CaliforniaCityFinance.Com
Fiscal and Program Effects of
Initiative 21-0042A1 on Local Governments
If Initiative 21-0042A1 is placed on the ballot and passed by voters, it will result in:
Over $20 billion of local governmen t fee and charge revenues over 10 years placed at heightened legal peril. Related public service reductions across virtually every aspect of city, county, special district, and school services especially for drinking water, sewer sanitation, and public health and safety. About $2 billion of revenues each year from fees and charges a dopted after January 1, 2021 subject to legal peril.1
Over $2 billion dollars of annual revenues from dozens o f tax measures approved by voters between January 1, 2022 and the effective date of the act2 subject to additional voter approval if not in compliance with the initiative.
Indeterminable legal and administrative burdens and costs on l ocal government from new and more empowered legal challenges, and bureaucratic cost tracking requirements. The delay and deterrence of municipal annexations.
Substantially higher legal and administrative cost of public i nfrastructure financing which will delay and deter new residential and commercial development.
Service and infrastructure declines including in fire and emer gency response, law enforcement, public health, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, public schools, affordable housing, homelessness prevention and mental health services.
1. Local Government Taxes and Services Threatened
With regard to taxes, Initiative 21-0042A1:
Prohibits advisory, non-binding measures as to use of tax proc eeds on the same ballot. o Voters may be less informed and more likely to vote against me asures. Eliminates the ability of special tax measures proposed by cit izen initiative to be enacted by majority voter approval (Upland).3
o Because the case law regarding citizen initiative special taxe s approved by majority vote (Upland) is so recent, it is unknown how common these sorts of measures might be in the future. This initiative would prohibit such measures after the effective date of the initiative. Any such measures adopted after January 1, 2022 through the effective date of the Act should it pass would be void a year after the effective date of the initiative. Requires tha t tax measures include a specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed. This seems to require that all tax increases or extensions contain a sunset (end date). o This would require additional tax measures to extend previousl y approved taxes. A city charter may not be amended to impose, extend, or increa se a tax might interfere with the ability of cities that do not already have such authority in their charters to adopt Property Transfer Taxes. o There are no more than a few of these every few years, but it is a valuable tax for those that adopt it.
1 Assumes fee increases since January 1, 2022 would be subject to possible legal challenge if not adopted in compliance with the Initiative.
2 The effective date of the initiative would be sometime in December 2024, the date the California Secretary of State certifies the election results of the November 5, 2024 election.
3 Unlike the initiative 17-0050, this initiative does not eliminate that ability of cities and counties to adopt general taxes by majority voter approval.
2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616
Phone: 530.758.3952 • Fax: 530.758.3952
Rev . January 14, 2023
– 2 – r e v J anuary 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Requires that a tax measure adopted after January 1, 2022 and before the effective date of the initiative that was not adopted in accordance with the measure be readopted in compliance with the measure or will be void twelve months after the effective date of the initiative. o If past election patterns and elections in 2022 are an indicat ion, over 200 tax measures approving more than $2 billion annual revenues to support local public services would not be in compliance and would be subject to reenactment. Most will be taxes without a specific end date and special taxes (including parcel taxes). Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, the measures would each require declaration of emergency and unanimous vote of the governing board to be placed on a special election ballot within a year for approval or the tax will be void after that date. I would expect most to succeed, but some will not, in particular citizen initiative majority vote special taxes which would have to meet a higher voter approval threshold to continue. Requires voter approval to expand an existing tax to new terri tory (annexations). This would require additional tax measures and would deter annexations and land development in cities. o If a tax is "ext ended" to an annexed area without a vote after January 1, 2022, it will be void 12 months later until brought into compliance. Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, such extensions would each require unanimous vote of the agency board to be placed on a special election ballot or would be void a year later.
1.a. Number of Measures and Value of Local Taxes at Risk4 Over a hundred local measures were approved in 2022 that likely do not comply with the provisions of Initiative 21-0042A1. Nearly $2 billion of annual revenues from these voter approved measures will cease a year after the effective date of the measure, reducing the local public services funded by these measures. We can expect a similar volume of measures in 2024 and a similar volume of non-compliance. So the combined total of annual local funding directly affected by Initiative 21-0042A1 due to its retroactivity provision is about $4 billion.
Citizen Initiative Special Taxes in 2022.
Special taxes placed on the ballot by citizen initiative and approved after January 1, 2022 by a majority but less than two-thirds of the voters are out of compliance with Initiative 21-0042A1.
On June 7, 2022, there were three local special tax measures placed on the ballot by citizen initiative. Two failed to get majority voter approval. A one percent transactions and use tax (sales tax) for the John C. Fremont Healthcare District in Mariposa County received 69.6 percent approval, over the two thirds needed for any special tax under California Constitution Article XIIIC. So this measure was passed in compliance with Initiative 21- 0042A1.
On November 8, 2022, there were 14 local special taxes placed on the ballot by citizen initiative. Seven of these
4 Source: Compilation and summary of data from County elections offices.
June 2022 Initiative Special Taxes - majority voter approval Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Estimated
Annual Revenue Use Sunset YES%
John C. Fremont
Healthcare District Mariposa Measure N Transactions
& Use Tax 1 cent $ 150,000 hospital 40yrs 69.6% PASS
County of Kings Kings Measure F Transactions
& Use Tax 1/2 cent $ 11,700,000 fire none 37.6% FAIL
Manhattan Beach
USD Los Angeles Measure A School Parcel
Tax $1095/yr $ 12,000,000 s chools 12yrs 31.2% FAIL
– 3 – r e v J anuary 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
measures failed with less than majority voter approval. The other seven measures received majority, but less than two-thirds, voter approval. These measures passed under current law but are out of compliance with Initiative 21- 0042A1. Taken together these seven taxes will provide estimated annual revenues of from $900,000 to $1.4 billion in support of parks and recreation, zoo, library, affordable housing, transportation, homelessness prevention, and schools in these communities.
Non-Specific Tax Durations in 2022
Voters approved 106 measures in June 2022 (10) and November 2022 (96) that do not provide a specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed (end date). Typically, the ballot titles for these measures state that the tax would be imposed “until ended by voters.” Four of these measures also did not include any estimate of the annual revenues that the tax would generate, another violation of initiative 21-0042A1. Taken together, these approved local measures generate $561 million per year that will expire a year after the effective date of the initiative if Initiative 21-0042A1 passes.
November 2022 Initiative Special Taxes - majority voter approval Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Estimated
Annual Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Crockett Com m unity
Services District Contra Costa Measure L Parcel Tax $50/parcel $ 60,000 parks/recr none 62.8% PASS Oakland Alameda Measure Y Parcel Tax $68/parcel $ 12,000,000 zoo 2 0yrs 62.5% PASS County of Mendocino Measure O Transactions
& Use Tax
1/8 cent then 1/4
cent in 2027 $ 4,000,000 library none 60.8% PASS
Los Angeles Los Angeles Measure ULA Property
Transfer Tax
4% if >$5m, 5.5%
if >$10m $600 m to $1.1 b affordable
housing none 57.3% PASS
County of Sacram ento Measure A Transactions
& Use Tax same 1/2 cent $ 212,512,500
transportati
on
40yrs 55.3% PASS
San Francisco Proposition M B usiness
Operations Tax
$2500-$5000/
vacant resid unit $ 20,000,000 housing 30yrs 54.5% PASS Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure GS Property
Transfer Tax
$56/$1000 if
>$8m $ 50,000,000
schools,
hom elessne
ss, afford.
housing
none 53.3% PASS
Total $900,000 to
$1.4 billion
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Estimated
Annual Revenue Use Sunset YES%
County of Calaveras Measure A Transactions
& Use Tax 1 cent $ 5,000,000 fire none 49.4% FAIL
South San Francisco
(for Schools) San Mateo Measure DD School Parcel
Tax $2.50/sf $ 55,900,000 schools none 47.2% FAIL
County of Fresno (for CSU ) Measure E Transactions
& Use Tax
1/5 ct,
1/40 ct (Reedley) $ 36,000,000 Calif State
Univ 20yrs 46.9% FAIL
Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Measure N Parcel Tax $6k/v acant SFU x xx vacant property xxx 44.2% FAIL
County of Monterey Measure Q Parcel Tax $49/parcel $ 5,500,000 ch ildcare 10yrs 41.1% FAIL San Francisco City
College
San
Francisco Measure O School Parcel
Tax $150/sfu $ 37,000,000 schools 10yrs 36.7% FAIL
Morro Bay San Luis
Obispo Measure B Parcel Tax $120+/parcel $ 680,000 harbor none 36.0% FAIL Inverness Public
Utility District Marin Measure O Parcel Tax $0.20/s f,
$150/vacant $ 276,000 fire none 27.0% FAIL
– 4 – r e v J anuary 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Ra te
Annual
Re venue Us e Sunset YES%
Oakland Alameda Measure T B usi ness Tax
Ge n e ra lvarious $ 20,900,000 none 71.4% PASS
Culver City Los Angeles Measure BL B usi ness Tax
Ge n e ra lvarious $ 10,000,000 none 60.5% PASS
El Segundo Los Angeles Measure BT B usi ness Tax
Ge n e ra lvarious $ 3,000,000 none 51.2% PASS
Pico Rivera Los Angeles Measure AB B usi ness Tax
Ge n e ra lvarious $ 5,800,000 none 75.5% PASS
Santa Ana Orange Measure W B usi ness Tax
Ge n e ra lvarious neutral none 64.8% PASS
Tracy San Joaquin Measure B B usi ness Tax
Ge n e ra lvarious $ 3,200,000 none 72.6% PASS
Burlingame San Mateo Measure X B usi ness Tax
Ge n e ra lvarious $ 2,500,000 none 75.1% PASS
Los G atos Santa Clara Measure J B usi ness Tax
Ge n e ra lvarious $ 1,100,000 none 53.4% PASS
Santa Clara Santa Clara Measure H B usi ness Tax
Ge n e ra l
$45/employee,
$15/rental unit $ 6,000,000 none 59.5% PASS
Brisbane San Mateo Measure O B usi ness Tax
lodging bus n $2.50/rm/day $ 250,000 none 69.2% PASS
East Palo Alto San Mateo Measure L B usi ness Tax
resid. rentals
2.5%
grossRcpts $ 1,480,000 none 69.9% PASS
County of Santa Cruz Unincorporated Measure C Bus n Tax - disp cups 12.5cents/cup $ 700,000 none 68.2% PASS
South L ake Tahoe El Dorado Measure G Bus n Tax
Cannabis
6% retail,
manufacturing $ 950,000 none 62.9% PASS
McFarland Kern Measure O Bus n Tax
Cannabis
8% of gross
receipts retail, $ 1,800,000 none 63.5% PASS
Avenal Kings Measure C Bus n Tax
Cannabis
$25+/sf or
15% gr rcpts $ 600,000 none 61.8% PASS
Baldwin Park Los Angeles Measure CB Bus n Tax
Cannabis
4%
grossRcpts $ 300,000 none 51.3% PASS
Claremont Los Angeles Measure CT Bus n Tax
Cannabis
4%-7% gr
rcpts, $1- $ 500,000 none 61.1% PASS
County of Los Angeles Unincorporated Measure C Bus n Tax Cannabis
4% gross
receipts retail, $ 15,170,000 none 60.1% PASS
Cudahy Los Angeles Measure BA Bus n Tax
Cannabis
15%
grossRcpts $ 3,600,000 none 54.0% PASS
El Segundo Los Angeles Measure Y Bus n Tax
Cannabis
10%
G rossR cpt, $ 1,500,000 none 72.8% PASS
Hermosa Beach Los Angeles Measure T Bus n Tax
Cannabis
10%
G rossR cpt, $ 1,500,000 none 67.6% PASS
Lynwood Los Angeles Measure TR Bus n Tax
Cannabis 5%to10% $ 3,000,000 none 66.4% PASS
Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure H M Bus n Tax
Cannabis
10% gross
Rcpts $ 5,000,000 none 66.4% PASS
South E l Monte Los Angeles Measure C M Bus n Tax
Cannabis
6% special
ex cise tax on $ 126,000 none 53.7% PASS
Monterey Monterey Measure J Bus n Tax
Cannabis 6% grossRcpt $ 1,300,000 none 65.2% PASS
Pacific G rove Monterey Measure N Bus n Tax
Cannabis 6% grossRcpt $ 300,000 none 70.8% PASS
Huntington Beach Orange Measure O Bus n Tax
Cannabis
6% retail, 1%
other $ 600,000 none 54.7% PASS
– 5 – r e v J anuary 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Notes
?= Ballot measure title did not include an estimate of annual revenues, also not in compliance with Initiative 21-0042A1. n/a*= Arcadia Measure SW passed but sports betting remains illegal after the failure of Propositions 26 and 27 on the November statewide ballot.
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Us e Sunset YES%
L aguna Woods Orange Measure T Bus n Tax
Cannabis
4%-10% of
gross recei pts $ 750,000 none 61.1% PASS
Corona Riverside Measure G Bus n Tax
Cannabis
9% of gross
receipts for $ 5,000,000 none 61.6% PASS
Montclair San Bernardino Measure R Bus n Tax
Cannabis
7%
grossRcpts $ 3,500,000 none 70.3% PASS
County of San Diego Unincorporated Measure A Bus n Tax
Cannabis
6% retail, 3%
distribution, $ 5,600,000 none 57.4% PASS
Encinitas San Diego Measure L Bus n Tax
Cannabis
4% to 7% of
gross recei pts $ 1,400,000 none 65.1% PASS
Healdsburg Sonoma Measure M Bus n Tax
Cannabis 8% grossRcpt $ 500,000 none 72.7% PASS
Exeter Tulare Measure B Bus n Tax
Cannabis
10% retail and
other, $10/sf ? none 66.5% PASS
Tulare Tulare Measure Y Bus n Tax
Cannabis
10% retail and
other, $10/sf ? none 65.2% PASS
Woodland Y olo Measure K Bus n Tax
Cannabis
10%
grossRcpts ? none 66.2% PASS
Redlands San Bernardino Measure J Bus n Tax
Distrib centers
from $0.047/sf
to $0.105/sf $ 530,000 none 53.5% PASS
Arcadia Los Angeles Measure S W Busn Tax
Sports Betting
5%
grossRcpts n/a* none 63.9% PASS
Albany Alameda Measure K ParcelTax $0.074+/sf $ 1,950,000 fire/EMS n o n e 76.0% PASS Cameron Park Airport
District El Dorado Measure J ParcelTax by $600 to
$900/parcel $ 117,900 airport/
streets none 78.2% PASS
Highlands Village
L ighting Benefit Zone El Dorado Measure L ParcelTax $140+/parcel $ 10,920 streets none 86.3% PASS Knolls Property
Owners CSD El Dorado Measure P ParcelTax by $300+ to
$600+/parcel $ 8,400 streets none 75.5% PASS
Sundance Trail Zone of
Benefit El Dorado Measure C ParcelTax $600+/yr $ 24,000 roads none 73.2% PASS South Pasadena Los Angeles Measure L L ParcelTax x x x ? library none 86.2% PASS River Delta Fire District Sacramento Measure H ParcelTax $90/yr $ 1 30,000 fire none 72.1% PASS Emeryville Alameda Meas ure O PropTrans fTax $15/$1000 if $1m-$2m, $ 5,000,000 none 71.6% PASS
San Mateo San Mateo Measure CC PropTransfTax by 1% to 1.5% if >$10m $ 4,800,000 none 71.8% PASS
Alameda Alameda Measure F TOT by 4% to 14% $ 910,000 none 59.2% PASS Clovis Fresno Measure B TOT by 2% to 12% $ 500,000 none 69.7% PASS Kerman Fresno Measure G TOT 10% $ 40,000 none 62.3% PASS Trinidad Humboldt Measure P TOT by 4% to 12% $ 65,000 none 77.6% PASS Imperial Imperial Measure G TOT by 4% to 12% $ 600,000 none 56.2% PASS Arcadia Los Angeles Measure HT TOT by 2% to 12% $ 730,000 none 54.1% PASS Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure CS TOT by 1%, 3%
hom e shares $ 4,100,000 none 73.7% PASS
– 6 – r e v J anuary 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Us e Sunset YES%
Anaheim Orange Measure J TOT online travel
companies $ 3,000,000 none 59.2% PASS
La Palma Orange Measure P TOT by 4% to 12% $ 200,000 none 71.1% PASS Colfax Placer Measure B TOT by 2% to10% $ 29,000 none 73.5% PASS Rocklin Placer Measure F TOT by 2% to 10% $ 300,000 none 59.8% PASS Ros eville Placer Meas ure C TOT by 4% to 10% $ 3,000, 000 none 73.0% PASS Big Bear Lake San Bernardino Measure P TOT by 2% to 10% $ 1,300,000 n o n e 54.4% PASS Grand Terrace San Bernardino Measure M TOT new 10% $ 250,000 none 51.9% PASS Yucca Valley San Bernardino Measure K TOT by 5% to 12% $ 1,300,000 none 71.9% PASS Im perial Beach San Diego Measure R TOT by 4% to 14% $ 400,000 none 67.4% PASS El Paso de Robles San Luis Obisp oMeasure F TOT by 1% to 11% $ 750,000 none 61.2% PASS Belmont San Mateo Measure K TOT by 2% to 14% $ 600,000 none 79.3% PASS Millbrae San Mateo Meas ure N TOT by 2% to 14% $ 1,500, 000 none 75.8% PASS County of Humboldt Unincorporated Measure J TOT by 2% to 12% $ 3,0 80,000 none 63.3% PASS County of Placer -
North Tahoe TOT Area Measure A TOT by 2% to 10% $ 4,000,000 none 90.0% PASS County of Santa Cruz Unincorporated Measure B TOT by 1% to 12% $ 2 ,300,000 none 69.2% PASS County of El Dorado -
East Slope Tahoe Measure S TOT 2/3 by 4% to 14% $ 2,500,000 none 81.8% PASS Chico Butte Measure H TrUT 1 cent $ 24,000,000 none 52.4% PASS Mendota Fresno Measure H TrUT 1.25 cent $ 493,498 none 57.2% PASS Blue Lake Humboldt Measure R TrUT 1 cent $ 30,000 none 55.4% PASS Rio Dell Humboldt Measure O TrUT 3/4cent $ 400,000 none 53.3% PASS County of Kern unincorporated areas Measure K TrUT 1 cent $ 54,000 ,000 none 50.8% PASS McFarland Kern Measure M TrUT 1 cent $ 579,662 none 62.2% PASS Tehachapi Kern Measure S TrUT 1 cent $ 4,000,000 none 57.2% PASS Avenal Kings Measure A TrUT 1 cent $ 500,000 none 72.5% PASS Sus anville Lass en Meas ure P TrUT 1 cent $ 1,750, 000 none 54.7% PASS Baldwin Park Los Angeles Measure BP TrUT 3/4 cent $ 6,000,000 none 58.1% PASS Malibu Los Angeles Measure M C TrUT 1/2 cent $ 3,000,000 none 52.6% PASS Monterey Park Los Angeles Measure M P TrUT 3/4 cent $ 6,000,000 none 58.5% PASS Torrance Los Angeles Measure SS T TrUT 1/2 cent $ 18,000,000 none 55.0% PASS Larkspur Marin Measure G TrUT 1/4 cent $ 700,000 none 59.4% PASS Sand City Monterey Measure L TrUT by 1/2cent to
1.5cents $ 1,400,000 none 68.7% PASS
Hemet Riverside Measure H TrUT same 1 cent $ 15,000,000 none 58.0% PASS Elk Grove Sacramento Measure E TrUT 1 cent $ 21,000,000 none 54.1% PASS Galt Sacramento Measure Q TrUT 1 cent $ 3,600,000 none 52.4% PASS Colton San Bernardino Measure S TrUT 1 cent $ 9,500,000 none 66.8% PASS Ontario San Bernardino Measure Q TrUT 1 cent $ 95,000,000 none 53.2% PASS Solana Beach San Diego Measure S TrUT 1 cent $ 3,000, 000 none 66.7% PASS Brisbane San Mateo Measure U TrUT 1/2 cent $ 2,000,000 none 63.9% PASS Goleta Santa Barbara Measure B TrUT 1 cent $ 10,600,000 none 64.7% PASS Solvang Santa Barbara Measure U TrUT 1 cent $ 1,600,000 none 63.1% PASS – 7 – r e v J anuary 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Co-temporal Advisory Measures in 2022
At the November 2022 election, there was just one local general tax measure that was accompanied by an advisory measure as to the use of funds. The City of Santa Monica’s Measure DT property transfer tax failed with just 34 percent approval as voters instead chose the citizen initiative Measure GS.
There was also just one such tax use advisory measure on the June 2022 election. Susanville’s voters passed Measure P, a 1 percent transactions and use (sales) tax that generates $1.75 million per year5 for general city services. The measure was accompanied by advisory Measure Q, accompanied the city’s It asked, “If Measure P passes, should the revenues be used to balance the budget to maintain and enhance existing public safety services (police and fire), and provide funding to support street infrastructure improvements and provide funding to support economic development efforts designed to increase businesses, jobs and visitors to Susanville?” Both measures passed. Under Initiative 21-0042A1, the tax will expire a year after the effective date of the initiative (i.e., in December 2025).
1.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Tax Provisions Assuming a similar volume of local measures through 2024 as we saw in 2022, there will be over 200 local measures that will need to be redrafted to comply with the Initiative and placed back on the ballot for the taxes to continue after December 2025. The costs of re-drafting, re-placing and re-voting on these measures, previously legally approved by voters, will be in the tens of millions in total statewide.
2. “Exempt Charges” (fees and charges that are not taxes) and Services Threatened With regard to fees and charges adopted after January 1, 2022, Initiative 21-0042A1:
Subjects new fees and charges for a product or service to a ne w "actual and reasonable test." Subjects fees and charges for entrance to local government pro perty; and rental and sale of local government property to a new, undefined, “reasonable” test. Allows legal challenge to any tax adopted before the effective date of the initiative and after January 1,
5 The Susanville measure also did not include a specific end date and so is included in the list and totals of those measures.
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Us e Sunset YES%
Watsonville Santa Cruz Meas ure R TrUT 1/2 cent $ 5,000,000 none 64.4% PASS V allejo Solano Measure P TrUT 7/8 cent $ 18,000,000 none 54.7% PASS Modesto Stanislaus Measure H TrUT 1 cent $ 39,000,000 none 62.8% PASS County of Colusa Measure A TrUT 2/3 1/2 cent $ 2,400,000 EMS none 69.4% PASS Atwater Merced Measure B TrUT 2/3 same 1 cent $ 4,000,000 police/fi re none 73.7% PASS Truckee Nevada Measure U TrUT 2/3 by 1/4 cent to
1/2 cent $ 3,000,000 open space
/ trails none 76.4% PASS
Palo Alto Santa Clara Meas ure L UtilityTrans fer 18% gas $ 7,000,000 none 77.7% PASS Santa Clara Santa Clara Meas ure G UtilityTrans fer 5 % $ 30,000,000 none 84.2% PASS Hercules Contra Costa Measure N UUT 8% $ 3,600,000 none 69.3% PASS Carson Los Angeles Measure U U UUT 2% electr, gas $ 8,000,000 none 78.4% PASS Sebastopol Sonom a Measure N UUT 3.75% (sam e) $ 700,000 none 83.5% PASS – 8 – r e v J anuary 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
2022. Such a lawsuit could enjoin (stop) the enactment of the tax pending the outcome of the legal challenge.
Subjects a challenged fee to new, higher burdens of proof if l egally challenged.
2.a. Value on New Local Government Fees and Charges at Risk6 Virtually every city, county, and special district must regularly (e.g., annually) adopt increases to fee rates and charges and revise rate schedules to accommodate new users and activities. Most of these would be subject to new standards and limitations under threat of legal challenge. Based on the current volume of fees and charges imposed by local agencies and increases in those fees simply to accommodate inflation, the amount of local government fee and charge revenue placed at risk is about $2 billion per year including those adopted since January 1, 2022. Of $2 billion, about $900 million (45 percent) is for special districts, $800 million (40 percent) is cities, and $300 million (15 percent) is counties.7 Major examples of affected fees and charges are:
1. Certain water, sanitary sewer, wastewater, garbage, electric , gas service fees.
2. Nuisance abatement charges - such as for weed, rubbish and g eneral nuisance abatement to fund community safety, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanup programs.
3. Emergency response fees - such as in connection with DUI.
4. Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges.
5. Business improvement district charges.
6. Fees for processing of land use and development applications such as plan check fees, use permits, design review, environmental assessment, plan amendment, subdivision map changes.
7. Document processing and duplication fees.
8. Facility use charges, parking fees, tolls.
9. Fines, penalties.
10. Fees for parks and recreation services.
2.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Fee/Charge Provisions In addition to service delays and disruptions due to fee and charge revenues placed at greater legal risk, there would be substantial additional costs for legal defense. The risk to fees and charges will make infrastructure financing more difficult and will deter new residential and commercial development.
***********
mc
6 Source: California State Controller Annual Reports of Financial Transactions concerning cities, counties and special districts , summarized with an assumed growth due to fee rate increases (not population) of 2 percent annually. 7 School fees are also affected but the amount is negligible by comparison.