the limitations in Sections [9282 and 9283/9162 and 9164] of the
California Elections Code.
9. Arguments against the Measure may not exceed 300 words and must be submitted to
the [City/County]’s elections official in full compliance with Sections [9282 and
9283/9162 and 9164] of the California Elections Code, no later than [_______],
20[__].
10. Rebuttal arguments may not exceed 250 words and must be submitted to the
[City/County]’s elections official in the manner specified in Section [9285/9167] of
the California Elections Code.
11. The [City/County] Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the Election on
the Measure to be posted, published, printed and made available to voters as required
by law.
12. The [City/County] Clerk is authorized and directed to take all other steps necessary to
place the Measure on the ballot in the manner required by law for enactment of a
general tax measure.
13. The [City Manager/County Administrator] is authorized and directed to appropriate
the funds necessary to pay for the [City/County]’s cost of placing the Measure on the
Election ballot.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 29
The [City Council/Board of Supervisors] of the [City/County] of [____________________]
duly adopted this Resolution at a meeting held on [_______], 20[__], by the following vote:
AYES:
[Council Members/Supervisors]:
NOES:
[Council Members/Supervisors]:
ABSTAIN:
[Council Members/Supervisors]:
ABSENT:
[Council Members/Supervisors]:
[Mayor/President of the Board of Supervisors]
ATTEST:
[City/County] Clerk
State of California
}
County of __________________
:ss.
City of ___________ _________
}
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. ______, which was passed and
adopted by the [City Council/Board of Supervisors] of the [City/County] of ______________
at its regular/special meeting held on _____________, 20___.
[City/County] Clerk
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 30
Model Election Resolution for Advisory Measure to Accompany
General Tax
RESOLUTION NO. ___________
COMMENT: This model resolution should be used for placing a measure on the ballot to enact the
General Tax Ordinance. It must be approved at least 88 days before the date of the election. (Cal.
Elections Code § 9222.) Election procedures, however, vary from county to county: be sure to
check with local county election officials well in advance.
A RESOLUTION OF THE [CITY COUNCIL/BOARD OF SUPERVISORS] OF THE
[CITY/COUNTY] OF [_______________], CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING [_______],
20[__] AS THE DATE FOR A [MUNICIPAL/COUNTY] ELECTION ON AN
ADVISORY MEASURE REGARDING A PROPOSED GENERAL BUSINESS
LICENSE TAX ON COMMERCIAL RETAIL SALE OF SUGAR-SWEETENED
BEVERAGES IN THE [CITY/COUNTY], ESTABLISHING POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES IN CONNECTION WITH THE ELECTION, AND REQUESTING
THAT THE CHIEF ELECTIONS OFFICIAL FOR THE COUNTY OF
[____________________] CONDUCT THE ELECTION.
WHEREAS, the [City/County] of [_____________] will hold a [municipal/county] election
on [_______], 20[__] (the “Election”); and
COMMENT: We strongly recommend consulting local county election officials at least 4-6 months
prior to the scheduled election date to determine the deadlines for adopting the resolution,
submitting the city attorney or county counsel’s impartial analysis, submitting arguments for and
against the measure, and any other applicable requirements.
WHEREAS, the [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] has submitted to the voters at
the Election an ordinance to impose a general business license tax on persons engaged in the
commercial retail sale of sugar-sweetened beverages in the [City/County] (the “SugarSweetened Beverage Tax”); and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance would impose a general tax to be placed in the general fund of
the [City/County], and the proceeds of the Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax may be used for
any lawful purpose of the [City/County]; and
WHEREAS, the [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] desires to submit an advisory
question to voters in the [City/County] regarding use of the Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax
proceeds; and
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 31
WHEREAS, the [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] desires to call an advisory
election to submit an advisory question to qualified voters in the [City/County] regarding use
of the Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax proceeds, and to request that the advisory election be
consolidated with the Election.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the [City Council/Board of Supervisors] of
the [City/County] of [__________________________] that:
1. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9603, the [City Council/County Board of
Supervisors] hereby orders an advisory election to be held on [_______], 20[__] (the
“Advisory Election”).
COMMENT: An advisory measure is often used to encourage a favorable vote on the
companion General Tax Ordinance because it implies that if passed, the specified uses may
be prioritized over other general governmental expenditures, while avoiding the two-thirds
vote requirement of a special tax.
2. The [City/County] Clerk is authorized and directed to submit the following question
(the “Advisory Measure”) to the qualified voters of the [City/County] for the Advisory
Election:
“ADVISORY VOTE ONLY: Should the proceeds of any general business
license tax on the commercial retail sale of sugar-sweetened beverages in the
[City/County] be used to provide funding for: [insert statement of intended
purposes, for example: “after school sports programs; providing, maintaining
or improving playing fields; and to support prevention and treatment of
diabetes and obesity in the [City/County]”]?
COMMENT: The model language identifying the recommended uses of the general tax
proceeds are provided only as an example. Any number of proposed uses can be
designated, e.g., school nutrition and fitness programs, recreation center fitness
programs, etc. Determining the proposed uses is a matter of policy. The important point
is to make it clear that the advisory measure is limited to eliciting a preference as to how
the proceeds should be used, and will not operate to legally restrict use of the proceeds
for any particular purpose.
3. The [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] requests that [the Board of
Supervisors and] the Chief Election Official for [_____________] County (“County”)
conduct the Advisory Election and consolidate it with the election to be held on
[_______], 20[__].
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 32
4. The [City/County] Clerk is authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this
Resolution with [the Board of Supervisors and] the Chief Election Official for the
County.
5. The [City/County] Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the Election on
the Advisory Measure to be posted, published, printed and made available to voters as
required by law.
6. The [City/County] Clerk is authorized and directed to take all other steps necessary to
place the Advisory Measure on the ballot in the manner required by law.
7. The [City Manager/County Administrator] is authorized and directed to appropriate the
funds necessary to pay for the [City/County]’s cost of placing the Advisory Measure
on the Election ballot.
The [City Council/Board of Supervisors] of the [City/County] of [____________________]
duly adopted this Resolution at a meeting held on [_______], 20[__], by the following vote:
AYES:
[Council Members/Supervisors]:
NOES:
[Council Members/Supervisors]:
ABSTAIN:
[Council Members/Supervisors]:
ABSENT:
[Council Members/Supervisors]:
[Mayor/President of the Board of Supervisors]
ATTEST:
[City/County] Clerk
State of California
}
County of __________________
:ss.
City of ___________ _________
}
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 33
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. ______, which was passed and
adopted by the [City Council/Board of Supervisors] of the [City/County] of ______________
at its regular/special meeting held on _____________, 20___.
[City/County] Clerk
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 34
Special Business Tax Ordinance
Model Special Tax Ordinance
Model Election Resolution for Special Tax Ordinance
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 35
Model Special Tax Ordinance
The [City Council/Board of Supervisors] of the [City/County] of [_____________] does
ordain as follows:
COMMENT: This is introductory boilerplate language that should be adapted to the conventional
form used in the jurisdiction.
SECTION I. Findings.
COMMENT on Findings: A draft ordinance based on this model legislation should include
“findings” of fact that support the purposes of the legislation. The findings section is part of the
ordinance and legislative record, but it usually does not become codified in the municipal code.
The findings contain factual information supporting the need for the law – in this case, documenting
the potential benefits of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. Model findings supporting this
model legislation are included in this document after the introduction. Communities may select
findings from that list to insert here, along with additional findings addressing the specific
conditions in the particular community.
SECTION II. Article [xxx] of the [Municipal/County] Code is hereby amended to add a new
Chapter [xxx] to read as follows:
CHAPTER XXX BUSINESS LICENSE TAX ON THE SELLING OF SUGARSWEETENED BEVERAGES
Sec. [XX.010]. Definitions.
In addition to the definitions appearing in chapter [xxx] of this code, the following
definitions shall apply to this chapter:
(--) “Caloric Sweetener” means any substance containing calories, suitable for human
consumption, that humans perceive as sweet, and includes, without limitation,
sucrose, fructose, glucose, other sugars, and fruit juice concentrates. “Caloric
Sweetener” excludes Non-Caloric Sweeteners.
(--) “Consumer” means a customer who purchases or receives a sugar-sweetened
beverage for consumption or another purpose other than resale.
(--) “Nonalcoholic Beverage” means any beverage that contains less than one-half of
one (.05) percent alcohol per volume.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 36
(--)
“Non-Caloric Sweetener” means any substance that contains fewer than five
(5) calories per serving, suitable for human consumption, that humans
perceive as sweet, and includes, without limitation, aspartame, saccharin,
stevia, and sucralose.
COMMENT on definition of “Non-Caloric Sweetener”: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) regulates the use of terms like “no-calorie” and “calorie free” as
nutrient content claims. This definition of “Non-Caloric Sweetener” aligns with the FDA’s
definition. (21 C.F.R. 101.60.) For a discussion of calorie content claims, see section
101.60 of the following: www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/21cfr101_08.html.
(--)
“Sugar-Sweetened beverage” and “SSB” mean:
COMMENT on definition of “Sugar-Sweetened Beverage”:
The following definition is very broad and intended to include all beverages containing any
amount of added Caloric Sweetener, with specific and limited exceptions. The definition
can be tailored to meet community needs; which beverages to include is a policy decision.
Subparagraph (2) lists some beverages that are exempt from the regulation. Which
beverages to exclude is a policy decision; this list of exemptions can be modified at the
discretion of policymakers and public health professionals.
The default definition of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage includes all beverages with any
amount of added Caloric Sweetener; it is not necessary to specifically exempt beverages
that do not contain added Caloric Sweetener. For example, plain water, coffee, or tea, with
no added Caloric Sweetener do not need to be included in the exemption list. On the other
hand, if you would like to exempt flavored milk, you would need to include language to
effectuate that exemption (see below).
This definition only applies to nonalcoholic beverages, which is defined. As an alternative to
the definition included, the term “nonalcoholic beverages” could be defined to mean those
beverages that are not subject to taxation under the State’s alcoholic beverage tax, if
applicable.
Some jurisdictions may prefer to include a specific list of beverage types subject to
regulation. For a comprehensive list of the types of beverages that may merit regulation,
see Healthy Eating Research’s Recommendations for Healthier Beverages, released in
March 2013 and available at:
www.healthyeatingresearch.org/images/stories/comissioned_papers/her_beverage_recom
mendations.pdf.
(1) Any Nonalcoholic Beverage, carbonate or noncarbonated, which contains any
added Caloric Sweetener, but excludes a beverage which would not be a SugarSweetened Beverage but for the fact that a consumer adds a Caloric Sweetener to
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 37
it after purchase, whether or not that Caloric Sweetener is provided by the
Taxpayer.
COMMENT on milk with added Caloric Sweetener:
Some jurisdictions may wish to exempt milk with added Caloric Sweetener, such as
chocolate or strawberry milk, in order to be in line with school policies or for other
reasons.
Many public schools serve these milks to students as part of the National School Lunch
program. Under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) updated the meal patterns and nutrition standards for the National
School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs, including the fluid milk requirements. The
USDA allows school to offer unflavored or flavored fat-free milk and unflavored low-fat
(one-percent milk fat or less). [1]
The public health community is divided over whether flavored milk has a net positive
impact on health. Research funded by the dairy industry suggests that flavored milk
consumption among children is associated with greater calcium intake and lower
consumption of other sugar-sweetened beverages, as compared with children who do not
drink flavored milk.[2] On the other hand, the Institute of Medicine recently found that
most Americans, except girls between the ages 9-18, obtain sufficient calcium and
vitamin D (both found in milk) from their diets. This same IOM study indicated that more
calcium and vitamin D consumption is not necessarily better and cautioned against overconsumption of the nutrients.[3] This guidance, combined with a growing concern about
overconsumption of added sugars and calories, leads some in the public health
community to argue against encouraging flavored milk consumption, especially among
children.
Flavored milks are Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, which are as a whole linked to weight
gain and chronic disease. Due to the lack of independent research clearly demonstrating
a net positive health impact of flavored milk consumption, this model treats flavored milk
as a
sugar-sweetened beverage that is subject to the tax. As a matter of policy, you may wish
to include an exemption for flavored milk, and if so, consider the following definitions:
“Milk” means any beverage whose principal ingredient by weight is natural liquid milk,
which is secreted by an animal and consumed by humans. For purposes of this definition,
“milk” includes natural milk concentrate and dehydrated natural milk, whether or not
reconstituted.
“Milk substitute” means a plant-based beverage in which the principal ingredients by
weight are (i) water and (ii) grains, nuts, legumes, or seeds. For purposes of this
definition, “milk substitutes” include but are not limited to soy milk, almond milk, rice milk,
coconut milk, hemp milk, oat milk, hazelnut milk, flax milk.
___________
[1] See National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program: Nutrition Standards for All Foods
Sold in School as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, 78 Fed. Reg. 39068
(Interim Final Rule, June 28, 2013) (to be codified at 7 CFR 210.11).
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 38
[2] Johnson RK, Frary C, and Wang MQ. “The Nutritional Consequences of Flavored-Milk
Consumption by School-Aged Children and Adolescents in the United States.” Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, 102(6): 853–856, 2002.
[3] Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. Dietary Reference Intakes: Calcium, Vitamin D.
Washington DC: National Academies Press, 2010.
(2) Exceptions. “Sugar-Sweetened Beverage” and “SSB” do not include:
(a) A beverage consisting of one hundred (100) percent natural fruit or vegetable
juice with no added Caloric Sweetener. For purposes of this paragraph, “natural
fruit juice” and “natural vegetable juice” mean the original liquid resulting from
the pressing of fruits or vegetables, or the liquid resulting from the dilution of
dehydrated or concentrated natural fruit juice or natural vegetable juice;
COMMENT on juices:
Whether to exempt diluted juices from regulation is a matter of policy. Jurisdictions
should note the following when deciding whether to exempt diluted juice beverages:
o Many diluted juice beverages do not contain any vitamins or minerals that would
make the beverage healthier. These beverages use the juice as a Caloric
Sweetener.
o Diluted juice beverages may contain added Caloric Sweetener in addition to water
and other ingredients. If some diluted beverages are exempt, jurisdictions should
carefully consider whether diluted juice beverages with Caloric Sweetener should
be regulated.[1]
If diluted juice is exempted from the definition of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage, please
note that those beverages will be exempted from all regulation under this ordinance; in
addition, for consistency, you might also consider excluding fruit juice concentrate from
the definition of Caloric Sweetener.
______________
[1] See the FDA’s food labeling regulations pertaining to beverages containing fruit or vegetable
juice (21 C.F.R. 101.30), available at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2008-title21-vol1/contentdetail.html.
(b) A dietary aid, which means a liquid product manufactured for use as:
(i) An oral nutritional therapy for persons who cannot absorb or metabolize
dietary nutrients from food or beverages;
(ii) A source of necessary nutrition used as a result of a medical condition; or
(iii) An oral electrolyte solution for infants and children formulated to prevent
dehydration due to illness;
(c) Infant formula; and
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 39
(d) Sweetened Medication.
COMMENT on threshold amount:
Some jurisdictions may want to exempt lower calorie beverages despite the fact that
they contain caloric sweetener, because they are seen as a healthier alternative to
higher calorie beverages.
If your community wants to exempt lower calorie beverages from regulation even
though they do contain added Caloric Sweetener, the definition of Sugar-Sweetened
Beverage can be amended to exclude beverages that fall under a threshold amount of
added Caloric Sweetener. To do so, add the following to this list of exceptions:
(e) Beverages containing less than [___] grams of added Caloric Sweetener per [__]
ounces of beverage.
If you decide to include such a threshold exemption, the exact threshold amount is a
policy decision for your jurisdiction. A threshold amount of 4.2 grams of added caloric
sweetener per 8 ounces would be the equivalent of one teaspoon of white granular
sugar per 8 ounces. It is also important to consider practical and administrative issues if
you use this exemption: will the businesses in your jurisdiction be able to administer the
policy effectively and efficiently?
(--) “Taxpayer” means any person who is subject to the business license tax imposed by
this chapter.
Sec. [XX.020]. Business License Tax on the Business of Selling Sugar-Sweetened
Beverages.
(a) Every person engaging in or conducting any business in the [City/County] that
involves selling, serving, or otherwise providing sugar-sweetened beverages to
consumers shall pay a business license tax of [___] cent(s) per ounce of sugarsweetened beverage sold, served, or otherwise provided in the course of
engaging in or conducting the business in the [City/County]. This license tax is
in addition to any other business license tax otherwise owed by the person for
engaging in business in the [City/County]. This license tax does not apply to the
sale of sugar-sweetened beverages at wholesale.
COMMENT on amount of tax: The amount of the tax is a policy decision for
legislators. This model includes a tax per ounce of sugar-sweetened beverage sold.
Alternatively, the tax could be calculated based on the exact amount of sugar in the
beverage. For more information on determining the amount of the tax, please refer to
the “Comment on Imposition of Tax” in section “__-5” of ChangeLab Solutions’ Model
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 40
Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Legislation, available at
www.changelabsolutions.org/publications/ssb-model-tax-legislation.
(b) For the purposes of this chapter, a person sells, serves, or provides a sugarsweetened beverage when the person:
(1) Sells a sugar-sweetened beverage to a consumer, including consumer selfservice, as part of the conduct of a business;
(2) Serves a sugar-sweetened beverage to a consumer, including consumer selfservice, as part of the conduct of a business;
(3) Dispenses or allows a consumer to obtain a sugar-sweetened beverage from
a vending machine or similar device, as part of the conduct of a business; or
(4) Permits a consumer to remove a sugar-sweetened beverage from the
premises of the business, as part of the conduct of a business.
Sec. [XX.030]. Exceptions.
The tax imposed by Section [XX.020] shall not apply to:
(a) Any person who is not subject to taxation by the [City/County] under the laws of
the United States or the State of California.
(b) Any person under the age of 18 who is operating a business with fewer than
$500 in annual gross receipts.
Sec. [XX.040]. Collection.
(a) The tax imposed by section [XX.020] shall be due and payable when and as
provided in chapter [xx] of this code for other business license taxes due from a
taxpayer and shall be calculated based upon the volume of sugar-sweetened
beverages sold, served, or provided during the reporting period.
(b) The [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] may by ordinance require one
or more businesses to calculate and pay the tax on a more frequent basis to
ensure the effective enforcement of this chapter. Such an ordinance shall not
constitute an increase of the tax.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 41
Sec. [XX.050]. Enforcement.
(a) Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, the tax imposed by section
[XX.020] shall be administered in the same manner as other taxes imposed
under chapter [xx] and, without limitation, taxes imposed under section
[XX.020] shall be subject to the same delinquency penalties, appellate process,
and other enforcement provisions set forth in chapter [xx].
(b) The [Finance Director] may prepare and issue regulations interpreting this
chapter to facilitate its enforcement.
Sec. [XX.060]. Use of Proceeds.
COMMENT on Use of Proceeds: Expressly stating that the revenues will be “deposited in a
special account restricted to the” specific purposes stated in the next section indicates that this is a
special tax, the proceeds of which may only be used for the stated purposes. Amending this
provision without consulting with your city attorney, county counsel, or a municipal tax law expert
may leave this ordinance vulnerable to legal challenge.
(a) The proceeds of the tax imposed by section [XX.020] shall be deposited in a
special account restricted to expenditures for the specific purpose[s] stated in
section [XX.070].
(b) The [Director of Finance] shall file an annual report with the [City
Council/County Board of Supervisors] containing the amount of funds collected
and expended from the special account, and the status of any project funded
with that account, in compliance with California Government Code section
50075.3.
Sec. [XX.070]. Declaration of Purpose.
COMMENT on Declaration of Purpose : A special tax measure must include a statement
indicating the specific purposes of the special tax. (Cal. Government Code § 50075.1.) The first
paragraph should be completed to state the intended purposes for the special tax. We have
provided sample language by way of an example only. It is a policy matter to determine what the
funds may be used for; an enacting city or county may identify its own particular purpose for the
special tax revenues. The stated purpose should be clear, direct, and unambiguous and used
consistently throughout the Special Tax Ordinance and accompanying Election Resolution.
The other two paragraphs establish that this is not a regulation and does not operate as an
authorization to conduct sales of SSBs.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 42
The purpose of this chapter is [Insert statement of intended purposes that is as specific and
unambiguous as possible, for example: “to provide funding to promote health and to prevent
and treat obesity and diabetes in the [City/County].”].
This chapter is enacted solely to raise revenue for the stated purpose and is not intended for
the purpose of regulation. It shall apply to all persons engaged in business in the
[City/County]. The tax imposed by this chapter is a special tax for purposes of Article XIII C
of the California Constitution.
This chapter does not authorize the conduct of any business or activity in the [City/County],
but merely provides for the taxation of such businesses or activities as they occur.
Sec. [XX.080]. Not a Sales & Use Tax.
The tax imposed by this chapter is a tax upon the privilege of conducting business within the
[City/County]. It is not a sales tax or use tax or other excise tax on the sale, consumption, or
use of sugar-sweetened beverages.
COMMENT on Sec. [XX.080]: This provision is intended to ensure that this measure is construed
as a general business license tax and not another form of taxation, e.g., sales tax, use tax, or other
excise tax. Amending this provision without consulting with your city attorney, county counsel, or a
municipal tax law expert may leave this ordinance vulnerable to legal challenge.
Section 3. Amendment of Ordinance. To the extent allowed under Article XIII C of the
California Constitution, this Ordinance may be amended by the [City Council/County Board
of Supervisors] without a vote of the people, except that voter approval shall be required for
either of the following: (i) any amendment that increases the amount or rate of tax beyond the
levels authorized by this Ordinance; (ii) any amendment that reduces the tax rate below [___]
cent(s) per ounce or significantly reduces the base of business activity subject to the tax; or
(iii) any amendment to the statement of purpose in Section [XX.070].
COMMENT on Amendment of Ordinance: Complete the blank as indicated with the proposed
cents-per-ounce tax rate entered for Section 020. Apart from this, amending this provision without
consulting with your city attorney, county counsel, or a municipal tax law expert may leave this
ordinance vulnerable to legal challenge.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance
is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
remaining sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this ordinance shall
nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The People of the [City/County] of [__________]
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 43
hereby declare that they would have adopted each section, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sentences,
clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable and, to
that end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.
COMMENT on Severability: Apart from filling in your city or county’s name as indicated,
amending this provision without consulting with your city attorney, county counsel, or a municipal
tax law expert may leave this ordinance vulnerable to legal challenge.
Section 5. Majority Approval; Effective Date. If approved by a two-thirds majority of
those voting on the ballot measure to enact this Ordinance, it shall be considered as adopted
upon the date that the vote is declared by the [City Council/County Board of Supervisors],
and shall go into effect ten (10) days after that date.
COMMENT on Effective Date: Cal. Elections Code §§ 9217, 9122 provide that an ordinance
passed by a majority of voters voting on it “shall be considered as adopted upon the date that the
vote is declared by the legislative body [e.g., a City Council/County Board of Supervisors], and
shall go into effect 10 days after that date.” As discussed above, passage of a special business
license tax requires a two-thirds vote rather than a simple majority.
Section 6. California Environmental Quality Act Requirements. This Ordinance is
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code
section 21000 et seq., because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
enactment of this Ordinance would have a significant effect on the environment (Pub.
Resources Code § 21065; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15378(b)(4), 15061(b)(3)) and because the
Ordinance involves the approval of government revenues to fund existing services (Pub.
Resources Code § 21080, subd. (b)(8); CEQA Guidelines § 15273(a)(4)).
COMMENT ON CEQA REQUIREMENTS: Amending this provision without consulting with your
city attorney, county counsel, or a CEQA expert may leave this ordinance vulnerable to legal
challenge.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 44
Model Election Resolution for Special Tax Ordinance
RESOLUTION NO. ___________
COMMENT: This model resolution should be used for placing a measure on the ballot to enact the
Special Tax Ordinance. It must be approved at least 88 days before the date of the election.
(Elections Code § 9222.) Election procedures, however, vary from county to county: be sure to
check with local county election officials well in advance.
A RESOLUTION OF THE [CITY COUNCIL/BOARD OF SUPERVISORS] OF THE
[CITY/COUNTY] OF [_______________], CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING [_______],
20[__] AS THE DATE FOR A [MUNICIPAL/COUNTY] ELECTION ON A
PROPOSED BALLOT MEASURE SEEKING VOTER APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL
BUSINESS LICENSE TAX ON COMMERCIAL RETAIL SALE OF SUGARSWEETENED BEVERAGES IN THE [CITY/COUNTY], ESTABLISHING POLICIES
AND PROCEDURES IN CONNECTION WITH THE ELECTION, AND
REQUESTING THAT THE CHIEF ELECTIONS OFFICIAL FOR THE COUNTY
OF [_______________________] CONDUCT THE ELECTION.
WHEREAS, the [City/County] of [______________] imposes business license taxes upon
businesses in the [City/County]; and
WHEREAS, the [City/County]’s business license taxes are imposed to raise revenue and not
for regulation; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by
reference (the “Ordinance”) would impose a business license tax on persons engaged in the
commercial retail sale of sugar-sweetened beverages in the [City/County] (the “Special
Tax”); and
COMMENT: Attach the completed Special Tax Ordinance as Exhibit A.
WHEREAS, if approved by the voters, the revenues from the Special Tax will be used
exclusively [Insert statement of intended purposes, for example: “to provide funding to
promote health and to prevent and treat obesity and diabetes in the [City/County].”]; and
COMMENT: A special tax measure must include a statement indicating the specific purposes of
the special tax. (Cal. Government Code § 50075.1.) This recital should mirror the Declaration of
Purpose in Section 070 of the Special Tax Ordinance. We have provided sample language by way
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 45
of an example only. It is a policy matter to determine what the funds may be used for; an enacting
city or county may identify its own particular purpose for the special tax revenues. The stated
purpose should be clear, direct, and unambiguous, and used consistently throughout the
Election Resolution and the accompanying Special Tax Ordinance.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section [9222/9140] of the California Elections Code the [City
Council/County Board of Supervisors] may submit the Ordinance directly to the voters; and
WHEREAS, following notice and public hearing on [_______], 20[__], the [City
Council/County Board of Supervisors] adopted this Resolution to order a general
[municipal/county] election on the Ordinance for [_______], 20[__] (the “Election”), at
which it will submit to the qualified voters in the [City/County], a measure that, if approved,
would enact the Ordinance and thereby establish a business license tax on the commercial
retail sale of sugar-sweetened beverages in the [City/County].
COMMENT: We strongly recommend consulting local county election officials at least 4-6 months
prior to the scheduled election date to determine the deadlines for adopting the resolution,
submitting the city attorney or county counsel’s impartial analysis, submitting arguments for and
against the measure, and any other applicable requirements.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the [City Council/Board of Supervisors] of
the [City/County] of [_______________] that:
1. The [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] hereby orders the Election and
submits the attached Ordinance to the qualified voters of the [City/County] as a ballot
measure to approve a special business license tax on commercial retail sales of sugarsweetened beverages in the [City/County] (the “Measure”). This Resolution
constitutes the order of the [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] to call the
Election on [_______], 20[__].
2. The proposed type of tax, the rate of the tax, and the method of collection of the tax is
set forth in the Ordinance, the full text of which must be printed and made available
to voters pursuant to Section 9223 of the California Elections Code.
3. The ballot language for the proposed Measure shall be submitted for a “Yes” or “No”
vote as follows:
“Shall an ordinance be adopted to impose a business license tax of [__]
cent(s) per ounce on the commercial retail sale of sugar-sweetened beverages
in the [City/County] to provide funding [Insert statement of intended purposes,
for example: “to promote health and to prevent and treat obesity and diabetes in
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 46
the [City/County].”]?”
COMMENT: The statement of intended purposes in the ballot question should mirror the
fourth recital above and the Declaration of Purpose in Section 070 of the Special Tax
Ordinance. We have provided sample language by way of an example only.
4. Pursuant to Article XIII C of the California Constitution, if two-thirds of qualified
voters of the [City/County] voting on the Measure vote in favor of the Measure, the
Ordinance will become a valid and binding ordinance of the [City/County].
5. The [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] requests that the [Board of
Supervisors and] Chief Election Official for [______________________] County
(“County”) conduct the Election and consolidate it with any and all other elections to
be held in the County.
6. The [City/County] Clerk is authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this
Resolution with the Board of Supervisors and Chief Election Official for the County.
7. The [City Attorney/County Counsel] is authorized and directed to prepare an impartial
analysis of the measure, as required by Section [9280/9160] of the California
Elections Code.
8. The [Mayor/President of the Board of Supervisors] is authorized to select two
members of the [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] to prepare a written
argument, not to exceed 300 words, in favor of the Measure on behalf of the [City
Council/County Board of Supervisors], as specified in Section [9282/9162] of the
California Elections Code. At the discretion of the [Mayor/President of the Board of
Supervisors], the argument may also be signed by members of the [City
Council/County Board of Supervisors] or citizen associations or individual voters,
subject to the limitations in Sections [9282 and 9283/9162 and 9164] of the
California Elections Code. If an argument is filed against the Measure, the
[Mayor/President of the Board of Supervisors] is also authorized to select two
members of the [City Council/Board of Supervisors] to prepare a written rebuttal
argument, not to exceed 250 words, which also may be signed by members of the
[City Council/Board of Supervisors] or citizen associations or individual voters,
subject to the limitations in Sections [9282 and 9283/9162 and 9164] of the
California Elections Code.
9. Arguments against the Measure may not exceed 300 words and must be submitted to the
[City/County]’s elections official in full compliance with Sections [9282 and 9283/9162
and 9164] of the California Elections Code, no later than [_______], 20[__].
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 47
10. Rebuttal arguments may not exceed 250 words and must be submitted to the
[City/County]’s elections official in the manner specified in Section [9285/9167] of
the California Elections Code.
11. The [City/County] Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the Election on
the Measure to be posted, published, printed and made available to voters as required
by law.
12. The [City/County] Clerk is authorized and directed to take all other steps necessary to
place the Measure on the ballot in the manner required by law for enactment of a
general tax measure.
13. The [City Manager/County Administrator] is authorized and directed to appropriate
the funds necessary to pay for the [City/County]’s cost of placing the Measure on the
Election ballot.
14. If the Measure is approved by the voters, the [Director of Finance] is authorized and
directed to establish a special account for revenues generated by the Special Tax,
which revenues may only be used to provide funding [Insert statement of intended
purposes, for example: “to promote health and to prevent and treat obesity and
diabetes in the [City/County].”]. The [Director of Finance] shall file an annual report
with the [City Council/County Board of Supervisors] containing the amount of funds
collected and expended from the special account, and the status of any project funded
with that account, in compliance with California Government Code section 50075.3.
The [City Council/Board of Supervisors] of the [City/County] of [____________________]
duly adopted this Resolution at a meeting held on [_______], 20[__], by the following vote:
AYES:
[Council Members/Supervisors]:
NOES:
[Council Members/Supervisors]:
ABSTAIN:
[Council Members/Supervisors]:
ABSENT:
[Council Members/Supervisors]:
[Mayor/President of the Board of Supervisors]
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 48
ATTEST:
[City/County] Clerk
State of California
}
County of __________________
:ss.
City of ___________ _________
}
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. ______, which was passed and
adopted by the [City Council/Board of Supervisors] of the [City/County] of ______________
at its regular/special meeting held on _____________, 20___.
[City/County] Clerk
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 49
1
2
3
4
Flegal KM, Carroll M, Kit B, et al. “Prevalence of Obesity and Trends in the Distribution of Body Mass Index Among
US Adults, 1999-2010.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 307(5): 491-497, 2012. Available at:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104933.
Ogden CL, Carroll M, Kit B, et al. “Prevalence of Obesity and Trends in Body Mass Index Among US Children and
Adolescents, 1999-2010.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 307(5): 483-490, 2012. Available at:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104932.
Ogden CL, Flegal KM, Carroll MD, et al. “Prevalence and Trends in Overweight among US Children and Adolescents,
1999–2000.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(14): 1728–1732, 1731, 2002. Available at:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=195387.
Ogden CL and Carroll MD. Prevalence of Obesity among Children and Adolescents: United States, Trends 1963–1965
Through 2007–2008. Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics, 2010, p. 5. Available at:
www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/obesity_child_07_08/obesity_child_07_08.pdf.
5
Flegal et al., supra note 1, at 496.
6
Ogden et al., supra note 2, at 483. See also Sekhobo J, Edmunds L, Whaley S, et al. “Obesity Prevalence among LowIncome, Preschool-Aged Children — New York City and Los Angeles County, 2003–2011.” Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 62(2): 17-22, 20. Available at:
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6202a1.htm.
Sekhobo et al., supra note 6.
7
8
Flegal et al., supra note 1.
9
Ogden et al., supra note 2.
10
Braveman PA, Cubbin C, Egerter S, et al. “Socioeconomic Disparities in Health in the United States: What the Patterns
Tell Us.” American Journal of Public Health 100(S1): S186-S196, 2010. Available at:
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2009.166082.
Wang Y and Beydoun MA. “The Obesity Epidemic in the United States—Gender, Age, Socioeconomic, Racial/Ethnic,
and Geographic Characteristics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis.” Epidemiologic Reviews 29(1): 628 2007. Available at: http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/1/6.full.pdf+html.
Duffey KJ and Popkin BM. “Energy Density, Portion Size, and Eating Occasions: Contributions to Increased Energy
Intake in the United States, 1977-2006.” PLoS Medicine, 8(6): e1001050, 2011. Available at:
www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001050. See also Finkelstein EA, Ruhm CJ
and Kosal KM. “Economic Causes and Consequences of Obesity.” Annual Review of Public Health, 26: 239-257, 2005.
Available at: http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/c_ruhm_economic_2005.pdf.
Duffey KJ and Popkin BM. “Causes of Increased Energy Intake Among Children in the U.S., 1977-2010.” American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44(2): e1-e8, e3, 2013. Available at:
www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797%2812%2900792-1/abstract. See also Nielsen SJ, Siega-Riz AM and Popkin
BM. “Trends in Energy Intake in U.S. Between 1977 and 1996: Similar Shifts Seen across Age Groups.” Obesity
Research, 10(5): 370-378, 372-373, 2012. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2002.51/full.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2014. “Facts About Physical Activity.” Last updated May 23, 2014.
Available at: www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/data/facts.html.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2014. “Physical Activity and the Health of Young People.” Last updated
June 12, 2014. Available at: www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/physicalactivity/facts.htm.
President’s Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition. “Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.” Accessed July 9,
2014. Available at: www.fitness.gov/be-active/physical-activity-guidelines-for-americans/.
Kumanyika SK, Obarzanek E, Stettler N, et al. “Population-Based Prevention of Obesity: The Need for Comprehensive
Promotion of Healthful Eating, Physical Activity, and Energy Balance: A Scientific Statement from American Heart
Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, Interdisciplinary Committee for Prevention (Formerly the Expert
Panel on Population and Prevention Science).” Circulation, 118(4): 428–464, 2008. Available at:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/118/4/428.
Nielsen et al., supra note 13. See also Duffey KJ and Popkin BM. “Shifts in Patterns and Consumption of Beverages
Between 1965 and 2002.” Obesity, 15(11): 2739-2747, 2007. Available at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2007.326/pdf; Finkelstein et al., supra note 12; Nielsen SJ and Popkin
BM. “Changes in Beverage Intake Between 1977 and 2001.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27(3): 205-210,
205, 2004. Available at: www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/nutrans/publications/Beverage%20trends-BP-Samara%202004.pdf.
Fruit drinks are beverages that are fruit-flavored, but are not 100 percent fruit juice. These beverages may or may not
contain fruit juice.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 50
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
The CDC Guide to Strategies for Reducing the Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages. Atlanta: Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 2010, p.4. (No authors given.) Available at:
www.cdph.ca.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/StratstoReduce_Sugar_Sweetened_Bevs.pdf. This is a comprehensive
definition of SSBs. Research studies use a variety of different definitions. For example, some research excludes flavored
milk, some research looks only at soda, and some research includes 100 percent fruit juice because of its naturally
occurring high-sugar levels.
Nielsen and Popkin, supra note 18, at 205.
Han E and Powell LM. “Consumption Patterns of Sugar Sweetened Beverages in the United States.” Journal of the
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 113(1): 43-53, 2013. Available at:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662243/pdf/nihms429612.pdf.
Ogden CL, Kit BK, Carroll MD, et al. Consumption of Sugar Drinks in the United States, 2005-2008. Maryland: National
Center for Health Statistics, 2011, p. 5. Available at: www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db71.htm.
Brener ND, Merlo C, Eaton D, et al. “Beverage Consumption Among High School Students --- United States, 2010.”
Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 60(23): 778-780, 779, 2011. Available at:
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6023a2.htm?s_cid=mm6023a2_w.
Wang YC, Bleich SN and Gortmaker SL. “Increasing Calorie Contribution from Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and 100%
Fruit Juice Among US Children and Adolescents, 1988-2004.” Pediatrics, 121(6): e1604-1614, e1607, 2008. Available at:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/121/6/e1604.short.
Lasater G, Piernas C and Popkin BM. “Beverage Patterns and Trends among School-Aged Children in the US, 1989-2008.”
Nutrition Journal, 10:103, 2011. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3196913/.
United States Department of Agriculture. Materials from the Sixth Meeting of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory
Committee, Additional Resources, Charts and Tables: Energy From Sugar-Sweetened Beverages. Center for Nutrition
Policy and Promotion, 2010. Available at: www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-Meeting6.htm. See also Kumanyika S, Grier SA,
Lancaster K, et al. Impact of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption on Black Americans’ Health. University of
Pennsylvania: African American Collaborative Obesity Research Network, 2011. Available at:
www.aacorn.org/uploads/files/AACORNSSBBrief2011.pdf; Taveras EM, Gilman MW, Kleinman K, et al. “Racial/Ethnic
Differences in Early-Life Risk Factors for Childhood Obesity.” Pediatrics, 125(4), 686-695, 691, 2010. Available at:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/4/686.full.pdf+html.
Han E and Powell LM, supra note 22.
Woodward-Lopez G, Kao J and Ritchie L. “To What Extent Have Sweetened Beverages Contributed to the Obesity
Epidemic?” Public Health Nutrition, 14(3): 499-509, 502-503, 2010. Available at:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8093645.
Malik VS, Schulze MB and Hu FB. “Intake of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain: A Systematic Review.”
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 84(2): 274-288, 274, 2006. Available at:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/2/274.short.
Vartanian LR, Schwartz MB and Brownell KD. “Effects of Soft Drink Consumption on Nutrition and Health: A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” American Journal of Public Health, 97(4): 667-675, 667, 2007. Available at:
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.083782.
Chen L, Appel L, Loria C, et al. “Reduction in Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Is Associated with Weight
Loss: The PREMIER Trial.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89(5): 1299-1306 (2009). Available at:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1299.full.pdf+html. See also Woodward-Lopez et al., supra note 29, at 503-504.
Ebbeling CB, Feldman H, Osganian SK, et al. “Effects of Decreasing Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption on Body
Weight in Adolescents: A Randomized, Controlled Pilot Study.” Pediatrics, 117(3): 673-680, 677 (2006). Available at:
www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/117/3/673.full.pdf+html.
Warner ML et al. “Soda Consumption and Overweight Status of 2-Year-Old Mexican-American Children in California.”
Obesity, 14(11): 1966-1974, 1971, 2006. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2006.230/full.
Schulze MB, Manson JE, Ludwig DS, et al. “Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, Weight Gain, and Incidence of Type 2
Diabetes in Young and Middle-Aged Women.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 292(8): 927-934, 931-932,
2004. Available at: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=199317#qundefined.
Malik VS, Popkin BM, Bray GA, et al. “Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Risk of Metabolic Syndrome and Type 2
Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis.” Diabetes Care, 33(11): 2477-2483, 2480-2481, 2010. Available at:
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/33/11/2477.short.
Palmer JR, Boggs DA, Krishnan S, et al. “Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in
African American Women.” Archives of Internal Medicine, 168(14): 1487-1492, 2008. Available at:
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=414389.
de Koning L, Malik VS, Rimm EB, et al., “Sugar-Sweetened and Artificially Sweetened Beverage Consumption and
Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in Men.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 93(6): 1321-1327, 2011. Available at:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/93/6/1321.short.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 51
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Malik VS et al., supra note 36, at 2480-2481.
Fung TT, Malik VS, Rexrode KM, et al. “Sweetened Beverage Consumption and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in
Women.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89: 1037-1042, 1039, 2009. Available at:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/4/1037.short.
de Koning L. Malik VS, Kellogg MD, et al. “Sweetened Beverage Consumption, Incident Coronary Heart Disease, and
Biomarkers of Risk in Men.” Circulation, 125(14): 1735-1741, 2012. Available at:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/125/14/1735.short.
Bortsov AV, Liese AD, Bell RA, et al. “Sugar-Sweetened and Diet Beverage Consumption Is Associated with
Cardiovascular Risk Factor Profile in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes.” Acta Diabetologica, 48(4): 275-282, 2011. Abstract
available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21249401.
Marshall TA, Levy SM, Broffit B, et al. “Dental Caries and Beverage Consumption in Young Children.” Pediatrics,
112(3): e184-e191, 2003. Available at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/112/3/e184.full.pdf+html.
Sohn W, Burt BA and Sowers MR. “Carbonated Soft Drinks and Dental Caries in the Primary Dentition.” Journal of
Dental Research, 85(3): 262-266, 2006. Available at: http://intl-jdr.sagepub.com/content/85/3/262.full.
Park S, Blanck HM, Sherry B, et al. “Regular-Soda Intake Independent of Weight Status Is Associated with Asthma
Among US High School Students.” Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 113: 106-111, 109, 2013.
Available at: www.andjrnl.org/article/S2212-2672(12)01647-4/abstract. But see Wickens K, Barry D, Friezema A, et al.
“Fast Foods – Are They A Risk Factor for Asthma?” Allergy, 60(12): 1537-1541, 1539, 2005. Available at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2005.00945.x/pdf.
Blum WJ, Jacobsen DJ and Donnelly JE. “Beverage Consumption Patterns in Elementary School Aged Children across
a Two-Year Period.” Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 24(2): 93-98, 2005. Available at:
www.jacn.org/content/24/2/93.full.pdf+html.
Harnack L, Stang J and Story M. “Soft Drink Consumption Among US Children and Adolescents: Nutritional
Consequences.” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 99(4): 436-441, 1999. Abstract available at:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10207395.
Guenther PM. “Beverages in the Diets of American Teenagers.” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 86(4):
493-499, 1986. Abstract available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3958400.
Ballew C, Kuester S and Gillespie C. “Beverage Choices Affect Adequacy of Children’s Nutrient Intakes.” Archives of
Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 154(11): 1148-1152, 2000. Available at:
http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=352051.
Kranz S, Smicklas-Wright H, Siega-Riz AM, et al. “Adverse Effects of High Added Sugar Consumption on Dietary
Intake in American Preschoolers.” Journal of Pediatrics, 146(1): 105-111, 2005. Abstract available at:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15644832.
Kant AK. “Consumption of Energy-Dense, Nutrient-Poor Foods by Adult Americans: Nutritional and Health
Implications. The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994.” American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, 72(4): 929-936, 2000. Available at: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/72/4/929.full.pdf+html.
Marshall TA, Eichenberger-Gilmore JM, Broffit B, et al. “Diet Quality in Young Children Is Influenced by Beverage
Consumption.” Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 24(1): 65-75, 2005. Available at:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15670987.
Whiting SJ, Healey A, Psiuk S, et al. “Relationship Between Carbonated and Other Low Nutrient Dense Beverages and
Bone Mineral Content of Adolescents.” Nutrition Research, 21(8): 1107-1115, 2001. Abstract available at:
www.nrjournal.com/article/S0271-5317%2801%2900324-4/abstract.
Wyshak G. “Teenaged Girls, Carbonated Beverage Consumption, and Bone Fractures.” Archives of Pediatrics and
Adolescent Medicine, 154(6): 610-613, 2000. Available at:
http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=349673.
Wyshak G and Frisch RE. “Carbonated Beverages, Dietary Calcium, the Dietary Calcium/Phosphorous Ratio, and Bone
Fractures in Girls and Boys.” Journal of Adolescent Health, 15(3): 210-215, 1994. Abstract available at:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8075091.
Forshee RA, Anderson PA and Storey ML. “Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Body Mass Index in Children and
Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 87(6): 1662-1671, 1669 (2008). Available at:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/6/1662.full.pdf+html (with erratum).
Forshee RA, Storey ML and Ginevan ME. “A Risk Analysis Model of the Relationship Between Beverage Consumption
from School Vending Machines and Risk of Adolescent Overweight.” Risk Analysis, 25(5): 1121-1135, 2005. Available
at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16297219.
Forshee RA, Anderson PA and Storey ML. “Changes in Calcium Intake and Association with Beverage Consumption
and Demographics: Comparing Data from CSFII 1994-1996, 1998 and NHANES 1999-2000.” Journal of the American
College of Nutrition, 25(2): 108-116, 2006. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16582026.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 52
59
60
61
Storey ML, Forshee RA and Anderson PA. “Associations of Adequate Intake of Calcium with Diet, Beverage
Consumption, and Demographic Characteristics among Children and Adolescents.” Journal of the American College of
Nutrition, 23(1): 18-33, 2004. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14963050.
See Vartanian, supra note 31, at 667 (finding that “studies funded by the food industry reported significantly smaller
effects than did non-industry funded studies”).
See Lesser LI, Ebbeling CB, Goozner M, et al. “Relationship Between Funding Source and Conclusion Among
Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles.” PLoS Medicine, 4(1): e5, 2007 (finding that “industry funding of nutrition-related
scientific articles may bias conclusions in favor of sponsors’ products, with potentially significant implications for public
health”). Available at: www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0040005.
62
See Bes-Rastrollo M, Schulze MB, Ruiz-Canela M, et al. "Financial Conflicts of Interest and Reporting Bias Regarding
the Association between Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews."
PLoS medicine 10(12): e1001578, 2013 (finding “Financial conflicts of interest may bias conclusions from SRs on SSB
consumption and weight gain or obesity”). Available at:
www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001578.
63
Finkelstein EA, Trogdon JG, Cohen JW, et al. “Annual Medical Spending Attributable to Obesity: Payer- and ServiceSpecific Estimates.” Health Affairs, 28(5): w822–w831, w822, 2009. Available at:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/28/5/w822.full.pdf+html.
Cawley J and Meyerhoefer C. “The Medical Care Costs of Obesity: An Instrumental Variables Approach.” Journal of
Health Economics, 31(1): 219-230, 2012. Available at: www.nber.org/papers/w16467.pdf.
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
Finkelstein EA, Trogdon JG, Cohen JW, et al. “Annual Medical Spending Attributable to Obesity: Payer- and ServiceSpecific Estimates.” Health Affairs, 28(5): w822–w831, w822, w829, 2009. Available at:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/28/5/w822.full.pdf+html.
Wang YC, McPherson K, March T, et al. “Health and Economic Burden of the Projected Obesity Trends in the USA and
the UK.” Lancet, 378(9793), 815-825, 815, 2011. Abstract available at:
www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60814-3/abstract.
See Finkelstein EA, DiBonaventura MD, Burgess SM, et al. “The Costs of Obesity in the Workplace.” Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 52(10): 971-976, 973, 2010 (of the estimated $73.1 billion workplace
expense due to obesity, $30 billion is due to presenteeism—lost productivity while at work—and $13 billion is due to
absenteeism). Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20881629.
Powell LM, Chriqui JF, Khan T, et al. "Assessing the Potential Effectiveness of Food and Beverage Taxes and Subsidies
for Improving Public Health: A Systematic Review of Prices, Demand and Body Weight Outcomes." Obesity Reviews,
14(2): 110-128, 123, 2013. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3556391/.
Id. at 123.
Powell LM, Chriqui J and Chaloupka FJ. “Associations Between State-Level Soda Taxes and Adolescent Body Mass
Index.” Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(3): S57-S63, 2009. Available at: www.jahonline.org/article/S1054139X(09)00106-2/fulltext.
Powell LM and Chaloupka FJ. "Food Prices and Obesity: Evidence and Policy Implications for Taxes and Subsidies."
Milbank Quarterly 87(1): 229-257, 2009. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2879182/.
Brownell KD, Farley T, Willet W, et al. "The Public Health and Economic Benefits of Taxing Sugar-Sweetened
Beverages." New England Journal of Medicine, 361(16): 1599-1605, 2009. Available at:
www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhpr0905723.
Brownell KD and Freiden TR. "Ounces of Prevention—The Public Policy Case for Taxes on Sugared Beverages." New
England Journal of Medicine 360(18): 1805-1808, 2009. Available at: www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0902392.
Pomeranz JL. "Advanced Policy Options to Regulate Sugar-Sweetened Beverages to Support Public Health." Journal of
Public Health Policy, 33(1): 75-88, 80-81, 2011. Available at: www.yaleruddcenter.org/resources/upload/docs/what
/law/PolicyOptionsSSBs_JPHP_8.11.pdf.
Finkelstein EA, Zhen C, Nonnemaker J, et al. “Impact of Targeted Beverage Taxes on Higher- and Lower-Income
Households.” Archives of Internal Medicine, 170(22): 2028-2034, 2032-2033, 2010. Available at:
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=776479.
Andreyeva T, Chaloupka FJ and Brownell KD. “Estimating the Potential of Taxes on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages to
Reduce Consumption and Generate Revenue.” Preventive Medicine 52: 413-416, 2011. Available at:
www.yaleruddcenter.org/resources/upload/docs/what/economics/SSBTaxesPotential_PM_6.11.pdf.
Wang YC, Coxson P, Shen YM, et al. “A Penny-Per-Ounce Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Would Cut Health and
Cost Burdens of Diabetes.” Health Affairs, 31(1): 199-207, 2012. Available at:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22232111.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 53
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
Id. at 201-202.
Smith TA, Ling BH and Lee JY. Taxing Caloric Sweetened Beverages: Potential Effects on Beverage Consumption,
Calorie Intake, and Obesity. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2010. Available at:
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/95465/2/ERR100.pdf.
Fletcher JM, Frisvold D and Tefft N. “Taxing Soft Drinks and Restricting Access to Vending Machines to Curb Child
Obesity.” Health Affairs, 29(5): 1059-1066, 1064-1065, 2010. Available at:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/29/5/1059.long.
Andreyeva T, Chaloupka FJ and Brownell KD. “Estimating the Potential of Taxes on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages to
Reduce Consumption and Generate Revenue.” Preventive Medicine 52(6): 413-416, 415, 2011.
Wang YC et al., supra note 77, at 203.
Id.
Fletcher JM, et al., supra note 80 at 1061.
Finkelstein EA, et al., supra note 75 at 2032.
Wang CY, et al., supra note 82 at 203.
See Brownell KD, et al., supra note 73.
For example, 40 percent of California voters support SSB tax but two-thirds support SSB taxes if proceeds are targeted
to school nutrition and physical activity programs. (Palmer C and Diaz R. “New California Field Poll Shows Support for
‘Soda Tax’.” San Jose Mercury News, Feb. 14, 2013. Available at: www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_22586019/newstatewide-field-poll-shows-support-soda-tax.) Similarly, while only one-third of New York voters expressed general
support for SSBs, support rises to nearly half when the revenue is directed to pay for health care costs. (Drake B. “Tax
Sugary Drinks? New Yorkers Say ‘No’ But Leave Some Wiggle Room.” Politics Daily, April 14, 2010. Available at:
www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/14/n/.)
Killian A. ‘NYC Soda Portion Ban Crushes a Big Gulp of Freedom.” Forbes, July 24, 2012. Available at:
www.forbes.com/sites/wlf/2012/07/24/nyc-soda-portion-ban-crushes-a-big-gulp-of-freedom/.
Trinko K. “Soda Ban? What About Personal Choice?” USA Today, March 10, 2013. Available at:
www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/10/soda-ban-what-about-personal-choice-column/1977091/.
Roff P. “Americans Don’t Want a Bloomberg Nannystate.” U.S. News & World Report, March 12, 2013. Available at:
www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/03/12/bloomberg-soda-ban-fail-a-victory-for-personal-freedom.
See, e.g., Brownell KD, Kersh R, Ludwig DS, et al. “Personal Responsibility and Obesity: A Constructive Approach to a
Controversial Issue.” Health Affairs, 29(3): 379-387, 382-384, 2010. Available at:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/29/3/379.full.pdf+html.
New York, N.Y., HEALTH CODE § 81.53 (2013), available at:
www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/about/healthcode/health-code-article81.pdf.
Brief of Amici Curiae the New York State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People, The Hispanic Federation, The U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and Mexican American Grocers
Association in Support of Plaintiff-Petitioners-Respondent’s Brief at 13, New York Statewide Coalition of Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce v. New York City Dept. of Health and Hygiene, 970 N.Y.S.2d 200 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013), aff’d,
New York Statewide Coalition of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. The New York City Dept. of Health and Mental
Hygiene, --- N.E.3d ----, slip. op. at 04804 (N.Y. June 26, 2014).
Id.
New York Statewide Coalition of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. The New York City Dept. of Health and Mental
Hygiene, --- N.E.3d ----, slip. op. at 04804 (N.Y. June 26, 2014).
See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5 (charter city municipal affairs); Cal. Gov’t Code § 37101 (West 2014) (charter and general
law cities).
Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 7284 (2014).
See, e.g., Sacramento, Cal., City Code ch. 3.08 (2014) (“Business Operations Tax”).
See, e.g., Alameda, Cal., County Code § 3.04.260 (2014) (the “Business License Tax” on automobile dealers, which
imposes a business license tax based on gross receipts from sales of new or used motor vehicles); see generally
Alameda, Cal., County Code ch. 3.04 (2014).
See Los Angeles, Cal., Municipal Code § 21.167.1 (2014), (imposes a business license tax on gross receipts from sales
of firearms or ammunition); see generally Los Angeles Municipal Code ch. 2, art. 1 (2014) (“Business Taxes”).
Jensen v. Franchise Tax Board, 178 Cal. App. 4th 426, 435-37 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (finding that Proposition 63’s
additional tax on annual incomes over $1 million had a rational basis and thus did not violate equal protection).
Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 7284.1(a) (2014); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16000(b) (2014).
Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code §§ 30111, 30462(b).
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 54
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
See City of Berkeley v. Cukierman 14 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1340-41 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (“the constitutional prohibition
against double taxation applies only to ad valorem property taxes”). See also Fox Bakersfield Theatre Corp. v. City of
Bakersfield 36 Cal.2d 136, 141-142 (Cal. 1950) (upholding application of two taxes for the operation of movie theaters).
Cal. Const. art. XIII, § 34.
Cal. Const. art. XIII, §1(a).
Cal. Const. art. XIII C, §2(d). This section was added by Proposition 218 (adopted 1996). Proposition 62 (adopted 1986,
adding sections 53720-53730 to the California Government Code) also attempts to clarify the differences between
general and special taxes, but is less specific than the definition from Prop. 218 and does not apply to charter cities. See
Cal. Gov’t Code § 53721 (2014).
Coleman v. County of Santa Clara 64 Cal.App.4th 662 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).
Cal. Gov’t Code § 53724 (2014) (added by Proposition 62 in 1986 and applicable to counties and general law cities; the
manner in which a tax is proposed by a charter city is governed by its charter and ordinances).
Cal. Gov’t Code § 53724(b) (2014). This requirement does not apply to charter cities. See Traders Sports Inc. v. City of
San Leandro, 93 Cal. App. 4th 37, 49 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).
For an increase in the transactions and use (sales) tax, a two-thirds vote of the legislative body is required, regardless of
whether the increase is a general tax or a special tax. Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 7285.9 (2014).
All cities in California are either “charter” cities or “general law” cities. A charter city is one that has chosen to adopt
a city charter (like a constitution for the city) and has local authority over municipal affairs, such as the conduct of local
elections. A general law city is bound by the general law of the State of California. The League of California Cities
maintains a list of charter cities in California, and other information regarding the differences between charter cities
and general law cities, available at: www.cacities.org/chartercities/.
Traders Sports, 93 Cal. App. 4th, supra note 111 at 149.
See Cal. Elec. Code §§ 9100-9190 (2014) (“County Elections”) and Cal. Elec. Code §§ 9200-9295 (“Municipal
Elections,” or general law cities). These provide more information on the process of voting in a tax. Although many
charter cities rely on the Election Code to provide for the powers of initiative and referendum, others establish their own
rules by charter provision or ordinance.
Cal. Const. art. XIII C, § 2(b); Cal. Gov’t Code § 53723 (2014).
Cal. Const. art. XIII C, § 2(b) (2014).
Id. at § 2(d); Cal. Gov’t Code § 53722 (2014).
Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 50075-50075.5. These provisions state that they are applicable to charter cities, but whether that is
constitutionally permissible is open to argument. See, e.g., Harman v. City and County of San Francisco, 7 Cal.3d 150,
161 (Cal. 1972) (election matters governed by local charter). Accountability measures are a good idea in any event, both
to make clear that the tax is a special tax and to create public confidence that the proceeds of the tax will be expended
appropriately.
Proposition 26 (approved by California voters on November 2, 2010) adopted constitutional articles XIII A, § 3
(applicable to the state) and XIII C, § 1(e) (applicable to local governments).
For a general overview of Proposition 26, see Proposition 26 Implementation Guide. Sacramento: League of California
Cities, 2011. Available at www.cacities.org/Prop26Guide.
Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Kit BK, et al. “Prevalence of Obesity and Trends in the Distribution of Body Mass Index
Among US Adults, 1999-2010.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 307(5): 491-497, 2012. Available at:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104933.
Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, et al. “Prevalence of Obesity and Trends in Body Mass Index Among US Children and
Adolescents, 1999-2010.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 307(5): 483-490, 2012. Available at:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104932.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Statistics Report: Estimates of Diabetes and Its Burden
in the United States, 2014. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014. Available at:
www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/statsreport14/national-diabetes-report-web.pdf.
Flegal et al., supra note 122.
Ogden et al., supra note 123.
Braveman PA, Cubbin C, Egerter S, et al. “Socioeconomic Disparities in Health in the United States: What the Patterns
Tell Us.” American Journal of Public Health 100(S1): S186-S196 2010. Available at:
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2009.166082.
Wang Y and Beydoun MA. “The Obesity Epidemic in the United States—Gender, Age, Socioeconomic, Racial/Ethnic,
and Geographic Characteristics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis.” Epidemiologic Reviews 29(1): 628 2007. Available at: http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/1/6.full.pdf+html.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 55
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
Ogden CL, Flegal KM, Carroll MD, et al. “Prevalence and Trends in Overweight among US Children and Adolescents,
1999–2000.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(14): 1728–1732, 2002. Available at:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=195387.
Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Curtin LR, et al. “Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity in the United States, 1999–2004.”
Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(13): 1549–1555, 2006. Available at:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=202627.
May AL, Pan L, Sherry B, et al. “Vital Signs: Obesity Among Low-Income, Preschool-Aged Children — United States,
2008–2011.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 62(31):629-634, 2013. Available at:
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm62e0806a1.htm.
Serdula MK, Ivery D, Coates RJ, et al. “Do Obese Children Become Obese Adults? A Review of the Literature.”
Preventive Medicine, 22(2): 167-177, 1993. Available at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8483856.
Freedman DS, Khan LK, Serdula MK, et al. “The Relation of Childhood BMI to Adult Adiposity: The Bogalusa Heart
Study.” Pediatrics, 115 (1): 22-27, 2005. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15629977.
Wang LY, Chyen D, Lee S, et al. “The Association Between Body Mass Index in Adolescence and Obesity in
Adulthood.” Journal of Adolescent Health, 42(5): 512-518, 2008. Available at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18407047.
The NS, Suchindran C, North KE, et al. “Association of Adolescent Obesity with Risk of Severe Obesity in Adulthood.”
JAMA, 304(18): 2042-2047, 2010. Available at https://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=186874#refjoc05141-26.
Duffey KJ and Popkin BM. “Energy Density, Portion Size, and Eating Occasions: Contributions to Increased Energy
Intake in the United States, 1977-2006.” PLoS Medicine, 8(6): e1001050, 2011. Available at:
www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001050. See also Finkelstein EA, Ruhm CJ
and Kosal KM. “Economic Causes and Consequences of Obesity.” Annual Review of Public Health, 26: 239-257, 2005.
Available at: http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/c_ruhm_economic_2005.pdf.
Duffey KJ and Popkin BM. “Causes of Increased Energy Intake Among Children in the U.S., 1977-2010.” American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44(2): e1-e8, e3. Available at: www.ajpmonline.org/article/S07493797%2812%2900792-1/abstract. See also Nielsen SJ, Siega-Riz AM and Popkin BM. “Trends in Energy Intake in U.S.
Between 1977 and 1996: Similar Shifts Seen Across Age Groups.” Obesity Research, 10(5): 370-378, 373, 2012.
Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2002.51/full.
Nielsen SJ et al, supra note 137. See also Duffey KJ and Popkin BM. “Shifts in Patterns and Consumption of Beverages
Between 1965 and 2002.” Obesity, 15(11): 2739-2747, 2007. Available at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2007.326/pdf; Finkelstein, supra note 136; Nielsen SJ and Popkin BM.
“Changes in Beverage Intake Between 1977 and 2001.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27(3): 205-210, 205,
2004. Available at: www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/nutrans/publications/Beverage%20trends-BP-Samara%202004.pdf.
Ogden CL, Kit BK, Carrol MD, et al. Consumption of Sugar Drinks in the United States, 2005-2008. Maryland: National
Center for Health Statistics, 2011, p. 5. Available at: www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db71.htm.
Lloyd-Jones DM, Hong Y, Labarthe D, et al. “Defining and Setting National Goals for Cardiovascular Health Promotion
and Disease Reduction: The American Heart Association's Strategic Impact Goal through 2020 and Beyond.”
Circulation, 121(4):586–613. 2010. Available at http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/4/586.full.
Woodward-Lopez G, Kao J and Ritchie L. “To What Extent Have Sweetened Beverages Contributed to the Obesity
Epidemic?” Public Health Nutrition, 14(3): 499-509, 502-503, 2010. Available at:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8093645.
Malik VS, Schulze MB and Hu FB. “Intake of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain: A Systematic Review.”
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 84(2): 274-288, 274, 2006. Available at:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/2/274.short.
Vartanian LR, Schwartz MB and Brownwell KD. “Effects of Soft Drink Consumption on Nutrition and Health: A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” American Journal of Public Health, 97(4): 667-675, 667, 2007. Available at:
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.083782.
Pereira MA. “The Possible Role of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages in Obesity Etiology: A Review of the Evidence.”
International Journal of Obesity, 30: S28-S36, 2006. Available at:
www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v30/n3s/pdf/0803489a.pdf.
Babey S, Jones M, Yu H, et al. Bubbling Over: Soda Consumption and its Link to Obesity in California. Los Angeles:
UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, 2009. Available at:
www.publichealthadvocacy.org/PDFs/Bubbling_PolicyBrief.pdf.
Ludwig DS, Peterson K, Gortmaker S, “Relation between Consumption of Sugar Sweetened Drinks and Childhood
Obesity: A Prospective, Observational Study.” Lancet, 357(9255):505-508, 2001.
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 56
Schulze MB, Manson JE, Ludwig DS, et al. “Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, Weight Gain, and Incidence of Type 2
Diabetes in Young and Middle-Aged Women.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 292(8): 927-934, 931-932,
2004. Available at: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=199317#qundefined.
148 Malik VS, Popkin BM, Bray GA, et al. “Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Risk of Metabolic Syndrome and Type 2
Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis.” Diabetes Care, 33(11): 2477-2483, 2480-2481, 2010. Available at:
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/33/11/2477.short.
149 Palmer JR, Boggs DA, Krishnan S, et al. “Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in
African American Women.” Archives of Internal Medicine, 168(14): 1487-1492, 2008. Available at:
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=414389.
150 de Koning L, Malik VS, Rimm EB, et al., “Sugar-Sweetened and Artificially Sweetened Beverage Consumption and
Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in Men.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 93(6): 1321-1327, 2011. Available at:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/93/6/1321.short.
151 Malik VS et al., supra note 148, at 2480-2481.
152 Fung TT, Malik VS, Rexrode KM, et al. “Sweetened Beverage Consumption and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in
Women.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89: 1037-1042, 1039, 2009. Available at:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/4/1037.short.
153 de Koning L. Malik VS, Kellogg MD, et al. “Sweetened Beverage Consumption, Incident Coronary Heart Disease, and
Biomarkers of Risk in Men.” Circulation, 125(14): 1735-1741, 2012. Available at:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/125/14/1735.short.
154 Marshall TA, Levy SM, Broffit B, et al. “Dental Caries and Beverage Consumption in Young Children.” Pediatrics,
112(3): e184-e191, 2003. Available at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/112/3/e184.full.pdf+html.
155 Sohn W, Burt BA and Sowers MR. “Carbonated Soft Drinks and Dental Caries in the Primary Dentition.” Journal of
Dental Research, 85(3): 262-266, 2006. Available at: http://intl-jdr.sagepub.com/content/85/3/262.full.
156 Blum WJ, Jacobsen DJ and Donnelly JE. “Beverage Consumption Patterns in Elementary School Aged Children across
a Two-Year Period.” Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 24(2): 93-98, 2005. Available at:
www.jacn.org/content/24/2/93.full.pdf+html.
157 Harnack L, Stang J and Story M. “Soft Drink Consumption Among US Children and Adolescents: Nutritional
Consequences.” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 99(4): 436-441, 1999. Abstract available at:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10207395.
158
Guenther PM. “Beverages in the Diets of American Teenagers.” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 86(4):
493-499, 1986. Abstract available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3958400.
159 Ballew C, Kuester S and Gillespie C. “Beverage Choices Affect Adequacy of Children’s Nutrient Intakes.” Archives of
Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 154(11): 1148-1152, 2000. Available at:
http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=352051.
160 Kranz S, Smicklas-Wright H, Siega-Riz AM, et al. “Adverse Effects of High Added Sugar Consumption on Dietary
Intake in American Preschoolers.” Journal of Pediatrics, 146(1): 105-111, 2005. Abstract available at:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15644832.
161 Kant AK. “Consumption of Energy-Dense, Nutrient-Poor Foods by Adult Americans: Nutritional and Health
Implications. The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994.” American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, 72(4): 929-936, 2000. Available at: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/72/4/929.full.pdf+html.
162 Marshall TA, Eichenberger-Gilmore JM, Broffit B, et al. “Diet Quality in Young Children Is Influenced by Beverage
Consumption.” Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 24(1): 65-75, 2005. Available at:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15670987.
163 Finkelstein EA, Trogdon JG, Cohen JW, et al. “Annual Medical Spending Attributable to Obesity: Payer- and ServiceSpecific Estimates.” Health Affairs, 28(5): w822–w831, 2009. Available at:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/28/5/w822.full.pdf+html.
164 Id.
165 Marder WD and Chang S. Childhood Obesity: Costs, Treatment Patterns, Disparities in Care, and Prevalent Medical
Conditions. Thomson Medstat Research Brief, 2006. Available at:
www.nptinternal.org/productions/chcv2/healthupdates/pdf/Cost_of_childhood_obesity.pdf.
166 Trogdon JG, Finkelstein EA, Feagan CW, et al. “State- and Payer-Specific Estimates of Annual Medical Expenditures
Attributable to Obesity.” Obesity, 20(1): 214-220, 2012. Available at
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2011.169/pdf
147
Model California Ordinance Imposing a Business License Tax on Sales on SSBs
changelabsolutions.org 57