Newark City Council
July 23, 2026

SF- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \003 \001- 001. docx
B. Maximum and Recommended Impact Fees
We recommend that the adopted fees be set at the amounts supported by this nexus study given that the proposed public safety and community service facility fee amounts and total fees in Newark ( after adoption of the recommended fees) would not exceed the levies in neighboring communities.

Fxhihit 22: Maximum and Recommended Fee Schedules
la_
Public Safety Facility Fee Community Service Facility Fee Residential $ 2,311 per unit $ 3,451 per unit
Commercial $ 1. 72 per square foot $ 1. 19 per square foot Industrial $ 0.36 per square foot $ 0.50 per square foot Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 19
SF- FS2\wp \16 \16090 \003 \001- 001. docx
VII. FEE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
The Mitigation Fee Act includes a series of reporting requirements designed to ensure that development impact fee revenues are properly accounted for, used appropriately, and that, where funds are ultimately not used, are reimbursed. In addition, jurisdictions adopting fee programs should determine their preferred approach to updating the fee schedule and whether they intend to allow for exemptions, credits, and reimbursements (under any additional circumstances). The following fee program implementation and administration parameters are our standard recommendations. The City' s existing program may already include some or all of these recommendations.

A. Credits, Reimbursement, and Exemptions
Under certain and limited circumstances, as determined by the City, the Impact Fee Resolution could allow developers subject to the fee to obtain credits, reimbursements, or exemptions. In cases of redevelopment, the demolition of space should provide a fee credit. In other words, the gross fee obligation should be calculated based on the scale of the proposed new development, with a fee credit to be applied for existing square footage to be removed (or retained) using the applicable fee for the existing square footage ( land uses). Existing developments that are being replaced due to a natural disaster are also exempt from the impact fees.

All other fee credits and /or reimbursements should not be allowed by right but rather should be subject to review by City staff and Council to ensure that such credits or reimbursements are warranted and appropriate.

B. Securing Supplemental Funding
The maximum, supportable development impact fee is set to cover the public safety and community service facilities investments needed to fund the demands generated by new development. As presented in this analysis, new development is estimated to generate only a portion of the demand for the planned facilities and therefore the fee levies are anticipated to provide only a fraction of the funds needed to construct the facilities. It is anticipated that the City of Newark will need to secure additional funding in order to complete the capital facilities.

C. Annual Review and Periodic Study Update
The Mitigation Fee Act/AB 1600 ( at Gov. C. §§ 66001( c), 66006(b)( 1)) stipulates that each local agency that requires payment of a fee make specific information available to the public annually within 180 days of the last day of the fiscal year. This information includes the following:

A description of the type of fee in the account
The amount of the fee
The beginning and ending balance of the fund
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 20
S F- FS2 \wp \l 6\ 16090 \003 \001- 001. docx
The amount of fees collected and interest earned
Identification of the improvements constructed
The total cost of the improvements constructed
The fees expended to construct the improvement
The percentage of total costs funded by the fee
Because of the dynamic nature of growth and capital equipment requirements, the City should monitor inventory activity, the need for improvements, and the adequacy of the fee revenues and other available funding. To the extent particular issues are identified, adjustments to the fee program may be required.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 21
SF- FS2 \wp \16 \16090 \003 \001- 001. docx
Table 1
City of Newark Population and Employment
Populations
44,733 2, 933 12,844 60,510
Employment°
Office 1, 197 850 2,047
Retail 7,762 900 8,662
50 % R& D 33,5_45 11.3_50 4,. 8_95
Total Commercial 12,504 3, 100 IS,604
Light Industrial 1,749 300 2,049
Heavy Industrial 1, 565 200 1,765
50% R & D 3%545 11.350 4,895
Total Industrial 6. 859 1.850 M
State Deportment ofFinance E-5 Is source of estimate ofourrentpopulation. Estimate ofpopulation In 2035 Is the Newark General Plan.

ESRI is source of current employment estimates. 2035 employment estimates have been provided City staff.

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

SF- FSL \wp \16 \16090 \003 \revised analysis 03 16 17; 3/ 16/ 2017 Table 2
Residential Units and Non - Residential Gross Building Area sidential Housing Units` 13, 470 908 3,977 18,734
Commercial SF' est.

Office 290,000 130,000 420,000
Retail 3,500,000 300,000 3,800,000
50% of R & D 1. 290.000 45000 174. 0.000
Total Commercial 5,080,000 880,000 5,960,000
Industrial SF'
Light Industrial 1, 200,000 200,000 1,400,000
Heavy Industrial 5, 100,000 600,000 5,700,000
50% R & D 1. 290.000 45000 7

0.000
Total Industrial 7590.000 125= a.aaD.000
state Department ofFinance E -5 is source ofestlmute of current housing units. Estimates offuture units is based on General Plan estimates ofpopylation and SOOF overage household she of 3.31. 2 Estimates of non - residential gross building area have been provided by City staffand KMA hosed on standard employmentdensltyfactors.

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

SF- F52 \wp\ 16 \18090 \003 \revised analysis 03 16 17; 3/ 16/ 2017 Table 3
Population Fair Share Allocation: Existing /New Development and Public Service Population Factor Source. Number Percent Allocat
Residents
Existing SDOF, E -5. 44,733 73.9%
In progress City staff +SDOF 2,933 4.8%
New Growth 11844
Buildout General Plan 60,510 100.0%
Employment
Existing ESRI 19, 363 79. 6%
New Growth City staff 44,950 20_4%
Buildout 24,313 100.0%
Public5ewice Population (1)
Existing 51,704 74. 6%
In Progress 2,933 4. 2%
New Growth Mb26 21. 1%
Buildout 69, 263 100.0%
Public service population Is an allocadonfaclor which differentiates between the impact of emloyees and residents. It equals resident population plus. 36 ofemployment. Per priorNewark General Plan, the 36factor reflects an adjustmet ofone- holf(8116) to reflect the workday's sham of awake hours and an adjustemt of 5/ 7 to reffect he workweeks's shore ofo week.

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

SF- FS2 \wp \36 \16090 \003 \revised analysis 03 1617; 3/ 16/ 2017 Table 4
New Public Facilities Needs and Portion of Needs Attributable to New Development Impact Fee Study
Newark, CA
r Allocated based an service population.

The castto replace thesmtion Is $ 5. 3 million. The cast of the exp mn lon Is $ 1. 1 million. The replacement cost is distributed to existing and new development proPortionate to theirshore of service population. lac % of the expansion cost Is allocated to new development.

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

SF- FS2 \ wp \ 76 \ 16090 \ 003 \ revised analysis 03 1617; 3/ 16/ 2017

2. 00% of Need Generated by; Allocation of Costs.

Total, With Existing New Method of Existing New
Fire Total Cost Admin. Development Development Allocation Development Development Fire Admin Portion of City Administration Building 2, 557,400 2,608, 548 78.9% 21.1% 1 2,057,701 550,847 Community Alerting and Warning System 75,000 76,500 78.9% 22, 1% 1 60,346 16, 154 Fire Station No. 27 Energy Efficient Windows 40,000 40,800 78.9% 21.1% 1 32,184 8, 616 Fire Station No. 27 Training Tower 2,000,000 2,040,000 78.9% 21.1% 1 1,609, 214 430,786 Fire Station No. 29 Truck Exhaust System 45,000 45,900 78.9% 21.1% 1 36,207 9,693 Replace Fire Station No. 27 5, 300,000 5,406,000 78.9% 2L1% 1 4,264,416 1,141,584 Replace and Expand Fire Station No. 29' 6,400,000 6,528,000 65.3% 34.7% 1 4,264,416 2,263,584 LadderTmck /Fire Engine to serve new population 1,200,000 1, 224,000 0.0% 100.0% 1 0 1, 224,000 Traffic Signal Preemtion( Opticom) 160,000 163,200 78_9% 2111 1 S128,737 S34,463 Total Fire 17,777,400 18,132,948 68.7% 31.3 %. 12,453,221 $ 5, 679,727 olive
Police Center at the Civic Center 23, 016, 600 23, 476,932 78.9% 21. 1% 1 18, 519,312 4,957;620 Police Vehicles ( 5) to serve new population 325,000 331, 500 0.0% 100. 0% 1. 0 331,500 Police Department Substation Facilities S 850, 000 867,000 78_9% 21.1% 1 S683,916 S193,084 Total Police 24,191,600 24, 675,432 77.8% 22.2% 19,203,228 $ 5,472,204 Total, Public Safety 41,969,000 42,808,380 73.9% 261% 31,656,449 $ 11,151,931 r Allocated based an service population.

The castto replace thesmtion Is $ 5. 3 million. The cast of the exp mn lon Is $ 1. 1 million. The replacement cost is distributed to existing and new development proPortionate to theirshore of service population. lac % of the expansion cost Is allocated to new development.

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

SF- FS2 \ wp \ 76 \ 16090 \ 003 \ revised analysis 03 1617; 3/ 16/ 2017 Table 5
New Community Service Facilities Needs and Portion of Needs Attributable to New Development Impact Fee Study
Allocated based on service population.

Allocated based on residentlal populotion.

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

SF- FS2 \ wp \ 16 \ 16090 \ 003 \ revised analysis 03 16 17; 3/ 1612017

2. 00% of Need Generated by: Allocation of Costs
Total, With Ex1rUng New Method of Existing. New
Total Cost Admin. Development Development Allocation Development Development Community S ice Facilities
City Administration Building at CivicCenter 17,262, 450 17, 607,699 78.9% 21.1% 1 13,889,484 3,718,215 Equipment Shop Heavy Duty Vehicle Hoist 60,000 61,200 78.9% 21.1% 1 48,276 12,924 History Center (Phases 2, 3, 4) 4,000,000 4, 080,000 78.9% 21.1% 1 3, 218,427 861,573 Library at the Civic Center 21,098,550 21,520, 521 78. 9% 21.1% 1 16,976,036 4,544,485 Mowry Avenue Backup Walls 900,000 918,000 78.9% 21.1% 1 724,146 193,854 New Fuel Management System 60,000 61, 200 78.9% 21. 1% 1 48,276 12,924 New Senior Center 7,500,000 7,650,000 78.8% 21. 2% 2 6,@6,169 1, 623,831 Newark Boulevard Backup Walls 1, 200, 000 1,224,000 78.9% 21. 1% 1 965,528 258,472 Perfuming (or Cultural) Arts Center 9, 000,000 9, 180,000 78.9% 21.1% 1 7, 241,461 1, 938,539 Service Center Fuel Tank Canopy 130,000 132,600 78.9% 21.1% 1 104,599 28,001 Service Center Stange Facility 400,000 408,000 78.9% 21.1% 1 321,843 86,157 Service Center Waste Disposal Upgrades 250,000 255,000 78. 9% 21. 1% 1 201, 152 53, 848 Silliman Complex Restroom /Maintenance Facility 700,000 714,000 78. 9% 21.1% 1 563, 225 150,775 Thornton Avenue Streetscape 2,200,000 2,244,000 78.9% 21.1% 1 1,770,135 473,865 Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations 200,000 204, 000 78.9% 2111% 1 160,921 43,079 New Homeless Shelter 1, 500,000 1,530,000 78.9% 21. 1% 1 1, 206,910 323,090 Service Center Expansion 5,000,000 5; 100,000 78.9% 21.1% 1 4,023.034 1076966
Total Community Facilities 71,461,000 72,890,220 78.9% 21.1% 57,489, 622 15,400,598 Allocated based on service population.

Allocated based on residentlal populotion.

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

SF- FS2 \ wp \ 16 \ 16090 \ 003 \ revised analysis 03 16 17; 3/ 1612017 Table 6
Allocation of New Development' s Share of Public5afety Facilities' Costs by Land Use Impact Fee Study
Total Facilities
Needs Attributable
AIIONrran Method
to New Allocation
Commercial Industrial
p1- Service Population
Development
Methods Residential Commercial Industrial
Fire
Fire Admin Portion of City Administration Building 550,847 3 425,029 106,201 19, 617 Community Alerting and Warning System 16,154 3 12,465 3, 115 575 Fire Station No. 27 Energy Efficient Windows 8,616 3 6, 648 1, 661 307 Fire Station No. 27 TrainingTower 430,786 3 332,392 83,054 15, 341 Fire Station No. 29 Truck Exhaust System 9,693 3 7,479 1,869 345 Replace Fire Station No, 27 1,141, 584 3 880,838 220,093 40,654 Replace and Expand Fire Station No. 29 2,263,584 3 1,746, 564 436,409 ED, 611 LadderTruck /Fire Engine 1,224,000 3 944,429 235,982 43, 589 Traffic Signal Preermlon( Opticom) 34,463 3 S26, 591 6. 644 1227 Total Fire 5,679,727 4, 382,434 1, 095, 027 202;266
Police
Police Center atthe CivicCenter 4,957,620 1 4,353,602 378,274 225,744 Police Vehicles (5) 331,500 1 291,111 25, 294 15,095
Police Department Substation Facilities 183,084 1 S160,778 13970 9,337 Total Police 5,472,204 4,805,491 417, 537 249,176
Total, Public Safety 11, 151,931 9,187,925 1,512, 565 451,442 AIIONrran Method
Table Ref. Residential Commercial Industrial
p1- Service Population 87.8% 7.6% 4.6%
R2- Residential Population 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
H3- Distribution ofcity -wide callsfort re/ EMSSe" Ices AppendixA) 77.16% 19.28% 3.56%

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

SF. FS2 \wp \76 \16090 \003 \revised analysis 03 16 17; 3/ 16/2017 Table 7
Allocation of New Development's Share of Community Service Facilities' Costs by Land Use Impact Fee Study
Total Facilities
Needs Attributable
all 89. 1% 6. 8% 4. 1%
senior 10096 0% 0%
nonsenior 87. 8% 7. 6% 4. 6%

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

SF- F$ 2 \ wp \ 16 \ 16090 \ 003 \ revised analysis 03 16 17; 3/ 16/ 2017 to New Allocation
Commercial Industrial
1- Service Population
Development Method' Residential Commercial Industrial
Community Service Facilities
City Administration Building a[ Civic Center 3,718,215 1 3, 265, 202 283,705 169, 308 Equipment Shop Heavy Duty Vehicle Hoist 12,924 1 11,349 986 588 History Center (Phases 2,3,4) 861,573 1 756,602 65,739 39, 232 Library at the Civic Center 4,544,485 1 3,990,802 346,751 206,932 Mowry Avenue Backup Walls 193,854 1 170,235 14,791 8,827 New Fuel Management System 12,924 1 11,349 986 588
New Senior Center 1, 623,831 2 1, 623,831 0 0
Newark Boulevard Backup Walls. 258,472 1 226,981 19, 722 11,769 Performing (or Cultural) Arts Center 1,938,539 1 1,702,355 147,913 88,271 Service Center Fuel Tank Canopy 28,001 1 24, 590 2,137 1,275 Service Center Storage Facility 86, 157 1 75, 660 6;574 3,923 Service Center Waste Disposal Upgrades 53,848 1 47,288 4,109 2,452 Silllman Complex Bestroom /Maintenance Facility 10,775 1 132,405 11,504 6,866 Thornton Avenue Streetscape 473, 865 1 416,131 36,157 21,577 Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations 43, 079 1 37,830 3,287 1,962 New Homeless Shelter 323, 090 1 283,726 24,652 14,712
Service Center Expansion S1,076,966 1 945,753 82,174 641039 Total Community Facilities 15, 400,598 13, 722,088 1,051,188 627,322

89.1% 6. 8% 4.1%
rA
all 89. 1% 6. 8% 4. 1%
senior 10096 0% 0%
nonsenior 87. 8% 7. 6% 4. 6%

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

SF- F$ 2 \ wp \ 16 \ 16090 \ 003 \ revised analysis 03 16 17; 3/ 16/ 2017 Table Ref. Residential Commercial Industrial
1- Service Population 1 1 87.8% 1 7.656 4.6%
2- Residential Population 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Community rociRrles
senior
non - senior
15,400598
1, 623,831.
13, 776, 767
13, 722, 088
1, 623,831
12,098,257
1, 051,188
0 1, 051, 188
627,322
0 627,322
all 89.1% 6.8% 4.1%
senior 10096 0% 0%
nonsenior 87.8% 7.6% 4.6%

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

SF- F$ 2 \wp \16 \16090 \003 \revised analysis 03 16 17; 3/ 16/ 2017 Table 8
Public Safety Facilities Impact Fees by Land Use

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

SF- F52\ wp\ 16\ 16090 \ 003 \ revlsed analysis 03 16 17; 3/ 1612017 Residential Commercial Industrial Total
Costs Allocated to New Development 9,187,925 1,512, 565 451,442 $ 11,151,931 New Development ( Units or SF) 3,977 880,000 1,250,000
Impact Fee per Unit/ SF 2, 311 1.72 0. 36
Currentfee 2,000 1.73 0. 17

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

SF- F52\ wp\ 16\ 16090 \ 003 \ revlsed analysis 03 16 17; 3/ 1612017 Table 9
Community Service Facility Impact Fees by Land Use

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

SF- FS2 \ wp \ 16 \ 16090 \ 003 \ revised analysis 03 16 17; 3/ 16/ 2017 Residential Commercial Industrial Total
Casts Allocated to New Development 13,722,088 1,051, 188 627,322 $ 15,400,598 New Development (Units or SF) 3,977 880,000 1, 250,000
Impact Fee per Unit /SF 3,451 1. 19 0.50
current fee 1,900. 0. 36 0.31

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

SF- FS2 \ wp \ 16 \ 16090 \ 003 \ revised analysis 03 16 17; 3/ 16/ 2017 Table distribution 10 of Fire Protection Service falls by Land Use Source; City of Newark
3 Countof incident# Incident Type
2 Ocxrpaiwy Desor Cancelled Fake Akan
All Other ResidenBal
77 5
Apartments 73
Health Cam and Penal Institutions
3 Holds and Motels
6 e
Industry, Utility, Defense, laboratories, Manukctu sing 24 Other
27 Other Structures( vacanl buildings, building under construction, 8 7
outbuildings, bridges,ecl)
157
2 Others
102
2 Private Demlifts (I or2 family), including mobile home$ 55 Public Assembly (Church, restaurant, clubs, ect)
1 17
ISC oola and Colleges
1 32
Storage In Structures @ems; vehicle storage garages, general - t- mg-, 211
19 act)
882
Stores and Offices
6 25
blank) 130
75 Residential, Other
9 2
ReardinglRooming House, Residential Hotels
GrandTdtal 156 267
Not Included In land use i lstrlbu8on 721 32. 9%
Other Kesiden0al 12 0.4%
Single Family 757 23.9%
Mult ily
1116 35. 3%
Commercial 471 149%
Industrial 81 7%
Total 3164 77. 2%
Total included in land use distribution 2443
areandown of Fire Protection Servlre PO u /utlon by Land Use Residential 1885 T7.16%
Commertlol 471 19.28%
Industrial 87 3.56
Total Included in analysts 2443 188.0% f14113
13i
1l2

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

SRFS2 \ wp \ 16\ 36090 \ 003 \ mvke1 analysis 03 16 17; 3/ 16/ 2017 3 4
2 109 20
77 5
1 60
2 11
6 36 31 357 119
27 2
20 15 497 157 2 6 102 12 2 9 6 3 2 8 8 7 1 211 26
882 19 8 1
75 57 2351 _ 383 f141 13
13i
1l2

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

SRFS2 \ wp \ 16\ 36090 \ 003 \ mvke1 analysis 03 16 17; 3/ 16/ 2017 gev%+BM rgel3 q-1
D
NEWgRN ANU OHEIGNRG FRBIGENTNLLIMSDICTM PING IUP6OIC11UN5S, IX6UGIHG gRGPDgOIE HOUSING fEFS du+ NewarF Uublln ircm° nt WWnN MIIpNa easaMOn San leaMm Union IXy Impaatfeea
3] 0: SeeBebw None None Nme N °M None ReBel°w
MaflegYlremenl
SF.$8] O, MF: $ SN cm —$.I None None NmM None See Bebx
Fire lmpa[ 3 Fee None
1BP:$30P: $ 537114 3] I
iOP: iSBWBP
Park Fa dllJei / Parkland MF: $] B} p] 3F/ MF: $ 18,616 OBP: 59%38 Si O: $ 11. 953 V°eler bypW. deneXy SF. SA] G9rMF. $], %9 SF: $36,OH:

Mf: S39.OW blo. sbn:

Oedbtlen Feea WdP- SF[$} S,0.b
13,8'A SFP: $ 11:3% SiG: $ M.G39
38,193 tee&)
2Bp: $ 19.36} Mf: $9,653 3fA:$ 35,138 11",
P. de° arly
1 MMFF.( I. BBRP: S$DW dui: $53398.%139 51AM plus PW (O - BP), t0R: 15. 531/ BA
SBSS I }88I. S63B INBPI
PYblh Sdfely —IF $11% Sf/ M F. $5, 198 R:$ 9% None None SN, $ G. 7M None Sf $ 33%31. MF.$B, 614 Public Fa[ Nlylmp3[ I feea
Sfl $1, % 9
1BP: S1R83 S X$ 1. 532
qmo. Servke. MF: $ 1$% 3BP: S3.0I6 MF. $?865
SF:$ 1.913 3BP: $ 1. 569
noun . non MF.$1Fq 4BP:$ 3. 163
Y:Sbl tOA: t$593( BP
Tol° I MF: $ 1. 135,
SF $ 4] 3:
0 /1BP: $i,01} None None M$4,101
RaFClmp, ttFee I' duded In Xax
MF. $3. 291 nnlYr: $6G1-$09] a
Publl[ FatllRVfee WHP:$ ; 14]
B: 1
Nairc None None None
latl°n None SF: O
None
TNNaIkyTstFeas Fee Oe. sul
MF.$; s. 114
SF: S %. 3] 4 OBP: $ 11. 363 SFG: SIl,953 Va rl roily
MF. $2,. 1, 108
5{ 8:$. As.

NomSe 9ub Wj[p3L
Top Fee[ / dY M:$F. $ID,] 33. 135 93 MF. $}]fgfi 6fA531. 995 6f0: w i, o $",. So4.6] 3 6R$ tsm. 1s
BF:$ 4 ; m5
nes:$ 308 5131. I],59983 MF. 59,653 BFA: $ 3: 438 W. Mf: $SMA56 16% B MF. $ISj9L$16,0% MF.$ AV. 9BR: S3LM MFI1A dui: ffgy Hon3ubdlW lBn
IBP: $31.013 MFISa dYi: 539. % U... 91 SIP tpp: SB.330/ 8P MF: 04] St4.RIp14, 4VS16$]B516 0.LIP: $ 1le%16.61,80363

0.3BP:$ 1BR: $MF16,13,9i8891 30 R: $ 131.66
3BP: $ 13.D11
Fesoloug f9Pv M° ne None None Noon
AaU Pe ° IRTmi See Pb° vv 1StlY:0.5 % BPV INone Hpne
None Nom Nor2 None
General Plan Coat Pe[ we 9 %BPV X° ^ e None Nm
Noire None 1 % BPV
Total %o1BPV 5% BPV 05% BPV None None
N,. PFIMW. PoNOI
See Above SeeMwe None None Hom None 1. Ml Ciupol espax
fire Equlpmenl KqulslJOn Nam
Hcm %ofa, WI on " I's,
see.. Hone 15% of BYildlmand Plan 3% ofBUlMingantl Plan Nom Nm,e Noun None
Geneal Plan Cat ll'. s,
Cberk Per 16 tlrtck Perml
NBles:] WS Mart presmes on o Mewand terms may to slmpllfted. Consult eode° ndOryslaFM more lnk'.. Uon. " brauld, nI, 3F = Sl ,,[ family 3Fq= 5FApa<M1ee v3F = 1a 50uare soot au= °aFu- 6eo MF = MONA miry BN= OUIIELIg Ferrol[ value . = 1: d.. du= pWeOing unit u[raN ulmdrexnuyaamnemenn.
afor Mllpaas and unl° n[ Il , Ns, N:I.... baaaO on peW.. isnslns, derivM p° m[ em. n.. —., e MllpRU. dptiv m: mry nonsones." s " ".' No o.,. ' us, W MppRN lttmaym maeWOYM me pr°Mlon M"'. n. e[ enaq[ c enlly rvWaN garb le Nlbn aal M." s', ooM and at. revmmunlry bYWpo, Nexnk Re lnslWnVanspntess- W pedontl kemlleRM en he6aY° I NeTM1Valky NansponaWnONebpmmtBblMl Fees vary tyro .

PrepamH % peyru MaNm gawlNeq uC.
fY unle GWnnWe[ ml^1'aW %93aneM M Ad:VIa'A16:M
APPENDIX TABLE A -2

COMPARISON OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAMS

NEWARK AND NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS
Note: This chart presents an overview and terms have been simplified. Consult code and City stafffor more Information.

Abbreviations: R= Rental sgft = Square Feet
du = Dwelling Unit AM[ = Area Median Income

1. In Union City, single - unit, owner- occupled projects exempt.

2. In Dublin, 40 % of the on - slte requirement is covered through an impactfee.

3. All cities thatdo not allow fee payment by right allow developers to seek Council approval of fee payment instead of on - site units. Also, all cities with on - site

4. Rental projects with a subdivision map allowing conversion to condominiums S. In- Ileu/ impact fee Introduced as temporary measure while City prepares formal nexus study. Fee has not yet been assessed. Average residential building permit value is reported to he $_ Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc,
Filename: WF- FS21wpN 6\ 16080003Vmpact fees comparison; A5 Inc Programs Casa, 2114/ 2017; hgr

Newark Fremont Milpitas Union City
Minimum Project She1
Forin- lieu,(Impad Fees,,,.,,,,, FS / R: IUnit FS / R: 2un1[ s Fg / R: Sunits nfa .. ........ ....__.,,.

For Build Requirement no build req. no build req. no build re. FS: 1 unit Onsite Requirement
n/ a
Attached 3.5% plus $18.50/ sf 5.0% 15%
Percentof Total Units'
Detached 4.5% Plus

17.50 /af
InmmeLevel ( %AMQ n/ a 80- 110 %AMI Up to BD % AMI 10 % @50%AMI; 120 %w /approval) 30 % @80- 1-00 %AMI;
60% @ 100-120% AM[
Impact / In -Lieu Fee Levels
Fee Level 20 /sf first 1, 0005F /unit; FS: 5% building permR Values 7 units: $160, 000 / du owed; 8 /SF above 1, 000 SF / unit Attached$ 18.50w / aff units; 7 + units: $ 180 / stowed

27.00 no units
Detached $ 17.50 w / aff
units;

26.00 no units
R: $ 17. 50 no map; $ 27. 00 w/
map
Alternatives to Onsite Provision°
Develpper) yes ( Developer) T--yes =(City)
Fee Option - for projects over n/ a
yes
min. she
Note: This chart presents an overview and terms have been simplified. Consult code and City stafffor more Information.

Abbreviations: R= Rental sgft = Square Feet
du = Dwelling Unit AM[ = Area Median Income

1. In Union City, single - unit, owner- occupled projects exempt.

2. In Dublin, 40 % of the on - slte requirement is covered through an impactfee.

3. All cities thatdo not allow fee payment by right allow developers to seek Council approval of fee payment instead of on - site units. Also, all cities with on - site

4. Rental projects with a subdivision map allowing conversion to condominiums S. In- Ileu/ impact fee Introduced as temporary measure while City prepares formal nexus study. Fee has not yet been assessed. Average residential building permit value is reported to he $_ Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc,
Filename: WF- FS21wpN 6\ 16080003Vmpact fees comparison; A5 Inc Programs Casa, 2114/ 2017; hgr

Appendix Table A -3
Comparison of Non - residential Impact Fees
Impact Fees Newark
Fremont Milpitas Union City?
Cvmmerdal $ 0.36 Upload FaclllUes Impact Fee:

Industrial $ 0. 31 office $ 0.92
Refill / Service $ 0.55
Public Facilities impact Warehouse $ 0.39 None None
Fee Ught industrial $ 0.31
Manufacturing $ 056
Research & Development $ 0.71
Hotel/ Motel( permom) $ 174.00
Public Safety) Office $ 0. 31
Commercial $ L73. Retail / Service $ 0. 18
Industrial $ 0.17 Warehouse $ 0.13
Fire Impact Fee Light Industrial $ 0.10 None See below.

Manufacturing $ 0.19
Research & Development $ 0.24
Hotel/ Motel or room $ 59.00
Park Facilities/
None None None None
Parkland Dedication Fee
Commercial $ 1. 38 Offce $ 5.00 Traffic SlgFlallutlon Fee:

Industrial $ 0.68 Retail / Service $ 6.84 office / retell $ 0. 30 Warehouse $ 1. 51 assuming FAR Of. 4)
Research & Development / $

0.12 Light Ind ustrlal $ 3. 62
No City-wide fees Industrial
Traffic Impact Fee
Research & Development $ 359 assuming FAR Of .S)
Manufacturing $ 2. 52
Hotel / Motel (per room) $ 2, 046.00
Business Park $ 4.23
Commercial $ 3. 59 None None None
Affordable Housing Industrial $ 0.69
Commercial $ 7.06 Office $ 6.22
Industrial $ 1. 85 Retail / Service $ 7.57
Warehouse $ 2.03
llghtlndustrlal $ 4.03
Research & Development $ 453 No Qty wide fees Total Fee Manufacturing $ 3. 26
Hotel / Metal (par mom) $ 2, 279. 00
Business Park (Office) $ 5.45
Business Park $
457
Manufacturing)

Keyser Marston Asscclates, Inc.

SRFS2 \wp \16 \ 16090\ 003 \non - residential fee comparison 02 13 17; 2/ 1412017 Appendix Table A -3
Comparison of Non - residential Impact Fees
Impact Fees Newark Fremane Milpitas Union City'
Fees as % of Permit
Value
Private - Permit valuation Negotiated between
ever $50 mIlIbe Developerand City
Must construct Public Art
Private - Permit valuation or pay in- lieu fee
over $250,000: equivalent to 1% of
Arts Requirement None Nocitywide fee. None permit valuation N/ A -must construct Public
Public - Permit valuation Art with a value
over$ 250,000: equivalent to 1% of
permitvaluation
General Plan cast None 15% of building permit fee. None 0.1% of permit valuation.

Remove
Other Fees
OFfice. / Professional / Hotel $ 1. 40 / sq. ft. of space Fire Equipment
se. above. See above. None Buildings above the second story Acquisition Industrial Buildings $. 06 / sq. ft. ofroofarea Sources and notes:

Unless otherwise specified, prices are calculated persquare foot of building area. The table excludes the Impact fees that are related to utlli0essuch as sewer/ waterconnection fees and school / specific districts.

1. Qty of Fremont. Fee schedule, Effective: September 1, 2016

2. City of Union city, Master Fee Schedule, Fiscal Year 2016- 2012. 1n tens ofTraffic Signalltation Fees, nsets $5,241/ acre for commercial coning and $ 2,620/ acre farindustrial wring

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

SF- F52 \wp \36 \16090 \003 \non- residenthl fee comparison 02131]{ 2/ 14/ 2012 RESOLUTION NO. 10, 635

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

NEWARK ESTABLISHING AN IMPLEMENTING

RESOLUTION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE,
UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001, IN

ACCORDANCE WITH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION

3. 24.040 AND AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

TO REFLECT THESE CHANGES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City ofNewark, a general law city ("City"), is authorized to prescribe and establish fees in regard to services or functions performed by the City for the public in a governmental and proprietary capacity; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. allows local governments to impose impact fees on new development in order to recover the cost of improvements that are needed to serve that new development; and WHEREAS, Chapter 3. 24 ( "Development Impact Fees ") of the Newark Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to adopt implementing resolutions establishing development impact fees in order to mitigate the impacts that projects have upon the City' s ability to provide public facilities;
WHEREAS, the existing fee needs to be brought into conformity with current conditions in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to have an updated Transportation Impact Fee that will ensure that all new development pays the cost to provide transportation facilities needed to support new development; and
WHEREAS, the City has retained Hexagon Transportation Consultants to complete a Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study, dated March 28, 2017, which establishes a reasonable relationship between the Transportation Impact Fee and the purpose of the fee, which study is incorporated herein and attached as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City has duly noticed, advertised, scheduled, and held a Public Hearing on May 25, 2017; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2017 the City Council reviewed material presented in the staff report including the Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study, concerning the purpose ofthe fee and the relationship between the fee and its purpose; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ofthe City ofNewark which hereby finds, declares, and resolves that:
1) The City hereby receives and approves the Public Safety and Transportation Development Impact Fee Nexus Study ( "Fee Study "), which is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution.
2) In adopting this Resolution, the City Council is exercising its powers under Chapter 3. 24 ofthe Newark Municipal Code, as well as pursuant to Article XI, Sections 5 and 7 of the California Constitution, Chapter 5 of Division 1 of the Government Code ( "Mitigation Fee Act'), commencing with Section 66000, collectively and separately.
3) After considering the Fee Study, this Resolution, and the testimony received at a public hearing, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:
a) In accordance with Section 66001, subdivision a, paragraph 1 ofthe Mitigation Fee Act, the purpose of the fees set forth in this Resolution, as specified in Exhibit A, is to provide for an expansion in transportation capital facilities in the City as new growth occurs;
b) In accordance with Section 66001, subdivision a, paragraph 2 of the Mitigation Fee Act, the fees collected pursuant to this Resolution, as specified in Exhibit A, shall be used for transportation related improvements identified in Exhibit A and shall be used to fund any administrative cost associated with the transportation impact fee program;
c) In accordance with Section 66001, subdivision a, paragraph 3 of the Mitigation Fee Act, there is a reasonable relationship between the fees use (to pay for the acquisition and construction of transportation facilities and imiprovements) and the type of development for which the fees are imposed in that the fees will be applied to residential and comercial development in the City, which will generate demands for transportation facilities;
d) In accordance with Section 66001, subdivision a, paragraph 4 ofthe Mitigation Fee Act, the Fee Study demonstrates that there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Transportation Impact Fee and the cost of transportation improvements attributable to the development upon which the fee is proposed. Since the need for transportation facilities is inherently travel driven associated transportation facility costs are assessed based on transportation trips; and
C) In accordance with Section 66001, subdivision b ofthe Mitigation Fee Act, there is a reasonable relationship between the amount ofthe fees and cost of providing the public safety facilities attributable to the development in the City upon which the fees are imposed in that the fees Resolution No. 10,635
have been calculated by apportioning the cost of transportation facilities acquisition and construction to the amount of transportation demand created by residents and employees attracted by each type of development.
4) The City finds pursuant to the California Environmental QualityAct ( "CEQA ") this action is not a " project" because the Resolution provides a mechanism for funding of transportation facilities but does not involve a commitment to any specific project for such purposes that may result in a potential significant impact on the Environment (CEQA guidelines Section 15378, Pub. Res. Code Section 21080( b)( 8)( D)).
5) The cost estimates set forth in the Fee Study are reasonable estimates for acquiring and constructing transportation facilities and improvements and the fees expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the future projected cost of acquiring and constructing transportation facilities. 6) The inethod ofallocation of the fees to particular development bears a fair relationship and is roughly proportional to each development' s burden on and benefits from the transportation facilities to be funded by the fees, in that the fees are calculated based on the amount of transportation demand created by residents and employees attracted by each type of development. 7) The Fee Study is a detailed analysis of how transportation services will be affected by development in the City and the transportation facilities necessary to accommodate that development.
8) The fees are consistent with the General Plan and, pursuant to Government Code Section 65913. 2, the City Council has considered the effects of the fees with respect to the City' s housing needs as established in the housing element of the General Plan.
9) The fee amounts set forth in this Resolution include the fair and reasonable costs of administration ofthe fee programs and are within the requirements ofthe Mitigation Fee Act and other applicable law.
10) The fees are subject to adjustment, which approximate the fluctuation in market costs, and shall be adjusted annually in accordance with the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index, San Francisco, California. 11) The City does hereby approve the following transportation impact fees on new residential and commercial development for transportation facilities as follows:

Resolution No. 10, 635
Residential Development
Type of Unit Fee per Unit
Single Family Unit 4,974
Townhome Unit 2,586
Multiple Family Units 3, 084
Commercial Development
Type of Use Fee per Square Foot
Office /Commercial 4.41
Manufacturing /Research
and Development

2.41 Warehousing /Distribution 4.82
These fees shall be adjusted annually in accordance with the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index, San Francisco, California.)
12) The city council may elect to waive the payment of the impact fee if a residential or nonresidential development project provides community benefits in excess of those required by the impacts ofthe project, and ifthe city council finds that the expected benefits to the community exceed those that would be provided by the payment ofthe Transportation Impact Fee. Such community benefits may include the provision of senior housing, the generation of significant taxes, or the elimination of nuisances.
13) The Transportation Impact Fees shall not apply to approved projects that are covered by a Development Agreement or Vesting Tentative Map unless the provisions of the document allow the application of such fees. 14) The Master Fee Schedule shall be amended to reflect the Transportation Impact fees as set forth in this Resolution.

Resolution No. 10, 635
15) Effective Date: This resolution shall be effective upon date of adoption ofthis Resolution. In accordance with Government Code Section 66017, the fees set by this Resolution shall be effective 60 days from the effective date of this Resolution.
16) Severability. Each component of the fees and all portions of this Resolution are severable. Should any individual component of the fees or other provisions of this Resolution be adjusted to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining component or provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the fees shall be fully effective except as to that component which has been judged to be invalid.

I HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council ofthe City ofNewark held on May 25, 2017, by Council Member Hannon, who movedits adoption andpassage, which motion was carried after being duly seconded, and passed by the following vote:

AYES: Council Members Hannon, Freitas, Vice Mayor Bucci and Mayor Nagy NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Collazo
SECONDED: Vice Mayor Bucci
Resolution No. 10,63'5
APPROVED:

Z91L-- / A
s /ALAN L. NAGY
Mayor

EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 10, 635
uPRAW TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.
1 City of Newark
Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study
l
Prepared for:

City of Newark
March 28, 2017
OA
to
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

O
Hexagon Office: 4 North Second Street, Suite 400
San Jose, CA 95113
Hexagon Job Number: 16AV07
Phone: 408.971. 6100
Client Name: Mr. Terrence Grindall
San Jose • Gilroy • Pleasanton • Phoenix www.hextrans.com Areawide Circulation Plans Corridor Studies Pavement Delineation Plans Traffic Handling Plans Impact Fees Interchange Analysis Parking Transportation Planning Traffic Calming Traffic Control Plans Traffic Simulation Traffic Impact Analysts Traffic Signal Design Travel Demand Forecasting Newark Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study March 28, 2017 Table of Contents

1. Introduction ..............................................................::.................................. ............................... 3

2. Traffic Impacts and Proposed Improvements ................................................ .............................. 4

3. Maximum Supported Transportation Impact Fee .......................................... ............................... 5

4. Transportation Impact Fees in Other Cities .......... 6 Appendices
AppendixA Future Residential and Employment Growth
Appendix B Conceptual Drawings Intersection Improvements Appendix Cost Estimates Intersection Improvements
List of Tables
Table 1 Projected Increase in PM Peak Hour Trips by 2035 ............................. ............................... 3 Table 2 Newark Transportation Impact Fee Improvements and Cost Estimates . ..............................4 Table 3 Maximum Supported Impact Fee ......................................................... ............................... 5 Table 4 Transportation Impact Fees in Other Cities ......... ......... .................. 7 HUMON Page I ii
Newark Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study March 28, 2017

1. Introduction
This report presents the results of the analysis to update the Transportation Impact Fee in the City of Newark, California. The Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000- 66025) was originally enacted through Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and requires that a reasonable relationship (nexus) be established between the projects or mitigations to be funded by an impact fee and the impacts caused by new development. This report serves as the nexus study required by the Mitigation Fee Act and documents the reasonable relationship between projected growth in Newark and the maximum supported Transportation Impact Fee (TIF).

The basis of this study is the 2013 City of Newark General Plan Update Draft EIR. Based on land use data in the General Plan, it is projected that there will be an additional 6, 208 residential units and 2, 882 jobs by the year 2035. The number of trips that this new growth would generate was estimated with standard trip generation rates for different land use categories from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition (2012). The projected number of residential units and amount of commercial square footage for each land use category is presented in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, this new development is estimated to generate 6,208 additional PM peak hour trips.

Table 1
Appendix A presents a summary of the residential projects and the number of units that were included in the analysis. Also included is a tabulation that shows the growth in employment by different types of development. These growth numbers were included in the travel demand forecasting model that was used to forecast the future traffic volumes for the General Plan Update Draft EIR.

WIXAM Page 1 3
Newark Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study March 28, 2017

2. Traffic Impacts and Proposed Improvements
As described in the City of Newark General Plan Update Draft EIR, the new development that is projected to occur by the year 2035 would result in significant impacts to six intersections. Appropriate mitigation measures were developed as part of the Draft EIR for each of these impacted intersections such that the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Furthermore, City staff has identified additional improvements that could lead to increases in alternative mode use and reduce the number of vehicle trips, thereby also mitigating the increased congestion caused by new development.

An effective multimodal transportation system will allow people to choose modes of transportation other than the single- occupant vehicle and will make bicycling, walking, and taking transit attractive, safe, cost - competitive and time - competitive choices. All of the improvements proposed to be at least partially funded with Transportation Impact Fees and the estimated cost of each improvement is presented in Table 2. Conceptual drawings of the Intersection improvements and their cost estimates are presented in Appendices B and C, respectively.

Table 2
Newark Transportation Impact Fee Im
rood & SR 84 WB Ramps
Blvd & SR 84EB Ramps
in Ave & Gateway Blvd
m Ave & Cherry Street
Ave & Cherry Street
ion & Cherry Street 9
Avenue Railroad Overcrossing
ton Transit Station
and Cost Estimates
iert northbound through lane into a left turn lane
an eastbound right -turn lane
southbound through lane
westbound left -turn lane
westbound right -turn lane
northbound through lane
pedestrian railroad overcrossing at the Dumbarton Transit Station ry Street Class 1 bike route
These cost estimates include planning -level estimates of the work Involved to meet the improvements required by the EIR.

The estimates do not Include items outside the scope of the EIR ( e.g. other improvements on Thornton Ave, such as sidewalks).

The estimates also does not include ROW acquisition costs. Costs rounded to the nearest $1,000. x These cost estimates reflect 50% of the total improvement costs. Since these intersections straddle the city boundary of Newark) and Fremont, it is assumed that Newark' s share would be 50% of the cost.

Thpcp trancnnrtati nn I mnrnvement nroi acts and cost estimateswere provided by City Staff.

Thus, for the purpose of calculating the Transportation Impact Fee, the City's share of total improvement cost is $ 30, 877,000.

HUMON Page 1 4
Newark Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study March 28, 2017

3. Maximum Supported Transportation Impact Fee
The maximum legally supported transportation impact fee has been calculated by dividing the cost of the improvements to be funded by the TIF, by the number of additional PM peak hour trips that would be generated by new development by the year 2035. This methodology provides a clear nexus between the new development, the improvements to be funded, and the amount of the fee. The cost of the improvements to be funded with impact fees is $ 30,877,000. The projected number of trips generated by new development, as shown in Table 1, is 6;208 additional PM peak hour trips. The resulting maximum impact fee is $4, 974 per PM peak hour trip.

This per PM peak hour trip amount can be converted to a per unit or per thousand square feet (KSF) amount by using the PM peak hour trip generation rates shown in Table 1. Table 3 presents the resulting TIF per dwelling unit for residential uses and per ksf for commercial uses, based on a TIF of 4,974 per PM peak hour trip.

Table 3
Since construction costs continue to rise, it is appropriate to index these impact fees to inflation. The fees should be adjusted annually by a construction cost index, such as the Engineering News Record. u f1UMON

Newark Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study March 28, 2017

4. Transportation Impact Fees in Other Cities
In order to establish a transportation impact fee of $4,974 per PM peak hour trip in the context of TIFs charged by other cities in the Bay Area, information on current TIF levels in some Bay Area cities was compiled. A recent (internet) survey focused on nearby cities of Fremont and Milpitas and cities on the Peninsula and in the South Bay. These fees are presented in Table 4. Note that the survey included only impact fees charged for transportation improvements, not for such other purposes as public safety, community facilities, housing, or parkland. Some cities specify impact fees on a " per dwelling unit" or per thousand square feet (ksf)" basis; other cities define fees solely on a " per trip" basis.

As can be seen in Table 4, Newark's existing TIF amounts are much lower than any of the other cities included in the survey. The updated TIF amount for single - family and multi- family units would be higher than the amounts charged by most other cities included in the survey. The fee of $4,974 per single family unit would be lower than the average fee of $5,515 computed for all cities included in the survey.

The impact fees for commercial space vary greatly between the cities, from $ 1, 280 per ksf in downtown Redwood City to $26,127 per ksf in the Transit Area District in Milpitas. The new Newark fee of $8,814 per ksf is somewhat higher compared to most other cities that were surveyed.

The impact fees for industrial space vary from $ 1, 160 per ksf in downtown Redwood City to $ 14,440 per ksf in North San Jose. The new Newark fee of $4,824 per ksf is higher compared to fees charged for industrial development in most other cities that were surveyed.

Some cities have chosen to exempt certain land uses from their TIF or use lower rates for land uses that they want to encourage. For example, Mountain View charges an extremely high TIF on office and R &D land uses in the North Bayshore area, but a far lower TIF on retail uses, because they want to encourage retail projects in that area in order to reduce total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in the city.

As another example, in the North San Jose area, the City of San Jose exempts all retail under 100,000 square feet from the TIF and only charges the TIF on large regional- serving retail projects over that size.

WHAGON Page 1 6
Newark Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study
Table 4
Transportation Impact Fees in Other Cities
March 28, 2017
Say Cities
1, 550 945
Downtown $ 1, 212 $ 744 $ 1, 790 $ 1, 280 $ 1, 160 709
irk'
2, 228 1, 831
San Mateo $ 3, 763 $ 3, 422 $ 21101 $ 3, 135 $ 2, 042
Current TIF 801 $ 460 1, 380 $ 680
Updated TIT $ 4,974 $ 4, 974 $ 3, 084 8, 814 8, 814 $ 4, 824 ant 2, 247 $ 2, 247 4, 997 3, 588 $ 2, 515 $
tas
6, 287 7, 369
Halt Moon Bay $ 6, 414 $ 3, 499 $ 4, 021 $ 4, 021 $ 2, 515 TAO Impact Fee' 32, 781 36,600
Fee for Transportation Improvements 9,561 26, 127
estimated from data presented In Table S on Page 10 of the Transit Area Development Impact Fee Update Final Report, February 2014.

Jose
North San lose Area
Evergreen -East Hills Area
US101 /Oakland Ave /Mabury Rd
1- 280 /Winchester Blvd.
do Park
Citywide
Supplemental Downtown
wood City
2,046
15, 410 $ 9, 677 $ 7, 742 $ 14,440 $ 4, 299
15, 148 $ 13, 170
35, 767 per PM peak hour trip that would use one of the Improved interchanges 25, 641 per PM peak hour trip that would use the proposed off -ramp improvement 3, 108 $ 3, 139 $ 1, 927 $ 4,630 $ 3, 330 $ 2, 280 $
379 per PM peak hour trip within El Camino Real /Downtown Specific Plan area 1,834
Non - Downtown $ 1, 617 $ 992 $ 2, 380 $ 1, 710 $ 1, 550 945 Downtown $ 1, 212 $ 744 $ 1, 790 $ 1, 280 $ 1, 160 709
San Carlos 5 3, 052 $ 1, 892 $ 4, 547 $ 3, 266 $ 2, 228 1, 831 San Mateo $ 3, 763 $ 3, 422 $ 21101 $ 3, 135 $ 2, 042
Los Altos $ 6, 152 $ 3, 777 $ 9, 076
Mountain View
North Bayshore Area $ 22, 470 $ 22,470 2,000
Sunnyvale
South of SR 237 $ 2,197 $ 1, 348 $ 3, 240 $ 2,131 $ 1, 610 1, 327 North of SR 237 $ 5, 931 - - $ 5, 746 $ 4,346 4, 494
Los Gatos" - $ 91020 $ 8,587 $ 5, 998 $ 9,949 $ 7,315 $ 6, 287 7, 369 Halt Moon Bay $ 6, 414 $ 3, 499 $ 4, 021 $ 4, 021 $ 2, 515 Sources: TIP amounts are from each city's. website.

The current Newark TIP Is from the City' s Master Fee Schedule as ofluly 1, 2016.

Fremont specifies TI amounts for residential uses based on the number of bedrooms. Amount shown is for 2 -3 bedroom units. a Transit Area Development Impact Fee includes fees for many services and Improvements. The fee for lust the transportation Improvements was estimated from data presented In Table S on Page 10 of the Transit Area Development Impact Fee Update Final Report, February 2014.

Los Gatos specifies Its TIF as $ 902 per DAILY trip. PM peak hour trip amount has been approximated as 10 times the daily amount.

Amounts for specific land uses have been calculated using dally IT€ trip generation rates and $902 . per dally trip.

HIMON Page 1 7
City of Newark
Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study
Technical Appendices
Appendix A
Future Residential and Employment Growth
KesMentiai ueveiopment
Location
Timber
vrojecis
PM

1. 00
Single Family
84 Peak Hour Trips

0. 52
Townhomes
80 Rate

0. 62
Apartments

0.25 Total PM Peak
Senior Units Hour Trips
164 126
Cedar Lane Townhomes 85 85 44
Prima 42 146 93 281 176
Baptist Church Site ( Equinox) 15 15 15
Casa Bella 14 14 7
Ruschin School Site 77 77 77
Bayshores 187 360 547 374
Dumbarton TOD -55H Towns 88 88 46
Dumbarton TOD- Senior 75 75 19
Dumbarton: Trumark 244 244 244
Dumbarton TOD Gateway West 321 268 589 460
36731 Sycamore 14 14 9
Sanctuary 385 385 385
7843 Railroad 6 6 4
6840 Rich 18 18 9
Filbert Townhomes 16 16 8
Freitas ( Robsen Homes) 180 180 94
Ashland Dumbarton TOD 120 120 62
Old Town Residential 400 400 248
FMC Dumbarton TOD 180 180 112
Area 700 700 700
Honeywell TOD 210 210 130
Greater Newark Apartments 1, 800 1, 800 1, 116
Totals 2, 055 1, 375 2, 703 75 6,208
4465
PM Peak -Hour Trips 2, 055 715 1, 676 19
Under Construction 141 325 93 0 1 559 1 368
Approved 1, 214 716 14 75 2,019 1, 614
Pending 0 34 6 0 40 21
Long Range 700 300 2,590 0 3, 590 2, 462
Totals 2,055 1,375 2,703 75 6,208 4,465
PM Peak hour trips by land use type calculated based ITE trip generation rates:

Single Family ITE Code 210
Townhomes ITE Code 230
Apartments /Condos ITE Code 220
Senior Housing [ Attached] ITE Code 252
Commercial Development Projects
931 20 20 8,000 8
933 40 40 16,000 16
930 97 97 38, 800 38
918 110 55 55 27,354 18, 430 76
922 110 55 55 27,656 18, 229 77
932 217 217 86,800 84
934 511 57 454 28,319 151, 454 79
935. 1, 778 227 1,551 113,612 516, 926 316
otals 2.883 374 394 2, 115 149, 600 196,941 705, 039 145 548 TAZ= Traffic Analysis Zone
As reported In Newark's General Plan
Derived from commercial development descriptions from Newark' s General Plan.

Square Feet per of development calculated based on ITE PM peak -hour trip rates per 1,000 square feet and per employee.

Light Industrial (Includes Manufacturing ITE Code 110 Assume 2. 50 jobs per 1,000 square feet Retail ITE Code 820 Assume 2. 0 jobs per 1,000 square feet Office (Includes R & D) ITE Code 710 Assume 3. 33 jobs per 1,000 square feet PM Peak hour trips by land use typecalculated based ITE Trip Generation Rates. Retail rate Includes a 25% pass by reduction. 27 27
226
770
Appendix B
Conceptual Drawings Intersection Improvements
VR
eery RESiRIPING. POSSIBLE
VO . BIGNAL MODIEILFTION,
O

MEDIAN WDENING J
e
5p
I
N

PHASING CHANGE PHASEAND R

EXCLUSIVE
FOR SAFETY. WIDENING,

ACQUIVION
OEPENOINOON WRANS. fiNOUL CURB THe _
a'
RETURN ALLONEDAND CALTRA MODIFY TRAFFIC TRAFE10516NAL , SIGNAL, -. ONUN

INLE( RELOCATIONS
oIR m
axone s. wta oeot svneaoo CONCEPTUAL IMPROVEMENTS EORTIFCALCULATION Hex ' r nation sui+oee, carcmmasst+ a Q GRAPHIC SCALE ARDENWOOD BLVD AND STATE ROUTE 84 DAT.
av: v. cxnxa so Ioo + so
Cwmllnnis, lnc. ° hdAe- . a n +etro DATE. I Vana+e
w. nv.nemm. wm NEWARK, CA + mcx = ao iEn
as

RESTRIPING, VNOEN ROPO,
00 sIGN IAODIFlcnnGN
m
0 ym
x00
a
f
v,! o
s. ne oo CONCEPTUAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR TIF CALCULATION p msY:v OWNS Harago. TwupoNation sm va., crn.. u. osns TRORNTON AVENUE AND GATEWAY BOULEVARD CowJlaw Aa, PM ^ °: NOD1sn4IDO oniE{warzafe
wwi.x. m..., am NEWARK CA i IxcN = ioo iF T
t41
33gg '. d1
r'* 4' 2
2 0 i
J
RROmse aso-or, am.< oo CONCEPTUAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR TIF CALCULATION GRAPHIC SCALE Amc. dti0u Sin vose(U.J Na BSH3 THORNTON AVENUE AND CHERRY STREET osnvm er: v.ewwc o
CprrNIlID 15, IYt, PMne. I10BI W1 -01M MTE 11/ 92018
mw.nem.. wm NEWARK CA r nxA = w rrEr
r

MOI RV AVE
e _
i
a RESTRIPINO, SIGNAL MDDIFICATION, MOWRY
APPROACHESTOBESETTOLEADl GPHASING.
e RSQ: 5 n lsl 4ffl CONCEPTUAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR TIF CALCULATION GRAPHIC SCALE ao Rcxagon Trmsponauoa sMjn curtam1 sans MOWRYAVENUE AND CHERRY STREET oaAVa er V. cwwG s
C.. IW6, IR. Poune: 14 PRI84 DATE IWnG%
wm nem, e : ion, NEWARK, CA I Kn = w aer
m
z0NZ
L
y
RERUaO MEGIAN InsaI.

RESiRIPING, SIGNAL

MODIFICATION, RELOCATE MEOIPN

DTILRELOCATEMEOIPN

STREETU LIIGHTS TO ROADSIDE
NNW%
N
ry
L
n xan sxa aso-«ts nenoo
CONCEPTUAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR TIF CALCULATION v" m W. V, 0x . p ..... w m Jav
P Heugon Trmsportnfioe s cmxaolsssns STEVENSON BOULEVARD AND CHERRY STREET DATE uraasre ~ c I I ' R ro"'' psslertataa NEWARK, CA i mcx = so
Appendix C
Cost Estimates Intersection Improvements
Planning -LevelImprovement Cost Estimate
PROJECT: Newark TIF
LOCATION: Ardenwood BI /Newark BI and WB SR84
DATE: 3/ 10/2017
Ardenwood BI /Newark BI and WB SR84
Item Description Unit Qty. Unit Price Extension
miscellaneous
CY
1 5. 00
Earthwork
Asphall Concrete Pavement wl aggregate base SF 160 8. 00 2,880. 00 Install Median Island SF 600 5.00 21,000.00
Stormwater Treatment
CY 5.00

5.00 Roadway Excavation
SF
LF 80 5.00 3,600.00
PCC Curb and Gutter
EA 1 0. 00 6,000. 00
PCC Curb Ramp SF o. ao
PCC Sidewalk
SF 200 8.00 1, 600.00
RemoveAsphallConcretePavement

0. 00 Tao Remove Median Island
LF 80 1. 00 880.00
Remove PCC Curb and Gutter 10. 00
ove Sidewalk or Curb Ramp _ SF

0. 00
Remove Storm Drain Inlet EA

00.00 Install Storm Drain Inlet EA
Install Metal Beam Guardrail LF 50.00

00.00 Remove Tree
EA
LS 1 00.0o 3,000. 00
Restriping and Signage EA 1 00.00 200,000.00
Signal modification 237, 9ti0.00
Subtotal
Total Materials & Labor Cost I $ 237,960.00
Other Costs
LS 1 7% of Materials 16, 657.20
Mobilization
LS
Environmental Mitigation
LS 1 30 % of Materials 71, 388.00
Stormwater Treatment
Clearing and grubbing
Construction Staging, Traffic Control, and Construction Area Signs LS
LS 1 6% of Materials 14,277. 60
Contingenc En ineering and Administration Costs LS 1 35 % of Materials 83,286.00 185,608,80
Subtotal
Total Task Cost $
423,568.80
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Page I of I
Planning -Level Improvement Cost Estimate
Ardenwood BI /Newark BI and EB SR84
Item Description
PROJECT: Newark TIF
LOCATION: Ardenwood BI /Newark BI and EB SR84
DATE: 3/ 10/2017
Unit Qty. Unit Price Extension
neous
CY 800 95.00 76,000. 00
oncrete Pavement w/ aggregate base SF 6,650 18.00 119,700. 00 rMedimdian Island SF
CY 800
35:00

25.00 20,000. 00
ll Soil
SF
164, 406. 00

5. 00
Excavation
LF 220 45.00 9, 900.00
b and Gutter
EA 2 5,000.00 10, 000.00
b Ramp _ SF 1, 000 3090 30,000.00
PCC Sidewalk
SF 4,000 6.00 32, 000.00
Remove Asphalt Concrete. Pavement
SF 10.00
Remove Median Island
LF 220 11. 00 2,420.00
Remove PCC Curb and Gutter
SF 900 10.00 9,000. 00
Remove Sidewalk or Curb Ramp
EA 2--$ 2,000. 00 4,000. 00
Remove Storm Drain Inlet
EA 2 4,000. 00 8, 000. 00
Install Storm Drain Inlet
LF 300 50.00 15,000. 00
Install Metal Beam Guardrail
EA 600.00
Remove Tree
LS 1 12, 000.00 12, 000. 00
Restriping and Signage EA 1 200, 000.00 200,000. 00
Signal modification NOT INCLUDED IN ESTIMATE
ROW Acquisition 548,020.00
Subtotal
Total Materials & Labor Cost
548,020.00
Other Costs
LS 1 7% of Materials 38,361. 40
MobilizatiT LS 1 200000 200,000.00
Environmitigation Environmental
LS 1 3o % of Materials 164, 406. 00
Storm atment
LS 1 3 %of Materials 16,440.60
Clearing ubbing
Construction Staging, Traffic Control, and Construction Area Signs LS 1 6 /o of Materials 32, 881. 20 Contin enc Engineering and Administration Costs LS 1 35'! of Materials 197, 807.00 643,896.20
Subtotal
Total Task Cost $
1, 191, 916. 20
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Page I of I
Planning -Level Improvement Cost Estimate
Thornton Ave and Gateway BI
Item Description
PROJECT: Newark TIF
LOCATION: Thornton Ave and Gateway BI
DATE: 1127/2017
Unit Qty. Unit Price Extension
Miscellaneous
LS
3, 000 95.00 285,000.00
Earthwork ----
CY
Asphalt Concrete Pavement w/ aggregate base SF 46, 000 18.00 828,000.00 Install Median Island SF
CY 3,000

35.00 25.00 75,000.00
Import Fill Soil
SF
1 5.00
Roadway Excavation LF
1 45.00
PCC Curb and Gutter
EA
1 5,000.00
PCC Curb Ramp
SF 30.00
PCC Sidewalk
SF 21, 000 6. 00 168, 000.00.

Remove. Asphalt Concrete Pavement

10. 00
Remove Median Island SF

11. 00
Remove PCC Curb and Gutter LF
Remove Sidewalk or Curb Ramp SF 10. 00
Remove Storm Drain Inlet EA 2,000.00
Install Storm Drain Inlet EA
LF 300

4.000.o0

50.00 15,000.00
Install Metal Beam Guardrail
EA 600.00
Remove Tree
LF 12 1, 000.Oo 12,000.00
Widen small culvert
1 10,000. 00 LS 10, 000.00
Restriping and Signage
LS 1 200,000.00 200,000. 00
Si nal modill it n
1, 593,000. 00
Subtotal
Materials & Labor Cost
1, 593,000.00
OtheE
LS 1 I.Y. of Materials 111, 510.00
Mobili
LS 1 26% of Materials 398, 250.00
Enviroitigation
LS 1 30% of Materials 477,900.00
Slormment
LS 1 3T. of Materials 47,790.00
Clearibing
Constging, Trafhc Control, and. Construction Area Sgns LS 1 6 °/. of Materials 95,580. 00 Conlin ineering and Administration Costs LS 1 35% of Materials 557,550. 00 1, 688, 580. 00
Subtotal
Total Task Cost $
3, 281, 580.00
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Page t of I
Planning -Level Improvement Cost Estimate
Thornton Ave and Cherry St
Item Description
PROJECT: Newark TIF
LOCATION: Thornton Ave and Cherry St
DATE: 1/ 27/2017
Unit Qty, Unit Price Extension
Miscellaneous
SF 3, 200 16. 00 57, 600.00
Asphalt Concrete Pavementw /aggregate base
SF 250 05. 00 8, 750.00
Install Median Island
CY 25. 00
Import Fill Soil
SF 1, 250 5. 00 6,250.00
Roadway Excavation LF 750 45. 00 33,750.00
PCC Curb and Gutter _
EA 2 5, 000.00 10,000.00
PCC Curb Ramp SF 4;450 30.00 133,500. 00
PCC Sidewalk
SF 1, 400 6.00 111200. 00
Remove Asphalt Concrete Pavement
SF 800 10.00 8,000. 00
Remove Median Island
LF 750 it oo 6, 250.00
Remove PCC Curb and Gutter
SF 4,450 10.00 44,500.00
Remove Sidewalk or Curb Ramp
EA 1 2,000.00 2, 000.00
Remove Storm Drain Inlet
EA 1 4,000.00 4,000.00
Install Storm Orain Inlet
EA 6 500. 00 3,600.00
Remove Tree
LS 1 10,000. 00 10, 000.00
Restriping and Signage LS 1 250,000.00 250,000.00
Signal modification
LS 1 25,000. 00 25,000. 00
Streetlight and utilities relocation NOT INCLUDED IN ESTIMATE ROW Acquisition 616,400.00
Subtotal
Materials & Labor Cost
616,400.00
Other Costs
7% of Materials 43, 146.00
Mobilization 25% of Materials
Environmental Mitigation 30% of Materials 184,920.00
Stormwater Treatment ILS: 1
1% of Materials 6,164.00
Clearing and grubbing
Construction Staging, Traffic Control, and Construction Area. Signs 6 %of Materials 36,984. 00 Contingency, Engineering and Administration Costs
3594. of Materials 215,740. 00
486,956.00
Subtotal
Total Task Cost $
1, 103,356.00
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Page I of I
Planning -Level Improvement Cost El stimate
Cherry St and Mowry Ave
Item Description
PROJECT: NewarkTIF
LOCATION: Cherry St and Mowry Ave
DATE: 1/ 27/2017
Unit Qty. Unit Price Extension
Miscellaneous
LS 1 7 % of Materials 9, 100. 00
Asphalt Concrete Pavement w/ aggregate base SF 18. 00
Install Median Island SF 35. 00

25.00 Import Fill Sol] CY
Roadway Excavation
SF
1 5.00

45. 00 PCC Curb and Gutter LF
1 5, 000.00
PCC Curb Ramp EA

30.00 PCC Sidewalk SF
Remove Asphalt Concrete Pavement SF a.00
Remove Median Island SF 10.00
Remove PCC Curti and Gutter LF 11. 00
Remove Sidewalk or Curb Ramp SF 10. 00
Remove Storm Drain Inlet EA 2, 000.00
Install Storm Drain Inlet EA 4, 000.00
Remove Tree EA
LS 1
000.00
51000.00 5, 000.00
Restriping and Si nage
LS 1 125,000.00 125,000.00
Signal modification
LS 25,000. 00
Streetli ht and utilities relocation
130,000.00
Subtotal I
Materials & Labor Cost
130,000.00
Other Costs
LS 1 7 % of Materials 9, 100. 00
Mobilization
LS 25% of Materials
Environmental Mitigation
LS 3V. of Materials
StormwaterTreatmenl
LS 3 % of Materials
Clearing and grubbing
Construction Staging, Traffic Control, and Construction Area Signs LS 1 6 "/ of Materials 7, 800.00 Contin are En ineerin and Administration Costs LS 1 35% of Materials 45,500.00 62,400.00
Subtotal
Total Task Cost $ 192,400.00 I
Hexagon Transportation Consultants; Inc.

Page I of I
Planning -Level Improvement Cost Estimate
Cherry St and Stevenson BI
Item Description
PROJECT: Newark TIF
LOCATION: Cherry St and Stevenson BI
DATE: 1/ 27/2017
Unit Qty. Unit Price Extension
Miscellaneous.

Asphalt Concrete Pavement w/ aggregate base SF 2,200 39,600. 00 Install Median Island SF 1, 400 49,000. 00
Im ort Fill Soil CY
25 % of Materials
Roadway Excavation SF
LF 720 q$

18.00 32,400. 00
PCC Curb and Gutter
EA
3% of Materials
PCC Curb Ramp
SF
1 6% of Materials
PCC Sidewalk
Remove Asphalt Concrete Pavement SF 1, 400 11, 200. 00
Remove Median Island SF 2,200 10. 00 22, 000.00
Remove PCC Curb and Gutter LF 720 11. 00 7, 920.00
Remove Sidewalk or Curb Ramp SF 10.00
Remove Storm Drain Inlet EA 2,000. 00
Install Storm Drain Inlet EA. 4,000.00
Remove Tree EA
LS 1
600.00
12,000. 00 12, 000.00
Restriping and Signa e
LS 1 200,000.00 200, 000.00
Signal modification
LS 1 35,000.00 35,000.00
Streetlight and utilities relocation
409,120. 00
Subtotal
Materials & Labor Cost
409, 120. 00
Other Costs
LS 1 7% of Material s 26,640 36.

Mobilization
LS 25 % of Materials
Environmental Mitigation
LS 1 30% of Materials 122,736.00
StormwaterTreatmenl
LS 3% of Materials
Clearing and grubbing
Construction Staging, Traffic Control, and Construction Area Signs LS 1 6% of Materials 24,547.20 Contingent , Engineering ineerin and Administration Costs LS 1 35 % of Materials 143, 192.00 319,113. 60
Subtotal
Total Task Cost $
728, 233.60
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Page I of I
Item  E. 3.

DATE 07/23/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Yvonne Huynh, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT    Hearing to consider a Call for Review of the Planning Commission’s approval of a Conditional Use Permit (U2026-002) for a temporary commercial entertainment, Fear Overload Haunted House, at NewPark Mall located at 2086 Newpark Mall, Suite #1149 (APN 901-111-25) and consider adopting a resolution affirming the Planning Commission's action with changes or, in the alternative, consider adopting a resolution overturning the Planning Commission's action.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The applicant, Nathan Polanco (“Applicant”) submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit (U2026-002) to allow for a temporary commercial entertainment use, Fear Overload Haunted House, at NewPark Mall located at 2086 Newpark Mall, Suite #1149 (the “Project”) pursuant to Newark Municipal Code ("NMC") §17.26.260.

On June 23, 2026, the Planning Commission approved the Project based upon the findings and subject to conditions of approval detailed in Resolution No. 2035 (see Attachment 1). Pursuant to NMC §17.31.080(B), staff sent the Notice of Action (see Attachment 2) describing the decision to the Applicant and members of the City Council and Planning Commission.

Pursuant to NMC §17.31.100, a member of the City Council may submit a "Call for Review" of a decision of the Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or Planning Commission. Council Member Grindall requested a review of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Project. Under the Newark Municipal Code, the City Council may affirm the Planning Commission’s decision, modify the approved Conditional Use Permit, or deny the Project.

Staff recommends that the City Council consider one of the following actions:

Affirm the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Conditional Use Permit without any modifications to the Project approval (Attachment 5);

1. 2. Affirm the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Conditional Use Permit with changes to the Project, the required findings of fact, and/or the conditions of approval; or
Reject the Planning Commission’s decision, thereby denying the Conditional Use Permit based on an inability to make the necessary findings for approval (Attachment 6).

3. Staff recommends that the City Council affirm the Planning Commission’s approval of the Conditional Use Permit (U2026-002) without any modifications to the project or its conditions. However, if the City Council seeks to overturn the Commission’s decision, staff has provided a draft resolution (see Attachment 6). The draft resolution includes a space for the City Council to identify where it was unable to make the necessary findings to approve the Project.

BACKGROUND
The subject site is located within NewPark Mall and is zoned RC: Regional Commercial, with a NewPark Place Specific Plan Overlay District. The General Plan land use designation is Regional Commercial. The Project site is bounded by Mowry Avenue, Cedar Boulevard, Balentine Drive, and Interstate 880 (Nimitz Freeway). The NewPark Mall has accommodated approximately three temporary special events throughout the year, including carnivals, food festivals, promotional events, and other community-oriented activities. The Applicant obtained Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a similar event on the following dates: June 13, 2023 (U2023-001), August 13, 2024 (U2024-002), and June 10, 2025 (U2025-001).

Adequate security staffing was provided for those events to ensure a safe and successful event experience.

Project Description
The Project would be operated by Fear Overload, LLC. The Project would occupy an existing 7,504 square foot tenant space inside NewPark Mall. The proposed operation would consist of a walk-through attraction that would be filled with unique Halloween-related themes. Each walk-through session would be approximately 12 minutes. The Project would operate on selected days for a total of 29 days from September 25, 2026, through November 7, 2026. The hours of operation would vary by day. Opening hours would be either 5:30 p.m., 6:00 p.m., 6:30 p.m., or 7:00 p.m.

Closing hours would be either 9:00 p.m., 9:30 p.m., 10:00 p.m., 10:30 p.m., or 12:00 a.m. Tickets for the event would be purchased online only.

The Project would have occupancy based on the number of security guards, customers, and staff. The number of security guards, which consists of the applicant’s security team, would vary with a minimum of 5 security guards on non-peak nights and 12 security guards on peak nights. Additional security from an independent contractor company would also be provided, depending on the event night. The Applicant is anticipating approximately 1,400 customers would attend on peak nights and a total of 800 customers would attend on non-peak nights. Staffing would consist of approximately 40 seasonal employees. On a given night, approximately 35 employees would be working. The estimated number of people, both attendees and employees, to occupy the space at one time would be approximately 130 people. The security guards and employees would be trained in emergency response and to ensure the haunted house attraction would operate in a safe and efficient manner.

The Applicant proposes to utilize the existing interior layout and floor plan, as shown in Attachment 3. These interior improvements remain in place from the previous year and have not been altered or removed. Therefore, no new interior or exterior improvements are proposed as part of this project.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The Regional Commercial General Plan designation is intended to support the City’s largest and most complete shopping facilities, accommodating a wide variety of goods and services such as department stores, restaurants, entertainment venues, and similar uses, drawing patrons from throughout Newark and the surrounding communities. This designation is implemented through the RC: Regional Commercial zoning district and is further guided by the NewPark Place Specific Plan, which envisions the transformation of NewPark Mall into a vibrant, mixed-use regional destination that offers a range of retail, dining, and entertainment options.

Pursuant to NMC §17.08.020, a temporary use is subject to the standards set forth in NMC §17.26.260. As stated in NMC §17.26.260(C), a temporary event that exceeds three consecutive days may be allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit so long as the proposed use does not extend longer than one month, or 30 days, and that the proposed use does not impact neighboring uses or otherwise create significant impacts. The Project was reviewed under NMC Title 17 (Zoning) and would be in compliance with the applicable provisions, including allowable uses, parking requirements, and compatibility with surrounding commercial tenants.

Overall, the Project would comply with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and NewPark Place Specific Plan in that the Project would be compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and would not unreasonably affect adjacent properties, their owners and occupants, or the surrounding neighborhood.

Additionally, the Project would not impact the adjacent businesses inside the mall as a majority of the commercial retail businesses typically close at 8:00 p.m.

The Project is expected to generate minimal vehicle traffic and noise impacts. A 2021 Parking Sub-Master Plan study conducted as part of the NewPark Place Specific Plan found that NewPark Mall provides a total of 7,499 existing parking spaces. Based on the Specific Plan’s parking requirements, approximately 5,607 spaces are needed to accommodate the existing land uses, leaving a surplus of 1,892 parking stalls. Given the mall’s excess parking supply and Project’s off-peak business hours, the Project would not result in significant impacts on the mall’s parking capacity or circulation.

The Project is consistent with the broader goals of the General Plan and the NewPark Place Specific Plan, which envisions the revitalization of underutilized commercial spaces and encourages a diverse mix of retail, entertainment, and community-oriented uses. In recent years, NewPark Mall has experienced high vacancy rates, resulting in a decline in its role as an essential part of Newark’s economy. The proposed event would provide a unique product that may draw families and visitors to NewPark Mall, generating additional foot traffic to support surrounding retailers, potentially invigorating the overall area as a result.

Based on staff’s analysis, the Project satisfies all required findings for a Conditional Use Permit under NMC §17.35.060, including consistency with applicable land use designations, compatibility with surrounding uses, and no significant adverse impacts on public health, safety, or welfare. The findings are provided in Attachment 1 of this report.

FISCAL IMPACT
Given the anticipated number of attendees, the event is expected to attract visitors to the Mall and may provide indirect economic benefits to surrounding businesses. The Project is expected to generate revenue for the City through sales tax and business license tax receipts associated with the proposed operation.

In addition, the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with operating the Project and will provide on-site security services, thereby minimizing any demand for City resources. As a result, the Project is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact and is not expected to create service demands that would exceed the revenue generated.

ENVIRONMENTAL/ PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, §15301 (Existing Facilities), the Project qualifies for the Class 1 Categorical Exemption in that the Project involves minor alterations and negligible expansion of use, is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development, and is not located in an environmentally sensitive area.

Furthermore, the Project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Article 5, §15061(b)(3), which states that a project is exempt from CEQA if “the activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.” The Project is not expected to result in a physical change in the environment.

The subject property is occupied by an existing commercial building, which will continue to be used for commercial purposes. Approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit does not involve the expansion of the existing building, nor does it permanently disturb the physical environment. Any future development of the site would be subject to review under NMC Title 17 (Zoning) and CEQA. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Planning Commission Review
Pursaunt to NMC Chapter 17.30, the Planning Commission serves as the decision-making body for Conditional Use Permits.

On June 23, 2026, the Planning Commission received a staff recommendation for adoption of a resolution to approve the Applicant's requested entitlement. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the staff recommendations and receive public comments.

Following the staff presentation and public comment, the Planning Commission voted 3-0, with two Commissioners absent, to approve the Project.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY AREA
Boost Financial Resilience and Excellence in Service Delivery REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Yvonne Huynh, Assistant Planner
Reviewed by - Steven Turner, Community Development Director Reviewed by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2035
Attachment 2 - Notice of Action
Attachment 3 - Project Narrative
Attachment 4 - Project Plans
Attachment 5 – Draft Resolution – Affirming the Planning Commission's Decision of Approval of the Project
Attachment 6 - Draft Resolution - Overturning the Planning Commission's Decision of Approval of the Project
Staff Presentation

City of Newark
Community Development Department – Planning
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, CA 94560
510.578.4330 [email protected] www.newark.org facebook.com/PlanningNewarkCA

NOTICE OF ACTION
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission approved U2026-002, a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a temporary commercial entertainment (i.e., Fear Overload Haunted House) at NewPark Mall located at 2086 Newpark Mall, Suite #1149.

This Notice of Action (NOA) is hereby prepared pursuant to Newark Municipal Code (NMC) §17.31.080.B. On June 23, 2026, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (U2026-001) as described in this NOA.

A member of the City Council may call for a review of the decision made by the Planning Commission. Such call for review shall not require any statement of reasons and shall not represent opposition to or support of the decision, application, or appeal. All calls for review shall be received within 14 calendar days1 of the date of this NOA. A call for review shall be communicated individually to the Planning Division to avoid any conflicts with California Government Code §54950 et seq (i.e., Ralph M. Brown Act).

Application No.: U2026-002
Project Address / Location: 2086 Newpark Mall, Suite #1149 Project APN: 901-111-25
General Plan Designation: Regional Commercial
Zoning: RC: Regional Commercial
Property Owner:

Applicant:

Newpark Mall, LP
Nathan Polanco
Request: Conditional Use Permit for a temporary commercial entertainment (i.e., Fear Overload Haunted House) at NewPark Mall located at 2086 Newpark Mall, Suite #1149.

Project Description: The applicant, Nathan Polanco, on behalf of Fear Overload LLC, would occupy an existing 7,504 square foot tenant space (i.e., Suite #1149, which was formerly occupied by Rasputin Records) inside NewPark Mall. The proposed operation would consist of a walk-through attraction that would be filled with 1 In the event an appeal period ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or any other day the City is closed, the appeal period shall end at the close of business on the next consecutive business day.

U2026-002: 2086 Newpark Mall, Suite #1149
City of Newark – Community Development Department – Planning 2 / 3 unique Halloween-related themes. Each walk-through session would be about 12 minutes. The Project would operate on selected days for a total of 29 days from September 25, 2026, through November 7, 2026. The hours of operation would vary by day. Opening hours would be either 5:30 p.m., 6:00 p.m., 6:30 p.m., or 7:00 p.m. Closing hours would be either 9:00 p.m., 9:30 p.m., 10:00 p.m., 10:30 p.m., or 12:00 a.m. Tickets for the event would be purchased online only.

The number of security guards, which consists of the applicant’s security team, would vary with a minimum of 5 security guards on non-peak nights and 12 security guards on peak nights. Additional security from an independent contractor company would also be provided, depending on the event night.

The applicant is anticipating approximately 1,400 customers would attend on peak nights and a total of 800 customers would attend on non-peak nights.

Staffing would consist of approximately 40 seasonal employees. On a given night, approximately 35 employees would be working. The estimated number of people, both attendees and employees, to occupy the space at one time would be approximately 130 people.

For a complete project description, please see the link below for the Planning Commission Staff Report:
https://spaces.hightail.com/space/lnpgpXshP4
Environmental Review: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the analysis in the staff report determined that the project is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA Guidelines §15301 (Existing Facilities) and §15601(b)(3) (Review for Exemption).

Conditional Use Permit Findings: Please see the link below for Resolution No. 2035:
https://spaces.hightail.com/space/lnpgpXshP4
Conditions of Approval: Please see the link below for Resolution No. 2035:
https://spaces.hightail.com/space/lnpgpXshP4
Mailing Date: June 26, 2026 – The date when this NOA was sent to the members of the City Council and Planning Commission.

June 26, 2026 – The date when this NOA was mailed to the applicant and property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

Filing Date: June 26, 2026 – The date when this NOA was filed with the City Clerk.

Appeal Fee & Procedure: $5,625 – Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk. Unless otherwise specified in State or federal law, all appeals shall be filed in writing within 14 U2026-002: 2086 Newpark Mall, Suite #1149
City of Newark – Community Development Department – Planning 3 / 3 calendar days2 of the date which the action was taken. The appeal shall identify the decision being appealed and shall clearly and concisely state the reasons for the appeal.

The Planning Commission approved U2026-002, a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a temporary commercial entertainment (i.e., Fear Overload Haunted House) at NewPark Mall located at 2086 Newpark Mall, Suite #1149.

Steven Turner
Community Development Director
2 In the event an appeal period ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or any other day the City is closed, the appeal period shall end at the close of business on the next consecutive business day.

Fear Overload Haunted House Supplementary Information
Fear Overload Haunted House is a haunted house that is open for approximately 25-30 days every year (mostly in October, but with a few dates in September and November each year).

In 2026, the dates of operation are:

Sep 25 [7p-10p] Oct 21 [7p-10p]
Sep 26 [7p-10p] Oct 22 [7p-10p]
Oct 2 [7p-10p] Oct 23 [6:30p-12a]
Oct 3 [7p-12a] Oct 24 [5:30p - 12a]
Oct 4 [6p-9p] Oct 25 [5:30p-10:30p]
Oct 9 [7p-10p] Oct 26 [7p-10p]
Oct 10 [6:30p-12a] Oct 27 [7p-10p]
Oct 11 [6p-9p] Oct 28 [7p-10p]
Oct 12 [7p-10p] Oct 29 [7p-10p]
Oct 14 [7p-10p] Oct 30 [6p-12a]
Oct 15 [7p-10p] Oct 31 [5p - 12a]
Oct 16 [7p-12a] Nov 1 [6p-9p]
Oct 17 [6p-12a] Nov 6 [7p-10p]
Oct 18 [6p-9:30p] Nov 7 [7p-10p]
Oct 19 [7p-10p]
Fear Overload Haunted House estimates an attendance of up to 1,400 customers on peak nights, spread out over a period of 5-7 hours (each experience lasts 12 minutes).

Fear Overload Haunted House estimates an employee count of 40 seasonal employees who are employed during the Halloween season.

Fear Overload does not plan to have any full time employees while not in operation.

Tickets are purchased online only, and so when customers arrive, we simply scan their tickets at the entrance, and the customer then walks directly into the haunted house.

Security & Safety:

Overview:

We employ security guards with guard-cards who are stationed throughout the line and inside the haunted house. All of our management and guards are connected via walkie-talkies. On very slow nights, we will have a minimum of 5 security guards.

On busy nights, we may have as many as 12 security guards.

Bag-Check:

Upon arrival to the haunted house, we perform a bag-check, where we look at the bags carried by customers to ensure that they are not carrying any disallowed items, which includes Ecigarettes, lighters, pocket knives, or weapons of any kind.

Rules/Warning Signage Throughout:

Patrons will come into contact with our rules & warning signs at least two times during their visit. One of which is on their ticket.

And a second one is at the entrance to the haunted house. Our rules include no running, no smoking, no eating, no drinking, no touching actors or props, and more. Patrons are informed that if they violate our rules that they may be either issued a warning or escorted from the haunted house.

Staff Training:

All actors and staff are trained beforehand with the following:
a.) How to operate a fire extinguisher and their locations. b.) Where all of the emergency exits are, and how to best escort guests if there is an emergency.
b.) What to do in case of an emergency (fire, security, power outage, etc)
c.) What to do if there were to be a belligerent customer (call security).
d.) What to do if there were to be a medical emergency. e.) And much more.

Fear Overload Supplemental Information
• The information sheet states that the haunted house will be open for approximately 25-30 days. 29 dates were provided. Please verify the total number of days the haunted house will be open. The haunted house will be open for 29 dates, which were the dates provided.
• I noticed the estimated number of attendances increased for peak nights. Can you confirm if the number of customers attending on non-peak nights will increase? If so, what is the total number? The number of customers on non-peak nights will also increase to 800 people.
• I noticed the number of seasonal employees increased. Can you provide the total approximate number of employees that would be working on a given night? We approximate 40 employees will be working each night.
• Last year’s report mentioned that the estimated number of people, both attendees and employees, who would occupy the space at one time would be approximately 130. Is this still true? This is still true. 130 people maximum.

Resolution No. [Publish Date] 1 of 12
U2026-002
RESOLUTION NO. ______

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
DECISION TO APPROVE U2026-002, A CONDITIONAL USE

PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY COMMERCIAL
ENTERTAINMENT (I.E., FEAR OVERLOAD HAUNTED
HOUSE) AT 2086 NEWPARK MALL, SUITE #1149 (APN 901-
111-25)
WHEREAS, Nathan Polanco, on behalf of Fear Overload LLC (the “Applicant”), has filed an application with the City of Newark for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a temporary commercial entertainment use (i.e., Fear Overload Haunted House) at NewPark Mall located at 2086 Newpark Mall, Suite #1149 (APN 901-111-25) (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the property at 2086 Newpark Mall, Suite #1149 (the “Project Site”) has a General Plan Land Use designation of Regional Commercial and is currently zoned RC: Regional Commercial with a NewPark Place Specific Plan Overlay District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Newark Municipal Code (“NMC”) §17.08.020, a temporary use is subject to the standards set forth in NMC §17.26.260 and pursuant to NMC §17.26.260(C), a temporary event that exceeds three consecutive days may be allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit so long as they are not intended to extend longer than one month (i.e., 30 days) and they are determined to not impact neighboring uses or otherwise create significant impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Project Site is comprised of a 7,504 square foot tenant space; and WHEREAS, the Applicant will utilize the existing interior layout and floor plan, as shown in ”Exhibit C”. These interior improvements remain in place from the previous year and have not been altered or removed. Therefore, no new interior or exterior improvements are proposed as part of this project; and
WHEREAS, the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, §15301 for Existing Facilities that involves minor alterations and negligible expansion of use; and WHEREAS, the Project is also categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Article 5, §15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 23, 2026, and after fully considering the Project, entitlements, staff report, findings of fact, conditions of approval, public comments, and all other testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing, voted 3-0 Resolution No. [Publish Date] 2 of 12
to approve the Project, with two commissioners absent; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Action describing the decision taken from the Planning Commission was sent to the members of the City Council and Planning Commission, applicant, all property owners within a minimum 500-foot radius of the Project site, and all persons and groups who have filed a written request for notice regarding the specific application; and WHEREAS, pursuant to NMC §17.31.100, a member of the City Council may call for review of a decision of the Director, Zoning Administrator, or Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, Council Member Grindall called for a review of the Planning Commision’s decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to NMC §17.31.060, a public hearing notice was published in The Tri City Voice on July 7, 2026 and mailed as required for a public hearing, and the City Council held a meeting on said application at 7:00 p.m. on July 23, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 23, 2026, and fully considered the Project, entitlements, staff report, findings of fact, conditions of approval, public comments, and all other testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the staff report, exemptions from CEQA, and standards for approval reflect the City’s independent judgement and analysis of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Project conforms with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for which are incorporated herein by reference and are available for review at City Hall during normal business hours and on the City’s website; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Project satisfies the requisite findings of fact necessary for approval of the Minor Use Permit as further explained in the staff report and the findings of fact associated with this Resolution, as identified in “Exhibit A” attached to this Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newark as follows:

Section 1. That the forgoing recitals are true and correct and made part of this Resolution.

Section 2. Based on independent review and analysis, the City Council finds that the Project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption under CEQA Guidelines §15301 and an exemption under CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3) and is therefore exempt from further environmental review.

Section 3. That the City Council hereby makes the necessary findings and determinations required by NMC §17.35.060 to approve the requested Conditional Use Permit for the Project, as further explained in the staff report and findings of fact for approval as set forth in “Exhibit A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

Resolution No. [Publish Date] 3 of 12
Section 4. Based on the findings and determinations, the City Council hereby approves approve Conditional Use Permit for U2026-002 allowing a temporary commercial entertainment (i.e., Fear Overload Haunted House) at 2086 Newpark Mall, Suite #1149, subject to the Conditions of Approval, as further set forth in “Exhibit B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

This Resolution was introduced at the City of Newark City Council’s July 23, 2026 regular meeting by Mayor _________________________, seconded by Council Member _________________________, and passed as follows:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

SECONDED:

Attachments
Exhibit A – Findings of Fact
Exhibit B – Conditions of Approval
Exhibit C – Project Narrative
Exhibit D – Project Plans
Exhibit A: Findings of Fact
Resolution No. 4 of 12
Exhibit A

FINDINGS OF FACT
U2026-002
2086 Newpark Mall, Suite #1149
Alameda County Assessor’s Parcel Number 901-111-25
Conditional Use Permit ( NMC §17.35.060 )
A. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this title [NMC Title 17] and all other titles of the Municipal Code.

The Project site is zoned RC: Regional Commercial with a NewPark Place Specific Plan Overlay District. Pursuant to NMC §17.08.020, a temporary use is subject to the standards set forth in NMC §17.26.260. As stated in NMC §17.26.260(C), a temporary event that exceeds three consecutive days may be allowed with the approval of a conditional use permit so long as they are not intended to extend longer than one month (i.e., 30 days) and they are determined to not impact neighboring uses or otherwise create significant impacts.

The Project would be in compliance with the standards listed in NMC §17.26.260.

Additionally, the Project would occupy an existing tenant space inside NewPark Mall.

Therefore, the Project would not impact neighboring uses and would not create significant impacts.

This finding can be made in the affirmative.

B. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan.

The Project site has a General Plan designation of Regional Commercial. This designation supports the largest and most complete shopping facilities in the city. The emphasis is on a broad array of goods and services, including department stores, retail shops, restaurants, entertainment facilities, and similar uses which draw patrons from throughout Newark and the surrounding region. This designation is applied to NewPark Mall and some of the commercial areas on the Mall’s perimeter. Additionally, the Project site is part of the NewPark Place Specific Plan.

The Project is consistent with the General Plan because the use is consistent with the Regional Commercial designation, and it would not alter the respective land-use designation. The Project is consistent with the vision and goals of the NewPark Place Specific Plan by reinvigorating the area, which includes providing entertainment uses.

The Project is consistent with many of Newark’s General Plan goals, policies, and actions including but not limited to:

Goal LU-9 – Strengthen NewPark Mall and its environs as a community showcase and quality Exhibit A: Findings of Fact
Resolution No. 5 of 12
environment for shopping and other compatible uses.

Policy LU-9.1 – Greater New Park Area Land Use Mix. Diversify the mix of uses in the NewPark Mall vicinity to sustain and expand its role as the premiere shopping and entertainment destination in Southern Alameda County.

Policy LU-4.4 – Greater NewPark Area. Modernize the Greater NewPark Area to create a vibrant regional retail location which provides urban amenities and gathering places.

Action LU-2.C – Conditional Use Permits. Use conditional use permits to improve compatibility between uses and to establish limitations on activities which could create potential adverse effects.

This finding can be made in the affirmative.

C. The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements.

The Project would occupy the existing 7,504 square foot tenant space inside NewPark Mall located at 2086 Newpark Mall, Suite #1149. The existing tenant space was formally occupied by Rasputin Records. The Project would operate on selected days for a total of 29 days from September 25, 2026, through November 7, 2026. The hours of operation would vary by day.

Opening hours would be either 5:30 p.m., 6:00 p.m., 6:30 p.m., or 7:00 p.m. Closing hours would be either 9:00 p.m., 9:30 p.m., 10:00 p.m., 10:30 p.m., or 12:00 a.m.

The interior layout for the space has remained in place from the previous year and will be reused for the Project. Therefore, no new interior or exterior improvements are proposed. The Project would be limited to indoors and would include security guards and employees, who would be trained in emergency response to ensure the haunted house attraction would operate in a safe and efficient manner. Therefore, the Project would not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements.

This finding can be made in the affirmative.

D. Tax revenue generated by the development will exceed the City's cost of the service demand as a result of the development or a compelling community benefit will be provided.

The Project is expected to generate revenue for the City through sales tax and business license tax receipts associated with the proposed operation. In addition, the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with operating the Project and will provide on-site security services, thereby minimizing any demand for City resources. As a result, the Project is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact and is not expected to create service demands that would exceed the revenue generated.

This finding can be made in the affirmative.

Exhibit A: Findings of Fact
Resolution No. 6 of 12
E. The proposed use complies with any design or development standards applicable to the zoning district or the use in question unless waived or modified pursuant to the provisions of this title [NMC Title 17].

The Project is an allowed use with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit so long as they are not intended to extend longer than the allowed timeframes and they are determined to not impact neighboring uses or otherwise create significant impacts. The Project is subject to the standards as outlined in NMC §17.26.260. Such standards include, but are not limited to, location of the event, number of events, existing parking, not extending longer than one month (i.e., 30 days), and not impacting neighboring uses or otherwise create significant impacts.

The Project would meet the standards as outlined in NMC §17.26.260, including operating on selective days for a total of 29 days from September 25, 2026, through November 7, 2026 (also noted in Exhibit B). Since the Project would occupy an existing tenant space inside NewPark Mall, it would not cause impacts to neighboring uses or create significant impacts.

This finding can be made in the affirmative.

F. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity are compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity.

The Project site is in the RC: Regional Commercial zoning district, which is intended to support the large-scale shopping facilities that includes a broad array of goods and services, including department stores, retail shops, restaurants, entertainment facilities, and similar uses which draw patrons from throughout Newark and the surrounding region. The use does not interfere with operations/businesses in the RC zoning district. Additionally, as an allowed use with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and with no development modifications except for minor tenant improvements, the Project does not deviate from intent of district’s development standards. Therefore, the design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the Project are compatible with the existing and foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity.

This finding can be made in the affirmative.

G. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints.

The Project does not involve an expansion of the existing building, nor does it propose a highintensity use. The Project will utilize the same interior layout and floor plan as in the previous year and does not propose new interior or exterior improvements. The City’s parking requirements would be satisfied, and the site is physically suitable for the proposed use type.

This finding can be made in the affirmative.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Categorical Exemption Findings Exhibit A: Findings of Fact
Resolution No. 7 of 12
Class 1, Existing Facilities, Categorical Exemption is appropriate for the Project, according to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provisions. Per CEQA §15301(e)(1), additional environmental review is not required because the Project involves the interior operation of a small business within an existing commercial building with no expansion of use.

Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines, Article 5, §15061(b)(3) is appropriate for the Project as the Project is not expected to result in a physical change in the environment. The subject property is occupied by an existing commercial building, which will continue to be used for commercial purposes.

Exhibit A: Findings of Fact
Resolution No. 8 of 12
Exhibit B

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
U2026-002
2086 Newpark Mall, Suite #1149
Alameda County Assessor’s Parcel Number 901-111-25
Planning Division
a. This approval allows for a temporary commercial entertainment (i.e., Fear Overload Haunted House) to be held for a total of 29 days from September 25, 2026, through November 7, 2026, at NewPark Mall located at 2086 Newpark Mall, Suite #1149. The hours of operation shall be followed where certain days will open at 5:30 p.m., 6:00 p.m., 6:30 p.m., or 7:00 p.m. and close at 9:00 p.m., 9:30 p.m., 10:00 p.m., 10:30 p.m., or 12:00 a.m.
b. Approval of this use permit shall supersede and revoke any previous approval at this location.
c. Approval of this use permit shall be revoked if the Applicant does not meet the conditions of approval.
d. All conditions of approval for this project, as approved by the Planning Commission, shall be posted at the site and distributed to construction personnel. e. All project conditions of approval shall be printed on the building-permit plans, as applicable.
f. All proposed changes from approved exhibits shall be submitted to the Community Development Director who shall decide if they warrant Planning Commission review and, if so decided, said changes shall be submitted for the Commission’s review and decision.

The developer shall pay the prevailing fee for each additional separate submittal of development exhibits requiring Planning Commission review and approval. g. Prior to commencing business activity, the operator of the subject facility shall obtain a Business License with the City of Newark.
h. Prior to commencing business activity, the operator of the subject facility shall obtain any and all necessary federal, state, or county approvals. Failure to obtain the necessary approvals shall make the subject use permit null and void. i. If any complaint regarding parking and/or traffic is received, a parking/traffic analysis shall be prepared at the discretion of the Community Development Director and at the cost of the applicant. The applicant shall mitigate any problems identified by the study.

Exhibit A: Findings of Fact
Resolution No. 9 of 12
j. Prior to the installation of any signage for the proposed facility, the property owner/applicant shall obtain a Sign Permit and any necessary building permits through the City of Newark.
k. The site and its improvements shall be maintained in a neat and presentable condition, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. This shall include, but not be limited to, repainting surfaces damaged by graffiti and site clean-up. l. The applicant and/or developer hereby agrees to defend, indemnify, and save harmless the City of Newark, its Council, boards, commissions, officers, employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, suits, actions, liability, loss, damage, expense, cost (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees, costs and fees of litigation) of every nature, kind or description, which may be brought by a third party against, or suffered or sustained by, the City of Newark, its Council, boards, commissions, officers, employees or agents to challenge or void the permit granted herein or any California Environmental Quality Act determinations related thereto.
m. The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code §66020(d)(1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and other exactions. The developer is hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which the developer may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code §66020(a), has begun. If the developer fails to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of §66020, the developer will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
n. Per NMC §17.31.130, any permit granted under NMC Title 17 - Zoning, shall automatically expire if it is not exercised or extended within two years of its approval, unless a different time period is specified.

Police Department
o. The business operator shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.
p. Attendance shall not exceed the weight and occupancy ratings for structures. q. Licensed, bonded, and insured uniformed security officers shall be required. One (1) security officer per fifty (50) persons shall be required. Proof of appropriate State of California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS) licensing documentation and contact information shall be provided to the Newark Police Department at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the start of the event for all security staff. If personnel changes occur after the start of the event, Newark Police Department shall be notified of the personnel change, BSIS licensing, and updated contact information. Security officers are expected to periodically patrol the Fear Overload Haunted House pedestrian travel Exhibit A: Findings of Fact
Resolution No. 10 of 12
path.
r. The business operator shall comply with the attached floor plan and site plan of the premises, including the building interior and exterior grounds pertaining to, but not limited to, parking spaces, locations of sanitation facilities, eating arrangements, dance floor area, locations of sound equipment and lighting equipment, the location of the bar and food preparation and sales, fire exits and emergency medical services. s. Interior security cameras equipped with infrared illumination and 30-day data retention shall be installed throughout the Fear Overload Haunted House pedestrian travel route of the proposed floor plan. Cameras shall be in good working order and in operation during all dates and time of operation to include employee-only set up and closing times.

Employees and others in the workplace shall be notified that the area is under video surveillance to eliminate any expectation of privacy. Fear Overload Haunted House shall avoid the placement of video cameras in locations in which video surveillance is prohibited by law (such as bathrooms, locker rooms, or rooms designated for changing clothes). t. Reservation and/or Rental Agreement and any related addenda shall be provided to the Newark Police Department for review and consideration prior to issuance of Permit. u. Attendees shall not park in residential areas or on property not associated with the special event. No parking in residential areas or on property not associated with the event. Parking areas to be included as areas of responsibility for noted security officers. Organizers must have staff to control traffic ingress and egress from event property. v. The business operator shall provide access and designated parking area for emergency personnel and their vehicles so as not to delay or otherwise interfere with their duties.

Organizers responsible for ensuring vehicles are utilizing parking stalls as indicated on the lot diagram.
w. The business operator shall abide by the City of Newark Noise Ordinance (17.24.100) at all times.
x. No alcoholic beverages, of any kind, are allowed in public, on the grounds or the parking lot. The business operator must follow all Local, State and Federal laws as well as any and all conditions placed by State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. If food or alcohol is proposed to be served at the event, proof of appropriate permit(s) shall be provided to the Newark Police Department at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the start of the event.
y. In order to discourage the occurrence of repeated loud, unruly events and repeated crimes and offenses at particular locations, to reduce the detrimental effects of such events, and to ensure continued availability of resources to abate these nuisances, the city seeks to deter such violations by setting forth a mechanism for recovery of such nuisance abatement costs and penalties, as set forth in this chapter. Applicant is hereby advised to review the provisions of Chapter 7.10 of the Newark Municipal Code regarding Multiple Police Exhibit A: Findings of Fact
Resolution No. 11 of 12
Responses to Events at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/newark/codes/code_of_ordinances? nodeId=CD_ORD_TIT7COPRNUAB_CH7.10MUPOREEV
z. The host or a duly authorized representative shall be personally present at all times during the event.
aa. The host or a duly authorized representative shall conduct a daily safety briefing with staff to review emergency training procedures outlined in the Supplementary Information document. The briefing shall include information for employees on resources of who to contact regarding employee misconduct and to encourage the reporting of employee misconduct.
bb. Issuance of Permit shall be contingent on meeting all noted conditions. Approval shall be revoked if Applicant does not meet said conditions.
cc. This permit may be revoked and the event therein are subject to closing if any of the following occur: (1) any violation of the terms and conditions outlined in this permit; or (2) The permit is being used to conduct an activity that is different than that for which it was issued; or (3) if the conduct at the event is not in keeping with the public welfare for any reason; or (3) the event is conducted in an illegal, improper, or disorderly manner.

Fire Department
dd. If modifications are made to the previous layout, a building permit must be obtained, and a fire inspection must be passed before business operations can begin. ee. The dates of operation shown on the plan indicate the year 2026; however, the Professional Engineer’s stamp appears to have expired in 2023. Any modifications from the previous layout will require the plans to be updated with a valid stamp.

Building Inspection Division
ff. Any modifications from previous layout require a building permit(s).

Exhibit B: Conditions of Approval
Resolution No. 12 of 12
Resolution No. [Publish Date] 1 of 4
U2026-002
RESOLUTION NO. ______

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
DECISION OF APPROVAL THEREBY DENYING U2026-002,

A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY
COMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENT (I.E., FEAR OVERLOAD
HAUNTED HOUSE) AT 2086 NEWPARK MALL, SUITE #1149
(APN 901-111-25)
WHEREAS, Nathan Polanco, on behalf of Fear Overload LLC (the “Applicant”), has filed an application with the City of Newark for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a temporary commercial entertainment use (i.e., Fear Overload Haunted House) at NewPark Mall located at 2086 Newpark Mall, Suite #1149 (APN 901-111-25) (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the property at 2086 Newpark Mall, Suite #1149 (the “Project Site”) has a General Plan Land Use designation of Regional Commercial and is currently zoned RC: Regional Commercial with a NewPark Place Specific Plan Overlay District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Newark Municipal Code (“NMC”) §17.08.020, a temporary use is subject to the standards set forth in NMC §17.26.260 and pursuant to NMC §17.26.260(C), a temporary event that exceeds three consecutive days may be allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit so long as they are not intended to extend longer than one month (i.e., 30 days) and they are determined to not impact neighboring uses or otherwise create significant impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Project Site is comprised of a 7,504 square foot tenant space; and WHEREAS, the Applicant will utilize the existing interior layout and floor plan, as shown in ”Exhibit C”. These interior improvements remain in place from the previous year and have not been altered or removed. Therefore, no new interior or exterior improvements are proposed as part of this project; and
WHEREAS, the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, §15301 for Existing Facilities that involves minor alterations and negligible expansion of use; and WHEREAS, the Project is also categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Article 5, §15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 23, 2026, and after fully considering the Project, entitlements, staff report, findings of fact, conditions of approval, public comments, and all other testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing, voted 3-0 Resolution No. [Publish Date] 2 of 4
to approve the Project, with two commissioners absent; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Action describing the decision taken from the Planning Commission was sent to the members of the City Council and Planning Commission, applicant, all property owners within a minimum 500-foot radius of the Project site, and all persons and groups who have filed a written request for notice regarding the specific application; and WHEREAS, pursuant to NMC §17.31.100, a member of the City Council may call for review of a decision of the Director, Zoning Administrator, or Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, Council Member Grindall called for a review of the Planning Commission’s decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to NMC §17.31.060, a public hearing notice was published in The Tri City Voice on July 7, 2026 and mailed as required for a public hearing, and the City Council held a meeting on said application at 7:00 p.m. on July 23, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 23, 2026, and fully considered the Project, entitlements, staff report, findings of fact, conditions of approval, public comments, and all other testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it cannot make the required findings pursuant to the Conditional Use Permit findings specified in NMC §17.35.060 as further explained in the findings of fact associated with this Resolution, as identified in “Exhibit A” attached to this Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newark as follows:

Section 1. That the forgoing recitals are true and correct and made part of this Resolution.

Section 2. That the City Council cannot make the necessary findings and determinations required by the NMC to approve the requested Conditional Use Permit for the Project, as further set forth in “Exhibit A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 3. Based on the findings and determinations, the City Council hereby overturns the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project and denies U2026-002, allowing a temporary commercial entertainment (i.e., Fear Overload Haunted House) at 2086 Newpark Mall, Suite #1149 (APN: 901-111-25).

Resolution No. [Publish Date] 3 of 4
This Resolution was introduced at the City of Newark City Council’s July 23, 2026 regular meeting by Mayor _________________________, seconded by Council Member _________________________, and passed as follows:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

SECONDED:

Attachments
Exhibit A – Findings of Fact
Exhibit B – Project Narrative
Exhibit C – Project Plans
Exhibit B: Conditions of Approval
Resolution No. 4 of 4
Exhibit A

FINDINGS OF FACT
U2026-002
2086 Newpark Mall, Suite #1149
Alameda County Assessor’s Parcel Number 901-111-25
Conditional Use Permit Findings ( NMC §17.35.060 )
A. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this title [NMC Title 17] and all other titles of the Municipal Code.

B. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan.

C. The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements.

D. Tax revenue generated by the development will exceed the City's cost of the service demand as a result of the development or a compelling community benefit will be provided.

E. The proposed use complies with any design or development standards applicable to the zoning district or the use in question unless waived or modified pursuant to the provisions of this title [NMC Title 17].

F. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity are compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity.

G. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Categorical Exemption Findings Class 1, Existing Facilities, Categorical Exemption is appropriate for the Project, according to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provisions. Per CEQA §15301(e)(1), additional environmental review is not required because the Project involves the interior operation of a small business within an existing commercial building with no expansion of use.

Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines, Article 5, §15061(b)(3) is appropriate for the Project as the Project is not expected to result in a physical change in the environment. The subject property is occupied by an existing commercial building, which will continue to be used for commercial purposes.

July 23, 2026
City Council Meeting
Yvonne Huynh, Assistant Planner

FEAR OVERLOAD HAUNTED HOUSE
(U2026-002)
1 2

1. Summary of Events

2. Call for Review

3. Project Background

4. Findings of Fact

5. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Exemption

6. Fiscal Impact

7. Strategic Priority Area

8. Staff Recommendation

9. Questions
2 Agenda
Project Overview – Applicant Information
• Applicant: Nathan Polanco from Fear Overload LLC
• Location: NewPark Mall at 2086 Newpark Mall, Suite #1149 • Property Owner: NewPark Mall, LP
• Entitlement Requested: Conditional Use Permit
• Project Description: Fear Overload Haunted House event operating from September 25th through November 7th, 2026 3 3
• The Project requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Newark Municipal Code (NMC) §17.26.260 for an event that exceeds three consecutive days.
• On June 23, 2026, the Planning Commission approved the Project based upon the findings and subject to conditions of approval detailed in PC Resolution No. 2035.

Summary of Events
• Notice of Action describing the Planning Commission’s decision was distributed to the members of the City Council.
• Staff received a request for a Call for Review of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Conditional Use Permit on June 29, 2026.
4 5
• Pursuant to NMC §17.31.100, a member of the City Council may submit a "Call for Review" of a decision of the Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or Planning Commission.

The call for review shall be processed in the same manner as an appeal by any other person within 14 calendar days of the date on which the action was taken.
•
Call for Review
5 Project Overview – Site Information
Project Location
6 Project Overview – Site Plan
7 Project Overview – Site Plan
8 Project Overview – Floor Plan
9 13
Findings of Fact
• The Project must meet Conditional Use Permit Findings (NMC §17.35.060). • The inability to make one or more of the criteria and findings is grounds for denial. • The Project will be consistent with many of Newark’s General Plan policies including:
o Policy LU-4.4 – Greater NewPark Area. Modernize the Greater NewPark Area to create a vibrant regional retail location which provides urban amenities and gathering places. A mixture of higher density housing, office, hotel, entertainment, civic, and other uses should be encouraged, to the extent that these uses enhance regional retail as the primary use and assist in the area’s revitalization.
o Policy LU-9.1 – Greater New Park Area Land Use Mix. Diversify the mix of uses in the NewPark Mall vicinity to sustain and expand its role as the premiere shopping and entertainment destination in Southern Alameda County.
10 CEQA Exemption
Categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to:
• CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, §15301 for Existing Facilities that involve minor alterations and negligible expansion of use; and
• CEQA Guidelines, Article 5, §15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.
11 12
• The event is expected to:
o Attract visitors to NewPark Mall and may provide indirect economic benefits to surrounding businesses.
o Generate revenue for the City through sales tax and business license tax receipts associated with the proposed operation.
• The applicant would also be responsible for all costs associated with operating the Project and will provide on-site security services, thereby minimizing any demand for City resources
• The Project is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact and is not expected to create service demands that would exceed the revenue generated.

Fiscal Impact
12 Strategic Priority Area
Boost Financial Resilience and
Excellence in Service Delivery
13 Staff Recommendation
• Staff recommends that the City Council consider one of the following actions:
o Affirm the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Conditional Use Permit without any modifications to project approvals;
o Affirm the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Conditional Use Permit with changes to the Project, the required findings of fact, and/or the conditions of approval; or o Reject the Planning Commission’s decision; thereby, denying the Project based on an inability to make the necessary findings for approval
14 Staff Recommendation
• If the City Council determines that the entitlement findings cannot be made and decides to overturn the decision of the Planning Commission:

o A statement shall be made specifically identifying the denial findings as outlined in Attachment 6.
15 Questions
Questions
16 Item  F. 1.

DATE 07/23/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Colleen Lettire, Communications and Public Engagement Manager SUBJECT    Adopt a Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Newark Calling An Election To Be Held On November 3, 2026, For Voter Consideration Of A Ballot Measure Seeking Voter Authorization To Repeal And Replace Chapter 5.04 Of The Newark Municipal Code To Amend The Current Business License Ordinance; Establishing Policies And Procedures In Connection With Such An Election; Requesting The Board Of Supervisors Of The County Of Alameda To Consolidate The Election With The General Election To Be Held On November 3, 2026; Requesting Certain Services Of The Registrar Of Voters Of Alameda County With Respect To The Consolidated General Municipal Election; And Providing For Submittal Of Ballot Arguments And Rebuttals And Authorizing The Filing Of An Impartial Analysis
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Within the past few months, the Newark City Council has received four separate presentations regarding the City’s Business License Tax (“BLT”). The first presentation occurred on April 9, 2026, in which the City’s tax consultant, HdL Companies (“HdL”), provided an overview of the City’s BLT, which was codified in 1970 and has not undergone a comprehensive structural modernization in more than five decades. The Council also reviewed potential options to modernize and simplify the BLT structure and accepted staff’s recommendation to further evaluate a variable model based on reporting of gross receipts.

At the City Council meeting held on May 28, 2026, the City Council received a presentation from Godbe Research, an independent public opinion research firm, regarding the results of a revenue measure feasibility survey. The survey results indicated favorable voter support for a potential ballot measure simplifying and modernizing the BLT.

Subsequently, at the City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026, the City Council received a presentation from City staff that reviewed three options to modernize and streamline the BLT. The Council also heard feedback from the Newark business streamline the BLT. The Council also heard feedback from the Newark business community, which was a result of City staff’s business community outreach efforts. At that meeting, the Council requested that staff develop a model that would decrease the amount of revenue that the City would receive from property rental businesses. The Council also requested a model that would increase the amount of revenue that would be received from manufacturing businesses.

At the most recent City Council meeting held on July 9, 2026, the City Council reviewed two models – the same one that was presented at the June 25, 2026, City Council meeting and an updated model that decreased the amount of revenue that the City would receive from property rental businesses and a model that increased the amount of revenue that would be received from manufacturing businesses. The City Council expressed a preference for the latter. After receiving comments from a business owner regarding the impact that the Council preferred model would have on grocery businesses, the City Council requested that staff develop a model that would lower the tax rate for general retail businesses and that would be close to revenue neutral for the City for the general retail category. Council also asked staff to consider adding a potential new category specifically for grocery businesses that would be subject to a lower rate.

After staff analysis of the complications and potential administrative burden of having a standalone grocery business category which is further articulated in this report, staff recommends that the City Council consider either the preferred option presented on July 9 or a close to revenue neutral option for the general retail category.

In light of that, this report compares two options: 1) the model that was presented at the City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026, and was amended on July 9 to decrease the BLT rate for property rental businesses and increase the BLT rate for manufacturing businesses (hereinafter referred to as the “July 9 Model”); and 2) the July 9 Model that includes a BLT rate decrease for the general retail category that will result in the BLT revenue being close to revenue neutral relative to revenue received from the existing BLT  (hereinafter referred to as the “Reduced Retail Alternative Model”).

As further explained in this report, staff has evaluated adding a grocery business category with a lower rate and determined that such an approach is not advisable due to several factors.

After the Council determines the appropriate model, staff recommends that the City Council consider adopting a resolution calling an election and submitting to the voters at the November 3, 2026, election a ballot measure for the consideration of an ordinance that would modernize and simplify the current Business License Tax, currently codified in Chapter 5.04 of the Newark Municipal Code, (the “BLT”).

Additionally, staff recommends that the City Council, consistent with past practice, designate the Mayor to submit arguments in favor of, and rebuttal in response to any arguments against, the proposed ballot measure.

BACKGROUND
The City Council received presentations on the following dates regarding the need to modernize and streamline the City’s BLT: April 9, 2026; May 28, 2026; June 25, 2026; and July 9, 2026.

The staff reports and related presentations are attached to the staff report for ease of reference as follows:

Attachment 1 – Staff report for City Council meeting held on April 9, 2026 Attachment 2 – Presentation for City Council meeting held on April 9, 2026 Attachment 3 – Staff report for City Council meeting held on May 28, 2026 (no presentation on file)
Attachment 4 – Staff report for City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026 Attachment 5 – Presentation for City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026 Attachment 6 – Staff report for City Council meeting held on July 9, 2026 Attachment 7 – Presentation for City Council Meeting held on July 9, 2026 Attachment 8 - Presentation for July 23 City Council Meeting Staff has prepared a proposed resolution for placement of a ballot measure to modernize and simplify the BLT (the “BLT Ballot Measure”). The proposed resolution and related documents will be administratively modified to reflect the rates and direction provided by Council following Council action. Any proposed general tax requires a 2/3 vote of the City Council (or 4 out of 5 Council Members) to vote in favor of placement.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Existing Business License Tax Structure
The City Council codified the current BLT structure in 1970. While tax rate modifications occurred a few times until 1996, the BLT has not undergone a comprehensive structural modernization in more than five decades. During that time, Newark's economy has evolved significantly, including growth in logistics and distribution, manufacturing, professional services, technology, and regional-serving commercial businesses. However, the City's BLT structure remains largely based on classifications, methodologies, and assumptions developed under a much different economic environment.

Today, approximately 3,100 licensed businesses operate within Newark and collectively report more than $5 billion in annual gross receipts. Despite this substantial growth in economic activity, BLT revenue has remained relatively flat for at least the past decade, averaging approximately $1.4 million annually during that time.

Meanwhile, inflation and municipal service and infrastructure costs have increased and continue to rise.

HdL's analysis identified several limitations associated with the existing BLT structure:

Tax liability is calculated using multiple methodologies depending on business type, including gross receipts, payroll, vehicle counts, project valuation, and flat-fee schedules.

The existing BLT structure includes more than 30 classifications and subcategories, creating administrative complexity for both businesses and the City.

Many classifications no longer align with modern business models and economic activity.

Tax contributions do not consistently reflect business size, economic output, or demand placed on City infrastructure and services.

The analysis also found that businesses generating the majority of reported gross receipts contribute a disproportionately smaller share of total BLT revenue. As a result, businesses with similar levels of economic activity may pay substantially different amounts based on classification rather than business activity.

To illustrate the point, the top 100 businesses generate 75% of gross receipts but reflect only 47% of the BLT that is assessed.

This misalignment indicates that the existing structure does not consistently scale with business activity and economic output.

Proposed Business License Tax Modernization and Simplification Ordinance The proposed BLT ordinance is intended to modernize and simplify Newark's BLT structure while improving equity, transparency, administrative efficiency, and long-term fiscal sustainability. The proposal does not create a new tax, rather, it updates the City's existing BLT framework to better reflect Newark's current economy and business environment.

The proposed ordinance would:

Consolidate more than 30 business classifications and subcategories into a limited number of standardized categories.

Simplify tax administration and improve transparency.

Establish a gross receipts-based structure that scales more proportionately with business activity.

Increase the minimum gross receipts threshold from $25,000 to $100,000 and reduce the minimum business license tax from approximately $39 to $25 - resulting in tax savings for businesses that are in the early growth stage or have fewer gross receipts. (Businesses that report gross receipts of $100,000 or less account for one-half of the 3,100 business licenses that the City has issued.) Improve consistency across business sectors.

Better align tax liability with economic activity occurring within Newark.

Maintain regional competitiveness while modernizing a tax structure that has not undergone comprehensive structural modernization in more than five decades.

Estimated Business Impacts
The proposed ordinance is expected to affect businesses differently depending on business type, annual gross receipts, and industry classification. At the onset, it is important to note that half of Newark businesses would have pay less in BLT under the new ordinance.

The proposal is designed to improve tax equity while minimizing impacts on small businesses. The proposed ordinance increases the minimum gross receipts threshold from $25,000 to $100,000 for payment of the tax based on gross receipts and reduces the flat fee minimum business license tax from $39 to $25. As a result, half of small businesses, including small home-based businesses and small start-up businesses, would experience either a reduction or little change in business license tax liability.

As business activity increases and gross receipts increase, tax liability would generally increase as well. This reflects the underlying policy objective of better aligning tax contributions with economic activity occurring within Newark.

Examples of estimated impacts include:

A small business generating $25,000 in annual gross receipts would see its annual business license tax decrease from approximately $39 to $25.

Additionally, increasing the minimum gross receipts threshold from $25,000 to $100,000 would allow businesses generating between $25,000 and $100,000 annually to remain subject to the minimum $25 business license tax, providing tax relief for small and growing businesses.

A small professional services business generating $100,000 or less annually would see its business license tax decrease from approximately $130 to $25.

Many retail businesses and restaurants would experience little change or modest decreases under the proposed structure, although certain high-gross-receipt businesses may experience increases.

Contractors would generally experience modest changes, although larger contractors with substantial gross receipts would experience greater increases commensurate with their increased economic activity.

Professional service, service, and distribution/logistics businesses with substantial gross receipts would generally experience larger increases because the proposed structure more closely aligns tax liability with business activity and revenue generation.

Analysis of the proposed rate structure indicates that additional revenue generated by the ordinance would be concentrated among businesses with substantial gross receipts and higher levels of economic activity. This reflects one of the primary objectives of the modernization effort: improving equity and better aligning business license tax responsibility with business scale, economic activity, and use of and demand on municipal services and infrastructure. Overall, the proposed ordinance would shift a greater share of business license tax responsibility toward businesses generating substantial economic activity, while reducing or minimizing impacts on many small businesses.

Comparison of the July 9 Model and the Reduced Retail Alternative Model The City Council considered the July 9 Model at its most recent meeting. The July 9 Model decreases the property rental category rate from the previously proposed rate of

0.225% to 0.075% and increases the manufacturing category rate from the previously proposed rate of 0.045% to 0.075%.  The Council consensus was that the July 9 Model was desirable over the previously considered model.  A summary of the rates under July 9 Model are below:

General/Retail – 0.043%;
Professional – 0.250%;
Contractors – 0.200%
Service – 0.200%;
Rental – 0.075%;
Industrial - Manufacturing/Wholesaling – 0.075%; and
Industrial – Distribution/Logistics (Warehousing) – 0.300% In response to concerns about costs to grocery stores as a result of the proposed BLT, the Council requested that staff develop a model that would modify the July 9 Model to either lower the general retail category or establish a new category for grocery stores.

Staff and HdL analyzed the possibility of establishing a separate grocery business category and concluded that utilizing such a model could result in administrative burdens (which would run counter to the goal of simplifying the existing BLT) and eliminate equity within each category by creating a unique subcategory.

In addition, HdL was unable to identify any other agency with a modern BLT that established a separate category for grocery businesses. Staff have also identified concerns with attempting to define establishments that would fit in the grocery business category. For example, many businesses sell some type of produce or food products.

Some businesses commit a meaningful amount of floor space to the sale of food products despite not generating meaningful revenue or business activity from the sale of food products. Businesses that generate significant gross receipts may attempt to be placed in this category resulting in the need for significant overview and potential administrative disputes related to the proper business category for these establishments.

Additionally, it is possible that the City could attempt to establish subcategories from the other categories for specific business types. However, this would defeat the purpose and goal of establishing a simplified BLT model that creates equity within each category.

In consideration of that and in following Council’s direction, staff has prepared the Reduced Retail Alternative Model that includes a reduced General/Retail rate. A summary of the Reduced Retail Alternative Model is below:

General/Retail – 0.030% (reduced from 0.043%);
Professional – 0.250%;
Contractors – 0.200%;
Service – 0.200%;
Rental – 0.075%;
Industrial – Manufacturing/Wholesaling – 0.075%;
Industrial – Distribution/Logistics (Warehousing) – 0.300% Under the Reduced Retail Alternative Model, the General/Retail rate would be reduced from 0.043% to 0.030%. Staff calculated this as a “revenue neutral” option as the revenue collectively generated from this category of businesses under the current BLT will be approximately the same as under the proposed BLT. Thus, under the July 9 Model, the General/Retail category would have a BLT rate of 0.043% and those businesses would collectively remit to the City $571,000 annually in BLT revenue, which reflects $175,000 in revenue above the current revenue received.

Under the Reduced Retail Alternative Model, the General/Retail category would have a BLT rate of 0.030% and those businesses would collectively remit to the City $396,000 annually in BLT, which is approximately the same as the revenue received under the current BLT. It is important to note that although the revenue remitted to the City from the General/Retail category would be approximately equal under the existing or proposed BLT for the Reduced Retail Alternative Model, the amount paid may not be equal for each business due to the change to a gross receipts BLT model. The result is that businesses that pay a higher level of gross receipts will pay more while those with less gross receipts will pay less.

The attached presentation (Attachment 8) shows the revenue that would be generated under the two models in the tables. At the last two City Council meetings, staff presented a slide containing illustrative examples of previous models across eleven hypothetical businesses. The attached presentation contains the same business examples for both the July 9 Model and the Reduced Retail Alternative Model.

At the past two City Council meetings, staff presented a slide listing the existing BLT obligation and various options for those eleven hypothetical businesses and compared them against peer jurisdictions, including the cities of Union City, Fremont, Hayward, and San Leandro, as well as Hayward’s proposed ordinance that will be considered by Hayward voters later this year. The attached presentation has been updated to include both the July 9 Model and the Reduced Retail Alternative Model for comparison purposes.

Community Survey
Earlier this year, the City Council directed staff to facilitate public opinion research to solicit community input as part of the possibility of modernizing and streamlining the City’s existing BLT.

Staff retained the services of Godbe Research, an independent public outreach firm, to prepare and conduct the community survey. Godbe Research completed its work and presented the survey results to the City Council on May 28, 2026. The results of the survey showed residents prioritize public safety and public works services. If enacted, this measure would provide long-term financial stability for the City of Newark as it would allow Newark to spend this revenue stream on these critical services.

The results of the survey further indicate community support to modernize and simplify the City’s BLT. The results also indicate that a majority of those polled have a favorable opinion of the job the City of Newark is doing in providing services and in managing taxpayer dollars.

Summary of Election Actions
To place an ordinance to modernize and simplify the BLT on the November 3, 2026, General Election, staff has prepared a resolution that accompanies this staff report and generally does the following:

Calls for an election and places the BLT Ballot Measure on the November ballot for voter consideration
Requests the services of the Alameda County Registrar of Voters to place the BLT Ballot Measure on the November ballot
Provides the procedure for submitting ballot arguments and rebuttals Directs the City Attorney to prepare and submit an impartial analysis showing the effect of the measure on existing law
Business License Tax
The BLT Ballot Measure would allow Newark voters to repeal and replace in its entirety Newark Municipal Code Chapter 5.04.

The significant updates to the BLT in the BLT Ballot Measure would consist of:

Establishing a minimum annual tax of $25 for the first $100,000 of gross receipts (subject to annual CPI adjustments) for all business license categories; Shifting business categories to a gross receipts tax structure; Simplifying and consolidating business license categories; Advancing with a differential rate model across these categories, with specific tax rates set to the following:

General/Retail – either 0.043% under the July 9 Model or 0.030% (under the Reduced Retail Alternative Model (*See explanation below); Professional – 0.250%;
Contractors – 0.200%;
Service – 0.200%;
Rental – 0.075%;
Industrial - Manufacturing/Wholesaling – 0.075%;
Industrial – Distribution/Logistics (Warehousing) – 0.300%; and Providing an implementation date effective January 1, 2027.

The business types that fall into each category are included in the BLT Ballot Measure.

In addition to the revisions identified above, the BLT Ballot Measure contains procedural updates to modernize the City’s processes and procedures that have become outdated since the BLT was last structurally updated over 50 years ago. * The attached resolution leaves the BLT rate for “General/Retail” blank, pending the outcome of Council’s deliberations of the appropriate rate (i.e., either 0.043% or

0.030%). If the Council reaches consensus on the “General/Retail” rate, then any motion to approve the resolution should provide clear direction to staff to editorially insert the correct rate upon adoption.*
Ballot Question
The State Elections Code requires the ballot measure to be printed in the ballot pamphlet in the form of a “yes or no” ballot question of no more than 75 words.  The following is the ballot question included in the proposed resolution:
“Newark Essential Services Protection Measure. To protect city services such as repairing potholes/streets; keeping neighborhoods safe/clean, and maintaining 9-1-1 emergency response/fire protection/neighborhood police patrols/parks/recreation programs, shall the measure be adopted updating Newark’s 56-year-old business license ordinance, lowering many small businesses' taxes, with rates up to 0.3% of gross receipts (as described in the ordinance), raising $6,800,000 annually until ended by voters, with spending disclosure/ independent audits?” The amount to be raised annually by the BLT of $6,800,000 is based on the July 9 Model.  Should the Council direct staff to place a measure on the ballot with the Reduced Retail Alternative Model, the amount raised annually will be revised to $6,600,000 which would reflect the decrease in revenue as a result of lowering the General/Retail rate.

Ballot Arguments & Rebuttal Arguments
The State Elections Code allows the City Council to determine its interest in authorizing an argument in favor of the ballot measure. Arguments of no more than 300 words each for and against the ballot measure can then be included in the voter information guide. The arguments must be submitted to the City Clerk, as the Elections Official, by 2:00 p.m. on August 6, 2026.

The State Elections Code also allows the author of an argument for or against a ballot measure to submit a rebuttal. Any rebuttals of no more than 250 words must be submitted to the City Clerk no later than ten days after arguments are due. The rebuttals must be submitted to the City Clerk by 2:00 p.m. on August 17, 2026. If there is no argument put forward in opposition to the ballot measure, then there will be no rebuttal.

State law provides the orderly process by which the City Clerk selects the arguments for and against a ballot measure. Importantly, the City Council or members of the City Council authorized by the City Council are given priority if they submit an argument related to a ballot measure with varying levels of priority given to other individuals, groups and organizations.

The City Council has options regarding the preparation of ballot arguments and rebuttals, including authorizing the Mayor to prepare, submit and sign the argument on behalf of the entire Council approving arguments and rebuttals at a meeting in compliance with the Brown Act. In 2024 and in previous elections, the City Council authorized the Mayor to prepare and submit the argument and rebuttal. Staff recommends the City Council repeat this process for the ballot measure and authorize recommends the City Council repeat this process for the ballot measure and authorize the Mayor to prepare and submit the argument along with community members as signatories.

In summary, the proposed resolution establishes the following election timeline:

July 23, 2026: City Council adopts the proposed resolution calling an election and placing the BLT Ballot Measure for voter consideration.

1. August 6, 2026: Direct arguments for or against the BLT Ballot Measure due by 2:00 p.m. (Elections Code Sections 9282, 9286.)  City Attorney Impartial Analysis due by 2:00 p.m.  (Elections Code Section 9280.)

2. August 17, 2026: Rebuttal arguments due by 2:00 p.m.  (Elections Code Section 9285.)

3. 4. November 3, 2026: Election.

FISCAL IMPACT
Placement of a BLT simplification and modernization measure on the November 3, 2026, election ballot will result in one-time election administration costs, which are expected to be funded through existing appropriations. The exact cost will depend on Alameda County election services, ballot content, and associated voter information requirements.

If approved by Newark voters, the BLT Ballot Measure would generate approximately $5.4 million under the July 9 Model or approximately $5.2 million under the Reduced Retail Alternative Model in additional annual General Fund revenue above the City's current BLT revenue of approximately $1.5 million per year. Revenue projections are based on business activity and gross receipts data analyzed by HdL, the City's consultant, and will vary based on the final rate structure adopted by the City Council and approved by the voters.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY AREA
Boost Financial Resilience and Excellence in Service Delivery REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Gloria Del Rosario, Deputy Finance Director
Steven Turner, Community Development Director
Angela Tsui, Deputy Economic Development Director
Kristopher Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Colleen Lettire, Communications and Public Engagement Manager David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Staff report for City Council meeting held on April 9, 2026 Attachment 2 – Presentation for City Council meeting held on April 9, 2026 Attachment 3 – Staff report for City Council meeting held on May 28, 2026 (no presentation on file)
Attachment 4 – Staff report for City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026 Attachment 5 – Presentation for City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026 Attachment 6 – Staff report for City Council meeting held on July 9, 2026 Attachment 7 – Presentation for City Council Meeting held on July 9, 2026 Attachment 8 - Presentation for July 23 City Council Meeting Attachment 9 - BLT Ordinance Resolution Draft
Attachment 10 - BLT Ordinance Draft
Attachment 11 - Exhibit A BLT Ordinance - Clean
Item  F. 2.

DATE 04/09/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM David Benoun, City Manager
SUBJECT    Receive report regarding business license tax analysis and provide direction regarding potential next steps related to evaluating potential ballot measure
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The City of Newark’s Business License Tax (“BLT”) ordinance has not undergone a comprehensive structural modernization since 1970. Over the past five decades, Newark’s economy, similar to the economy throughout the greater bay area, has expanded and diversified, including growth in logistics, contractor activity, professional services, and regional-serving businesses. Many of these changes are related to the transformation in the nature of economic activity throughout the region and nationally over the past 55 years.  However, the City’s existing BLT continues to rely on outdated classifications and capped fee schedules that do not scale proportionately with business activity.  As a result, the BLT is structured in a manner that is inequitable and disproportionate in terms of impact to small and large businesses and equitable tax burden on business activity.

At the City Council meeting, the City Council will receive a presentation from the City's tax consultant, HdL Companies (“HdL”), that will analyze the City’s existing BLT relative to the current economic conditions and more modern business license taxes that have been approved by voters in other jurisdictions. Following that presentation, staff recommends that the Council consider directing staff to take certain next steps that would assist in evaluating whether the City Council should place a measure on the ballot this fall that would simplify and modernize the existing BLT.  These next steps include conducting a community survey and voter feasibility analysis, among others.

BACKGROUND
Newark’s Current BLT and Analysis by HdL
The City of Newark’s Business License Tax ordinance was adopted in 1970, and amended in 1979, 1983, and 1990 to adjust the tax rate. However, it has not been structurally modernized post-Proposition 218.  Voter approval is now required to adjust the tax rate. During this period, Newark’s economy has evolved substantially, including increased logistics and distribution activity, growth in professional services, and expansion of regional-serving commercial businesses.

A review of the City’s business registry shows approximately 3,103 licensed businesses reporting an estimated $5.12 billion in taxable gross receipts. Despite this level of economic activity, the City currently generates only approximately $1.47 million annually in business license tax revenue. Analysis conducted as part of the Business License Tax Study by HdL indicates that economic activity is highly concentrated. To illustrate the point, the largest 100 businesses account for approximately 75 percent of total reported gross receipts but contribute only approximately 47 percent of total business license tax revenue under the existing BLT.

Regional comparisons further indicate that Newark generates less business license tax revenue per resident and per business than peer jurisdictions that have modernized their business license tax structures. For example, Union City voters recently approved a BLT that established a variable gross receipts-based framework that more closely aligns tax contributions with business activity and economic scale and have increased their annual BLT revenue by approximately $3.5 million per year.

To evaluate potential modernization strategies, the City retained HdL to analyze the City’s current BLT and develop alternative tax models. The study evaluated several options.  Staff recommend that the City Council consider a variable gross receipts model to significantly improve the alignment between business activity and tax contribution and substantially increase the City’s long-term revenue capacity.  This report and HdL’s presentation will focus on this model.

Analysis of Newark’s BLT
Over the past six fiscal years, business license tax revenue has averaged approximately $1.41 million annually, indicating that the existing structure does not scale proportionately with business growth or economic output.

Registry analysis conducted as part of the tax study indicates:
•    Approximately 3,103 licensed businesses operate in Newark. •    Businesses report approximately $5.12 billion in taxable gross receipts. •    As noted above, the largest 100 businesses generate roughly 75 percent of reported gross receipts but contribute only about 47 percent of total business license tax revenue.

These findings indicate that the current tax structure does not proportionately reflect business size or economic footprint. As a result, smaller and mid-sized businesses may bear a larger share of the tax burden relative to their economic activity.  Additionally, some business types that do not generate meaningful revenue for the City through sales tax or through other revenue sources receive favorable tax treatment under the current BLT. Examples include warehousing and logistics uses, administrative and support offices (taxed on payroll), professional services, and certain property-related activities such as rental and real estate businesses.

Regional comparisons also indicate that Newark generates significantly lower business license tax revenue per capita and per business than comparable cities that have modernized their tax structures. These comparisons highlight the structural limitations of the City’s current BLT and the potential benefits of modernization.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Current BLT Structure
Newark’s current BLT requires businesses conducting operations within the City to obtain an annual business license and pay the applicable tax. The BLT applies to businesses operating in Newark, including those maintaining or representing a Newark business location.

Under the current BLT, the tax is calculated using different methods depending on the type of business activity. These include gross receipts for most commercial businesses; gross payroll for administrative offices or certain service operations; employee-based fees for certain professions (such as real estate agents); vehicle counts for delivery or transportation businesses; flat-fee categories for certain temporary or specialized business activities; and project value for contractors through quarterly or annual registration.

These methods correspond to multiple fee schedules and business classifications within the Municipal Code. Many of these classifications were adopted over time and reflect legacy business categories, resulting in a structure that can be complex to administer and that does not consistently scale with business size or overall economic activity.  The original BLT was adopted prior to voter-approved Constitutional initiatives such as Proposition 218.  Currently, the City is precluded from amending the BLT without voter approval because any revision would impact tax rates.

The HdL Study identified the following concerns:
•    Tax contributions do not proportionately reflect business size or economic footprint. •    Newark’s revenue per capita and per business lags comparable jurisdictions. •    The ordinance contains legacy classifications that complicate administration and reflect varying types of taxes and categories.
•    The structure does not align with modern business models or industrial throughput.

Proposed Simplification & Modernization Option
To address these issues, the HdL Study evaluated three potential approaches to modernization.  This report will focus on the variable gross receipts model.

The proposed variable gross receipts would amend the BLT to, among other things: 1) Simplify the categories by reducing the total number of business types and activity from over 30 categories and subcategories to an estimated five standardized categories plus one exempt category; 2) Under most circumstances establish an across the board gross receipts tax that will scale and increase depending on the amount of business activity generated – resulting in larger businesses paying equitable costs relative to activity generated – resulting in larger businesses paying equitable costs relative to business activity occurring within the City; 3) Lower the flat rate business tax amount for small businesses resulting in a tax decrease for small businesses within the jurisdiction; 4) Ensure that certain types of uses (for example, warehouse uses and certain professional services) which do not generate sales tax revenue pay a higher percentage of gross receipts in business license tax; and 5) Generate approximately $4.6 million to $6.7 million in additional BLT revenue, depending on the rate structure selected, compared to the City’s current annual revenue of approximately $1.5 million, inclusive of penalties and registration fees.

The variable gross receipts model represents a significant improvement over the existing structure and provides a scalable framework that adjusts as economic activity grows.

The Union City City Council placed a BLT modernization measure on the ballot to establish a variable gross receipts model in November 2024 (Measure QQ).  Voters overwhelmingly approved Measure QQ with 81.62% voter approval.  Union City anticipated that Measure QQ would generate approximately $3.5 million in additional revenue. Union City staff confirmed that actual revenues to date are consistent with the initial projections and expectations.

Policy Considerations
As part of the BLT review, staff and HdL evaluated impacts and other equity considerations from a policy standpoint in assessing a gross receipts–based tax framework. Certain types of business activity, for example logistics operations, warehousing, and construction-related enterprises, can place greater demand on the need for City services and occupy a significant amount of real estate within the City.

Despite this, many of these business types pay little or even no sales tax.  Meanwhile, retail uses do not generally have the same impacts, but consumers pay a state and local sales tax when making purchases at these locations which provides revenue to the City’s general fund.

Recognizing these conditions as a policy consideration provides context for evaluating how different business activities may place varying demands on City services and the impact on their occupation of limited real estate in the City. For example, the proposed BLT could establish a higher gross receipt tax rate for logistics, warehousing and distribution uses than for retail uses to ensure that businesses are sharing equitably in their burden on the need for City services relative to the amount of real estate that they occupy.

Similarly, professional services may generate significant gross receipts and business activity but result in minimal or no sales tax revenue.  Despite this, professional services can occupy locations within the City that are desirable for retail uses.  The primary difference is that professional services will generally provide little for the City by way of revenue, while retail uses will provide sales tax revenue.

A variable gross receipts-based framework, particularly one that includes multiple categories, allows the City to recognize differences in industrial throughput, contractor activity, and professional services while maintaining administrative clarity.

Additionally, while the variable gross receipts model will likely result in larger businesses paying a proportionate amount for their economic activity, the proposed BLT can establish a minimum tax rate that will result in many small businesses paying lower taxes than they are currently paying under the existing BLT.  As businesses scale up, they will pay more in BLT.  This will reverse the current inequity under the existing BLT that results in large businesses paying proportionately less than medium and small businesses.

Next Steps
Staff is seeking direction from the City Council to proceed with potential simplification and modernization of the BLT, which could include the following next steps:

1.    Business community outreach and stakeholder engagement

2.    Refinement of revenue modeling and category definitions

3.    Preparation of ordinance language

4.    Public education and outreach

5.    Community survey and voter feasibility analysis
BLT changes would ultimately require Newark voter approval.  Placement of a proposed ballot measure for a general tax requires a supermajority (4/5) vote of the City Council.  Should the City Council wish to move forward, staff would recommend proceeding with the evaluation to determine the feasibility of a potential measure for November 2026.

FISCAL IMPACT
Should Newark voters vote to simplify and modernize the city's BLT as discussed above, then it is anticipated that the City would receive an increase of approximately $4.6 million to $6.7 million in general fund revenue.

These funds could be used for any legitimate governmental purpose, including, but not limited to:

Strengthen reserves and sustain long-term fiscal resilience Stabilize the General Fund to address any potential structural imbalance Mitigate risk associated with the December 31, 2029, Utility Users Tax ("UUT") sunset
Support capital improvement projects
Address deferred infrastructure needs, including street and right-of-way maintenance.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY AREA
Boost Financial Resilience and Excellence in Service Delivery REVIEW AND APPROVAL
REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Krysten Lee, Finance Director
David J. Benoun, City Manager
Reviewed and Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager Attachments
Presentation Tax Study

CITY OF NEWARK

BUSINESS LICENSE TAX
Tax Study Report
Presented By
The Challenge
Why consider changing at all?
• Improving equity and proportionality.
• Acting on the opportunity to prepare for the future.
• Strengthen reserves and sustain long-term fiscal resilience. • Provide funding that can be used for any purpose including support of city initiatives, such as capital improvement projects and infrastructure needs.

Current System Limitations
• Flat revenue trend
• System complexity
• Inconsistent tax methods
Revenue Not Keeping Pace
6-Year Revenue Trend Based on the License Period
$1,456,532
$1,339,963
$1,408,732 $1,399,466 $1,450,623 $1,435,496
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
FY2019-20 FY2020-21 FY2021-22 FY2022-23 FY2023-24 FY2024-25 The revenues appearing in this graph were provided by the City of Newark System Complexity
License Rates, Counts, and Tax Basis
Rate Types Count of Business Primary Tax Basis
Retail/Wholesale/General Businesses 1,542 Gross Receipt Contractor 658 Gross Receipt
Contractor Quarterly 228 Gross Receipt
Professional 136 Gross Receipt
Non-Residential Property 118 Gross Receipt
Multiple Rate Types 113 Varied rates based on classification Non-Profit 78 Exempt
Manufacturing 49 Gross Receipt
Admin/Support Office 43 Gross Payroll Tax
Delivery 43 Vehicle-based Flat fee (Optional GR Election) All Other (7) 95 Varied Rates based on Classification
Total 3,103
Not a New Tax
Total Share of Tax Revenue Generated by Rate Type
Gross Receipts
53%
Contractor
18%
Manufacturing
9%
Admin/Suport Office
8%
Professional
4%
Non-Residential Property
4%
Warehousing
1%
Contractor Quarterly
1% All other (9)
2%
Reworking the business license tax presents a
chance for Newark to modernize its tax
structure and ensure that it is aligned with
today’s economy and tomorrow’s fiscal needs.

An Overview
How Does a Gross Receipts Tax Work?
A business makes money by selling goods or services. This revenue is known as the gross receipts of the business. This is different than sales tax, because gross receipts include ALL business revenue, rather than just sales made in a specific jurisdiction.

The city applies the rate or formula to the gross receipts to calculate the tax due.

The business pays the tax based on its total business revenue.

Currently, the top 100
businesses generate 75% of
gross receipts…
Misalignment Between Business Activity and Contribution Top 100

75.35%
All Other
Businesses

24.65%
Top 100 - Percent of
Reported Gross Receipts
…but only 47% of tax assessed.

This highlights that the current
structure does not fully reflect
differences in business scale.

Misalignment Between Business Activity and Contribution Top 100

46.92%
All Other
Businesses

53.08%
Top 100 - Percent of
Total Tax Revenue Assessed
What Does the Misalignment Show?
If Business License Tax worked as a flat percentage of revenue, the percentage of gross receipts would be proportional to the tax assessed. A misalignment indicates that this is not happening.

Why?
Lower rates for certain industries
Caps
Thresholds
Exclusions
Large businesses dominate gross receipts, but structural features of the tax system reduce their effective tax rate—shifting more of the burden onto others.

The Proposal
The City is proposing to modernize how it funds essential services by implementing a modest business-based tax tied to economic activity.

Updating the structure would allow the City to better align tax contributions with economic activity while maintaining a clear and predictable system for businesses.

About half of the City’s businesses are already taxed based on gross receipts, meaning the proposed models adjust the structure rather than introducing a new tax base.

The Proposal
• Increase existing Business License Tax rate by 40%
Model 1
• Change existing Business License Tax structure to one flat rate for all businesses ($25 flat rate up to $25,000 of gross receipts, then $1.25 per thousand dollars of gross receipts above $25,000) Model 2
• Enact a variable rate for businesses based on business types (base rate plus variable rate for income above $25,000)
• Simplifies existing categories and replaces them with five base categories and one exempt categories (Exempt, Contractor, General/Retail, Professional, Property Rental, and Services) • Model provides two options (Options 1 & 2) with options for rate schedules Model 3
The Models the Study Considered
• Increase existing Business License Tax rate by 40%
Model 1
• Change existing Business License Tax structure to one flat rate for all businesses ($25 flat rate up to $25,000 of gross receipts, then $1.25 per thousand dollars of gross receipts above $25,000) Model 2
• Enact a variable rate for businesses based on business types (base rate plus variable rate for income above $25,000)
• Simplifies existing categories and replaces them with five base categories and one exempt categories (Exempt, Contractor, General/Retail, Professional, Property Rental, and Services) • Model provides two options (Options 1 & 2) with options for rate schedules Model 3
The Models the Study Considered
Model 3 Variable Gross Receipts Rate
Model’s Revenue Impact
Business Type
Number of
Businesses
Est. Taxable Gross
Receipts
(in millions) FY2025 Charges
Option 1: Variable
Gross Receipts
Est. Revenue
Option 2: Variable
Gross Receipts
Est. Revenue
Contractor 917 $389 $272,000 $765,000 $765,000
General/Retail 631 $1,341 $396,000 $1,342,000 $586,000
Industrial 188 $1,547 $219,000 $1,547,000 $699,000
Professional 394 $689 $206,000 $2,053,000 $1,712,000
Property Rental 192 $224 $97,000 $663,000 $498,000
Service 703 $926 $278,000 $1,839,000 $1,839,000
Exempt 78 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total 3,103 $5,116 $1,468,000 $8,209,000 $6,099,000
Increased Business Tax
Revenue $6,741,000 $4,631,000
Tax Model Comparisons
Annual Revenue, Revenue Increase, And Median Tax Assessed FY2025
Charges
Option 1: Variable
Gross Receipt Rate
Option 2: Variable
Gross Receipt Rate
Projected
Revenue $1,468,000 $8,209,000 $6,099,000
Business Tax
Revenue Increase $6,741,000 $4,631,000
FY2025
Charges
Option 1: Variable
Gross Receipt Rate
Option 2: Variable
Gross Receipt Rate
Median Tax
Amount $96 $145 $118
Model 3 Variable Gross Receipts Rate
Model Structure
Categories* Flat Rate
Option 1:

Rates Per Thousand
Option 2:

Rates Per Thousand
Contractor
$25 Flat Rate
Up to $25,000 Gross Receipts
$2.00 $2.00
General/Retail $1.00 $0.43
Industrial $1.00 $0.45
Professional $3.00 $2.50
Property Rental $3.00 $2.25
Services $2.00 $2.00
Exempt $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
*Categories are roughly defined in Appendix A
Impact
Sample Business Profiles
Small Business
• More predictable tax
structure is simple and
transparent
• Low flat rate for
businesses with gross
receipts less than $25,000
promotes equity for
microenterprises
Midsize Business
• Growing businesses can better
predict their costs as they scale
• For businesses with multiple
California locations, gross
receipts taxes are a familiar
structure and promote
consistency
Large Business
• A gross receipts tax allows large
businesses to contribute in proportion
to their economic footprint, helping
fund the infrastructure, services, and
community investments that support a
stable workforce, efficient operations,
and a thriving local customer base in
the city where they operate
d under CC BY-NC-ND
Tax Model Comparisons
Business Scenarios – Estimated Revenue
Business Scenarios
Gross
Receipts
Employees/
Units
Newark
(Current)
Option 1:

Variable Gross
Receipts
Option 2:

Variable Gross
Receipts Union City
Microenterprise
(retail) $25,000 1 Emp. $39 $25 $25 $132
Restaurant $625,000 15 Emp. $431 $625 $283 $269
Family Dentistry $1,250,000 10 Emp. $1,625 $3,700 $3,088 $3,125 Apartment Complex $2,500,000 15 Emp.
120 Units $1,186 $7,450 $5,594 $5,625
Grocery Store $15,000,000 40 Emp. $3,061 $15,000 $6,464 $6,450 Large Scale
Distribution /
Logistics
$40,000,000 125 Emp. $3,811 $40,000 $18,014 $18,000
Total $10,153 $66,800 $33,468 $33,601
A Reimagined Business License Tax Moves Toward a Fairer Share The proposed models change the rate structure so that businesses with larger gross receipts contribute a greater share of total business license tax revenue, while small businesses contribute a smaller share. This shifts the distribution of tax responsibility within the business community and aligns contributions more closely with the scale of business activity, while maintaining the City’s overall revenue objectives.

A Reimagined Business License Tax Moves Toward a Fairer Share Additionally, some business types that do not generate meaningful revenue for the City through sales tax or through other revenue sources receive favorable tax treatment under the current BLT. Examples include:
• warehousing and logistics uses,
• administrative and support offices (taxed on payroll), • professional services, and
• certain property-related activities, such as rental and real estate businesses.

The new structure would address this imbalance by moving business to the grossreceipts basis.

What are Newark’s
Peers Doing?
Business License Tax Statute Last Update
Revenue Per Capita
Revenue Per Capita
Potential Revenue for Newark
under Variable GR
Revenue Per Business
Revenue Per Business
What’s
Next?
Procedurally—What happens next?
April
• Present
options to
Council
May
• Polling &
Community
Outreach
June
• Council
selects
final model
• Ordinance
language
finalized
July
• Adopt
Resolution
and Ballot
Measure
August
• Submit to
County
Registrar
of Voteres
Questions?
Item  F. 1.

DATE 05/28/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM David Benoun, City Manager
SUBJECT    Presentation by Godbe Research regarding results of the November 2026 Revenue Measure Feasibility Survey related to potential Business License Tax simplification and modernization SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
At the Newark City Council meeting held on April 9, 2026, the Newark City Council received a report from HdL Companies (hereinafter “HdL”), the city’s tax consultant.

The report from HdL provided an overview of the City’s Business License Tax (hereinafter “BLT”), which was enacted in 1970 and has not undergone a comprehensive update in more than five decades, and provided various options for modernizing and simplifying the BLT.  At the conclusion of the presentation, the Council directed staff to continue evaluating potential modernization and simplification of the BLT structure, including community outreach, stakeholder engagement, revenue modeling refinement, and voter feasibility analysis related to a potential November 2026 ballot measure.

Consistent with that direction, the City retained Godbe Research, an independent public opinion research firm, to conduct a revenue measure feasibility survey evaluating voter priorities, perceptions regarding City services and infrastructure needs, and potential support for a locally controlled BLT simplification and modernization measure.

Godbe Research conducted voter data collection from April 27 through May 4, 2026, utilizing a combination of online, text-to-web, cellular telephone, and landline methodologies.

At the City Council meeting, Bryan Godbe of Godbe Research will present an overview of the survey findings, including voter priorities, fiscal concerns, and preliminary voter support levels associated with a potential BLT simplification and modernization measure for the November 3, 2026, election.

Meanwhile, city staff will continue with community stakeholder and business outreach efforts, which staff intends on presenting to the Council at the regular City Council meeting scheduled for June 26.

BACKGROUND
On April 9, 2026, HdL presented a report to the City Council regarding Newark’s existing BLT structure and potential simplification and modernization options. The report summarized findings from the City’s BLT analysis and included potential next steps, including stakeholder outreach, ordinance development, public education, and voter feasibility analysis related to a potential November 2026 ballot measure.

Newark’s existing BLT ordinance was originally adopted in 1970 and has not undergone comprehensive structural modernization in more than five decades. During that period, Newark’s economy has evolved significantly, including increased logistics and distribution activity, growth in professional services, and expansion of regional-serving commercial businesses.

Analysis conducted by HdL identified approximately 3,103 licensed businesses reporting an estimated $5.12 billion in taxable gross receipts, while the City currently generates approximately $1.47 million annually in BLT revenue. The analysis further indicated that the largest businesses account for a substantial share of reported gross receipts but contribute a comparatively smaller share of total BLT revenue under the City’s existing structure.

Regional comparisons also indicate that Newark generates lower BLT revenue per resident and per business than several comparable jurisdictions that have modernized their BLT structures.

To further evaluate community priorities and voter perspectives regarding potential BLT simplification and modernization, the City retained Godbe Research to conduct an independent revenue measure feasibility survey.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Godbe Research conducted the November 2026 Revenue Measure Feasibility Survey between April 27 and May 4, 2026. The survey evaluated voter priorities, perceptions regarding City services and infrastructure needs, and potential support levels associated with a prospective locally controlled BLT simplification and modernization measure.

Survey outreach included online interviews, text-to-web outreach, cellular telephone interviews, and landline telephone interviews.

The survey evaluated voter perspectives regarding maintaining essential City services, infrastructure and street maintenance needs, public safety and emergency response services, parks and recreational facility maintenance, business tax modernization concepts, and potential revenue measure frameworks.

At the City Council meeting, Godbe Research will present detailed survey findings, including voter priorities and concerns, overall support and opposition levels, demographic and geographic trends, messaging and ballot language testing, fiscal issue sensitivity analysis, and strategic considerations related to a potential November 2026 ballot measure.

In general, the survey found that voters place a high priority on maintaining core City services and infrastructure, including repairing potholes, streets, and sidewalks; maintaining neighborhood police patrols and fire protection; preserving 9-1-1 emergency medical response capabilities; and maintaining clean and accessible parks and recreational facilities.

The survey additionally evaluated voter response to a proposed update of Newark’s existing BLT ordinance that could simplify and modernize outdated business classifications, establish updated gross receipts-based tax structures, reduce taxes for many small businesses depending on classification and revenue thresholds, increase long-term General Fund revenue capacity, and require public disclosure and independent financial audits.

City staff is currently engaging our business community with outreach efforts.  Staff intends on presenting a summary of their efforts and stakeholder responses at the regular City Council meeting scheduled for June 26th.

FISCAL IMPACT
The voter feasibility survey and related consulting services were funded within the adopted budget for professional services associated with the City’s Business License Tax analysis and outreach efforts.

This item does not authorize placement of a ballot measure or adoption of a tax ordinance. Should the City Council ultimately place a BLT modernization measure on the November 2026 ballot and voters approve the measure, preliminary estimates indicate the measure could generate approximately $5.4 million annually in additional General Fund revenue, depending on the final rate structure adopted by the City Council and approved by voters.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY AREA
Boost Financial Resilience and Excellence in Service Delivery REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by:

Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
David J. Benoun, City Manager

STAFF REPORT
Item ____
DATE June 25, 2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM David Benoun, City Manager

SUBJECT
Provide direction regarding potential placement of proposed ballot measure approving ordinance updating business license tax and receive an overview of business/stakeholder engagement and feedback regarding proposed ballot measure

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The City Council previously considered information regarding a potential ballot measure to update, modernize and simply the City’s business license tax. Specifically, the City Council received a report from HdL Companies ("HdL"), the City's tax consultant, regarding Newark's Business License Tax ("BLT") on April 9, 2026. Notably, the BLT was enacted in 1970 and has not undergone a comprehensive structural modernization in more than five decades. HdL presented several potential options for modernizing and simplifying the City's existing BLT structure and provided preliminary revenue projections associated with each alternative.

Subsequently, the City Council received a presentation from Godbe Research, an independent public opinion research firm, regarding the results of a revenue measure feasibility survey on May 28, 2026. The survey evaluated voter priorities, perceptions regarding City services and infrastructure needs, and potential support for a locally controlled measure to modernize and simplify Newark's existing BLT structure. The survey results indicated favorable voter support for a potential measure. The City Council discussed the survey results and tax structure options. Since that time, City staff have continued to evaluate potential modernization and simplification of the BLT, worked with HdL to refine a recommended tax structure, and conducted outreach with Newark businesses and stakeholders.

The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with: (1) an overview of the recommended BLT modernization and simplification ordinance and related options and impacts; and (2) a summary of stakeholder and business community outreach efforts.

City Council Report – Page 2
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the presentation and provide direction to staff to prepare the necessary ordinance and resolutions required to place a BLT modernization and simplification measure on the November 3, 2026 ballot for voter consideration.

BACKGROUND
April 9 City Council Meeting – HdL Presentation
On April 9, 2026, the City Council received a report from HdL regarding Newark's existing BLT structure and potential modernization options. HdL's analysis concluded that Newark's current BLT ordinance, originally adopted in 1970, relies upon outdated classifications and fee structures that do not proportionately scale with business activity and economic growth. The analysis identified approximately 3,100 licensed businesses reporting more than $5 billion in taxable gross receipts while generating approximately $1.5 million annually in BLT revenue.

The analysis further revealed that Newark generates lower BLT revenue per capita and per business than several comparable jurisdictions that have modernized their business license tax structures.

HdL’s analysis revealed the following regarding the current BLT:
• Tax contributions do not proportionately reflect business size or economic footprint. • Newark’s revenue per capita and per business lags comparable jurisdictions. • The current BLT contains legacy classifications that complicate administration and • reflect varying types of taxes and categories.
• The structure does not align with modern business models or varying levels of business activity.

HdL evaluated several modernization alternatives and identified a variable gross receipts model as a potential framework for further consideration.

The proposed variable gross receipts would amend the BLT to, among other things:
1) Simplify the categories by reducing the total number of business types and activity from over 30 categories and subcategories to an estimated five standardized categories plus one exempt category; 2) Under most circumstances establish an across the board gross receipts tax that will scale and increase depending on the amount of business activity generated – resulting in larger businesses paying equitable costs relative to activity generated – resulting in larger businesses paying equitable costs relative to business activity occurring within the City; 3) Lower the flat rate business tax amount to $25 for the first $100,000 in gross receipts resulting in a tax decrease for small businesses within the jurisdiction;
4) Ensure that certain types of uses (for example, warehouse uses and certain professional services) which do not generate sales tax revenue pay a higher percentage of gross receipts in business license tax; and
5) Generate approximately $4.1 million to $6.7 million in additional annual BLT revenue, depending on the rate structure selected, compared to the City’s current annual revenue of approximately $1.5 million, inclusive of penalties and registration fees.

At the conclusion of the April 9 presentation, the City Council directed staff to continue evaluating modernization and simplification of the BLT, including business community outreach, stakeholder City Council Report – Page 3
engagement, revenue modeling refinement, ordinance development, public education, and voter feasibility analysis.

May 28 City Council Meeting – Godbe Research Presentation The City retained Godbe Research, an independent public opinion research firm, to conduct a revenue measure feasibility survey. Godbe Research conducted voter outreach between April 27 and May 4, 2026, utilizing a combination of online, text-to-web, cellular telephone, and landline methodologies.

On May 28, 2026, Godbe Research presented the results of the feasibility survey to the City Council. The survey found strong voter support for maintaining core City services and infrastructure and indicated favorable voter response to a potential BLT modernization and simplification measure. Following the presentation, staff continued refinement of a recommended BLT ordinance and expanded outreach efforts with Newark's business community and other stakeholders.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Existing Business License Tax Structure
The City of Newark's Business License Tax ("BLT") was originally adopted in 1970 and has not undergone a comprehensive structural modernization in more than five decades. During that time, Newark's economy has evolved significantly, including growth in logistics and distribution, manufacturing, professional services, technology, and regional-serving commercial businesses. However, the City's BLT structure remains largely based on classifications, methodologies, and assumptions developed under a much different economic environment.

Today, approximately 3,100 licensed businesses operate within Newark and collectively report more than $5 billion in annual gross receipts. Despite this substantial level of economic activity, the City's BLT generates approximately $1.5 million annually. Analysis conducted by HdL Companies found that BLT revenues have remained relatively flat over time and have not kept pace with growth in business activity, inflation, municipal service costs, or infrastructure needs.

HdL's analysis identified several limitations associated with the existing BLT structure:
• Tax liability is calculated using multiple methodologies depending on business type, including gross receipts, payroll, vehicle counts, project valuation, and flat-fee schedules. • The ordinance contains more than 30 classifications and subcategories, creating administrative complexity for both businesses and the City.
• Many classifications no longer align with modern business models and economic activity. • Tax contributions do not consistently reflect business size, economic output, or demand placed on City infrastructure and services.
• Newark generates less business license tax revenue per capita and per business than many neighboring and comparable jurisdictions that have modernized their business tax structures.

The analysis also found that businesses generating the majority of reported gross receipts contribute a disproportionately smaller share of total BLT revenue. As a result, businesses with similar levels of economic activity may pay substantially different amounts based on classification rather than business activity.

City Council Report – Page 4
This misalignment indicates that the existing structure does not consistently scale with business activity and economic output.

Proposed Business License Tax Modernization and Simplification Ordinance The proposed ordinance is intended to modernize and simplify Newark's business license tax structure while improving equity, transparency, administrative efficiency, and long-term fiscal sustainability.

The proposal does not create a new tax. Rather, it updates the City's existing business license tax framework to better reflect Newark's current economy and business environment.

The proposed ordinance would:
• Consolidate more than 30 business classifications and subcategories into a limited number of standardized categories.
• Simplify tax administration and improve transparency. • Establish a gross receipts-based structure that scales more proportionately with business activity. • Increase the minimum gross receipts threshold from $25,000 to $100,000 and reduce the minimum business license tax from approximately $39 to $25.
• Improve consistency across business sectors.
• Better align tax liability with economic activity occurring within Newark. • Maintain regional competitiveness while modernizing a tax structure that has remained largely unchanged for more than 55 years.

Estimated Business Impacts
The proposed ordinance is expected to affect businesses differently depending on business type, annual gross receipts, and industry classification.

The proposal is designed to improve tax equity while minimizing impacts on small businesses. The proposed ordinance increases the minimum gross receipts threshold from $25,000 to $100,000 and reduces the minimum business license tax from approximately $39 to $25. As a result, many small businesses, home-based businesses, and start-up businesses would experience either a reduction or little change in business license tax liability.

As business activity increase and gross receipts increase, tax liability would generally increase as well. This reflects the underlying policy objective of better aligning tax contributions with economic activity occurring within Newark.

Examples of estimated impacts include:
• A small business generating $25,000 in annual gross receipts would see its annual business license tax decrease from approximately $39 to $25.
• Additionally, increasing the minimum gross receipts threshold from $25,000 to $100,000 would allow businesses generating between $25,000 and $100,000 annually to remain subject to the minimum $25 business license tax, providing meaningful tax relief for small and growing businesses. • A small professional services business generating approximately $100,000 annually would see its business license tax decrease from approximately $130 to $25.

City Council Report – Page 5
• Many retail businesses and restaurants would experience little change or modest decreases under the proposed structure, although certain high-gross-receipt businesses may experience increases. • Contractors would generally experience modest changes, although larger contractors with substantial gross receipts would experience greater increases.
• Manufacturing businesses would generally experience moderate increases. For example, a manufacturing business generating approximately $15 million annually would see its business license tax increase from approximately $5,311 to approximately $6,730. • Professional service, service, and distribution/logistics businesses with substantial gross receipts would generally experience larger increases because the proposed structure more closely aligns tax liability with business activity and revenue generation.

Analysis of the proposed rate structure indicates that a significant portion of the additional revenue generated by the ordinance would be derived from a relatively small number of businesses with substantial gross receipts. This reflects one of the primary objectives of the modernization effort: improving equity by ensuring businesses generating greater levels of economic activity contribute a more proportionate share toward municipal services and infrastructure.

Overall, the proposed ordinance shifts a greater share of business license tax responsibility toward businesses generating substantial economic activity while reducing or minimizing impacts on many small businesses and entrepreneurs. Detailed examples illustrating estimated impacts across various business types and revenue levels are included in Attachment (working on PPT examples).

Comparison to Neighboring and Peer Jurisdictions
Many Bay Area jurisdictions have updated their business license tax structures in recent years to simplify administration and better align tax liability with business activity. Several neighboring and peer cities, including Fremont, Union City, Pleasanton, San Mateo, and East Palo Alto, utilize gross receipts-based business license tax systems.

Comparative analysis indicates Newark currently generates approximately $30 in business license tax revenue per capita. By comparison, Fremont generates approximately $53 per capita, Union City approximately $73 per capita, Pleasanton approximately $78 per capita, and San Mateo approximately $87 per capita.

The recommended ordinance would modernize Newark's business license tax structure and move the City toward a framework that is more consistent with approaches utilized by neighboring and peer jurisdictions while continuing to support a competitive business environment.

Alternatives Evaluated
Staff, in collaboration with HdL Companies, evaluated multiple business license tax modernization alternatives, including revenue-neutral, moderate-revenue, and higher-revenue options. Alternatives were assessed based on equity, administrative simplicity, competitiveness, small business impacts, and long-term fiscal sustainability.

City Council Report – Page 6
Revenue-neutral alternatives were not recommended because, while they would simplify administration, they would largely preserve the existing distribution of tax liability and would not meaningfully improve alignment between business activity and tax contributions.

Higher-revenue alternatives were also evaluated but were not recommended because they would impose substantially larger increases on certain business sectors and businesses with substantial gross receipts. Staff concluded that those alternatives placed greater emphasis on revenue generation than on balancing equity, competitiveness, small business impacts, and economic development objectives.

The recommended ordinance was selected because it best balances fairness, simplicity, competitiveness, and fiscal sustainability. The proposal modernizes an outdated tax structure, improves alignment between tax liability and economic activity, reduces taxes for many small businesses, and generates meaningful additional revenue without imposing the highest potential tax burden evaluated.

Based on the analysis conducted by staff and HdL, the recommended ordinance provides the most balanced approach to modernizing Newark's business license tax structure while improving equity and maintaining a competitive business environment.

Business License Community and Stakeholder Outreach Update City staff is proactively engaging with Newark businesses to discuss the proposed updates to the business license tax structure. The outreach efforts include hosting in-person public convenings that are designed to be as accessible as possible to business owners and operators. The meetings are being held at a variety of times and locations, with the opportunity for company representatives to request one-on-one meetings.

Outreach invitations and information was distributed via email, phone calls, as well as posted on the City’s website with links to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) flyers (in English and translated versions in Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese). Informational articles were also published in the Economic Development Division’s Business Buzz monthly newsletter.

Additionally, City staff canvased shopping centers and other commercial areas throughout the city to distribute the FAQ flyers directly to businesses.

All businesses are encouraged to provide feedback or reach out with questions regarding the proposed updates by contacting [email protected].

Staff will present the business engagement summary and the received comments at the June 25, 2026, City Council meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT
Placement of a Business License Tax modernization measure on the November 3, 2026 ballot will result in onetime election administration costs, which are expected to be funded through existing appropriations. The exact cost will depend on Alameda County election services, ballot content, and associated voter information requirements.

City Council Report – Page 7
If approved by Newark voters, the proposed Business License Tax ordinance is projected to generate approximately $4.1 million to $6.7 million in additional annual General Fund revenue above the City's current Business License Tax revenue of approximately $1.5 million per year. Revenue projections are based on business activity and gross receipts data analyzed by the HdL, the City's consultant and will vary based on the final rate structure adopted by the City Council and approved by the voters. The proposal is estimated to increase total annual Business License Tax revenues to approximately $5.6 million to $8.2 million.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY AREAS
Boost Financial Resilience and Excellence in Service Delivery

REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by:
• Krysten Lee, Finance Director
• Gloria Del Rosario, Deputy Finance Director
• Steven Turner, Community Development Director
• Angela Tsui, Deputy Economic Development Director
• Kristopher Kokotaylo, City Attorney
• Colleen Lettire, Communications and Public Engagement Manager Reviewed by – Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by – David J. Benoun, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS
June 25, 2026
Business License
Modernization
Presentation Agenda
• Background
• Current Business License Tax Structure
• Proposed Revenue Structure Options
• Estimated Business Impacts
• Comparison to Neighboring and Peer
Jurisdictions
• Business and Community Stakeholder Outreach
Update
• Next Steps
2 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the
presentation, provide feedback, and direct staff to
prepare the necessary resolution and related
documents for placement of a Business License Tax
modernization and simplification measure on the
November 3, 2026, ballot.
3 Council Direction to Date
4 Following prior Council direction, staff refined the business license structure, continued ordinance development, and expanded business/stakeholder outreach.

April 9 May 28 June 25 July 23 Nov. 3
HdL presented
existing structure
and modernization
options.

Godbe Research
presented voter
feasibility survey
results.

Staff presents
recommended
approach,
business impacts,
and outreach
update.

Proposed formal
ballot-placement
action, if directed
by Council.

Potential voter
consideration at
election.

Current Structure and Limitations
5 1970
Original adoption;
limited structural
updates
3,100+
Approximate
licensed businesses
operating in Newark
$5B+
Annual gross
receipts reported by
Newark businesses
$1.5M
Approximate
annual revenue
currently
generated
30+
Legacy
classifications and
subcategories
Key Limitations:
• Annual revenue has remained relatively flat
• Multiple calculation methods create administrative complexity • Legacy classifications do not consistently align with modern business models or economic activity
• The current structure does not consistently align with business scale or activity Current Structure: Flat Revenue Trend
6 Current Structure – System Complexity
Rate Types Count of Business Primary Tax Basis
Retail/Wholesale/General Businesses 1,542 Gross Receipt Contractor 658 Gross Receipt
Contractor Quarterly 228 Gross Receipt
Professional 136 Gross Receipt
Non-Residential Property 118 Gross Receipt
Multiple Rate Types 113 Varied rates based on classification Non-Profit 78 Exempt
Manufacturing 49 Gross Receipt
Admin/Support Office 43 Gross Payroll Tax
Delivery 43 Vehicle-based Flat fee (Optional GR Election) All Other (7) 95 Varied Rates based on Classification
Total 3,103
7 Why Modernize the Existing Ordinance
• Improve equity and proportionality
• Modernize and simplify the current business license tax structure
• Act on the opportunity to prepare for the future
• Provide funding that can be used to support capital
improvement projects and infrastructure needs
• Strengthen reserves and sustain long-term fiscal resilience 8 Proposed Revenue Structure Options
• Three structure options considered:
• Option 1 – High-revenue
• Option 2 – Recommended ordinance
• Option 3 – Revenue-neutral
9 Alternative Evaluated: Higher-Revenue Option
Not staff-recommended: Estimated Increase Revenue = $7.5 million. 10 Alternative Evaluated: Revenue-Neutral Option
Not staff-recommended: Estimated Increase Revenue = $29,000 11 Proposed Business License Tax Structure
Staff-recommended: Estimated Increase Revenue = $5.3 million Base Rate
$25
Flat annual rate for
businesses with
$100,000 or less in
annual gross
receipts
12 Changes Under the Proposed Revenue Structure
• Consolidates business classifications into seven categories • Shifts all business classifications to a gross receipts structure
• Applies rates based on business category and economic activity
• Increases the small business flat rate threshold from $25,000 to $100,000
• Provides a $25 annual base rate for businesses
with $100,000 or less in gross receipts
13 Small Business Impact Under Option 2
14 Small-Business Threshold
1,523
businesses report gross receipts of
$100,000 or less
(approximately half of licensed businesses)
Current Structure
$90K
collective annual business license amount
for this group
Recommended Option 2
$39K
collective annual amount with the $100,000
threshold and $25 base rate
Collective Annual Amount for Businesses at or Below $100,000 in Gross Receipts Current $90K
Option 2 $39K
Option 2 maintains a $100,000 small-business threshold and reduces the collective amount paid by approximately half of Newark businesses.

Figures reflect businesses reporting gross receipts of $100,000 or less; actual impacts vary by classification and gross receipts.

Comparison of Revenue Structure Options
15 Contractor
10%
Distribution/Logistics
17%
General/Retail
8%
Manufacturing
8%
Professional
24%
Property Rental
7%
Service
26%
Exempt
0%
Contractor
18%
Distribution/Logistics
6%
General/Retail
27%
Manufacturing
9%
Professional
14%
Property Rental
7%
Service
19%
Exempt
0%
% OF TOTAL REVENUE UNDER OPTION 2
Revenue Share by Business Category
16 % OF TOTAL REVENUE UNDER CURRENT STRUCTURE
How the Recommended Structure Adjusts Revenue Share
Revenue Share by Business Category
17 Percentages reflect each category’s share of estimated annual business license revenue; actual impacts vary by classification and gross receipts.

Illustrative Examples Across Business Types
The recommended structure aligns tax responsibility with business scale and activity while protecting small businesses.
18 Comparison to Neighboring and Peer Jurisdictions - Hypothetical 19 Fiscal Impact and Use of Revenue
• Current revenue: approximately $1.5 million annually
• Additional revenue would support General Fund services and infrastructure
• Potential uses include streets, pothole repair, parks, public safety, emergency response, and reserves
• Long-term fiscal resilience
20 Scheduled Convenings
• Wednesday, June 17 from 8:30am-10:00am
• Wednesday, June 17 from 3:00pm-4:30pm
• Monday, June 22 from 6:00pm-7:00pm (OTBA)
• Tuesday, June 23 from 2:30pm-4:00pm
• Friday, June 26 from 9:00am-10:30am
Other Engagement Efforts
• Article in the Business Buzz June edition
• Direct distribution of information to businesses
• Dedicated webpage and email address
Business and Community Stakeholder Outreach Update
21 • Request feedback and direction from the City Council on the proposed ordinance
• Solicit direction on whether to prepare the necessary documents and ordinances to place this time for
voter consideration
Next Steps
22 Item  F. 1.

DATE 07/09/2026
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Colleen Lettire, Communications and Public Engagement Manager SUBJECT    Provide direction regarding proposed ballot measure to modernize and streamline the City’s existing Business License Tax SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Within the past few months, the Newark City Council received three presentations regarding the City’s Business License Tax (“BLT”).  The first presentation occurred on April 9, 2026, in which the City’s tax consultant, HdL Companies (“HdL”), provided an overview of the City’s BLT, which was enacted in 1970 and has not undergone a comprehensive structural modernization in more than five decades.  Council also reviewed potential options to modernize and simplify the BLT structure and accepted staff’s recommendation to further evaluate a variable model based on reporting of gross receipts.

At the City Council meeting held on May 28, 2026, the City Council received a presentation from Godbe Research, an independent public opinion research firm, regarding the results of a revenue measure feasibility survey.  The survey results indicated favorable voter support for a potential ballot measure simplifying and modernizing the BLT.

At the most recent City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026, the Newark City Council received a presentation from City staff that reviewed three options to modernize and streamline the BLT, along with an update of feedback received from the Newark business community in response to City staff’s business community outreach efforts.

During the City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026, in response to concerns about some landlords potentially increasing rents to tenants as a result of the proposed BLT, the Council requested that staff consider decreasing the amount of revenue that the City would receive from businesses that fall under the “property rental” category.

Council also directed staff to consider a model that would increase the amount of revenue that would be received from businesses that fall under the “manufacturing” category.

The purpose of this staff report is to compare the model that was recommended by staff at the previous meeting to a model that reflects an increase in revenue from the “manufacturing” category and a decrease in revenue from the “property rental” category.

Once staff receive direction from the Council on the preferred model, staff will then prepare the necessary resolutions and documents to place a ballot measure for voter consideration this fall that would modernize and streamline the BLT.  Those actions would be considered at a future City Council meeting.

BACKGROUND
The City Council received presentations on the following dates regarding the need to modernize and streamline the City’s BLT: April 9, 2026; May 28, 2026; and June 25, 2026.

The staff reports and related presentations are attached to the staff report for ease of reference as follows:

Attachment 1 – Staff report for City Council meeting held on April 9, 2026 Attachment 2 – Presentation for City Council meeting held on April 9, 2026 Attachment 3 – Staff report for City Council meeting held on May 28, 2026 (no presentation on file)
Attachment 4 – Staff report for City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026 Attachment 5 – Presentation for City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026 Attachment 6 – Presentation for July 9 City Council Meeting Attachment 7- Letter from California Apartment Association – Opposition to Proposed Business License Tax Ballot Measure

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Existing Business License Tax Structure
The City Council originally adopted the current BLT in 1970.  While some tax rates were modified in 1990 and 1996, the BLT has not undergone a comprehensive structural modernization in more than five decades. During that time, Newark's economy has evolved significantly, including growth in logistics and distribution, manufacturing, professional services, technology, and regional-serving commercial businesses. However, the City's BLT structure remains largely based on classifications, methodologies, and assumptions developed under a much different economic environment.

Today, approximately 3,100 licensed businesses operate within Newark and collectively report more than $5 billion in annual gross receipts. Despite this substantial level of economic activity, economic activity that is significantly greater than what existed in 1970 when the current BLT was first enacted, the City receives only approximately $1.5 million annually. Analysis conducted by HdL found that BLT revenues have remained relatively flat over time despite the significant growth in business activity, inflation, municipal service costs, and infrastructure needs.

HdL's analysis identified several limitations associated with the existing BLT structure:

Tax liability is calculated using multiple methodologies depending on business type, including gross receipts, payroll, vehicle counts, project valuation, and flat-fee schedules.

The ordinance contains more than 30 classifications and subcategories, creating administrative complexity for both businesses and the City.

Many classifications no longer align with modern business models and economic activity.

Tax contributions do not consistently reflect business size, economic output, or demand placed on City infrastructure and services.

The analysis also found that businesses generating the majority of reported gross receipts contribute a disproportionately smaller share of total BLT revenue. As a result, businesses with similar levels of economic activity may pay substantially different amounts based on classification rather than business activity.

To illustrate the point, the top 100 businesses generate 75% of gross receipts but reflect only 47% of the BLT that is assessed.

This misalignment indicates that the existing structure does not consistently scale with business activity and economic output.

Proposed Business License Tax Modernization and Simplification Ordinance The proposed ordinance is intended to modernize and simplify Newark's BLT structure while improving equity, transparency, administrative efficiency, and long-term fiscal sustainability. The proposal does not create a new tax. Rather, it updates the City's existing BLT framework to better reflect Newark's current economy and business environment.

The proposed ordinance would:

Consolidate more than 30 business classifications and subcategories into a limited number of standardized categories.

Simplify tax administration and improve transparency.

Establish a gross receipts-based structure that scales more proportionately with business activity.

Increase the minimum gross receipts threshold from $25,000 to $100,000 and reduce the minimum business license tax from approximately $39 to $25 - resulting in tax savings for businesses that are in the early growth stage or have fewer gross receipts.

Improve consistency across business sectors.

Better align tax liability with economic activity occurring within Newark.

Maintain regional competitiveness while modernizing a tax structure that has remained largely unchanged for more than 55 years.

Estimated Business Impacts
The proposed ordinance is expected to affect businesses differently depending on business type, annual gross receipts, and industry classification. At the onset, it is important to note that half of Newark businesses would have lower BLT obligations under the new ordinance.

The proposal is designed to improve tax equity while minimizing impacts on small businesses. The proposed ordinance increases the minimum gross receipts threshold from $25,000 to $100,000 and reduces the minimum business license tax from approximately $39 to $25. As a result, half of small businesses, including small home-based businesses and small start-up businesses, would experience either a reduction or little change in business license tax liability.

As business activity increases and gross receipts increase, tax liability would generally increase as well. This reflects the underlying policy objective of better aligning tax contributions with economic activity occurring within Newark.

Examples of estimated impacts include:

A small business generating $25,000 in annual gross receipts would see its annual business license tax decrease from approximately $39 to $25.

Additionally, increasing the minimum gross receipts threshold from $25,000 to $100,000 would allow businesses generating between $25,000 and $100,000 annually to remain subject to the minimum $25 business license tax, providing tax relief for small and growing businesses.

A small professional services business generating $100,000 or less annually would see its business license tax decrease from approximately $130 to $25.

Many retail businesses and restaurants would experience little change or modest decreases under the proposed structure, although certain high-gross-receipt businesses may experience increases.

Contractors would generally experience modest changes, although larger contractors with substantial gross receipts would experience greater increases, which commensurate with their increased economic activity.

Professional service, service, and distribution/logistics businesses with substantial gross receipts would generally experience larger increases because the proposed structure more closely aligns tax liability with business activity and revenue generation.

Analysis of the proposed rate structure indicates that additional revenue generated by the ordinance would be concentrated among businesses with substantial gross receipts and higher levels of economic activity. This reflects one of the primary objectives of the modernization effort: improving equity and better aligning business license tax responsibility with business scale, economic activity, and use of municipal services and infrastructure.

Overall, the proposed ordinance would shift a greater share of business license tax responsibility toward businesses generating substantial economic activity, while reducing or minimizing impacts on many small businesses.

Comparison of Recommended Ordinance v. Optional Ordinance Requested by Council
During the City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026, in response to concerns about some landlords potentially increasing rents to tenants as a result of the proposed BLT, the Council requested that staff consider decreasing the amount of revenue that the City would receive from businesses that fall under the “property rental” category.

Council also directed staff to consider a model that would increase the amount of revenue that would be received from businesses that fall under the “manufacturing” category.

Staff and HdL have refined the recommended ordinance to achieve that objective pursuant to Council’s direction.

For ease of reference, the staff report and attached presentation (Attachment 6) refer to the model that was recommended by staff to the City Council at the meeting held on June 25 as “Option 1” and the refined model that accomplishes the objectives discussed at the June 25 City Council meeting as “Option 2”.

Under Option 1, manufacturing businesses would be taxed at the rate of 0.045% and collectively remit to the City $521,000 annually in BLT revenue, which reflects $385,000 above the current amount.

Under Option 2, manufacturing businesses would be taxed at the rate of 0.075% and collectively remit to the City $867,000 annually in BLT revenue, which reflects $731,000 above the current amount.

Regarding property rental businesses, under Option 1, they would be taxed at the rate of 0.225% and collectively remit to the City $471,000 in annual BLT revenue, which reflects $374,000 above the current amount.  This includes both residential and commercial businesses.

Under Option 2, they would be taxed at the rate of 0.075% and collectively remit to the City $160,000 in annual BLT revenue, which reflects $63,000 above the current amount.  This also includes both residential and commercial businesses.

The attached presentation (Attachment 6) shows the revenue that would be generated under both models in the tables on slides 3 and 4.

At the June 25 City Council meeting, staff presented a slide containing illustrative examples of Option 1 across eleven hypothetical businesses.  Slide 5 of the attached presentation contains business examples for both Options 1 and 2. Under Option 1, a manufacturing business generating $15 million in gross receipts per year would see its annual BLT increase from $5,311 to $6,730 and, under Option 2, it would increase to annual BLT increase from $5,311 to $6,730 and, under Option 2, it would increase to $11,200 (Slide 5).

Meanwhile, an apartment complex generating $2.5 million in gross receipts would see its existing annual BLT of $1,186 increase to $5,425, while under Option 2, its annual obligation would be $1,825 (Slide 5).

At the June 25 City Council meeting, staff presented a slide listing the existing BLT obligation and Option 1 for those eleven hypothetical businesses and compared them against peer jurisdictions, including the cities of Union City, Fremont, Hayward, and San Leandro, as well as Hayward’s proposed ordinance that will be considered by Hayward voters later this year. Slide 6 has been updated to include Option 2 for comparison purposes.

Update to Business Outreach Efforts After City Council Meeting Held on June 25 City staff held a business and community stakeholder outreach meeting on Friday, June 26 – the day after the previous City Council meeting.  Two people attended, both of whom were representatives from the Bay East Association of Realtors.  They indicated the following: (1) they had concerns that both realtors and brokers would pay BLT on gross receipts stemming from real estate transactions occurring in Newark; (2) they advocated for an ordinance that exempts residential landlords who own 5 or less units (the existing BLT ordinance expressly exempts residential landlords who own 4 or less units); and (3) they requested a nexus study be performed.  Each item is discussed below in turn.

Regarding item 1, the representatives stated that brokers would have to include gross receipts of commissions paid to them from the sale and purchase of homes in Newark, despite the fact that realtors would have already included that revenue as part of their gross receipts when remitting their BLT payment to the City. Staff has concerns about carving out such an exemption for brokers as there are many examples where this type of business activity occurs.  For example, manufacturers, distributors, and retail companies are all independently subject to BLT obligations to the City.  Additionally, both contractors and subcontractors remit BLT payment to the City based off gross receipts.  Attempting to apply exemptions on different steps of an inherently integrated economy would complicate the BLT further which would defeat the goals of simplifying and modernizing the BLT.  Further, staff is unaware of any business license tax that maintains an exemption for brokers, therefore we are following common practice.

As for exempting landlords who own 5 or less residential units, staff does not recommend taking this approach.  Both Option 1 and Option 2 already limit BLT obligations to $25 for businesses that report $100,000 or less in gross receipts.  In other words, both BLT models account for small businesses receiving less revenue and thus lowering their BLT obligation.  Because the high minimum threshold of $100,000 is already structured to account for small businesses in a simplified manner, consistent with the goal of modernizing the BLT, carving out an express exemption for one particular type of business would be duplicative of a general provision that the Council directed staff to include for the benefit of all the other small businesses in Council directed staff to include for the benefit of all the other small businesses in Newark that meet that threshold.  Similar to the first issue above, none of the peer jurisdictions that have modernized their BLT have such a provision to staff’s knowledge.

Regarding the request that a nexus study be performed, staff notes that the Council is considering streamlining and modernizing the BLT, which is not a fee.  Typically, nexus studies are performed so that municipalities can calculate appropriate fees to charge the public because state law requires that for any fee charged by a city there must be a nexus between the amount charged and the cost of the service provided by the city.

This includes, for example, facility user fees and development application fees.  As a further example, in the development impact fee context, the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Sections 66000-66025) requires cities to perform studies to calculate the cost of impact on services that are required by residents who occupy new residential units. That is not the case here, as the Council is not considering a fee.

Furthermore, staff are unaware of any cities that have performed such an analysis when considering streamlining and modernizing their BLT ordinance.

Separately, staff received a letter on June 25 from the California Apartment Association opposing the recommended BLT model, expressing concerns that the update could adversely impact the rental housing market by making rental housing more expensive to operate and harder to maintain.  A copy of the letter is attached to this staff report and is labeled as Attachment 7.

In the letter, they refer to the illustrative example that was cited in the staff report in which a rental property business that generates $2,500,000 in gross receipts would pay $5,425 under the new ordinance instead of the current rate of $1,186.

At the City Council meeting, the Council expressed concerns of the increase on residential property landlords and asked staff to refine the model by decreasing BLT revenue from landlords.  Under Option 2, a rental property business that generates $2,500,000 in gross receipts would pay $1,825, which reflects an increase of $639 yet $3,600 lower than under Option 1.

Additionally, all regional housing providers – such as Abode Services, Eden Housing, USA Properties and Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (“SAHA”) – are non-profit corporations and thus are currently exempt from paying any business license tax.

Under both Option 1 and Option 2, the regional housing providers would also be exempt from paying the BLT.

Next Steps
At the City Council meeting staff will solicit direction from the Council on the preferred model. Staff will then prepare the resolutions and documents needed for the City Council to consider placement of a ballot measure at a future City Council meeting, likely at the City Council meeting scheduled for July 23.  Placement of a general tax requires a 4/5 vote of the City Council while any general tax must be approved by requires a 4/5 vote of the City Council while any general tax must be approved by 50%+1 of the voters.

FISCAL IMPACT
Placement of a BLT simplification and modernization measure on the November 3, 2026, election ballot will result in one-time election administration costs, which are expected to be funded through existing appropriations. The exact cost will depend on Alameda County election services, ballot content, and associated voter information requirements.

If approved by Newark voters, both options are projected to generate approximately $5.4 million in additional annual General Fund revenue above the City's current BLT revenue of approximately $1.5 million per year. Revenue projections are based on business activity and gross receipts data analyzed by HdL, the City's consultant, and will vary based on the final rate structure adopted by the City Council and approved by the voters. The proposal is estimated to increase total annual BLT revenue to approximately $6.9 million.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY AREA
Boost Financial Resilience and Excellence in Service Delivery REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by -
Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Gloria Del Rosario, Deputy Finance Director
Angela Tsui, Deputy Economic Development Director
Kristopher Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Colleen Lettire, Communications and Public Engagement Manager David J. Benoun, City Manager
Reviewed by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Attachment 1: Staff report for City Council meeting held on April 9, 2026 Attachment 2: Presentation for City Council meeting held on April 9, 2026 Attachment 3: Staff report for City Council meeting held on May 28, 2026 (no presentation on file)
Attachment 4: Staff report for City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026 Attachment 5: Presentation for City Council meeting held on June 25, 2026 Attachment 6 Presentation for July 9 City Council Meeting Attachment 7- Letter from California Apartment Association – Opposition to Proposed Business License Tax Ballot Measure
July 9, 2026
Business License
Modernization
Council Direction to Date
4 Following prior Council direction, staff developed an alternative ordinance.

April 9 May 28 June 25 July 23 Nov. 3
HdL presented
existing structure
and modernization
options.

Godbe Research
presented voter
feasibility survey
results.

Staff presents
recommended
approach, business
impacts, and
outreach update.

Propose formal
ballot-placement
action, if directed
by Council.

Potential voter
consideration at
election.

Provide Council
with updates
based on
feedback
received at June
25 meeting.

July 9
Options 1 and 2 Comparative Rates
4 Options 1 and 2 Comparative Revenue
4 Options 1 and 2 Comparative Business Examples
4 Options 1 and 2 Peer Jurisdiction Comparisons
4 • Based on Council direction, staff will prepare the
resolutions and documents needed for the City
Council to consider placement of a ballot measure at
a future City Council meeting, likely at the City
Council meeting scheduled for July 23.
• Placement of a general tax requires a 4/5 vote of the City Council while any general tax must be approved
by 50%+1 of the voters.

Next Steps
22 July 23, 2026
Ballot Placement for
Business License
Modernization
• Discussion on BLT model
• Placement of Business License Tax Measure on the
November 3, 2026 Ballot (includes ballot question
and ballot arguments/rebuttal arguments)
Agenda:
2 Council Direction to Date
3 April 9 May 28 June 25 July 23 Nov. 3
HdL presented
existing structure
and modernization
options.

Godbe Research
presented voter
feasibility survey
results.

Staff presents
recommended
approach, business
impacts, and
outreach update.

Ballot-placement
action.

Potential voter
consideration at
election.

Provide Council
with updates
based on
feedback
received at June
25 meeting.

July 9
Business Category Base Rate July 9th
Model
Reduced
Retail
Alternative
Model
Contractor 0.200% 0.200%
Distribution/Logistics 0.300% 0.300%
General/Retail 0.043% 0.030%
Manufacturing 0.075% 0.075%
Professional 0.250% 0.250%
Property Rental 0.075% 0.075%
Service 0.200% 0.200%
Exempt $0.00 0.000% 0.000%
$25
(up to
$100,000
Receipts)
Rates for July 9 Model and Reduced Retail
Alternative Model
4 Business Category Business
Count
Gross Receipts
(in millions)
Current
Revenue
July 9th
Model
Reduced
Retail
Alternative
Model
Contractor 917 $ 389 $ 272,000 $ 706,000 $ 706,000
Distribution/Logistics 119 $ 387 $ 83,000 $1,132,000 $ 1,132,000 General/Retail 631 $ 1,341 $ 396,000 $ 571,000 $ 399,145 Manufacturing 69 $ 1,160 $ 136,000 $ 867,000 $ 867,000
Professional 394 $ 689 $ 206,000 $1,665,000 $ 1,665,000 Property Rental 192 $ 224 $ 97,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000
Service 703 $ 926 $ 278,000 $1,785,000 $ 1,785,000
Exempt 78 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Grand Total 3103 $ 5,116 $1,468,000 $6,886,000 $ 6,714,145 Increase Revenue $ - $5,418,000 $ 5,246,145
Comparative Revenue for July 9 Model and
Reduced Retail Alternative Model
5 Illustrative Business Example Business Category Gross Receipts
Current July 9th
Model
Reduced
Retail
Alternative
Model
Outside Sub-Contractor Contractor $ 12,000 $ 96 $ 25 $ 25 Home-Based Retail General/Retail $ 25,000 $ 39 $ 25 $ 25 Small Professional Firm (e.g. Law Firm
or Tax Preparation)
Professional $ 100,000 $ 130 $ 25 $ 25
Shoe Store General/Retail $ 200,000 $ 137 $ 68 $ 55
Salon Service $ 450,000 $ 300 $ 725 $ 725
Professional Firm (e.g. Law Firm or Tax
Preparation)
Professional $ 500,000 $ 650 $ 1,025 $ 1,025
Restaurant General/Retail $ 625,000 $ 431 $ 251 $ 183
Apartment Complex Property Rental $ 2,500,000 $ 1,186 $ 1,825 $ 1,825 Product Manufacturing Business Manufacturing $ 15,000,000 $ 5,311 $ 11,200 $ 11,200 Large Service Business Service $ 30,000,000 $ 5,311 $ 59,825 $ 59,825 Large Scale Distribution / Logistics Distribution/Logistics $ 40,000,000 $ 2,800 $ 119,725 $ 119,725 Comparative Business Examples for July 9 Model
and Reduced Retail Alternative Model
6 Illustrative Business Examples Business Category Existing July 9th
Model
Reduced
Retail
Alternative
Model
Fremont San
Leandro
Union
City Hayward Hayward (Proposed)
Outside Sub-Contractor Contractor $ 96 $ 25 $ 25 $ 121 $ 277 $ 150 $ 54 $ 60 Home-Based Retail General/Retail $ 39 $ 25 $ 25 $ 38 $ 224 $ 132 $ 27 $ 60 Small Professional Firm (e.g. Law
Firm or Tax Preparation)
Professional $ 130 $ 25 $ 25 $ 160 $ 303 $ 264 $ 100 $ 150 Shoe Store General/Retail $ 137 $ 68 $ 55 $ 80 $ 435 $ 132 $ 87 $ 60 Salon Service $ 300 $ 725 $ 725 $ 480 $ 699 $ 850 $ 80 $ 225 Professional Firm (e.g. Law Firm
or Tax Preparation)
Professional $ 650 $ 1,025 $ 1,025 $ 680 $ 831 $ 1,188 $ 632 $ 750 Restaurant General/Retail $ 431 $ 251 $ 183 $ 186 $ 962 $ 258 $ 167 $ 188 Apartment Complex Property Rental $ 1,186 $ 1,825 $ 1,825 $ 3,280 $ 2,067 $ 5,569 $ 674 $ 7,500 Product Manufacturing Business Manufacturing $ 5,311 $ 11,200 $ 11,200 $ 1,575 $ 3,597 $ 6,739 $ 133 $ 11,500 Large Service Business Service $ 5,311 $ 59,825 $ 59,825 $30,030 $12,315 $59,950 $ 8,099 $ 33,750 Large Scale Distribution /
Logistics
Distribution/Logistics $ 2,800 $ 119,725 $ 119,725 $ 117 $12,501 $39,975 $ 136 $ 28,000 Peer Jurisdiction Comparisons for July 9 Model
and Reduced Retail Alternative Model
7 • Solicit City Council direction on
preferred BLT model
Council Discussion on Preferred BLT Model
8 • To place an ordinance to modernize and simplify the BLT on the November 3, 2026, General Election, staff has prepared a resolution that does the following:
• Calls for an election and places the BLT Ballot Measure on the November ballot for voter consideration
• Requests the services of the Alameda County Registrar of Voters related to placing the BLT Ballot Measure on the November ballot and the election • Provides the procedure for submitting ballot arguments and rebuttals • Directs the City Attorney to prepare and submit an impartial analysis showing the effect of the measure on existing law
Summary of Election Actions
9 • The State Elections Code requires the ballot measure to be printed in the ballot pamphlet in the form of a “yes” or “no” ballot question of no more than 75 words. The following is the ballot question included in the proposed resolution:
• “Newark Essential Services Protection Measure. To protect city services such as repairing potholes/streets; keeping neighborhoods safe/clean, and maintaining 9-1-1 emergency response/fire protection/neighborhood police patrols/parks/recreation programs, shall the measure be adopted updating Newark’s 56-year-old business license ordinance, lowering many small businesses' taxes, with rates up to 0.3% of gross receipts (as described in the ordinance), raising $6,800,000 annually until ended by voters, with spending disclosure/ independent audits?”
Ballot Question:
10 • Arguments of no more than 300 words each for and against the ballot measure must be submitted to the City Clerk by 2:00 p.m. on August 6, 2026.
• Rebuttals, of no more than 250 words, must be submitted to the City Clerk no later than 2:00 p.m. on August 17, 2026.
• Council could designate the Mayor to submit the argument/rebuttal.

Ballot Arguments and Rebuttal Arguments:
11 • Staff recommends that the Council approve the
resolution placing the BLT Ballot Measure on the
November 3, 2026, General Election.
• Questions?
Staff Recommendation
12

RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-26

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWARK
CALLING AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026, FOR

VOTER CONSIDERATION OF A BALLOT MEASURE SEEKING VOTER
AUTHORIZATION TO REPEAL AND REPLACE CHAPTER 5.04 OF THE

NEWARK MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND THE CURRENT BUSINESS
LICENSE ORDINANCE; ESTABLISHING POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH AN ELECTION;

REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF

ALAMEDA TO CONSOLIDATE THE ELECTION WITH THE GENERAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026; REQUESTING

CERTAIN SERVICES OF THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS OF ALAMEDA

COUNTY WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSOLIDATED GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION; AND PROVIDING FOR SUBMITTAL OF

BALLOT ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS AND AUTHORIZING THE

FILING OF AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS
WHEREAS, in 1970, the City Council of the City of Newark approved the imposition of a business license tax, codified as Chapter 5.04 of the Newark Municipal Code (the “Business License Tax”), which provided for the imposition and collection of a general tax on the privilege of transacting and carrying on business in the of City of Newark (the “City”); and WHEREAS, the City is facing a budget deficit that could directly impact essential services that local residents rely upon; and
WHEREAS, to protect essential services, including repairing potholes and repairing city streets and sidewalks, reducing blight and keeping neighborhoods safe and clean, maintaining rapid 9-1-1 emergency medical response and fire protection, and maintaining neighborhood police patrols, park, and recreation programs,, the City is seeking to enhance locally controlled funding that cannot be taken away by the State; and
WHEREAS, the City requires all businesses operating in Newark to obtain a business license and pay an associated annual tax to help support the roads, infrastructure, and services used by local businesses; and
WHEREAS, the City’s current Business License Tax structure has not been updated in over fifty (50) years, and the local economy, industries, and workforce have changed significantly in that time; and
WHEREAS, to ensure that large businesses contribute to the services, roads and infrastructure in the City and to protect small businesses from increased costs, the City is proposing to modernize and simplify the current Business License Tax; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes to the Business License Tax are designed to attract, retain, and encourage business growth and job creation in Newark, simplify oversight and compliance, and generate approximately $5.4 million in annual funding for local services and infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the proposed changes to the Business License Tax would not impact Newark residents who do not own or operate a business in Newark; and WHEREAS, locally controlled funding from the Business License Tax could be used to protect essential services, including repairing potholes and repairing city streets and sidewalks, reducing blight and keeping neighborhoods safe and clean, maintaining rapid 9-1-1 emergency medical response and fire protection, and maintaining neighborhood police patrols, park, and recreation programs,; and
WHEREAS, the proposed measure includes fiscal accountability protections to ensure funds are spent properly, including required public disclosure of all spending and mandatory annual audits; and
WHEREAS, all funds from the measure must stay in Newark for local services and infrastructure and no funds may be taken away by the State; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to general law cities in the State of California, an election shall be held on November 3, 2026, for the submission to the voters of a question relating to an amendment to the business license tax; and WHEREAS, it is desirable that the election be consolidated with the statewide election to be held on the same date, and that within the City, the precincts, polling places, and election officers of the two elections be the same; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11852 by which, among other things, the City called and ordered a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, for the purpose of electing one (1) Mayor and two (2) at-large Council Members and by which the City requested the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda (the “Board of Supervisors”) to consolidate that General Municipal Election with the General Election on November 3, 2026, and by which the City requested the Board of Supervisors to issue instructions to the Registrar of Voters of the County of Alameda (the “Registrar of Voters”) to provide specified services to the City including any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated election; and by which the City Council authorized reimbursing Alameda County based on Alameda County's established consolidation rate; and WHEREAS, Article XIIIC, section 2(b) of the California Constitution requires that any general tax for unrestricted general revenue purposes, such as a business license tax, must be submitted to and approved by a majority vote of the voters voting on the issue of imposing any general tax; and
WHEREAS, this proposed measure will only become effective if approved by a simple majority of the City’s voters voting on the question at the November 3, 2026 election; and WHEREAS, based on all of the information presented at the July 23, 2026, meeting of the City Council, both written and oral, including the staff report, minutes, and other relevant materials, the City Council finds that review under CEQA is not required.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newark that:

Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and hereby incorporated by reference.

Section 2. The City Council hereby calls an election at which it shall submit to the qualified voters of the City of Newark, a measure that, if approved, would repeal the existing general business license tax and adopt a general business license tax, as authorized by California Government Code Section 37101 and California Business and Professions Code Sections 16000, et seq. This measure shall be designated by letter by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters.

Pursuant to Elections Code Sections 10400, et seq., the election for this measure shall be consolidated with the established election to be conducted on November 3, 2026.

Section 3. The City Council does hereby submit for adoption by the qualified voters of the City of Newark at the General Municipal Election of November 3, 2026, the following question:
“Newark Essential Services Protection Measure. To protect city services such as repairing potholes/streets; keeping neighborhoods safe/clean, and maintaining 9-1-1 emergency response/fire protection/neighborhood police patrols/parks/recreation programs, shall the measure be adopted updating Newark’s 56-year-old business license ordinance, lowering many small businesses' taxes, with rates up to 0.3% of gross receipts (as described in the ordinance), raising $6,800,000 annually until ended by voters, with spending disclosure/ independent audits?”
YES
NO
Section 4. The full text of the proposed measure to be submitted to the voters is attached as Exhibit A (the “Measure”) hereto. If a simple majority of the qualified voters voting on the Measure vote in favor therefor, the Measure shall be deemed adopted and shall be in full force and effect ten (10) days after the date the vote is declared by the City Council of the City of Newark.

The City Council hereby approves the Measure, attached as Exhibit A, the form thereof, and its submission to the voters of Newark at the November 3, 2026 election. The Measure specifies that the rate of the tax shall vary by business type, as set forth in Exhibit A. The tax shall be in effect until ended by voters of the City of Newark. The tax shall be collected by the City from businesses at the time of initial issuance or renewal of a business license.

Section 5. The Board of Supervisors of Alameda County is hereby requested to permit the Alameda County Registrar of Voters to provide such services as may be necessary to properly and lawfully hold and conduct an election in the City on November 3, 2026, pursuant to this Resolution, including but not restricted to the providing and printing of ballots and polling place cards, election supplies, voting booths, flags, registration lists and any other materials and services required to lawfully conduct the election. The City recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this election, and the City agrees to reimburse the County based on the County's established rates. This request is made pursuant to California Elections Code Sections 10002 and 10403.

Section 6. The City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to work with the Office of the Registrar of Voters as needed in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election. The ballots to be used in the election shall be in form and content as required by law. The Office of the Registrar of Voters is authorized to canvass the returns of the general municipal election. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections. The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County and the Registrar of Voters of Alameda County.

Section 7. Unless otherwise specified in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided in Resolution No. 11852, and as provided by law for holding municipal elections.

Section 8. (a) In accordance with Elections Code Sections 9282 and 9283, arguments submitted for or against the Measure shall not exceed 300 words in length and shall be printed upon the same sheet of paper and mailed to each voter with the sample ballot for the election and may be signed by not more than five (5) persons.
(b) In accordance with Elections Code Section 9282, the following headings, as appropriate, shall precede the arguments' wording, but shall not be counted in the 300 word maximum: "Argument Against Measure " or "Argument In Favor Of Measure " (the blank spaces being filled only with the letter or number, if any, designating the Measure).
(c) In accordance with Elections Code Section 9283, printed arguments submitted to voters in accordance with Section 9282 of the Elections Code shall be filed with the City Clerk, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it or, if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers. Arguments are due in the office of the City Clerk prior to 2:00 p.m. on August 6, 2026.
(d) The City Council hereby authorizes ______ to prepare and file a ballot argument in favor of the ballot measure set forth in this Resolution, which may be signed by members of the City Council, representatives of bona fide associations of citizens, and individual voters eligible to vote on the Measure. Members of the City Council who sign the ballot argument may use their titles. In accordance with Elections Code Section 9287, any council members authorized by the City Council to do so may sign the argument in favor of the Measure.

Section 9. (a) Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9285, when the City Clerk has selected the arguments for and against the Measure that will be printed and distributed to the voters, the City Clerk shall send copies of the argument in favor of the Measure to the authors of the argument against, and copies of the argument against to the authors of the argument in favor. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument that it seeks to rebut. (b) Rebuttal arguments shall not exceed 250 words and may be signed by not more than five (5) persons. The persons that sign the rebuttal arguments may be different persons than the persons that signed the direct arguments.
(c) The last day for submittal of rebuttal arguments for or against the Measure shall be by 2:00 p.m. on August 17, 2026.
(d) The City Council hereby authorizes ________ to prepare and file a rebuttal argument in favor of the ballot measure set forth in this Resolution, which may be signed by members of the City Council, representatives of bona fide associations of citizens, and individual voters eligible to vote on the Measure, who may be different from the persons who signed the argument in favor of the measure. Members of the City Council who sign the rebuttal argument may use their titles. In accordance with Elections Code Section 9287, any council members authorized by the City Council to do so may sign the rebuttal argument for the Measure.

Section 10. In accordance with Elections Code Section 9280, the City Attorney is directed to file with the City Clerk, by 2:00 p.m. on August 6, 2026, an impartial analysis of the Measure, not to exceed 500 words, showing the effect of the Measure on the existing law and the operation of the Measure.

Section 11. (a) The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County and the Alameda County Registrar of Voters. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to place the Measure on the ballot and to cause a synopsis of the Measure attached as Exhibit A to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with California Elections Code Section 12111 and California Government Code Section 6061. A copy of the Measure shall be made available to any voter upon request. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give further additional notice of the Measure in the time, form, and manner required by law. (b) In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, and except as provided for in Elections Code Sections 10403 and 10418, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.

Section 12. The jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Newark have not changed since the last general municipal election.

Section 13. The City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk (“City Officers”) are authorized to make all approvals, expend funds, enter into any agreements, and take any and all actions necessary or appropriate to carry out and implement the terms of this Resolution and to administer the City’s obligations, responsibilities and duties to be performed herein.

Section 14. The approval of this resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq., “CEQA,” and 14 Cal. Code Reg. §§ 15000 et seq., “CEQA Guidelines”), based on the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. This resolution places a measure on the ballot that, if approved, modifies the City’s business license tax; thus, it can be said with certainty that there is no possibility that the Measure will have a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, the tax that is the subject of this resolution is a general tax that can be used for any legitimate governmental purpose; it is not a commitment to any particular action. As such, under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), the tax is not a project within the meaning of CEQA because it creates a government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. If revenue from the tax were used for a purpose that would have such effect, the City would undertake the required CEQA review for that particular project at the earliest feasible time prior to approval of the project, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15004 and 15352. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15060, CEQA analysis is not required.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Newark at a regular meeting held on this 23rd day of July 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

MICHAEL HANNON
Mayor
ATTESTED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

NEETU SALWAN
City Clerk

KRISTOPHER KOKOTAYLO
City Attorney
Attachments:

1. Exhibit A - Proposed Business License Tax Amendment Measure Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. XXXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWARK REPEALING AND
REPLACING CHAPTER 5.04, BUSINESS LICENSES, OF THE NEWARK

MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, in 1970, the City Council of the City of Newark approved the imposition of a business license tax, codified as Chapter 5.04 of the Newark Municipal Code (the “Business License Tax”), which provided for the imposition and collection of a general tax on the privilege of transacting and carrying on business in the City; and WHEREAS, the City is facing a budget deficit that could directly impact essential services that local residents rely upon; and
WHEREAS, to protect essential services, including repairing potholes and repairing city streets and sidewalks, reducing blight and keeping neighborhoods safe and clean, maintaining rapid 9-1-1 emergency medical response and fire protection, and maintaining neighborhood police patrols, park, and recreation programs, the City is seeking to enhance locally controlled funding that cannot be taken away by the State; and
WHEREAS, the City requires all businesses operating in Newark to obtain a business license and pay an associated annual tax to help support the roads, infrastructure, and services used by local businesses; and
WHEREAS, the City’s current Business License Tax structure has not been updated in over 50 years and the local economy, industries, and workforce have changed significantly in that time; and
WHEREAS, to ensure that large businesses contribute to the services, roads and infrastructure in the City and to protect small businesses from increased costs, the City is proposing to modernize and simplify the current Business License Tax; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes to the Business License Tax are designed to attract, retain, and encourage business growth and job creation in Newark, simplify oversight and compliance, and generate approximately $6.8 million in annual funding for local services and infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the proposed changes to the Business License Tax would not impact Newark residents who do not own or operate a business in Newark; and WHEREAS, locally controlled funding from the Business License Tax could be used to protect essential services, including repairing potholes and repairing city streets and sidewalks, reducing blight and keeping neighborhoods safe and clean, maintaining rapid 9-1-1 emergency medical response and fire protection, and maintaining neighborhood police patrols, park, and recreation programs,; and
WHEREAS, the proposed measure includes fiscal accountability protections to ensure funds are spent properly, including required public disclosure of all spending and mandatory annual audits; and
WHEREAS, all funds from the measure must stay in Newark for local services and infrastructure and no funds may be taken away by the State.

NOW, THEREFORE, the People of the City of Newark do ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

The above recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.

SECTION 2. Municipal Code Amendment.

The City of Newark Municipal Code Chapter 5.04 is repealed in its entirety and replaced with the text in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Amended Business License Tax”), beginning January 1, 2027, the date upon which the Amended Business License Tax shall first be implemented.

SECTION 3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

The approval of this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq., “CEQA,” and 14 Cal. Code Reg. §§ 15000 et seq., “CEQA Guidelines”). This ordinance imposes a general tax that can be used for any legitimate governmental purpose; it is not a commitment to any particular action. As such, under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), the ordinance is not a project within the meaning of CEQA because it creates a government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. If revenue from the tax were used for a purpose that would have such effect, the City would undertake the required CEQA review for that particular project at the earliest feasible time prior to the approval of the project consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15004 and 15352. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15060, CEQA analysis is not required.

SECTION 4. Severability.

If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The People of the City of Newark hereby declare that they would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.

SECTION 5. Amendment or Repeal.

The Amended Business License Tax may be repealed or amended by the City Council without a vote of the People. However, as required by Article XIII C of the California Constitution, voter approval is required for any amendment of any provision that would increase the rate of any tax levied pursuant to this Ordinance or change the methodology for calculating the tax that would result in a tax increase for any person subject to the tax. The People of the City of Newark affirm that the following actions shall not constitute an increase of the rate of a tax:

A. The restoration of the rate of the tax to a rate that is no higher than that set by this Ordinance if the City Council has acted to reduce the rate of the tax; B. An action that interprets or clarifies the methodology of the tax or any definition applicable to the tax so long as interpretation or clarification (even if contrary to some prior interpretation or clarification) is not inconsistent with the language of this Ordinance; C. The establishment of a class of person that is exempt or excepted from the tax or the discontinuation of any such exemption or exception other than the discontinuation of an exemption or exception specifically set forth in this Ordinance; and, D. The collection of the tax imposed by this Ordinance, even if the City had for some period of time failed to collect the tax.

SECTION 6. Codification.

Upon adoption of this Ordinance pursuant to the voter approval referenced above, the City Clerk, in consultation with the City Attorney, is hereby authorized and directed to codify this Ordinance in the Newark Municipal Code.

SECTION 7. Publication and Effective Date.

Within fifteen (15) days from and after adoption, this Ordinance shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in Alameda County and circulated in the City of Newark, in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933. If this Ordinance is approved by a majority of the voters voting on the issue at the November 3, 2026, election, pursuant to Elections Code Section 9217, this Ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the Council declares the results of the election.

Chapter 5.04 BUSINESS LICENSE

5.04.010 Definitions.

The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter, shall have the meanings defined in this section unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
"Business" means and includes full-time or part-time professional services and retail, wholesale, manufacturing, or other occupations, trades, or callings of any kind, whether or not carried on for profit or livelihood.
"Business tax" means the business activity tax.
"City" means the City of Newark, a municipal corporation of the State of California in its present incorporated form or in any later reorganized, consolidated, enlarged or reinforced form. "Code" means the Newark Municipal Code, as amended from time to time. "Collector" means the Finance Director of the City or other City officer or employee charged with administration of this chapter.
"County" means the County of Alameda.
"Constitution" means the United States Constitution or the California Constitution, as the case may be. "Fixed place of business" means premises in the City where a business is conducted from day to day and regularly kept open for the purposes of such business, also referred to as "regular place of business." "Gross receipts" means the total amount of the sale price of all sales, and/or the total amount charged or received for the performance of any act or service or employment, of whatever nature it may be, for which a charge is made or credit allowed, whether or not such act, service or employment is done as a part of or in connection with the sale of materials, goods, wares or merchandise, and when such act, service or employment occurs as a result of any activity within the City. Included in "gross receipts" shall be all receipts, cash, credits and property of any kind or nature, except as excluded in this subsection, without any deduction therefrom on account of the cost of the property sold, the cost of the materials used, labor or service costs, interest paid or payable, or losses or other expenses whatsoever as shown by either the Federal or State income tax return required to be filed by such person. Where the gross receipts are less than the cost of maintaining the operations of the licensee, then the licensee shall be deemed to produce gross receipts in an amount at least equal to the cost of maintaining such operations. Such cost of operations includes, but is not limited to, rent, depreciation, salaries, wages, fixed charges, and other expenses. For the purpose of calculating the business tax as specified in Section 5.04.300, gross receipts shall be stated in dollars of the United States.

Excluded from "gross receipts" shall be:
(a) Cash discounts allowed and taken on sales;
(b) Credit allowed on property accepted as part of the purchase price and which property may later be sold;
(c) Any tax required by law to be included in or added to the purchase price and collected from the consumer or purchaser;
(d) Such part of the sale price of property returned by purchasers upon rescission of the contract of sale as is refunded either in cash or by credit;
(e) Amounts collected for others where the Business is acting as an agent or trustee to the extent that such amounts are paid to those whom collected;

(f) As to a real estate agent or broker, the sales price of real estate sold for the account of others, except that portion which represents commission or other income to the agent or broker; (g) As to a gasoline dealer, a portion of his receipts from the sale of motor vehicle fuels equal to the motor vehicle fuel tax imposed by and previously paid under the provisions of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the state; and
(h) As to a retail gasoline dealer, the special motor fuel license tax imposed by Section 4041 of Title 26 of the United States Code, if paid by the dealer or collected by him from the consumer or purchaser. "Hearing officer" means an impartial person designated by the City Manager. "Manufacturing" means making materials, raw or partly finished, into wares suitable for use by persons other than the manufacturer, including, but not limited to, fabrication, processing, packing, bottling, assembling, canning, compounding, and forging.
"Not-for-profit entities" means any organization that qualifies under Section 501, subsection (c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code or equivalent federal statute. "Person" means any individual, firm, company, partnership, limited liability partnership, joint venture, association, proprietorship, social club, fraternal organization, joint stock company, domestic or foreign corporation, limited liability corporation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, trustee, trustee in bankruptcy, administrator, executor, assignee, syndicate, or any other group or combination acting as a unit, whether mutual, cooperative, fraternal, nonprofit or otherwise, excepting: the United States of America, the State of California, and any political subdivision of either thereof upon which the City is without power to impose the tax herein provided. "State" means the State of California.
"Sworn statement" means an affidavit sworn to before a person authorized to take oaths or a declaration or certification made under penalty of perjury.
"Tax certificate" means the business tax certificate and any other identifying decal or marker as may be required by the collector for purposes of this chapter. "Tax certificate holder" means the person to whom a tax certificate has been issued. "Transient business" means every business not conducted at a "fixed place of business" or at a regular place of business, whether the person conducting such transient business is or is not a resident of the City. "Wholesale business" means every business conducted solely for the purpose of selling goods, wares, or merchandise in wholesale lots for resale.

5.04.020 Revenue measure.

This chapter is enacted for the sole purpose of raising revenue for municipal purposes and is not intended for regulation. The issuance of any tax certificate shall not be construed as authorizing any business to operate without first complying with all other applicable laws and regulations.

5.04.030 Effect on other laws.

A. Persons required to pay a business tax for transacting and carrying on any business under this chapter shall not be relieved from the payment of any similar tax for the privilege of doing such business required by any other law of the City, the County or the State and shall remain subject to the regulatory provisions of those other laws.

B. Any person required to pay a business tax for transacting and carrying on any business under this chapter shall not be relieved from the payment of such business tax, notwithstanding that such business is not in compliance with zoning, health, safety, or other regulatory provisions of the Code or other State or federal law. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter shall not constitute evidence that such business is in compliance with any other such regulations or provisions of law.

5.04.040 Required business tax payment.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to transact and carry on any business, trade, profession, calling, or occupation in the City without first having paid the business tax, as prescribed in this chapter or without complying with any and all applicable requirements of this chapter.

B. This section shall not be construed to require any person to pay a business tax or to comply with any other requirement of this chapter prior to doing business within the City if such requirements conflict with applicable statutes of the United States or of the State.

5.04.050 Evidence of doing business.

When any person, by the use of signs, circulars, cards, telephone books, or newspapers, shall advertise, hold out, or represent that the person is in business in the City, or when any person holds an active license or permit issued by a governmental agency indicating that the person is in business in the City, or when any person makes a sale, takes an order, renders a commercial service, or performs any other similar act within the City, and such person fails to deny by a sworn statement given to the Collector that the person is not conducting a business in the City after being requested to do so by the Collector, then such facts shall be considered prima facie evidence that the person is conducting a business in the City.

5.04.060 Constitutional apportionment.

A. None of the business taxes provided for by this chapter shall be so applied as to occasion an undue burden upon interstate commerce or be violative of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution.

B. In any case where a business tax is believed by a person transacting or carrying on any business in the City to place an undue burden upon interstate commerce or be violative of such constitutional clauses, such person may apply to the Collector for an adjustment of the tax. Such application may be made before or at the time the tax is required to be paid or within six (6) months after the payment of the prescribed business tax. The applicant, by sworn statement and supporting testimony, shall show the applicant's method of business, the gross volume or estimated gross volume of such business, and such other information as the Collector may deem necessary in order to determine the extent, if any, of such undue burden or violation. The Collector shall then conduct an investigation and, after having first obtained the written approval of the City Attorney, shall fix as the business tax for the applicant an amount that is reasonable and nondiscriminatory or, if the business tax has already been paid, shall order a refund of the amount over and above the business tax so fixed. Such investigation, fixing of the business tax, and order of refund shall be accomplished within a reasonable time upon receiving the requisite information by the City. In fixing the business tax, the Collector shall have the power to fix the business tax on any basis which will assure that the business tax assessed shall be uniform with that assessed on businesses of like nature, so long as the amount assessed does not exceed the business tax prescribed by this chapter. If it is determined that no business tax is due, the applicant exempt from the business tax shall obtain, and the Collector shall issue, a tax certificate indicating such exemption from the tax.

5.04.070 Exemptions.

A. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed or construed as applying to any person transacting, engaging in, and carrying on any business exempt by virtue of the Constitution or applicable statutes of the United States or of the State from payment of taxes prescribed herein.

B. Exemptions requiring tax-exempt tax certificates. The following persons shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter, except that any such person shall be required to obtain a tax-exempt tax certificate:

1. Not-for-profit entities, as defined in this Code;

2. Banks, including national banking associations as provided by subsection 1(a) of Section 16 of Article XIII of the State Constitution;

3. Insurance companies and associations as provided by Section 14 of Article XIII of the State Constitution provided however that insurance brokers shall not be excluded under this section;

4. The business of agriculture except for the retail activities conducted in connection therewith; and

5. The conducting of any entertainment, concert, exhibition or lecture on scientific, historical, literary, benevolent or moral subjects within the City whenever the receipts of any such entertainment, concert, exhibition or lecture are to be appropriated to any church or school or to any benevolent purpose within the City.

C. Exemptions not requiring tax-exempt tax certificates. The following persons shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter, and shall not be required to obtain a tax-exempt tax certificate:

1. Any delivery by a firm lacking a fixed place of business in the City, which delivery is occasional and incidental to a business carried on outside the City provided, however, that four (4) or more deliveries within any twelve (12) month period shall be considered proof that any further delivery is not occasional and incidental to such business;

2. Any public utility or other organization which is wholly owned and operated by a political subdivision of the State and any public district organized under the laws of the State; and

3. Any vehicle which is subject to the Motor Carriers of Property Permit Fee Act (California Revenue and Taxation Code section 7231 et. al); provided, however, this exemption shall only apply to the transportation business.

D. Claims for exemption. Any person desiring to claim an exemption from the payment of a business tax and to have a free tax-exempt tax certificate issued shall make an application therefor upon a form prescribed by the City and shall furnish such information and make such affidavits as may be required, on an annual basis.

Upon the determination being made that the applicant is entitled to an exemption from the payment of the business tax for any reason set forth in this chapter, the City, upon the applicant complying with the provisions of this chapter or any other law of the City which may require a permit for the doing of the particular act proposed to be done, shall issue a free tax-exempt tax certificate to such person, which certificate shall show upon its face that the business is exempt from the business tax.

E. Revocation of exemptions. The City may revoke any tax-exempt tax certificate granted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter upon information that the business is not entitled to the exemption as provided therein. In such revocation, the procedure to be followed and the right of appeal shall be as provided in this chapter for the determination of a disputed tax.

F. Sworn statements. The City may require the filing of a sworn statement from any person claiming to be excluded by the provisions of the section, which statement shall set forth all the facts upon which the exclusion is claimed.

5.04.080 Posting and keeping tax certificates—Record keeping.

A. Any person carrying on business at a fixed place of business in the City shall keep the tax certificate posted in a conspicuous place on the premises where such business is carried on.

B. Every tax certificate holder not having a fixed place of business in the City shall keep the tax certificate upon his or her person, or if required by the Collector affixed in plain view upon any cart, vehicle, van, or other movable structure or device, at all times while transacting or carrying on the business for which it is issued.

C. All persons subject to the provisions of this chapter shall keep complete records of business transactions, including sales, receipts, purchases, and other expenditures, and shall retain all such records for examination by the Collector. Such records shall be maintained for a period of at least three (3) years. No person required

to keep records under this section shall refuse to allow authorized representatives of the Collector to examine said records at reasonable times and places.

5.04.090 Information confidentiality.

No statement shall be conclusive as to the matters set forth in any application filed under the provisions of this chapter and neither the filing thereof, the assessment or payment of any tax, nor the issuance of any tax certificate shall preclude the City from collecting by appropriate action such sum as is actually due and payable.

Such statement, and each of the several items therein contained, shall be subject to audit and verification by the Collector, who is hereby authorized to examine, audit, and inspect such books and records of any tax certificate holder or applicant for a tax certificate as may be necessary for the judgment of the Collector to verify or ascertain the amount of business tax due.

A. It is unlawful for the Collector or any person having an administrative duty under the provisions of this chapter to make known in any manner whatever the business affairs, operations, or information obtained by an investigation of records and equipment of any person required to have a tax certificate, or pay a business tax, or any other person visited or examined in the discharge of official duty, or the amount or source of income, profits, losses, expenditures, or any particular thereof, set forth in any statement or application, or copy of either, or any book containing any abstract particulars thereof to be seen or examined by any person. Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent:

1. The disclosure to, or the examination of records and equipment by, another City official, employee, or agent for collection of taxes for the sole purpose of administering or enforcing any provisions of this chapter, or collecting taxes imposed hereunder;

2. The disclosure of information to, or the examination of records by Federal or State officials, or the tax officials of another city or county, or city and county, if a reciprocal arrangement exists, or to a grand jury or court of law, upon subpoena;

3. The disclosure of information and results of the examination of records of particular taxpayers, or relating to particular payers, to a court of law in a proceeding brought to determine the existence or amount of any business tax liability of the particular taxpayers to the City;

4. The disclosure after the filing of a written request to that effect, to the taxpayer himself, or to his successors, receivers, trustees, executors, administrators, assignees, and guarantors, if directly interested, of information as to the items included to the measure of any paid tax, any unpaid tax or amounts of tax required to be collected, interest and penalties; further provided, however, that the City Attorney approves each such disclosure and that the Collector may refuse to make any disclosure referred to in this paragraph when in his opinion the public interest would suffer thereby;

5. The disclosure of the names and addresses of persons to whom business tax receipts have been issued, and the general type or nature of their business;

6. The disclosure by way of public meeting or otherwise of such information as may be necessary to the City Council in order to permit it to be fully advised as the facts when a taxpayer files a claim for refund of business taxes or submits an offer of compromise with regard to a claim asserted against him by the City for business taxes, or when acting upon any other matter;

7. The disclosure of general statistics regarding taxes collected or business done in the City.

5.04.100 Failure to file statements or corrected statements.

A. If any person fails to file any required statement within the time prescribed, or if, after demand therefor made by the Collector, such person fails to file a corrected statement, or if any person subject to the tax imposed by this chapter fails to submit the information required by the Collector necessary to determine the business tax due and payable, or if the Collector is not satisfied with the information supplied and the

statement filed, the Collector may determine the amount of the business tax due from such person by means of such information as he may be able to obtain.

B. If such a determination is made, the Collector shall give notice of the amount so assessed by serving such notice electronically, personally, or by depositing it in the United States Post Office, postage prepaid, addressed to the person so assessed at their last known address.

C. Assessments so established shall be paid within fifteen (15) days after the mailing of such notice, subject to the provisions of section 5.04.180 of this chapter.

5.04.110 Amount of business tax debt to city.

The amount of any business tax imposed by this chapter shall be deemed a debt to the City, and any person carrying on any trade, calling, profession or occupation mentioned in this chapter without having a tax certificate from the City shall be liable to an action in the name of the City in any court of competent jurisdiction for the amount of the business tax by this chapter imposed on such trade, calling, profession, or occupation.

5.04.120 Effect of convictions.

The conviction and punishment of any person for transacting any trade, calling, profession, or occupation without a tax shall not excuse or exempt such person from the payment of any business tax due or unpaid at the time of such conviction, and nothing in this chapter shall prevent a criminal prosecution for any violation of the provisions of this chapter.

5.04.130 Duty of City to issue business tax certificates.

A. It shall be the duty of the City to prepare and issue a tax certificate pursuant to the provisions of this chapter for every person liable to pay a business tax and to state in each tax certificate the period of time covered thereby; the name of the person or business to whom issued; the business classification to which the tax certificate is issued; the trade, calling, profession, or occupation to which the license certificate is issued and the location or place of business where such trade, calling, profession, or occupation is to be carried.

B. No tax certificate granted or issued under any provision of this chapter shall be in any manner transferred or assigned, nor shall such tax certificate authorize any person, other than is therein mentioned or named, to not pay a business tax.

C. The City may make a charge in an amount specified in the City’s fee schedule for each duplicate tax certificate issued to replace any tax certificate issued under the provisions of this chapter that has been lost or destroyed. In no case shall any mistake made by the City in stating the amount of a business tax prevent or prejudice the collection by the City of what shall be due from any person carrying on a trade, calling, profession, or occupation subject to business tax under this chapter.

5.04.140 Business taxes payable in specified manner
All business taxes shall be paid in advance in lawful money of the United States to the City of Newark, in a manner prescribed by the Collector.

5.04.150 Separate business tax certificate required.

A separate tax certificate shall be obtained for each branch establishment or location. Warehouses and distributing establishments used in connection with and incidental to a business taxed under the provisions of this chapter shall not be deemed to be separate places of business or branch establishments.

5.04.160 Business tax certificate period.

No tax certificate shall be issued for a period of more than twelve (12) months from the initial date of issuance or renewal.

5.04.170 Business taxes—Payment, delinquencies, and penalties.

A. All business taxes shall be due on the first day of business license issuance and annually thereafter and will be considered delinquent at 30 days after business taxes are due.

B. For failure to pay a business tax when due, the Collector shall add a penalty of twenty (20%) percent of such business tax on the first day of delinquency and shall add a further penalty of twenty (20%) percent of such business tax on the first day of every subsequent calendar month following such first day of delinquency provided the amount of such penalties to be added shall in no event exceed fifty (50%) percent of the business tax due. The penalties provided in this subsection shall be assessed from the date when such deficiency was required to be paid pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

5.04.180 Application—Initial.

A. Upon a person making an application for the first business tax certificate for a newly established or acquired business, such person shall furnish to the Collector a statement, upon a form provided by the Collector; setting forth the following information:

1. The exact nature or kind of business;

2. The place where such business is to be carried on, and if the same is not to be carried on at any permanent place of business, the places of residence of the owners of same;

3. In all cases where the amount of tax to be paid is measured by gross receipts, the application shall set forth such information as may be therein required and as may be necessary to determine the amount of the tax to be paid by the applicant;

4. Any further information which the Collector may require.

B. If the amount of the tax to be paid by the applicant is measured by gross receipts, he or she shall estimate the gross receipts for the period covered. Such estimate, if accepted by the Collector as reasonable, shall be used in determining the amount of tax to be paid by the applicant; provided, however, the amount of the tax so determined shall be tentative only, and such person shall, within 30 days after the expiration of the period covered, furnish the Collector with a statement, upon a form prescribed by the Collector, showing the applicant's actual gross receipts during the period covered, and the tax for such period shall be finally ascertained and paid in the manner provided by this chapter for the ascertaining and paying of such taxes, after deducting from the payment found to be due the amounts initially paid.

C. In all cases, the applicant shall, upon filing his or her application, pay no less than the prescribed minimum tax in advance, without being prorated, to cover the remaining portion of the current reporting period.

D. The Collector shall not issue to any such person another business tax certificate for the same or any other business until such person shall have furnished to them a statement and paid the tax as herein required.

5.04.190 Application—Renewal.

In all cases, the applicant for the renewal of a business tax certificate shall submit to the Collector for their guidance in ascertaining the amount of the tax to be paid by the applicant, a statement, upon a form prescribed by the Collector, setting forth such information concerning the applicant's business during the preceding year as may be required by the Collector to enable them to ascertain the amount of the tax to be paid by said applicant pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

5.04.200 Extensions of filing dates—Interest charges.

The Collector shall have the power, for good cause, to extend the time for filing any required sworn statement for a period not exceeding sixty (60) days and in such case to waive any penalty that would have otherwise accrued.

5.04.210 Refunds.

No refund of an overpayment of a business tax imposed by this chapter shall be allowed in whole or in part unless a claim for a refund is filed with the Collector within a period of one (1) year after the last day that payment was made, and all such claims for refunds shall be filed with the Collector on forms the Collector furnishes in the manner prescribed by the Collector. Upon the filing of such a claim and when the Collector determines, in a reasonable time, that an overpayment has been made, the Collector may refund the amount overpaid.

5.04.220 Determinations of business classifications an administrative function.

The final determination of which business or class of business a tax certificate holder or applicant for a tax certificate is engaged in, or about to engage in, shall be an administrative function of the City.

5.04.230 Applications for changes of business classifications.

A. In any case, where a tax certificate holder or an applicant for a tax certificate believes that their business is not assigned to the proper classification under this chapter because of circumstances peculiar to it, as distinguished from other businesses of the same kind, they may apply to the Collector for reclassification.

Such application shall contain such information as the Collector may deem necessary and require in order to determine whether the applicant's individual business is properly classified. The Collector shall then conduct an investigation following which they shall assign the applicant's individual business to the classification shown to be proper on the basis of such investigation. The proper classification is that classification which, in the opinion of the Collector, most nearly fits the applicant's business. The reclassification shall not be retroactive but shall apply at the time of the next regularly ensuing calculation of the applicant's tax. No business shall be classified more than once a year.

B. The Collector shall notify the applicant of the action taken on the application for reclassification. Such notice shall be given by serving it personally or by depositing it in the United States Post Office postage prepaid, addressed to the applicant at their last known address. Such applicant may, within ten (10) working days after the mailing or serving of such notices, make a written request to the Collector for an appeal hearing on the application's reclassification. If such a request is made within the time prescribed, the Collector shall cause the matter to be set for hearing before the City Council within fifteen (15) days. The Collector shall give the applicant at least ten (10) days' notice of the time and place of the hearing. The City Council shall consider all evidence adduced and shall adopt a resolution reflecting its decision. The decision of the City Council shall be final.

5.04.240 Appeals on decisions of business classifications.

Any applicant or tax certificate holder aggrieved by the business classification decision of the City shall have the right of appeal to a Hearing Officer designated by the City Manager. Such appeal shall be taken by filing with the City Clerk, within fifteen (15) days after the notice of the decision of the City, a written statement setting forth the grounds for the appeal. The City Clerk shall set a time and place for a hearing on such appeal within thirty (30) days after the receipt of the appeal. The decisions and orders of the Hearing Officer shall be final and conclusive.

5.04.250 Rules and regulations.

The City Manager may promulgate such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter, as may be necessary or desirable to aid in the administration or enforcement of the provisions of this chapter.

5.04.260 Referrals to other agencies—Prepayment of taxes.

A. Referrals to other agencies. The Collector may refer to any governmental agency any statement and all other information submitted by persons subject to the provisions of this chapter in connection with the conduct of a Business regulated or supervised or otherwise the concern of any such agency, including agencies

concerned with health regulations, zoning conformance, fire safety, police considerations, or any other safeguard of the public interest.

B. Prepayment of taxes. The Collector may advise any person filing a statement in connection with the payment of a business tax for a new or other business not actually in operation that such person may desire to defer the payment of the business tax until the person has obtained whatever approval may be required in order to transact and carry on the business until such business is actually in operation. If any person does, however, pay the business tax in advance of the commencement of the operation of the business, but does not operate the business because City or other governmental agency did not grant an approval which is required by regulation or law in order for such Business to be transacted and carried on, then the business tax shall be refunded in full, after the person has informed Collector in a timely manner, to the person having paid such tax minus the application fee as set by resolution of the City Council and revised from time to time.

5.04.270 Enforcement.

A. It shall be the duty of the Collector to enforce each and all of the provisions of this chapter, and the various City departments shall render such assistance in the enforcement as may from time to time be required by the Collector, City Manager, or City Council.

B. The Collector, in the exercise of the duties imposed upon the Collector shall examine, or cause to be examined, all places of business in the City to ascertain whether the provisions of this chapter have been complied with.

C. The Collector, and each designee, and any police officer or duly authorized inspector, shall have the power and authority to enter free of charge at any reasonable time any place of business or to question any person, which business or person is, or there is reasonable cause to believe such business or person may be, subject to the provision of this chapter, and demand an exhibition of proof of business tax payment.

5.04.280 Remedies cumulative.

All remedies prescribed in this chapter shall be cumulative, and the use of one or more remedies by the City shall not bar the use of any other remedy for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this chapter.

5.04.290 Violations—Penalties.

Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter or knowingly or intentionally misrepresenting to any officer or employee of the City any material fact in procuring, or attempting to procure, the business tax certificate provided for in this chapter shall be deemed guilty of an infraction.

5.04.300 Determination of tax due based on gross receipts plus annual registration tax.

A. Every person who engages in business within the City shall pay a business tax consisting of a base tax on the first $100,000 in annual gross receipts, plus the applicable category rate applied to gross receipts in excess of $100,000, all as set forth in this section.

B. Every person subject to the business tax shall pay a base tax of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) on the first $100,000 in annual gross receipts, or any portion thereof. Gross receipts in excess of $100,000 shall be subject to the business tax at the category rates set forth in subsection C.

C. Categories of businesses and associated business tax rates:

1. CATEGORY 1: General retail and restaurants ($25 base tax, plus ________ × gross receipts in excess of $100,000):