DATE:August 25, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
FROM: Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING A POTENTIAL FUTURE BALLOT
MEASURE TO BECOME A CHARTER CITY
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by Minute Order, receive and accept this informational report regarding charter cities and provide direction to staff on whether to place a potential future ballot measure to become a charter city.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
California cities fall under one of two types of governing structure: general law or charter city. Each structure has a different governing authority and degree of autonomy. General law cities govern under the powers granted to it by general laws adopted by the California Legislature and police powers granted by the California Constitution. A charter city defines its own charter subject to state and federal constitution and legislative limitations. A charter city's authority is limited by the charter itself and may only extend to matters concerning municipal affairs. A charter is a voter approved document and may only be amended by voter approval. The City of Foster City is currently a General Law City.
On March 3, 2025, as part of the FY 2025-26 Budget and Five-Year Financial Plan, Councilmember Niederhofer, with support from a majority of the Council, provided policy direction to discuss a future agenda item to become a “charter city” to address the long term fiscal stability by implementing a real property transfer tax (“RPTT” or “transfer tax”), which only charter cities are authorized to levy. This staff report provides background information and other key discussion items as it relates to the charter city form of governing structure for Council’s consideration. Extensive community outreach and stakeholder engagement will need to be carried out should Council provide direction to staff to move forward with placing a future potential ballot measure to become a charter
city.
BACKGROUND
In California, there are two types of cities: general law cities and charter cities. General law cities get their authority from the general laws passed by the State Legislature (California Constitution Article XI, Section 7). Charter cities get their authority from the California Constitution’s home rule provision (California Constitution, Article XI, Section 5), which allows them to preside over all municipal affairs, limited only by their own charters and State law on “matters of statewide concern.” An adopted charter acts as a local constitution for the city. Much like the federal and state constitutions, a charter may only be adopted, amended or repealed by a majority of the vote of the city’s residents.
Over time, the differences between general law cities and charter cities have reduced. For instance, the legislature has extended to general law cities many of the same powers as charter cities. In addition, the legislature has characterized many laws affecting cities as matters of statewide concern, and hence, applicable to all cities, both general law and charter. As California case law and legislative history have developed, there has been a general tendency towards the reduction of charter city powers.
The State Constitution does not define the term “municipal affairs.” For this reason, the courts have been left with the responsibility of determining what constitutes a “municipal affair” on a case-by-case basis. Generally, a matter is of “statewide concern,” as opposed to a “municipal affair,” when its impact is “primarily regional,” even if its impacts are not truly statewide.
The following is a list determined by the courts to be matters of “statewide concern” and hence not amenable to modification by charter –
•Educational school systems
•Traffic and vehicle regulations
•Tort claims against a governmental entity
•The Ralph M. Brown Act open meetings law
•The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act regarding employee organization •The California Environmental Quality Act
•Housing Accountability Act & Housing Crisis Act
•The exercise of the eminent domain power
The following is a list of matters generally accepted as “municipal affairs” – •Form (structure) of government (e.g., a charter city may adopt a strong mayor form of government)
•Public Contracting Policy – Processes and procedures associated with city contracts, including application of prevailing wage standards for city-funded projects (projects using State or Federal funding are still subject to State prevailing wage laws).
•Local municipal election matters including qualifications for office and campaign funding (though the California Voting Rights Act still applies to charter cities) •Procedures for initiative, referendum, and recall
•Procedures for adopting ordinances
•Financing public improvements
•Making charitable gifts of public funds for public purposes •Scope of authority related to taxes and assessments
•Term limits, vacancies and termination of office for council members •Many land use and zoning processes, although general law cities are required to comply with housing element law.
•Additionally, the legislature is passing housing laws that apply to charter cities, and courts are generally upholding their application to charter cities.1 As of 2024, California has 126 charter cities out of its 483 municipalities, representing approximately 26% of all cities in the state. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), as of January 2025, 26 charter cities (including San Francisco, which operates as both a charter city and a county) have established their own transfer tax. Table showing a list of California cities and the transfer tax as of March 2022: Link
ANALYSIS
Given the looming structural deficit facing the City and the limited capital funds to address infrastructure needs, the City Council has discussed, on multiple occasions, the need to broaden and diversify the City’s revenue streams so the City has sustainable sources of revenue to maintain and enhance City services. One such area that a majority of the Council were interested in exploring is the ability for the City to enact an RPTT. In order for a local municipality in California to enact such a tax, it is necessary for the city to have “charter city” abilities. General law cities are not legally authorized to impose RPTT.
What is RPTT?
RPTT is a one-time tax on the sale of property that is paid when real property (both residential and commercial) is conveyed and is based on the value of the property. The tax is paid upon the close of escrow and collected by the County Recorder’s Office, which remits it to the city. The seller is generally responsible for paying the RPTT. However, the buyer and seller can negotiate who will pay the tax in the purchase agreement. RPTT is a one-time tax on the sale, not an annual tax on property. As noted above, only charter cities are authorized by state law to impose such a tax. This tax is distinguished from the similarly named documentary transfer tax (“DTT”) that the county has adopted, and which all cities thereby became authorized to impose by ordinance.
Understanding the differences between RPTT and DTT
1 SB 35 was recently held by the court of appeal to apply to charter cities in Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley. In California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund v. City of San Mateo, the court of appeal held that the Housing Accountability Act applied to charter cities. A recent trial court decision held that SB 9 did not apply to five charter cities because the legislature had adopted the law because the law did not require construction of affordable housing and therefore was not supported by the legislative findings — however, the Attorney General appealed this decision, and the case is currently pending in the court of appeal.
DTT is due on conveyances of real property when the consideration or the fair market value exceeds $100, unless an applicable statutory tax exemption is cited. DTT is at the maximum allowable level of $1.10 for every thousand dollars of value 2 (half of which is allocated to the City and half to the County per the State Revenue and Taxation Code Section 11931).
However, if a City adopts an RPTT by becoming a charter city, this full amount of DTT goes to the County. The City’s DTT is codified in Municipal Code Chapter 3.12 – Documentary Transfer Tax. See example below on how the DTT is currently calculated.
Property sale transaction amount = $2,000,000
Total DTT ($1.10 per $1,000 value or $0.55 per $500 value) = $2,200 City’s share: 50% of total DTT (same as $0.55 per $1,000 or $0.275 per $500) = $1,100 Some charter cities have enacted an RPTT that imposes a tax on the conveyance of real property based on the value of the property in addition to the amount authorized by the State Revenue & Taxation Code Section 11911. Courts have determined that such charter city taxes do not violate either Proposition 13 3 or Proposition 62. Although Government Code Section 37100.5 gives a general law city the authority to impose the same type of taxes that a charter city imposes, a general law city is subject to the restrictions of Proposition 62 (approved by voters in 1986), which specifically prohibits a transaction tax on the sale of real property.
As a General Law City, the following table shows the historical DTT (2015-2025) for the City of Foster City:
2015-2025 - Historical DTT for the City of Foster City ($ millions) Fiscal Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Documentary
Transfer Tax
@ $0.55 per
$1,000
(actuals)
$0.48 $0.27 $0.26 $0.30 $0.32 $0.28 $0.31 $0.49 $0.21 $0.24 $0.44 Research of RPTT of other Charter Cities
County City Real Property Transfer Tax Rate per
$1,000 (as of April 2025)
San Mateo County San Mateo City $5
$15 – equal to or greater than $10 million
Mountain View $3.30
$15 – over $6 million
Palo Alto $3.30
Santa Clara County
San Jose Exempt under $2 million
$7.50 – $2 to $5 million
2 For consistency and ease of understanding, tax rates presented in this report all converted to a rate per $1,000 of value.
3 Proposition 13 is a landmark California ballot initiative, passed by voters in June 1978, that significantly limits property taxes.
$10 – over $5 million up to $10 million
$15 – over $10 million
San Francisco San Francisco $5 – up to $250,000
$6.80 – $250,000 to $1 million
$7.50 – $1 million to $5 million
$22.50 – $5 million to $10 million
$27.50 – $10 million to $25 million
$30 – $25 million or more
Alameda $12
Albany $15
Berkeley $15 – 1.6 million and less
$25 – $1,600,001 and above
Emeryville $12 – less (less than $1 million
$15 – $1 to $2 million
$25 – $2,000,001 and above
Hayward $8.50
Oakland $10 – $300,000 and less
$15 – $300,001 to $2 million
$17.50 – $2,000,001 to $5 million
$25 – $5,000,001 and above
Piedmont $13
Alameda County
San Leandro $11
El Cerrito $12 Contra Costa
County Richmond $7 – Under $1 million)
$12.50 – $1 million to $3 million
$25 – $3 million to $10 million
$30 – over $10 million
As noted previously, as a general law city, Foster City currently receives the standard rate of $0.55 per $1,000 dollars of the value of real property transfers within the City. This is one half of the total DTT rate charged within the City (as specified in California Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 11911-11929), with the other half being allocated to the County of San Mateo. If the City becomes a charter city, the City Council could decide to place on the ballot a RPTT higher than the state law’s DTT rate.
Given the inherent difficulties with projecting the level of real property sales activity and sale prices going forward, staff has analyzed the potential revenue that the City would have received in each of the prior five (5) years based on actual previous DTT revenues remitted to the City from the County. The table below illustrates three (3) hypothetical scenarios assuming RPTT flat rate of $3 per $1,000; $6 per $1,000 and $11 per $1,000. However, if Council directs staff to move forward with a potential limited charter city ability with a RPTT measure, staff will have to engage with subject matter experts on real estate and/or economists to truly determine a tiered rate structure that would not be regressive as a flat rate structure.
Hypothetical Scenarios of potential revenue based on
five-year historical data ($ millions)
Fiscal Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Documentary Transfer Tax @
$0.55 per $1,000 (actuals)*
$0.31 $0.49 $0.21 $0.24 $0.44
Scenario #1 – Real Property
Transfer Tax @ $3 per $1,000
(estimates)
$1.68 $2.67 $1.14 $1.30 $2.39
Scenario #2 – Real Property
Transfer Tax @ $6 per $1,000
(estimates)
$3.37 $5.34 $2.28 $2.61 $4.79
Scenario #2 – Real Property
Transfer Tax @ $11 per $1,000
(estimates)
$6.20 $9.80 $4.20 $4.80 $8.80
*Note: The City does not have data that shows the breakdown of these transactions based on the total dollar value of each real property sales transaction OR the classification of the real property i.e., residential or commercial. However, it is reasonable to assume that a major portion of the transfer taxes are based on home sales transactions.
Assuming that the median sale price of a home in Foster City is around $1.6 million, under each of the scenarios discussed above, the one-time RPPT that the City would receive is shown below*:
Scenario #1 – @ $3 per $1,000 = $4,800
Scenario #2 – @ $6 per $1,000 = $9,600
Scenario #3 – @ $11 per $1,000 = $17,600
*It is important to note that if the City imposes its own RPTT rate, the standard $0.55 per $1,000 that the City currently receives which is 50% of the DTT will go to the County, and the County will receive the full 100% of the $1.10 per $1,000 base tax. In other words, an RPTT imposed by the City by becoming a Charter City would be an additional transfer tax on top of the current DTT of $1.10 per $1,000 value.
PROCESS TO BECOME A CHARTER CITY
While there are many abilities for which a charter can provide a city, the City may opt to become a “limited charter” for the sole ability to impose a RPTT. To become a charter city or have limited charter ability, a city must adopt a charter. There are two ways to draft a charter (Gov. Code Section 34550 et seq. and Gov. Code Sec. 9255 et seq.):
1. The City Council (or a committee of the City Council) drafts the charter and submits the draft charter to the voters (Gov. Code, § 34458.); or
2. The City’s voters elect a charter commission to draft the charter. (Gov. Code, §§ 34451, 34458.). Although a city council would have input into the work of an elected charter commission, the draft of a charter commission can be submitted to the voters with or without city council approval.
In either case, the charter is not adopted by the city until it is ratified by a majority vote of the city’s voters at a statewide regular election. (Gov. Code, §§34457, 34458.) Once adopted, an existing charter may be amended or repealed only by a majority vote of the city’s voting electorate. (Cal. Const., Article XI, § 3.) A measure to amend or repeal a charter may be placed on the ballot by the City Council or upon an initiative petition signed by at least fifteen percent (15%) of the registered voters. (Elec. Code, § 9255.) The procedures established by state statute regarding the adoption, amendment, revision, or repeal of a city charter pre-empt any conflicting provisions in a city charter.
An elected charter commission follows procedures outlined in California Government Code to prepare a charter to place on an upcoming ballot. This method requires a longer timeframe to first hold an election for commission members and then another election for voters to consider the charter proposed by the commission.
Should the Council desire to place a ballot measure to become a charter city and a RPTT measure on the November 2026 ballot, the City Council may direct staff to have the City Council draft the proposed charter for consideration and approval by the City Council, which would then be placed before the voters at the November 2026 election. A charter must address key governance areas including elections, city power and municipal organization.
The charter may have as much detail or generality as desired as long as the charter complies with the California Constitution. After the proposed charter has been drafted by the City Council, it may be sent to the voters for ratification at the next established statewide general election, provided there are at least 88 days remaining before the election. (Gov’t Code § 34458.)
Before a proposal to adopt a charter is submitted to the voters, the City Council must hold at least two (2) public hearings on the proposal of a charter and the content of the proposed charter. Notice of the public hearings shall be given by publication twice in a newspaper designated by the City Council and circulated throughout the city, and by posting notice in three public places within the city at least 21 calendar days prior to the date of each public hearing. (Gov. Code, § 34458.) The second public hearing shall be held at least 30 days after the first public hearing. At least one of the public hearings shall be held outside of normal business hours to facilitate public participation.
When the charter includes a tax such as the RPTT, then a 2/3 majority of the City Council, or four (4) affirmative votes, are needed to place the charter on the ballot per Government Code section 53734(b). A simple majority of voters must vote in favor of the proposed charter for the charter and tax to be adopted. (Gov. Code, § 34459.) Under the California Constitution, it is sufficient to provide in any city charter that the city governed under it may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations regarding municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and limitations provided in the charter. (Cal.
Constitution Article XI, § 5, subd. (b).)
Should the Council be interested in pursuing becoming a charter city for the sole purposes of passing a RPTT, the Council may consider a limited charter that generally provides that the City will follow California law in all areas except those stated in the charter; and specifically, that the charter should authorize the City to implement a RPTT if approved by the voters as an integral part of the charter. This process links the required voter approval of the charter to the required voter approval of the tax, so that both would be approved or disapproved in one ballot measure, avoiding the problem of inconsistent votes on two separate ballot measures.
KEY POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
Voter Approval. Requires voters to approve changing Foster City to a charter form of government and to approve the RPTT measure. Both measures can be on same ballot.
Requires majority vote approval for general purpose tax and generally strong historical approval rates by voters (70% of ballot measures).
Equity: Tiered rates can help mitigate inequity/regressive nature of a flat rate. Also, tax can be imposed as incidence of property sale allowing the buyer and seller to negotiate who pays what portions at close.
Volatility: Significantly more volatile when compared to some other tax revenues. RPTT revenue is an elastic revenue source in that it is highly influenced by economic shifts that affect the real estate market (e.g. interest rates, inflation, recessions, economic growth cycles, consumer confidence, local construction activity, etc.). It is challenging to fund municipal services with consistent annual ongoing operating and infrastructure expenses using a highly volatile revenue source.
Incentivizing Affordable Housing Development: In some cases, transfer tax policies can be used to incentivize the development of affordable housing. For example, San Francisco offers a reduced transfer tax rate for certain high-value residential rental properties that include at least 12% affordable units, are built with union labor, and are financed by a union pension fund.
Addressing the Affordable Housing Funding Gap: Revenue from transfer taxes can be used to help bridge the “affordable housing funding gap,” which is the difference between the cost of developing and operating affordable housing and the rents that low- and moderate-income households can afford. Transfer taxes can provide an ongoing revenue source to fund initiatives like rental subsidies and construction assistance. For example, Los Angeles and San Jose, specifically earmark revenue generated from transfer taxes to fund affordable housing projects and initiatives, including homelessness prevention efforts.
Market Impact: High transfer tax rates can increase the overall cost of purchasing property, potentially deterring buyers, slowing down market activity, and lowering property values.
This can reduce transaction volumes and potentially limit economic activity tied to property transactions.
Impact on Commercial Properties: A February 2025 Report titled “The Hidden Costs of Transfer Taxes” (Link) prepared by the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA International) states that transfer taxes place a disproportionate burden on commercial properties. This is because commercial buildings tend to be more expensive, making more of them subject to any tax on high-value properties. The report states that in the current market, the number of commercial transactions is too small to generate significant revenue, whereas the downward pressure on commercial prices from a new tax could cost the city more in lost property tax revenues.
Impact on housing development and affordability 4: Increased transfer taxes can potentially hinder new housing construction, particularly multifamily projects, which could exacerbate housing affordability problems by reducing the housing supply. oReal estate transfer tax increases can impede the development and maintenance of affordable and market-rate rental apartments.
oBy increasing transaction costs and reducing return on investment, developers may opt to conduct business elsewhere.
oStudies on increased real estate transfer taxes in California show adverse effects, including slowed or halted housing construction, particularly in multifamily projects, leading to less affordable housing.
Transition: The transition from many years of operation under "general law" status to "charter city" status requires some adjustment.
oFor example, uncertainty that may arise on occasion as to whether a specific matter is one of municipal concern governed by the charter, or of statewide concern, governed by a statute. This could give rise to a legal test if an issue should arise in an undefined area where charter and general law may differ.
Unintended Consequences: Despite their well-intended purpose, transfer taxes sometimes fall short of generating the expected revenue due to reduced sales activity and lower property valuations.
The following findings were made by Sage Policy Group in a June 2022 Report titled “The Unintended Consequences of Excessive Transfer Taxes” (Link):
1. Transfer taxes tend to be regressive, meaning that they disproportionately impact lower-income households in the market for property, and seemingly small increases in transfer taxes can result in substantial decreases in housing affordability. This has an outsized impact on first-time homebuyers.
2. There is outsized need for adaptive reuse of existing commercial properties given significant office vacancy in the context of remote work, retail closures as e-commerce continues to acquire market share, and under-occupied hotel space, for which the occupancy rate fell from 65.9 percent in 2019 to 57.6 percent in 2021. Higher transfer taxes would make these properties less likely to be redeveloped.
3. Sizable transfer tax increases can make large commercial transactions infeasible. In an analysis of the 3.5 percentage point increase in San Francisco’s transfer tax on sales of $100 million or more, the increase leads to a nearly 20 percent reduction in the rate of return on the sale of a large commercial property.
4. Higher transfer taxes on high value properties would reduce investment in commercial properties and reduce investment in residential properties. If half of that investment was spent on construction, the higher transfer tax rates could cost the city jobs, labor income, and potential revenues from economic activity.
4 Source: https://www.thedailyline.com/housing-affordability-proposed-transfer-tax-increase The report summarizes that “transfer tax increases have negative economic consequences for both the residential and nonresidential segments. They are regressive and can lead to decreases in population, real incomes, real estate transactions, investment in structures, and quality of the built environment. They are also associated with higher rents, lower property valuations, reduced residential mobility, and diminished homeownership. The negative impacts of elevated transfer tax rates stand to be exacerbated by the increased prevalence of remote work, lingering weakness in office space net absorption, elevated mall vacancy rates, and diminished hotel occupancy…..”
POTENTIAL STATE BALLOT INITIATIVE IN 2026
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has proposed two ballot initiatives for consideration during the 2026 election that would prohibit local governments from imposing ad valorem taxes on real property. These initiatives undermine recent local tax initiatives and state statutes allowing flexible taxation. It risks invalidating a broad range of municipal revenue measures—especially those passed by simple majority or enacted without voter approval.
The proposed new initiative: Local Taxpayer Protection Act to Save Proposition 13 would add Section 4.5 to Article XIII A of the California Constitution, and its central purpose is to:
•Revert to strict interpretation of Proposition 13 (1978) and Proposition 26 (2010) despite voter will.
•Restrict local governments' ability to levy or collect property-related taxes, transfer taxes, and transaction taxes.
•Invalidate certain existing taxes two years after enactment if they don’t comply with stricter approval requirements.
The measure would limit charter city-only transfer taxes to the current statutory rate for DTT (that is, $0.55 cents per $1,000). Specifically, the measure would invalidate all existing charter city-only transfer taxes exceeding the current statutory rate on December 31, two years following enactment of the measure by statewide voters. This includes those transfer taxes used by charter cities for general purposes as well as those designated for specified purposes. The measure also would prohibit charter cities from imposing any new charter city-only transfer taxes that exceed $0.275 per $500. The measure would continue to allow counties and cities to impose and split documentary transfer taxes consistent with current law.
Vote Threshold for Special Taxes. The measure also would require special taxes to receive a two-thirds vote for approval, regardless of whether the tax was put before voters through a citizen initiative or the local government. Existing property-related special taxes that were approved by less than two-thirds of voters would be invalidated. Such local measures would be invalidated on December 31, two years following enactment of the measure by statewide voters. Voters could reauthorize such taxes (or impose new ones) in the future, but only with a two-thirds vote. However, charter cities could not reauthorize charter city-only transfer taxes.
The proposal is currently before the Attorney General to be officially titled and summarized.
There are two versions of the initiative – Version 1 would retroactively invalidate a local real estate transfer tax; Version 2 is prospective – because donors and sponsors are attracted by the retroactive invalidation of taxes upon real property but know that a more moderate approach is more likely to pass. If approved by voters, “Version 2” of this proposal will restrict the state’s 26 charter cities (who have approval from the voters) from imposing local property tax adjustments. If proposal “Version 1” is approved, it would invalidate taxes that have been imposed prior to the passage of the initiative in addition to prohibiting the imposition of new taxes. There is also a Version 3 that is still awaiting title and summary, but it seems to be substantially similar to the Version 1 proposal. These initiatives are most likely to appear on the November 2026 ballot.
The proposals may be viewed in full here:
25-0004 ((Prop. 13 - V1)).pdf
25-0005 ((Prop. 13 - V2)).pdf
25-0004A1
NEXT STEPS/TENTATIVE TIMELINE
Should the Council wish to place a charter measure on the November 2026 ballot, the following represents a potential timeline based on statutory requirements and best practices from other cities:
•September to December 2025:
oOnboard consultants, public opinion research firm to assist with the effort. oCommunity and stakeholder input and public opinion research conducted. •January to March 2026: Staff develops options for the revenue measure based on community input, public opinion research, Council input, and other considerations.
Concurrently, initiate charter drafting process.
•April to June 2026: Community outreach and public information disseminated explaining why and how Council is considering placing a revenue measure on the ballot.
oMay 2026: First public hearing (21-day notice requirement). Receive Council direction on appropriate revenue measure and ballot measure language oJune 2026: Second public hearing (21-day notice requirement and held at least 30 days after first public hearing)
•Early July 2026: Council adoption of resolutions (held at least 21 days after second public hearing)
•July 30, 2026: Submit early to County Elections
•August 7, 2026: Deadline of City submission of ballot measure to Registrar of Voters (88 days before election per Election Code)
•August 18, 2026: Deadline for City’s submittal of impartial analysis of ballot measure to Registrar of Voters
•November 3, 2026: Election Day
•Post Approval: The City files the approved charter with the California Secretary of State and begins implementing charter provisions.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The project is categorically exempt from further review of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) which exempts projects where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question will result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact from receiving this informational report. Becoming a charter city would require dedication of resources to the drafting and legal review of any proposed charter, as well as the cost of an election.
Should Council direct staff to proceed with the charter city process, the cost to place a charter measure on the ballot and a RPTT tax measure could range anywhere between approximately $300,000 to $500,000 (consultants, public polling firm, surveys, community outreach based on the scope and approach directed by the City Council, etc.,).
The transition to charter governance includes developing a well-drafted charter, expert legal review, and outreach costs. Holding a General Municipal Election and adding a measure to the ballot costs an estimated $120,000 - $150,000. If voters approve a RPTT measure, these one-time upfront costs could be recovered with the potential revenues generated from the tax measure.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
City Council Operations and Improved Community Engagement Sustainability
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Charter City Toolkit: League of CalCities Attachment 2 – Chart comparing Charter and General Law Cities