Oxnard City Council
April 18, 2023

EXHIBIT D

TRADE SERVICES AGREEMENT
(CITY of Oxnard and DIAL SECURITY)

LIVING WAGE POLICY

Pursuant to the Living Wage Policy adopted July 9, 2002 by the City Council and effective October 1, 2002, the City Manager and City Attorney are directed to include the following language in all standard trade services contracts and all unique trade services contracts governed by the Living Wage Policy.

A. SERVICE PROVIDER shall compensate any employee of SERVICE PROVIDER who provides services under this Agreement in accordance with the Living Wage Policy, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as the Living Wage Policy Exhibit. While this Agreement is in effect, SERVICE PROVIDER shall pay such employee no less than $18.22 per hour for each hour that such employee provides services under this Agreement. In addition, while this Agreement is in effect, SERVICE PROVIDER shall provide to such employee no less than 96 hours of paid leave per calendar year.

B. SERVICE PROVIDER agrees to post, at a location readily accessible to those employees providing services to the CITY, a copy of the Living Wage Policy adopted by City Council on July 9, 2002 and effective October 1, 2002.

C. If SERVICE PROVIDER fails to compensate such employee pursuant to the Living Wage Policy, the City Manager or designee shall terminate this Agreement on written notice to SERVICE PROVIDER, effective immediately.

D. In addition, if SERVICE PROVIDER fails to comply with the Living Wage Policy in any manner, SERVICE PROVIDER shall pay to CITY a fine of $500 and shall pay to any employee providing services under this Agreement a penalty of three times the amount or value of the compensation owed to such employee under the Living Wage Policy. SERVICE PROVIDER shall pay such fine and penalty within fifteen (15) calendar days after the City Manager or designee provides written notice to SERVICE PROVIDER of the amount owed.

230
Agreement No. 32300365

CITY OF OXNARD LIVING WAGE REQUIREMENTS
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2022

SERVICE PROVIDER shall compensate any employee of SERVICE PROVIDER who provides services under this Agreement in accordance with the Living Wage Policy, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit D. While this Agreement is in effect, SERVICE PROVIDER shall pay such employee no less than $18.22 per hour for each hour that such employee provides services under this Agreement. This hourly rate shall be adjusted on July 1, 2023, and each July 1 thereafter, according to the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index, all items, prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Los Angeles area relating to all urban consumers (CPI-U), index base 1982-84=100, comparing May of the previous year to May of the current year. In addition, while this Agreement is in effect, SERVICE PROVIDER shall provide to such employee no less than 96 hours of paid leave per calendar year.

a. SERVICE PROVIDER agrees to post, at a location readily accessible to those employees providing services to the CITY, a copy of the Living Wage Policy adopted by the Oxnard City Council on July 9, 2002 and effective October 1, 2002.

b. If SERVICE PROVIDER fails to compensate such employee pursuant to the Living Wage Policy, the City Manager or designee shall terminate this Agreement on written notice to SERVICE PROVIDER, effective immediately.

c. In addition, if SERVICE PROVIDER fails to comply with the Living Wage Policy in any manner, SERVICE PROVIDER shall pay to CITY a fine of $500 and shall pay to any employee providing services under this Agreement a penalty of three times the amount or value of the compensation owed to such employee under the Living Wage Policy. SERVICE PROVIDER shall pay such fine and penalty within fifteen (15) calendar days after the City Manager or designee provides written notice to SERVICE PROVIDER of the amount owed.

231
Agreement No. 32300365

EXHIBIT E

TRADE SERVICES AGREEMENT
(CITY of Oxnard and DIAL SECURITY)

PREVAILING WAGE

1. SERVICE PROVIDER acknowledges that the Project defined in the Agreement between SERVICE PROVIDER and CITY is a “public work” as defined in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 of the California Labor Code (“Chapter 1”), and that this Agreement is subject to Chapter 1 and the rules and regulations established by the Director of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) implementing such statutes. SERVICE PROVIDER shall perform the Project as a public work. SERVICE PROVIDER shall comply with and be bound by all the terms, rules and regulations described in Chapter 1 and the DIR’s rules and regulations as though set forth in full herein.

2. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to perform the Agreement are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any interested party on request. SERVICE PROVIDER acknowledges receipt of a copy of the DIR determination of such prevailing rate of per diem wages, and SERVICE PROVIDER shall post such rates at each job site covered by this Agreement.

3. SERVICE PROVIDER is required to post job site notices, as prescribed by regulation. See Labor Code Section 1771.4(a)(2).

4. SERVICE PROVIDER shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. SERVICE PROVIDER shall, as a penalty to CITY, forfeit not more than $200 for each calendar day or portion thereof for each worker paid less than the DIR’s determined prevailing rates for the work or craft in which the worker is employed pursuant to this Agreement by SERVICE PROVIDER or any subcontractor. The Labor Commissioner shall determine the amount of the penalty as described in Section 1775.

5. SERVICE PROVIDER shall comply with Labor Code Section 1776, which requires SERVICE PROVIDER and each subcontractor to (1) keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, (2) certify and make such payroll records available for inspection, and (3) inform CITY of the location of the records.

6. SERVICE PROVIDER shall comply with Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 and California Administrative Code Title 8, Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects for all apprenticeable occupations. Before commencing work under this Agreement, SERVICE PROVIDER shall provide CITY with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program. Within 60 days after concluding the Project, 232
Agreement No. 32300365

SERVICE PROVIDER and each of its subcontractors shall submit to CITY a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed under this Agreement.

7. SERVICE PROVIDER may not be debarred or suspended throughout the Agreement Term pursuant to Labor Code Section 1777.1 or 1777.7. If he, she or it becomes debarred or suspended in the Agreement Term, SERVICE PROVIDER must immediately notify CITY.

8. SERVICE PROVIDER is not qualified to bid on, be listed in a Bid proposal, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in Labor Code Sections 1720 through 1861, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5. SERVICE PROVIDER shall continue without interruption to stay registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 for the duration of the term of this Agreement. This provision does not apply to construction, alteration, demolition, installation or repair work of $25,000 or less or to maintenance work of $15,000 or less.

9. SERVICE PROVIDER acknowledges that 8 hours labor constitutes a legal day’s work. SERVICE PROVIDER shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section 1810.

10. SERVICE PROVIDER shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess hours. SERVICE PROVIDER shall, as a penalty to CITY, forfeit $25 for each worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by SERVICE PROVIDER or by any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than 8 hours in any calendar day and 40 hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code.

Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1815, work performed by SERVICE PROVIDER’s employees in excess of 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week shall be permitted upon public work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day at not less than 1 ½ times the basic rate of pay.

11. The Project listed in the Agreement is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR.

12. SERVICE PROVIDER shall be responsible for each and every one of its subcontractors’ compliance with Chapter 1, the DIR’s rules and regulations, and Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700. SERVICE PROVIDER shall include in the written contract between it and each subcontractor a copy of, and a requirement that each subcontractor shall comply with, those statutory provisions. SERVICE PROVIDER shall be required to take all actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractors’ compliance, including without limitation, conducting a periodic review of the certified payroll records of each subcontractor, and upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to pay its workers the specified prevailing rate of wages, SERVICE PROVIDER shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify any failure.

233
Agreement No. 32300365

13. To the maximum extent, SERVICE PROVIDER shall hold harmless, defend (with counsel approved by the City Attorney) and indemnify CITY, its legislative bodies, and its officials, officers, employees and agents from any demand or claim for damages, compensation, fines, penalties or other amounts arising out of or incidental to any acts or omissions listed above by any person or entity (including Service Provider, its subcontractors, and each of their officials, officers, employees and agents) in connection with any work undertaken or in connection with the Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all attorneys’ fees and other related costs. All duties of SERVICE PROVIDER under this Section shall survive Agreement termination.
234
AGREEMENT 32300365 WITH DIAL SECURITY FOR

SECURITY GUARD SERVICES
City Council
April 18, 2023
Brian Yanez
Assistant Public Works Director
235
That the City Council approve and authorize:

1. The use of the City of Ventura’s City Wide Security Guard Services Agreement, which includes a piggyback provision, to establish a security guard service agreement for the City of Oxnard;

2. The Mayor to execute an Agreement with Dial Security, for an initial term starting May 1, 2023, ending June 30, 2023, with the option to extend through December 31, 2023, and for a total contract not-to-exceed amount of $850,000 for security guard services at various City locations; and

3. The Purchasing Agent to execute an amendment to Agreement 32300365 to exercise the option to extend, through December 31, 2023, if needed.

RECOMMENDATION 2
236
The City’s Public Works Department (Public Works) is
responsible for the operation of the following facilities:
● Oxnard Transportation Center (OTC)
● Water Campus
● Oxnard Wastewater Treatment Plant (OWTP) and
Headworks Facility
● Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF)
● Del Norte Regional Recycling and Transfer Station (Del Norte)
BACKGROUND 3
237
All of the City facilities:
• Are all located in the City limits and provide essential public services
• Require security guard services to ensure the safety of personnel, protect property, customers and the general
public
• Have been utilizing private security guard services for City facilities over the past 15 years
BACKGROUND 4
238
The current Security Agreement was entered into on February 1, 2022. Due to performance issues the City has chosen to terminate and not extend services with the current vendor Professional Security Consultants (PSC).

Cited issues include:
• Security guards not on site when scheduled
• Site break-ins and theft
• Vandalism to City property
DISCUSSION 5
239
Due to the importance of maintaining security services for City facilities, staff researched options: • Ventura had publicly solicited security guard services• Ventura has been satisfied with the services being rendered by Dial Security• Ventura’s solicitation allowed provision for “piggybacking” to ensure Oxnard received comparable rates to Ventura for similar services• Dial Security has confirmed their ability in entering into a temporary agreement while the City of Oxnard releases a new solicitation DISCUSSION 6
240
Use of piggyback agreement would be as follows:
• Not-to-exceed December 31, 2023
• Allows for continued services
• Allow staff to solicit a new multi-year agreement to be in place by January 1, 2024
DISCUSSION 7
241
Dial Security hourly rates (all-inclusive, including equipment and vehicles necessary to service each facility)
Based on the needs and size of the facilities, security guards will be assigned accordingly
DISCUSSION 8

SERVICE TYPE RATE

UNARMED
Security Officer Rate $32.88 per hour
Holiday Rate $49.32 per hour
Security Officer & Patrol Car Rate $39.95 per hour
Roving Patrol with 6 visits per night, 7 days a week $2,050 per month 242
• Dial Security rates are approximately 30% higher than the current vendor PSC
• Dial Security rates are in alignment with the rates submitted in the original RFP released in 2021 for security guard services
DISCUSSION 9
243
• T otal value of agreement with Dial shall not exceed $850,000 over a term of eight months and commences May 1, 2023
• Agreement allows one additional six-month extension for an ultimate term date of December 1, 2023
• Sufficient funds are available in FY 2022-23 Budget for services from May 1, 2023 through June 30, 2023 for each location
• Costs for the next fiscal year will be requested during the annual budgeting process
FINANCIAL IMPACT 10
244

QUESTIONS
11 245

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

REPORTS
AGENDA ITEM NO. L.5

DATE: April 18, 2023

TO: City Council

FROM: Maureen Tamuri, Interim Community Development Director, (805) 385-7882, [email protected]

SUBJECT: Second Amendment to the Off-Site Improvement Agreement associated with Del Sol High School located near the northeast corner of Rose Avenue and Camino Del Sol (APN: 214-0-020-635) (25 minutes)

RECOMMENDATION

That the City Council:

1. Finds that the Project is not subject to additional environmental review pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA-Public Resources Code, Section 21083 et. seq.) Guidelines Section 15168(c)(4)-(5) and (e); and

2. Approve the Second Amendment to the Off-Site Improvement Agreement between the City of Oxnard and the Oxnard Union High School District for Public Improvements required for the Construction of the Del Sol High School.

Please click the following link to view the required Measure M pre-recorded presentation video: https://youtu.be/- ujAnhITIVw

BACKGROUND

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Oxnard Union High School District (“District”) is currently constructing a new high school (Del Sol High School) which will consist of approximately 280,000 square feet (sq. ft.) of building structures and a variety of recreational facilities (including play fields, hard courts, and a pool), approximately 720 parking spaces, landscaping, and associated infrastructure on the 52.52-acre project site located near the northeast corner of Rose Avenue and Camino Del Sol (“Site”). Access to the school will be provided from Camino Del Sol and a newly constructed extension of Jacinto Drive to the north of the project Site that will connect to Rose Avenue to the west and the existing termination of Jacinto Drive to the east.

The District has agreed to construct, and has bonded for, certain offsite infrastructure improvements necessary to mitigate the impacts of their project on the City’s infrastructure as reflected in the Off-Site Improvement Agreement (“Agreement”) approved by the Oxnard City Council (“Council”) on May 4, 2021 as Agreement No. A-8333. The Agreement requires the District to complete all of these offsite improvements, the majority of which involve traffic and pedestrian safety related upgrades, before the City of Oxnard (“City”) will allow connections to the City’s water, sewer, and storm drain infrastructure. Under the Agreement, Del Sol High School cannot open without all of these improvements being completed and accepted by the City.

The District is currently behind schedule in completing the required off-site infrastructure and access improvements. 246
Therefore, rather than delaying the opening of Del Sol High School, the District requested a modification to the Agreement to allow completion of the off-site improvements in 2 phases (Sequence 1 and 2). This Second Amendment to the Off-Site Improvement Agreement (“Second Amendment”) provides for the District’s request to phase the improvements - Sequence 1 improvements are required to be completed prior to August 1, 2023, and Sequence 2 will be required to be completed by March 1, 2024. It is the City's firm position that fully operational sidewalks, crosswalks, traffic intersections and other offsite improvements identified in Sequence 1 must be completed prior to the school opening in the interest of public safety.

Currently, Del Sol High School is scheduled to open to students on August 16, 2023, however the Sequence 1 off-site improvements the District is required to complete related to traffic and pedestrian circulation requirements are only approximately 5% complete as of April 4, 2023. City staff have significant concerns regarding the District’s ability to execute the remaining work in Sequence 1 necessary for safe passage of students, staff and emergency vehicles to the new campus prior to the opening of Del Sol High School. However, the City has continually sought to work with the District in good faith to facilitate the opening of this new school facility. Under the terms of this Second Amendment, if Sequence 1 improvements are completed and accepted or provisionally accepted, by August 1, 2023, then the District can open Del Sol High School as scheduled.

BACKGROUND

The Del Sol High School property is part of the City’s East Village Neighborhood and is within the Northeast Community Specific Plan (the “NECSP”). The School site is part of a 107-acre property which has been historically referred to as the Maulhardt Property (in reference to the original land owners) or East Village, Phase III (herein “East Village”). The property was farmed with row crops for many years, and currently consists of fallow land and a historic residence, in addition to the new Del Sol High School that is under construction.

While the school construction and site plan is approved by the state, the local jurisdiction (City of Oxnard) is responsible for the review and approval of all traffic and pedestrian related improvements, and all utilities which connect to City infrastructure. To date, City staff has reviewed all improvement plans and issued permits for all of the required off-site infrastructure. The construction of the high school and the off-site infrastructure has been progressing since 2021.

As a school district or public agency, the District is not subject to the standard entitlement and conditioning process. As a result, the original Agreement was developed by the City and District, for the benefit of both parties, to establish the City’s on-site and off-site improvement conditions and requirements for the District’s Del Sol High School project and to specify the timing of the construction of these improvements. Under the Agreement, the District agreed to complete all of the improvements required under the final conditions and off-site improvement plans approved by the City prior to the City permitting final utility connections, which effectively allows for the new high school to open to the public so long as all other requirements of the State of California (as the permitting authority for the school itself) have been met.

The Agreement was approved by the Council on May 4, 2021 as Agreement No. A-8333. The First Amendment, in which the District agreed that the estimated cost of the infrastructure improvements would be $24,510,000, with the District posting a faithful performance bond in that amount, was approved in April 2022. In August 2022, the District requested that City Staff consider a phased approach for the off-site improvements so the school could open as planned in August 2023. The City was amenable to phasing, provided that improvements related to access and safety were completed prior to the occupancy. As of April 3, 2023 staff was still waiting for clarifications on the exhibits that clearly show the phased improvements at the key access points to the school.

DISCUSSION

This Second Amendment does not reduce the District’s obligations to construct all of the off-site infrastructure associated with Del Sol High School; rather, the Second Amendment divides the required off-site improvements into two sequences.

Further, it requires that Sequence 1 improvements must be completed before final utility connections (and thus the opening of the school) will be granted to the District. Sequence 1 includes approximately 85% of the total required offsite improvements required to be performed by the District.

This Second Agreement further specifies that the District will not occupy Del Sol High School if the Sequence 1 improvements are not completed. These Sequence 1 improvements are related to providing adequate vehicle access to the 247
site, reducing traffic impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods, and improving pedestrian access and safety to the site.

For example, Sequence 1 improvements do not include a much needed sidewalk along the western, or much of the southern, edge of the Site. Walking to the school will be negatively impacted by this phased approach but walking routes to school will still be available. The remaining improvements, Sequence 2, must be completed by no later than March 1, 2024.

As previously stated, this Second Agreement would allow the City to provide final utility connections once all of the Sequence 1 improvements have been accepted or provisionally accepted by the City pending minor defect repairs. Staff has reviewed a District prepared traffic study for the interim condition of the Sequence 1 improvements, as well as numerous other exhibits clarifying the extent of off-site improvement construction to be completed prior to the school opening. Should all of the Sequence 1 off-site improvements be completed, City staff agrees in concept with the District’s position that Del Sol High School will be safe to open. This Second Amendment clearly defines what work must be completed so that as the school opening date approaches, there is a clear understanding by the District as to what improvements the District must complete, thereby eliminating any last minute negotiations or compromises which could affect student, staff, and community safety. This Second Amendment clearly states that if the Sequence 1 off-site improvements are not completed and either fully or provisionally accepted by the City, the City will not provide final utility connections and the District will not occupy Del Sol High School as planned in August 2023.

Attachments 4, 5, and 6 provide additional background information regarding the progression and timing of the discussions between the District and City, as well letters from the City Manager and Mayor regarding the City’s support of the opening of Del Sol High School, while noting the need for prioritizing the safety of students, teachers, and general public as they relate to the completion of the off-site improvements required to be constructed by the District.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The District is the "Lead Agency" for the Del Sol High School Project, which means it is "the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment" (Public Resources Code (PRC)§ 21067.), and the City of Oxnard is a "Responsible Agency" which means "a public agency, other than the Lead Agency, which has responsibility for carrying out or approving a project" (PRC § 21069). The potential environmental impacts associated with the Del Sol High School Project and public improvements were analyzed under the Del Sol High School Project EIR (New High School No. 8 Project (Clearinghouse # 2019029101)), with the District as the Lead Agency. As such, the Second Amendment to the Off-Site Improvement Agreement will not create any new significant impacts or substantially alter or increase the severity of any of the significant impacts identified in the EIR. Therefore, staff recommends the City Council find that the Second Amendment to the Off-site Improvement Agreement is consistent with the analysis and mitigations approved for the EIR and no further environmental documentation is required.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

This agenda item supports the Infrastructure and Natural Resources strategy. The purpose of the Infrastructure and Natural Resources strategy is to preserve and improve our roads, utilities, parks, trees, water supply and natural resources through effective planning, prioritization, and an equitable and efficient use of available funding.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The District has paid all applicable plan check and utility connection fees for this project.

COMMITTEE OUTCOME

This item did not originate in committee.

Prepared by: Jeff Pengilley, Assistant Community Development Director

ATTACHMENTS

1. Second Amendment to Off-Site Improvement Agreement (4_5_23)

2. Exhibits A, B, C and D depicting the Sequence 1 and Sequence 2 improvements

3. Narrative description of Improvement Sequences
248

4. Letter from City Manager Alexander Nguyen to Superintendent Dr. Thomas McCoy, 11-17-22

5. Letter from Mayor Zaragoza to Karen Sher, President OUHSD Board of Trustees, 3-9-23

6. Letter from City Manager Alexander Nguyen to Superintendent Dr. Thomas McCoy, 3-29-23

7. Staff Presentation

249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258

ATTACHMENT 3

IMPROVEMENT TIERS

All cond itions of approval for off -site will be substantially completed by August 1, 2023 (“Sequence #1 Improvements”) , with the exception of the following “Sequence #2 Improvements”:

1. Rose Ave @ Camino del Sol Intersection
a. Crosswalks on north and eastside of intersection not completed until March 1, 2024;
b. New construction sidewalk connections on northeast corner not completed until March 1, 2024;
c. Westbound Camino del Sol No. 3 Lane/Right Turn Lane
asphalt and paving until March 1, 2024;

2. Camino del Sol @ Gibraltar Street Intersection
a. Crosswalks on north and west of intersection not completed until March 1, 2024;
b. Westbound Camino del Sol No. 3 Lane/Right Turn Lane
asphalt and paving not completed until March 1, 2024;

3. Rose Avenue (Cesar Chavez to Jacinto/Camino del Luna) Segment a. Landscaping (eastside between street and Maulhardt property) not completed until December 2023;

4. Rose Avenue (Jacinto/Camino del Luna to Camino del Sol) Segment a. New construction of sidewalk on east side no t completed until March 1, 2024;
b. Landscaping (eastside between street and High
School/Maulhardt property) not completed until March 1, 2024;
259

5. Camino del Sol (Rose Avenue to Jaguar Way) Segment
a. New construction of sidewalk on northside of Camino del Sol not completed until March 1, 2024;
b. Westbound Lane No. 3 and right-hand turn lanes not completed until after SCE work on March 1, 2024;

6. Undergrounding of Southern California Edison Utilities a. Undergrounding of utilities and removal of exis ting poles not completed until January 20, 2024.
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
Second Amendment to the Off-Site Improvement Agreement
between
The City of Oxnard and The Oxnard Union High School District for Public Improvements associated with the Construction of Del Sol High School
Maureen Tamuri AIA, AICP, Interim Community Development Director Jeff Pengilley, P.E., Assistant Director
Tai Chau, P.E., Supervising Civil Engineer
Community Development Department
City Council
April 18, 2023
271
Purpose of the original Off-Site Improvement Agreement 2 The original agreement was developed by the City and District, for the benefit of both parties, to clearly identify the Del Sol High School’s improvement requirements and timing of the construction of those improvements. Under the current Agreement, all off-site improvements (streets, sidewalks, traffic signals, bike lanes, utilities) are required to be completed before Del Sol High School opens. Final utility connections will not be granted by the City until all off-site improvements are completed as per the current Agreement.

The City Council:
● Has authority over the project components associated with City infrastructure.

State of California:
● Has authority over the high school design and construction. 272
Project Description: Del Sol High School
The Oxnard Union High School District
is currently constructing Del Sol High
School on a 52.52 acre site at the
northeast corner of Rose Avenue and
Camino Del Sol. The anticipated
opening date is August 16, 2023.
○ Approximately 280,000 square feet of
buildings and associated facilities, such
as play fields and pool.
○ Public improvements to adjacent
roadways and utilities have been
permitted and bonded for ($24.510 M)
3 273
Purpose of the Second Amendment to the Agreement 4
The Second Amendment does not reduce the scope of the off-site improvements to be constructed by the District. The District is behind schedule in completing all aspects of the off-site improvements before the school opening. Key aspects of the Second Amendment:
● Allows the off-site improvements to be broken into two phases or sequences:

Sequence 1, which must be completed prior to the school’s opening to the public on August 16, 2023, and Sequence 2, which must be completed by March 1, 2024. Sequence 1 represents approximately 85% of the off-site improvements the District is required to construct.
● Clarifies that all of the Sequence 1 work must be completed before the school can be occupied.
● Confirms that the City will not provide final utility connections (water, sewer, storm drain) unless the Sequence 1 improvements are completed. 274
Overview of Sequence 1 vs. Sequence 2 5
Sequence 1 includes all off-site improvement
work required to be constructed by the District
with the exception of the following items which
are a part of Sequence 2 :

1. Landscaping improvements on the east
side of Rose Avenue, between Jacinto
Drive and Cesar Chavez Drive.

2. Sidewalk and landscaping improvements
on the east side of Rose Avenue, between
Jacinto Drive and Camino Del Sol.

3. Sidewalk, landscaping, paving & striping of
the #3 lane, and utility undergrounding
improvements on the north side of Camino
Del Sol.
275
Overview of Sequence 1 vs. Sequence 2 6

4. Crosswalks at the north and east sides of
the Camino Del Sol and Rose Avenue
intersection.

5. Lane #3 (right turn lane) final paving and
striping at westbound Camino Del Sol at
Rose Avenue.
276
Overview of Sequence 1 vs. Sequence 2 7

6. Sidewalk and lane #3 paving at the north side
of Camino Del Sol.

7. The crosswalk at the north side of the
intersection of Camino Del Sol and Gibraltar
Street.
277
Student connectivity & access at school opening 8
All major intersections will be upgraded and
operational prior to school opening:

1. Cesar Chavez Drive at Rose Ave.

2. Jacinto/Camino De La Luna/Rose Ave.

3. Rose Ave. at Camino Del Sol (2 of 4
crosswalks will be inactive).

4. Gibraltar Street at Camino Del Sol (1 of 3
crosswalks will be inactive).

5. Jacinto Drive at Jaguar Way (Stop controlled)
New public roadways will be completed and fully
operational:

A. Jacinto Drive
B. Jaguar Way
1 2
3 4
5 B
A
278
Environmental Review 9
● The District is the "Lead Agency" and the City of Oxnard is a “Responsible Agency”
● As the Lead Agency the District prepared and certified the Del Sol High School Project Environmental Impact Report and Mitigations. ● The potential environmental impacts associated with the Del Sol High School Project and off-site improvements were analyzed under the Del Sol High School Project EIR and mitigations are included in the Agreement.
● The Second Amendment to the Off-Site Improvement Agreement will not create any new significant impacts or substantially alter or increase the severity of any of the significant impacts identified in the EIR. 279
Recommendation
That the City Council:
a) Finds that the Project is not subject to additional environmental review pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA-Public Resources Code, Section 21083 et. seq.) Guidelines Section 15168(c)(4)-(5) and (e); and
b) Approve the Second Amendment to the Off-Site Improvement Agreement between the City of Oxnard and the Oxnard Union High School District for Public Improvements associated with the Construction of the Del Sol High School.
10 280
11 Discussion
281

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

REPORTS
AGENDA ITEM NO. L.6

DATE: April 18, 2023

TO: City Council

FROM: Alexander Nguyen, City Manager, (805) 385-7430, [email protected]

SUBJECT: Resolution opposing the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act. (10 minutes)

RECOMMENDATION

That the City Council adopt a Resolution opposing Initiative No. 21-0042A1, known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, which will appear on the November 5, 2024, ballot.

Please click the following link to view the required Measure M pre-recorded presentation video: https://youtu.be/hWiM8oPIwbw

BACKGROUND

The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (the "Act"), a statewide initiative measure to amend the State of California (State) Constitution, would limit voter authority and input, adopt new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and may make it more difficult for affected governments to impose fines and penalties for violation of state and local laws. The Act also expands the definition of taxes to include some charges that local governments treat as fees.

In a nutshell, the Act limits the ability of voters and governments to raise revenues for governmental operations that provide services to their communities.

The Act creates several effects on local governments and local voters. The list below is not designed to be exhaustive but rather represents how the Act may directly impact the City:

1. Prohibits local advisory measures – inhibits the voters' ability to decide how to spend tax dollars. 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 should be used;

2. Sets a new standard for fees and charges paid for local and State government property use, commonly referred to as franchise fees. The standard may significantly restrict the amount oil companies, utilities, gas companies, railroads, garbage companies, cable companies, and other corporations pay for the use of local public property;

3. May make it harder for governments to charge fees for services;

4. Requires voter approval to expand existing taxes (e.g., utility user tax, use tax, transient occupancy tax) to new territory (e.g., annexation) or expand the base (e.g., new utility service);

5. New taxes can be imposed only for a specific time period; and

6. Taxes adopted after January 1, 2022, that do not comply with the new rules are void unless reenacted.

The City relies on fees and taxes to provide vital services for the community. The proposed initiative could hinder local governments from raising revenue commensurate with local needs and create detrimental fiscal impacts for the City, potentially causing a reduction in services and negatively impacting the quality of life for residents. Therefore, opposing the Act is in the City's best interest.
282

The Act is sponsored by the California Business Roundtable (CBR), an association of some of the State's largest corporations, including ExxonMobile, Chevron, Valero, Wells Fargo, and many others. The complete list of the CBR board is attached to this report.

Discussion

Current Fee and Tax Structure in California

In many cases, the most significant local government tax is the property tax, which raises roughly $75 billion annually throughout the State. Other local taxes include sales, utility, and transient occupancy taxes. In addition to these taxes, local governments like the City levy various fees and additional charges. Examples include user fees, regulatory fees, development impact fees, franchise fees, and business tax certificates. To be considered a fee, the charge cannot exceed the reasonable costs to the local government for providing the associated product or service. The City uses these revenues from fees and taxes to fund a variety of governmental services, like fire and police, public works, and parks.

State law requires increases in local taxes to receive approval from the local governing body, such as a city council or county board of supervisors, and the approval of voters in that local jurisdiction. Most proposed taxes are general taxes requiring a simple majority vote of the electorate. Special taxes (those used for a specific purpose) need a two-thirds vote of the electorate. Local governments can use majority-vote general taxes for any purpose.

Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act

On January 4, 2022, the CBR filed the "Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act" or Initiative No. 21- 0042A1, which will drastically change the fee and tax structure throughout the State. The Act will appear on the November 5, 2024, ballot.

The League of California Cities (League) and a broad coalition of local governments, labor and public safety leaders, infrastructure advocates, and businesses strongly oppose the Act.

Local government tax revenue-raising authority is already 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 Act expands restrictions on voters by:

1. Making changes to the State Constitution to make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and projects by limiting voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures;

2. Eliminates the ability of special tax measures proposed by citizen initiative to be enacted by a simple majority of voters;

3. Requires that tax measures include a specific duration of time the tax will be imposed; and

4. Includes a provision that would retroactively cancel measures that local voters passed -- effectively undermining the rights of voters to decide for themselves what their communities need.

Fees and Taxes

Local governments, such as the City, levy fees and other charges to provide core public services for their communities.

The Act's provisions on these fees and other charges are so far-reaching that the ultimate impact on these services is difficult to quantify.

Significant examples of affected fees and charges could include:
• Impact fees that offset adverse results of development and growth; • Facility use charges, parks and recreation service fees; and • Franchise fees

Virtually every city, county, and special district in California must regularly 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 283
limitations under threat of legal challenge. For some categories of fees, if the City Council wished to impose a new fee or make changes to an existing fee, the Act generally would require that the charge be both reasonable and reflect the "minimum amount necessary" to City operations by providing the service.

In many cases, existing fees already reflect the City's actual costs. If a fee payer challenges the charge, State and local governments will bear the burden of providing clear and convincing evidence that the levy is a fee, which is not subject to a vote by the electorate, and not a tax.

Overall, based on the current volume of fees and charges imposed by local agencies, including adopted increases to accommodate inflation, the League estimates the amount of local government fee revenue at risk is approximately $2 billion per year, including those adopted since January 1, 2022. Further, the League estimates that over ten years, $20 billion of local government fees and charge revenues will be at heightened legal peril.

On the issue of locally-approved taxes, hundreds of local tax measures were approved by voters in 2022 that do not comply with the Act's provisions, such as a specific duration of time for the tax (e.g., sunset date). Revenues from these voter-approved measures will cease a year after the Act's effective date, reducing the local public services funded unless the already approved tax is re-submitted for voter approval. Reductions in local government tax revenues can impact core services and infrastructure, including fire and emergency response, public safety, streets, drinking water, sanitation, parks, libraries, affordable housing, and homelessness prevention.

The table below represents some examples of recently passed voter-approved tax measures at the local level that would now be subject to the Act's provisions. Notably, according to the Act, all four of these measures will expire one year after the effective date of the Act unless they are reenacted:

Agency Measure
Name
Type of Tax/Fee Rate Estimated Annual
Revenue
Sunset
Mendocino
County
Measure O Transactions & Use
Tax
⅛ cent then ¼ cent
in 2027
$4 million None
L.A. County Measure C Business Cannabis
Tax
4% gross receipts $15 million None
City of
Alameda
Measure F Transient
Occupancy Tax
Increase from 4% to
14%
$910,000 None
City of Culver
City
Measure BL Business Tax
General
various $10 million None

City Impacts

By altering how taxes are brought before voters and restricting changes to fees, the Act would make it challenging for local governments to raise revenue, raising the specter of City services and residents being impacted. Consequently, future local tax and fee revenue could be lower than it would be otherwise.

The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of potential City-affected fees and charges:

Example
No.

Department Fee Description Approximate Annual
Revenue
284
1 Community Development
(CD)
Code inspection fines $87,000
2 CD Building plan check and
inspection
$1,500,000-$2,000,000
3 CD Traffic Impact Fees $2,650,000
4 CD Franchise fees $4,000,000
5 Cultural & Community
Services (CCS)
Playfield rentals $180,000
6 CCS Facility rentals $70,000
7 CCS Sports and Recreation
registration fees
$66,000
8 Public Works Park use $215,000
9 Public Works Del Norte - Refuse Tip Fee $6,000,000
10 Public Works Wastewater discharge permits $115,000

A League-provided list of general examples of fees and other charges is attached to this report.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

This agenda item supports the Organizational Effectiveness strategy. The purpose of the Organizational Effectiveness strategy is to reinforce, stabilize, improve, and strengthen the organizational foundation of the City in order to build a modern, high-functioning City government that effectively and efficiently supports the operating departments in providing high-quality services and programs for our residents and businesses.

This agenda item supports the Infrastructure and Natural Resources strategy. The purpose of the Infrastructure and Natural Resources strategy is to preserve and improve our roads, utilities, parks, trees, water supply and natural resources through effective planning, prioritization, and an equitable and efficient use of available funding.

This agenda item supports the Quality of Life strategy. The purpose of the Quality of Life strategy is to restore and increase quality services and programs that enrich Oxnard's diverse community, promotes safe neighborhoods, encourages community engagement, and supports our residents in their efforts to improve their quality of life.

This agenda item supports Public Safety strategy. The purpose of the Public Safety strategy is to restore and modernize the delivery of public safety services to provide for the safety of our neighborhoods and health of our community.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no financial impact to adopting a resolution opposing the Act. Doing so is in the City’s best interest, as the passage of the Act may adversely affect the City’s ability to generate certain revenue in the future.

State Attorney General Rob Bonta wrote in a summary of the fiscal effect resulting from the Act that local governments should expect “lower annual local revenue, potentially substantially lower, depending on future actions of the State Legislature, local governing bodies, voters, and the courts.”

COMMITTEE OUTCOME

This item did not originate in Committee.
285

Prepared by: Adam Smith, Project Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. CBR Board Members

3. Act Initiative Language

4. Act Fiscal Analysis

5. Examples of fees and charges

6. Presentation - April 18, 2023

286
1 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OXNARD
RESOLUTION NO. ___________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OXNARD
OPPOSING INITIATIVE NO. 21-0042A1, THE TAXPAYER 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.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Oxnard resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. The City of Oxnard opposes Initiative 21-0042A1.

SECTION 1. The City of Oxnard 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.
///
///
///
///
///
///
287
2 PASSED AND ADOPTED, this ______ day of ________________, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
John C. Zaragoza, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Rose Chaparro, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Stephen M. Fischer, City Attorney
288
Business Roundtable Board
Aera EnergyAlbertsonsAltria (tobacco)Anthem Blue CrossAutomobile Club of Southern CaliforniaBittle Enterprises (EnterpriseRent-a-car)BlackstoneCaruso Management (Rick Caruso)ChevronC.J. Segerstrom & SonsDart ContainerDLA Piper (Law Firm)Douglas EmmettEli Lilly & CompanyExxonFarmers Group (Insurance)Fivepoint (Developer)Global Medical Response SolutionGrimmway FarmsIrvine CompanyKB Homes Kilroy RealtyLevatoLawMajestic RealtyMarathon Petroleum Corp.McKinsey & CompanyNational COREPepsiCoPhRMASempraState FarmSutter HealthUnion Pacific RailroadUnited AirlinesUPSValeroWestern National GroupWells FargoWellpoint (insurance)Western National Group 289
2 1 - 0 0 4 2 Arndt. # /
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act [Deleted codified text is denoted in strikeout. Added codified text is denoted by italics and underline.] Section 1. Title
This Act shall be known, and may be cited as, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act.

Section 2. Findings and Declarations
(a) Californians are overtaxed. We pay the nation's highest state income tax, sales tax, and gasoline tax. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, California's combined state and local tax burden is the highest in the nation. Despite this, and despite two consecutive years of obscene revenue surpluses, state politicians in 2021 alone introduced legislation to raise more than $234 billion in new and higher taxes and fees.
(b) Taxes are only part of the reason for California's rising cost-of-living crisis. Californians pay billions more in hidden "fees" passed through to consumers in the price they pay for products, services, food, fuel, utilities and housing. Since 2010, government revenue from state and local "fees" has more than doubled.
(c) California's high cost of living not only contributes to the state's skyrocketing rates of poverty and homelessness, they are the pushing working families and job-providing businesses out of the state. The most recent Census showed that California's population dropped for the first time in history, costing us a seat in Congress. In the past four years, nearly 300 major corporations relocated to other states, not counting thousands more small businesses that were forced to move, sell or close. (d) California voters have tried repeatedly, at great expense, to assert control over whether and how taxes and fees are raised. We have enacted a series of measures to make taxes more predictable, to limit what passes as a "fee," to require voter approval, and to guarantee transparency and accountability. These measures include Proposition 13 (1978), Proposition 62 (1986), Proposition 218 (1996), and Proposition 26 (2010).
(e) Contrary to the voters' intent, these measures that were designed to control taxes, spending and accountability , have been weakened and hamstrung by the Legislature, government lawyers, and the courts, making it necessary to pass yet another initiative to close loopholes and reverse hostile court decisions.

Section 3. Statement of Purpose
(a) In enacting this measure, the voters reassert their right to a voice and a vote on new and higher taxes by requiring any new or higher tax to be put before voters for approval. Voters also intend that all fees and other charges are passed or rejected by the voters themselves or a governing body elected by voters and not unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.
(b) Furthermore, the purpose and intent of the voters in enacting this measure is to increase transparency and accountability over higher taxes and charges by requiring any tax measure placed on the ballot- 1 290
either at the state or local level-to clearly state the type and rate of any tax, how long it will be in effect , and the use of the revenue generated by the tax.
(c) Furthermore, the purpose and intent of the voters in enacting this measure is to clarify that any new or increased form of state government revenue, by any name or manner of extraction paid directly or indirectly by Californians, shall be authorized only by a vote of the Legislature and signature of the Governor to ensure that the purposes for such charges are broadly supported and transparently debated. (d) Furthermore, the purpose and intent of the voters in enacting this measure is also to ensure that taxpayers have the right and ability to effectively balance new or increased taxes and other charges with the rapidly increasing costs Californians are already paying for housing, food, childcare, gasoline, energy , healthcare, education, and other basic costs of living, and to further protect the existing constitutional limit on property taxes and ensure that the revenue from such taxes remains local, without changing or superseding existing constitutional provisions contained in Section 1{c) of Article XIII A. (e) In enacting this measure, the voters also additionally intend to reverse loopholes in the legislative two­ thirds vote and voter approval requirements for government revenue increases created by the courts includin g, but not limited to, Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, Chamber of Commerce v. Air Resources Board, Schmeer v. Los Angeles County, Johnson v. County of Mendocino, Citizens Assn. of Sunset Beach v.

Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission, and Wilde v. City of Dunsmuir.

Section 4. Section 3 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution is amended to read:

Sec. 3(a} Every levy, charge. or exaction of any kind imposed by state law is either a tax or an exempt charge.
illlJ1l ~ Any change in state statute Jaw which results in any taxpayer paying a new or higher tax must be imposed by an act passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature , and submitted to the electorate and approved by a maiority vote, except that no new ad valorem taxes on real property, or sales or transaction taxes on the sales of real property, may be imposed. Each Act shall include:
(A) A specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed and an estimate of the annual amount expected to be derived from the tax.
(BJ A specific and legally binding and enforceable limitation on how the revenue from the tax can be spent.

If the revenue from the tax can be spent for unrestricted general revenue purposes. then a statement that the tax revenue can be spent for "unrestricted general revenue purposes" shall be included in a separate, stand-alone section. Any proposed change to the use of the revenue from the tax shall be adopted by a separate act that is passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature and submitted to the electorate and approved by a maiority vote. (2) The title and summary and ballot label or question required for a measure pursuant to the Elections Code shall. for each measure providing for the imposition of a tax, including a measure proposed by an elector pursuant to Article II, include:
{A) The type and amount or rate of the tax;
(BJ The duration of the tax: and
2 291
(CJ The use of the revenue derived from the tax.
(c} Any change in state law which results in any taxpayer paying a new or higher exempt charge must be imposed by an act passed by each of the two houses of the Legislature. Each act shall specify the type of exempt charge as provided in subdivision (e ), and the amount or rate of the exempt charge to be imposed.

Ml._fbt As used in this section and in Section 9 of Article II, "tax" means every aA1f levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by the State state law that is not an exempt charge. e1<eept the follo•Ning:
(e) As used in this section. "exempt charge" means only the following:
(1) a el:iarge imposes fer a s1=1eeifie eenefit eonferreEl or pri'+'ilege granteEl aireetly to tl:ie 13ayor tl:iat is not 1=1ro>viaeEl to tl:iose not et:iargeEI, anEI whiel:i aoes not e1<ceeEl tl:ie reasonal3Ie costs to tl:ie State of eonferring the benefit or granting the pri¥ilege to the 1=1a¥OF.
ill {-2+ A reasonable charge irnposeEl for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the rnasonable actual costs to the State of providing the service or product to the payor. f.11 ~ A charge in,poseEl for the reasonable regulatory costs to the State incident to issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof. (3) A levy, charge. or exaction collected from local units of government. health care providers or health care service plans that is primarily used by the State of California for the purposes of increasing reimbursement rates or payments under the Medi-Cal program, and the revenues of which are primarily used to finance the non-federal portion of Medi-Cal medical assistance expenditures. (4) A reasonable charge iR'l13oseEl for entrance to or use of state property, or the purchase. rental, or lease of state property, except charges governed by Section 15 of Article XI. (5} A fine, or penalty, or other monetary el:large including any applicable interest for nonpayment thereot imposed by the judicial branch of government or the State, as a result of a state administrative enforcement agency pursuant to adiudicatorv due process, to punish a violation of law. (6} A levy, charge, assessment, or exaction collected for the promotion of California tourism pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 13995) of Part 4.7 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. flL~Any tax or exempt charge adopted after January 1, 2022 ~, but prior to the effective date of this act, that was not adopted in compliance with the requirements of this section is void 12 months after the effective date of this act unless the tax or exempt charge is reenacted B'l the begislatuFe anel signea into law ey tl:ie <iio¥ernoF in compliance with the requirements of this section. [gl[.JlJG:} The State bears the burden of proving by a preponEleranee oftl:le clear and convincing evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is an exempt charge and not a tax. The State bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the amount of the exempt charge is reasonable and that the amount charged does not exceed the actual cost of providing the service or product to the payor. ,tR-a-t tl:ie amouRt is RO n,ore tl:ian neeessary to cover the reasonable costs of the go•.•emn,ental actii,•i:t>,• ane 3 292
that the manner in •Nhiel.:i these cests are allecated ts a pa·1er bear a fair er reasenable relatienshi13 ts the 13a·1or's b1:1relens on, or benefits reeei11eel from, the go•.ieFRmental actit.iit'( (2) The retention ofrevenue by, or the payment to. a non-governmental entity ofa levv. charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by state law, shall not be a factor in determining whether the levy. charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge.
(3) The characterization of a levy, charge, or exaction of any kind as being voluntary, or paid in exchange for a benefit, privilege, allowance, authorization, or asset, shall not be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or an exempt charge. /4} The use of revenue derived from the levy, charge or exaction shall be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge. (h) As used in this section:
(1) "Actual cost" of providing a service or product means: (i) the minimum amount necessary to reimburse the government for the cost of providing the service or product to the payor, and {ii) where the amount charged is not used by the government for any purpose other than reimbursing that cost. In computing "actual cost" the maximum amount that may be imposed is the actual cost less all other sources of revenue including, but not limited to taxes, other exempt charges, grants, and state or federal funds received to provide such service or product.
(2) "Extend" includes, but is not limited to, doing any of the following with respect to a tax or exempt charge: lengthening its duration. delaying or eliminating its expiration, expanding its application to a new territory or class ofpayor, or expanding the base to which its rate is applied. (3) "Impose" means adopt, enact, reenact, create, establish, collect, increase or extend. (4) "State law" includes, but is not limited to. any state statute, state regulation, state executive order. state resolution, state ruling, state opinion Jetter, or other legal authority or interpretation adopted, enacted. enforced, issued, or implemented by the legislative or executive branches of state government. "State law" does not include actions taken by the Regents of the University of California, Trustees of the California State University, or the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges.

Section 5. Section 1 of Article XIII C of the California Constitution is amended, to read:

Sec. 1. Definitions. As used in this article:
{a) "Actual cost" of providing a service or product means: (i) the minimum amount necessary to reimburse the government for the cost of providing the service or product to the payor. and {ii) where the amount charged is not used by the government for any purpose other than reimbursing that cost. In computing "actual cost" the maximum amount that may be imposed is the actual cost less all other sources of revenue including, but not limited to taxes. other exempt charges, grants, and state or federal funds received to provide such service or product.
(b) "Extend" includes, but is not limited to. doing any of the following with respect to a tax. exempt charge, or Article XIII D assessment. fee, or charge: lengthening its duration, delaying or eliminating its expiration. expanding its application to a new territory or class of payor, or expanding the base to which its rate is applied.
4 293
.lfl..W
11 General tax" means any tax imposed for general governmental purposes. (d} "Impose" means adopt, enact, reenact, create, establish, collect, increase, or extend. {clJb} "Local government" means any county, city, city and county, including a charter city or county, any special district, or any other local or regional governmental entity, or an elector pursuant to Article fl or the initiative power provided by a charter or statute . (f) "Local law" includes. but is not limited to, any ordinance, resolution, regulation. ruling, opinion letter, or other legal authority or interpretation adopted, enacted, enforced, issued, or implemented by a local government.
{gl_{t} "Special district" means an agency of the State, formed pursuant to general law or a special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions with limited geographic boundaries including, but not limited to, school districts and redevelopment agencies. f11L{d} "Special tax" means any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund.
111 i@} As used in this article, and in Section 9 of Article II, "tax" means every aRV-levy, charge, or exaction of any kind, imposed by a local go,;ernmeRt law that is not an exempt charge., exeept tl=le fellowiRg:
(i) As used in this section, "exempt charge" means only the following:
(1) A cl=large imposeel fer a speeifie beAefit eoAferreel or pri,;ilege graAteel eliFeetl')' to tl=le pa1,ior tl=lat is Rot pre1,•ieleel to these Rot ehargea, aA£l which £lees Rot exeeeel tl=le reaseAable costs to tl=le loeal gm,·ernFAeAt of conferriAg the beAefit or graAting tl:1e pri¥ilege.
ill R} A reasonable charge imposes for a specific local government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasoAable actual costs to the local government of providing the service or product. fl1 WA charge im13ose£l for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof.

W {4t A reasonable charge imposeel for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property.

Ml. fSt A fine, or penalty, or other FAOA@tar,· eharge including any applicable interest for nonpayment thereat imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government administrative enforcement agency pursuant to adiudicatorv due process, as a res1,1lt of to punish a violation of law. ill -f6t A charge imposed as a condition of property development. No levv, charge, or exaction regulating or related to vehicle miles traveled may be imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy. f.i1 f7t An AssessFAeRts a Rel property relate el fees assessment. fee. or charge imJ;1oseel iA aeeoraanee witl=l the pro¥isio A5 of subject to Article XI 11 D, or an assessment imposed upon a business in a tourism marketing district, a parking and business improvement area, or a property and business improvement district. 5 294
(7) A charge imposed for a specific health care service provided directly to the payor and that is not provided to those not charged. and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the health care service. As used in this paragraph, a "health care service" means a service licensed or exempt from licensure by the state pursuant to Chapters 1. 1.3, or 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code.

The local government bears the b1:1rden of proving by a preponderance of the e .. ·ielence that a lew, charge, or other exaction is not a ta1<, that the amo1:1nt is no more than necessaPJ' to cover the reasonable costs of the go•,ernfflental acti•.«ity anel that tJ:ie manner in which those costs are allocateel to a pa•ror bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the pa•ror's blslrdens on, or bene:fits receiveel from, the go1a1ernmental acfa•ity.

Section 6. Section 2 of Article XIII C of the California Constitution is amended to read :

Sec. 2. Local Government Tax Limitation. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution:
(a) Every levy. charge. or exaction of any kind imposed by local law is either a tax or an exempt charge. All taxes imposed by any local government shall be deemed to be either general taxes or special taxes. Special purpose districts or agencies, including school districts, shall have no power to levy general taxes. (b) No local Jaw go,.·ernment whether proposed by the governing body or by an elector, may impose, extend, or increase any general tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote. A general tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved. The election required by this subdivision shall be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body. (c) An•r general tax imposed, el<tended, or increaseel, •.-.iitho1:1t •.·oter approval, lay any local go,.·ernment on or after Janlslary 1, 1995, ana prior ta the effecti,.·e date of this article, shall contin1:1e to be imposed only if appro,.·ea b1• a majority vote of the voters voting in an election OR the issye of the in:iposition, whicl::i election sl::iall be l::ield witl::iin t•Ne 1•ears ef the effectii.ie date of this article and in com13liance with slslbdi\·isien (b}. {El) No local law government. whether proposed by the governing body or by an elector. may impose, eMteRd, er increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote. A special tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved. {d) The title and summary and ballot label or question required for a measure pursuant to the Elections Code shall. for each measure providing for the imposition of a tax, include:
(1) The type and amount or rate of the tax;
(2) the duration of the tax; and
(3) The use of the revenue derived from the tax. If the proposed tax is a general tax. the phrase "for general government use" shall be required, and no advisory measure may appear on the same ballot that would indicate that the revenue from the general tax will. could. or should be used for a specific purpose. (e) Only the governing body of a local government. other than an elector pursuant to Article II or the initiative power provided by a charter or statute. shall have the authority to impose any exempt charge.

The governing body shall impose an exempt charge by an ordinance specifying the type of exempt charge 6 295
as provided in Section l(i) and the amount or rate of the exempt charge to be imposed. and passed by the governing body. This subdivision shall not apply to charges specified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (i) of Section 1.
ff) No amendment to a Charter which provides for the imposition, extension, or increase of a tax or exempt charge shall be submitted to or approved by the electors. nor shall any such amendment to a Charter hereafter submitted to or approved by the electors become effective for any purpose. (q) Any tax or exempt charge adopted after January 1, 2022, but prior to the effective date of this act, that was not adopted in compliance with the requirements of this section is void 12 months after the effective date of this act unless the tax or exempt charge is reenacted in compliance with the requirements of this section.
{h)(1) The focal government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a levy, charge or exaction is an exempt charge and not a tax. The local government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the amount of the exempt charge is reasonable and that the amount charged does not exceed the actual cost of providing the service or product to the payor. (2} The retention of revenue by, or the payment to, a non-governmental entity of a levy. charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local law, shall not be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge.
(3) The characterization of a levy. charge. or exaction of any kind imposed by a local law as being paid in exchange for a benefit. privilege, allowance, authorization, or asset, shall not be factors in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or an exempt charge. (4) The use of revenue derived from the levy, charge or exaction shall be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge.

Section 7. Section 3 of Article XIII D of the California Constitution is amended, to read:

Sec. 3. Property Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges Limited (a) No tax, assessment, fee, 6f charge, or surcharge, including a surcharge based on the value ofpropertv, shall be assessed 13y a Ry ageRC'f upon any parcel of property or upon any person as an incident of property ownership except:
(1) The ad valorem property tax impeseEI p1::1rsYaRt te described in Section 1(a) of Article XIII and Section 1/a) of Article XIII A, and described and enacted pursuant to the voter approval requirement in Section 1/b) Q[Article XII I A.
(2) Any special non-ad valorem tax receiving a two-thirds vote of qualified electors pursuant to Section 4 of Article XIII A, or after receiving a two-thirds vote of those authorized to vote in a community facilities district by the Legislature pursuant to statute as it existed on December 31, 2021. (3) Assessments as provided by this article.
(4) Fees or charges for property related services as provided by this article. 7 296
(b) For purposes of this article, fees for the provision of electrical or gas service shall not be deemed charges or fees imposed as an incident of property ownership.

Section 8. Sections 1 and 14 of Article XIII are amended to read:

Sec. 1 Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or the laws of the United States:
(a) All property is taxable and shall be assessed at the same percentage of fair market value. When a value standard other than fair market value is prescribed by this Constitution or by statute authorized by this Constitution, the same percentage shall be applied to determine the assessed value. The value to which the percentage is applied, whether it be the fair market value or not, shall be known for property tax purposes as the full value.
(b) All property so assessed shall be taxed in proportion to its full value. (c) All proceeds from the taxation of property shall be apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

Sec. 14. All property taxed by state or local government shall be assessed in the county, city, and district in which it is situated. Notwithstanding any other provision of/aw, such state or local property taxes shall be apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

Section 9. General Provisions
A. This Act shall be liberally construed in order to effectuate its purposes.

B. (1) In the event that this initiative measure and another initiative measure or measures relating to state or local requirements for the imposition, adoption, creation, or establishment of taxes, charges, and other revenue measures shall appear on the same statewide election ballot, the other initiative measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this measure. In the event that this initiative measure receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety, and the provisions ofthe other initiative measure or measures shall be null and void. (2) In furtherance of this provision, the voters hereby declare that this measure conflicts with the provisions of the "Housing Affordabili ty and Tax Cut Act of 2022" and "The Tax Cut and Housing Affordability Act," both of which would impose a new state property tax (called a "surcharge") on certain real property, and where the revenue derived from the tax is provided to the State, rather than retained in the county in which the property is situated and for the use of the county and cities and districts within the county, in direct violation of the provisions of this initiative. (3) If this initiative measure is approved by the voters, but superseded in whole or in part by any other conflicting initiative measure approved by the voters at the same election, and such conflicting initiative is later held invalid, this measure shall be self-executing and given full force and effect.

C. The provisions of this Act are severable. If any portion, section, subdivision, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, word, or application of this Act is for any reason held to be invalid by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Act. The People of the State of California hereby declare that they would have adopted this Act and each and every portion, section, subdivision, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, word, and application not 8 297
declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of this Act or application thereof would be subsequently declared invalid.

D. If this Act is approved by the voters of the State of California and thereafter subjected to a legal challenge alleging a violation of state or federal law, and both the Governor and Attorney General refuse to defend this Act, then the following actions shall be taken:
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter 6 of Part 2 of Division 3 ofTitle 2 of the Government Code or any other law, the Attorney General shall appoint independent counsel to faithfully and vigorously defend this Act on behalf of the State of California. (2) Before appointing or thereafter substituting independent counsel, the Attorney General shall exercise due diligence in determining the qualifications of independent counsel and shall obtain written affirmation from independent counsel that independent counsel will faithfully and vigorously defend this Act. The written affirmation shall be made publicly available upon request. (3) A continuous appropriation is hereby made from the General Fund to the Controller, without regard to fiscal years, in an amount necessary to cover the costs of retaining independent counsel to faithfully and vigorously defend this Act on behalf of the State of California. (4) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the proponents of this Act, or a bona fide taxpayers association, from intervening to defend this Act.
9 298
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 governmen t 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 a dopted after January 1, 2021 subject to legal peril.1
 Over $2 billion dollars of annual revenues from dozens o f 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 l ocal 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 i nfrastructure financing which will delay and deter new residential and commercial development.
 Service and infrastructure declines including in fire and emer gency 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 proc eeds on the same ballot. o Voters may be less informed and more likely to vote against me asures.  Eliminates the ability of special tax measures proposed by cit izen initiative to be enacted by majority voter approval (Upland).3
o Because the case law regarding citizen initiative special taxe s 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 tha t 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 previousl y approved taxes.  A city charter may not be amended to impose, extend, or increa se 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
299
– 2 – r e v J anuary 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 indicat ion, 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 terri tory (annexations). This would require additional tax measures and would deter annexations and land development in cities. o If a tax is "ext ended" 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 s chools 12yrs 31.2% FAIL
300
– 3 – r e v J anuary 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 Com m unity
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 2 0yrs 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 Sacram ento Measure A Transactions
& Use Tax same 1/2 cent $ 212,512,500

transportati
on
40yrs 55.3% PASS
San Francisco Proposition M B usiness
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,
hom elessne
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/v acant SFU x xx vacant property xxx 44.2% FAIL
County of Monterey Measure Q Parcel Tax $49/parcel $ 5,500,000 ch ildcare 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/s f,
$150/vacant $ 276,000 fire none 27.0% FAIL
301
– 4 – r e v J anuary 14, 2023

CaliforniaCityFinance.com

Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Ra te
Annual
Re venue Us e Sunset YES%
Oakland Alameda Measure T B usi ness Tax
Ge n e ra lvarious $ 20,900,000 none 71.4% PASS
Culver City Los Angeles Measure BL B usi ness Tax
Ge n e ra lvarious $ 10,000,000 none 60.5% PASS
El Segundo Los Angeles Measure BT B usi ness Tax
Ge n e ra lvarious $ 3,000,000 none 51.2% PASS
Pico Rivera Los Angeles Measure AB B usi ness Tax
Ge n e ra lvarious $ 5,800,000 none 75.5% PASS
Santa Ana Orange Measure W B usi ness Tax
Ge n e ra lvarious neutral none 64.8% PASS
Tracy San Joaquin Measure B B usi ness Tax
Ge n e ra lvarious $ 3,200,000 none 72.6% PASS
Burlingame San Mateo Measure X B usi ness Tax
Ge n e ra lvarious $ 2,500,000 none 75.1% PASS
Los G atos Santa Clara Measure J B usi ness Tax
Ge n e ra lvarious $ 1,100,000 none 53.4% PASS
Santa Clara Santa Clara Measure H B usi ness Tax
Ge n e ra l
$45/employee,
$15/rental unit $ 6,000,000 none 59.5% PASS
Brisbane San Mateo Measure O B usi ness Tax
lodging bus n $2.50/rm/day $ 250,000 none 69.2% PASS
East Palo Alto San Mateo Measure L B usi ness Tax
resid. rentals

2.5%
grossRcpts $ 1,480,000 none 69.9% PASS
County of Santa Cruz Unincorporated Measure C Bus n Tax - disp cups 12.5cents/cup $ 700,000 none 68.2% PASS
South L ake Tahoe El Dorado Measure G Bus n Tax
Cannabis
6% retail,
manufacturing $ 950,000 none 62.9% PASS
McFarland Kern Measure O Bus n Tax
Cannabis
8% of gross
receipts retail, $ 1,800,000 none 63.5% PASS
Avenal Kings Measure C Bus n Tax
Cannabis
$25+/sf or
15% gr rcpts $ 600,000 none 61.8% PASS
Baldwin Park Los Angeles Measure CB Bus n Tax
Cannabis
4%
grossRcpts $ 300,000 none 51.3% PASS
Claremont Los Angeles Measure CT Bus n Tax
Cannabis
4%-7% gr
rcpts, $1- $ 500,000 none 61.1% PASS
County of Los Angeles Unincorporated Measure C Bus n Tax Cannabis
4% gross
receipts retail, $ 15,170,000 none 60.1% PASS
Cudahy Los Angeles Measure BA Bus n Tax
Cannabis
15%
grossRcpts $ 3,600,000 none 54.0% PASS
El Segundo Los Angeles Measure Y Bus n Tax
Cannabis
10%
G rossR cpt, $ 1,500,000 none 72.8% PASS
Hermosa Beach Los Angeles Measure T Bus n Tax
Cannabis
10%
G rossR cpt, $ 1,500,000 none 67.6% PASS
Lynwood Los Angeles Measure TR Bus n Tax
Cannabis 5%to10% $ 3,000,000 none 66.4% PASS
Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure H M Bus n Tax
Cannabis
10% gross
Rcpts $ 5,000,000 none 66.4% PASS
South E l Monte Los Angeles Measure C M Bus n Tax
Cannabis
6% special
ex cise tax on $ 126,000 none 53.7% PASS
Monterey Monterey Measure J Bus n Tax
Cannabis 6% grossRcpt $ 1,300,000 none 65.2% PASS
Pacific G rove Monterey Measure N Bus n Tax
Cannabis 6% grossRcpt $ 300,000 none 70.8% PASS
Huntington Beach Orange Measure O Bus n Tax
Cannabis
6% retail, 1%
other $ 600,000 none 54.7% PASS
302
– 5 – r e v J anuary 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 Us e Sunset YES%
L aguna Woods Orange Measure T Bus n Tax
Cannabis
4%-10% of
gross recei pts $ 750,000 none 61.1% PASS
Corona Riverside Measure G Bus n Tax
Cannabis
9% of gross
receipts for $ 5,000,000 none 61.6% PASS
Montclair San Bernardino Measure R Bus n Tax
Cannabis
7%
grossRcpts $ 3,500,000 none 70.3% PASS
County of San Diego Unincorporated Measure A Bus n Tax
Cannabis
6% retail, 3%
distribution, $ 5,600,000 none 57.4% PASS
Encinitas San Diego Measure L Bus n Tax
Cannabis
4% to 7% of
gross recei pts $ 1,400,000 none 65.1% PASS
Healdsburg Sonoma Measure M Bus n Tax
Cannabis 8% grossRcpt $ 500,000 none 72.7% PASS
Exeter Tulare Measure B Bus n Tax
Cannabis
10% retail and
other, $10/sf ? none 66.5% PASS
Tulare Tulare Measure Y Bus n Tax
Cannabis
10% retail and
other, $10/sf ? none 65.2% PASS
Woodland Y olo Measure K Bus n Tax
Cannabis
10%
grossRcpts ? none 66.2% PASS
Redlands San Bernardino Measure J Bus n Tax
Distrib centers
from $0.047/sf
to $0.105/sf $ 530,000 none 53.5% PASS
Arcadia Los Angeles Measure S W 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 n o n e 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
L ighting 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 L L ParcelTax x x x ? library none 86.2% PASS River Delta Fire District Sacramento Measure H ParcelTax $90/yr $ 1 30,000 fire none 72.1% PASS Emeryville Alameda Meas ure O PropTrans fTax $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%
hom e shares $ 4,100,000 none 73.7% PASS
303
– 6 – r e v J anuary 14, 2023

CaliforniaCityFinance.com

Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Us e 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 Ros eville Placer Meas ure 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 n o n e 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 Im perial Beach San Diego Measure R TOT by 4% to 14% $ 400,000 none 67.4% PASS El Paso de Robles San Luis Obisp oMeasure 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 Meas ure N TOT by 2% to 14% $ 1,500, 000 none 75.8% PASS County of Humboldt Unincorporated Measure J TOT by 2% to 12% $ 3,0 80,000 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 Sus anville Lass en Meas ure 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 M C TrUT 1/2 cent $ 3,000,000 none 52.6% PASS Monterey Park Los Angeles Measure M P TrUT 3/4 cent $ 6,000,000 none 58.5% PASS Torrance Los Angeles Measure SS T 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 304
– 7 – r e v J anuary 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 ne w "actual and reasonable test."  Subjects fees and charges for entrance to local government pro perty; 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 Us e Sunset YES%
Watsonville Santa Cruz Meas ure R TrUT 1/2 cent $ 5,000,000 none 64.4% PASS V allejo 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/fi re 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 Meas ure L UtilityTrans fer 18% gas $ 7,000,000 none 77.7% PASS Santa Clara Santa Clara Meas ure G UtilityTrans fer 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 U U UUT 2% electr, gas $ 8,000,000 none 78.4% PASS Sebastopol Sonom a Measure N UUT 3.75% (sam e) $ 700,000 none 83.5% PASS 305
– 8 – r e v J anuary 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 l egally 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 g eneral 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. 306
1 Examples of fees and charges that are impacted by CBRT oCategory #1 (Products and Services). Examples 1:
•Property development application processing fees
•Plan Review
•Gas and electricity service charges
•Parks and Recreation classes and lessons
•Childcare services
•Jail booking fees
•Copies of police reports
•Emergency services fees
oCategory #2 (Regulatory and Licensing Activity). Examples:
•Building permit fees
•Sales tax audits
•Abatement of weeds on private property
•Conducting inspections of rental housing
•Fire inspections
oCategory #3 (Entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property. Examples2:
•Lease of city museum to non-profit organization
•Use of Council Chambers by private groups
•Use/lease of city-owned convention center
•Use/lease of city-owned park or other recreation area
oCategory #4 (Fines and penalties for administrative Code enforcement) 3 oCategory #5 (Charges imposed as a condition of property development) 4 oCategory #6 (Charges covered by Proposition 218 – SEE BELOW FOR LIST

OF ITEMS EXEMPT FROM CBRT)
oCategory #7 (Charges for specific health care services) 1 Amount must be “reasonable” and may not exceed “actual” (minimum) cost. 2 Amount must be “reasonable
3 Adds requirement for undefined adjudicatory process
4 No fee based upon vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
307
2 Proposition 218 fees, charges, and assessments: Exceptions to #6 (examples) •Water rates
•Sanitary sewer rates
•Flood protection/water run-off charges
•Refuse rates
•Landscape and lighting assessments
•Downtown Business Improvement District assessments
•Parking District assessments
•Flood control assessments
308
Resolution Opposing the T axpayer
Protection and Government
Accountability Act
City Council, April 18, 2023
Adam Smith, Project Manager
City Manager’s Office
That the City Council adopt a Resolution opposing
Initiative No. 21-0042A1, known as the Taxpayer
Protection and Government Accountability Act, which
will appear on the November 5, 2024, ballot.

RECOMMENDATION 2
309
• The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (the “Act”), a statewide initiative measure to amend the State of California (State) Constitution - will appear on November 5, 2024, ballot• The Act will ultimately limit voter authority and input, adopt new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and may make it more difficult for affected governments to impose fines and penalties for violation of state and local laws• In a nutshell, the Act limits the ability of voters and governments to raise revenues for governmental operations that provide services to their communities BACKGROUND 3
The Act creates several effects on local governments
and local voters, including:
a. Prohibits local advisory measures;
b. Sets a new standard for fees and charges paid for
local and state government property use;
c. May make it harder for governments to charge fees
for services;
d. Requires voter approval to expand existing taxes;
and
e. New taxes can be imposed only for a specific time
period
BACKGROUND 4
310
The Act is sponsored by the California Business
Roundtable (CBR), an association of some of the State’s largest corporations, including ExxonMobil, Chevron,
Valero, Wells Fargo, and many others
BACKGROUND 5
• In many cases, the most significant local government tax is the property tax• Other local taxes include sales, utility, and transient occupancy taxes• State law requires increases in local taxes to receive approval from the local governing body and voters• Most proposed taxes are general taxes requiring a simple majority vote of the electorate. Special taxes (those used for a specific purpose) need a two-thirds vote of the electorate.

CURRENT FEE AND TAX STRUCTURE IN CALIFORNIA 6
311
• Local governments like the City also levy various fees and additional charges for services the City provides• These fees cannot exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the associated product or service• Examples include user fees, regulatory fees, development impact fees, franchise fees, and business tax certificates• The City uses revenue from taxes and fees to fund a variety of governmental services, like fire and police, public works, and parks CURRENT FEE AND TAX STRUCTURE IN CALIFORNIA 7
Local government tax revenue-raising authority is already restricted by state statute and constitutional provisions, including the voter-approved provisions of Proposition 13, Proposition 218, and Proposition 26 of 2010
The Act expands these restrictions by:
a. Prohibiting local advisory measures;
b. Citizen initiative tax measures will need ⅔ majority c. Sunset provision on all tax measures
d. Cancels measures that have already passed in 2022
TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 8 312
• Virtually every city, county, and special district in California must regularly 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
• In many cases, existing fees already reflect the City’s actual costs
TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 9 • If the City Council wished to impose a new fee or make changes to an existing fee, the Act generally would
require that the charge be both reasonable and reflect
the “minimum amount necessary” to City operations by
providing the service
• If a fee payer challenges the charge, State and local governments will bear the burden of providing clear and convincing evidence that the levy is a fee, which is not subject to a vote by the electorate, and not a tax
TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 10 313
• On the issue of locally-approved taxes, hundreds of local tax measures were approved by voters in 2022• Revenues from these voter-approved measures will cease a year after the Act's effective date, reducing the local public services funded unless the already approved tax is re-submitted for voter approval• Reductions in local government tax revenues can impact core services and infrastructure• The table on the next slide shows some examples of recently passed voter-approved tax measures at the local level that would now be subject to the Act's provisions:

TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 11 EXAMPLES OF LOCALLY -APPROVED TAX MEASURES IN 2022 12
Agency Measure
Name
T ype of
T ax-Fee
Rate Estimated
Annual
Revenue
Sunset
Mendocino
County
Measure O Transactions
& Use Tax
⅛ cent then
¼ cent in
2027
$4 million None
L.A. County Measure C Business
Cannabis
Tax
4% gross
receipts
$15 million None
City of
Alameda
Measure F Transient
Occupancy
Tax
Increase
from 4% to
14%
$910,000 None
City of
Culver City
Measure BL Business Tax
General
various $10 million None
314
• By altering how taxes are brought before voters and
restricting changes to fees, the Act would make it
challenging for local governments to raise revenue, raising the specter of City services and residents being impacted • Consequently, future local tax and fee revenue could be lower than they would be otherwise
TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 13 The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of
potential City-affected fees and charges:

TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 14 Example
No.

Department Fee Description Approx Annual
Revenue
1 Community Dev (CD) Building plan check
& inspection
$1.5-$2 million
2 CD Franchise Fees $4 million
3 Cultural & Community
Services
Playfield rentals $180,000
4 Public Works Del Norte Refuse
Tip Fee
$6 million
315
• There is no financial impact to adopting a resolution opposing the Act
• The passage of the Act may adversely affect the City’s ability to generate certain revenue in the future
• Importantly, State Attorney General Rob Bonta wrote in a summary of the fiscal effect resulting from the Act that local governments should expect “lower annual local
revenue, potentially substantially lower.”
FINANCIAL IMPACT 15
That the City Council adopt a Resolution opposing
Initiative No. 21-0042A1, known as the Taxpayer
Protection and Government Accountability Act, which
will appear on the November 5, 2024, ballot.

RECOMMENDATION 16
316

THE END
17 317

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

REPORTS
AGENDA ITEM NO. L.7

DATE: April 18, 2023

TO: City Council

FROM: Alexander Nguyen, City Manager, (805) 385-7430, [email protected]

SUBJECT: Consequence of Latest Aaron Starr Lawsuit Blocking the City's Bond Financing Mechanism (30 minutes)

RECOMMENDATION

That the City Council receive and file an update on the budgetary impacts of the litigation filed by Aaron Starr challenging the 2022 Lease Revenue Bonds, which blocks financing of many necessary capital projects/needs to move Oxnard forward.

Please click the following link to view the required Measure M pre-recorded presentation video:
https://youtu.be/lP2CrGiopyA

BACKGROUND

On December 15, 2022, Aaron Starr and his political corporation Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc. filed a Complaint and Petition for a writ of mandate for declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate the October 18, 2022 Council approvals to issue up to $45 million of lease revenue bonds ("LRBs"). The City of Oxnard (“City”) and City of Oxnard Financing Authority (“Financing Authority”) approved issuing the LRBs to pay for long delayed repairs of City roads and alleyways (up to $36 million), and implementation of the City’s new Enterprise Resource Planning (“ERP”) systems for asset management and utility billing ($9 million).

Starr's lawsuit is based on three allegations: 1. The LRBs require voter approval; 2. The City and Financing Authority didn't follow the procedures required under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act; and 3. The LRBs violate the long- established rules for bond financing of projects.

We disagree with each allegation, but we expect it will take the court at least 6 months to rule on the matter. An appeal from that ruling could take an additional 18 months to 2 years to resolve. Because the LRBs cannot be issued unless certain representations can be made -- particularly that no litigation is pending that challenges the transaction -- financing the $45 million projects cannot proceed until the litigation is resolved. Thus, while the litigation is pending, the road and alleyway repairs and the ERP implementation cannot be funded via issuance of LRBs.

DISCUSSION

There are additional significant consequences from this latest Starr lawsuit: none of the pending capital projects/needs may proceed until the litigation is resolved. These include:

1. Re-construction of City streets and alleys to improve our Pavement Condition Index (PCI)

2. Continuing the ERP System upgrade (the City’s computer/software central nervous system)

3. Renovating current senior centers

4. Building the new senior center

5. Building an Aquatics Center
318

6. Proceeding with Sports Park

7. Repairing the Seawalls

8. Making Downtown’s 4th Street Improvements

9. Completing the build-out of College Park

10. Replacing five fire stations: Station 2 (built 1965); Station 3 (built 1954); Station 6 (built 1978); Station 5 (built 1973); and Station 4 (built 1972).

The City Manager will provide more oral discussion at the Council meeting.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

This agenda item supports the Organizational Effectiveness strategy. The purpose of the Organizational Effectiveness strategy is to reinforce, stabilize, improve, and strengthen the organizational foundation of the City in order to build a modern, high-functioning City government that effectively and efficiently supports the operating departments in providing high-quality services and programs for our residents and businesses.

This agenda item supports the Infrastructure and Natural Resources strategy. The purpose of the Infrastructure and Natural Resources strategy is to preserve and improve our roads, utilities, parks, trees, water supply and natural resources through effective planning, prioritization, and an equitable and efficient use of available funding.

This agenda item supports the Quality of Life strategy. The purpose of the Quality of Life strategy is to restore and increase quality services and programs that enrich Oxnard's diverse community, promotes safe neighborhoods, encourages community engagement, and supports our residents in their efforts to improve their quality of life.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The financial impact of this lawsuit lies in the City's inability to finance capital projects due to a risk averse bond market and may ultimately lead to the utilization of general funds.

COMMITTEE OUTCOME

This item did not originate in Committee.

Prepared by: Stephen Fischer, City Attorney, Alexander Nguyen, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS
None

319