City of Gonzales
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor Rios and City Council
DATE: March 4, 2024
FROM: Carmen Gil, City Manager
THROUGH: Carmen Gil, City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2024-07 Opposing Initiative 21-0042A1 Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review and consider adoption of Resolution No. 2024-07, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gonzales Opposing State Initiative 21-0042A1 Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act; and support Cal Cities’ efforts to oppose it by providing a letter of support.
BACKGROUND
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, proposed by the California Business Roundtable, would revise the California Constitution with provisions that limit voter’s authority and input, adopt new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and may make it more difficult to impose fines and penalties for violation of state and local laws.
The measure puts billions of local government tax and fee revenues at risk statewide with related core public service impacts. The measure could have significant negative impacts on the City of Gonzales’ operations and core service delivery.
REVIEW & ANALYSIS
The proposed constitutional initiative has the potential to impact local dollars significantly. Some of the major provisions include:
Fees and Charges:
AGENDA
ITEM
9 • Except for licensing and other regulatory fees, fees and charges may not exceed the “actual cost” of providing the product or service for which the fee is charged. “Actual cost” is the “minimum amount necessary.” The burden to prove the fee or charge does not exceed “actual cost” is changed to “clear and convincing” evidence. • Requires fees and charges paid for the use of local and state government property and the amount paid to purchase or rent government property to be “reasonable.” These fees and charges are currently allowed to be market-based. Whether the amount is “reasonable” (introducing a new legal standard aiming to force below market fee and charge amounts) must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence.”2 The standard may significantly reduce the amount large companies (e.g., oil, utilities, gas, railroads, garbage/refuse, cable, and other corporations) will pay for the use of local public property. • Prohibits fees on new development based on vehicle miles traveled.
Taxes:
• Taxes and fees adopted after Jan. 1, 2022, that do not comply with the new rules, are void unless reenacted.
• Invalidates Upland decision that allows a majority of local voters to pass special taxes.
The measure specifies that taxes proposed by the initiative are subject to the same rules as taxes placed on the ballot by a city council.
• Expressly prohibits local advisory measures which allow local voters to express a preference for how local general tax dollars should be spent.5 • Requires voter approval to expand existing taxes (e.g., Utility, Transient Occupancy) to new territory (e.g., annexations) or to expand the tax base (e.g., new utility service) • New taxes can only be imposed for a specific time period. • City charters may not be amended to include a tax or fee. • All state taxes require majority voter approval.
Fines and Penalties:
• May require voter approval of fines, penalties, and levies for corporations and property owners that violate state and local laws unless a new, undefined adjudicatory process is used to impose the fines and penalties.
Duties and Commitments
The League of California Cities, along with a broad coalition of local governments, labor and public safety leaders, infrastructure advocates, and businesses, strongly opposes this initiative.
Local government revenue-raising authority is currently substantially restricted by state statute and constitutional provisions, including the voter approved provisions of Proposition 13 of 1978, Proposition 218 of 1996, and Proposition 26 of 2010. The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act adds and expands restrictions on voters and local government tax and fee authority.
Fees and Taxes:
Local governments levy a variety of fees and other charges to provide core public services.
Major examples of affected fees and charges are:
• Nuisance abatement charges, such as for weed, rubbish, and general nuisance abatement to fund community safety, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanup programs. • Commercial franchise fees.
• Emergency response fees, such as in connection with DUI. • Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges.
• Document processing and duplication fees.
• Transit fees, tolls, parking fees, and public airport and harbor use fees. • Facility use charges, fees for parks and recreation services, garbage disposal tipping fees.
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, including council-adopted increases to simply accommodate inflation, Cal Cities estimates the amount of local government fee and charge revenue at risk is approximately $2 billion per year including those adopted since Jan. 1, 2022. Over ten years, $20 billion of local government fee and charge revenues will be at heightened legal peril.
Fines and Penalties
Under existing law, cities are required to provide due process before imposing a penalty or fine for violation of its municipal code:
1. A local agency must adopt administrative procedures that govern imposing fines and penalties, including providing a reasonable period of time for a person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or remedy the violation [Gov't Code 53069.4].
2. Notice must be given to the violating party before imposing the penalty; and give the party an opportunity to be heard and present any facts or arguments [Merco Construction Engineers v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1969) 274 CA 2d 154, 166].
3. The fine may not be "excessive" [U.S. Constitution amendments VIII and XIV].
The initiative converts administratively-imposed fines and penalties into taxes unless a new, undefined, and ambiguous “adjudicatory due process” is followed. This provision may put at risk authority to impose fines and penalties for violations of state and local law.
Explain Recommendation and How it Supports the Vision
Gonzales will continue to be a safe, clean, family-friendly community, diverse in its heritage, and committed to working collaboratively to preserve and retain its small town charm.
Explain: Opposing this Initiative aligns with the City’s efforts to provide the community with robust opportunities for programs and services. This new initiative could impact current and future funding.
Explain how the Recommendation Directly Implements the Mission The City Council and Staff of the City of Gonzales will realize our Vision by providing the leadership, commitment and resources necessary to provide excellent services that enhance the quality of life of our diverse community. X Yes ____No ___ NA
Explain: See explanation above.
Strong fiscal policies allow us to provide appropriate infrastructure for:
• Public Safety X Yes No N/A
• Housing X Yes No N/A
• Recreation X Yes No N/A
• Environment X Yes No N/A
• Education X Yes No N/A
Explain: Please see explanation above for the Vision.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council can opt to not pass the resolution against this initiative and thus not support Cal Cities’ efforts, which is not ideal as its passage could have detrimental impacts on programs and City services.
BUDGET IMPACT
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act will take back billions of dollars away from local government services statewide, potentially impacting us directly.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council review and consider adoption of Resolution No. 2024-07, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gonzales Opposing State Initiative 21-0042A1 Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act; and support Cal Cities’ efforts to oppose it by providing a letter of support.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 2024-07
2. Letter to League of California Cities Opposing Initiative 21-0042A1