-10-
Grand Terrace — Mayor Darcy McNaboe Yes
Hesperia — Mayor Cameron Gregg Yes
Highland Not present
Loma Linda — Mayor PhiII Dupper Yes
Montclair — Mayor Javier "John" Dutrey Yes
Needles Not present
Ontario — Mayor Pro Tem Alan D. Wapner Yes
Rancho Cucamonga — Mayor L. Dennis Michael Yes
Redlands — Mayor Paul Barich Yes
Rialto — Mayor Deborah Robertson Yes
San Bernardino — Mayor John Valdivia Yes
Twentynine Palms Not present
Upland Not present
Victorville — Mayor Debra Jones Yes
Yucaipa — Council Member David Avila Yes
Yucca Valley — Council Member Rick Denison Yes
V. PUBLIC COMMENT — None
VI. ADJOURNMENT — Chair Robertson adjourned the meeting at 11: 47 a. m.
Respectfully submitted,
LYNNA MONELL
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of San Bernardino
Secretary — City Selection Committee
Minutes of the City Selection Committee, San Bernardino County Page 3 of 3 Meeting of March 3, 2021
-11-
an Bernardino
Council Office I Damon L. Alexander, Council Member, Seventh Ward February 4, 2022
Lynna Monell
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of San Bernardino
385 North Arrowhead Ave., Second Floor
San Bernardino CA 92415
RE: Letter of Interest to Fill the LAFCO City Primary Position Dear City Selection Committee Members:
I am Damon L. Alexander, and I would like to be considered for the appointment as the primary city member of the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO). I am a firm supporter of LAFCO' s mission which is to encourage growth as well as promote the Countywide vision Statement.
In my capacity as a council member for the City of San Bernardino, I represent local city government daily. I communicate with other elected officials, utility agencies and residents to keep an open dialog and to be mindful ofthe issues that affect all of us in our region.
It would be my honor to serve as the primary member of LAFCO city representative. My history of public service will serve the Commission well in meeting their goals and objectives in the future to come.
Best Regards,
Damon L. Alexander
7th Ward Council Member
DLA:cdjweeks
290 North " D" St., San Bernardino, CA 92401 I P: 909-384- 5188 I C: 909- 462- 8112 I alexander_ da@sbcity. org -12-
an Bernardino
Council Office I Damon L. Alexander, Council Member, Seventh Ward February 4, 2022
City Selection Committee
February 1, 2022
Council Member Damon L. Alexander
Statement of Qualifications
Damon L. Alexander
Council Member — City of San Bernardino
290 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Cellular 909 462- 8112
Alexander da. iSBCity. org I
was elected in 2020 to the San Bernardino City Council, 7th Ward. It is my pleasure to serve approximately 32,000 residents. Itaught Political Science and Communications atthe University of Phoenix. I will use those communication skills to promote LAFCO's goals inan efficient manner toagencies ( public and private), property owners and residents of our County. I represent San Bernardino City on the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority SBCTA) as an alternate Board Member. Through the SBCTA Ihave gain valuable regional experience inpolicy. I also sit on the Southern California Electric Government Advisory Panel GAP) for elected officials in our region. I
have represented my city as a delegate tothe California League of Cities. Iinteracted with many of my colleagues onbest practices for cities on various issues. I developed good working relationships which is vital in this capacity as a Board member. I
am very active in my city as well as in San Bernardino County, supporting local charities and non - profits. In 2017, I served as San Bernardino County Commander (25th District) of the American Legion the largest veteran's organizationn California. I am past president of my neighborhood association (NENA) so I understand and listen toresidents' concerns about changes that affects the community in which they live. As
of January 2022, I was selected tothe Southern California Association of Governments SCAG) County Housing Policy Leadership Academy. We will explore new and innovative data tools, housing elements for our County and other principal topics that will reflect with the mission of LAFCO. 290
North "D" St., San Bernardino, CA 92401 I P: 909- 384- 5188 I C: 909- 462- 8112 I alexander_ da@sbcity. org -13-
an Bernardino
Council Office 1 Damon L. Alexander, Council Member, Seventh Ward Prior to my recent retirement, I served our country as a United States Federal Agent with the United States Department of Justice for 29 years. I obtained my B.S. in Political Science from the University of La Verne and my master' s degree in Public Administration from National University.
With my experience I bring a unique and diverse perspective to the Commission, and I believe I will be an asset to the mission of LAFCO. Thank you for taking the time to consider my appointment to the LAFCO City primary position.
Best Regards, / ' \
1 Damon L. Alexander
Council Member
City of San Bernardino
290 North " D" St., San Bernardino, CA 92401 I P: 909- 384- 5188 I C: 909- 462- 8112 I alexander_ da@sbcity. org -14-
City of Loma Linda
25541 Barton Road, Loma Linda California 92354- 3160 • ( 909) 799- 2800 • FAX ( 909) 790- 2890 Sister Cities Manipur Karnataka, India - Libertadore, San Martin, Argentina • www. lomalinda- ca. gov February 4, 2022
Lynna Monell, Clerk ofBoard ofSupervisors
County ofSan Bernardino
385 N. Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92415
Dear Lynna,
Please accept this letter as a request for consideration by the City Selection Committee to be appointed to the Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO). I have been an elected city council member in the city of Loma Linda for twelve years, currently serving as the Mayor. I believe I would be good choice and fit to replace the current outgoing city representatives on the board.
During my tenure as a locally elected official, I have served on several boards and commissions including the San Bernardino International Airport Authority, Inland Valley Development Agency, California Joint Powers Insurance Authority, Confire JPA Board of Directors, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Advisory Commission on Water Policy and the Solid Waste Management Board.
I have also served extensively on the League of California Cities for twelve years, as a city representative, the local division president and now as a state level league board member.
I am employed as a Lieutenant for the San Bernardino County Sheriff' s Department and teach leadership and ethics to law enforcement leaders through the Center for Criminal Justice Foundation, California State University Long Beach.
I live in the beautiful city of Loma Linda with my wife Jaime, son Jacob and brand- new daughter Faith.
Thank you and the City Selection Committee for your time and consideration.
Phill Dupper, Mayor
City ofLoma Linda
25541 Barton Road
Loma Linda, CA 92354
909) 799- 2810
pdupper@lomalinda- ca. gov
-15-
STAFF REPORT
TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: February 22, 2022
FROM: Joseph A. Hughes, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Betty Hughes, MMC, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Proposed Resolution Opposing Initiative 21- 0042A1 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider Cal Cities' request to adopt Resolution No. 2022- opposing Initiative 21- 0042A1.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
PUBLIC NOTICE: The agenda for this item was posted at the three locations per Resolution No. 2011- 047 and on the City' s website.
BACKGROUND: In 2018, the " Tax Fairness, Transparency and Accountability Act" or AG# 17- 0050 Amdt. # 1), was being circulated to qualify for the November 2018 ballot. This initiative would have drastically limited local revenue authority. Through the successful work and advocacy of the League of California Cities and its coalition, the measure' s proponents withdrew the initiative from the ballot in June 2018.
On January 4, 2022, the California Business Roundtable filed the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act or AG# 21- 0042A1. This measure is far more detrimental to cities than the measure filed in 2018, because it would decimate vital local and state services to the benefit of wealthy corporations. This measure limits the voters' input, adopts new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and makes it more difficult to hold state and local law violators accountable. Cal Cities, along with a broad coalition of local governments, labor and public safety leaders, infrastructure advocates, and businesses, strongly oppose this initiative.
Cal Cities is requesting cities to adopt a resolution to demonstrate how harmful this measure would be to the community and the people of California.
Approved Motion Second Agenda Item No. / 7
Denied Ayes
Continued Noes
Tabled Abstain
Absent
City Clerk
File No.
-1-
ACTION ALERT
State Ballot Measure Restricting Voters' Input and Local Taxing Authority
CITY RESOLUTIONS NEEDED ***
ACTION:
Cal Cities requests cities adopt a city resolution to demonstrate how harmful this measure would be to your community and the people of California.
Send adopted city resolutions to BallotMeasures@calcities. org as soon as possible. A sample city resolution is attached.
BACKGROUND
In 2018, the " Tax Fairness, Transparency and Accountability Act" or (AG# 17- 0050 Amdt. # 1), was being circulated to qualify for the November 2018 ballot.
This initiative would have drastically limited local revenue authority.
Through the successful work and advocacy of the League of California Cities and its coalition, the measure' s proponents withdrew the initiative from the ballot in June 2018.
On Jan. 4, 2022, the California Business Roundtable filed the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act or AG# 21- 0042A1. This measure is far more detrimental to cities than the measure filed in 2018, because it would decimate vital local and state services to the benefit of wealthy corporations.
Cal Cities, along with a broad coalition of local governments, labor and public safety leaders, infrastructure advocates, and businesses, strongly oppose this initiative.
SUMMARY
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act limits voters' authority, adopts new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and makes it more difficult to hold violators of state and local laws accountable.
WHAT WOULD THIS MEASURE SPECIFICALLY DO?
-2-
1) Limit voter authority and accountability
Limits voter input. Prohibits local voters from providing direction on how local tax dollars should be spent by prohibiting local advisory measures.
Invalidates the Upland decision that allows a majority of local voters to pass special taxes. Taxes proposed by the Initiative are subject to the same rules as taxes placed on the ballot by a city council. All measures passed between January 2022 and November 2022 would be
invalidated unless reenacted within 12 months.
2) Restrict local fee authority to provide local services Impacts franchise fees. Sets new standard for fees and charges paid for the use of local and state government property. The standard may significantly restrict the amount oil companies, utilities, gas companies, railroads, garbage companies, cable companies, and other corporations pay for the use of local public property. Rental and sale of local government property must be " reasonable" which must be proved by " clear and convincing evidence."
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. 3) Restrict authority of state and local governments to issue fines and penalties for violations of law
Requires 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.
4) Restrict local tax authority to provide local services Requires voter approval to expand existing taxes ( e.g., UUT, use tax, TOT) to new territory ( e. g., annexation) or expanding the base ( e. g., new utility service).
City charters may not be amended to include a tax or fee.
New taxes can be imposed only for a specific time period.
Taxes adopted after Jan. 1, 2022, that do not comply with the new rules, are void unless reenacted.
All state taxes require majority voter approval.
Prohibits any surcharge on property tax rate and allocation of property tax to state.
5) Other changes
No fee or charge or exaction regulating vehicle miles traveled can be imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy.
TALKING POINTS
-3-
1) Gives wealthy corporations a major loophole to avoid paying their fair share — forcing local residents and taxpayers to pay more The measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure, our environment, water quality, air quality, and natural resources — shifting the burden and making individual taxpayers pay more. 2) Allows corporations to dodge enforcement when they violate environmental, health, public safety, and other laws
The deceptive scheme creates new loopholes that makes it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods.
3) Jeopardizes vital local and state services
This far-reaching measure puts at risk billions of dollars currently dedicated to critical state and local services.
It could force cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more.
It would also reduce funding for critical infrastructure like streets and roads, public transportation, drinking water, new schools, sanitation, and utilities.
4) Opens the door for frivolous lawsuits, bureaucracy, and red tape that will cost taxpayers and hurt our communities
The measure will encourage frivolous lawsuits, bureaucracy, and red tape that will cost local taxpayers millions — while significantly delaying and stopping investments in infrastructure and vital services. 5) Undermines voter rights, transparency, and accountability This misleading measure changes our constitution to make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and local infrastructure.
It also includes a hidden provision that would retroactively cancel measures that were passed by local voters — effectively undermining the rights of voters to decide for themselves what their communities need.
It would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures, where voters provide direction to politicians on how they want their local tax dollars spent.
-4-
141 LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA
CITIES
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act Initiative No. 21 - 0042A1
January 21, 2022
Summary: The measure limits the voters' input, adopts new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and makes it more difficult to hold state and local law violators accountable.
Limiting Voter Authority and Accountability
Limits voter input. Prohibits local voters from providing direction on how local tax dollars should be spent by prohibiting local advisory measures.
Invalidates Upland decision that allows majority of local voters to pass special taxes. Taxes proposed by the Initiative are subject to the same rules as taxes placed on the ballot by a city council. All measures passed between January 2022 and November 2022 would be invalidated unless reenacted within 12 months.
Restricting Local Fee Authority to Provide Local Services Franchise fees. Sets new standard for fees and charges paid for the use of local and state government property. The standard may significantly restrict the amount oil companies, utilities, gas companies, railroads, garbage companies, cable companies, and other corporations pay for the use of local public property. Rental and sale of local government property must be " reasonable" which must be proved by " clear and convincing evidence."
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.
Restricting Authority of State and Local Governments to Issue Fines and Penalties for Violations of Law.
Requires 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. -5-
LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA
CITIES
Restricting Local Tax Authority to Provide Local Services Expanding existing taxes ( e. g., UUT, use tax, TOT) to new territory ( e.g., annexation) or expanding the base ( e.g., new utility service) requires voter approval.
City charters may not be amended to include a tax or fee.
New taxes can be imposed only for a specific time period.
Taxes adopted after January 1, 2022, that do not comply with the new rules, are void unless reenacted.
All state taxes require majority voter approval.
Prohibits any surcharge on property tax rate and allocation of property tax to state.
Other Changes
No fee or charge or exaction regulating vehicle miles traveled can be imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy. -6-
LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA
CITIES
Stop the Corporate Loopholes Scheme
Deceptive Proposition Allows Major Corporations to Avoid Paying their Fair Share and Evade Enforcement when they Violate Environmental, Health & Safety Laws An association representing California' s wealthiest corporations — including oil, insurance, banks and drug companies — is behind a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2022 statewide ballot. Their measure would create major new loopholes that allow corporations to avoid paying their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities; while also allowing corporations to evade enforcement when they violate environmental, health, safety and other state and local laws. Here' s why a broad coalition of local governments, labor and public safety leaders, infrastructure advocates, and businesses oppose the Corporate Loophole Scheme:
Gives Wealthy Corporations a Major Loophole to Avoid Paying their Fair Share - Forcing Local Residents and Taxpayers to Pay More The measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure, our environment, water quality, air quality, and natural resources - shifting the burden and making individual taxpayers pay more.
Allows Corporations to Dodge Enforcement When They Violate Environmental, Health, Public Safety and Other Laws
The deceptive scheme creates new loopholes that makes it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods.
Jeopardizes Vital Local and State Services
This far-reaching measure puts at risk billions of dollars currently dedicated to critical state and local services.
It could force cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services and more.
It would also reduce funding for critical infrastructure like streets and roads, public transportation, drinking water, new schools, sanitation, utilities and more.
Opens the Door for Frivolous Lawsuits, Bureaucracy and Red Tape that Will Cost Taxpayers and Hurt Our Communities
The measure will encourage frivolous lawsuits, bureaucracy and red tape that will cost local taxpayers millions — while significantly delaying and stopping investments in infrastructure and vital services.
-7-
111/ 4
LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA
CITIES
Undermines Voter Rights, Transparency, and Accountability This misleading measure changes our constitution to make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and local infrastructure.
It also includes a hidden provision that would retroactively cancel measures that were passed by local voters — effectively undermining the rights of voters to decide for themselves what their communities need.
It would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures, where voters provide direction to politicians on how they want their local tax dollars spent. -8-
Ca( iforvtiaCityFivtatace. Cowt
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:
Rev. January 7, 2022
Billions of local government fee and charge revenues placed at heightened legal peril. Related public service reductions across virtually every aspect of city, county, special district, and school services especially for transportation, and public facility use.
Hundreds of millions of dollars of annual revenues from dozens of tax and bond measures approved by voters between January 1, 2022 and November 9, 2022 subject to additional voter approval if not in compliance with the initiative.
Indeterminable legal and administrative burdens and costs on local government from new and more empowered legal challenges, and bureaucratic cost tracking requirements.
The delay and deterrence of municipal annexations and associated impacts on housing and commercial development.
Service and infrastructure impacts including in fire and emergency 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 proceeds on the same ballot. o Voters may be less informed and more likely to vote against measures.
Eliminates the ability of special tax measures proposed by citizen initiative to be enacted by majority voter approval ( Upland).
o Because the case law regarding citizen initiative special taxes 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 November 8, 2022 would be void after November 9, 2023.
Requires that 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 previously approved taxes at additional cost to taxpayers.
Requires that a tax or bond measure adopted after January 1, 2022 and before the effective date of the initiative ( November 9, 2022) 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 November 9, 2023).
o
If past election patterns are an indication, dozens of tax and bond measures approving hundreds of millions of annual revenues may not be in compliance and would be subject to reenactment.
Most will be taxes without a specific end date. Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, measures not in compliance would need to be placed on a special election ballot for approval before November 9, 2023 or the tax will be void after that date. General tax measures would require declaration of emergency and unanimous vote of the governing board.
2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616- 6616
Phone: 530. 758. 3952 • Fax 530. 758. 3952
-9-
2 — rev January 7, 2022
Requires voter approval to expand an existing tax to new territory ( annexations). This would require additional tax measures and would deter annexations and land development in cities. o
If a tax is " extended" 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 for general taxes would, under current law, each require unanimous vote of the agency board to be placed on a special election ballot or would be void after November 9, 2023.
Local Tax and Bond Measures - California
Cities, Counties, Special Districts, Schools
600 Wass CI Fail
500
400
ri
300 i 1
200
100
I
j
1 i
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017. 2018 2019 2020
1. a. Number of Measures and Value of Local Taxes at Risk' In 2020, voters in California approved 293 local tax and bond measures for cities, counties, special districts and schools ( 95 in March and 198 in November). The approved measures enacted $ 3. 85 billion in new annual taxes including $ 1. 3 billion for cities, $ 302 million for counties, $ 208 million for special districts ( fire, wastewater, open space and transit districts), and $ 2. 037 billion for schools ( including for school bonds).
Most tax measures go to the ballot during a presidential or gubernatorial primary or general election in an even year. However, some tax measures are decided at other times. During 2019, there were 45 approved tax and bond measures ( 24 city, 14 special district, 7 school) adopting $ 154. 0 million in new annual taxes ($ 124.0 million city, $ 10. 5 million special district and $ 19. 2 million school).
Most tax and bond measures comply with the new rules in Initiative 21- 0042Amdt# 1 except:
Dozens of taxes would require end dates. This would require additional measures in future years to extend the taxes further. Very few extensions of existing local taxes fail.
Majority vote general tax measures could not be accompanied on the same ballot with an advisory, non -binding measure as to use of tax proceeds.
Special taxes placed on the ballot via citizen initiative would require two-thirds voter approval.
Bond measures have fixed terms. Historically, about 20 percent of other tax measures have included specific durations ( i. e. sunsets). Advisory measures as to use of revenues are uncommon. I do not expect the provisions of 21- 0042A1 to have any substantial effect on passage rates. However, some 2022 approved measures would likely have to put back on the ballot.
Based on history, a reasonable estimate of the annualized tax revenues estimated to be approved by Source: Compilation and summary of data from County elections offices.
Cal iforvtiaCityFivtavtice. com
-10-
3 — rev January 7, 2022
voters in 2022 and placed at risk by this initiative is at least $1. 5 billion, including $ 1. 0 billion from cities and $ 500 million from counties and special districts. 2
1. b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Tax Provisions In addition to service delays and disruption due to new tax revenues placed at greater legal risk, there will be substantial additional costs for legal defense. The deterrence of taxes for annexations will delay and deter municipal annexations.
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 new " actual cost" test defined as "( i) the minimum amount necessary to reimburse the government for the cost of providing the service to the payor, and ( ii) where the amount charged is not used by the government for any purpose other than reimbursing that cost. In addition, subjects these same charges to a new, undefined, " reasonable" standard.
Subjects fees and charges for entrance to local government property; and rental and sale of local government property to a new, undefined, " reasonable" test.
Subjects a challenged fee or charge to new, higher burdens of proof if legally challenged.
Prohibits a levy, charge or exaction regulating or related to vehicle miles traveled, imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy.
2. a. Value on New Local Government Fees and Charges at Risk3 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 $ 1 billion per year including those adopted since January 1, 2022. Of this $1 billion, about $570 million is for special districts, $450 million is cities, and $ 260 million is counties. 4
Major examples of affected fees and charges are:
1. Nuisance abatement charges - such as for weed, rubbish and general nuisance abatement to fund community safety, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanup programs.
2. Commercial franchise fees.
3. Emergency response fees - such as in connection with DUI.
4. Advanced Life Support ( ALS) transport charges.
5. Document processing and duplication fees.
6. Transit fees, tolls, parking fees, public airport and harbor use fees.
7. Facility use charges, fees for parks and recreation services, garbage disposal tipping fees.
In addition to fees and charges, the measure puts fines and penalties assessed for the violation of state and 2 This does not include citizen initiative special tax approved by majority but not two-thirds. Because this approach is new, the number of these measures and amount of revenue involved cannot be estimated. 3 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. 4 School fees are also affected but the amount is negligible by comparison.
CaliForvtiaCityFiv. avLce. com
-11-
MC
4 — rev January 7, 2022
local law at risk, making them taxes subject to voter approval under certain circumstances.
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.
CaliForniaCityFir av,.ce. covv<
-12-
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING INITIATIVE 21- 0042A1
WHEREAS, an association representing California' s wealthiest corporations is behind a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2022 statewide ballot; and
WHEREAS, the measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure, our environment, water quality, air quality, and natural resources; and
WHEREAS, the measure includes undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and infrastructure, and would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures where voters provide direction on how they want their local tax dollars spent; and WHEREAS, the measure makes it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to state and local services at risk, and could force cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more; and WHEREAS, the measure would also reduce funding for critical infrastructure like streets and roads, public transportation, drinking water, new schools, sanitation, and utilities; and
WHEREAS, staff will email a copy of this adopted resolution to the League of California Cities at [email protected].
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Highland, opposes Initiative 21- 0042A1.
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Highland will join the NO on Initiative 21- 0042A1 coalition, a growing coalition of public safety, labor, local government, infrastructure advocates, and other organizations throughout the state.
Resolution No. 2022-
-13-
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day 22nd of February, 2022.
Larry McCallon
Mayor
ATTEST:
Betty Hughes, MMC
City Clerk
Resolution No. 2022-
-14-
DATE:
FROM:
PREPARED BY:
STAFF REPORT
TO THE CITY COUNCIL
February 22, 2022
Joseph A. Hughes, City Manager
Betty Hughes, MMC, City Clerk
SUBJECT: City Manager Report and Comments
Work Program, Regional/ Legislative/ Development Issues, Subcommittees, etc.)
RECOMMENDATION: Discussion and possible action.
Approved Motion Second Agenda Item No. / 1
Denied Ayes
Continued Noes File No.
Tabled Abstain
Absent
ci,/i(7/
City Clerk City Ma}aa er
-1-
DATE:
FROM:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
STAFF REPORT
TO THE CITY COUNCIL
February 22, 2022
Joseph A. Hughes, City Manager
Betty Hughes, MMC, City Clerk
Council Member Comments
Agency/Committee/AB1234 Reports, District Updates, etc.) RECOMMENDATION: Discussion and possible action.
Approved
Denied Ayes
Continued
Tabled Abstain
Motion Second Agenda Item No.
Noes File No.
City Manager
-1-