Agenda packet — Santa Cruz City Council, March 8, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

The final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item. Since this is a three year plan, we oppose spending the entire $14 million dollars in the first year. Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome based navigation center. More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services.

Lastly publish a set of metrics that will be used to measure success and follow up with, at least semiannual reports on those metrics.

Thank you,
DG

17.1.138
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 3:20 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Dear Council,
Yep this is a form letter, but I agree with it below. It sure seems like you present a 3 year plan with no funding having blown the money the first year.

Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you. I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you. However I am concerned that on page 17.1.9 the Agenda Report says “this newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response”. The written Homelessness Response Action Plan is vague and more an expression of values than a plan. If in practice, the three year Homelessness Response Action Plan is going to be the operational plan, it should integrate the detailed plans in the Agenda Report. If the Action Plan is not intended to be the operational plan but merely an expression of the City’s aspirations, make that clear. The final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item. Since this is a three year plan, we oppose spending the entire $14 million dollars in the first year. Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome based navigation center. More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services.

Garrett Philipp

17.1.139
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Eric Hildinger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 3:41 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

However I am concerned that on page 17.1.9 the Agenda Report says “this newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response”. The written Homelessness Response Action Plan is vague and more an expression of values than a plan. If in practice, the three year Homelessness Response Action Plan is going to be the operational plan, it should integrate the detailed plans in the Agenda Report. If the Action Plan is not intended to be the operational plan but merely an expression of the City’s aspirations, make that clear.

Sincerely,
Eric and Trish Hildinger

17.1.140
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Amosjimmyj8 <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 3:47 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you. I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you. However I am concerned that on page 17.1.9 the Agenda Report says “this newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response”. The written Homelessness Response Action Plan is vague and more an expression of values than a plan. If in practice, the three year Homelessness Response Action Plan is going to be the operational plan, it should integrate the detailed plans in the Agenda Report. If the Action Plan is not intended to be the operational plan but merely an expression of the City’s aspirations, make that clear. The final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item. Since this is a three year plan, we oppose spending the entire $14 million dollars in the first year. Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome based navigation center. More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services.

Sincerely,
James Amos
152 Wendell St.

17.1.141
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Paul Reid <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 4:16 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Concrete and accurately defined goals, with targets spelled out are very important to ensure these funds are properly allocated.

Sincerely,
Paul and Carol Reid
125 Myrtle street
Santa Cruz.

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android

17.1.142
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Leta VanDenHeuvel <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 4:28 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you. I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you. However I am concerned that on page 17.1.9 the Agenda Report says “this newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response”. The written Homelessness Response Action Plan is vague and more an expression of values than a plan. If in practice, the three year Homelessness Response Action Plan is going to be the operational plan, it should integrate the detailed plans in the Agenda Report. If the Action Plan is not intended to be the operational plan but merely an expression of the City’s aspirations, make that clear. The final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item. Since this is a three year plan, we oppose spending the entire $14 million dollars in the first year. Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome based navigation center. More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services.

Sent from my iPhone
‐‐
*Santa Cruz County Office of Education* www.santacruzcoe.org <https://sccoe.link/home> <https://sccoe.link/facebook> <https://sccoe.link/twitter> <https://sccoe.link/instagram> <https://sccoe.link/youtube>

17.1.143
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Elena N. Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 4:29 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Dear City Council Members,
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

However I am concerned that on page 17.1.9, the Agenda Report says that “this newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response.” The written Homelessness Response Action Plan is vague and more an expression of values than a plan. If, in practice, the three-year Homelessness Response Action Plan is going to be the operational plan, it should integrate the detailed plans in the Agenda Report. If, however, the Action Plan is not intended to be the operational plan but merely an expression of the City’s aspirations, make that clear.

The final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item. Since this is a three-year plan, I oppose spending the entire $14 million dollars in the first year. Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome based navigation center. More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services.

Thank you for your attention.

Elena N. Cohen
Santa Cruz, CA

17.1.144
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: NICHOLAS MEYER <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 4:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Nick Meyer and fam
334 Alta Ave
Sent from my iPhone

17.1.145
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Anita Grunwald <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 4:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: feedback for march 8 2022 meeting
Hello council,
Thank you for posting the homeless plan :
https://ecm.cityofsantacruz.com/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDocument/HOMELESSNESS%20RE SPONSE%20THREEYEAR%20ACTION%20PLAN%20DRAFT.PDF.pdf?meetingId=1867&documentType=Agenda&itemId=217 67&publishId=29069&isSection=false
Following is my feedback :

Regarding the VALUES :

I would have thought that one of the values would be to rely on data to inform understanding of the constituents of the proposed solution, i.e. "Use data to inform strategies and tactics" Regarding the action area "BUILDING CAPACITY & PARTNERSHIPS":

For whom is the capacity being built? Who are the constituents? Who will be eligible for the homeless services to be created per this plan? Please address these specific criteria:

Criteria by Domicile
 People who went to school or were previously employed in Santa Cruz or Santa Cruz county  People who went to school or were employed in a neighboring county (100 mile radius)  People who went to school or were employed in a California  People who went to school or were employed in the Western United States  Any US citizen or permanent resident
 Anyone - regardless of origin or citizenships status
Criteria by Criminal background
 People who have no felony criminal background
 People who have committed one or more non-violent felonies, who have successfully completed parole  People who have committed one or more non-violent felonies (such as selling drugs) who are on parole  People who have committed one or more violent felonies or sexual assaults who have successfully completed parole
 People who have committed one or more violent felonies or sexual assaults who are on parole Health Criteria
 People who are suffering from substance abuse and addiction  People who are suffering from mental illness

17.1.146
2  People who are disabled and not able to hold employment Regarding the "Fiscal Responsibility"
Have you set goals around capital utilization efficiency? How much of the 14 million is to be allocated to salaried individuals and administration?
I will be listening attentively on the 8th.

And I am interested in being part of a community task force when formed.

Thank you.

Anita Grunwald
831-334-8628

17.1.147
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Annette Holt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 4:52 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

The final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item. Since this is a three year plan, we oppose spending the entire $14 million dollars in the first year. Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed, policed, and supported outcome based navigation center. More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services.

Keeping in mind each houseless person situation is different, there is no “one‐size’fits’all” solution. Our police department should not have their hands tied when dealing with these folks. We need accountability on all fronts. Get the houseless off the streets, support systems for these people (medical, psychological, counseling, addiction), and make all people abide by the laws of the area.

17.1.148
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Drew Meyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 4:52 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please support the Homelessness Response Plan
Council - please vote to adopt the plan and associated departmental cost ordinances. We must move quickly to secure state and federal resources; we can debate implementation details and revise our approach later.

Drew Meyer

17.1.149
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: June C <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 4:56 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.150
Homelessness Response
Quarterly Update
March 8, 2022

17.1.151
Agenda
01 02
03 Quarterly Update & Progress Report
Homelessness Response Action Plan
Regional Collaboration on Homelessness
2 17.1.152
Homelessness Response Update
Balancing individual needs and
community impacts

17.1.153
1 Quarterly Update & Progress Report
4 17.1.154
Safe Sleeping, Sheltering & Camping
Services and Standards Ordinance
 Armory City Overlook – The Salvation Army
 Transitional Community Camp – 1220 River
 Housing Matters Shelter Expansion at Coral Street

17.1.155
Safe Parking & Oversize Vehicle Ordinance
 Tier 1 Operational at SCPD lot with 3 spaces
 Tier 2 Operational at Lots 4 & 5 with 6 spaces
 Tier 3 Responses for 27/4 Program are being reviewed
 Coastal Development & Design Permits Process
 Planning Commission approved 3/3/22
 Appeal period underway
• Appeal to Council or Coastal Commission
• Enforcement of midnight to 5:00 a.m. restrictions only after permit process complete

17.1.156
Encampment Management
 Depot Park Evacuation Camp
 Lot 27 Closure for Construction
 Cemetery Closure for Environmental Clean-up
 Riverwalk & Levee

17.1.157
Encampment Management
 San Lorenzo Park Benchlands
 Expanded safe-sleeping & shelter capacity in the City will allow for the closure of this camp in the Summer of 2022
 Encampment Resolution Grant Award to the County for outreach and rehousing efforts for unhoused along San Lorenzo River beginning in April
 Healing the Streets Program (County Behavioral Health)

17.1.158
2 Overview of Homelessness Response
Three Year Action Plan
9 17.1.159
Homelessness Response 3 Year Action Plan
Inputs
 CA Action Plan
 Santa Cruz County Plan / Housing for a Healthy Santa Cruz  Community Advisory Committee on Homelessness (CACH)
 Local Community Work and Outreach
 City Council meetings
 City Council advisory bodies
 Participation in local boards and other governing bodies  Partnerships with Santa Cruz County, Housing Matters, Downtown Streets, etc.
 Departments – Leadership, Workgroups, Staff
10 17.1.160
Plan and Process
11 Planning and Homework
Week 0 – Jan 24
Council Mar 8 ^
^ Workshop 1 – Feb 2
Week 1 – Jan 31 Week 2 – Feb 7 Week 3 – Feb 14 Week 4 – Feb 21 Week 5-6 – Feb 28+ Citywide Idea Gathering
HRT Refinement
Citywide Idea
Gathering
Draft
Refinement Finalization
^ Workshop 2 – Feb 9

17.1.161
Homelessness Response 3 Year Action Plan

OUR COMMITMENT
In Santa Cruz, homelessness response will:

Balance individual needs and community
impacts from prevention to exit.

VALUES
Our City’s response to homelessness centers on:
12 Health Transparency Practicality
Safety Economic Vitality Resource Stewardship
Collaboration Fiscal Responsibility

17.1.162
What Will Success Look Like?
13 At the conclusion of year one of the plan, you can expect:
 More sheltering leads to fewer large encampments and enforcement of the CSSO  Safe parking programs lead to fewer oversized vehicles overnight on City streets and enforcement of the OVO
 San Lorenzo Park will be operating as a park and free from encampments  Safe environment for all supported by more community service officers downtown And for future years, you can also expect:
 More people in permanent housing and fewer people on City streets  More treatment and support services available for those struggling with mental illness and substance abuse disorder
 A greater sense of health and safety Citywide

17.1.163
Homelessness Response Action Areas
Building Capacity & Partnerships
Permanent Affordable & Supportive Housing
Basic Support Services:

Hygiene, Sheltering & Storage
Care & Stewardship
Community Safety
14 17.1.164
A holistic and integrated
approach to expand
capacity and effectiveness
15  Increase response capacity
 Re-engineer citywide services
 Build a task force of community
and business partners
 Advocacy for policy reform and
funding
Building Capacity & Partnerships

17.1.165
Permanent Affordable & Supportive Housing
Housing affordability and
availability drive our region’s
homelessness crisis
16  Meet or exceed RHNA
requirements for low- and very
low-income categories
 Execute a master plan for
Coral Street campus and
navigation center

17.1.166
Basic Support Services
17 Effective care and support
services help break the cycle
of homelessness
 Address all levels of sheltering:
emergency, transitional, and
permanent.
 Establish safe parking programs
 Create RV waste disposal
program

17.1.167
Care & Stewardship
18 Support for homeless residents
+ local habitat restoration &
protecting the environment
 Optimize response to mental
health & substance use disorders
 Partner to create transitional
employment programs
 Close San Lorenzo Benchlands
 Enforce environmental protection
regulations

17.1.168
19 Partner to keep Santa
Cruz a safe environment
for all
 Equitably enforce criminal
behavior
 Operationalize Oversize Vehicle
and Camping Services &
Standards Ordinances
 Partner with downtown
businesses on a community
safety strategy
Community Safety

17.1.169
Draft Action Plan
20 Org Capacity
Re-engineering + Financials
Apr - Jun Jul - Sep Oct - Dec Jan - Mar Apr - Jun Jul - Sep Oct - Dec Jan - Mar 2022 2023
Legislative Development Legislative Development City – County Roles & Resp
Downtown Plan Expansion
Coral St Master Plan + Acquisitions
Sheltering - Housing Matters
Sheltering – 2nd Transitional Camp
Hygiene Capacity Expansion
Plans - 3 Yr Action +
CA $14 million
Taskforce
Launch
Safe Parking
Tiers 1 & 2
Shelter – Armory
Sheltering Plan
RV Waste Disposal Program
Objective Standards Housing Preservation Programs
Coral St Campus Development – Navigation Center
Capacity
Housing
Basic Servcs
Care &Stwrd
Comm Safety
Safe Parking
Tier 3
Data Development + Metrics +
HMIS
Qtrly
Report
Qtrly
Report
Qtrly
Report
Qtrly
Report
Qtrly
Report
Qtrly
Report
Qtrly
Report
Qtrly
Report
Coalition of CA Peer Cities
development
PSH plan
PSH Predevelopment

17.1.170
Draft Action Plan
21 City – County Mental Health & Substance Abuse
Resources
New Transitional Employment Programs
Apr - Jun Jul - Sep Oct - Dec Jan - Mar Apr - Jun Jul - Sep Oct - Dec Jan - Mar 2022 2023
Updated SCPD- County Engagement & Outreach Models
City, County Judiciary, Other Local Agencies
Coordination
CSSO Reqs and
Plans
Laura’s Law/AOT Discussions
Downtown Streets Team Expansion
Job Descriptions
Benchlands Closure + Restoration
Resource and Land Management RFPs and Contracts
Restoration - Community Group
Partnership Models
Downtown Community Safety
Strategy
Capacity
Housing
Basic Servcs
Care &Steward
Comm Safety
OVO Reqs and Plans Work with County to Evaluate Collaborative Court Programs + Recommendations
Organizational Models for Homeless
Response
Expanded
Stewardship Team

17.1.171
Strategy and Oversight
Homelessness
Project Management and Operations
Deputy City Manager
Homelessness and
Other Programs
Homelessness
Response Manager
Homelessness
Services Coordinator
Outreach & Shelter
Specialists – 3
Positions, Diff FTE
Outreach & Shelter
Specialists – 3
Positions, Diff FTE
Outreach & Shelter
Specialists – 3
Positions, 2 FTE
Resource & Land
Management Management
Specialists, 2 FTE
Resource & Land
Community Service Management
Officers, 2 FTE
Building Maintenance
Worker, 0.5 FTE
Community Relations
Specialist, 0.5 FTE
City Manager’s Office Parks &
Recreation
Police Public
Works
Building Capacity

17.1.172
Homelessness Response Action Plan: Staffing
City Council Action Today:
• Add 1.0 FTE Planning & Community Development Director • Add 3.0 Positions Homelessness Response Shelter & Outreach Specialist I/II
• Add 1.0 FTE Homelessness Services Coordinator
• Add 2.0 FTE Community Service Officers
• Delete .65 FTE Management Analyst
• Delete 1.0 FTE Assistant to the City Manager
Informational Only – No Council Action Needed
Deputy City Manager I/II = Alternately staffed classification which is currently staffed at the II, but will now be staffed at the I (salary reduction).

17.1.173
Homelessness Response Action Plan: Staffing
Future Staffing
• Add 0.5 FTE Building Maintenance Worker
• Add 2.0 FTE Resource & Land Management
• Add 0.5 FTE Community Relations Specialist

17.1.174
03 Regional Collaboration on Homelessness
25 17.1.175
Regional Collaboration on Homelessness
26  Collaboration and Alignment in Planning & Resource Development
 City and County Roles & Responsibilities Matrix
 Point-in-Time Count Conducted on February 28, 2022

17.1.176
Regional Collaboration on Homelessness
 Collaborative Plan for $14 Million Appropriation from the State
 Expansion of Coral Street Campus Sheltering Capacity
 Predevelopment Funding Pool
 Structural Investments to Expand Operational Capacity for Proactive Homelessness Response
27 17.1.177
What Will Success Look Like?
28 At the conclusion of year one of the plan, you can expect:
 More sheltering leads to fewer large encampments and enforcement of the CSSO  Safe parking programs lead to fewer oversized vehicles overnight on City streets and enforcement of the OVO
 San Lorenzo Park will be operating as a park and free from encampments  Safe environment for all supported by more community service officers downtown And for future years, you can also expect:
 More people in permanent housing and fewer people on City streets  More treatment and support services available for those struggling with mental illness and substance abuse disorder
 A greater sense of health and safety Citywide

17.1.178
Recommendations
 Adopt Homelessness Response Action Plan (Action Plan), by motion, acknowledging associated funding requirements and sources, including use of the $14 million from the state for homelessness response.
 Resolution amending the Classification and Compensation Plans by administratively implementing staffing to support the City’s new Homelessness Response Action Plan.
29 17.1.179
What Questions Do You Have?
Homelessness Response Update
Balancing individual needs and
community impacts

17.1.180
City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 03/03/2022
AGENDA OF: 03/08/2022
DEPARTMENT: Human Resources
SUBJECT: Resolution Amending the City of Santa Cruz Personnel Complement and Classification and Compensation Plans for the City Manager’s Office, Planning and Community Development Department and Police Department to Implement the Homelessness Response Action Plan (HR) RECOMMENDATION: Resolution amending the Classification and Compensation Plans by administratively implementing staffing to support the City’s new Homelessness Response Action Plan.

BACKGROUND: As part of the City’s new Homelessness Response Action Plan, several staffing changes are proposed and are outlined in the City Manager’s Office agenda report of March 8, 2022 entitled "Homelessness Response Programming Quarterly Update, Homelessness Response Action Plan, Homelessness Staffing, and Homelessness Response Funding Sources".

These staffing changes are necessary for the implementation of the Homelessness Response Action Plan (Action Plan).

DISCUSSION: The Action Plan will provide the infrastructure, advocacy, staffing, and policies necessary for the City to respond to homelessness over the next three years. To implement the Action Plan, there will be critically important staffing capacity changes needed to build more capacity and to establish dedicated staffing to the City’s homelessness response. Below is a description of the proposed changes.

New Positions:

A. Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist I/II (2.0 FTE):

This position will be responsible for implementing programs related to the City’s sanctioned shelters and encampments, and will perform outreach and para-professional case management to unsheltered individuals within the city. The establishment of this team will reduce the need to pull staff from multiple departments to provide these services.

B. Community Services Officers (CSO) (2.0 FTE):

Expand the capacity of the CSO team to provide proactive support in homelessness response and enforcement of City municipal code, working in coordination with County outreach, City Outreach and Shelter Specialists, Resource & Land Management Specialists, and the Police Department.

17.2.1 The implementation also necessitates organizational restructuring and changes to existing positions as described in the Action Plan:

C. The current Management Analyst position will be replaced with a Homeless Response Coordinator position that will be responsible for the operational management of the City’s sanctioned encampments, transitional community camps, safe parking programs and related operations and ensuring the successful implementation of the City’s homelessness response policies and projects across City departments.

D. Eliminates the vacant Assistant to the City Manager position in the City Manager’s Office and reduces the Deputy City Manager II position to a Deputy City Manager I, with, among other responsibilities, overall management of the Homelessness Response Team and removing the responsibility of managing the Planning and Community Development Department.

E. Add the Planning and Community Development Director position back into the Planning and Community Development Department.

Note: D and E above are salary impacts only and there is no net add of any headcount.

The City Manager’s Office, with the assistance of the Human Resources Department, provides the position change recommendations listed in the attached resolution in support of the Action Plan and for immediate administrative implementation.

Additional staffing recommendations referenced in the City’s Action Plan will be brought to Council for implementation during the FY 2023 budget process and are detailed below:

Maintenance & Facilities Technician/ BMWII (0.5 FTE) in the Public Works Department who will be responsible for maintaining the proper function of the physical infrastructure of City safesleeping and safe-parking program sites.

Community Relations Specialist (0.5 FTE) in the City Manager's Office who will support the Communications Manager in developing and disseminating regular communications updates to the Council and the public on homelessness related issues and will execute community input and engagement efforts related to specific projects.

Resource & Land Management Specialists (2.0 FTE) in the Parks and Recreation Department with responsibilities to include response and abatement of illegal encampments, preservation of public lands and environmentally sensitive areas, and restoration of impacted areas.

FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of these position changes and with the additional staffing recommendations that will be brought forth during the FY 2023 budget process, the total cost for staffing will be approximately $869,799. Funding of $793,424 in year 1 will come from the state of California $14 million aid for homelessness, except for the restructuring actions, which will come from the General Fund and total $76,375 (see attachment HRAP Staff Positions Fiscal Summary).

17.2.2 Prepared By:

Cathy Bonino
Principal HR Analyst
Submitted By:

Lisa Murphy
HR Director
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION - HUMAN RESOURCES HOMELESSNESS POSITION CHANGES.DOC

2. JOB DESCRIPTION – HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE SHELTER AND OUTREACH SPECIALIST I AND II.DOC

3. JOB DESCRIPTION – HOMELESSNESS SERVICES COORDINATOR.DOC

4. HRAP STAFF POSITIONS FISCAL SUMMARY.PDF

17.2.3 RESOLUTION NO. NSRESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION PLANS FOR THE

PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY

MANAGER OFFICE IMPLEMENTING THE HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE ACTION PLAN WHEREAS, staff has recommended certain modifications to the Classification and Compensation Plans in order to implement the Homelessness Response Action Plan.

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

That, effective March 19, 2022, the City of Santa Cruz Classification and Compensation Plans be modified to:

Class No. Classification Title Salary (New Classifications)

PLANNING
AND

COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT
Add position:

CITY

MANAGER
Add New
Classification and
add (3) three
positions:

Delete position:

Add New
Classification and
position:

Delete position:

POLICE
Add (2) two
positions:
811-001
840-xxx
841-xxx
787-001
709-xxx
702-034
501-xxx
Director of Planning and
Community Development
(1.0 FTE)
Homelessness Response Shelter
and Outreach Specialist I/II
FTE .75 x 2
FTE .50 x 1
Assistant to the City Manager

1.0 FTE
Homelessness Services
Coordinator 1.0 FTE
Management Analyst
.65 FTE
Community Service Officers

1.0 FTE x 2
I $5,402/mo - $7,311/mo
II $5,808/mo - $7,861/mo
$7,019/mo. - $9,500/mo.

17.2.4 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of March 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: _________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

17.2.5 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE SHELTER AND OUTREACH SPECIALIST I/II Reports to: Homelessness Services Coordinator or Homelessness Response Manager
Supervises: Temporary staff
Bargaining Unit: Mid-Management
DESCRIPTION:

Under general supervision or direction, implements programming around the City’s sanctioned encampments, transitional community camps, safe parking programs, and similar operations; performs outreach and para-professional case management to unsheltered individuals within the city, encouraging participation in existing programs and services; participates in the design and implementation of the City’s homelessness response programming and obtains, monitors, and generates reports on data.

DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
The Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist I is the entry level classification in the Homelessness classification series. Initially under close supervision, incumbents perform the more routine duties while learning the full scope of the classification’s duties. As experience is gained, there is more diversity of assignments and greater independence. The Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist I is distinguished from the next higher level of the Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist II in that the latter is expected to also perform the more complex and full scope of duties and with greater independence. Incumbents at the I level are expected to advance to the higher II level after gaining experience, performing the full scope of duties and demonstrating a level of proficiency that meets the qualification of the higher level classification.

The Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist II classification is distinguished from the next higher classification of Homelessness Services Coordinator in that the later classification oversees the successful implementation of the City’s homelessness response policies and projects.

TYPICAL DUTIES: (May include, but are not limited to, those duties listed below)  Collaborates with other members of the City’s Homelessness Response Team. Assists with developing effective programs and projects and provides input regarding strategic planning and implementation; works with team to enhance programs as needed.

17.2.6 City of Santa Cruz
Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist I/II 2  Administers programs for the City’s sanctioned encampments, transitional community camps, safe parking programs, and similar operations. Ensures participant adherence to rules and regulations; establishes and maintains relationships with participants to conduct individual service plans and connect participants to available intervention, referral and services; engages in the harm reduction model of care; coordinates on-site service provision from County and non-profit partners; facilitates camp community building; engages in and models conflict resolution skills; communicates site needs (supplies, repairs, etc.) to supervisor.
 Conducts outreach to unhoused individuals within the City of Santa Cruz; utilizes outreach strategies to develop a trusted relationship; builds rapport that will assist homeless individuals with addressing barriers to obtain housing, services and appropriate health care needs; provides appropriate resources and referrals and connects individuals to existing services (County and non-profit); assists police and fire safety personnel in non-enforcement situations involving homeless clients; assists clients in obtaining appropriate care; and serves as liaison and advocate for unsheltered clients as appropriate and needed.  Develops and maintains relationships with various public and private service agencies, community groups, and faith-based community; identifies and provides recommendations to clients, personnel and partnering agencies regarding ongoing support services to meet client needs, obtains services for clients; ensures that clients are receiving the most appropriate form of support; and coordinates and facilitates with other agencies and City and County departments regarding the needs and conditions of unsheltered homeless individuals and families.
 Obtains and maintains participant data and service utilization records; assists in developing and maintaining computer database or manual reports of ongoing services to clients; regularly completes field notes and logs to track case management efforts; completes client interview forms to gather relevant data and statistics of clients served; electronically documents contact and progress of current and former clients; and adheres to applicable confidentiality regulations with regard to client information.  Stays abreast of new trends and practices in community outreach and current, emerging, and urgent issues related to the unsheltered homeless community.  Works with community groups to promote environmental stewardship of natural areas.  Provides trauma informed and culturally competent client services.  Performs other related duties that may be reasonably expected as part of this classification.

WORKING CONDITIONS
.

Position requires prolonged standing and walking, reaching, kneeling, stooping, bending, working on uneven surfaces, and sitting in the performance of daily activities. The position also requires grasping, repetitive hand movement and fine coordination in using a computer keyboard and picking up supplies. Additionally, the position requires far and near vision during the course of job duties. Normal hearing is required when providing phone and personal service. The need to lift, drag and push files, paper, documents, and miscellaneous items at camps (or similar) weighing up to 25 pounds is also required. The position works outdoors with the use of protective gloves during site visits with exposure to dust and allergens, trash, biohazards and/or hazardous chemicals, human waste, sharps and needles, unpleasant odors and insects.

17.2.7 City of Santa Cruz
Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist I/II 3 Interfacing with all facets of the community including those with behavioral health diagnosis including mental illness and substance abuse is also required. Driving a city vehicle is required during the course of job duties. Some of these requirements may be accommodated for otherwise qualified individuals requiring and requesting such accommodations.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:

The minimum qualifications for education and experience and knowledge, skills and abilities are the following:

Education and Experience:

Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist I  Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university in psychology, counseling, human services, social science, or a related field and,
 Two (2) years para-professional experience with case management, providing counseling, social services, outreach, program oversight or a related field which include at least one (1) year experience working with people who have experienced homelessness, mental health and/or substance use issues.

OR
 High school diploma or GED equivalent and,
 Five (5) years para- professional experience assisting with case management, providing counseling, social services, outreach, program oversight or a related field which include at least two (2) years’ experience working with people who have experienced homelessness may be substituted for the Bachelor’s degree.

Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist II  Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university in psychology, counseling, human services, social science, or a related field and,
 Four (4) years para-professional experience providing case management, counseling, social services, outreach, program oversight or a related field which include at least two (2) years’ experience working with people who have experienced homelessness, mental health and/or substance use issues.

OR
 High school diploma or GED equivalent and,
 Seven (7) years para-professional experience providing case management, counseling, social services, outreach, program oversight or a related field which include at least three (3) years’

17.2.8 City of Santa Cruz
Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist I/II 4 experience working with people who have experienced homelessness may be substituted for the Bachelor’s degree
Knowledge:

Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist I  Practice of motivational interviewing and trauma-informed services highly valued.  Principles and techniques of interviewing clientele
 Reference and research methods and techniques used in collecting, compiling and organizing data.
 Moderately complex analytical principles and techniques.

Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist II In addition to the Knowledge listed above for Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist I:
 Understanding of homelessness and related issues in this community.  Community neighborhoods and areas populated by homeless individuals.  Local community issues and regional community resources available to citizens; recent and on-going developments, current literature, and sources of information related to homelessness.

Abilities:

Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist I and II  Understand and explain community resources and services that provide assistance to the homeless.
 Engage in conflict resolution and de-escalation
 Work well independently and as part of a team
 Communicate effectively with persons displaying psychological and substance-induced behaviors that may include depression, anger and confusion.  Collect, compile, edit, classify, and tabulate statistical and qualitative data.  Assess situations for health and safety needs.
 Establish and maintain a good working relationship with co-workers, clients and the general public.
 Explain an agency’s purpose, programs, and operations.  Communicate effectively.
 Motivate others.
 Organize and complete tasks in timely and thorough manner.  Present oneself and the agency professionally to internal and external audiences.  Prepare and present reports.

17.2.9 City of Santa Cruz
Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist I/II 5 Licenses/Certificates
Possession and continued maintenance of a valid California Class C driver's license.

DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS
 Bilingual English and Spanish
 Lived experience with homelessness, substance abuse, mental health, etc.  Familiarity with a homelessness management information system Classification No.: 840-841
Date of Issue: 3/22
Career Ladder
Homelessness Response Manager
Homelessness Services Coordinator
Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist I/II

17.2.10 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

HOMELESSNESS SERVICES COORDINATOR
Reports to: Homelessness Response Manager
Supervises: Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist I/II and temporary staff
Bargaining Unit: Mid-Management
DESCRIPTION:

Under direction, responsible for the operational management of the City’s sanctioned encampments, transitional community camps, safe parking programs and related operations and ensuring the successful implementation of the City’s homelessness response policies and projects across City departments.

DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
The Homelessness Services Coordinator is distinguished from the next lower level of the Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist I/II in that the latter implements programming around the City’s homelessness programs including performing outreach and paraprofessional case management to unsheltered individuals. The Homelessness Services Coordinator classification is distinguished from the next higher classification of Homelessness Response Manager in that the later classification directs and has oversight of the City’s homelessness response programs, develops program strategies and qualitative and quantitative measures to monitor and evaluate response effectiveness and supports the citywide strategic plan in addressing homelessness.

TYPICAL DUTIES: (May include, but are not limited to, those duties listed below)  Provides oversight of all operational aspects of the City’s homelessness encampments and programs, including coordination and communication with other City staff, communitybased service providers, members of the public, encampment residents, and program participants.
 Oversees the City’s sanctioned encampments; conducts site planning; coordinates Citydepartmental response; coordinates County and community providers’ services to the campers; ensures infrastructure and supplies are provided and updated and ensures City Policy team remains updated.
 Serves as member of the City Manager’s Office Response Teams; manages the City’s Encampment Assessment Team (EAT) meetings; sets agendas, facilitates meetings, engages in team problem solving and ensures follow-up on action items.

17.2.11 City of Santa Cruz
Homelessness Services Coordinator
2  Manages the City’s Encampment Assessment Team (EAT) projects; creates bridges between City homelessness response policy and implementation; coordinates City departments to ensure cohesiveness; tracks expenses associated with projects and ensures follow through of assigned tasks.
 Manages assigned staff; participates in the hiring, scheduling, training, mentoring, performance development, and evaluation.
 Oversees contracts for services; researches fair value; solicits bids; requests and alters services and supervises contractors; completes grant applications.  Researches best practices for homelessness response; researches and analyzes existing programs in other jurisdictions; conducts feasibility studies; discusses feasibility with relevant City staff; and makes recommendations.
 Creates operational plans for City homelessness response to coordinate efforts across City departments; follows-up on operational plans to ensure work is completed by appropriate City departments/staff.
 Coordinates outreach efforts for homelessness response; connects outreach workers from various providers/agencies to the unhoused within the City limits; provides feedback and follow-up to outreach workers as needed.
 Conducts constituent outreach; determines, prepares, and provides responses to public, as well as proactive public correspondence, related to the City’s homelessness response.  Prepares reports related to homelessness response.
 Oversees homelessness response budget and expenditures; conducts cost analysis; monitors monthly expenses; creates budget analysis and projections; manages purchase orders; opens new financial project numbers; and ensures invoice payments and tracking.  Prepares, vets, issues, reviews, scores, and processes requests for proposals and similar documents.
 Coordinates with and manages local homelessness response service providers.  Creates and updates resource materials for homelessness response.  Ensures compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and requirements related to operations.
 Performs other related duties that may be reasonably expected as part of this classification.

WORKING CONDITIONS
.

Position requires prolonged standing and walking, reaching, kneeling, stooping, bending, working on uneven surfaces, and sitting in the performance of daily activities. The position also requires grasping, repetitive hand movement and fine coordination in using a computer keyboard and picking up supplies. Additionally, the position requires far and near vision during the course of job duties. Normal hearing is required when providing phone and personal service. The need to lift, drag and push files, paper, documents, and miscellaneous items at camps (or similar) weighing up to 25 pounds is also required. The position sometimes works outdoors with the use of protective gloves during site visits with exposure to dust and allergens, trash, biohazards and/or hazardous chemicals, human waste, sharps and needles, unpleasant odors and insects.

Interfacing with all facets of the community including those with behavioral health diagnosis including mental illness and substance abuse is also required. Driving a city vehicle is required during the course of job duties. Some of these requirements may be accommodated for otherwise

17.2.12 City of Santa Cruz
Homelessness Services Coordinator
3 qualified individuals requiring and requesting such accommodations.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:

The minimum qualifications for education and experience and knowledge, skills and abilities are the following:

Education and Experience:
 Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university in social or behavioral sciences, community development, business, public administration or a related field and,  Three (3) years of progressively responsible professional program and project management experience which includes one (1) year experience working in a social science field.

OR
 Six (6) years progressively responsible professional program and project management experience which include at least two (2) years’ experience working in a social science field.

Knowledge:
 Principles and practices of homelessness or human services programs.  Principles and practices of project and program administration, planning and implementation, policy development and analysis and evaluation.
 Budget development and management.
 Contract negotiation and administration.
 Reference and research methods and techniques used in collecting, compiling and organizing data; statistical analysis.
 Excellent interpersonal skills including patience and empathy.  Proficiency with writing reports and documentation.
 Moderately complex analytical principles and techniques.  Public relations and marketing and promotional techniques.  Principles and practices of management and leadership, employee mentoring and performance development and management.
 Intermediate level computer skills.

Abilities:
 Select, train, mentor, develop and evaluate the performance of assigned staff; plan and assign the work of others
 Being proactive, taking initiative and work independently  Multi-task several tasks at one time

17.2.13 City of Santa Cruz
Homelessness Services Coordinator
4  Facilitate and effectively manage meetings
 Evaluate operational processes or situations, develop sound conclusions, and make effective decisions and/or recommendations
 Understand and explain community resources and services that provide assistance to the homeless
 Interpret applicable federal, state, and local regulations and requirements pertaining to homelessness operations
 Interact effectively with individuals experiencing homelessness in stressful situations, displaying psychological and substance-induced behaviors and maintain client rapport on an individual basis in person and over the phone; effectively engage in conflict resolution and de-escalation
 Research, compile, analyze, and interpret data and information; write administrative summaries, reports, and other documents
 Collect, compile, edit, classify, and tabulate statistical and qualitative data  Assess situations for health and safety needs
 Being open-minded and open to trying new approaches
 Communicate effectively both orally and in writing, with people of diverse backgrounds  Establish and maintain a good working relationship with co-workers, clients, providers and the general public
 Drive a city vehicle during the course of job duties
Licenses/Certificates
Possession and continued maintenance of a valid California Class C driver's license.

DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS
 Bilingual English and Spanish
 Familiarity or experience with homelessness
 Familiarity with a homelessness management information system Classification No.: 709
Date of Issue: 3/22
Career Ladder
Homelessness Response Manager
Homelessness Services Coordinator
Homelessness Response Shelter and Outreach Specialist I/II

17.2.14 City of Santa Cruz
Homelessness Response 3 Year Action Plan
Additional Funding Requirements
Area Resource Internal or External Count
Approximate
Cost Per Extended Costs Year Needed
Year 1*****
Est 07/01/22 - 06/30/23
Funding Source
Year 2
Est 07/01/23 - 06/30/24
Year 3+
Est 07/01/24 =>
Shelter, Care + Org Stewardship Outreach and Shelter Specialist (75%) Internal 2 $ 121,412 $ 242,824 1-3+ CA $14 Million Unfunded* Unfunded* Shelter, Care + Org Stewardship Outreach and Shelter Specialist (50%) Internal 1 $ 91,184 $ 91,184 1-3+ CA $14 Million Unfunded* Unfunded* Shelter, Care + Org Stewardship Resource and Land Management Internal 2 $ 80,000 $ 160,000 1-3+ CA $14 Million Unfunded* Unfunded* Shelter, Care + Org Stewardship Community Service Officer Internal 2 $ 98,458 $ 196,916 1-3+ CA $14 Million Unfunded* Unfunded* Shelter, Care + Org Stewardship Building Maintenance Worker II Internal 0.5 $ 80,000 $ 40,000 1-3+ CA $14 Million Unfunded* Unfunded* Program Administration Mgt Analyst to Homelessness Services Coordinator Internal 1 $ 31,782 $ 31,782 1-3+ General Fund General Fund General Fund Program Administration DCM I from A2CM and DCM II to Std Dept Head**** Internal 1 $ 44,593 $ 44,593 1-3+ General Fund General Fund General Fund Communications Community Relations Specialist Internal 0.5 $ 125,000 $ 62,500 1-3+ CA $14 Million Unfunded* Unfunded* $ 869,799
*****Some items will begin immediately and others in FY 2023.

General Fund $ 76,375
CA $14 Million Aid $ 793,424

17.2.15 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 03/01/2022
AGENDA OF: 03/08/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Clerk
SUBJECT: Sidewalk Vending Permit and New Permit Fee, and Conduct, Time, Place, and Manner Ordinance (CM)
RECOMMENDATION: This item is continued to the meeting of March 22, 2022, and will not be discussed on March 8, 2022.

18.1 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 03/01/2022
AGENDA OF: 03/08/2022
DEPARTMENT: Planning
SUBJECT: Green Building Education Program Fee Increase (PL) RECOMMENDATION: This item is continued to the meeting of April 12, 2022, and will not be discussed on March 8, 2022.

19.1 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 02/19/2022
AGENDA OF: 03/08/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Council
SUBJECT: Resolutions Requesting the Placement of a Sales and Use Tax Ballot Measure on the June 2022 California Statewide Primary Election (CN) RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Accept a report regarding the recent work of the City Council Ad Hoc Revenue Committee; and
2) Adopt a resolution making emergency findings for placing a general purpose one-half of one percent retail transactions and use tax measure on the June 7, 2022 election; and 3) Adopt a resolution requesting that the consolidated June 2022 California statewide primary election include a general purpose one-half of one percent retail transactions and use tax measure; and
4) Support the measure for the purpose of authorizing arguments; provide direction regarding the authors; directing the City Attorney to prepare the impartial analysis; and providing direction to the City Manager regarding the preparation of the fiscal analysis, as appropriate.

BACKGROUND: With a backdrop of the COVID-19 on-going pandemic and the local CZU Lightning Complex Fire, the City faced sweeping impacts to its economy and fiscal position.

Despite years of responsible and proactive fiscal management and multiple years of static and reduction-based budgets, with the unprecedented recession impacts of the above mentioned disasters, the City now faces structural deficits – even once the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds are accounted for in FY 2021 and FY 20231. The one-time infusion of federal funds and projected revenue recovery will help the City in the short-term, but many issues pose ongoing challenges for the City, including long-term structural deficits from state pension investment shortfalls, increases to core costs, significant deferred infrastructure maintenance, and needs for expanded and new services.

In the past two years, the City faced dramatic reductions in revenues while having to respond to the disasters and maintain essential services. With respect to the General Fund, the City saw a 1 The City of Santa Cruz received its first of two equal ARPA tranches in the amount of $7.1M in June 2021. The second payment of $7.1M is currently expected to be received by the City sometime in June or July 2022.

20.1 loss of $10 million in FY 2020 and a loss of $11 million for FY 2021. Prior to the start of FY 2022, budget projections estimated that revenues would begin to recover, but would remain approximately $6 million less than previously estimated. Tourism/visitor-related revenues saw a sharp reduction. Transient Occupancy Tax revenue dropped by 33% over the two-year period, and Admission Tax revenue plunged an incredible 97%. The City froze hiring and encouraged early retirements. City employees stepped up to these challenges, and for FY 2021, most employee groups took a 10% salary reduction through furloughs. These sacrifices resulted in approximately $7 million in savings. As the effects of the pandemic continued, in October 2020, the City Council adopted a revised budget that resulted in another $5 million in cuts. The City’s General Fund reserves decreased 32% from FY 2019 to 2021 (not including American Rescue Plan funding).

The first round of stimulus funding was allocated in December 2020. The approximately $784,000 was used to address the added costs of responding to the pandemic. The ARPA funds of ~$14.2 million will help stabilize the budget and, being one-time funding, it will provide interim stability to the City - allowing the deferral of additional reductions; replenishing reserves; and, essentially, allowing the City the time to develop and implement a longer-range fiscal sustainability plan. It will not close our significant structural deficit or fully restore the massive revenue gaps brought on by the pandemic.

On January 12, 2021, during its annual appointment of representatives to external agencies, groups, Council committees, and task forces, the Council retired the FY 2021 focused Council Ad Hoc Budget Committee and established a Council Ad Hoc Revenue Committee (Committee) to explore and recommend revenue-enhancing options to address the City’s structural deficit.

Subsequently, then Mayor Meyers appointed herself, then Vice Mayor Brunner, and Councilmember Cummings to serve on the Committee.

The Committee initially focused on exploring revenue options in order to narrow down to a potential recommendation for Council and did the following:
- Read up on the basics of municipal revenue in California for cities, counties and special districts via the Institute for Local Government’s 2016 white paper (Attachment 1). - Researched and considered California local revenue measure results for November 2020 (Attachment 2).
o Passage rates
o Outcomes by category
o City, county and special district measures
- Explored various revenue sources including:
o Property tax
o Sales and use taxes:
 Business license tax
 Parcel tax
 Sales tax
 Transfer tax
 Transient occupancy tax
 Utility users tax
 Vacancy tax
o Service charges, assessments and fees
 Development impact fees
 Regulatory fees
 Utility rates

20.2  User fees
o Rent for use of public property
 Rents, royalties, and concessions
 Franchise fees
In the service charges, assessments and fees space, Parks & Recreation and Planning & Community Development have both embarked on a review and revamp of their respective fees to determine how best to balance service delivery with cost recovery. Those efforts are ongoing and updates will be provided to Council. At the April 13, 2021 Council meeting, several Departments brought forward for Council consideration development fee adjustments for system development changes, sewer connections, child-care impacts, and public safety impacts. All proposed changes were adopted by Council and will help the City toward fiscal sustainability.

However, even with these efforts, the City must still address the ongoing structural deficits as well as fund recovery efforts, shore-up critical services, invest in aged and decayed infrastructure, and implement current and future directed changes in business support, housing, homelessness response, fire prevention, and safety improvements for streets, sidewalks and public facilities.

In June 2021, the full Council considered the recommendation of the Committee to move forward with a sales tax measure on the November 2021 ballot but was unable to reach unanimity to declare the required fiscal emergency2. As the pandemic continued with the delta then omicron variants, and with the structural financial gaps still in existence, the Committee reconvened in November 2021 after the larger Council received a financial status update.

As of November 2021, the City’s General Fund (GF) available balance as compared to reserve goals3 are shown below in Figure 1, along with the same information translated to a deficit basis to show the City’s estimated deficits ranging from $6 million to $15 million in the coming fiscal years (Figure 2).

Assumptions as of November 2021:
 Revenue continued to recover at the then current pace and rate. 2 Article XIII C of the California Constitution requires that general tax measures be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the local governing body, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body.
3 Reserves are designated funds to meet future needs and protect against financial instability. The blue goal line is the target best practice percentage of operating expenditures for the General Fund. This is important to keep in sight as the reserves are needed to protect against unanticipated financial needs such as a pandemic induced recession or large outlays due to a natural disaster. These funds were used to assist the City with COVID-19 impacts and need to be replenished and sustained.

20.3  Modest operating and maintenance costs increase each year.  With ARPA funding reflected in revenue projections.
 $5.0M in new expenditure appropriations for homelessness response programs.  No other new programs or services.
 $5.5M in new expenditure appropriations for Capital Investment Program (CIP)4 and modest growth in expenditures.
 2.5% inflation
The existing Committee began analyzing the financial status further in order to determine possible next revenue steps. In January 2022, Mayor Brunner continued the Committee and subsequently received approval by the Council in February 2022 to change the Committee to be a Council Ad Hoc Budget and Revenue Committee (2nd Committee) with membership consisting of Mayor Brunner, Vice Mayor Watkins, and Councilmember Brown.

Due to the ongoing financials status of the City, the Committee determined that the sales tax measure should be explored again and directed staff to do a community poll, with some adjustments in questions as needed to align with any condition changes. To gauge the feasibility of increasing sales tax by 0.5 percent, the poll ran in January 2022 and found the following:
- The community considered the top problems in the City to be the impact of homelessness, the need for more affordable and workforce housing and shelters for homeless people, the high cost of housing in Santa Cruz, adequate local future water supply, and the danger of wildfires.
- While support of a sales tax measure was down ~9% from April 2021, the approval estimate of 61% was more than sufficient to support moving forward and especially given the possible impending additional uncertainties of the pandemic, future natural disasters, and inflation.

The 2nd Committee received the poll results as well as the City’s mid-year budget update on February 9, 2022. As of the February projections (Figures 3 and 4), along with a 2.5% FY 2023 budget reduction approach, the City still faces estimated deficits ranging from $2 million to $7 million over the next several fiscal years, with no new programs, services, or personnel.

Assumptions as of February 2022:
 Revenue actuals and projections updated.
 Modest operating and maintenance costs increase each year. 4 The FY 2022 Budget Book has approximately $300 million in unfunded CIP projects. See https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/84342/637606472512000000, pages 11-13.

20.4  With ARPA funding reflected in revenue projections.  $4.2M in new, initial expenditure appropriations for homelessness response programs.  No other new programs or services.
 $5.0M in new expenditure appropriations for CIP and modest growth in expenditures.  2.5% inflation.

With estimated large deficits in near-term fiscal years, and understanding that providing no new programs or services is an unrealistic baseline, funding continues to be critically needed for housing creation, wildfire safety and prevention, expanded or new services for homelessness response, business assistance, mental health crisis response, and capital infrastructure projects.

Additionally, the 2nd Committee also balanced, as noted earlier, the possible impending additional uncertainties of the pandemic, future natural disasters, and inflation. They determined that time was of the essence to bring such a significant potential revenue source forward to the community during the June ballot.

DISCUSSION:
2 nd Committee Recommendations
Based upon the research, the 2nd Committee determined to pursue a potential transactions and use tax (sales tax) revenue ballot measure for possible inclusion in the June 2022 election.

Sales tax has been a traditional funding source for municipalities. The sales tax is comprised of a

7.25 percent base rate. In addition, the State Revenue and Taxation Code authorizes an additional transaction and use tax that can be added to the base rate up to 2.5 percent for a maximum of

9.75 percent. The City currently receives 1.00 percent of the 7.25 percent base rate and 0.75 percent of additional transaction and use tax for a total of 1.75 percent of the total current tax rate of 9.25 percent.

The combined 9.25 percent sales tax rate in the City of Santa Cruz is equal to or below other cities. Locally, the city of Scotts Valley is at 9.75 percent, with Capitola at 9.00 percent, with Watsonville at 9.25 percent. The unincorporated portions of Santa Cruz County are at 9.00 percent. The proposed increase would put the City at the statutory cap of 9.75 percent. It is also important to consider that the 0.50 percent tax increment between the current 9.25 percent and statutory cap of 9.75 percent could be taken up by other regional tax measures and therefore would no longer be available as a local revenue source for the City. The table below illustrates the different components of the current 9.25 percent sales tax rate.

Jurisdiction Purpose Rate
State Goes to State's General Fund 3.6875%
State Goes to State's General Fund 0.25%
State Goes to Local (Non-City) Public Safety Fund to
support local criminal justice activities (1993)

0.50%
State Goes to Local (Non-City) Revenue Fund to support
local health and social services programs (1991
Realignment)

0.50%
State Goes to Local (Non-City) Revenue Fund 2011 1.0625% County Goes to county transportation funds 0.25%
City Goes to City operations 1.00%
Total: Total Statewide Base Sales and Use Tax Rate 7.25% Add-on:

20.5 Library Santa Cruz Library System 0.25%
County-wide Transportation Funding (Measure D) 0.50%
Metro SC Santa Cruz Metro Transit District 0.50%
City Measure H and Measure S 0.75%
Grand Total: 9.25%
As part of the business outreach efforts of the 1st Committee, staff worked with the Committee to develop informational materials about the potential sales tax revenue ballot measure and conducted stakeholder outreach meetings throughout the months of May and June 2021. At the time, feedback from businesses, business groups and hoteliers was largely in alignment with the concerns and needs reflected in the initial public opinion poll results. Businesses raised some concerns about the impact on businesses recovering from the pandemic, but there was also an expressed desire for the City to make progress on addressing the impacts of homelessness and housing affordability in the community. More recent business outreach and feedback following the January 2022 poll has again confirmed that the top issues impacting our business community are in alignment with our polling and continue to focus on the need for affordable and workforce housing and addressing impacts of homelessness in our community. Business outreach is continuing during the week of February 28th and staff will update Council on additional significant feedback at the Council meeting on March 8th.

In order to proceed, the Council must take three actions. 1) The first is to adopt a resolution making emergency findings. Article XIII C of the California Constitution requires that general tax measures be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the local governing body, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body. The attached resolution has been prepared for City Council consideration and adoption. 2) The second action is for the City Council to adopt a resolution ordering a special election and requesting consolidation of such election to place a general purpose one half of one percent sales tax ballot measure. Included in this second action is the proposed ballot measure language and ordinance. This ordinance meets the legal requirements of State law for a local general sales tax to be administered by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.
3) The final action is to take a position supporting the measure, to authorize the Mayor or provide additional direction regarding the authors of a written argument in support of the measure, and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure and the City Manager to prepare the fiscal analysis.

Proposed Ballot Measure Language
“To protect quality of life in the City of Santa Cruz through programs to support resources to mitigate the impacts of homelessness, create affordable housing, maintain City facilities and essential infrastructure, fix streets, support downtown, maintain parks and recreation facilities for youth and seniors, reduce wildfire risk, fight climate change, and prevent reductions in funding for important city services, shall the City of Santa Cruz be authorized to augment the City’s General Fund by levying one-half of one percent sales tax, raising about $6 million annually?” Health in All Policies (HiAP) – This potential ballot measure supports the City’s ability to positively impact Santa Cruz’s integral values of equity, public health, and sustainability (from the City’s Health in All Policies program). Critically important existing services, potential new services, and capital programs can all offer equity, health, and sustainability value to community

20.6 members. Examples include: housing for low and very low income levels, as well as workforce housing; homelessness services for care and sheltering; preventative maintenance of natural resources; environmental clean-up and remediation; integrated outreach and assistance across the City and within Downtown specifically; wildfire prevention education and implementation.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Based on the existing trends of the City’s portion of Sales Tax, voter approval of the proposed revenue tax ballot measure would generate approximately $6 million annually in additional revenue to partially stabilize the City’s General Fund. The cost of the election is estimated to be in the range of $109,683 to $182,805 based on figures from the Santa Cruz County Elections Department. This amount may fluctuate, based on the number of registered voters at the time of the election and the number of items the City places on the ballot.

Prepared by:

Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
Submitted by:

Sonja Brunner
Mayor
Submitted by:

Martine Watkins
Vice Mayor
Submitted by:

Sandy Brown
Councilmember
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Basics of Municipal Revenue

2. CA Local Revenue Measure Results from Nov 2020 Elections

3. Gene Bregman and Associates – City of Santa Cruz 2022 Polling Memo

4. Potential Revenue Measure Fact Sheet

5. Potential Revenue Measure Frequently Asked Questions

6. Resolution of Emergency Findings

7. Resolution to Include a Sales Tax Measure on November 2021 Special Municipal Election, or Aligned with State of California’s Gubernatorial Recall Election

20.7 Understanding the Basics of
Municipal Revenues in California:

Cities, Counties and Special Districts
2016 Update

20.8 2
Table of Contents
Overview............................................................................ 2 City Revenues In California ................................................ 4 County Revenues In California .......................................... 5 Special District Revenues In California .............................. 6 The Players: The State Legislature, Local
Governments And The Voters............................................ 7 Taxes .................................................................................. 8 Property Taxes ................................................................. 10 Sales And Use Taxes......................................................... 12 Service Charges, Assessments, And Fees ......................... 15 Revenues From Other Government Agencies.................. 17 Rent For Use Of Public Property ...................................... 18 Fines, Forfeitures And Penalties....................................... 18 Other Revenues............................................................... 19 Acknowledgements ......................................................... 20

20.9 3

OVERVIEW
Each one of California's 39 million residents lives within the boundaries of one of the state's 58 counties. Nearly 33 million people also live in one of California’s 482 cities.
i
Californians are also served by 2,156
independent special districts.

Counties, cities and special districts provide a vast array of municipal services to residents and businesses. These services include public safety (police, fire and emergency services), parks and recreation, roads, flood protection, sewers, water, electricity, refuse disposal, recycling and other utilities. Counties have an additional role as a provider for many state-mandated services, such as foster care, public health care, jails, criminal justice and elections.ii
These municipal local governments rely on a variety of revenues to pay for the services and facilities they provide. The amount and composition of revenues:
• Differ between cities, counties and special districts largely because of differences in responsibilities; and
• Vary among cities, among counties and among special districts depending in part on differences in governance responsibilities.

There is a complex web of legal rules for collecting and using the variety of revenues available to municipal governments in California.

These rules derive from the state constitution, state statute and court cases further interpreting those laws.

This guide provides an overview of the sources of county, city and special district revenues in California. It is an introduction to a complex topic. You can find further information in the resources listed on the last page.

How To Use This
Information
These materials are not
technical or legal advice.

You should consult
technical experts, attorneys
and/or relevant regulatory
authorities for up-to-date
information and advice on
specific situations.

20.10 4

CITY REVENUES IN CALIFORNIA
Incorporated cities (including those that refer to themselves as “towns”) are responsible for a broad array of essential frontline services tailored to the needs of their communities. These include:
• Law enforcement and crime prevention,
• Fire suppression and prevention, natural disaster planning and response, emergency medical response and transport,
• Land use planning and zoning, building safety,
• Local parks and open spaces, recreation,
• Water supply, treatment and delivery,
• Sewage collection, treatment and disposal,
• Storm water collection and drainage,
• Solid waste collection, recycling and disposal,
• Local streets, sidewalks, bikeways, street lighting and traffic controls, and • Public transit.

Cities that are responsible for providing all or most of these functions are called “full service” - the services can be provided in-house or contracted through a private entity or another public agency. In other cities, some of these functions are the financial responsibility of other local agencies such as the county or special districts. For example, in about thirty percent of California cities, a special district provides and funds fire services. In sixty percent, library services are provided and funded by another public agency such as the county or a special district.

The mix of service responsibilities and local choice regarding service levels affects the amount and composition of revenues of each city.

20.11 5

COUNTY REVENUES IN CALIFORNIA
California counties are responsible for three general areas of municipal services: 1) delegated state and federal programs, 2) countywide public services and 3) essential frontline services for residents not receiving those services from a city or special district, often in unincorporated areas (outside city boundaries).

In unincorporated areas, counties provide the essential frontline services that cities provide that are not provided by a special district.

These can include police protection (through a county sheriff), roads, planning and building safety.

Counties also provide public services to all county residents, whether they live in or outside of cities. These countywide functions include:
• Public assistance (notably welfare programs and aid to the indigent),
• Public health services (including mental health and drug/alcohol services),
• Local elections,
• Local corrections, detention and probation facilities and programs (including juvenile detention), and
• Property tax collection and allocation for all local agencies, including school districts.

Funding from the federal and state government, primarily for health and human services, is the largest source of county revenues. Property taxes and sales and use taxes are the primary funding sources for many county services that do not have a dedicated state or federal funding source.

General and Functional
Revenues
Municipal revenues may be
viewed as falling into two
broad categories: general
revenues and functional
revenues.

General revenues can be
used for any legitimate public
purpose. General purpose
taxes, especially property and
sales taxes, account for most
general city revenues
statewide.

Functional revenues are
restricted by law to a
particular use. These include
funds derived from fees or
rates that the local agency
charges for public services,
including municipal utilities
such as water, sewer, and
garbage collection, airports,
marinas, harbors and water
ports. Functional revenues
also include most state or
federal grants as they are
usually restricted for particular
programs.

20.12 6

SPECIAL DISTRICT REVENUES

IN CALIFORNIA
Most special districts provide one or a few municipal services to a particular geographic area. These include both enterprise and nonenterprise services. Enterprise services are funded primarily through charging a fee for service. For example, water and irrigation districts charge utility rates and fees from consumers of those services. Nonenterprise services generally do not lend themselves to fees and are primarily funded by property taxes, with relatively small amounts of fee and state and federal grant revenue. Library and fire protection services are examples of non-enterprise services.

Other districts are multifunction, providing a number of municipal services. Community services districts (CSDs) can provide as many as 32 different types of services, approximating the scope of some cities. Multifunction districts have both enterprise and non-enterprise elements and may, like cities or counties, use an array of different revenue sources.

Types of Special Districts
• Air Quality Management /
Air Pollution Districts
• Airport Districts
• Cemetery Districts
• Community Services Districts
• Flood/Drainage Districts
• Fire Districts
• Harbor Districts
• Healthcare Districts
• Irrigation Districts
• Library Districts
• Memorial Districts
• Municipal / Resort
Improvement Districts
• Open Space Districts
• Parks and Recreation Districts
• Police Protection /
Ambulance Districts
• Public Utility Districts
• Reclamation Districts
• Resource Conservation
Districts
• Sanitary Districts
• Waste Management Districts
• Water Districts

20.13 7

THE STATE LEGISLATURE, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND

THE VOTERS
The options available to local officials in governing, managing their finances and raising revenues to provide services needed by their communities are limited. Voters have placed restrictions as well as protections in the state constitution. The state’s voters and the California Legislature have acted in various ways, to support and provide, and to limit and withdraw financial powers and resources from cities, counties and special districts.

Some of the most significant limitations on the local revenue-raising include:
• Property taxes may not be increased except with a two-thirds vote to fund a general obligation bond.
• The allocation of local property tax among a county, and cities, special districts and school districts within each county is controlled by the Legislature. • Voter approval is required prior to enacting, increasing or extending any type of local tax. • Assessments to pay for public facilities that benefit real property require property owner approval.
• Fees for the use of local agency facilities and for services may not exceed the reasonable cost of providing those facilities and services.
• Fees for services such as water, sewer and trash collection are subject to property owner majority protest.

The Legislature has enacted many complicated changes in state and local revenues over the past 30 years. Voters have approved state constitutional protections limiting many of these actions at times followed by even more complicated maneuvers by the Legislature in efforts to solve the financial troubles and interests of the state budget.

Reacting to actions of the Legislature and the deterioration of local control of fiscal matters, local government interests placed on the ballot, and voters approved, Proposition 1A in 2004 and Proposition 22 in 2010. Together, these measures prohibit the state from:
• Enacting most local government mandates without fully funding their costs. The definition of state mandate includes a transfer of responsibility or funding of a program for which the state previously had full or partial responsibility.
• Reducing the local portion of the sales and use tax rate or altering its method of allocation, except to comply with federal law or an interstate compact. • Reducing the combined share of property tax revenues going to the county as well as cities and special districts in a county.
• Borrowing, delaying or taking motor vehicle fuel tax allocations, gasoline sales tax allocations, or public transportation account funds.

20.14 8
TAXES
According to the California Constitution, every local agency charge is a “tax,” unless it falls into a list of specified exceptions:
iii

• User fees for a specific benefit, privilege, service or product provided to the payor. Items include: fees for parks and recreation classes, some utilities, public records copying fees, DUI emergency response fees, emergency medical and ambulance transport service fees. • Regulatory fees for reasonable regulatory costs of issuing licenses and permits, and performing inspections and enforcement such as health and safety permits, building permits, police background checks, pet licenses, bicycle licenses and permits for regulated commercial activities.
• Rental fees imposed for entrance to or use of government property. These include: facility room rentals, equipment rentals, park, museum and zoo entrance fees, golf greens fees, on and off-street parking and tolls.
• Fines or penalties such as parking fines, code enforcement fees and penalties, late payment fees, interest charges and other charges for violation of the law. • A charge imposed as a condition of property development such as building permit fees, construction and grading permits, development impact fees and fees for California Environmental Quality Act requirements.
• Benefit assessments and property related fees imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII D (Proposition 218) such as a lighting and landscape assessment and fees for property related services such as many retail water and sewer fees.iv In contrast to an assessment or a fee, a tax need not be levied in proportion to specific benefit to a person or property. Tax revenues are an important source of funding for both county and city services and for many special districts. In addition to local taxes, counties rely significantly on tax dollars allocated from the state and federal governments.

TAX- General TAX- Parcel or Special
(earmarked)
G.O. BOND
(w/tax) Fee / fine / rent
City / County Majority voter
approval Two-thirds voter approval Two-thirds voter
approval
Majority of the
governing
board*
Special
District n/a Two-thirds voter approval Two-thirds voter approval
Majority of the
governing
board*
K-14 School n/a Two-thirds voter approval
(parcel tax)
55% voter
approval**
Majority of the
governing
board*
State
For any law that will increase the taxes of any
taxpayer, two-thirds of each house of the Legislature
- or approval of majority of statewide voters.

Statewide
majority voter
approval
Majority of each
house
* Additional procedures apply for property related fees. ** Per Proposition 39 (2000), maximum tax rate limits and other conditions apply for a 55% threshold school bond or threshold is two-thirds.

20.15 9
Counties and cities may impose a variety of taxes. Taxes fall into one of two categories: general or special.

A general tax is imposed to raise general-purpose revenues. Counties and cities may use revenues from a general tax for any lawful public purpose. A majority of voters must approve the decision to impose, increase or extend a general tax. A general tax may only be submitted for voter approval at an election for city council or board of supervisors unless a unanimous vote of the governing board declares an emergency.

A special tax is a tax imposed for a specific purpose. For example, a city may increase the sales and use tax by adding a special use tax for public safety, the acquisition of open space or transportation projects.

All taxes imposed by special districts are considered special taxes.

Since the tax is for a specific purpose, the revenues may only be used for that purpose. Two-thirds of voters must agree to enact, increase or extend a special tax.

General Tax Special Tax
Use of
Revenues
Unrestricted Specific purpose
Governing
Body
Approval
• Counties and general
law cities: two-thirds
• Charter cities: majority
• Transactions and use
taxes: two-thirds
• Special districts may
not adopt general
taxes.

Majority
Voter
Approval
Majority Two-thirds
Other
Rules
A general tax election
must be consolidated with
a regularly scheduled
general election of
members of the
governing body, unless
an emergency is declared
by unanimous vote
(among those present) of
the governing body.

Special tax funds must
be deposited in a
separate account. The
taxing agency must
publish an annual report
including: 1) the tax rate;
2) the amounts of
revenues collected and
expended; and 3) the
status of any project
funded by the special
tax.

County Property Tax
Administration
County Assessor.

The assessor sets values
on property and produces
an annual property tax
assessment roll.

County Auditor-Controller.

The auditor-controller
receives the assessed values
from the assessor and
calculates the amount of
property tax due.

County Treasurer-Tax
Collector. The treasurer-tax
collector administers the
billing, collection, and
reporting of property tax
revenues levied annually
throughout California for not
only the county, but also
cities, schools and special
districts.

20.16 10

PROPERTY TAXES
All counties and cities in California receive property tax revenues.

Many special districts do too. For all counties and most cities and non-enterprise special districts, property taxes are the largest source of discretionary revenues.

How Property Taxes Are Calculated in California
The property tax is imposed on “real property” (land and permanently attached improvements such as buildings) and tangible personal property (movable property such as boats, aircraft and business equipment).

The maximum tax rate permitted on real property for general purposes is one percent of the property's assessed value plus voter approved rates to fund indebtedness (general obligation bonds, requiring twothirds voter approval).

The tax rate is applied to the assessed value (AV) of the property.

The assessed value of real property is the “full cash value” of the property in 1975-76 or at change of ownership, whichever is more recent, adjusted annually by the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), not to exceed an annual increase of two percent. The value of new construction is additional. If a property changes hands, then the assessed value becomes the full cash value upon change in ownership.

If a property’s market value falls below its factored base year value, it may be temporarily reassessed to its lower actual value but in future years may be reassessed at the lesser of its actual value or its factored base year value. This can result in increases of more than two percent as a property’s actual value returns to its earlier value, as when the housing market rebounds from a slump.

Property Tax Revenue Distribution
Counties allocate property taxes to the county as well as cities, special districts and school districts within the county according to state law. Allocations among local agencies vary from place to place due to differences in the service responsibilities among agencies serving different areas and differences in the tax rates enacted by those agencies prior to Proposition 13 in 1978. Full-service cities generally receive higher shares than those that do not provide the complete range of municipal services. For example, in a city where fire services are provided by a special district, the city will get a lower share, with a portion of the property tax revenues going instead to the special district.

20.17 11
Property tax revenues among local governments are, of course, also dramatically affected by differences in the assessed value of properties among jurisdictions. A ten percent share in a community of average property values will result in less revenue than in a similar size wealthy bedroom community, or a community that also has a sizable business/industrial area.

Property Tax in Lieu of Vehicle License Fee
In addition to their regular apportionment of property taxes, cities and counties receive property tax revenues in lieu of Vehicle License Fees (VLF). In 2004, the Legislature permanently reduced the VLF rate from two percent to 0.65 percent and compensated cities and counties for their revenue loss with a like amount of property taxes, dollar-for-dollar.

Each agency’s property tax in lieu of VLF allocation increases annually in proportion to the growth in gross assessed valuation in that city or county.

What is “ERAF?”
The property tax revenues
received by school districts
in each county include
amounts from the county
“Educational Revenue
Augmentation Fund”
(ERAF) created by the
California Legislature in
1991 as a way to reduce
state general fund spending
on schools. These funds
receive some property tax
that was previously
allocated to counties, cities
and special districts.

Since 2004, California’s
Constitution has prohibited
the Legislature from
increasing the amount of
property tax shifted from
counties, cities and special
districts to ERAF or similar
schemes. The state
Constitution requires a twothirds vote of the Legislature to change the allocation of
property tax among the
county, cities and special
districts within a county.

20.18 12

SALES AND USE TAXES
Consumers are familiar with the experience of going to a store, buying something and having an amount added for sales tax.

Services are generally exempt from the sales tax as well as certain items, like most groceries and medicine. The sales tax is assessed as a percentage of the amount purchased.

The “base” statewide sales tax rate of 7.25 percent includes amounts to:
• The state general fund (3.9375 percent),v

• County realignment programs (state health/ welfare and corrections / law enforcement programs shifted from the state, 1.5625 percent),
• Supplemental local law enforcement grants (0.50 percent),vi • Transportation programs in the county where the transaction occurs (0.25 percent), and
• The city where the transaction occurs (1.00 percent).vii If the transaction occurs in an unincorporated area, the 1.00 percent amount goes to the county.

Cities, counties and countywide transportation agencies may impose sales tax rates to be added on to the “base” statewide sales and use tax rate. The add-on rates are actually “transactions and use taxes” and are allocated to the jurisdiction where the taxed product is received or registered (as in the case of a motor vehicle purchase). Over 120 cities have enacted transaction and use taxes of up to one percent, most commonly with majority voter approval for general purposes. Many counties and county transportation agencies have enacted rates, most commonly with two-thirds vote for specific purposes. Under current state law, the maximum combination of transactions and use tax rates in any location may not exceed two percent.viii
State Sales and Use
Tax Administration
The State Board of
Equalization collects local
sales and use tax revenues
from the retailer and sends
revenue from local rates and
allocations back to cities and
counties. In addition to
administering the sales and
use tax system, the State
Board of Equalization collects
and allocates other state
taxes including fuel, tobacco
and alcohol taxes.

The “Use Tax” Part of
the Sales and Use Tax
California’s sales tax has a
relative called the “use tax.”
While the sales tax is
imposed on the seller, the use
tax is imposed on the
purchaser and at the same
rate as the sales tax. The
most common example of use
tax is for the purchase of
goods from an out-of-state
retailer for use in California.

Out-of-state retailers doing
business in California are
required to report to the State
Board of Equalization the
jurisdiction to which sold
items are delivered. If the
retailer has a physical
presence (nexus) in
California, they must collect
use tax when goods are
delivered to purchasers in this
state. If the seller does not
collect and remit the use tax,
the purchaser is legally
obligated to report and pay.

20.19 13
Business License Tax (BLT)
Most cities and a few counties have enacted business license taxes. Business license tax rates are set individually by each city and county most commonly based on gross receipts (overall business revenue) or levied at a flat rate, but may be based on the quantity of goods produced, number of employees, number of vehicles, square footage of the business or some combination of factors.

If a business operates in more than one city, a city may only tax that portion of the business’s activities conducted within the city. In most cases, business license taxes are not imposed for regulatory purposes (as the term “license” might imply) but to raise revenues for general municipal purposes (i.e. a tax). If imposed as a fee to pay for the cost of regulating the business, the fee may not exceed the reasonable cost of regulating the business. (See “regulatory fees.”) Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) or Hotel Bed Tax
Most cities and some counties impose a transient occupancy tax or hotel bed tax on persons staying thirty days or less in hotels, motels and similar lodgings, including mobile homes. A county may impose a transient occupancy taxes only in the county area outside city limits. Typically, the lodging provider collects the tax from guests and turns the funds over to the county or city.

Transient occupancy taxes are imposed by most cities and counties and range from three and a half percent to 15 percent. For cities with a transient occupancy tax, it provides seven percent of general revenues on average, and as much as 17 percent in some cities. Any increase or extension of a local tax requires voter approval.

Utility User Tax (UUT)
Many cities impose utility user taxes on the consumption of utility services, including (but not limited to) electricity, gas, water, sewer, telephone (including mobile phone and long distance), sanitation and cable television. Counties may levy utility user taxes in county area outside city limits. Any increase or extension of a local tax requires voter approval.

Utility companies usually collect utility user's taxes from their customers as part of their regular billing procedures and remit the funds collected to the city or county which imposed the tax.

Over 150 cities and a few counties levy utility user rates varying from one to 11 percent. For those jurisdictions with utility user taxes, it provides an average of 15 percent of general revenue and often as much as 22 percent.

Parcel Tax
A parcel tax is a special tax on a parcel – or unit – of real property. Unlike the property tax, a parcel tax may not be based on the value of property. Instead, parcel taxes are generally based on a flat per-parcel rate.

A parcel tax may be enacted, increased or extended by a city, county, special district or school district only with two-thirds voter approval, even for general purposes.

Documentary Transfer Taxes and Property Transfer Taxes
A documentary transfer tax is a tax imposed on the transfer of interests in real estate. Counties tax at a rate of 55 cents per $500 of the property’s value. Cities may impose the tax at up to one half of that amount, which is credited to the payment of the county tax. The Constitution allows charter citiesix to

20.20 14
enact a property transfer tax, with voter approval, on the value of real estate that is sold. In these cases, the entire county documentary transfer tax rate goes to the county. All cities and counties in California have documentary transfer taxes or property transfer taxes.

Other Taxes
A city or county may impose other types of taxes within the limitations of and if not prohibited by state law. These include: admissions taxes, parking taxes, construction/development taxes, local vehicle registration taxes.

20.21 15

SERVICE CHARGES, ASSESSMENTS AND FEES
Utility Rates
Utility rates are fees for utility services charged to users who pay for special district, county or city provided water, sewer, electric or other utility services. Utility rates cover some or all of the cost of providing the service, which may include operations, maintenance, overhead, capital improvements and debt service.

Utility rates for water, sewer services and certain other utilities belong to a special category of fees called a “property-related fees.” A local government must follow certain specific procedures to impose, extend or increase a property-related fee.

To impose a property-related fee, the agency must first hold a public hearing. At the hearing, a majority of affected property owners can prevent the fee’s adoption by filing written protests. If a majority of affected property owners do not protest the fee and the fees pays for sewer, water or refuse collection, then an election is not required and the governing body may approve the fee.

Other property-related fees require approval, either of two-thirds of the electorate residing in the affected area or of a majority of the owners of the property who would pay the fee.

Benefit Assessments
Assessments are charges by cities, counties or special districts on real property to pay for public facilities or services within an area which benefit either real property or businesses. A common type of assessment is one used to pay for landscaping and lighting in a neighborhood. The amount of the assessment must reflect the special benefit to the property that results from the improvements.

Assessments on property are typically collected through the owner’s annual property tax bill.

A local government must follow certain specific procedures to impose benefit assessments. When a local agency considers an assessment, a majority of property owners may defeat the assessment in a public hearing procedure. If the proposed assessment is not defeated in a public hearing procedure, then a majority of the property owners subject to the charge must approve the assessment by a mailed ballot. The property owners’ votes are weighted according to how much their property will be charged.

User Fees
A city, county or special district may impose fees, charges and rates for services and facilities it provides. Examples include fees for checking plans for new construction or for recreation classes. The amount of a fee may not exceed the cost of providing the service or granting a benefit or privilege. This cost may include overhead, capital improvements and debt service.

Regulatory Fees
Regulatory fees pay for the cost of issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections and audits and the administrative enforcement of these activities. Examples include a fee to pay for the cost of processing pesticide license applications or a fee to inspect restaurants for health and safety compliance.

20.22 16
Development Impact Fees
Development impact fees are imposed on new construction (like new houses, apartments, shopping centers or industrial plants). They pay for improvements and facilities required to serve new development and to reduce the impacts of new development on a community.

Development impact fees (also known as “AB 1600 fees” after legislation adopted that governs such fees) pay for community amenities such as streets, sewers, parks and schools. They may not be used for day-to-day operating expenses.

The ordinance or resolution establishing the fee must explain the connection between the development project and fee. For example, a library impact fee must be connected to the demand for library services created by the construction of the development project.

The amount of the fee must not exceed the cost of providing the service or improvement that the fee pays for.

Local Debt Financing Tools
Local governments borrow money to pay for land, facilities and equipment that may require more funding than current revenues provide. Not a revenue source, but a way to leverage the timing of revenues, debt financing methods are important tools in government finance. Local governments may issue bonds and other debt instruments to finance improvements and services. These loans are paid off through taxes, assessments or fees. A variety of debt financing tools are available:
• General Obligation Bonds. General
obligation bonds are essentially IOUs
issued by public entities to finance large
projects. General obligation bonds are
backed by property tax revenue, which is
used to repay the bond over a twenty- to
thirty-year period. Increasing the property
tax to repay the debt requires two-thirds
voter approval and may only be done to
acquire or improve real property.
• Lease-Purchase Agreements. In a leasepurchase agreement, sometimes called “certificates of participation,” the agency
leases an asset for a period of years with
the option to purchase the land or
improvement at the end of the lease. The
amount of the lease is equivalent to the
principal and interest that would be paid if
the transaction were financed as a loan.
• Benefit Assessment and Special Tax
Financing. Benefit assessment financing is
supported by benefit assessments on the
property to fund acquisition of property and
improvement of infrastructure and additional
facilities of benefit to the property that is
charged. Similarly special taxes, such as MelloRoos taxes, may be financed with bonds to provide public improvements.
• Revenue Bonds. Revenue bonds are issued
to acquire, construct or expand public projects
for which fees, charges or admissions are
charged. Because the debt service is paid from
income generated by the facility or related
service, such debt is considered self-liquidating
and generally does not constitute debt of the
issuer, subject to constitutional debt limitations.
• Tax Allocation (Tax Increment). Tax
allocation bonds (sometimes referred to as taxincrement financing) are issued by Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts or Community
Revitalization and Investment Authorities and
repaid from the growth in property tax revenue
(i.e., tax increment) and other designated
revenues over a certain period, largely as a
result of the funded projects in the area.

20.23 17

REVENUES FROM OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Counties, cities and many special districts also receive revenues from the state and federal government. For example, over half of county revenues statewide come from state and federal sources. This reflects the role of counties in implementing state policy and programs for health and human services.

Gas Tax or Highway Users Tax
The state imposes per gallon tax on gasoline of 27.8 cents as of July 1, 2016. These funds are apportioned to cities and counties, primarily on the basis of their populations. Local gas tax revenues must be spent on research, planning, construction, improvement and maintenance of public streets, highways and mass transit. The federal government’s 18.4 cents per gallon rate pays primarily for federal highways with some local grants.

Motor Vehicle License Fee (VLF)
The Motor Vehicle License Fee is a state imposed and collected tax on ownership of a registered vehicle. Counties receive vehicle license fee revenues to fund certain health, social service and public safety programs that were realigned to counties in 1991 and 2011.

State Public Safety Sales Tax
Proposition 172, a ballot measure approved in 1993, imposed a one-half percent state sales tax to be used for local public safety activities. The state distributes Proposition 172 revenues to each county based on its proportionate share of statewide taxable sales. Many cities receive a share of those funds based on losses to the state’s ERAF property tax diversions.

State Mandate Reimbursement
The state constitution requires the Legislature to reimburse local governments for their costs to implement a state-mandated new program or higher level of service in an existing program. The Constitution requires the Legislature to suspend most state mandates in any year in which full funding is not provided for that mandate. The Commission on State Mandates determines the level of reimbursement in response to a claim for reimbursement filed by a local agency. The process typically takes several years during which time, local governments must spend money to comply with the mandate.

Federal and State Grants and Aid
The federal and state governments provide a wide variety of funds to counties, and a more limited set to cities and special districts. Federal and state grants comprise a large proportion of county revenues because of the many programs and responsibilities counties carry out on behalf of the federal and state governments. These funds are almost entirely restricted to specified uses. Examples include certain health, mental health, social and child welfare services.

20.24 18
Categorical grants support a defined program area. Categorical grants typically go to local agencies that either meet predetermined funding criteria or compete for project funding through an application process.

Block grants provide funding to a broad functional area. For example, federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds support local housing and economic development activities.

RENT FOR USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
Rents, Royalties and Concessions
Another way cities and counties and some special districts pay for public services is to charge rent for use of the public’s property. An example is royalties from natural resources taken from land the public owns. Others include selling advertisements in publications or on buses, as well as, receiving a percentage of net profits from concessionaires operating on public property.

Franchise Fees
Franchise fees are a form of rent for use of public streets and roadways. Examples of businesses that pay franchise fees include trash collectors, cable television companies, electric utilities and oil and natural gas pipeline companies. Federal and state law limits the amount of some franchise fees (for example, video and cable television franchise fees). Franchise fees for provision of video services (like television programming) are limited and administered by the state.

FINES, FORFEITURES AND PENALTIES
Violations of the law often result in a fine of some kind. Fines, forfeitures and penalties may be imposed for many reasons. Typical examples include traffic violations, court fines, penalties and interest on late or unpaid taxes.
• State law determines the distribution of fines and bail forfeitures imposed by the state.
• State law apportions revenues for parking violations and surcharges between issuing agencies and the counties.
• A city or county may impose fines, forfeitures and penalties for civil violation of local ordinances.
• Bail for local code violations
charged criminally is established
by the local courts with input from the city or county.

Maintenance of Effort
Requirements (MOE)
When cities and counties
receive funding for programs
from the state or federal
government, such funding
may come with strings
attached. A common
condition is that the city or
county commit to a certain
level of funding. This
commitment is called
“maintenance of effort.”
Local agencies also receive
reimbursement for revenue
lost as a result of some tax
exemptions and reductions.

An example includes the
homeowners’ property tax
exemption, which eliminates
the property tax on a small
portion of the assessed
valuation of owner- occupied
residential property.

20.25 19

OTHER REVENUES
There are other local government revenues, comparatively minor in amounts. These include interest earned on investments, sales of surplus property and gifts.

20.26 20.27

20.28 20.29

20.30 20.31
CaliforniaCityFinance.Com
Local Revenue Measure Results
November 2020
There were over 400 measures on local
ballots in California for the November 3, 2020
election including 260 local tax and bond
measures.

Over half of these measures (146) were
proposed by or for cities. There were also
16 county, 25 special district and 73
school tax or bond measures. In prior
elections, typically about one-third of
measures were majority vote general taxes,
one-third were special taxes, and one third 55
percent school bonds. But in this election
there was a notably higher proportion of
majority vote general tax measures and most
passed. These include a record 71 measures
to increase local sales taxes, 20 lodging
occupancy tax increases and 26 taxes on
cannabis.

There were five city, county and special
district general obligation bond measures
seeking a total of $1.9 billion in facility
improvements for affordable housing,
community pool improvements, a hospital,
and fire stations. There were 30 city,
county and special district parcel taxes,
including 20 for fire /emergency medical
response.

Among the school measures were 60
bond measures seeking a total of $13.4
billion in school facility improvement
funding, substantially fewer than in
November 2018 (112) or November 2016
(184). There were 13 measures to increase
or extend (renew) school parcel taxes
compared to 14 in 2018 and 22 in 2016.

Overall Passage Rates
After tallying nearly 18 million ballots, 198 of the 260 tax and bond measures passed. Local tax measures passed in similar proportions to prior general presidential and gubernatorial elections in California, with the exception that majority vote general purpose taxes from cities and counties fared somewhat better than in past elections.

Schools
Cities, counties,
special districts
Schools
Special Districts
Counties
Cities
December 5, 2020 Final

20.32 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2020 – 2 – December 5, 2020 Final CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Measure Outcome by Category
The common tax measure in this election was a majority vote general purpose transactions and use tax (sales tax) and there were more sales taxes approved than any other type. Sixty of the 71 general sales tax measures passed.

Passing and Failing Measures by Type November 2020.

Local Revenue Measures November 2020
Total Pass Passing%
City General Tax (Majority Vote) 132 108 82%
County General Tax (Majority Vote) 8 8 100%
City SpecialTax or G.O.bond (2/3 Vote) 14 6 43%
County Spec.Tax, G.O.bond (2/3 Vote) 8 5 63%
Special District (2/3 vote) 25 13 52%
School ParcelTax 2/3 13 10 77%
School Bond 55% 60 48 80%
Total 260 198 76%

20.33 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2020 – 3 – December 5, 2020 Final CaliforniaCityFinance.com
School Measures
There were 60 school bond measures this election, all requiring 55% voter approval. Overall, statewide, school bond measures succeeded similarly to the average passage rate since 2001: about 4 out of 5 pass. Voters this election approved $12.168 billion of school bonds of the $13.83 billion requested including a $7 billion measure in the Los Angeles Unified School District.

School Tax and Bond Measures - November 2020.
.

School Bonds 
69% (10/13)
78% (48/60)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2/3 Vote
Parcel Tax,
Bond
55% Vote
Bond
Percent Passing
Since 2001 84%
Since 2001 62%
School District County Measure AmountTax Rate YES% NO%
Inglewood Unified School District Los Angeles Measure I $240m $60/$100k 79.9% 20.1% PASS Oakland Unified School District Alameda Measure Y $735m $60/$100k 77.7% 22.4% PASS Sausalito Marin City School DistricMarin Measure P $41.6m $30/$100k 72.8% 27.3% PASS Calexico Unified School District Imperial Measure Q $47m $60/$100k 71.5% 28.5% PASS Goleta Union School District Santa Barbara Measure M $80m $19/$100k 71.5% 28.6% PASS Los Angeles Unified School DistricLos Angeles Measure RR $7billion $22/$100k 71.2% 28.8% PASS Greenfield Union School District Kern Measure G $21m $30/$100k 68.0% 32.0% PASS Bassett Unified School District Los Angeles Measure BB $50m $60/$100k 66.9% 33.1% PASS Whittier Union High School DistricLos Angeles Measure AA $183.5m $30/$100k 66.2% 33.8% PASS Riverdale Unified School District Fresno / Kings Measure J $25.9m $60/$100k 65.3% 34.7% PASS Vallecito Unified School District Calaveras Measure I $2.8m $10/$100k 65.2% 34.8% PASS Mt Pleasant Elementary School DisSanta Clara Measure Q $12m $30/$100k 64.8% 35.2% PASS Jefferson Union High School DistriSan Mateo Measure Z $163m $30/$100k 64.2% 35.8% PASS San Mateo-Foster City School DistSan Mateo Measure T $409m $30/$100k 64.0% 36.0% PASS River Delta Unified School
District SFID #1
Sacramento /
Solano
Measure J $45.7m $60/$100k 63.8% 36.2% PASS
River Delta Unified School
District SFID #2
Sacramento /
Solano / Yolo
Measure K $14.6m $60/$100k 63.6% 36.4% PASS
Siskiyou Union High School DistricSiskiyou Measure K $3m $8/$100k 63.5% 36.5% PASS La Mesa - Spring Valley School DisSan Diego Measure V $136m $24/$100k 63.3% 36.7% PASS Monterey Peninsula Community CoMonterey Measure V $230m $18/$100k 62.9% 37.1% PASS Pasadena Unified School District Los Angeles Measure O $516.3m $45/$100k 62.9% 37.1% PASS SS

20.34 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2020 – 4 – December 5, 2020 Final CaliforniaCityFinance.com
* Waterford Unified School District’s Measure T failed by just 6 votes.

School Bond Measures continued
School District County Measure Bond Amount Tax Rate YES% Cambrian School District Santa Clara Measure R $88m $30/$100k 62.4% 37.6% PASS Shandon Joint Unified School Monterey / SLO Measure H $4m $40/$100k 62.2% 37.8% PASS Gonzales Unified School District (HMonterey Measure K $37m $60/$100k 61.5% 38.5% PASS Woodland Joint Unified School DisYolo / Sutter Measure Y $44.2m $24/$100k 61.3% 38.7% PASS Stanislaus Union School District Stanislaus Measure Y $21.4m $30/$100k 61.3% 38.7% PASS Oceanside Unified School District San Diego Measure W $160m $30/$100k 61.2% 38.8% PASS Winters Joint Unified School DistriYolo / Solano Measure W $19m $49/$100k 61.1% 38.9% PASS Washington Unified School DistricYolo Measure Z $150m $60/$100k 60.8% 39.2% PASS Salinas Union High School District Monterey Measure W $140m $30/$100k 60.7% 39.3% PASS Soledad Unified School District Monterey Measure N $13.75m $26/$100k 60.6% 39.4% PASS Ojai Unified School District Ventura Measure K $45m $27/$100k 60.5% 39.5% PASS South Bay Union School District Humboldt Measure D $5m $30/$100k 60.3% 39.7% PASS Clovis Unified School District Fresno Measure A $335m $60/$100k 60.3% 39.7% PASS Central Unified School District Fresno Measure D $120m $60/$100k 60.1% 39.9% PASS Willits Unified School District Mendocino Measure I $17m $40/$100k 60.0% 40.0% PASS Le Grand Union High School DistriMerced Measure S $6m $29/$100k 60.0% 40.1% PASS Newman-Crows Landing Unified ScStanislaus Measure X $25.8m $48/$100k 59.9% 40.1% PASS Aromas San Juan Unified School
District
Monterey / San
Benito / S.Cruz
Measure O $30.5m $51/$100k 59.8% 40.2% PASS
Washington Unified School DistricFresno Measure K $46m $60/$100k 59.5% 40.5% PASS Sunnyside Union Elementary Scho Tulare Measure O $2m $30/$100k 59.1% 40.9% PASS Gonzales Unified School District (EMonterey Measure J $24.5m $60/$100k 58.2% 41.8% PASS Sanger Unified School District Fresno Measure C $150m $60/$100k 57.9% 42.1% PASS Citrus Community College Los Angeles Measure Y $298m $25/$100k 57.4% 42.6% PASS Manteca Unified School District San Joaquin Measure A $260m $45/$100k 57.4% 42.6% PASS Duarte Unified School District Los Angeles Measure S $79m $50/$100k 57.1% 42.9% PASS Salida Union School District Stanislaus Measure U $9.24m $20/$100k 56.2% 43.8% PASS Evergreen Elementary School DistrSanta Clara Measure P $80m $30/$100k 56.2% 43.8% PASS San MiguelJoint Union School Monterey / SLO Measure I $6.2m $30/$100k 55.1% 44.9% PASS Waterford Unified School District Stanislaus Measure T $5.35m $30/$100k 55.0% 45.0% FAIL Atascadero Unified School DistrictSan Luis Obispo Measure C $40m $50/$100k 54.4% 45.6% FAIL Romoland School District Riverside Measure P $39m $30/$100k 53.5% 46.5% FAIL Cajon Valley Union High School D San Diego Measure T $125m $13/$100k 53.3% 46.7% FAIL Scotts Valley Unified School Distri Santa Cruz Measure A $49m $32/$100k 52.9% 47.2% FAIL San Jose - Evergreen CCD Santa Clara Measure J $858m $17.5/$100k 52.7% 47.3% FAIL Esparto Unified School District Yolo Measure X $19.9m $60/$100k 52.5% 47.6% FAIL Cold Spring Elementary School Dis Santa Barbara Measure L $7.8m $13/$100k 52.2% 47.8% FAIL Calaveras Unified School District Calaveras Measure H $32.8m $10/$100k 51.1% 48.9% FAIL Wasco Union School District Kern Measure H $16m $30/$100k 48.5% 51.5% FAIL Maricopa Unified School District Kern Measure F $14m $50/$100k 47.2% 52.8% FAIL Dehesa School District San Diego Measure U $3.1m $30/$100k 37.7% 62.3% FAIL *

20.35 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2020 – 5 – December 5, 2020 Final CaliforniaCityFinance.com
School Bond Measures – November 2020.

20.36 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2020 – 6 – December 5, 2020 Final CaliforniaCityFinance.com
School Bond Measures – November 2020.

School Parcel Taxes 
There were just 13 school parcel tax measures. Parcel taxes require two-thirds voter approval and 10 passed. The Fort Ross School District measure pulled into the “pass” column with the ballots counted after election eve.

School Parcel Taxes (2/3 vote)
Agency Name County Rate Sunset YES% NO%
Shoreline Unified School District
Marin /
Sonoma
Measure L $212+/parcel 8yrs 79.4% 20.6% PASS
Palo Alto Unified School District Santa Clara Measure O $836+/parcel 6yrs 78.5% 21.5% PASS Sebastopol Union School District Sonoma Measure N $76/parcel 8yrs 74.8% 25.3% PASS San Francisco Unified School District San Francisco Proposition J from $320 per parcel to $288 per parcel 17.5 yrs 75.0% 25.0% PASS
Fremont Union High School District Santa Clara Measure M $98/parcel 8yrs 74.3% 25.7% PASS Tamalpais Union High School DistrictMarin Measure M $469+/parcel 9yrs 73.6% 26.4% PASS Mammoth Unified School District Mono Measure G $59/parcel 5yrs 73.6% 26.4% PASS Ventura Unified School District Ventura Measure H $59/parcel 4yrs 73.2% 26.8% PASS Franklin-Mckinley School District Santa Clara Measure K $72/parcel 5yrs 70.9% 29.1% PASS Fort Ross School District Sonoma Measure M $48/parcel 8yrs 67.3% 32.7% PASS Loma Prieta Joint Union Elementary
School District
Santa Clara /
Santa Cruz
Measure N $164/parcel 7yrs 64.6% 35.4% FAIL
Campbell Union High School District Santa Clara Measure L $85/parcel none 63.6% 36.4% FAIL San Jose - Evergreen CCD Santa Clara Measure I $18/parcel 9yrs 61.5% 38.5% FAIL

20.37 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2020 – 7 – December 5, 2020 Final CaliforniaCityFinance.com

School Parcel Taxes – November 2020

20.38 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2020 – 8 – December 5, 2020 Final CaliforniaCityFinance.com
City, County and Special District Measures
More non-school majority vote general tax measures passed than in prior years. Of the 140 majority vote tax measures, 116 (83%) passed. Most general purpose cannabis, sales, business license, property transfer and hotel occupancy taxes passed. The few utility user taxes did not fare as well. Among the two-thirds vote city, county and special district special tax and bond measures - about half - passed, similar to historic patterns.

Local Add-On Sales Taxes (Transaction and Use Taxes) 
Voters in 68 cities and three counties considered general purpose majority vote add-on sales tax rates ranging from 1/4 percent to 1 ½ percent. Sixty-one were approved including all those that extended without increase an existing sun-setting tax.
*The city of Beverly Hills ¾ rate may only take effect “if another local governmental entity seeks to increase the transaction and use tax (sales tax) in Beverly Hills.”
Transactions and Use Tax (Add-on Sales Tax) - General Tax - Majority Approval City County Measure Rate incr/ex Sunset YES% NO%
San Pablo Contra Costa Measure S
1/2c for
5yrs, then
5yrs at 1/4c
extend 10yrs 79.2% 20.8% PASS
Wheatland Yuba Measure O 1/2 cent extend 10yrs 78.3% 21.7% PASS Cotati Sonoma Measure S 1 cent extend none 74.5% 25.5% PASS Beverly Hills Los Angeles Measure RP 3/4 cent* increase none 74.1% 25.9% PASS Trinidad Humboldt Measure E 3/4 cent extend 4yrs 73.8% 26.2% PASS West Hollywood Los Angeles Measure E 3/4 cent increase none 73.6% 26.4% PASS Daly City San Mateo Measure Q 1/2 cent increase none 72.3% 27.7% PASS Bishop Inyo Measure P 1 cent increase none 72.3% 27.7% PASS Santa Rosa Sonoma Measure Q 1/2 cent extend 10yrs 71.8% 28.2% PASS Guadalupe Santa Barbara Measure N by 3/4c to 1c none 70.9% 29.1% PASS South El Monte Los Angeles Measure ES 1/4 cent increase none 70.6% 29.4% PASS Imperial Beach San Diego Measure I 1 cent increase none 70.2% 29.8% PASS Exeter Tulare Measure P 1 cent increase none 69.8% 30.2% PASS Fortuna Humboldt Measure G 3/4 cent extend 8yrs 69.7% 30.3% PASS Commerce Los Angeles Measure VS 1/4 cent increase none 69.5% 30.5% PASS SS
City, County, Special District Tax and Bond Measures – November 2020 51% (24/47)
83% (116/140)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Special Tax 2/3
Voter Measures
General Tax
Majority Vote
Measures
Percent Passing
Since 2001
73%
Since 2001 48%

20.39 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2020 – 9 – December 5, 2020 Final CaliforniaCityFinance.com
San Jacinto Riverside Measure V 1 cent increase none 69.5% 30.5% PASS Sonoma Sonoma Measure V 1/2 cent extend none 68.9% 31.1% PASS Montclair San Bernardino Measure L 1 cent increase none 68.8% 31.2% PASS Willits Mendocino Measure K 3/4 cent increase 10yrs 68.1% 31.9% PASS Eureka Humboldt Measure H 1 1/4 cent increase none 67.3% 32.7% PASS Bellflower Los Angeles Measure M 3/4 cent increase none 66.9% 33.1% PASS Isleton Sacramento Measure L 1/2 cent extend 5yrs 66.7% 33.3% PASS Woodland Yolo Measure R 1/4 cent extend 10yrs 65.4% 34.6% PASS Crescent City Del Norte Measure S 1 cent increase none 64.5% 35.5% PASS South Lake Tahoe El Dorado Measure S 1 cent increase none 64.4% 35.6% PASS Bell Gardens Los Angeles Measure A 3/4 cent increase none 64.3% 35.7% PASS Lake Elsinor Riverside Measure Z 1 cent increase none 64.0% 36.0% PASS Rio Vista Solano Measure O 3/4 cent extend 5yrs 62.8% 37.2% PASS San Rafael Marin Measure R 1/4 cent increase 9yrs 62.2% 37.8% PASS Pacific Grove Monterey Measure L by 1/2c to 1
1/2c increase none 62.1% 37.9% PASS
Healdsburg Sonoma Measure T 1/2 cent extend none 62.0% 38.0% PASS Lomita Los Angeles Measure L 3/4 cent increase none 61.3% 38.7% PASS Greenfield Monterey Measure T 3/4 cent extend 6yrs 61.2% 38.8% PASS Milpitas Santa Clara Measure F 1/4 cent increase 8yrs 60.9% 39.1% PASS Petaluma Sonoma Measure U 1 cent increase none 60.8% 39.2% PASS Soledad Monterey Measure S 1/2 cent increase none 60.3% 39.7% PASS Orinda Contra Costa Measure R by 1/2 cent
to 1 c
increase 20yrs 58.7% 41.3% PASS
Atascadero San Luis ObispoMeasure D 1 cent increase none 58.6% 41.4% PASS Morro Bay San Luis ObispoMeasure E 1 cent increase none 58.6% 41.5% PASS Palmdale Los Angeles Measure AV 3/4 cent increase none 58.5% 41.5% PASS County of Contra Costa Measure X 1/2 cent increase 20yrs 58.5% 41.6% PASS San Luis Obispo San Luis ObispoMeasure G by 1c to 1
1/2 c
increase none 58.2% 41.8% PASS
San Fernando Los Angeles Measure SF by 1/4c to
3/4c
increase none 58.0% 42.0% PASS
Redlands San Bernardino Measure T 1 cent increase none 57.4% 42.7% PASS San Bernardino San Bernardino Measure S by 3/4c to 1c increase none 56.7% 43.3% PASS Turlock Stanislaus Measure A 3/4 cent increase none 56.7% 43.3% PASS El Paso de Robles San Luis ObispoMeasure J 1 cent increase 12yrs 56.6% 43.4% PASS Gonzales Monterey Measure X by 1/2c to 1
cent
increase 20yrs 54.6% 45.4% PASS
Carson Los Angeles Measure K 3/4 cent increase none 54.0% 46.0% PASS Oxnard Ventura Measure E 1 1/2 cents increase none 53.9% 46.1% PASS Lancaster Los Angeles Measure LC 3/4 cent increase none 53.2% 46.8% PASS Signal Hill Los Angeles Measure R 3/4 cent increase none 53.2% 46.9% PASS Rancho Cordova Sacramento Measure R 1/2 cent increase none 52.8% 47.2% PASS Grover Beach San Luis ObispoMeasure F 1 cent increase none 52.7% 47.3% PASS Corona Riverside Measure X 1 cent increase none 51.4% 48.6% PASS Los Alamitos Orange Measure Y 1 1/2 cent increase none 51.0% 49.1% PASS Concord Contra Costa Measure V by 1/2 cent
to 1 c increase none 50.5% 49.5% PASS

20.40 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2020 – 10 – December 5, 2020 Final CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Transactions and Use Tax Measures – General Purpose
County of Del Norte UNINC Measure R 1 cent increase none 50.2% 49.8% PASS Victorville San Bernardino Measure P 1 cent increase none 50.2% 49.8% PASS County of Alameda Measure W 1/2 cent increase 10yrs 50.1% 49.9% PASS Vallejo Solano Measure G 3/4 cent increase none 49.4% 50.6% FAIL Weed Siskiyou Measure M 1/4 cent increase none 49.3% 50.7% FAIL Manteca San Joaquin Measure Z 1 cent increase none 47.6% 52.4% FAIL Citrus Heights Sacramento Measure M 1 cent increase none 47.5% 52.5% FAIL Auburn Placer Measure S 1 cent increase 7yrs 47.4% 52.6% FAIL Sand City Monterey Measure U by 1/2c to 1
1/2c increase none 45.2% 54.8% FAIL
Fullerton Orange Measure S 1 1/4 cent increase none 43.8% 56.2% FAIL Williams Colusa Measure B by 1/2 cent
to 1 c
increase none 42.6% 57.5% FAIL
Dunsmuir Siskiyou Measure H 1 1/2 cents increase none 39.8% 60.2% FAIL Apple Valley San Bernardino Measure O 1 cent increase none 33.7% 66.3% FAIL Diamond Bar Los Angeles Measure DB 3/4 cent increase none 33.5% 66.5% FAIL

20.41 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2020 – 11 – December 5, 2020 Final CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Transactions and Use Tax Measures – General Purpose – November 2020

20.42 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2020 – 12 – December 5, 2020 Final CaliforniaCityFinance.com
There were eight add-on sales tax measures earmarked for specific purposes including two extensions of previously approved rates three countywide measures for transportation improvements.

Voters in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties approved a 1/8 percent tax for CalTrain.

Four measures, all in more rural locations, could not achieve the two-thirds vote threshold required for special tax increases.

Transactions and Use Tax Measures – Special Purpose
Transactions and Use Tax (Add-on Sales Tax) - Special Tax - Two-Thirds Approval Agency Name County Rate Sunset Use YES% NO%
Nevada City Nevada Measure M 1/2 cent extend none streets 88.1% 12.0% PASS Sonoma County
Transportation Sonoma Measure DD 1/4 cent extend 20yrs transportation 72.0% 28.0% PASS Penninsula
Corridor JPA
(CalTrain)
San Francisco
/ San Mateo /
Santa Clara
Measure RR 1/8 cent increase 30 yr rail 70.4% 29.6% PASS County of Sonoma Measure O 1/4 cent increase 10yrs aff housing / homeless 68.1% 31.9% PASS County of Mariposa Measure 1 cent increase none hospital/ems 64.4% 35.6% FAIL Willows Glenn Measure H 3/4 cent increase none fire/ems 57.7% 42.3% FAIL County of Trinity Measure K 1/2 cent increase Sherriff/DA/Probation 51.2% 48.8% FAIL Lemoore Kings Measure K 1 cent increase 7yrs police/fire 47.7% 52.3% FAIL

20.43 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2020 – 13 – December 5, 2020 Final CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Transient Occupancy (Lodging) Taxes 
There were 22 measures to increase Transient Occupancy (Lodging) Taxes (TOT), including 20 for general purposes (majority approval) and two two-thirds vote special taxes. The small central valley towns of Farmersville and Tulelake, among the few cities in California not to have a TOT, failed in their proposals for new taxes.

Admissions Tax 
Voters in the island city of Avalon approved a $2 per passenger surcharge on visitors with the proceeds to go to their hospital.

Transient Occupancy Tax Tax Measures - Majority Vote General Use Agency NameCounty Rate YES% NO%
Truckee Nevada Measure K by 2% to 12% 84.5% 15.5% PASS
Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo Measure B by1%to11% 80.8% 19.2% PASS Novato Marin Measure Q by 2% to 12% 77.1% 22.9% PASS
San Mateo San Mateo Measure W by 2% to 14% 76.1% 23.9% PASS Santa Clara Santa Clara Measure E by 4% to 13.5% 75.1% 24.9% PASS Half Moon Bay San Mateo Measure U by 3%to 15% 74.0% 26.0% PASS Monterey Monterey Measure Y by 2% to 12% 73.2% 26.8% PASS San Bruno San Mateo Measure X by 2% to 14% 72.6% 27.4% PASS Hayward Alameda Measure NN by5.5%to14% 72.2% 27.8% PASS Chino Hills San Bernardino Measure M by 2% to 12% 64.9% 35.1% PASS Malibu Los Angeles Measure T by3%to15% 59.2% 40.8% PASS Sutter Creek Amador Measure B by 2%to12% 58.4% 41.6% PASS Sonora Tuolumne Measure T by 2% to 12% 56.8% 43.2% PASS County of Tuolumne Measure U by 2% to 12% 54.2% 45.8% PASS Farmersville Tulare Measure Q 10% new 49.0% 51.0% FAIL
Porterville Tulare Measure S by 4% to 12% 47.5% 52.6% FAIL Pico Rivera Los Angeles Measure TT by5%to15% 42.8% 57.2% FAIL Tulelake Siskiyou Measure O 8% new 34.5% 65.5% FAIL
Transient Occupancy Tax Tax Measures: Two-thirds Vote Special Purpose City County Measure Rate Sunset Use YES% NO% Pass/F
County of Sierra Sierra Measure E by3.5%to12.5% none fire/ems 74.4% 25.6% PASS East Palo Alto San Mateo Measure V by 2% to 14% none affd housing 63.0% 37.0% FAIL Admissions Tax - Special - Two-thirds Approval
Agency County Rate Sunset Use YES% NO%
Avalon Los Angeles Measure H $2/passenger none Hospital 72.1% 27.9% PASS

20.44 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2020 – 14 – December 5, 2020 Final CaliforniaCityFinance.com

Transient Occupancy (Lodging) Tax Measures- November 2020.

20.45 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2020 – 15 – December 5, 2020 Final CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Cannabis – Local Excise Taxes 
There were 27 measures taxing cannabis, all majority general purpose except in San Joaquin County where the tax increase was earmarked for “early childhood education and youth programs, including literacy, gang reduction, after-school programs, and drug prevention, with emphasis on children facing the greatest disparities, and promoting public health, homeless mitigation, and enforcing cannabis laws.” That measure is failing narrowly.
*An initiative measure legalizing cannabis businesses in Solana Beach would have “authorized” a

1.5 percent “sales tax.” As structured in the citizen drafted initiative, the tax would have been illegal and could not have been implemented. It is not included here. The measure failed.

Cannabis Taxes - Majority Vote General Purpose
Agency Name County Rate YES% NO%
Sonoma Sonoma Measure X 4%grossRcpts 77.8% 22.2% PASS
County of Trinity INIT Measure G 2.5%grossRcpts 72.0% 28.0% PASS Lemon Grove San DiegoMeasure J 8%grossRcpts 71.9% 28.1% PASS San Buenaventura Ventura Measure I 8%grossRcpts 71.9% 28.2% PASS King City Monterey Measure P 5%grossRcpts 71.4% 28.6% PASS La Habra OrangeMeasure W to6%grossRcpts 70.5% 29.5% PASS Ojai Ventura Measure G 3%grossRcpts 69.2% 30.8% PASS
Banning Riverside Measure L 10%grossRcpts 68.6% 31.4% PASS Artesia Los Angeles Measure Q 15%grossRcpts 67.5% 32.5% PASS Madera Madera Measure R 6%grossRcpts 67.0% 33.0% PASS
Fairfield Solano Measure C 6%grossRcpts 66.6% 33.4% PASS Costa Mesa OrangeMeasure Q 4%to7%grossRcp 66.0% 34.0% PASS Vacaville Solano Measure V 6%grossRcpts 65.6% 34.4% PASS San Bruno San Mateo Measure S 10%grossRcpts 64.1% 35.9% PASS County of Calaveras Measure G 4%to7%grossRcp 64.1% 35.9% PASS Hawthorne Los Angeles Measure CC 5%grossRcpts 63.7% 36.3% PASS Marysville Yuba Measure N 6%grossRcpts 63.4% 36.6% PASS Tracy San Joaquin Measure W 6%grossRcpts 63.3% 36.8% PASS Calabasas Los Angeles Measure C 10%grossRcpts 63.0% 37.0% PASS Oceanside San DiegoMeasure M 6%grossRcpts 61.8% 38.2% PASS Grass Valley Nevada Measure N 8%grossRcpts 60.3% 39.7% PASS Porterville Tulare Measure R 10%grossRcpts 59.1% 40.9% PASS Waterford Stanislaus Measure S 15%grossRcpts 58.6% 41.4% PASS County of Ventura Measure O 4%grossRcpts 57.2% 42.8% PASS Jurupa Valley INIT Riverside Measure U 6%grossRcpts 48.5% 51.5% FAIL Yountville NapaMeasure T 3%grossRcpts 32.8% 67.2% FAIL
Cannabis Taxes - Two-Thirds Vote Special Purpose
Agency Name County Rate YES% NO%
County of San Joaquin Uninc Measure X 3.5to8%grossRcpt 64.6% 35.4% FAIL

20.46 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2020 – 16 – December 5, 2020 Final CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Cannabis Tax Measures – November 2020

20.47 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2020 – 17 – December 5, 2020 Final CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Business Operations Taxes 
There were seven business operations tax measures other than the cannabis tax measures, all majority vote. All but Lynwood’s unusual “for-profit hospital” tax passed.

Business Operations Tax Measures (other than on cannabis) - Majority Vote, General Use Agency County YES% NO%
San Jose Santa Clara Measure H 73.5% 26.5% PASS
Richmond Contra CostaMeasure U 72.5% 27.5% PASS
San Francisco Proposition F 68.3% 31.7% PASS
San Francisco Proposition L 65.2% 34.8% PASS
Berkeley Alameda Measure GG 58.8% 41.2% PASS
Long Beach Los AngelesMeasure US 58.5% 41.5% PASS
Lynwood Los AngelesMeasure LH 46.2% 53.8% FAIL
To protect, maintain and enhance vital public safety services, infrastructure needs including streets, utility maintenance, park and recreation services including programs for youth and seniors, and other essentialservices, shall the City of Lynwood impose a three percent (3% ) privilege tax on the gross receipts of for-profit hospitals operating within the City of Lynwood? All funds to be deposited in Lynwood general fund.

To fund general San José services, including fire protection, disaster preparedness, 911 emergency response, street repair, youth programs, addressing homelessness, and supporting vulnerable residents, shall an ordinance be adopted increasing the cardroom tax rate from 15% to 16.5%, applying the tax to third party providers at these rates: up to $25,000,000 at 5%; $25,000,001 to $30,000,000 at 7.5%; and over $30,000,000 at 10%, increasing card tables by 30, generating approximately $15,000,000 annually, until repealed? To maintain quality of life in Richmond by continuing certain City services, including 911 emergency response, pothole/street repair, homeless/youth services and other general services, shall an ordinance amending the City’s business tax to charge businesses 0.06% to 5.00% of gross receipts, and other rates as stated, with the highest rates on cannabis, firearm and the biggest businesses, providing approximately $9.5 million annually until ended by voters, be adopted? Shall the City eliminate the payroll expense tax; permanently increase the registration fee for some businesses by $230-460, decreasing it for others; permanently increase gross receipts tax rates to 0.105-1.040%, exempting more small businesses; permanently increase the administrative office tax rate to 1.61%; if the City loses certain lawsuits, increase gross receipts tax rates on some businesses by 0.175-0.690% and the administrative office tax rate by 1.5%, and place a new 1% or 3.5% tax on gross receipts from commercial leases, for 20 years; and make other business tax changes; for estimated annual revenue of $97 million? Shall the City place an additional tax permanently on some businesses in San Francisco when their highest-paid managerial employee earns more than 100 times the median compensation paidto their employees in San Francisco, where the additional tax rate would be between 0.1%-0.6% of gross receipts or between 0.4%-2.4% of payroll expense for those businesses in San Francisco, for an estimated revenue of between $60-140 million a year? Shall an ordinance enacting a tax on users of Transportation Network Companies for prearranged trips originating in Berkeley, at a rate of 50 cents per tripfor private trips and 25 cents per tripfor pooledtrips, regardless of the number of passengers on the trip, which is estimated to generate $910,000 annually for general municipalservices in the City of Berkeley untilJanuary 1, 2041, be adopted?
To provide funding for community healthcare services; air/water quality and climate change programs; increase childhood education/ youth programs; expand job training opportunities; and maintain other generalfund programs,shall a measure be adopted increasing Long Beach’s general oil production tax from 15¢ to maximum 30¢ per barrel, subject to annual adjustments, generating approximately $1,600,000 annually, until ended by voters, requiring audits/ local control of funds?

20.48 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2020 – 18 – December 5, 2020 Final CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Property Transfer Taxes 
Voters in six charter cities considered increasing their taxes on transfers of real estate. Voters in the wealthy enclave of Piedmont turned down their Measure TT.

Utility User Taxes 
Voters in ten cities and one county unincorporated area considered measures to increase or continue utility user taxes for general purposes.

Utility Transfer Taxes 
Voters in Pasadena authorized the continued transfer of 12% of annual revenue from their electric utility to support general fund services such as police, fire, paramedics and parks.

Property Transfer Taxes
City County Measure Na Rate YES% NO%
Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure SM by $3 to $6/$1k AVif <$5m AV 73.1% 26.9% PASS
San Francisco San Francisco Proposition I by 2.75%to5.5% for $10m- $25mAV, by3%to6% for

58.0% 42.0% PASS
Albany Alameda Measure CC by$3.50 to $15/$1000AV 57.9% 42.1% PASS San Leandro Alameda Measure VV by$5to $11/$1000AV 54.2% 45.8% PASS Culver City Los Angeles Measure RE 1.5% on $1.5m+, 3% on $3m+, 4% $10m+ 53.3% 46.7% PASS
Piedmont Alameda Measure TT by$4.50 to $17.50/$1000AV 47.8% 52.3% FAIL Utility User Taxes
City County Rate Sunset YES% NO%
South Pasadena Los Angeles Measure U 7.5% tele,electr,gas,video,wa extend none 77.3% 22.7% PASS Newark Alameda Measure PP 3.25% tele,electr,gas,video extend 9yrs 71.7% 28.3% PASS County of Alameda UNINC Measure V 6.5% tele, electr, gas extend to 6/30/2033 69.1% 30.9% PASS Albany Alameda Measure DD by 2.5%to9.5% electr, gas,

7.5% on water increase none 58.0% 42.0% PASS
Union City Alameda Measure WW 5% tele,electr,gas,video increase 8yrs 56.9% 43.1% PASS Cloverdale Sonoma Measure R 3% tele, electr, gas, video extend none 53.4% 46.6% PASS Hawthorne Los Angeles Measure UU by 2.5%to7.5%
tele,electr,gas,video,water increase none 47.8% 52.2% FAIL Berkeley Alameda Measure HH by 2.5%to10% electr,gas increase none 47.0% 53.0% FAIL Brawley Imperial Measure R 4% to video* expand 28.6% 71.4% FAIL Calipatria Imperial Measure T 5% tele, electr, gas, water, trash, sewer, catv increase none 24.8% 75.2% FAIL
Pomona INIT Los Angeles Measure PA by 0.75%to 9.75%
tele,elect,gas,video,water increase 14.6% 85.5% FAIL
Utility Transfer Taxes
City County Rate YES% NO%
Pasadena Los Angeles Measure P 12% of gross electric revenue extend 84.6% 15.4% PASS

20.49 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2020 – 19 – December 5, 2020 Final CaliforniaCityFinance.com
General Obligation Bonds 
There were five non-school general obligation bond measures totaling $1.9 billion. Four passed. In all, $1.0 billion in local non-school general obligation bonds were approved. The largest, San Diego’s $900 million measure for affordable and homeless housing failed.

Parcel Taxes – Non-School 
There were 30 parcel tax measures for a variety of public services. Fourteen passed. The Beyers Lane tax received one “yes” among six votes counted on election eve.

City, County and Special District General Obligation Bond Measures (2/3 vote) Agency Name County Amount Use Rate YES% NO%
San Francisco Proposition A $487.5m housing,
homeless $14/$100k 71.1% 28.9% PASS
Piedmont Alameda Measure UU $19.5m community
pool $26/$100k 68.5% 31.5% PASS
Alameda County Fire Alameda Measure X $90m fire/ems $16/$100k 67.7% 32.3% PASS Washington Township
Health Care District Alameda Measure XX $425m hospital $10/$100k 67.2% 32.8% PASS San Diego San Diego Measure A $900m housing,
homeless $21/$100k 57.6% 42.5% FAIL
City, County and Special District Parcel Taxes (2/3 vote) Agency Name County Amount Purpose sunse YES% NO%
Mountains Recreation and ConservatioLos Angeles Measure HH $68/parcel fire 10yrs 83.1% 16.9% PASS Santa Clara Valley Open Space AuthoriSanta Clara Measure T $24/parcel parks/open spac none 81.8% 18.2% PASS Arcata Humboldt Measure A $37/parcel park/wildlands none 78.4% 21.6% PASS Arcata Fire Protection District Humboldt Measure F $118/parcel $192rural fire 6/30/30 77.1% 22.9% PASS Timber Cove Fire Protection District Sonoma Measure AA $185/parcel fire/ems 15yrs 76.5% 23.5% PASS Sierra City Fire District Sierra Measure H $60/parcel fire/ems none 75.9% 24.1% PASS Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Measure S $.006/sf water none 75.7% 24.3% PASS Berkeley Alameda Measure FF $0.1047/sf fire/ems none 74.2% 25.8% PASS Altadena Library District Los Angeles Measure Z $0.10/sf library none 73.3% 26.7% PASS Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection DistrSan Joaquin Measure U 8c/sf fire none 73.4% 26.6% PASS Trinity Life Support Community ServiceTrinity Measure I $45/parcel ems none 72.9% 27.1% PASS Lake Shastina Community Services Dis Siskiyou Measure J $80/parcel fire/ems none 70.7% 29.3% PASS Downieville Fire Protection District Sierra Measure G $60/parcel fire/ems none 70.1% 29.9% PASS Happy Camp Fire Protection District Siskiyou Measure D $39/parcel fire/ems none 67.1% 32.9% PASS Parlier Fresno Measure G $120/parcel* police none 66.2% 33.8% FAIL Adelanto San BernardinMeasure R $50+ to $600+/acre vacant property 20yrs 65.7% 34.3% FAIL Greater McCloud Fire and Emergency reSiskiyou Measure G $94/parcel fire/ems none 65.5% 34.5% FAIL Cameron Park Airport District El Dorado Measure P by $900 to $1200/parcel airport none 62.7% 37.3% FAIL Albany Alameda Measure EE by$44.34to$68 fire/ems none 58.9% 41.1% FAIL Hughson Fire Protection District Stanislaus Measure W $39.75/rdu fire 12yrs 61.5% 38.5% FAIL Rincon Ranch Community Services Dis San Diego Measure Z $170/parcel+$6/acre fire 60.6% 39.5% FAIL Orland Fire Protection District Glenn Measure G $45+/parcel fire none 57.4% 42.6% FAIL Valley Center Fire Protection District San Diego Measure AA 6c/sf fire none 56.6% 43.4% FAIL Hickok Road Community Services DistrEl Dorado Measure N by $200to$400/parcel streets/roads none 52.2% 47.8% FAIL Burbank-Paradise Fire Protection Distri Stanislaus Measure Z $250/parcel fire none 54.4% 45.6% FAIL El Medio Fire District Butte Measure D $60+/parcel fire/ems none 50.8% 49.2% FAIL Lakeside Fire Protection District San Diego Measure Y by $15 to $25+/parcel fire none 39.7% 60.3% FAIL Mortara Circle Community Services Dis El Dorado Measure Q by $600 to $950/parcel streets/roads none 26.1% 73.9% FAIL Tulelake Siskiyou Measure N $60+/parcel police none 24.9% 75.1% FAIL Beyers Lane Community Service DistricNevada Measure O $300/parcel streets/roads 54.4% 45.6% FAIL

20.50 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2020 – 20 – December 5, 2020 Final CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Parcel Taxes – Non-School – November 2020.

20.51 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2020 – 21 – December 5, 2020 Final CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Some Historical Context
The passage rates this election are in dramatic comparison to the anomalous March 2020 election.

In March, 96 of the 239 local tax and bond measures passed (40%), a dramatically lower overall passage rate compared to prior elections. Just 44 of 121 school bond measures passed (37%). But the 121 was more than twice as many local school bond measures on a spring primary election ever in California. Interestingly, the number of approved measures (44) and the $6.6 billion of bond authorization are the highest ever for a spring primary election.

The unusual March results were, it appears, not so much due to a trend as to the pre-pandemic over-expectations of communities that March 2020 would be a favorable climate for such proposals. In the last presidential primary election, June 2016, 81% (72/89) of measures passed, including 91% of school bonds (42/46). But this perception led to a record number of attempts in March 2020, including many more chancy proposals that would likely not have made it to the ballot in another time.

Local Revenue Measures in California Passed/Proposed
Gubernatorial and Presidential Elections
Nov2006 Nov2008 Nov2010 Nov2012 Nov2014 Nov2016 Nov2018 Nov2020 City General Tax (Majority Vote) 31/43 72.1% 40/56 71.4% 44/67 65.7% 48/60 80.0% 62/88 70.5% 102/120 85.0% 153/167 91.6% 108/132 81.8% County General Tax (Majority Vote) 2/5 40.0% 5/9 55.6% 6/12 50.0% 4/6 66.7% 2/6 33.3% 12/15 80.0% 14/19 73.7% 8/8 100.0% City SpecialTax,GObond (2/3 Vote) 18/34 52.9% 11/21 52.4% 7/11 63.6% 5/15 33.3% 14/23 60.9% 19/33 57.6% 20/33 60.6% 6/14 42.9% County SpecialTax, GObond (2/3 Vote) 5/13 38.5% 7/12 58.3% 0/3 0.0% 7/12 58.3% 4/9 44.4% 10/23 43.5% 6/9 66.7% 5/8 62.5% Special District 2/3 vote 19/35 54.3% 10/19 52.6% 6/17 35.3% 7/16 43.8% 10/21 47.6% 21/33 63.6% 14/32 43.8% 13/25 52.0% School ParcelTax 2/3 vote 2/4 50.0% 17/21 81.0% 2/18 11.1% 16/25 64.0% 8/8 100.0% 17/22 77.3% 11/14 78.6% 10/13 76.9% School Bond 2/3 vote 0/3 0.0% 2/3 66.7% 0/0 1/1 100.0% 0/1 0.0% 2/6 33.3% 3/5 60.0% 0 School Bond 55% vote 55/67 82.1% 85/92 92.4% 47/63 74.6% 90/105 85.7% 91/112 81.3% 172/178 96.6% 92/107 86.0% 48/60 80.0% Total 132/204 64.7% 177/233 76.0% 112/191 58.6% 178/240 74.2% 191/268 71.3% 355/430 82.6% 313/386 81.1% 198/260 76.2% School Bonds in California - Fall General Elections
Approved
Requested $ 13.383
Nov 2020
$ 13.279 $ 9.782 $ 23.236 $ 15.047 $ 12.168
Nov 2012 Nov 2014 Nov 2016 Nov 2018
$ 14.429 $ 11.775 $ 25.314 $ 15.704
California Local Tax and Bond Measures

20.52 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2020 – 22 – December 5, 2020 Final CaliforniaCityFinance.com
The numbers at this November general election appear more in line with historic trends both in number of proposals and passage rates. The volume and make-up of measures in this election was somewhat lower than the previous two presidential and gubernatorial general elections in 2018 and 2016, but comparable to years prior. The drop off in proposed measures was specific to certain types of measures: 1) those with higher vote thresholds, and 2) cannabis tax measures.

The 79 proposed sales tax measures is comparable to November 2018 (69) and November 2016 (89) and the 71 majority vote sales taxes is actually the highest of this type of tax proposal at any election, ever. Cannabis taxation has been hot for the last several years since legalization and the dropoff in those measures is essentially a function of this area of taxation and regulation running its course.

Other than cannabis tax measures, the most precipitous drop off in proposed measures from November 2016 and November 2018 is in school bonds. There were just 60 school bond measures this election, all 55 percent (i.e. no two-thirds vote school bond measures). This is about half as many as in 2018 and a third of the 184 proposed in 2016. It appears that school boards anticipated this election to be a more difficult one for the higher vote threshold parcel taxes and bonds.

Likewise, there were just 35 non-school parcel taxes and general obligation bonds on local ballots compared to 52 in November 2018 and 51 in November 2016. 45 26 26 25
33 39 41
30 13
8 3 7
5 12 11
5 $2.0
$1.7 $0.1 $0.4
$0.6
$7.3
$2.4
$1.9 $-
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Nov
'06
Nov
'08
Nov
'10
Nov
'12
Nov
'14
Nov
'16
Nov
'18
Nov
'20
Billions
Number of Measures
Parcel Taxes and GO Bonds
70 95
63 106
113
184
112
60 $9
$22
$4
$14
$12
$25
$16
$13
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
$50
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
200
Nov
'06
Nov
'08
Nov
'10
Nov
'12
Nov
'14
Nov
'16
Nov
'18
Nov
'20
Billions
Number of Measures
School Bonds
4 21 18
25 8
22 14 13
0 10
20 30
Nov
'06
Nov
'08
Nov
'10
Nov
'12
Nov
'14
Nov
'16
Nov
'18
Nov
'20
School Parcel Taxes
G.O. Bonds
Parcel Taxes
2/3 vote bond
55% bond
0 12
3 11
39 79
27 Nov
'08
Nov
'10
Nov
'12
Nov
'14
Nov
'16
Nov
'18
Nov
'20
Cannabis
Taxes
17 12
16 18
14 22
40 20
Nov
'06
Nov
'08
Nov
'10
Nov
'12
Nov
'14
Nov
'16
Nov
'18
Nov
'20
Hotel Taxes
8 26
21 10
16 9
5 11
Nov
'06
Nov
'08
Nov
'10
Nov
'12
Nov
'14
Nov
'16
Nov
'18
Nov
'20
Utility User Taxes
17 19 19
28 42
59 58
71 21 13
2 7
13 30
11 8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
Nov
'06
Nov
'08
Nov
'10
Nov
'12
Nov
'14
Nov
'16
Nov
'18
Nov
'20
Sales
Taxes
Special 2/3
General

20.53 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2020 – 23 – December 5, 2020 Final CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Other measures of Note
 There were twelve measures to convert elected city clerk or treasurer positions to appointed (by city council or manager) and one initiative (in Dixon) to revert to an elected city clerk. Seven passed.  Voters in Sacramento turned down a proposal to move to a “strong mayor” form of governance from their current “council-manager” form, common in all but the largest cities in California.  Oxnard voters rejected an initiative measure to cede major new powers to that city’s elected city treasurer, even as they re-elected him. Oxnard voters narrowly approved a “ballot box budgeting” measure dictating that a previously approved general purpose sales tax be used for streets and roads or repealed.  Dixon voters approved an initiative repeal of a water rate increase.  Menifee voters rejected an initiative to repeal a recently approved sales tax increases. Voters in the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District turned down an initiative to repeal a recently enacted (two-thirds voter approved) parcel tax.
 Albany and Eureka approved ranked choice voting.
************
For more information: Michael Coleman 530-758-3952. [email protected] mjgc rev 8Dec 9:45
Appointed City Clerk / City Treasurer / etc.

City County YES% NO%
Sierra Madre Los Angeles Measure AC appoint city clerk 67.5% 32.5% PASS Nevada City Nevada Measure L appoint city clerk and
city treasurer

65.6% 34.4% PASS
Placerville El Dorado Measure R appoint city treasurer 63.5% 36.5% PASS Coalinga Fresno Measure B appoint city clerk 57.4% 42.7% PASS Yreka Siskiyou Measure E appoint city clerk 55.6% 44.4% PASS Sonora Tuolumne Measure R appoint city clerk 52.3% 47.7% PASS Sonora Tuolumne Measure S appoint city treasurer 50.3% 49.7% PASS Suisun City Solano Measure R appoint city clerk 47.1% 52.9% FAIL Plymouth Amador Measure D appoint city treasurer 45.4% 54.6% FAIL Plymouth Amador Measure C appoint city clerk 45.3% 54.7% FAIL Pittsburg Contra Costa Measure Q appoint city clerk 36.9% 63.1% FAIL Brawley Imperial Measure S appoint city clerk 34.7% 65.3% FAIL Tax and Fee Initiative to Repeal or Revise
Agency Name County Rate YES% NO%
Dixon INIT Solano Measure S repeal water rate increase 72.8% 27.2% PASS Oxnard INIT Ventura Measure N use TrUT for streets or end 51.8% 48.2% PASS San Bernardino County Fire PSan Bernardino Measure U repeal tax 48.0% 52.0% FAIL Menifee INIT Riverside Measure M repeal TrUT 36.4% 63.6% FAIL

20.54 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 350 | Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: (310) 828-1183 | Fax: (310) 453-6562
1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020 | Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 451-9521 | Fax: (510) 451-0384
NOVEMBER 2020 ELECTION OBSERVATIONS FROM FM3 RESEARCH
This Election Represented a Return to Normalcy for Local Finance Measures As noted in Michael Coleman's post-election summary, the passage rates of local finance measures in California rebounded from a disappointing March 2020 primary election. As of the publishing date of this summary, 76% of local finance measures passed in California this past November, a passage rate very comparable to the 2012 (74%) and 2008 (76%) presidential elections and a massive uptick from the abysmal March 2020 and its 40% passage rate.

To put this in a historical context, there were on average 227 local finance measures on the ballot in each November election from 2006-2014, meaning the 260 measures on this November's ballot were modestly on the high side, but definitely in that same range (Figure 1). The real outliers were November 2016 and 2018 with counts more around 400 measures. The same can be said for March 2020. From 2006-2018, there were on average 90 ballot measures for each primary election, but 238 in March 2020—a number much more comparable to a 2006- 2014 November election.

Figure 1: Numbers of Measures and Passage Rates (2006-2020) While voters seemed undaunted by the high number of ballot measures in the November 2016 and 2018 elections—passing local finance measures at roughly an 80% clip—that rubber band snapped back in brutal 56 132
52 177
58 112
58 178
65 191
72 335
85 313
95 198
47 72
26 56
21 79
29 62
20 77
17 75
26 73
143
62 0
50 100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
June
2006
Nov
2006
June
2008
Nov
2008
June
2010
Nov
2010
June
2012
Nov
2012
June
2014
Nov
2014
June
2016
Nov
2016
June
2018
Nov
2018
March
2020
Nov
2020
Number of Measures
Pass Fail
103
(54%)
204
(65%)
78 (67%)
233
(76%)
79 (73%)
191
(59%)
87 (67%)
240
(74%)
85 (77%)
268
(71%)
89 (81%)
430
(83%)
111
(77%)
386
(79%)
238
(40%)
260
(76%)

20.55

Page 2 ends

fashion in March 2020 with only a 40% passage rate. Refreshingly, this November's estimated 77% passage rate looks much more similar to those of prior election cycles.

Fewer Local Measures on the Ballot
As previously noted, the March 2020 election featured roughly double the usual number of local finance measures on a statewide primary election ballot, and the two preceding general elections in November of 2016 and 2018 saw 430 and 386 measures, respectively — while only 260 were on the ballot this November. Clearly, fewer agencies placed finance measures on the November 2020 ballot compared with recent years. However, a number of the measures on the ballot this November garnered support exceeding 70%, suggesting that agencies weren't shy about placing measures that had high probabilities of success on the ballot. If that was the case, why did the total number of local finance measures decline? A few of our theories include:
 The March 2020 results made rolling the dice with "borderline" measures less appealing. This year, FM3 worked with several clients on local finance measures that viability survey research had indicated were likely to receive levels of support at — or just above — the vote thresholds for passage. While many of our clients who faced similar situations during the 2016 or 2018 November elections opted to place those measures on the ballot, this year a meaningful proportion decided - particularly after seeing 60% of local finance measures fail this past March - that they weren't willing to take that risk.  Asking voters to support a tax measure in an evolving recession didn't feel like the right timing. Many residents have been struggling financially since the first shelter-in-place order hit California this spring, and with federal and state aid packages expiring, many more face uncertainty this winter heading into 2021. We repeatedly heard concerns about raising taxes and/or fees in this economic climate. (This is clearly a point of tension given that local tax revenues are also decreasing significantly.)  Many agencies simply had other priorities. For some agencies (e.g., school districts having to adopt distance learning protocols) pursuing a local finance measure was a luxury they didn't have the resources to pursue, even if one appeared to be viable. They simply didn't have the internal bandwidth to dedicate to the process.  There was reluctance to pursue property tax-related measures. An enormous number of measures to raise local property taxes were on the ballot in March 2020—partly due to the great success of November 2018; partly due to an anticipated "blue wave" of tax-friendly voters; and partly due to the desire to avoid sharing the November ballot with the statewide initiative on property taxes that would become Prop. 15. Far fewer agencies were willing to put similar measures on the ballot this November, especially after the dismal passage rates for such measures in March and continuing concerns about sharing the ballot with Prop 15. Looking at local G.O. bond measures alone (just one type of local property tax measure), there were 126 such measures on the March 2020 ballot and only 65 on the November 2020 ballot — a decline of more than 48%. Further, while there were a handful of success stories of agencies with narrow defeats in March that came back and passed property tax-related measures in November (e.g., Clovis Unified School District and Manteca Unified

20.56

Page 3 ends

School District), many agencies that suffered election disappointments in March opted to hold back on asking their voters for additional funding until a future election cycle.

Not Everything Was "Normal" this November
Turnout was way, way up
This is a story where the details will matter and we won't be able access the final turnout figures until the official Statement of Vote is available from the Secretary of State, likely in early January. (The March 2020 Statement of Vote was released in early May.) That being said, it's clear that overall turnout was record-setting. In Figure 2, we combined the last official numbers from the Secretary of State on the total number of eligible and registered voters (as of 10/19/20) and the most recent online reporting status numbers from the Secretary of State's website.

Based on the percentage of registered voters, it appears that November 2020 will reach or exceed the November 2008 high-water mark of 79.4% turnout, though still in the range of prior presidential elections. However, November 2020 will have roughly 10% more eligible voters participating than in November 2008, and nearly 20% more eligible voters than November 2000 — a clear break with past precedent.

Figure 2: Estimated Statewide Turnout
(Eligible and Registered Totals as of 10/19/20 and Total Votes as of 12/3/20) Presidential
Election
Eligible
Voters
Registered
Voters % Registered Total Votes % of Registered % of Eligible Nov 2020 25,090,517 22,047,448 87.9% 17,783,784 80.7% 70.9% Nov 2016 24,875,293 19,411,771 78.0% 14,610,509 75.3% 58.7% Nov 2012 23,802,577 18,245,970 76.7% 13,202,158 72.4% 55.5% Nov 2008 23,208,710 17,304,091 74.6% 13,743,177 79.4% 59.2% Nov 2004 22,075,036 16,557,273 75.0% 12,589,683 76.0% 57.0% Nov 2000 21,461,275 15,707,307 73.2% 11,142,843 70.9% 51.9% The Late Vote Didn't Break in Support of Local Finance Measures Figure 3 shows the average change in the "Yes" vote share for local revenue measures (Column 2) as well as the change in the proportion of local revenue measures passing (Column 3) between Michael Coleman's preliminary results summaries (compiled from incomplete vote tallies available in the days immediately following each election) to his final results summaries for the past three November elections. In the 2016 and 2018 November elections, we saw the initial "Yes" vote share for local finance measures increase a little after all the votes were

20.57

Page 4 ends

counted, with shifts of +0.62% in November 2016 and +0.87% in November 2018. While there were always exceptions, this meant that measures flirting with their vote thresholds stood a good chance of ultimately passing once the tallying was complete. This was reflected by the fact that in both of these elections, between three and four percent of all local revenue measures on the ballot throughout the state appeared to fall short of passage in the preliminary results, only to secure approval with the required level of support in the final, certified results.

This pattern was generally owed to the fact that Democratic-leaning and younger voters—who are frequently more supportive of finance measures—were less likely to vote by mail, and if they were, more likely to wait until the last minute to turn in their ballots.

Figure 3: Change in "Yes" Vote from Preliminary to Final Results Reports for Local Revenue Measures (Column 1)
Election
(Column 2)
Change in "Yes" Vote Share for
Local Revenue Measures in
Preliminary vs. Final Results
(Column 3)
Change in Proportion of Local
Finance Measures Passing in
Preliminary vs. Final Results
November 2020 -0.06% +0.5%
November 2018 +0.87% +3.6%
November 2016 +0.62% +3.5%
This changed in the November 2020 election, when the average shift from late-counted ballots was essentially zero. At least two factors likely contributed to this discontinuity. First, the vast majority of Californians who participated in this year's November election did so by mail — meaning that many more finance measure supporters voted prior to election day than was the case in prior elections. Second, there were so many concerns about ballots being counted—or delivered by the Postal Service—that many voters who might otherwise have held on to their mail ballot until the very end instead sent them in early. Many Democratic campaigns also advised their supporters to cast their ballots early, with high-profile figures such as Nancy Pelosi stating that doing so was critical to preventing Trump from prematurely declaring victory based on unrepresentative early election returns.

In California, with so much enthusiasm among Biden voters, that meant that many Democrats didn't want to risk waiting until the last moment.

All of this meant that as the vote has continued to be counted, agencies with measures 1-2 points above or below their vote thresholds were more likely to be disappointed than in prior years.

Implications for the 2021-2022 Election Cycle
There are probably a lot of potential measures in the queue We know that there are dozens of agencies that had finance measures defeated in March 2020 and subsequently opted against putting them before voters again on the November 2020 ballot. We also know that numerous other

20.58

Page 5 ends

agencies that were planning finance measures for this November had to temporarily put them on the back burner and focus on their response to COVID-19. Many, if not most will presumably explore their viability once again during the 2021-2022 cycle. Does this mean 2022 will have more measures than is typical, or are we going back to a more conventional pattern of ~90 measures in the primary and ~230 in the general? The turnout and election process going forward is currently uncertain Given the extraordinary increases in voter turnout for the November 2020 election, will the policy changes that likely contributed to this increase — such as automatic registration and universal vote-by-mail balloting — be further scaled up and made permanent? If so, should we regularly expect much higher participation rates, or was this election and set of circumstances truly unique? In either case, pollsters will need to take a wider range of turnout scenarios into consideration when assessing ballot measure viability in the future. 2022 could look a bit like 2010
While not a perfect comparison, the Great Recession left nearly all of California's local government agencies facing budget shortfalls in 2009-2010 (if not beyond). Many agencies turned to their voters to pass local finance measures to stave off cuts and service reductions to the extent possible. The June 2010 election looked a lot like prior years in terms of total measures (79) and its passage rate (73%). However, the November 2010 election was on the low end of the range of prior November elections, with 59% of 191 measures passing — not an implosion like March 2020, but clearly a more challenging environment. It may therefore be a good baseline for setting expectations; on the other hand, it also seems possible that recent vaccine breakthroughs mean California's economy will rebound more quickly, leading to a better political environment for finance measures in 2022.

What will the mix of local finance measures look like in 2022? We see no reason to doubt that funding measures for school and community college districts will continue to be the most common category of local finance measures on the primary and general election ballots in 2022. The financial needs are still there—especially with the failure of Prop 15—and school bond measures (with their 55% vote threshold) are still generally attainable. The real question is likely to be what types of measures cities and counties will consider. Sales tax measures are likely to continue to be popular, but many communities are running up against their statutory sales tax caps. Coming out of the Great Recession, many municipalities turned to utility user taxes (UUTs) as a minimally volatile source of revenue in economically uncertain times, though a number of those measures were modernizations of outdated ordinances to reflect current communications technology.

Looking at the entirety of 2020, cannabis tax measures will likely continue to be common in 2022, as may transient occupancy taxes (TOTs) if the state's hospitality industry recovers substantially during the coming year. That said, more communities may also consider other, less common types of general taxes such as business license taxes and property transfer taxes, as well as (potentially) establishing assessment districts, which can be enacted via a simple majority vote among property owners.

Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates, Inc., or FM3 Research, is a California-based company that has been conducting public policy-oriented opinion research since 1981. In addition to political surveys for candidate and ballot measure campaigns, FM3 conducts a broad range of opinion research to educate, influence, and better serve communities. Learn more about FM3 at https://fm3research.com.

20.59 2443 Fair Oaks Blvd., #328
Sacramento, CA 95825
916.564.2000
www.GeneBregmanAndAssociates.com

MEMORANDUM
To: Matt Huffaker, City Manager
City of Santa Cruz
From: Gene Bregman
Gene Bregman & Associates
Date: February 24, 2022
Re: Summary Results of Community Survey
This memorandum presents the highlights of results from a public opinion survey conducted by Gene Bregman & Associates on behalf of the City of Santa Cruz, California (City). A total of 300 likely voters in a June, 2022 election were interviewed on-line and by cell and landline telephone during the period January 20 – 26, 2022. An additional 100 interviews were completed with likely November 2022 voters. There were no meaningful differences between the June and November electorates throughout the entire survey.

Overview
With one important caveat, we believe the City of Santa Cruz is in good position to pass a general half cent sales tax increase this fall. The one caveat, as always, is that there would be no organized opposition from community stakeholders.

Although generally positive opinions of the job being done by Santa Cruz City government have improved since our last survey (April 2021 = 38 percent, January 2022 = 46%), other indicators have declined. First, were perceptions of the City’s need for more money. While those saying the City had at least some need was similar in both studies, the proportions saying the City had a “great need” declined from 39 percent to 26 percent.

More important, however, is the decline in voter support for the sales tax increase. Initial test votes in favor in April, 2021 were significantly higher, at 70

20.60 Memo: Matt Huffaker 2
2/24/22
1111/1/2019
percent, than the current favorability level of 61 percent. Fortunately, the election on the sales tax measure will require a “yes” vote of 50%+1 for passage. While 61 percent is not as wide a margin as was the case last April, it should still be enough to assure passage in June.

The main uses for any money that would be raised by a sales tax increase coincide with what Santa Cruz voters have seen as the main issues that have been of concern for several years: inadequate and expensive housing, especially for low and moderate income residents; the problems faced by people experiencing homelessness; and the effects on the community from the problems associated with homelessness.

Summary of Results

1. Opinions of the job being done by Santa Cruz City Government have improved since the last survey we conducted for the City, as 46 percent this year and 38 percent in 2021 rated City
government as doing an "excellent" or a "good" job in providing services to the people who live here.

20.61 Memo: Matt Huffaker 3
2/24/22
1111/1/2019

2. Most voters recognize that the City needs more money, as 68 percent said there was at least some need for more money.

However, the 26 percent saying there was a "great need" for more money is a significant decline from April 2021, and more in line with the “great need” proportions seen in 2017, 2018 and 2019.

20.62 Memo: Matt Huffaker 4
2/24/22
1111/1/2019
Women and registered Democrats were more likely to say there was a great need for more money.

3. A majority of voters (55 percent) said that they were at least “somewhat confident” that relative to the Coronavirus, life will return to normal in the near future. 44 percent were “not too” or “not at all confident” that “life will become more normal”.

20.63 Memo: Matt Huffaker 5
2/24/22
1111/1/2019

It is interesting that there were no statistically significant differences among voter sub-groups on this question.

4. Similarly to the last two surveys conducted (in 2019 and 2021), the three most serious issues or problems facing the City of Santa Cruz were related to housing and homelessness. First was the "impact of homelessness on city neighborhoods, parks and open spaces" (Very serious = 73 percent), followed by "need for more housing and shelters for homeless people" (70 percent) and the "high cost of housing in Santa Cruz" (65 percent).

20.64 Memo: Matt Huffaker 6
2/24/22
1111/1/2019

Some of the problems were more or less serious to various voter groups, as follows:
• Women were more concerned with the need for more shelters and housing for homeless people, the high cost of housing, the danger of wildfires, and the effects of climate change.
• Voters under 50 years of age were more concerned with the need for more shelters and housing for homeless people, and the high cost of housing. Those 50 and over were more concerned with the impact of homelessness on city neighborhoods, parks and open spaces, and unpleasant conditions in the Beach area, downtown, and other business districts in the City.
• People who vote “no” on the sales tax measure are most concerned with the impact of homelessness on city neighborhoods, parks and open spaces.

20.65 Memo: Matt Huffaker 7
2/24/22
1111/1/2019

5. Although support has declined since April 2021, most Santa Cruz voters support a half cent sales tax increase in order "to protect quality of life in the City of Santa Cruz through programs to support resources to mitigate the impacts of homelessness, create affordable housing, maintain City facilities and essential infrastructure, fix streets, support transit, maintain parks and recreation facilities for youth and seniors, reduce wildfire risk, fight climate change, and prevent reductions in funding for important City services." Support remains steady after these voters learned positive and negative information about this possible ballot measure.

There was little difference between the initial vote on the measure and the vote after participants heard positive and negative information, with support at 61 percent and 59 percent, respectively.

Support tended to be strongest among those who have lived in the City for less than twenty years and registered Democrats. Support was weakest among registered Republicans, those registered as “decline to

20.66 Memo: Matt Huffaker 8
2/24/22
1111/1/2019
state” or with some “other” party, and those who have lived in the City for 20 years or more.

It should also be noted that when we looked at a larger, November 2022 turnout voting universe, there was little change in support from the June voters.

6. Most voters (61 percent) said that there will be at least somewhat of an improvement in the various problems associated with homelessness because of one recent ordinance passed by the City with the goal of establishing safe parking areas for those people living in their vehicles and another ordinance setting regulations for camping outdoors in the City, including penalties for violations of the regulations, while also establishing various services, such as sanctioned indoor and outdoor shelters and camps, and storage facilities for those experiencing
homelessness.

20.67 Memo: Matt Huffaker 9
2/24/22
1111/1/2019
More people thought there would be an improvement among homeowners and those who have lived in the City for more than 20 years.

7. Among the five reasons to oppose the sales tax measure, the most effective would make about three voters in ten “much more likely” to oppose the measure: 33 percent said they would be much more likely to oppose the measure because "we cannot trust the City Council to keep its promise to use the money properly unless the tax measure specifically says how the money must be used". Between 22 and 26 percent said the other listed reasons to oppose it would be effective.

All or most items tended to be more effective with Republicans and to a lesser extent among those registered as “decline to state” or “other” parties, than among Democrats.

8. Of the 15 reasons to support a sales tax measure , the one with the most positive effect was that “all the money will be used here

20.68 Memo: Matt Huffaker 10
2/24/22
1111/1/2019
in our local community” (Much More Likely = 54 percent). Just behind were that “this will allow the City to expand mental health crisis response services” (48 percent) and “this measure will allow the City to partner with non-profits and the County to connect the homeless to mental health and substance abuse and addiction services” (45 percent).

20.69 Memo: Matt Huffaker 11
2/24/22
1111/1/2019
All or most items were more effective with Democrats than Republicans or other voters, and with renters than homeowners.

9. Eight reasons were asked in both the 2021 and 2022 surveys.

Among these, five of the eight showed significant declines in effectiveness from one poll to the next:
• This money will be used to support services that homeless individuals need to help them get off the streets and into shelters and stable housing (Much More Likely 2021 = 58%, 2022 = 40%) • This measure will support services to help people experiencing homelessness: (2021 = 55%, 2022 = 38%)
• Some of the money will be used to support the creation of affordable housing for low and moderate income people in our community (2021 = 54%, 2022 = 42%)

20.70 Memo: Matt Huffaker 12
2/24/22
1111/1/2019
• This measure will help low and moderate income people who work here to live near where they work (2021 = 51%, 2022 = 41%) • Some of this money will be used to help local businesses recover, an especially critical problem in an area like Santa Cruz, where the tourism industry has been severely affected by the pandemic (2021 = 38%, 2022 = 22%)

10. Two-thirds of voters (67 percent) would vote in favor of an increase in the TOT “to address the impacts of homelessness and conditions downtown and the beach areas of Santa Cruz, as well as generally supporting other City services”

20.71 Memo: Matt Huffaker 13
2/24/22
1111/1/2019
Support was strongest among Democrats and those under 40 years of age but lowest among those registered as Republicans or in some other manner, and those who had voted “no” on the sales tax measure.

20.72 Santa Cruz prides itself on a high quality of life. The City strives to maintain safety, security and a clean environment so that all who live, work and visit here can enjoy public areas.

CHALLENGES FACING OUR CITY
Today, the City of Santa Cruz faces several challenges. There is a great need for increased affordable housing and services to help people experiencing homelessness get off the street and into stable housing.

Housing must be affordable for low- and moderate-income people.

The City must also reduce wildfire risk, keep streets, roads, sidewalks, parks, beaches and recreation facilities clean, repaired, updated and safely re-opened, and help our local business community rebound from the impacts of COVID-19, while maintaining essential city services.

POTENTIAL FUNDING MEASURE TO ADDRESS COMMUNITY NEEDS
The City Council is considering a local half-cent sales tax measure on an upcoming ballot (adding 5 cents to a $10 purchase). Funding from a potential measure could help the City:
 Partner with non-profits and the County to connect the homeless to mental health and substance abuse and addiction services and expand crisis response services  Invest in affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households  Support reliable services for the homeless, such as hygiene, storage and safe sleeping locations  Reduce the risk of wildfires in our open space and natural areas  Help address the impacts of climate change by improving carbon neutrality, energy efficiency, renewable energy usage and creating green jobs
 Improve safety by maintaining streets, roads, sidewalks and other public facilities  Update and modernize firefighting and emergency medical services and equipment  Restore services to properly maintain and re-open our parks and recreational facilities  Help local businesses rebound from the impacts of the past year

FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY
All funds raised by a potential measure would stay here in Santa Cruz. No funds could be taken away by the State. Those who visit and shop in Santa Cruz would pay their fair share. Essential purchases such as groceries, prescription medicine, diapers and feminine hygiene products are exempt from sales tax.

City of Santa Cruz

MAINTAIN AND EXPAND

ESSENTIAL CITY SERVICES

WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU
For more information or to provide feedback, please visit www.cityofsantacruz/ PotentialMeasure or contact Elizabeth Smith, Communications Manager, at [email protected].

20.73 POTENTIAL FUNDING MEASURE FOR A SAFE, CLEAN, HEALTHY SANTA CRUZ To address community needs, including homelessness programs and other essential city services, the Santa Cruz City Council is considering a local half-cent sales tax measure on an upcoming ballot (adding 5 cents to a $10 purchase). Funding from a potential measure could help the City:

City of Santa Cruz

MAINTAIN AND EXPAND

ESSENTIAL CITY SERVICES

WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU
For more information or to provide feedback, please visit www.cityofsantacruz/ PotentialMeasure or contact Elizabeth Smith, Communications Manager, at [email protected].

Partner with non-profits and the County to connect the homeless to mental health and substance abuse and addiction services and expand crisis response services Invest in affordable housing
for low- and moderate-income
households
Support reliable services for the
homeless, such as hygiene, storage
and safe sleeping locations
Help address the impacts of climate change by improving carbon neutrality, energy efficiency, renewable energy usage and creating green jobs Reduce the risk of wildfires in our
open space and natural areas
Improve safety by maintaining
streets, roads, sidewalks and other
public facilities
Update and modernize firefighting
and emergency medical services
and equipment
Restore services to properly
maintain and re-open our parks
and recreational facilities
Help local businesses rebound
from the impacts of the past year

20.74 City of Santa Cruz
Frequently Asked Questions – Potential Measure
What contributes to the City of Santa Cruz’s quality of life? Santa Cruz prides itself on a high quality of life. The City strives to maintain safety, security and a clean environment so that all who live, work and visit here can enjoy public areas.

What challenges does the City of Santa Cruz face?
Despite being a great place to live, work and visit, the City of Santa Cruz faces several challenges. The need for increased affordable housing and services to help people experiencing homelessness get off the street and into stable housing has never been greater. Housing must be affordable for low- and moderate-income people.

In addition, the City must reduce wildfire risk, keep streets, roads, sidewalks, parks, beaches and recreation facilities repaired, updated and safely re-opened, and help our local business community rebound from the impacts of COVID-19, while maintaining other essential city services.

How is the City working to address homelessness?
The COVID-19 pandemic severely worsened the pre-existing crisis of homelessness facing our community. The local need for increased affordable housing and services to help people experiencing homelessness get off the street and into stable housing has never been greater.

Currently the City, often in collaboration with local non-profits or the County, engages and invests in a variety of methods to address homelessness, including:
• Offering essential services to the unhoused community through safe, private shower services and shelters
• Working to reunite unhoused community members with their families back home • Connecting unhoused residents to direct mental health services • Mental health liaisons to improve outreach to people experiencing homelessness, including in collaboration with law enforcement
• 150 “safe sleeping” spots, supported by storage and pet-friendly policies • In cooperation with local churches, overnight “safe parking” programs for those living in their vehicles
• Preventing homelessness through security deposit/rent payment assistance • Increasing the supply of affordable housing units for low-income residents • Providing homeless individuals with work experience and case management while they conduct homeless outreach and clean public spaces
• For more information about these efforts, visit www.cityofsantacruz.com/homelessness How is the City developing a local solution to its funding needs? The City is evaluating options for enhancing locally controlled revenues. One option is to place a half-cent sales tax measure on an upcoming ballot. This sales tax would be paid both by residents and visitors who work or shop in Santa Cruz. A sales tax measure would provide locally controlled revenue to maintain and expand essential services.

20.75 How would a local funding measure help protect and maintain essential city services? Funding from a potential measure could help the City:
• Partner with non-profits and the County to connect the homeless to mental health and substance abuse and addiction services and expand crisis response services • Invest in affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households • Support reliable services for the homeless, such as hygiene, storage and safe sleeping locations
• Reduce the risk of wildfires in our open space and natural areas • Help address the impacts of climate change by improving carbon neutrality, energy efficiency, renewable energy usage, and creating green jobs • Improve safety by maintaining streets, roads, sidewalks and other public facilities • Update and modernize firefighting and emergency medical services and equipment • Restore services to properly maintain and re-open our parks and recreational facilities • Help local businesses rebound from the impacts of the past year How would a funds from a measure help local businesses? The effects of the past year have had a significant impact on local businesses. Downtown Santa Cruz currently has 37 empty storefronts. The City is working on ways to support existing businesses as well as provide opportunities for new businesses to successfully reopen.

The City has a variety of programs in place to help local businesses recover financially, including:
• Fee deferrals and reductions for business-related taxes and fees, including business license taxes, parking fees and permits, helping reduce overhead during a time of decreased revenue
• Incentives and permit streamlining to create and maintain outdoor dining • The Shop Local campaign, in collaboration with the Downtown Association of Santa Cruz • The Vacant Storefront Activation Pilot Program (Downtown Pops!), which subsidizes rent to help new businesses occupy empty storefronts and support existing downtown business
• Ongoing efforts like safe sleeping, increased clean-up and storage programs to help the unhoused community and reduce the impacts of homelessness on downtown businesses and tourism
• For more information about City efforts, visit www.cityofsantacruz.com/business These short-term programs have helped numerous businesses after a year of losses. They’ve been so successful that the City is looking to expand and extend these programs, including business-related fee and tax deferrals, business related grants and even potential loan forgiveness related to permanent outdoor dining investments.

Would this measure help leverage federal recovery funds into our community? Yes, increased revenue from a sales tax measure would help our City compete for federal grant programs to bring more recovery funds into Santa Cruz. These federal funds would help our community and local businesses.

20.76 Could the State cut or take sales tax funding?
By law, revenue from a sales tax measure could not be taken by the State. All local sales tax dollars must stay here to fund local services in Santa Cruz. Although no final decisions have been made, the City is committed to finding a local solution that provides local dollars for local services.

Would visitors to Santa Cruz pay local sales tax?
Yes, sales tax is paid by anyone who shops in Santa Cruz. This ensures that both residents and visitors contribute revenue for services to help our City’s greatest challenges. It is estimated that about half of existing sales tax revenues in the City are paid by visitors.

Are sales taxes fair?
Items like groceries, medicine, diapers and feminine hygiene products are exempt from sales tax, ensuring this increase would not burden those with low or fixed incomes when buying essential goods. Buyers of luxury goods and expensive items contribute significantly to sales tax revenue. Also, about half of existing local sales tax is paid by visitors to Santa Cruz. Especially in a high-tourism community like ours, sales tax is a reliable way to generate essential funding for local services, including for vulnerable and disadvantaged populations, without putting the entire burden on local residents.

Are sales taxes fair for local businesses?
Funds from a sales tax measure could continue funding COVID-relief efforts and other vital programs that local business rely on. There is no evidence that increases to sales tax rates discourage patrons from supporting local businesses. Research also suggests that an extra 50 cents per $100 spent is not enough incentive for a consumer to change their buying habits.

How would a sales tax measure affect purchases?
The City is considering a sales tax increase of one-half cent. This would add an extra 5 cents to a $10 purchase of taxable goods. Essential purchases like groceries, medicine, diapers and feminine hygiene products are exempt from sales tax.

How long would a sales tax measure last?
A sales tax measure would last until ended by voters.

Do sales tax measures affect essential purchases like groceries and medicine? No. By law, essential purchases like these are exempt from sales tax.

How can I learn more?
We welcome your feedback and questions. For more information or to provide feedback, please visit cityofsantacruz.com/potentialmeasure or contact Elizabeth Smith, Communications Manager, at [email protected].

20.77 RESOLUTION NO. NSRESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ DECLARING A

FISCAL EMERGENCY IN ORDER TO PLACE GENERAL PURPOSE TAX BALLOT MEASURES ON THE JUNE 7, 2022 ELECTION
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIII C Section 2(b) of the California State Constitution, an election for a general tax increase is required to be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government, except in cases of fiscal emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body; and WHEREAS, the City faces a budget crisis of unprecedented proportions; and WHEREAS, the City has experienced revenue disruption and significant increases in expenses due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the CZU Lightning Complex Fire; and WHEREAS, the City Council has already made significant reductions to the City budget in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 and 2021; and
WHEREAS, the City has received federal aid via the American Rescue Plan Act in June 2021, and will again in approximately June-July 2022, but still has: substantial deferred infrastructure maintenance; reduced service levels due to cuts in areas such as park rangers, crime analysis, general operations maintenance and others; and unmet budget needs for expanded and new services in business support, affordable housing, and homelessness response; and WHEREAS, the City anticipates cutting its General Fund budget approximately 2.5% in FY 2023 but still faces a known budget deficit of at least $6 million in Fiscal Year 2024; and WHEREAS, the City faces a growing budget deficit of up to $7 million by Fiscal Year 2027, with an assumption of no new programs or services; and WHEREAS, the City has over $300 million in unfunded capital improvement needs for critical infrastructures such as City buildings, roads, vehicles, information technology systems and security, traffic, climate sustainability, and natural spaces; and WHEREAS, the City cannot safely maintain its service levels while implementing additional reductions needed to address the deficit when considering the imperatives to fund recovery efforts, bring back specific critical services, invest in aged and decayed infrastructure, and implement current and future directed changes in business support, housing, homelessness response, fire prevention, and safety improvements for streets, sidewalks and public facilities; and
WHEREAS, the residents of the City of Santa Cruz have expressed their desire to:
invest in housing, especially for low and middle income residents; address the problems faced by people experiencing homelessness; and mitigate the danger of wildfires; and

20.78 RESOLUTION NO. NSWHEREAS, the City’s fiscal crisis herein described is of sufficient gravity and severity that the City must, at the earliest feasible juncture, propose revenue enhancement measures to the electorate in order, to the extent possible, to preserve the minimal level of governmental services necessary to protect and preserve the health and general welfare of the City’s residents, workers, and visitors; and
WHEREAS, the City Council Ad Hoc Budget and Revenue Committee has recommended adopting a resolution ordering an election on June 7, 2022, and requesting consolidation of such election to place a general purpose tax ballot measure to add one-half of one percent to the retail transactions and use tax rate.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz that, based on the findings set forth herein, it hereby unanimously declares a fiscal emergency for the purpose of adding a general purpose tax ballot measure to add one-half of one percent to the retail transactions and use tax rate at the election on June 7, 2022.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of March, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: __________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: ______________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

20.79 RESOLUTION NO. NSRESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ REQUESTING THAT THE JUNE 7, 2022 ELECTION INCLUDE A BALLOT MEASURE FOR THE CITY

OF SANTA CRUZ TO IMPOSE A RETAIL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002, the governing body of any city may by resolution request the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz to permit the county elections official to render specified services to the city relating to the conduct of an election; and
WHEREAS, the resolution of the governing body of the city shall specify the services requested; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002, the city shall reimburse the county in full for the services performed upon presentation of a bill to the city; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10400, whenever two or more elections, including bond elections, of any legislative or congressional district, public district, city, county, or other political subdivision are called to be held on the same day, in the same territory, or in territory that is in part the same, they may be consolidated upon the order of the governing body or bodies or officer or officers calling the elections; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10400, such election for cities and special districts may be either completely or partially consolidated; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10403, whenever an election called by a district, city or other political subdivision for the submission of any question, proposition, or office to be filled is to be consolidated with a statewide election, and the question, proposition, or office to be filled is to appear upon the same ballot as that provided for that statewide election, the district, city or other political subdivision shall, at least 88 days prior to the date of the election, file with the Board of Supervisors, and a copy with the elections official, a resolution of its governing board requesting the consolidation, and setting forth the exact form of any question, proposition, or office to be voted upon at the election, as it is to appear on the ballot acknowledging that the consolidation election will be held and conducted in the manner prescribed in Section 10418. Upon such request, the Board of Supervisors may order the consolidation; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10418, if consolidated, the consolidated election shall be held and conducted, election boards appointed, voting precincts designated, candidates nominated, ballots printed, polls opened and closed, voter challenges determined, ballots counted and returned, returns canvassed, results declared, certificates of election issued, recounts conducted, election contests presented, and all other proceedings incidental to and connected with the election shall be regulated and done in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the statewide or special election, or the election held pursuant to Section 1302 or 1303, as applicable; and

20.80 RESOLUTION NO. NSWHEREAS, the resolution requesting the consolidation shall be adopted and filed at the same time as the adoption of the ordinance, resolution, or order calling the election; and WHEREAS, various district, county, state, and other political subdivision elections may be or have been called to be held on June 7, 2022.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz that an election be called and consolidated with any and all elections also called to be held on June 7, 2022, insofar as said elections are to be held in the same territory that is in part the same as the territory of the City of Santa Cruz and hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz to order such consolidation under Elections Code Section 10401, 10403, 10406 and 10418.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz hereby requests the Board of Supervisors to permit the Santa Cruz County Elections Department to provide any and all services necessary for conducting the election and agrees to pay for said services; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Santa Cruz County Elections Department shall conduct the election for the following measure to be voted on at the June 7, 2022 election:

Measure to be voted on:

Ballot Question:

Measure “___” City of Santa Cruz Half-Cent Sales Tax Measure Yes
“To protect quality of life in the City of Santa Cruz by supporting resources to mitigate the impacts of
homelessness, create affordable housing, reduce wildfire risk, maintain City facilities and essential infrastructure, fix streets, support downtown, maintain parks and recreation facilities for youth and seniors, fight climate change, and prevent reductions in important city services, shall the City of Santa Cruz be authorized to augment its General Fund by levying one-half of one percent sales tax, raising about $6 million annually?”
No
The City Council of the City of Santa Cruz submits to the qualified electors said Ballot Measure Question as set forth above and designates and refers to said measure as the measure to be set forth on the ballots for use in said election. The full text of the measure is as set forth in Exhibit A.

In accordance with the provisions of Section 9280 of the California Elections Code, the City Attorney is hereby directed to prepare an impartial analysis of this measure.

20.81 RESOLUTION NO. NSIn accordance with the provisions of Section 9212 of the California Elections Code, the Finance Director is hereby directed to prepare a fiscal impact statement of this measure.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that Santa Cruz County Elections Department is requested to:

Print the attached measure text exactly as filed or indicated on the filed document in the Voter's Information Pamphlet section of the Sample Ballot for the June 7, 2022 election. Cost of printing and distribution of the measure text will be paid for by the city. To print the measure text in the Voter's Information Pamphlet of the Sample Ballot but send a copy to voters upon request at the cost of said city/district. Not to print the measure text in the Voter's Information Pamphlet of the Sample Ballot but send a copy to voters upon request at the cost of said city/district.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Clerk Administrator of the City of Santa Cruz is hereby ordered and directed to cause said proposed ordinance (Exhibit A) and notice of election to be published in accordance with the provisions of the California State Election Code.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of March, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: __________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: ______________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

20.82 RESOLUTION NO. NSEXHIBIT A
The people of the City of Santa Cruz ordain as follows:

BE IT ORDAINED by the electorate of the City of Santa Cruz that Section 3.19 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:

Section 1. Chapter 3.18 – TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Section 3.18.056 “ADDITIONAL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX” to read as follows:
“3.18.056 ADDITIONAL TRANSACTIONS TAX RATE.

For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, an additional tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated territory of the City at the rate of one-half of one percent (0.50%) of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in said territory on and after the operative date of this ordinance codified in this section.”
Section 2. Chapter 3.18 – TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX is hereby further amended to add Section 3.18.076 “ADDITIONAL USE TAX RATE” to read as follows:
“3.18.076 ADDITIONAL USE TAX RATE.

An additional excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in the city of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and after the operative date of the ordinance codified in this section for storage, use or other consumption in said territory at the rate of one-half of one percent (0.50%) of the sales price of the property.

The sales price shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to state sales or use tax regardless of the place to which delivery is made.” Section 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This ordinance relates to the levying and collecting of the City transactions and use taxes and shall take effect immediately if the tax imposed is approved by a simple majority of voters voting on the question at the June 7, 2022 statewide primary election and shall become operative on the first date of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 110 days after the adoption of this ordinance, the date of such adoption being as set forth below.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by a majority vote of the electorate of the City of Santa Cruz on at the June 7, 2022 statewide primary election. Pursuant to Section 3, above, the ordinance became effective immediately upon such adoption.

Attest: _______________________________
(Signature)
_______________________________
(Title)

20.83 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2022 5:11 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 3/8/22 Agenda Item #20 Increase taxes to maximum 3/8/22 Agenda Item #20 Increase taxes to maximum
Dear Council,
NO.

Taxes never ever go down and these are the highest allowable. A bad trend.

Is the government doing such a great job this money is destined to be better spent than the (previous)owners of the money i.e. taxpayers. No.

WHY should the government increase and increase it's "take" of the labor of society? No reason except they can't figure out how to make their ends meet but somehow expect taxpayers to do with less and less.

The only people for this are people who a) can't wait to get their hands on more of the peoples money, b) people who think they won't have to pay this, but unfortunately, this one hits everyone hard including the poor.

Garrett Philipp - Westside

20.84 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Ron Pomerantz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 1:38 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Justin Cummings; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Renee Golder; Martine Watkins; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Donna Meyers
Subject: 3-8-2022 Council Agenda Item #20: Resolutions Requesting the Placement of a Sales and Use Tax Ballot Measure on the June 2022 California Statewide Primary Election Re. 3-8-2022 Council Agenda Item #20: Resolutions Requesting the Placement of a Sales and Use Tax Ballot Measure on the June 2022 California Statewide Primary Election

Good day Councilmembers and Mayor Brunner.

Raising the Sales Tax by .5% at this time is poor policy and harmful to a portion of our Community. When students, poor, and working folks are just trying to get their head above financial waters you are asking to add additional financial burdens on top of the highest inflation in 40 years. A sales tax increase will compound this cycle.

Going forward with this sales tax proposal undermines your credibility as honest brokers of running our City. For at least 9 months staff, with your complicity, have tried to jam a sales tax increase plan through under the guise of a “fiscal emergency.” An emergency is a “serious, and unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.” Over 9 months have passed, and it doesn’t pass the straight face test that immediate action has been taken. Council had the opportunity to place other tax measures before the voters such as a Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) increase and/or a property transfer tax. Neither of these revenue supplements causes any financial harm to marginalized and struggling Community members. Some years ago Staff and Council cried that the pension system could undermine the City’s fragile financial well-being. Fiscal ailments were known long ago and discussed long before COVID and the fires. Where was the belt tightening other than drastically cutting City workers’ wages and delaying some projects? Upper management and administrators still make obscene salaries, pouring money down ratholes on PR hacks and consultants, trying to jam through a boondoggle parking structure, turning the wharf into Disney Central Coast, and other wasteful and unwanted staff-driven projects. The fiscal emergency is not an emergency, rather in large part one of the City’s failure to act judiciously.

I’d strongly encourage the Council to place on the June ballot the long overdue 2% increase to the TOT or a real estate transfer tax. If all else fails, there’s always November 2022 to put on a sales tax without declaring the deceptive “fiscal emergency” line.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.

Ron Pomerantz

20.85 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Joe De Meo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 4:45 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Sales tax increase
Dear City council,
Please do not vote to increase city sales tax. If you check the state website our current 9.25 % is already one of the highest in the state. This hurts all of us in the city. I know you will have tough choices to make with the budget and hoping your up to the task. Good luck!
Thank you Joe De Meo

20.86 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Joe De Meo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 4:59 PM
To: City Council
Subject: City Council of Santa Cruz
Another thought council with the terrible inflation we are seeing we should see a big increase any way with sales tax. Im sure at least 10 %.

Regards Joe De meo
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022, 4:44 PM City Council <[email protected]> wrote:
************************************************************************* On behalf of the City Council, I want to thank you for contacting the City of Santa Cruz.

This e-mail account is for general comments. I, along with my fellow Councilmembers, have received your correspondence. We value citizen input and review all of the correspondence that is sent to us. However, depending on the nature of your e-mail, you may or may not receive an additional response. If your e-mail requests additional follow-up or information, we will forward your request to the appropriate City department, and they will respond more fully in the future. Whether or not your e-mail requires a response, please know that your input is very important and we appreciate you taking the time to let us know your thoughts.

If you have an immediate need, please follow the links below or call 831-420-5030 during normal business hours.

Again, thank you for your engagement with the City of Santa Cruz! Best regards,
Sonja Brunner
Mayor
City of Santa Cruz
Web links

20.87 2
Department Contact Information
http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments I Want to Report an Issue or Request Service
https://cosc-crsp.mendixcloud.com/p/Home
Contact Phone Numbers
City Clerk Division – 420-5030
Economic Development – 420-5150
Finance Department – 420-5050
Fire Department – 420-5280
Graffiti Hotline – 420-5303
Human Resources – 420-5040
Library – 427-7706
Parks and Recreation Department – 420-5270
Planning and Community Development Department – 420-5100 Police Department – 420-5800
Police Auditor – (323) 821-0586
Public Works Department – 420-5160
Special Events – 420-5270
Utilities (Customer Service) – 420-5220
Water Department – 420-5200

20.88 Sales and Use Tax
June 7, 2022 Ballot
Council Ad Hoc Budget and Revenue Committee:

Mayor Brunner, Vice Mayor Watkins, Councilmember Brown

20.89 SALES AND USE TAX MEASURE:
• Background
• Poll Results
• Mid-year Financial Outlook
• Possible Uses
• Recommendations

20.90 Background - Process
 Re-started after November Council financial status
update
 Ad Hoc Revenue Committee => Ad Hoc Budget and
Revenue Committee (transition in February 2022)
 Reviewed most recent revenue results and projections, and mid-year budget updates
 Evaluated possible revenue sources for highest impact

20.91 Background - Outreach
 Conducted January 2022 poll for potential sales and use tax measure
 Analyzed poll results and other risks factors
 Businesses, including Downtown
 Hoteliers
 Community Based Organizations
 Bargaining Units

20.92 Poll Results –
61% Positive for
Successful
Passage
• Housing
• Homelessness
• Water Supply
• Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation
• Safety Improvements
• Public Facilities and Recreational Areas

20.93 Mid-Year Financial Outlook
Improvement with Structural Deficits Remaining
Assumptions:
• Revenue actuals and projections updated.
• Modest operating and maintenance costs increase
each year.
• With ARPA funding reflected in revenue projections.
• $4.2M in new, initial expenditure appropriations for
homelessness response programs.
• No other new programs or services.
• $5.0M in new expenditure appropriations for CIP and
modest growth in expenditures.

20.94• 2.5% inflation.

Financial Background
 Successive expenditure reductions in FY 2020 through
FY 2022:
 ~$21 million in revenue losses in FY 2020 and FY 2021  Hiring freezes
 Early retirement program
 Furloughs
 Reductions in services, expenditure reductions, and fund transfers
 Use of General Fund reserves
 Need to replenish reserves, and fund services + capital

20.95 Financial Outlook - Risk Factors
 Unrealistic to assume no new services, programs, or
personnel.
 Critical needs remain for community priority areas –
housing, homelessness, wildfire safety and prevention,
business assistance, facilities, recreational areas, etc.  Uncertainties:
 On-going pandemic
 Future natural disasters
 Inflation

20.96 Possible Uses
FY 2023 Budget Strategy

20.97 Strategy and
Interim Recovery
Alignment
Health in All Policies
Equity
Health
Sustainability

20.98 50 Units,
All Affordable,
Supportive
Housing
(314 Jessie St)
Equity

20.99 120 Units, Permanent Supportive
(319 Coral St)
Equity

20.100
94 Units, 92 Affordable, 25% Supportive
(Pac Station North)
Equity

20.101
70 Units, 100% Affordable, 25% Supportive
(Pac Station South)
Equity

20.102
Transitional Shelter, including
Hygiene Services
Health

20.103
Transitional Shelter –
Community Meeting
Health

20.104
Homelessness Response Services –
Case Management
Health

20.105
Downtown Litter Abatement Crew
(Hope Services – 23+ Years Strong)
Health

20.106
Health

20.107
Wildfire Safety – Branciforte
Sustainability

20.108
Vegetation Management
Sustainability

20.109
Business and Recovery
Sustainability

20.110
Safety and Maintenance
Sustainability

20.111
Roads and Sidewalks
Sustainability

20.112
Recommendation – Sales and Use Tax Measure
What it is: a general half cent sales tax
increase (adds 5 cents to a $10 purchase)
Groceries, prescription medicine, diapers,
and feminine hygiene products are exempt
Visitors would also pay this tax
Half of existing sales tax is paid by visitors

20.113
Sales and Use Tax Measure – June 7, 2022
Ballot Language
“To protect quality of life in the City of Santa Cruz through programs to support resources to mitigate the impacts of homelessness, create affordable housing, maintain City
facilities and essential infrastructure, fix streets, support downtown, maintain parks and recreation facilities for
youth and seniors, reduce wildfire risk, fight climate
change, and prevent reductions in funding for important city services, shall the City of Santa Cruz be authorized to augment the City’s General Fund by levying one-half of
one percent sales tax, raising about $6 million annually?”

20.114
Council Action

1. Accept a report regarding the recent work of the City Council Ad Hoc Revenue Committee; and

2. Adopt a resolution making emergency findings for placing a general purpose one-half of one percent retail transactions and use tax measure on the June 7, 2022 election; and

3. Adopt a resolution requesting that the consolidated June 2022 municipal election include a general purpose one-half of one percent retail transactions and use tax measure; and

4. Support the measure for the purpose of authorizing arguments; provide direction regarding the authors; directing the City Attorney to prepare the impartial analysis; and providing direction to the City Manager regarding the preparation of the fiscal analysis, as appropriate. 20.115 Questions?

20.116

21.1 21.2

21.3 21.4

Santa Cruz City CouncilMarch 8, 2022

Santa Cruz City Council
March 8, 2022