AGENDA
ITEM
13 AGENDA
CALEXICO California ITEM
WHERE CALIFORNIA AND MEXICO
13 CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 1, 2026
TO: City Council
APPROVED BY: Benjamin Martinez, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Laura Estrada, City Attorney LE
SUBJECT: Discussion of Proposed Ordinance Requiring Allocation of 58% of Unrestricted General Fund Revenues to Police and Fire Departments through Fiscal Year 2047
===
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council not adopt the proposed ordinance.
Background:
At its regular meeting of June 3, 2026, the City Council directed staff to place this item on the agenda for the present City Council meeting. The potential ordinance that would require the City of Calexico to annually allocate 58% of unrestricted General Fund revenues to the Police Department and Fire Department through fiscal year 2047. The proposal would further provide that the funding requirement could only be suspended during a declared fiscal emergency, and that implementation, suspension, or repeal of the ordinance would require approval by a four- fifths vote of the City Council.
The proposed ordinance is intended to operate in conjunction with a potential special tax measure that may be submitted to the voters at the November 2026 election and, if approved, would become effective beginning in April 2027.
Calexico is a general law city. As a general law city, Calexico possesses only those powers granted by the California Constitution and state statutes, together with powers necessarily incident to those expressly granted.
Discussion and Analysis:
City Councils generally may not bind future councils in the exercise of legislative and budgetary authority.
California courts have recognized that one legislative body may not enact irrepealable legislation that limits or restricts the power of its successors. In City of Campbell v. Mosk, 197 Cal.App.2d 640 (1961), the court recognized that municipal legislative bodies generally cannot bind future councils.
Il. Annual Budget Authority in the City Council
For general law cities, the Legislature has vested budget authority specifically and exclusively in the city council. Each fiscal year, the City Council must evaluate revenues and expenditures.
In Totten v. Board of Supervisors, 139 Cal.App.4 826(2006), the court concluded that a voter approved initiative ordinance mandating a minimum level of annual spending for county public safety agencies was invalid in that it usurped the board of supervisors' exclusive statutory power to adopt a budget by depriving it of discretion to provide a lower-level funding. Therefore, the Court concluded that this was beyond the voters' power to enact. It is particularly noted that the ordinance in Totten would have committed between 48% and 58% of the annual budget for public safety purposes, which is very similar to this proposal.
III. Potential Impact on Essential Government Functions The City must maintain flexibility to address unforeseen circumstances, including public health emergencies, natural disasters, improvements needs, and state or federal regulatory mandates.
In Totten, the Court of Appeal invalidated an initiative ordinance that mandated a minimum level of annual budget spending for county public safety agencies, holding that such an ordinance was invalid because it seriously impaired the exercise of the essential governmental function of managing the county's financial affairs and funding non-public safety services.
The potential ordinance may impact the city budget, it runs the risk of directing future councils to make legislative acts, and/or may interfere with essential government functions.
Fiscal Impact:
If implemented, the ordinance would require the annual allocation of 58% of unrestricted General Fund revenues to the Police Department and Fire Department through fiscal year 2047.
Coordinated With:
City Attorney's Office
Attachments):
None.
2