244863
- 4 -
5. Up to an additional ten percent (10%) of BID PRICE for construction contract change orders ("CONSTRUCTION
CHANGE ORDERS CONTRIBUTION"); and
J. Altogether, DESIGN CONTRIBUTION, DESIGN ADMIN, BID PRICE, CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CONTRIBUTION, and CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS CONTRIBUTION are hereinafter called "TOTAL DISTRICT CONTRIBUTION"; and
K. TOTAL DISTRICT CONTRIBUTION for PROJECT shall not exceed a total sum of Two Million Three Hundred Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Six Dollars ($2,319,476); and
L. DISTRICT wishes to provide only financial assistance to CITY and have no other role; and
M. The purpose of this Agreement is to memorialize the mutual understandings by and between CITY and DISTRICT with respect to the construction, ownership, operation and maintenance of PROJECT and the payment of TOTAL DISTRICT CONTRIBUTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the preceding recitals and the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the Parties hereto mutually agree that the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated into the terms of this Agreement and as follows:
SECTION I
CITY shall:
1. Pursuant to CEQA, act as Lead Agency and assume responsibility for preparation, circulation and adoption of all necessary and appropriate CEQA documents pertaining to the construction, operation and maintenance of PROJECT.
2. Invoice DISTRICT (Attention: Special Projects Section) for fifty percent (50%) of DESIGN CONTRIBUTION upon execution of this Agreement. TOTAL DISTRICT
244863
- 5 -
CONTRIBUTION shall not exceed a total sum of Two Million Three Hundred Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Six Dollars ($2,319,476) for PROJECT.
3. Prepare or cause to be prepared improvement plans, in accordance with the applicable CITY standards. CITY shall make reasonable efforts during the preparation of improvement plans to avoid utility conflicts associated with UTILITY RELOCATIONS.
4. Following the signing of IMPROVEMENT PLANS, invoice DISTRICT (Attention: Special Projects Section) for the (i) remainder of DESIGN CONTRIBUTION and (ii) DESIGN ADMIN, and DISTRICT CONTRIBUTION shall not exceed a total sum of Two Million Three Hundred Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Six Dollars ($2,319,476) for PROJECT.
5. Prior to advertising PROJECT for public works construction contract, obtain all necessary permits, licenses, agreements, approvals, rights of way, rights of entry, encroachment permits, and temporary construction easements as may be needed to construct, operate and maintain PROJECT.
6. Upon execution of this Agreement, advertise, award and administer PROJECT pursuant to the applicable provisions of the California Public Contract Code. At the time of advertising for bids, provide DISTRICT with a copy of PROJECT plans, specifications, bid documents and any subsequent addenda thereto.
7. Provide DISTRICT with written notice (Attention: Contract Services Section) that CITY has awarded a public works construction contract for PROJECT. The written notice shall include the Contractor's actual bid amounts for PROJECT, setting forth the lowest responsible bid contract amount.
8. Order the relocation of all utilities within CITY rights of way which may conflict with the construction of PROJECT.
244863
- 6 -
9. At the time of providing written notice of the award of a construction contract for PROJECT, invoice DISTRICT (Attention: Special Projects Section) for BID PRICE, subject to and provided that TOTAL DISTRICT CONTRIBUTION does not exceed a total sum of Two Million Three Hundred Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Six Dollars ($2,319,476) for PROJECT. BID PRICE shall be supported by a copy of CITY's bid abstracts for PROJECT.
10. Procure or caused to be procured insurance coverages during the term of this Agreement. CITY shall require its PROJECT construction contractor(s) to furnish original certificate(s) of insurance and original certified copies of endorsements and, if requested, certified original policies of insurance including all endorsements and any and all other attachments. Prior to CITY issuing a Notice to Proceed to its construction contractor(s) to begin construction of PROJECT, an original certificate of insurance evidencing the required insurance coverage shall be provided to DISTRICT. The procured insurance coverages shall name DISTRICT, County of Riverside, its Agencies, Districts, Special Districts and Departments, their respective directors, officers, Board of Supervisors, employees, elected or appointed officials, agents or representatives as Additional Insured. CITY shall notify DISTRICT of any claim by a third party or any incident or event that may give rise to a claim arising from the performance of this Agreement.
11. Construct or cause to be constructed PROJECT pursuant to a CITY administered public works contract in accordance with IMPROVEMENT PLANS.
12. Inspect PROJECT construction or cause PROJECT's construction to be inspected by its construction manager.
13. Require its construction contractor(s) to comply with all Cal/OSHA safety regulations including regulations concerning confined space and maintain a safe working environment for all CITY and DISTRICT employees on the site.
244863
- 7 -
14. Upon completion of PROJECT construction and CITY's acceptance thereof, accept ownership and sole responsibility for the design, operation and maintenance of PROJECT.
15. Upon completion of PROJECT construction, provide DISTRICT with a copy of CITY's Notice of Completion.
16. Keep an accurate accounting of all PROJECT costs along with CITY's CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CONTRIBUTION. The final accounting of construction costs shall include a detailed breakdown of all costs, including, but not limited to, payment vouchers, CITY approved change orders and other such construction contract documents as may be necessary, to establish the actual cost of construction for DISTRICT and CITY approved IMPROVEMENT PLANS.
17. At the time of providing a Notice of Completion, invoice DISTRICT (Attention: Special Projects Section) for CITY's CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CONTRIBUTION and, if applicable, CITY's CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS CONTRIBUTION, subject to and provided TOTAL DISTRICT CONTRIBUTION shall not exceed, Two Million Three Hundred Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Six Dollars ($2,319,476) for DISTRICT review.
SECTION II
DISTRICT shall:
1. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of CITY's invoices (i) pay all approved CITY's invoices and (ii) review and approve associated documents as described in the RECITALS and SECTION I herein this Agreement, subject to and provided that TOTAL DISTRICT CONTRIBUTION shall not exceed, Two Million Three Hundred Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Six Dollars ($2,319,476) for PROJECT.
2. Within thirty (30) days of CITY awarding PROJECT, pay the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Agency the mitigation fee for PROJECT per the 2004
244863
- 8 -
Implementing Agreement for the MSHCP, which is either the lesser of (i) three percent (3%) of the lowest responsible bid; or (ii) three percent (3%) of lowest responsible bid contract price, less the value of any applicable project specific mitigation.
3. Not be responsible to pay any amounts that exceed the TOTAL DISTRICT CONTRIBUTION for PROJECT.
SECTION III
It is further mutually agreed:
1. Notwithstanding any other provision herein this Agreement, TOTAL DISTRICT CONTRIBUTION shall not exceed a total sum of Two Million Three Hundred Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Six Dollars ($2,319,476) and shall be used by CITY solely for the purpose of constructing PROJECT as set forth herein. No additional funding whatsoever shall be provided by DISTRICT for any subsequent PROJECT modifications, extensions or repairs.
2. In the event the actual construction cost for PROJECT is less than the BID PRICE, CITY shall refund the difference to DISTRICT within thirty (30) days of filing the Notice of Completion for PROJECT.
3. Under the provisions of this Agreement, DISTRICT shall bear no responsibility whatsoever for the design, construction, ownership, operation or maintenance of PROJECT.
4. CITY shall indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless DISTRICT and the County of Riverside (including their agencies, districts, special districts and departments, their respective directors, officers, Board of Supervisors, elected and appointed officials, employees, agents, representatives, independent contractors, and subcontractors) from any liabilities, claim, damage, proceeding or action, present or future, based upon, arising out of or in any way relating to CITY's (including its officers, elected and appointed officials, employees, agents,
244863
- 9 -
representatives, independent contractors and subcontract) actual or alleged acts or omissions related to this Agreement, performance under this Agreement or failure to comply with the requirements of this Agreement including, but not limited to (a) property damage; (b) bodily injury or death; (c) payment of attorney fees; or (d) any other element of any kind or nature whatsoever. This section shall survive any termination of this Agreement until the statute of limitations period has run for any claims that could be asserted under this Agreement.
5. If any provision in this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way.
6. This Agreement is to be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action at law or in equity brought by any of the Parties hereto for the purpose of enforcing a right or rights provided for by this Agreement shall be tried in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Riverside, State of California, and the Parties hereto waive all provisions of law providing for a change of venue in such proceedings to any other county.
Neither CITY nor DISTRICT shall assign this Agreement without the written consent of the other party.
7. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties hereto. No other person or entity shall have any right of action based upon the provisions of this Agreement.
8. Any and all notices sent or required to be sent to the Parties of this Agreement will be mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL CITY OF NORCO
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2870 Clark Avenue
1995 Market Street Norco, CA 92860
Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Director of Public Works
Attn: Planning Division
244863
- 10 -
9. This Agreement is the result of negotiations between the Parties hereto and the advice and assistance of their respective counsel. The fact that this Agreement was prepared as a matter of convenience by DISTRICT shall have no importance or significance. Any uncertainty or ambiguity in this Agreement shall not be construed against DISTRICT because DISTRICT prepared this Agreement in its final form.
10. Any waiver by DISTRICT or CITY of any breach by any other Party of any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed to be a waiver of any subsequent or other breach of the same or any other provision hereof. Failure on the part of DISTRICT or CITY to require from any other Party exact, full and complete compliance with any of the provisions of this Agreement shall not be construed as in any manner changing the terms hereof or estopping DISTRICT or CITY from enforcing this Agreement.
11. The obligations of DISTRICT are limited by and contingent upon the availability of DISTRICT funds for DISTRICT's financial contribution towards PROJECT as set forth herein. In the event such funds are not forth coming for any reason, DISTRICT shall immediately notify CITY in writing. The Agreement shall be deemed terminated and have no further force and effect immediately upon receipt of DISTRICT's notification by CITY.
12. This Agreement is intended by the Parties hereto as a final expression of their understanding with respect to the subject matter hereof and as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms and conditions thereof and supersedes any and all prior and contemporaneous agreements and understandings, oral or written, in connection therewith. This Agreement may be changed or modified only upon the written consent of the Parties hereto.
13. No alternation or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by both Parties and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on either Party hereto.
244863
- 11 -
14. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement.
15. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Each Party of this Agreement agrees to the use of electronic signatures, such as digital signatures that meet the requirements of the California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (("CUETA") Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1633.1 to 1633.17), for executing this Agreement. The Parties further agree that the electronic signatures of the Parties included in this Agreement are intended to authenticate this writing and to have the same force and effect as manual signatures.
Electronic signature means an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with an electronic record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the electronic record pursuant to CUETA as amended from time to time. CUETA authorizes use of an electronic signature for transactions and contracts among parties in California, including a government agency. Digital signature means an electronic identifier, created by computer, intended by the party using it to have the same force and effect as the use of a manual signature, and shall be reasonably relied upon by the Parties. For purposes of this section, a digital signature is a type of "electronic signature" as defined in subdivision (i) of Section 1633.2 of the Civil Code.
//
//
244863
- 12 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Funding Agreement on .
(to be filled in by Clerk of the Board)
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION
DISTRICT
By
JASON E. UHLEY
General Manager-Chief Engineer
By
KAREN SPIEGEL, Chair
Board of Supervisors, Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation
District
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
MINH C. TRAN
County Counsel
KIMBERLY RECTOR
Clerk of the Board
By
KRISTINE BELL-VALDEZ
Chief Deputy County Counsel
By
Deputy
(SEAL)
Funding Agreement w/City of Norco
Norco Line N-4 Extension
Project No. 2-0-10027
03/14/23
MM:blm
244863
- 13 -
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
CITY OF NORCO
By
ROBIN GRUNDMEYER
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
By
HARPER & BURNS, LLC
City Attorney
By
DIANE GERMAIN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
(SEAL)
Funding Agreement w/City of Norco
Norco Line N-4 Extension
Project No. 2-0-10027
03/14/23
MM:blm
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Funding Agreement on April 5, 2023.
City Council
STAFF REPORT
Date: April 5, 2023 Agenda Item:
2.L.
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Prepared By: Chad Blais, Public Works Director
Department: Public Works
SUBJECT:
Change Order Request for Norco MDP Line N-4 Storm Drain Project (Design) RECOMMENDATION:
Review and approve Change Order Request in the amount of $11,300 for the Norco MDP Line N-4 Storm Drain Project (Design)
SUMMARY:
A change order is being requested, in the amount of $11,300, for Tait & Associates for additional design efforts and modifications related to the Norco MDP Line N-4 Storm Drain Project.
BACKGROUND:
On January 20, 2021 the City Council awarded a design contract to Tait & Associates in the amount of $74,900 to design the Norco MDP Line N-4 Storm Drain Project. During the storm drain design process additional tasks were required beyond the original project scope. The tasks included additional utility conflict coordination due to the significant amount of utilities within Fourth Street, survey alignment revisions necessary to coordinate the storm drain design with the Norco MDP Line N-5 project on Valley View and additional effort coordinating permission and access into the County's flood control facility. The cost of the addendums total $11,300 (See attached Additional Service Agreement) resulting in a total amended project design cost of $86,200.
Tait & Associates has provided staff with the change order request in the amount of $11,300. Staff has reviewed the change order and has determined the proposed cost to be reasonable.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Norco MDP Line N-4 Storm Drain Project was approved as a Capital Improvement Project in the Storm Drain Fund for Fiscal year 2021-2022 having a current budget of
$818,000 ($810,00 for construction, $8,000 for design) - Account No's. 129.935.41380 & 129.935.41380.3). The 2023-2027 CIP budget will be amended as part of the award of contract staff report on April 5, 2023 to adjust the budget to correspond with the Cooperative Funding Agreement to correspond with the additional design change order request.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
Authorizing approval of this professional design services change order is consistent with Strategic Direction No. 5 – Infrastructure and Asset Management: Ensure timely preservation, replacement, improvement and acquisition of infrastructure and capital assets.
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Certified as to Availability of Funds: Lisette Free, Finance Director Approved by: Lori Sassoon, City Manager
Approved as to Form: Harper and Burns, LLC, City Attorney ATTACHMENT(S):
Additional Service Agreement
DATE Contract# PROJECT NO.
ME04240
TASK
ASA1.0
ASA1.1
ASA1.2
Contract Status
Original Contract: ASA #5:
ASA #1: ASA #6:
ASA #2: Reimbursables:
ASA #3:
ASA #4:
TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT
Accept ASA by signing below
COMPANY DATE:
CONTACT PHONE:
TITLE
SIGNATURE FAX:
If ASA is rejected indicate reasons below:
March 11, 2022 City 1
TOTAL THIS AGREEMENT $11,300.00
Additional Service Agreement (ASA)
City of Norco
TAIT PM:
Norco MPD Storm Drain Line N4
Additionl Service No.
Daniela Malott
DESCRIPTION FEE REQUIRED
$1,300.00
REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT
Pursuant to the terms of master services agreement, no work under this ASA will be performed until this form is signed and returned or client expressly waives this requirement.
Tait assumes no responsibility for any damages resulting from non-performance of work if this form is not executed. $86,200.00
Sam Nelson
RETURN THE SIGNED FORM TO TAIT
VIA FAX TO 714-560-8233 OR
1ST CLASS MAIL
$ 575.00
The above described services and associated fees are outside the original scope of the agreement. The terms and conditions in the original agreement are not changed by this ASA unless specifically referred to in this ASA and signed by both parties.
CLIENT PM
$ 74,900.00
$4,500.00
Conflicts Review
Conflicts review and coordination with 30-inch water line at Valley View, review and provide exhibits to City for alternative alignment due to conflicts with the existing utilities.
PROJECT NAME
Sam Nelson
$11,300.00
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
N-4 Alignment Revisions
Proposed storm drain Alignment Revisions due to conflicts with survey provided by the City for Valley View Improvements and existing 30-inch water main line.
Survey Coordination
Coordination with Riverside Control District and permit application to survey at Norco Channel at the N-4 Discharge location. Additionally TAIT assisted in the review and coordination of the boundary rotation conflicts with the survey provided for Valley View. $5,500.00
ASA1 Page 222 of 248
City Council
STAFF REPORT
Date: April 5, 2023 Agenda Item:
5.A.
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Prepared By: Lori Sassoon, City Manager
Department: Administration
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a resolution in opposition to Initiative No. 21-0042A1, The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 2023-13 opposing Initiative No. 21-0042A1, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act.
SUMMARY:
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, otherwise known as the Business Roundtable measure would amend the California Constitution with provisions that pose a significant threat to local control and city decision-making. The measure would limit voters’ authority and input on local measures, adopt new and stricter rules for raising local taxes and user fees, and may make it more difficult to impose fines and penalties for violation of State and local laws.
The measure puts billions of local government tax and fee revenues at risk statewide with related core public service impacts. The measure would have significant negative impacts on the City of Norco operations and core service delivery.
The proposed constitutional initiative is sponsored by the California Business Roundtable, a coalition of major corporations including Chevron, KB Homes, PepsiCo, Union Pacific Railroad, and Wells Fargo.
BACKGROUND:
On January 4, 2022, the California Business Roundtable filed the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” or AG# 21-0042A1. On February 1, 2023, the measure qualified for the November 2024 ballot. The League of California Cities, along with a broad coalition of local governments, labor and public safety leaders, infrastructure advocates, and businesses, strongly opposes this initiative.
Local government revenue-raising authority is already substantially regulated and restricted by State statute and constitutional provisions, including the voter approved provisions of Proposition 13 of 1978, Proposition 218 of 1996, and Proposition 26 of 2010.
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act would further add and expand restrictions on voters and local government tax and fee authority.
Local governments levy a variety of fees and other charges to provide core public services. Major examples of affected fees and charges are:
• Nuisance abatement charges, such as for weed, rubbish, and general nuisance abatement to fund community safety, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanup programs
• Commercial franchise fees
• Emergency response fees, such as in connection with DUI • Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges
• Document processing and duplication fees
• Transit fees, tolls, parking fees, and public airport and harbor use fees • Facility use charges, fees for parks and recreation services, garbage disposal tipping fees
Virtually every city, county, and special district must regularly (e.g., annually) adopt increases to fee rates and charges and revise rate schedules to accommodate new users and activities, and to adjust to rising costs over time. Most of these adjustments would now be subject to new standards and limitations under threat of legal challenge. Based on the current volume of fees and charges imposed by local agencies, including council-adopted increases to simply accommodate inflation, Cal Cities estimates the amount of local government fee and charge revenue at risk is approximately $2 billion per year including those adopted since January 1, 2022.
Over ten years, $20 billion of local government fee and charge revenues will be at heightened legal peril.
Hundreds of local tax measures were approved in 2022 that likely do not comply with the provisions of the initiative. Nearly $2 billion of annual revenues from these voterapproved measures will cease a year after the effective date of the measure, reducing the local public services funded by these measures, unless the tax is re-submitted for voter approval.
Reductions on local government revenues have impacts on core services and infrastructure including fire and emergency response, law enforcement, streets and roads, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, public schools, affordable housing, homelessness prevention, and mental health services. These revenues stay in city coffers and are not re-directed to other levels of government; cities must retain local control over these measures.
At the City Council meeting, Erin Sasse, CalCities Regional Public Affairs Manager for the Riverside County region, will make a presentation regarding this measure.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Direct impact to Norco is unknown at this time, but likely rising to millions of dollars in lost revenues annually over just the first 10 years of the measure.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
This item is consistent with Strategic Direction #3 - Economic Development and Financial Stability: Assure financial stability by expanding development efforts, diversifying revenue sources and continuing prudent financial management.
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Certified as to Availability of Funds: Lisette Free, Finance Director Approved by: Lori Sassoon, City Manager
Approved as to Form: Harper and Burns, LLC, City Attorney ATTACHMENT(S):
Initiative No. 21-0042A1 Summary
Resolution No. 2023-13
1 The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act Initiative No. 21-0042A11
Feb. 1, 2023
Effective date: Any new or increased tax or fee adopted by the Legislature, a city council, or the local voters after January 1, 2022, must comply with the Act’s new rules.
Voters
• Local advisory measures are prohibited. No measure may appear on the ballot asking for approval of a general tax that would allow the voters to express a preference for how the revenue from the general tax will, could, or should be used.
• Overturns Upland decision which upheld a special tax that had been placed on the ballot by the voters to be approved by a majority vote. Taxes proposed by initiative will be subject to the same rules as taxes placed on the ballot by a city council.
• Voters may not amend a city charter to impose, extend, or increase a tax or fee.
Local taxes
• Requires voter approval in order to apply an existing tax:
o to territory that is annexed.
o to a new service or product, for example when a utility user tax is applied to a new service.
• All new or increased taxes adopted after Jan. 1, 2022, must include a sunset date.
State taxes
• All new or increased state taxes require statewide voter approval. • Prohibits a property tax “surcharge” (increase). Prohibits any allocation of property tax to the state.
1 This is a summary of some of the more significant provisions of the Act. Please review the Act for a complete understanding of the changes it makes to the Constitution.
2 Fees and charges
• Fees and charges for services and permits may not exceed the “actual cost” of providing the product or service for which the fee is charged. “Actual cost” is the “minimum amount necessary.” Examples include planning services, excavation and encroachment permits, preparation of candidate statement, and permit parking.
• State and cities have the burden of proving by “clear and convincing evidence” that a fee/charge is not a tax, that the amount is reasonable, and that it does not exceed “actual cost.”
• Franchise fees — historically considered fees, not taxes — will more likely be considered taxes due to the elimination of an existing category of “fee” and the requirement that charges to entrance, purchase, rental, or lease of government property be “reasonable.” The state and cities issue franchises to oil companies, utilities, gas companies, railroads, garbage companies, cable companies, and other corporations.
• No fee or charge or exaction regulating vehicle miles traveled can be imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy.
Fines and penalties (administrative enforcement of state law and municipal codes)
• May require voter approval of fines and penalties for corporations and property owners that violate state and local laws unless a new, undefined adjudicatory process is used to impose the fines and penalties. Examples include nuisance abatement, organic waste reduction requirements, and failure to maintain a vacant property.
Business Roundtable Board
Aera Energy
Albertsons
Altria (tobacco)
Anthem Blue Cross
Automobile Club of Southern California
Bittle Enterprises (Enterprise
Rent-a-car)
Blackstone
Caruso Management (Rick Caruso)
Chevron
C.J. Segerstrom & Sons
Dart Container
DLA Piper (Law Firm)
Douglas Emmett
Eli Lilly & Company
Exxon
Farmers Group (Insurance)
Fivepoint (Developer)
Global Medical Response Solution
Grimmway Farms
Irvine Company
KB Homes
Kilroy Realty
LevatoLaw
Majestic Realty
Marathon Petroleum Corp.
McKinsey & Company
National CORE
PepsiCo
PhRMA
Sempra
State Farm
Sutter Health
Union Pacific Railroad
United Airlines
UPS
Valero
Western National Group
Wells Fargo
Wellpoint (insurance)
Western National Group
CaliforniaCityFinance.Com
Fiscal and Program Effects of
Initiative 21-0042A1 on Local Governments
If Initiative 21-0042A1 is placed on the ballot and passed by voters, it will result in:
Over $20 billion of local government fee and charge revenues over 10 years placed at heightened legal peril. Related public service reductions across virtually every aspect of city, county, special district, and school services especially for drinking water, sewer sanitation, and public health and safety. About $2 billion of revenues each year from fees and charges adopted after January 1, 2021 subject to legal peril.
1 Over $2 billion dollars of annual revenues from dozens of tax measures approved by voters between January 1, 2022 and the effective date of the act2 subject to additional voter approval if not in compliance with the initiative.
Indeterminable legal and administrative burdens and costs on local government from new and more empowered legal challenges, and bureaucratic cost tracking requirements. The delay and deterrence of municipal annexations.
Substantially higher legal and administrative cost of public infrastructure financing which will delay and deter new residential and commercial development.
Service and infrastructure declines including in fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, public schools, affordable housing, homelessness prevention and mental health services.
1. Local Government Taxes and Services Threatened
With regard to taxes, Initiative 21-0042A1:
Prohibits advisory, non-binding measures as to use of tax proceeds on the same ballot. o Voters may be less informed and more likely to vote against measures. Eliminates the ability of special tax measures proposed by citizen initiative to be enacted by majority voter approval (Upland).3
o Because the case law regarding citizen initiative special taxes approved by majority vote (Upland) is so recent, it is unknown how common these sorts of measures might be in the future. This initiative would prohibit such measures after the effective date of the initiative. Any such measures adopted after January 1, 2022 through the effective date of the Act should it pass would be void a year after the effective date of the initiative. Requires that tax measures include a specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed. This seems to require that all tax increases or extensions contain a sunset (end date). o This would require additional tax measures to extend previously approved taxes. A city charter may not be amended to impose, extend, or increase a tax might interfere with the ability of cities that do not already have such authority in their charters to adopt Property Transfer Taxes. o There are no more than a few of these every few years, but it is a valuable tax for those that adopt it.
1 Assumes fee increases since January 1, 2022 would be subject to possible legal challenge if not adopted in compliance with the Initiative.
2 The effective date of the initiative would be sometime in December 2024, the date the California Secretary of State certifies the election results of the November 5, 2024 election.
3 Unlike the initiative 17-0050, this initiative does not eliminate that ability of cities and counties to adopt general taxes by majority voter approval.
2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616
Phone: 530.758.3952 • Fax: 530.758.3952
Rev. January 14, 2023
– 2 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Requires that a tax measure adopted after January 1, 2022 and before the effective date of the initiative that was not adopted in accordance with the measure be readopted in compliance with the measure or will be void twelve months after the effective date of the initiative. o If past election patterns and elections in 2022 are an indication, over 200 tax measures approving more than $2 billion annual revenues to support local public services would not be in compliance and would be subject to reenactment. Most will be taxes without a specific end date and special taxes (including parcel taxes). Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, the measures would each require declaration of emergency and unanimous vote of the governing board to be placed on a special election ballot within a year for approval or the tax will be void after that date. I would expect most to succeed, but some will not, in particular citizen initiative majority vote special taxes which would have to meet a higher voter approval threshold to continue. Requires voter approval to expand an existing tax to new territory (annexations). This would require additional tax measures and would deter annexations and land development in cities. o If a tax is "extended" to an annexed area without a vote after January 1, 2022, it will be void 12 months later until brought into compliance. Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, such extensions would each require unanimous vote of the agency board to be placed on a special election ballot or would be void a year later.
1.a. Number of Measures and Value of Local Taxes at Risk4 Over a hundred local measures were approved in 2022 that likely do not comply with the provisions of Initiative 21-0042A1. Nearly $2 billion of annual revenues from these voter approved measures will cease a year after the effective date of the measure, reducing the local public services funded by these measures. We can expect a similar volume of measures in 2024 and a similar volume of non-compliance. So the combined total of annual local funding directly affected by Initiative 21-0042A1 due to its retroactivity provision is about $4 billion.
Citizen Initiative Special Taxes in 2022.
Special taxes placed on the ballot by citizen initiative and approved after January 1, 2022 by a majority but less than two-thirds of the voters are out of compliance with Initiative 21-0042A1.
On June 7, 2022, there were three local special tax measures placed on the ballot by citizen initiative. Two failed to get majority voter approval. A one percent transactions and use tax (sales tax) for the John C. Fremont Healthcare District in Mariposa County received 69.6 percent approval, over the two thirds needed for any special tax under California Constitution Article XIIIC. So this measure was passed in compliance with Initiative 21- 0042A1.
On November 8, 2022, there were 14 local special taxes placed on the ballot by citizen initiative. Seven of these 4 Source: Compilation and summary of data from County elections offices.
June 2022 Initiative Special Taxes - majority voter approval Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Estimated
Annual Revenue Use Sunset YES%
John C. Fremont
Healthcare District Mariposa Measure N Transactions & Use Tax 1 cent $ 150,000 hospital 40yrs 69.6% PASS County of Kings Kings Measure F Transactions
& Use Tax 1/2 cent $ 11,700,000 fire none 37.6% FAIL
Manhattan Beach
USD Los Angeles Measure A School Parcel Tax $1095/yr $ 12,000,000 schools 12yrs 31.2% FAIL
– 3 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
measures failed with less than majority voter approval. The other seven measures received majority, but less than two-thirds, voter approval. These measures passed under current law but are out of compliance with Initiative 21- 0042A1. Taken together these seven taxes will provide estimated annual revenues of from $900,000 to $1.4 billion in support of parks and recreation, zoo, library, affordable housing, transportation, homelessness prevention, and schools in these communities.
Non-Specific Tax Durations in 2022
Voters approved 106 measures in June 2022 (10) and November 2022 (96) that do not provide a specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed (end date). Typically, the ballot titles for these measures state that the tax would be imposed “until ended by voters.” Four of these measures also did not include any estimate of the annual revenues that the tax would generate, another violation of initiative 21-0042A1. Taken together, these approved local measures generate $561 million per year that will expire a year after the effective date of the initiative if Initiative 21-0042A1 passes.
November 2022 Initiative Special Taxes - majority voter approval Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Estimated
Annual Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Crockett Community
Services District Contra Costa Measure L Parcel Tax $50/parcel $ 60,000 parks/recr none 62.8% PASS Oakland Alameda Measure Y Parcel Tax $68/parcel $ 12,000,000 zoo 20yrs 62.5% PASS County of Mendocino Measure O Transactions
& Use Tax
1/8 cent then 1/4
cent in 2027 $ 4,000,000 library none 60.8% PASS
Los Angeles Los Angeles Measure ULA Property
Transfer Tax
4% if >$5m, 5.5%
if >$10m $600 m to $1.1 b affordable housing none 57.3% PASS County of Sacramento Measure A Transactions
& Use Tax same 1/2 cent $ 212,512,500 transportati
on
40yrs 55.3% PASS
San Francisco Proposition M Business
Operations Tax
$2500-$5000/
vacant resid unit $ 20,000,000 housing 30yrs 54.5% PASS Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure GS Property
Transfer Tax
$56/$1000 if
>$8m $ 50,000,000
schools,
homelessne
ss, afford.
housing
none 53.3% PASS
Total $900,000 to
$1.4 billion
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Estimated
Annual Revenue Use Sunset YES%
County of Calaveras Measure A Transactions
& Use Tax 1 cent $ 5,000,000 fire none 49.4% FAIL
South San Francisco
(for Schools) San Mateo Measure DD School Parcel Tax $2.50/sf $ 55,900,000 schools none 47.2% FAIL County of Fresno (for CSU ) Measure E Transactions
& Use Tax
1/5 ct,
1/40 ct (Reedley) $ 36,000,000 Calif State Univ 20yrs 46.9% FAIL Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Measure N Parcel Tax $6k/vacant SFU xxx vacant property
xxx 44.2% FAIL
County of Monterey Measure Q Parcel Tax $49/parcel $ 5,500,000 childcare 10yrs 41.1% FAIL San Francisco City
College
San
Francisco Measure O School Parcel Tax $150/sfu $ 37,000,000 schools 10yrs 36.7% FAIL Morro Bay San Luis
Obispo Measure B Parcel Tax $120+/parcel $ 680,000 harbor none 36.0% FAIL Inverness Public
Utility District Marin Measure O Parcel Tax $0.20/sf, $150/vacant $ 276,000 fire none 27.0% FAIL
– 4 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Oakland Alameda Measure T Business Tax
General various $ 20,900,000 none 71.4% PASS
Culver City Los Angeles Measure BL Business Tax
General various $ 10,000,000 none 60.5% PASS
El Segundo Los Angeles Measure BT Business Tax
General various $ 3,000,000 none 51.2% PASS
Pico Rivera Los Angeles Measure AB Business Tax
General various $ 5,800,000 none 75.5% PASS
Santa Ana Orange Measure W Business Tax
General various neutral none 64.8% PASS
Tracy San Joaquin Measure B Business Tax
General various $ 3,200,000 none 72.6% PASS
Burlingame San Mateo Measure X Business Tax
General various $ 2,500,000 none 75.1% PASS
Los Gatos Santa Clara Measure J Business Tax
General various $ 1,100,000 none 53.4% PASS
Santa Clara Santa Clara Measure H Business Tax
General
$45/employee,
$15/rental unit $ 6,000,000 none 59.5% PASS
Brisbane San Mateo Measure O Business Tax
lodging busn $2.50/rm/day $ 250,000 none 69.2% PASS
East Palo Alto San Mateo Measure L Business Tax
resid. rentals
2.5%
grossRcpts $ 1,480,000 none 69.9% PASS
County of Santa Cruz Unincorporated Measure C Busn Tax - disp cups 12.5cents/cup $ 700,000 none 68.2% PASS
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado Measure G Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% retail,
manufacturing $ 950,000 none 62.9% PASS
McFarland Kern Measure O Busn Tax
Cannabis
8% of gross
receipts retail, $ 1,800,000 none 63.5% PASS
Avenal Kings Measure C Busn Tax
Cannabis
$25+/sf or
15% gr rcpts $ 600,000 none 61.8% PASS
Baldwin Park Los Angeles Measure CB Busn Tax
Cannabis
4%
grossRcpts $ 300,000 none 51.3% PASS
Claremont Los Angeles Measure CT Busn Tax
Cannabis
4%-7% gr
rcpts, $1- $ 500,000 none 61.1% PASS
County of Los Angeles Unincorporated Measure C Busn Tax Cannabis
4% gross
receipts retail, $ 15,170,000 none 60.1% PASS
Cudahy Los Angeles Measure BA Busn Tax
Cannabis
15%
grossRcpts $ 3,600,000 none 54.0% PASS
El Segundo Los Angeles Measure Y Busn Tax
Cannabis
10%
GrossRcpt, $ 1,500,000 none 72.8% PASS
Hermosa Beach Los Angeles Measure T Busn Tax
Cannabis
10%
GrossRcpt, $ 1,500,000 none 67.6% PASS
Lynwood Los Angeles Measure TR Busn Tax
Cannabis 5%to10% $ 3,000,000 none 66.4% PASS
Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure HM Busn Tax
Cannabis
10% gross
Rcpts $ 5,000,000 none 66.4% PASS
South El Monte Los Angeles Measure CM Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% special
excise tax on $ 126,000 none 53.7% PASS
Monterey Monterey Measure J Busn Tax
Cannabis 6% grossRcpt $ 1,300,000 none 65.2% PASS
Pacific Grove Monterey Measure N Busn Tax
Cannabis 6% grossRcpt $ 300,000 none 70.8% PASS
Huntington Beach Orange Measure O Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% retail, 1%
other $ 600,000 none 54.7% PASS
– 5 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Notes
?= Ballot measure title did not include an estimate of annual revenues, also not in compliance with Initiative 21-0042A1. n/a*= Arcadia Measure SW passed but sports betting remains illegal after the failure of Propositions 26 and 27 on the November statewide ballot.
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Laguna Woods Orange Measure T Busn Tax
Cannabis
4%-10% of
gross receipts $ 750,000 none 61.1% PASS
Corona Riverside Measure G Busn Tax
Cannabis
9% of gross
receipts for $ 5,000,000 none 61.6% PASS
Montclair San Bernardino Measure R Busn Tax
Cannabis
7%
grossRcpts $ 3,500,000 none 70.3% PASS
County of San Diego Unincorporated Measure A Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% retail, 3%
distribution, $ 5,600,000 none 57.4% PASS
Encinitas San Diego Measure L Busn Tax
Cannabis
4% to 7% of
gross receipts $ 1,400,000 none 65.1% PASS
Healdsburg Sonoma Measure M Busn Tax
Cannabis 8% grossRcpt $ 500,000 none 72.7% PASS
Exeter Tulare Measure B Busn Tax
Cannabis
10% retail and
other, $10/sf ? none 66.5% PASS
Tulare Tulare Measure Y Busn Tax
Cannabis
10% retail and
other, $10/sf ? none 65.2% PASS
Woodland Yolo Measure K Busn Tax
Cannabis
10%
grossRcpts
? none 66.2% PASS
Redlands San Bernardino Measure J Busn Tax
Distrib centers
from $0.047/sf
to $0.105/sf $ 530,000 none 53.5% PASS
Arcadia Los Angeles Measure SW Busn Tax
Sports Betting
5%
grossRcpts
n/a* none 63.9% PASS
Albany Alameda Measure K ParcelTax $0.074+/sf $ 1,950,000 fire/EMS none 76.0% PASS Cameron Park Airport
District El Dorado Measure J ParcelTax by $600 to $900/parcel $ 117,900 airport/ streets none 78.2% PASS Highlands Village
Lighting Benefit Zone El Dorado Measure L ParcelTax $140+/parcel $ 10,920 streets none 86.3% PASS Knolls Property
Owners CSD El Dorado Measure P ParcelTax by $300+ to $600+/parcel $ 8,400 streets none 75.5% PASS Sundance Trail Zone of
Benefit El Dorado Measure C ParcelTax $600+/yr $ 24,000 roads none 73.2% PASS South Pasadena Los Angeles Measure LL ParcelTax xxx ? library none 86.2% PASS River Delta Fire District Sacramento Measure H ParcelTax $90/yr $ 130,000 fire none 72.1% PASS Emeryville Alameda Measure O PropTransfTax $15/$1000 if $1m-$2m, $ 5,000,000 none 71.6% PASS
San Mateo San Mateo Measure CC PropTransfTax by 1% to 1.5% if >$10m $ 4,800,000 none 71.8% PASS
Alameda Alameda Measure F TOT by 4% to 14% $ 910,000 none 59.2% PASS Clovis Fresno Measure B TOT by 2% to 12% $ 500,000 none 69.7% PASS Kerman Fresno Measure G TOT 10% $ 40,000 none 62.3% PASS Trinidad Humboldt Measure P TOT by 4% to 12% $ 65,000 none 77.6% PASS Imperial Imperial Measure G TOT by 4% to 12% $ 600,000 none 56.2% PASS Arcadia Los Angeles Measure HT TOT by 2% to 12% $ 730,000 none 54.1% PASS Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure CS TOT by 1%, 3%
home shares $ 4,100,000 none 73.7% PASS
– 6 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Anaheim Orange Measure J TOT online travel
companies $ 3,000,000 none 59.2% PASS
La Palma Orange Measure P TOT by 4% to 12% $ 200,000 none 71.1% PASS Colfax Placer Measure B TOT by 2% to10% $ 29,000 none 73.5% PASS Rocklin Placer Measure F TOT by 2% to 10% $ 300,000 none 59.8% PASS Roseville Placer Measure C TOT by 4% to 10% $ 3,000,000 none 73.0% PASS Big Bear Lake San Bernardino Measure P TOT by 2% to 10% $ 1,300,000 none 54.4% PASS Grand Terrace San Bernardino Measure M TOT new 10% $ 250,000 none 51.9% PASS Yucca Valley San Bernardino Measure K TOT by 5% to 12% $ 1,300,000 none 71.9% PASS Imperial Beach San Diego Measure R TOT by 4% to 14% $ 400,000 none 67.4% PASS El Paso de Robles San Luis ObispoMeasure F TOT by 1% to 11% $ 750,000 none 61.2% PASS Belmont San Mateo Measure K TOT by 2% to 14% $ 600,000 none 79.3% PASS Millbrae San Mateo Measure N TOT by 2% to 14% $ 1,500,000 none 75.8% PASS County of Humboldt Unincorporated Measure J TOT by 2% to 12% $ 3,080,000 none 63.3% PASS County of Placer -
North Tahoe TOT Area Measure A TOT by 2% to 10% $ 4,000,000 none 90.0% PASS County of Santa Cruz Unincorporated Measure B TOT by 1% to 12% $ 2,300,000 none 69.2% PASS County of El Dorado -
East Slope Tahoe Measure S TOT 2/3 by 4% to 14% $ 2,500,000 none 81.8% PASS Chico Butte Measure H TrUT 1 cent $ 24,000,000 none 52.4% PASS Mendota Fresno Measure H TrUT 1.25 cent $ 493,498 none 57.2% PASS Blue Lake Humboldt Measure R TrUT 1 cent $ 30,000 none 55.4% PASS Rio Dell Humboldt Measure O TrUT 3/4cent $ 400,000 none 53.3% PASS County of Kern unincorporated areas Measure K TrUT 1 cent $ 54,000,000 none 50.8% PASS McFarland Kern Measure M TrUT 1 cent $ 579,662 none 62.2% PASS Tehachapi Kern Measure S TrUT 1 cent $ 4,000,000 none 57.2% PASS Avenal Kings Measure A TrUT 1 cent $ 500,000 none 72.5% PASS Susanville Lassen Measure P TrUT 1 cent $ 1,750,000 none 54.7% PASS Baldwin Park Los Angeles Measure BP TrUT 3/4 cent $ 6,000,000 none 58.1% PASS Malibu Los Angeles Measure MC TrUT 1/2 cent $ 3,000,000 none 52.6% PASS Monterey Park Los Angeles Measure MP TrUT 3/4 cent $ 6,000,000 none 58.5% PASS Torrance Los Angeles Measure SST TrUT 1/2 cent $ 18,000,000 none 55.0% PASS Larkspur Marin Measure G TrUT 1/4 cent $ 700,000 none 59.4% PASS Sand City Monterey Measure L TrUT by 1/2cent to
1.5cents $ 1,400,000 none 68.7% PASS
Hemet Riverside Measure H TrUT same 1 cent $ 15,000,000 none 58.0% PASS Elk Grove Sacramento Measure E TrUT 1 cent $ 21,000,000 none 54.1% PASS Galt Sacramento Measure Q TrUT 1 cent $ 3,600,000 none 52.4% PASS Colton San Bernardino Measure S TrUT 1 cent $ 9,500,000 none 66.8% PASS Ontario San Bernardino Measure Q TrUT 1 cent $ 95,000,000 none 53.2% PASS Solana Beach San Diego Measure S TrUT 1 cent $ 3,000,000 none 66.7% PASS Brisbane San Mateo Measure U TrUT 1/2 cent $ 2,000,000 none 63.9% PASS Goleta Santa Barbara Measure B TrUT 1 cent $ 10,600,000 none 64.7% PASS Solvang Santa Barbara Measure U TrUT 1 cent $ 1,600,000 none 63.1% PASS
– 7 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Co-temporal Advisory Measures in 2022
At the November 2022 election, there was just one local general tax measure that was accompanied by an advisory measure as to the use of funds. The City of Santa Monica’s Measure DT property transfer tax failed with just 34 percent approval as voters instead chose the citizen initiative Measure GS.
There was also just one such tax use advisory measure on the June 2022 election. Susanville’s voters passed Measure P, a 1 percent transactions and use (sales) tax that generates $1.75 million per year5 for general city services. The measure was accompanied by advisory Measure Q, accompanied the city’s It asked, “If Measure P passes, should the revenues be used to balance the budget to maintain and enhance existing public safety services (police and fire), and provide funding to support street infrastructure improvements and provide funding to support economic development efforts designed to increase businesses, jobs and visitors to Susanville?” Both measures passed. Under Initiative 21-0042A1, the tax will expire a year after the effective date of the initiative (i.e., in December 2025).
1.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Tax Provisions Assuming a similar volume of local measures through 2024 as we saw in 2022, there will be over 200 local measures that will need to be redrafted to comply with the Initiative and placed back on the ballot for the taxes to continue after December 2025. The costs of re-drafting, re-placing and re-voting on these measures, previously legally approved by voters, will be in the tens of millions in total statewide.
2. “Exempt Charges” (fees and charges that are not taxes) and Services Threatened With regard to fees and charges adopted after January 1, 2022, Initiative 21-0042A1:
Subjects new fees and charges for a product or service to a new "actual and reasonable test." Subjects fees and charges for entrance to local government property; and rental and sale of local government property to a new, undefined, “reasonable” test. Allows legal challenge to any tax adopted before the effective date of the initiative and after January 1, 5 The Susanville measure also did not include a specific end date and so is included in the list and totals of those measures.
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Watsonville Santa Cruz Measure R TrUT 1/2 cent $ 5,000,000 none 64.4% PASS Vallejo Solano Measure P TrUT 7/8 cent $ 18,000,000 none 54.7% PASS Modesto Stanislaus Measure H TrUT 1 cent $ 39,000,000 none 62.8% PASS County of Colusa Measure A TrUT 2/3 1/2 cent $ 2,400,000 EMS none 69.4% PASS Atwater Merced Measure B TrUT 2/3 same 1 cent $ 4,000,000 police/fire none 73.7% PASS Truckee Nevada Measure U TrUT 2/3 by 1/4 cent to
1/2 cent $ 3,000,000 open space / trails none 76.4% PASS Palo Alto Santa Clara Measure L UtilityTransfer 18% gas $ 7,000,000 none 77.7% PASS Santa Clara Santa Clara Measure G UtilityTransfer 5 % $ 30,000,000 none 84.2% PASS Hercules Contra Costa Measure N UUT 8% $ 3,600,000 none 69.3% PASS Carson Los Angeles Measure UU UUT 2% electr, gas $ 8,000,000 none 78.4% PASS Sebastopol Sonoma Measure N UUT 3.75% (same) $ 700,000 none 83.5% PASS
– 8 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
2022. Such a lawsuit could enjoin (stop) the enactment of the tax pending the outcome of the legal challenge.
Subjects a challenged fee to new, higher burdens of proof if legally challenged.
2.a. Value on New Local Government Fees and Charges at Risk6 Virtually every city, county, and special district must regularly (e.g., annually) adopt increases to fee rates and charges and revise rate schedules to accommodate new users and activities. Most of these would be subject to new standards and limitations under threat of legal challenge. Based on the current volume of fees and charges imposed by local agencies and increases in those fees simply to accommodate inflation, the amount of local government fee and charge revenue placed at risk is about $2 billion per year including those adopted since January 1, 2022. Of $2 billion, about $900 million (45 percent) is for special districts, $800 million (40 percent) is cities, and $300 million (15 percent) is counties.7 Major examples of affected fees and charges are:
1. Certain water, sanitary sewer, wastewater, garbage, electric, gas service fees.
2. Nuisance abatement charges - such as for weed, rubbish and general nuisance abatement to fund community safety, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanup programs.
3. Emergency response fees - such as in connection with DUI.
4. Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges.
5. Business improvement district charges.
6. Fees for processing of land use and development applications such as plan check fees, use permits, design review, environmental assessment, plan amendment, subdivision map changes.
7. Document processing and duplication fees.
8. Facility use charges, parking fees, tolls.
9. Fines, penalties.
10. Fees for parks and recreation services.
2.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Fee/Charge Provisions In addition to service delays and disruptions due to fee and charge revenues placed at greater legal risk, there would be substantial additional costs for legal defense. The risk to fees and charges will make infrastructure financing more difficult and will deter new residential and commercial development. ***********
mc
6 Source: California State Controller Annual Reports of Financial Transactions concerning cities, counties and special districts, summarized with an assumed growth due to fee rate increases (not population) of 2 percent annually. 7 School fees are also affected but the amount is negligible by comparison.
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NORCO, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING INITIATIVE NO. 21-0042A1,
THE TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
WHEREAS, an association representing California’s wealthiest corporations and developers is spending millions to push a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2024 statewide ballot; and
WHEREAS, the measure includes undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and infrastructure, and would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures where voters provide direction on how they want their local tax dollars spent; and WHEREAS, the measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure and our environment; and WHEREAS, the measure may make it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to local services at risk and could force cuts to fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Norco, California, opposes Initiative No. 21-0042A1.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Norco, California, will join the No on Initiative 21-0042A1 coalition, a growing coalition of public safety, education, labor, local government, and infrastructure groups throughout the state.
We direct staff to email a copy of this adopted resolution to the League of California Cities at [email protected].
Resolution No. 2023-13 – Oppose Initiative 21-0042A1
April 5, 2023
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Norco, California, at a regular meeting held on April 5, 2023.
___________________________
Robin Grundmeyer, Mayor
City of Norco, California
ATTEST:
________________________________
Diane Germain, CMC, Deputy City Clerk
City of Norco, California
I, Diane Germain, CMC, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Norco, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of Norco, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on April 5, 2023 by the following vote of the City Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Norco, California, on April 5, 2023. ________________________________
Diane Germain, CMC, Deputy City Clerk
City of Norco, California
City Council
STAFF REPORT
Date: April 5, 2023 Agenda Item:
5.B.
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Prepared By: Diane Germain, Deputy City Clerk
Department: Administration
SUBJECT:
Appointments to Regional Boards, Standing Committees and Other City CouncilAppointed Committees for Calendar Year 2023 - Updated RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the updated list of Appointments to Regional Boards, Standing Committees, and Other City Council-Appointed Committees for Calendar Year 2023.
SUMMARY:
Due to former Council Member Ted Hoffman's passing, the appointments to the various standing committees and other governmental agencies needed to be updated for the Calendar Year 2023. Mayor Grundmeyer has prepared the updated list of recommended appointments.
BACKGROUND:
Each year, following the election of the new Mayor by City Council, appointments are made to various standing committees and other governmental agencies. The City Council had previously approved the appointments for 2023, but with former Council Member Hoffman's passing, some of the appointments needed to be revisited by the Mayor.
Public officials are allowed to make, participate in making, or use their official positions to influence decisions concerning their own appointments to positions as officers of the bodies of which they are members, such as committees, boards, commission of public agencies, metropolitan planning organizations and special districts, if the appointments are required to be made by either State or local law.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Not applicable for this item.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
This is consistent with Strategic Direction #4 - Communication and Stakeholder Experience: Enhance the Stakeholder experience, engage the community, and build brand awareness through proactive, effective and consistent communication.
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Certified as to Availability of Funds: Lisette Free, Finance Director Approved by: Lori Sassoon, City Manager
Approved as to Form: Harper and Burns, LLC, City Attorney ATTACHMENT(S):
Agency and Committee Assignments 2023_Revised
City Council
Agency, Committees and Sub - Committee Appointments 2023 Agency Designee Alternate Meeting Date Time Place Stipend Chino Basin Desalter Authority Board Council Member
Greg Newton
Public Works
Director Chad
Blais
1 st Thursday
(Jan. Apr., Jul., Aug.) 6:00 p.m.
2151 S. Haven
Avenue, Suite 202,
Ontario
$150/meeting
no mileage
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Council Member Greg Newton
Mayor Robin
Grundmeyer As needed --
3850 Vine Street, Suite
240, Riverside --
Northwest Mosquito and Vector Control District
(*Two-year appointment: 2021-2023)
Council Member
Katherine Aleman
Council Member
Berwin Hanna 3
rd Thursday 3:00 p.m. 1966 Compton
Avenue, Corona
$100/meeting;
no mileage
Riverside Conservation Authority (RCA) Council Member
Kevin Bash
Council Member
Katherine Aleman
3 rd Wednesday
No meeting in July 12:00 p.m. 3403 10th Street, Suite 320, Riverside $100/meeting
plus mileage
Riverside County Transportation Commission
(RCTC)
Council Member
Berwin Hanna
Council Member
Katherine Aleman 2
nd Wednesday 9:00 a.m. 4080 Lemon Street,
3 rd Floor, Riverside
$100/meeting
plus mileage
Riverside County – City Selection Committee
(League of California Cities)
Mayor
Robin Grundmeyer
Council Member
Kevin Bash
As needed - Meets prior to Monthly
LCC General Meetings
-
Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Board
Budget and Finance Committee
Transportation Now Committee
Council Member
Berwin Hanna
Council Member
Kevin Bash
4 th Thursday
1 st Wednesday
2 nd Thursday
1:00 p.m.
2:00 p.m.
9:00 a.m.
4080 Lemon St. 1st Floor,
Riverside
1825 Third St. Riverside
Norco City Hall
Each is
$150/meeting
plus mileage
-
Western Riverside Council of Governments
(WRCOG)
Executive Committee
Administration and Finance Committee
Council Member
Kevin Bash
Council Member
Greg Newton
1 st Monday
-
2 nd Monday
2:00 p.m.
-
12:00 p.m.
3390 University Ave.
Suite 450
Riverside
$150/meeting;
no mileage
Western Riverside County Regional
Wastewater Authority (WRCRWA)
Council Member
Katherine Aleman
Public Works
Director Chad Blais
Quarterly,
4 th Thursday 2:00 p.m. Corona Public Works
Office --
Committees Member Member Meeting Date Time Place
City Audit Committee Mayor
Robin Grundmeyer
Council Member
Katherine Aleman As needed -- Norco City Hall --
Corona-Norco Schools Committee Mayor Robin
Grundmeyer
Council Member
Kevin Bash
Quarterly, 3rd
Monday 3:30 p.m. CNUSD Office &Norco City Hall --
George A. Ingalls Veterans Memorial Plaza
Committee
Mayor Robin
Grundmeyer
Council Member
Kevin Bash As needed -- Norco City Hall
United Norconians for Life Over Alcohol and
Drugs (UNLOAD)
Mayor
Robin Grundmeyer
Council Member
Kevin Bash
Last Monday
(dark in Summer) 5:00 p.m. Norco City Hall --
Leads on Manure-to-Energy Issues Mayor Robin
Grundmeyer
Council Member
Greg Newton As needed -- Norco City Hall --
California Rehabilitation Center Citizen’s
Advisory Committee Council Member
Katherine Aleman
Council Member
Kevin Bash
2nd Tuesday
(every two months) 4:30 p.m. CRC In-Service
Training Classroom --
Navy Historic Properties Stakeholders Group Council Member Kevin Bash Council Member
Katherine Aleman
2 nd Wednesday of
every 3rd month 3:00 p.m. Varies --
City Council
Agency, Committees and Sub - Committee Appointments 2023 Sub - Committees Member Member Meeting Date Time Place
City Council Observances Sub-committee Mayor
Robin Grundmeyer
Council Member
Katherine Aleman As Needed - Norco City Hall --
Kathy Azevedo Monument Sub-Committee Council Member
Greg Newton
Council Member
Kevin Bash As Needed - Norco City Hall -
City Manager Economic Development Working
Group
Council Member
Katherine Aleman
Council Member
Kevin Bash As Needed - Norco City Hall -
Homeless Solutions Sub-Committee Mayor
Robin Grundmeyer
Council Member
Katherine Aleman As Needed - Norco City Hall -
Veterans Housing Sub-committee Council Member
Kevin Bash
Council Member
Katherine Aleman As Needed - Norco City Hall -
EAT Program Sub-committee Mayor
Robin Grundmeyer
Council Member
Kevin Bash As Needed - Norco City Hall -
Pole Barn Sub-Committee Mayor
Robin Grundmeyer
Council Member
Greg Newton As Needed - Norco City Hall -
George Ingalls Equestrian Event Center
Master Plan Sub-Committee
Mayor Robin
Grundmeyer
Council Member
Berwin Hanna As Needed - Norco City Hall -
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Subcommittee Council Member
Kevin Bash
Council Member
Greg Newton As Needed - Norco City Hall -
City Council
STAFF REPORT
Date: April 5, 2023 Agenda Item:
6.A.
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Prepared By: Diane Germain, Deputy City Clerk
Department: City Clerk
SUBJECT:
Ordinance No. 1094, First Reading: Amend Specific Text in Chapter 6.12 "DogsLicensing-Control-Rabies" RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Ordinance No. 1094, First Reading: Amending specific text in Norco Municipal Code (NMC) Chapter 6.12 "Dogs-Licensing-Control-Rabies" to make corrections and ensure consistency. Code Amendment 2023-02
SUMMARY:
This public hearing item was continued from March 15, 2023. Review of the Norco Municipal Code (NMC) showed duplicate and contradicting measures pertaining to vicious dogs; City Council approved Code Amendment 2021-07, which created Chapter
8.07 "Potentially Dangerous/Vicious Dogs", and NMC Sections 6.12.130 and 6.12.150 also contained similar language pertaining to vicious dogs.
BACKGROUND:
On November 17, 2021, City Council approved Code Amendment 2021-07, adding Chapter 8.07 "Potentially Dangerous/Vicious Dogs" to the NMC. Chapter 6.12 "DogsLicensing-Control-Rabies" also contains language pertaining to vicious dogs which did not coincide with the newly added Chapter.
In order to have the NMC consistent pertaining to vicious dogs, and avoid future confusion or misinterpretation, some of the language within the Sections 6.12.130 and 6.12.150 has been revised to reflect the added Chapter 8.07. This action does not propose to change the City's current policies or practices, but rather to clean up these areas of the code.
Staff has conferred with the City Attorney for the needed revision. The attached draft ordinance contains the changes (in red) that are needed within Sections 6.12.130 and
6.12.150.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Not applicable for this item.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
This item is consistent with Strategic Plan Direction #1 - Public Health, Safety and Wellness: Enhance quality of life by promoting public health, safety and wellness initiatives for all community members.
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Certified as to Availability of Funds: Lisette Free, Finance Director Approved by: Lori Sassoon, City Manager
Approved as to Form: Harper and Burns, LLC, City Attorney ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Ordinance No. 1094
ORDINANCE NO. 1094
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORCO,
CALIFORNIA AMENDING SPECIFIC TEXT IN THE NORCO
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 6.12 “DOGS-LICENSING-CONTROLRABIES” PERTAINING TO VICIOUS DOGS, IN ORDER TO MAKE CORRECTIONS AND ENSURE CONSISTENCY. CODE AMENDMENT
2023-02
WHEREAS, the City of Norco initiated Code Amendment 2023-02 to amend specific text in Sections 6.12.130 “Certain Acts Made Unlawful” and 6.12.150 “Vicious Dogs to be Restrained – Violation”, fix conflicting direction within the Norco Municipal Code pertaining to Vicious Dogs; and
WHEREAS on November 17, 2021, the City Council approved Code Amendment 2021-07 to add Chapter 8.07 “Potentially Dangerous/Vicious Dogs” to the Norco Municipal Code (NMC); and
WHEREAS, the NMC Chapter 6.12 “Dogs-Licensing-Control-Rabies” contains Sections 6.12.130 and 6.12.150 which contains language pertaining to Vicious Dogs; and
WHEREAS, this amendment to NMC Chapter 6.12 is necessary in order to avoid confusion or misinterpretation of the NMC regarding Vicious Dogs, and potential violations; and
WHEREAS, the Code Amendment was duly submitted to said City’s City Council for decision at a public hearing for which proper notice was given; and WHEREAS, the Code Amendment was scheduled for public hearing on March 15, 2023, on or about 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 2820 Clark Avenue, Norco, California, 92860; and
WHEREAS, the Code Amendment was continued for the public hearing to April 5, 2023, on or about 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 2820 Clark Avenue, Norco, California, 92860; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing and received both oral and written testimony pertaining to the Code Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Norco, California, does ordain as follows:
Ordinance No. 1094 – Amend Text to NMC Chapter 6.12
April 19, 2023
SECTION 1:
6.12.130 Certain Acts Made Unlawful.
It is unlawful:
(1) For the owner of any vicious dog to fail, neglect, or refuse to keep posted in a conspicuous place at or near the entrance to the premises on which the dog is kept, a sign having letters at least two inches in width and reading “Beware of Vicious Dog.” It is unlawful for the owner of a vicious dog to permit such dog to run at large at any time; (1) (2) For the owner or person in control of any dog to permit such dog to run at large in any public park or public building or upon any public-school grounds, or near any bus stop, or to permit a female dog in heat to run at large at any time; (2) (3) For any person to interfere with, oppose or resist any officer or person empowered to enforce the provisions of this chapter while such officer or other person is engaged in the performance of his duties as herein provided;
(3) (4) For any person to remove any impounded animal from the city pound without the consent of the officer in charge thereof;
(4) (5) For any person knowingly to violate any of the provisions of this chapter; (5) (6) For any person, owning or having charge of the custody and control of a dog, whether licensed or unlicensed, to permit such dog to be at large on or in any place in the city of Norco, California, unless such dog is securely leashed and under the immediate control of the person or is confined within the property of the person by an enclosure, which prevents the dog from leaving the property, or is confined in a vehicle in such a manner that it is unable to escape therefrom; provided, however, such a person is not in violation of this section if such a dog is on the person’s property and under his immediate, continuing dominion and control, although not leashed or confined as required hereinabove. “Immediate continuing dominion and control” as used in this subsection is limited in its meaning to the exercise of discipline by the person over a dog in such a manner that the dog by training is unable to run from the person’s premises. It is the intent of the city council that the exception for dogs under the immediate continuing dominion and control of a person is a matter of defense to be alleged and proved by a person claiming to come within said exception and is not an exception which the people of the state of California have the burden of proving in a case charging a violation of this subsection;
(6) (7) For any person to keep or harbor more than ten cats, other than kittens under the age of three months, upon any residential premises of less than one acre. (Ord. 157 Sec. 2, 1971; Ord. 8 Sec. 2 (County Ords. 455.4 1, 2; 455.2 8: 455.1 8: 455 8), 1964)
Ordinance No. 1094 – Amend Text to NMC Chapter 6.12
April 19, 2023
6.12.150 Vicious Dogs to be Restrained—Violation.
If it shall be determined by the city manager or his officially designated representative, after giving the order of quarantine mentioned in this chapter, that the dog is a vicious dog, as defined in Section 8.07.010 of this Code, although not afflicted with rabies, the vicious dog shall be subject to, and handled pursuant to, Chapter 8.07. the city manager or his officially designated representative shall thereupon order the person who owns or has the custody of the dog that until further order of the city manager or his officially designated representative, he shall keep the dog securely fastened by chain, or securely confined within private property, or keep the dog in such manner as the city manager or his officially designated representative shall direct to prevent it from biting or having the opportunity of biting any person. Failure to do so on the part of the owner or person having custody of the dog shall constitute a violation of this chapter. (Ord. 158 Sec. 2 (part), 1971; Ord. 8 Sec. 2 (County Ord 455.2 10: 455.1 10: 455 10), 1964)
SECTION 2: EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after final passage thereof.
SECTION 3: SEVERABILITY: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase, hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more of the sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4: POSTING: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall attest thereto and shall cause the same within fifteen (15) days of its passage to be posted at no less than five (5) public places within the City of Norco.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Norco, California, at a regular meeting held on April 19, 2023.
_____________________________
Robin Grundmeyer, Mayor
City of Norco, California
ATTEST:
_________________________
Dana Roa, CMC, City Clerk
City of Norco, California
Ordinance No. 1094 – Amend Text to NMC Chapter 6.12
April 19, 2023
I, Dana Roa, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Norco, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was scheduled for a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Norco, California, duly held on March 15, 2023, continued and introduced at a regular meeting scheduled on April 5, 2023, and thereafter at a regular meeting of said City Council duly held on the April 19, 2023, it was duly passed and adopted by the following roll call vote of the City Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Norco, California, this April 19, 2023. __________________________
Dana Roa, CMC, City Clerk
City of Norco, California