CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA February 21, 2023
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
City Council Chambers
4488 Red Bluff Street
Shasta Lake. CA 96019
Tuesday, February 21, 2023, at 6:00 PM
Mayor: Greg Watkins
Vice Mayor: Janice Powell
Council Members: Justin Jones, Pamelyn Morgan
OTHER WAYS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING
• Watch a livestream of the meeting online or view the recording any time after the meeting concludes at the following: cityofshastalake.org/meetings
• Submit public comment by mail or email addressed to City Clerk, City of Shasta Lake, PO Box 777, Shasta Lake, CA 96019 or [email protected]. Mailed and emailed comments must be received one day prior to the meeting to be included.
6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER – REGULAR MEETING:
Call to order (please place electronic devices on silent) Statement for the record of Council Members present or absent Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation
AWARDS & RECOGNITIONS:
Proclamation for March 2023 as ACES, Resilience and Hope Awareness Month.
The Brown Act prohibits the Council from taking action on any item not placed on the Agenda in most cases. The Brown Act requires any non-confidential documents or writings distributed to a majority of the City Council less than 72 hours before a regular meeting to be made available to members of the public at the same time they are distributed.
Should supplemental materials to be evaluated in the decision-making process be made available to the members of the legislative body at the meeting, seven (7) copies must be provided to the City Clerk who will distribute them.
Councilmembers are encouraged to contact the City Manager prior to the meeting with questions or concerns regarding any item on the Agenda so that their questions and concerns can be adequately addressed at the meeting.
Agenda packets are available for public review at City Hall, 4477 Main Street, Shasta Lake, CA during normal business hours of 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. weekdays, excluding holidays.
In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call (530) 275-7407. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting is requested to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA February 21, 2023
PRESENTATIONS:
COMMISSION, COMMITTEE, AND OUTSIDE AGENCY REPORTS:
Report by Devin Owens, Fire Marshall/Prevention Officer with Shasta Lake Fire Protection District.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
This time is set aside for citizens to address the City Council on matters listed on the Consent Agenda as well as other items not included on the Regular Agenda. If your comments concern an item noted on the regular agenda, please address the Council when that item is open for public comment. Each speaker is allocated three (3) minutes to speak. Speakers may not cede their time. Comments should be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the City. Council discussion or action cannot be taken on items not listed on the agenda other than to receive comments. Speaker forms are available from the City Clerk, 4477 Main Street, Shasta Lake, on the City’s website, or at the back of the meeting hall. If you have documents to present to members of Council, please provide a minimum of seven copies.
CONSENT AGENDA:
The items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine business and will be voted on together by one motion unless a Council Member requests a specific item to be removed and discussed separately.
1. Acceptance of the Minutes of the February 7, 2023 regular meeting. (page 3)
2. Acceptance of the Minutes of the February 14, 2023 special joint meeting with the Shasta Lake Fire Protection District. (page 5)
3. Information item. (page 6)
Checks, e-payments, and wires:
1/12/2023 $1,480,786.54
1/19/2023 $905,920.07
Payrolls:
2/10/2023 $178,941.05
PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
REGULAR AGENDA:
4. Discussion and possible action to ratify the re-appointment of Lieutenant Caleb MacGregor and the appointment of Sergeant Tom Fleming as Abatement and Administrative Hearing Officers for the City of Shasta Lake. (page 15)
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA February 21, 2023
5. Discussion and possible action to oppose Initiative No. 21-0042A1 “The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act.” (page 18)
6. STAFF COMMENTS:
7. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REPORTS:
This is the time set aside for Council Members, who may so desire, to give brief comments or reports concerning City matters. The City Council may not enter into discussion on matters reported.
Statements made by individual Council Members should not be interpreted as a statement of the City Council. The City Council only takes action by majority vote. • Brief reports by members of the Council regarding correspondence, events and/or meetings attended, and upcoming meetings/events.
• Suggestions/motions for future agenda items.
• In compliance with Assembly Bill 1234, Council will report on attendance at conferences/meetings/events where expenses are reimbursed by the City.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meetings are broadcast on the Wednesday following the meeting at 6:00 PM and the following Friday at 2:00 PM on Charter Channel 181. Videos of meetings are also available through the City website: www.cityofshastalake.org CITY OF SHASTA LAKE MAYOR’S PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING MARCH AS
ACES, RESILIENCE AND HOPE AWARENESS MONTH
WHEREAS, Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and trauma have been identified as one the major public health issues in California and the United States; and WHEREAS, the research confirms with scientific evidence that trauma during development increases the risk of physical, mental and behavior problems later in life; and WHEREAS, Shasta County has a significantly higher level of ACEs than the statewide average; and
WHEREAS, adverse childhood experiences include experiences in children, prior to the age of 18 years, of physical and emotional neglect; physical, emotional and sexual abuse; and household dysfunction including an incarcerated relative, substance use, divorce, domestic violence and mental illness; and
WHEREAS, Shasta County has had several community traumas during the past decade, including the Carr Fire in July 2018, the Zogg Fire in September 2020, the Dixie Fire in July 2021 and the pandemic, that have exacerbated the effects of ACEs; and WHEREAS, the Strengthening Families Collaborative (Far Northern Regional Center, First 5 Shasta, Pathways to Hope for Children, Northern Valley Catholic Social Service, One Safe Place, Shasta County Office of Education, Shasta County Probation, Shasta County Health and Human Services Public Health, Shasta County Health and Human Services Behavioral Health and Social Services, Shasta Headstart, Youth Options Shasta), was established in 2012 with the mission of strengthening families to overcome adversity by building hope and resilience; and WHEREAS, the Strengthening Families Collaborative meets monthly to support and promote resilience and hope in Shasta County; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shasta Lake strongly supports the efforts of the Strengthening Families Collaborative to build a healthy community of strong and resilient families.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Mayor of the City of Shasta Lake hereby proclaims support for the efforts of the Strengthening Families Collaborative to increase public awareness about adverse childhood experiences, resilience and hope in Shasta Lake and Shasta County.
Dated February 21, 2023 ____________________________
GREG WATKINS, Mayor
1 PREVENTION OFFICER REPORT
I joined the Shasta Lake Fire Protection District on August 1, 2022, as the Fire Marshall and Prevention Officer. Since that time, I have successfully completed Fire Inspector 1A, 1B, 1C, and FI210 Wildland Investigator trainings. I have established professional relationships with the City of Shasta Lake Development Services Department staff and have reviewed and/or inspected approximately 12 projects with their cooperation. Prevention Hours: August 2022 - February 2023, 23 Vegetation Abatement Notices have been mailed out.
Since November 1, 2022, the opening of burn season, 3 warnings have been issued. Approximately 20 hrs. per week is focused on Prevention, with the remainder of time to perform other duties as assigned. Youth Program: Youth Firesetter Prevention & Intervention (YFPI). In November 2022, 4 juveniles were referred and admitted into the youth program at my request. This program identifies the scope and impact of child fire setting and youth arson and activates preventative and intervention measures through the education of the child as well as the education of parent(s). Business Inspections: In June 2022, we updated the business compliance inspection program to a digital format. The First Due Program, will allow the SLFPD to track inspection records and compliance with Commercial Businesses located in the City of Shasta Lake. Compliance business inspections have been issued to the crew for follow up as of February 1, 2023.
Fires: The SLFPD has responded to 59 fires from August 1, 2022 – February 1, 2023. • 13 Vegetation Fires
• 15 Structure Fires
• 8 Vehicle Fires
• 23 Illegal Burn Piles
Respectfully Submitted,
Devin Owens
Devin M. Owens
Fire Marshal/ Prevention Officer
2 MEETING OF THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
HELD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2023 AT THE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 4488 RED BLUFF ST, SHASTA LAKE, CALIFORNIA
66:00 PM CALL TO ORDER - Regular Session
Mayor Watkins convened the regular meeting at 6:00 PM
Council Members present: Jones, Morgan, Powell, Watkins Council Members absent: none
Pledge & invocation
AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS
COMMUNICATIONS
Ann Morningstar reported on the Mosquito and Vector Control District.
Kristie Mathews reported on the recent Shasta County Commission on Aging meeting.
Presentations:
Shad Boone, Animal Control Supervisor – Presentation on Trap, Neuter, Release (TNR) Program.
Lori Mathiesen, District Director and Jared Faut, Recruiter – California Conservation Corps Presentation.
Aaron Hathaway - CalFIRE Presentation on High Fire Severity Zone Mapping.
Public Comment:
Arthur Collier made comment.
Jim Mark commented on code enforcement and assistant city manager position.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Acceptance of the Minutes of the January 17, 2023 regular meeting.
2. Information item. (page 19)
Checks, e-payments, and wires:
10/27/2022 $1,635,192.13
11/03/2022 $52,709.97
11/07/2022 $1,313,120.91
11/17/2022 $400,015.53
11/23/2022 $679,197.12
12/01/2022 $415,020.41
12/08/2022 $200,335.91
12/15/2022 $673,038.20
12/21/2022 $641,953.32
01/06/2023 $545,924.30
3 Payrolls:
11/08/2022 $193,984.63
11/18/2022 $194,501.23
12/02/2022 $193,984.63
12/16/2022 $192,384.12
12/30/2022 $191,454.07
01/13/2023 $180,601.06
3. Resolution CC-2023-06 accepting the quarterly Cash and Investment Report for the period ending December 31, 2022.
Motion/Vote:
By motion made/seconded (Powell/Morgan), and carried, the consent agenda was approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS None
REGULAR AGENDA
1. Discussion and possible action to approve a Resolution verifying review of the 2022 Annual General Plan and Housing Element Progress Reports and directing submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Department of Planning and Research (OPR).
Motion/Vote:
By motion made/seconded (Morgan/Jones), and carried, Resolution CC-2023-07 was approved.
COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Comments
City Council Comments
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, Mayor Watkins adjourned the meeting at 8:33 pm.
_____________________________
TONI M. COATES, CMC, City Clerk
4 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE
CITY COUNCIL AND THE SHASTA LAKE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
HELD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2023 AT THE
LARRY J. FARR COMMUNITY CENTER, 4499 MAIN ST, SHASTA LAKE, CALIFORNIA
64:30 PM CALL TO ORDER - Regular Session
Mayor Watkins convened the regular meeting at 4:30 PM
Council Members present: Jones, Morgan, Powell, Watkins SLFPD Board Members present: Chase (via internet) Morgan, Morningstar, Smith Council Members absent: none
SLFPD Board Members absent: Dave Thompson
1. Identify and analyze various funding options for continued fire protection services in the City of Shasta Lake.
Several topics related to this item were discussed and direction was given to staff to gather more information for a future meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, Mayor Watkins adjourned the meeting at 6:00 pm.
_____________________________
TONI M. COATES, CMC, City Clerk
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
Report and Recommendations 4
Reviewed and Approved
City Manager
AGENDA ITEM
City Council
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Jessaca Lugo, City Manager
DATE: February 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Appointment of Hearing Officers
FILE NO.: A-030-600-105
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council authorize a resolution ratifying and appointing Lt. Caleb MacGregor and Sgt. Tom Fleming as Hearing Officers for the City of Shasta Lake.
BACKGROUND
On July 3, 2018 City Council ratified Lieutenant Tom Campbell and Caleb MacGregor as Abatement Hearing Officers for the City. The City of Shasta Lake Municipal Code Section
8.16.030 states:
“Subject to ratification by a majority of the city council, the city manager shall appoint the abatement hearing officer(s) for proceedings under this chapter. The term of office of the abatement hearing officer shall be two years. The city manager may designate more than one abatement hearing officer, however, no more than one abatement hearing officer shall preside over any particular proceeding under this chapter. The city manager may re-appoint an abatement hearing officer for successive two-year terms. Compensation for the abatement hearing officer(s) may be established by resolution of the city council.”
Staff requests the reappointment of Lieutenant Caleb MacGregor and the appointment of Sergeant Tom Fleming to serve as Abatement Hearing Officers.
FISCAL IMPACT
No Fiscal Impact
15 ATTACHMENTS
Resolution CC-2023-XX
DISTRIBUTION
City Council
Shasta County Sheriff’s Department – Lt. Caleb MacGregor, Station Commander 16 RESOLUTION CC-2023-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE RATIFYING THE
RE-APPOINTMENT OF LIEUTENANT CALEB MACGREGOR AND THE APPOINMENT OF
SERGEANT TOM FLEMING AS ABATEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICERS
FOR THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE
WHEREAS, Shasta Lake Municipal Code Section 8.16.030 allows the City Manager to appoint abatement hearing officers for the City, subject to ratification by City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Manager recommends the re-appointment of Lieutenant Caleb MacGregor and the appointment of Sergeant Tom Fleming as Abatement and Administrative Hearing Officers; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager does not recommend any compensation for this position.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shasta Lake hereby:
1. Ratifies the reappointment of Lieutenant Caleb MacGregor as an Abatement and Administrative Hearing Officer for a two-year term, which shall expire on January 1, 2025;
2. Ratifies the appointment of Sergeant Tom Fleming as an Abatement and Administrative Hearing Officer for a two-year term, which shall expire on January 1, 2025.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of February 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
GREG WATKINS, Mayor
ATTEST:
TONI M. COATES, CMC
City Clerk
17 Report and Recommendations 5
Reviewed and Approved
City Manager
AGENDA ITEM
City Council
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Jessaca Lugo, City Manager
DATE: February 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Resolution Opposing Statewide Ballot Initiative 21-0042A1, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act
FILE NO.: A-050-060-005
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council Approve a Resolution Opposing Statewide Ballot Initiative 21-0042A1, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act.
BACKGROUND
I. SUMMARY:
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act would amend the California Constitution with provisions that limit voters’ authority and input, adopt new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and may make it more difficult to impose fines and penalties for violation of state and local laws.
The measure puts billions of local government tax and fee revenues at risk statewide with related core public service impacts.
The measure would have significant negative impacts on City of Shasta Lake operations and core service delivery.
The proposed constitutional initiative is sponsored by the California Business Roundtable.
Full text of Ballot Initiative
18 II. MAJOR PROVISIONS
Fees and Charges:
• Except for licensing and other regulatory fees, fees and charges may not exceed the “actual cost” of providing the product or service for which the fee is charged. “Actual cost” is the “minimum amount necessary.” The burden to prove the fee or charge does not exceed “actual cost” is changed to “clear and convincing” evidence. • Requires fees and charges paid for the use of local and state government property and the amount paid to purchase or rent government property to be “reasonable.” These fees and charges are currently allowed to be market-based. Whether the amount is “reasonable” (introducing a new legal standard aiming to force below market fee and charge amounts) must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence.” The standard may significantly reduce the amount large companies (e.g., oil, utilities, gas, railroads, garbage/refuse, cable, and other corporations) will pay for the use of local public property.
• Prohibits fees on new development based on vehicle miles traveled.
Taxes:
• Taxes and fees adopted after Jan. 1, 2022, that do not comply with the new rules, are void unless reenacted.
• Invalidates Upland decision that allows a majority of local voters to pass special taxes.
The measure specifies that taxes proposed by the initiative are subject to the same rules as taxes placed on the ballot by a city council.
• Expressly prohibits local advisory measures which allow local voters to express a preference for how local general tax dollars should be spent. • Requires voter approval to expand existing taxes (e.g., Utility, Transient Occupancy) to new territory (e.g., annexations) or to expand the tax base (e.g., new utility service) • New taxes can only be imposed for a specific time period. • City charters may not be amended to include a tax or fee. • All state taxes require majority voter approval.
Fines and Penalties:
• May require voter approval of fines, penalties, and levies for corporations and property owners that violate state and local laws unless a new, undefined adjudicatory process is used to impose the fines and penalties.
III. DISCUSSION/ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND
On Jan. 4, 2022, the California Business Roundtable filed the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” or AG# 21-0042A1. On Feb. 1, 2023, the measure qualified for the November 2024 ballot.
The League of California Cities, along with a broad coalition of local governments, labor and public safety leaders, infrastructure advocates, and businesses, strongly opposes this initiative.
Local government revenue-raising authority is currently substantially restricted by state statute and constitutional provisions, including the voter approved provisions of Proposition 19 13 of 1978, Proposition 218 of 1996, and Proposition 26 of 2010. The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act adds and expands restrictions on voters and local government tax and fee authority.
Fees and Taxes
Local governments levy a variety of fees and other charges to provide core public services.
Major examples of affected fees and charges are:
• Nuisance abatement charges, such as for weed, rubbish, and general nuisance abatement to fund community safety, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanup programs.
• Commercial franchise fees.
• Emergency response fees, such as in connection with DUI. • Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges.
• Document processing and duplication fees.
• Transit fees, tolls, parking fees, and public airport and harbor use fees. • Facility use charges, fees for parks and recreation services, garbage disposal tipping fees.
Virtually every city, county, and special district must regularly (e.g., annually) adopt increases to fee rates and charges and revise rate schedules to accommodate new users and activities.
Most of these would be subject to new standards and limitations under threat of legal challenge. Based on the current volume of fees and charges imposed by local agencies, including council-adopted increases to simply accommodate inflation, Cal Cities estimates the amount of local government fee and charge revenue at risk is approximately $2 billion per year including those adopted since Jan. 1, 2022. Over ten years, $20 billion of local government fee and charge revenues will be at heightened legal peril.
Hundreds of local tax measures were approved in 2022 that likely do not comply with the provisions of the initiative. Nearly $2 billion of annual revenues from these voter-approved measures will cease a year after the effective date of the measure, reducing the local public services funded by these measures, unless the tax is re-submitted for voter approval.
Reductions on local government tax revenues have impacts on core services and infrastructure including fire and emergency response, law enforcement, streets and roads, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, public schools, affordable housing, homelessness prevention, and mental health services.
Under existing law, cities are required to provide due process before imposing a penalty or fine for violation of its municipal code:
1. A local agency must adopt administrative procedures that govern imposing fines and penalties, including providing a reasonable period of time for a person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or remedy the violation [Gov't Code 53069.4].
2. Notice must be given to the violating party before imposing the penalty; and give the party an opportunity to be heard and present any facts or arguments [Merco Construction Engineers v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1969) 274 CA 2d 154, 166].
3. The fine may not be "excessive" [U.S. Constitution amendments VIII and XIV].
4. The initiative converts administratively-imposed fines and penalties into taxes unless a new, undefined, and ambiguous “adjudicatory due process” is followed. This 20 provision may put at risk authority to impose fines and penalties for violations of state and local law.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Ac could take billions of dollars away from local government services statewide.
There are no fiscal impacts to the City of Shasta Lake with resolution opposing Statewide Ballot Initiative 21-0042A1.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution CC-2023-XX
CBRT Summary Outline
CBRT Fiscal Analysis
DISTRIBUTION
City Council
City Attorney
Finance Director
21 RESOLUTION CC-2023-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE OPPOSING INITIATIVE NO. 21-0042A1 “THE TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT”
WHEREAS, an association representing California’s wealthiest corporations and developers is spending millions to push a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2024 statewide ballot; and
WHEREAS, the proposed proposition, Initiative 21-0042A1, has received the official title:
“LIMITS ABILITY OF VOTERS AND STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO RAISE
REVENUES FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICES INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT;” and
WHEREAS, the measure includes undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and infrastructure, and would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures where voters provide direction on how they want their local tax dollars spent; and
WHEREAS, the measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure and our environment; and
WHEREAS, the measure may make it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to local services at risk and could force cuts to fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more; and
WHEREAS, the measure would also reduce funding for critical infrastructure like streets and roads, public transportation, drinking water, sanitation, utilities, and more.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Shasta Lake opposes Initiative 21-0042A1; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Shasta Lake will join the No on Initiative 21- 0042A1 coalition, a growing coalition of public safety, education, labor, local government, and infrastructure groups throughout the state.
We direct staff to email a copy of this adopted resolution to the League of California Cities at [email protected].
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of February 2023, by the following vote:
22 AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
GREG WATKINS, Mayor
ATTEST:
TONI M. COATES, CMC
City Clerk
23 The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act Initiative No. 21-0042A11
Feb. 1, 2023
Effective date: Any new or increased tax or fee adopted by the Legislature, a city council, or the local voters after January 1, 2022, must comply with the Act’s new rules.
Voters
• Local advisory measures are prohibited. No measure may appear on the ballot asking for approval of a general tax that would allow the voters to express a preference for how the revenue from the general tax will, could, or should be used.
• Overturns Upland decision which upheld a special tax that had been placed on the ballot by the voters to be approved by a majority vote. Taxes proposed by initiative will be subject to the same rules as taxes placed on the ballot by a city council.
• Voters may not amend a city charter to impose, extend, or increase a tax or fee.
Local taxes
• Requires voter approval in order to apply an existing tax:
o to territory that is annexed.
o to a new service or product, for example when a utility user tax is applied to a new service.
• All new or increased taxes adopted after Jan. 1, 2022, must include a sunset date.
State taxes
• All new or increased state taxes require statewide voter approval. • Prohibits a property tax “surcharge” (increase). Prohibits any allocation of property tax to the state.
1 This is a summary of some of the more significant provisions of the Act. Please review the Act for a complete understanding of the changes it makes to the Constitution. 24 Fees and charges
• Fees and charges for services and permits may not exceed the “actual cost” of providing the product or service for which the fee is charged. “Actual cost” is the “minimum amount necessary.” Examples include planning services, excavation and encroachment permits, preparation of candidate statement, and permit parking.
• State and cities have the burden of proving by “clear and convincing evidence” that a fee/charge is not a tax, that the amount is reasonable, and that it does not exceed “actual cost.”
• Franchise fees — historically considered fees, not taxes — will more likely be considered taxes due to the elimination of an existing category of “fee” and the requirement that charges to entrance, purchase, rental, or lease of government property be “reasonable.” The state and cities issue franchises to oil companies, utilities, gas companies, railroads, garbage companies, cable companies, and other corporations.
• No fee or charge or exaction regulating vehicle miles traveled can be imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy.
Fines and penalties (administrative enforcement of state law and municipal codes)
• May require voter approval of fines and penalties for corporations and property owners that violate state and local laws unless a new, undefined adjudicatory process is used to impose the fines and penalties. Examples include nuisance abatement, organic waste reduction requirements, and failure to maintain a vacant property.
25 CaliforniaCityFinance.Com
Fiscal and Program Effects of
Initiative 21-0042A1 on Local Governments
If Initiative 21-0042A1 is placed on the ballot and passed by voters, it will result in:
Over $20 billion of local government fee and charge revenues over 10 years placed at heightened legal peril. Related public service reductions across virtually every aspect of city, county, special district, and school services especially for drinking water, sewer sanitation, and public health and safety. About $2 billion of revenues each year from fees and charges adopted after January 1, 2021 subject to legal peril.
1 Over $2 billion dollars of annual revenues from dozens of tax measures approved by voters between January 1, 2022 and the effective date of the act2 subject to additional voter approval if not in compliance with the initiative.
Indeterminable legal and administrative burdens and costs on local government from new and more empowered legal challenges, and bureaucratic cost tracking requirements. The delay and deterrence of municipal annexations.
Substantially higher legal and administrative cost of public infrastructure financing which will delay and deter new residential and commercial development.
Service and infrastructure declines including in fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, public schools, affordable housing, homelessness prevention and mental health services.
1. Local Government Taxes and Services Threatened
With regard to taxes, Initiative 21-0042A1:
Prohibits advisory, non-binding measures as to use of tax proceeds on the same ballot. o Voters may be less informed and more likely to vote against measures. Eliminates the ability of special tax measures proposed by citizen initiative to be enacted by majority voter approval (Upland).3
o Because the case law regarding citizen initiative special taxes approved by majority vote (Upland) is so recent, it is unknown how common these sorts of measures might be in the future. This initiative would prohibit such measures after the effective date of the initiative. Any such measures adopted after January 1, 2022 through the effective date of the Act should it pass would be void a year after the effective date of the initiative. Requires that tax measures include a specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed. This seems to require that all tax increases or extensions contain a sunset (end date). o This would require additional tax measures to extend previously approved taxes. A city charter may not be amended to impose, extend, or increase a tax might interfere with the ability of cities that do not already have such authority in their charters to adopt Property Transfer Taxes. o There are no more than a few of these every few years, but it is a valuable tax for those that adopt it.
1 Assumes fee increases since January 1, 2022 would be subject to possible legal challenge if not adopted in compliance with the Initiative.
2 The effective date of the initiative would be sometime in December 2024, the date the California Secretary of State certifies the election results of the November 5, 2024 election.
3 Unlike the initiative 17-0050, this initiative does not eliminate that ability of cities and counties to adopt general taxes by majority voter approval.
2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616
Phone: 530.758.3952 • Fax: 530.758.3952
Rev. January 14, 2023
26 – 2 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Requires that a tax measure adopted after January 1, 2022 and before the effective date of the initiative that was not adopted in accordance with the measure be readopted in compliance with the measure or will be void twelve months after the effective date of the initiative. o If past election patterns and elections in 2022 are an indication, over 200 tax measures approving more than $2 billion annual revenues to support local public services would not be in compliance and would be subject to reenactment. Most will be taxes without a specific end date and special taxes (including parcel taxes). Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, the measures would each require declaration of emergency and unanimous vote of the governing board to be placed on a special election ballot within a year for approval or the tax will be void after that date. I would expect most to succeed, but some will not, in particular citizen initiative majority vote special taxes which would have to meet a higher voter approval threshold to continue. Requires voter approval to expand an existing tax to new territory (annexations). This would require additional tax measures and would deter annexations and land development in cities. o If a tax is "extended" to an annexed area without a vote after January 1, 2022, it will be void 12 months later until brought into compliance. Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, such extensions would each require unanimous vote of the agency board to be placed on a special election ballot or would be void a year later.
1.a. Number of Measures and Value of Local Taxes at Risk4 Over a hundred local measures were approved in 2022 that likely do not comply with the provisions of Initiative 21-0042A1. Nearly $2 billion of annual revenues from these voter approved measures will cease a year after the effective date of the measure, reducing the local public services funded by these measures. We can expect a similar volume of measures in 2024 and a similar volume of non-compliance. So the combined total of annual local funding directly affected by Initiative 21-0042A1 due to its retroactivity provision is about $4 billion.
Citizen Initiative Special Taxes in 2022.
Special taxes placed on the ballot by citizen initiative and approved after January 1, 2022 by a majority but less than two-thirds of the voters are out of compliance with Initiative 21-0042A1.
On June 7, 2022, there were three local special tax measures placed on the ballot by citizen initiative. Two failed to get majority voter approval. A one percent transactions and use tax (sales tax) for the John C. Fremont Healthcare District in Mariposa County received 69.6 percent approval, over the two thirds needed for any special tax under California Constitution Article XIIIC. So this measure was passed in compliance with Initiative 21- 0042A1.
On November 8, 2022, there were 14 local special taxes placed on the ballot by citizen initiative. Seven of these 4 Source: Compilation and summary of data from County elections offices.
June 2022 Initiative Special Taxes - majority voter approval Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Estimated
Annual Revenue Use Sunset YES%
John C. Fremont
Healthcare District Mariposa Measure N Transactions & Use Tax 1 cent $ 150,000 hospital 40yrs 69.6% PASS County of Kings Kings Measure F Transactions
& Use Tax 1/2 cent $ 11,700,000 fire none 37.6% FAIL
Manhattan Beach
USD Los Angeles Measure A School Parcel Tax $1095/yr $ 12,000,000 schools 12yrs 31.2% FAIL 27 – 3 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
measures failed with less than majority voter approval. The other seven measures received majority, but less than two-thirds, voter approval. These measures passed under current law but are out of compliance with Initiative 21- 0042A1. Taken together these seven taxes will provide estimated annual revenues of from $900,000 to $1.4 billion in support of parks and recreation, zoo, library, affordable housing, transportation, homelessness prevention, and schools in these communities.
Non-Specific Tax Durations in 2022
Voters approved 106 measures in June 2022 (10) and November 2022 (96) that do not provide a specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed (end date). Typically, the ballot titles for these measures state that the tax would be imposed “until ended by voters.” Four of these measures also did not include any estimate of the annual revenues that the tax would generate, another violation of initiative 21-0042A1. Taken together, these approved local measures generate $561 million per year that will expire a year after the effective date of the initiative if Initiative 21-0042A1 passes.
November 2022 Initiative Special Taxes - majority voter approval Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Estimated
Annual Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Crockett Community
Services District Contra Costa Measure L Parcel Tax $50/parcel $ 60,000 parks/recr none 62.8% PASS Oakland Alameda Measure Y Parcel Tax $68/parcel $ 12,000,000 zoo 20yrs 62.5% PASS County of Mendocino Measure O Transactions
& Use Tax
1/8 cent then 1/4
cent in 2027 $ 4,000,000 library none 60.8% PASS
Los Angeles Los Angeles Measure ULA Property
Transfer Tax
4% if >$5m, 5.5%
if >$10m $600 m to $1.1 b affordable housing none 57.3% PASS County of Sacramento Measure A Transactions
& Use Tax same 1/2 cent $ 212,512,500 transportati
on
40yrs 55.3% PASS
San Francisco Proposition M Business
Operations Tax
$2500-$5000/
vacant resid unit $ 20,000,000 housing 30yrs 54.5% PASS Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure GS Property
Transfer Tax
$56/$1000 if
>$8m $ 50,000,000
schools,
homelessne
ss, afford.
housing
none 53.3% PASS
Total $900,000 to
$1.4 billion
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Estimated
Annual Revenue Use Sunset YES%
County of Calaveras Measure A Transactions
& Use Tax 1 cent $ 5,000,000 fire none 49.4% FAIL
South San Francisco
(for Schools) San Mateo Measure DD School Parcel Tax $2.50/sf $ 55,900,000 schools none 47.2% FAIL County of Fresno (for CSU ) Measure E Transactions
& Use Tax
1/5 ct,
1/40 ct (Reedley) $ 36,000,000 Calif State Univ 20yrs 46.9% FAIL Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Measure N Parcel Tax $6k/vacant SFU xxx vacant property
xxx 44.2% FAIL
County of Monterey Measure Q Parcel Tax $49/parcel $ 5,500,000 childcare 10yrs 41.1% FAIL San Francisco City
College
San
Francisco Measure O School Parcel Tax $150/sfu $ 37,000,000 schools 10yrs 36.7% FAIL Morro Bay San Luis
Obispo Measure B Parcel Tax $120+/parcel $ 680,000 harbor none 36.0% FAIL Inverness Public
Utility District Marin Measure O Parcel Tax $0.20/sf, $150/vacant $ 276,000 fire none 27.0% FAIL 28 – 4 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Oakland Alameda Measure T Business Tax
General various $ 20,900,000 none 71.4% PASS
Culver City Los Angeles Measure BL Business Tax
General various $ 10,000,000 none 60.5% PASS
El Segundo Los Angeles Measure BT Business Tax
General various $ 3,000,000 none 51.2% PASS
Pico Rivera Los Angeles Measure AB Business Tax
General various $ 5,800,000 none 75.5% PASS
Santa Ana Orange Measure W Business Tax
General various neutral none 64.8% PASS
Tracy San Joaquin Measure B Business Tax
General various $ 3,200,000 none 72.6% PASS
Burlingame San Mateo Measure X Business Tax
General various $ 2,500,000 none 75.1% PASS
Los Gatos Santa Clara Measure J Business Tax
General various $ 1,100,000 none 53.4% PASS
Santa Clara Santa Clara Measure H Business Tax
General
$45/employee,
$15/rental unit $ 6,000,000 none 59.5% PASS
Brisbane San Mateo Measure O Business Tax
lodging busn $2.50/rm/day $ 250,000 none 69.2% PASS
East Palo Alto San Mateo Measure L Business Tax
resid. rentals
2.5%
grossRcpts $ 1,480,000 none 69.9% PASS
County of Santa Cruz Unincorporated Measure C Busn Tax - disp cups 12.5cents/cup $ 700,000 none 68.2% PASS
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado Measure G Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% retail,
manufacturing $ 950,000 none 62.9% PASS
McFarland Kern Measure O Busn Tax
Cannabis
8% of gross
receipts retail, $ 1,800,000 none 63.5% PASS
Avenal Kings Measure C Busn Tax
Cannabis
$25+/sf or
15% gr rcpts $ 600,000 none 61.8% PASS
Baldwin Park Los Angeles Measure CB Busn Tax
Cannabis
4%
grossRcpts $ 300,000 none 51.3% PASS
Claremont Los Angeles Measure CT Busn Tax
Cannabis
4%-7% gr
rcpts, $1- $ 500,000 none 61.1% PASS
County of Los Angeles Unincorporated Measure C Busn Tax Cannabis
4% gross
receipts retail, $ 15,170,000 none 60.1% PASS
Cudahy Los Angeles Measure BA Busn Tax
Cannabis
15%
grossRcpts $ 3,600,000 none 54.0% PASS
El Segundo Los Angeles Measure Y Busn Tax
Cannabis
10%
GrossRcpt, $ 1,500,000 none 72.8% PASS
Hermosa Beach Los Angeles Measure T Busn Tax
Cannabis
10%
GrossRcpt, $ 1,500,000 none 67.6% PASS
Lynwood Los Angeles Measure TR Busn Tax
Cannabis 5%to10% $ 3,000,000 none 66.4% PASS
Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure HM Busn Tax
Cannabis
10% gross
Rcpts $ 5,000,000 none 66.4% PASS
South El Monte Los Angeles Measure CM Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% special
excise tax on $ 126,000 none 53.7% PASS
Monterey Monterey Measure J Busn Tax
Cannabis 6% grossRcpt $ 1,300,000 none 65.2% PASS
Pacific Grove Monterey Measure N Busn Tax
Cannabis 6% grossRcpt $ 300,000 none 70.8% PASS
Huntington Beach Orange Measure O Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% retail, 1%
other $ 600,000 none 54.7% PASS
29 – 5 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Notes
?= Ballot measure title did not include an estimate of annual revenues, also not in compliance with Initiative 21-0042A1. n/a*= Arcadia Measure SW passed but sports betting remains illegal after the failure of Propositions 26 and 27 on the November statewide ballot.
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Laguna Woods Orange Measure T Busn Tax
Cannabis
4%-10% of
gross receipts $ 750,000 none 61.1% PASS
Corona Riverside Measure G Busn Tax
Cannabis
9% of gross
receipts for $ 5,000,000 none 61.6% PASS
Montclair San Bernardino Measure R Busn Tax
Cannabis
7%
grossRcpts $ 3,500,000 none 70.3% PASS
County of San Diego Unincorporated Measure A Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% retail, 3%
distribution, $ 5,600,000 none 57.4% PASS
Encinitas San Diego Measure L Busn Tax
Cannabis
4% to 7% of
gross receipts $ 1,400,000 none 65.1% PASS
Healdsburg Sonoma Measure M Busn Tax
Cannabis 8% grossRcpt $ 500,000 none 72.7% PASS
Exeter Tulare Measure B Busn Tax
Cannabis
10% retail and
other, $10/sf ? none 66.5% PASS
Tulare Tulare Measure Y Busn Tax
Cannabis
10% retail and
other, $10/sf ? none 65.2% PASS
Woodland Yolo Measure K Busn Tax
Cannabis
10%
grossRcpts
? none 66.2% PASS
Redlands San Bernardino Measure J Busn Tax
Distrib centers
from $0.047/sf
to $0.105/sf $ 530,000 none 53.5% PASS
Arcadia Los Angeles Measure SW Busn Tax
Sports Betting
5%
grossRcpts
n/a* none 63.9% PASS
Albany Alameda Measure K ParcelTax $0.074+/sf $ 1,950,000 fire/EMS none 76.0% PASS Cameron Park Airport
District El Dorado Measure J ParcelTax by $600 to $900/parcel $ 117,900 airport/ streets none 78.2% PASS Highlands Village
Lighting Benefit Zone El Dorado Measure L ParcelTax $140+/parcel $ 10,920 streets none 86.3% PASS Knolls Property
Owners CSD El Dorado Measure P ParcelTax by $300+ to $600+/parcel $ 8,400 streets none 75.5% PASS Sundance Trail Zone of
Benefit El Dorado Measure C ParcelTax $600+/yr $ 24,000 roads none 73.2% PASS South Pasadena Los Angeles Measure LL ParcelTax xxx ? library none 86.2% PASS River Delta Fire District Sacramento Measure H ParcelTax $90/yr $ 130,000 fire none 72.1% PASS Emeryville Alameda Measure O PropTransfTax $15/$1000 if $1m-$2m, $ 5,000,000 none 71.6% PASS
San Mateo San Mateo Measure CC PropTransfTax by 1% to 1.5% if >$10m $ 4,800,000 none 71.8% PASS
Alameda Alameda Measure F TOT by 4% to 14% $ 910,000 none 59.2% PASS Clovis Fresno Measure B TOT by 2% to 12% $ 500,000 none 69.7% PASS Kerman Fresno Measure G TOT 10% $ 40,000 none 62.3% PASS Trinidad Humboldt Measure P TOT by 4% to 12% $ 65,000 none 77.6% PASS Imperial Imperial Measure G TOT by 4% to 12% $ 600,000 none 56.2% PASS Arcadia Los Angeles Measure HT TOT by 2% to 12% $ 730,000 none 54.1% PASS Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure CS TOT by 1%, 3%
home shares $ 4,100,000 none 73.7% PASS
30 – 6 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Anaheim Orange Measure J TOT online travel
companies $ 3,000,000 none 59.2% PASS
La Palma Orange Measure P TOT by 4% to 12% $ 200,000 none 71.1% PASS Colfax Placer Measure B TOT by 2% to10% $ 29,000 none 73.5% PASS Rocklin Placer Measure F TOT by 2% to 10% $ 300,000 none 59.8% PASS Roseville Placer Measure C TOT by 4% to 10% $ 3,000,000 none 73.0% PASS Big Bear Lake San Bernardino Measure P TOT by 2% to 10% $ 1,300,000 none 54.4% PASS Grand Terrace San Bernardino Measure M TOT new 10% $ 250,000 none 51.9% PASS Yucca Valley San Bernardino Measure K TOT by 5% to 12% $ 1,300,000 none 71.9% PASS Imperial Beach San Diego Measure R TOT by 4% to 14% $ 400,000 none 67.4% PASS El Paso de Robles San Luis ObispoMeasure F TOT by 1% to 11% $ 750,000 none 61.2% PASS Belmont San Mateo Measure K TOT by 2% to 14% $ 600,000 none 79.3% PASS Millbrae San Mateo Measure N TOT by 2% to 14% $ 1,500,000 none 75.8% PASS County of Humboldt Unincorporated Measure J TOT by 2% to 12% $ 3,080,000 none 63.3% PASS County of Placer -
North Tahoe TOT Area Measure A TOT by 2% to 10% $ 4,000,000 none 90.0% PASS County of Santa Cruz Unincorporated Measure B TOT by 1% to 12% $ 2,300,000 none 69.2% PASS County of El Dorado -
East Slope Tahoe Measure S TOT 2/3 by 4% to 14% $ 2,500,000 none 81.8% PASS Chico Butte Measure H TrUT 1 cent $ 24,000,000 none 52.4% PASS Mendota Fresno Measure H TrUT 1.25 cent $ 493,498 none 57.2% PASS Blue Lake Humboldt Measure R TrUT 1 cent $ 30,000 none 55.4% PASS Rio Dell Humboldt Measure O TrUT 3/4cent $ 400,000 none 53.3% PASS County of Kern unincorporated areas Measure K TrUT 1 cent $ 54,000,000 none 50.8% PASS McFarland Kern Measure M TrUT 1 cent $ 579,662 none 62.2% PASS Tehachapi Kern Measure S TrUT 1 cent $ 4,000,000 none 57.2% PASS Avenal Kings Measure A TrUT 1 cent $ 500,000 none 72.5% PASS Susanville Lassen Measure P TrUT 1 cent $ 1,750,000 none 54.7% PASS Baldwin Park Los Angeles Measure BP TrUT 3/4 cent $ 6,000,000 none 58.1% PASS Malibu Los Angeles Measure MC TrUT 1/2 cent $ 3,000,000 none 52.6% PASS Monterey Park Los Angeles Measure MP TrUT 3/4 cent $ 6,000,000 none 58.5% PASS Torrance Los Angeles Measure SST TrUT 1/2 cent $ 18,000,000 none 55.0% PASS Larkspur Marin Measure G TrUT 1/4 cent $ 700,000 none 59.4% PASS Sand City Monterey Measure L TrUT by 1/2cent to
1.5cents $ 1,400,000 none 68.7% PASS
Hemet Riverside Measure H TrUT same 1 cent $ 15,000,000 none 58.0% PASS Elk Grove Sacramento Measure E TrUT 1 cent $ 21,000,000 none 54.1% PASS Galt Sacramento Measure Q TrUT 1 cent $ 3,600,000 none 52.4% PASS Colton San Bernardino Measure S TrUT 1 cent $ 9,500,000 none 66.8% PASS Ontario San Bernardino Measure Q TrUT 1 cent $ 95,000,000 none 53.2% PASS Solana Beach San Diego Measure S TrUT 1 cent $ 3,000,000 none 66.7% PASS Brisbane San Mateo Measure U TrUT 1/2 cent $ 2,000,000 none 63.9% PASS Goleta Santa Barbara Measure B TrUT 1 cent $ 10,600,000 none 64.7% PASS Solvang Santa Barbara Measure U TrUT 1 cent $ 1,600,000 none 63.1% PASS 31 – 7 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Co-temporal Advisory Measures in 2022
At the November 2022 election, there was just one local general tax measure that was accompanied by an advisory measure as to the use of funds. The City of Santa Monica’s Measure DT property transfer tax failed with just 34 percent approval as voters instead chose the citizen initiative Measure GS.
There was also just one such tax use advisory measure on the June 2022 election. Susanville’s voters passed Measure P, a 1 percent transactions and use (sales) tax that generates $1.75 million per year5 for general city services. The measure was accompanied by advisory Measure Q, accompanied the city’s It asked, “If Measure P passes, should the revenues be used to balance the budget to maintain and enhance existing public safety services (police and fire), and provide funding to support street infrastructure improvements and provide funding to support economic development efforts designed to increase businesses, jobs and visitors to Susanville?” Both measures passed. Under Initiative 21-0042A1, the tax will expire a year after the effective date of the initiative (i.e., in December 2025).
1.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Tax Provisions Assuming a similar volume of local measures through 2024 as we saw in 2022, there will be over 200 local measures that will need to be redrafted to comply with the Initiative and placed back on the ballot for the taxes to continue after December 2025. The costs of re-drafting, re-placing and re-voting on these measures, previously legally approved by voters, will be in the tens of millions in total statewide.
2. “Exempt Charges” (fees and charges that are not taxes) and Services Threatened With regard to fees and charges adopted after January 1, 2022, Initiative 21-0042A1:
Subjects new fees and charges for a product or service to a new "actual and reasonable test." Subjects fees and charges for entrance to local government property; and rental and sale of local government property to a new, undefined, “reasonable” test. Allows legal challenge to any tax adopted before the effective date of the initiative and after January 1, 5 The Susanville measure also did not include a specific end date and so is included in the list and totals of those measures.
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Watsonville Santa Cruz Measure R TrUT 1/2 cent $ 5,000,000 none 64.4% PASS Vallejo Solano Measure P TrUT 7/8 cent $ 18,000,000 none 54.7% PASS Modesto Stanislaus Measure H TrUT 1 cent $ 39,000,000 none 62.8% PASS County of Colusa Measure A TrUT 2/3 1/2 cent $ 2,400,000 EMS none 69.4% PASS Atwater Merced Measure B TrUT 2/3 same 1 cent $ 4,000,000 police/fire none 73.7% PASS Truckee Nevada Measure U TrUT 2/3 by 1/4 cent to
1/2 cent $ 3,000,000 open space / trails none 76.4% PASS Palo Alto Santa Clara Measure L UtilityTransfer 18% gas $ 7,000,000 none 77.7% PASS Santa Clara Santa Clara Measure G UtilityTransfer 5 % $ 30,000,000 none 84.2% PASS Hercules Contra Costa Measure N UUT 8% $ 3,600,000 none 69.3% PASS Carson Los Angeles Measure UU UUT 2% electr, gas $ 8,000,000 none 78.4% PASS Sebastopol Sonoma Measure N UUT 3.75% (same) $ 700,000 none 83.5% PASS 32 – 8 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
2022. Such a lawsuit could enjoin (stop) the enactment of the tax pending the outcome of the legal challenge.
Subjects a challenged fee to new, higher burdens of proof if legally challenged.
2.a. Value on New Local Government Fees and Charges at Risk6 Virtually every city, county, and special district must regularly (e.g., annually) adopt increases to fee rates and charges and revise rate schedules to accommodate new users and activities. Most of these would be subject to new standards and limitations under threat of legal challenge. Based on the current volume of fees and charges imposed by local agencies and increases in those fees simply to accommodate inflation, the amount of local government fee and charge revenue placed at risk is about $2 billion per year including those adopted since January 1, 2022. Of $2 billion, about $900 million (45 percent) is for special districts, $800 million (40 percent) is cities, and $300 million (15 percent) is counties.7 Major examples of affected fees and charges are:
1. Certain water, sanitary sewer, wastewater, garbage, electric, gas service fees.
2. Nuisance abatement charges - such as for weed, rubbish and general nuisance abatement to fund community safety, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanup programs.
3. Emergency response fees - such as in connection with DUI.
4. Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges.
5. Business improvement district charges.
6. Fees for processing of land use and development applications such as plan check fees, use permits, design review, environmental assessment, plan amendment, subdivision map changes.
7. Document processing and duplication fees.
8. Facility use charges, parking fees, tolls.
9. Fines, penalties.
10. Fees for parks and recreation services.
2.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Fee/Charge Provisions In addition to service delays and disruptions due to fee and charge revenues placed at greater legal risk, there would be substantial additional costs for legal defense. The risk to fees and charges will make infrastructure financing more difficult and will deter new residential and commercial development. ***********
mc
6 Source: California State Controller Annual Reports of Financial Transactions concerning cities, counties and special districts, summarized with an assumed growth due to fee rate increases (not population) of 2 percent annually. 7 School fees are also affected but the amount is negligible by comparison. 33