City of South El Monte, CA
Forecast Maintenance / Rehabilitation (FMR) Report - FY 2023-2028 Sorted by FY, Rank, Name Order (A-Z)
FY Branch ID Sec ID Name From To Rank Type Lanes Length Width Area Insp Date PCI PCI Climate % PCI Load % PCI Other % Maint. Type Total $ 2024-25 Penn Mar A 3730 Penn Mar Ave Remer St Thienes Ave E AC 2 750 36 27,000 5/11/2023 37 39 59 2 AC Grind-Overlay $96,660 2024-25 Penn Mar A 3742 Penn Mar Ave Rush St South End E AC 2 268 32 8,576 5/11/2023 41 16 84 0 AC Grind-Overlay $30,702 $576,809
2025-26 Andrews St 260 Andrews St Farmer Ave Lexham Ave E AC 2 565 36 20,340 5/16/2023 48 26 74 0 AC Grind-Overlay $76,478 2025-26 Andrews St 280 Andrews St Lexham Ave City Limits (W) E AC 2 185 36 6,660 5/16/2023 48 43 57 0 AC Grind-Overlay $25,042 2025-26 Arcy Ln 290 Arcy Ln Esteban Torres Dr Cul-De-Sac (N) E AC 2 108 34 4,650 5/15/2023 72 93 0 7 Type II Slurry $2,325 2025-26 Enloe St 1430 Enloe St Central Ave Santa Anita Ave E AC 2 1,320 36 47,520 5/10/2023 81 66 33 1 Type II Slurry $23,760 2025-26 Esteban To 1460 Esteban Torres Dr Central Ave Arcy Ln E AC 2 770 32 24,640 5/15/2023 81 96 0 4 Type II Slurry $12,320 2025-26 Esteban To 1470 Esteban Torres Dr Arcy Ln Cul-De-Sac (S) E AC 2 382 32 13,765 5/15/2023 78 90 0 10 Type II Slurry $6,883 2025-26 Haven Park 2070 Haven Park St Fern St Cul-De-Sac (S) E AC 2 156 30 5,910 5/15/2023 86 100 0 0 Type II Slurry $2,955 2025-26 Havenpark 2080 Havenpark Ave Lerma Rd Remer St E AC 2 1,018 32 32,576 5/10/2023 77 70 28 2 Type II Slurry $16,288 2025-26 Havenpark 2090 Havenpark Ave Schmidt Rd Cul-De-Sac (N) E AC 2 195 32 7,155 5/10/2023 84 100 0 0 Type II Slurry $3,578 2025-26 Hayward Wa 2110 Hayward Way Merced Ave Cul-De-Sac (W) E AC 2 594 40 26,943 5/16/2023 37 47 48 5 AC Grind-Overlay $101,306 2025-26 Klingerman St 2300 Klingerman St West End Potrero Ave E AC 2 998 62 61,876 5/16/23 19 10 89 1 AC Grind-Overlay $232,654 2025-26 Klingerman St 2310 Klingerman St Potrero Ave Seaman Ave E AC 2 830 36 29,880 5/31/23 36 40 60 0 AC Grind-Overlay $112,349 2025-26 Show Ct 4750 Show Ct Farndon St Cul-De-Sac (S) E AC 2 155 27 5,525 5/15/2023 53 47 53 0 AC Grind-Overlay $20,774 2025-26 Springwood 4760 Springwood St Maxson Rd Durfee Ave (Frontage) E AC 2 565 28 15,820 5/31/2023 81 84 0 16 Type II Slurry $7,910 $644,620
2026-27 Danielson 990 Danielson Dr Gomez Palacio Dr Cul-De-Sac (W) E AC 2 360 32 13,420 5/15/2023 53 49 51 0 AC Grind-Overlay $53,009 2026-27 DurfeeFron 1240 Durfee Ave (Frontage Parlin St Broadmead St E AC 2 742 26 19,292 5/15/2023 79 54 33 13 Type II Slurry $10,032 2026-27 Floradale Av 1760 Floradale Ave Thienes Ave Cul-De-Sac (N) E AC 2 620 42 29,965 5/11/23 23 25 71 4 AC Grind-Overlay $118,362 2026-27 Floradale Av 1770 Floradale Ave Rush St South End E AC 2 622 34 21,148 5/11/23 33 40 60 0 AC Grind-Overlay $83,535 2026-27 Michael Hu 3370 Michael Hunt Dr Santa Anita Ave Lidcombe Ave E AC 2 476 36 17,136 5/15/2023 73 34 18 48 Type II Slurry $8,911 2026-27 Michael Hu 3390 Michael Hunt Dr Lidcombe Ave Penn Mar Ave E AC 2 1,035 36 37,260 5/15/2023 76 52 13 35 Type II Slurry $19,375 2026-27 Michael Hu 3400 Michael Hunt Dr Penn Mar Ave Leafdale Ave E AC 2 490 36 17,640 5/15/2023 84 62 38 0 Type II Slurry $9,173 2026-27 Michael Hu 3450 Michael Hunt Dr Leafdale Ave Durfee Ave E AC 2 700 36 25,200 5/15/2023 81 59 41 0 Type II Slurry $13,104 2026-27 Michael Hu 3470 Michael Hunt Dr Durfee Ave (W) Peck Rd E AC 2 245 36 8,820 5/15/2023 72 72 28 0 Type II Slurry $4,586 2026-27 Parlin St 3540 Parlin St Maxson Rd Durfee Ave (Frontage) E AC 2 545 28 15,260 5/15/2023 86 100 0 0 Type II Slurry $7,935 2026-27 Potrero Av 3940 Potrero Ave Garvey Ave City Limits 290' N/ Garvey Ave E AC 2 290 40 12,256 5/16/2023 52 37 59 4 AC Grind-Overlay $48,411 2026-27 Remer St 3950 Remer St Chico Ave Adelia Ave E AC 2 635 33 21,755 4/25/2023 58 45 55 0 AC Grind-Overlay $85,932 2026-27 Remer St 3970 Remer St Merced Ave Strozier Ave E AC 2 298 33 9,834 5/10/2023 84 100 0 0 Type II Slurry $5,114 2026-27 Remer St 3980 Remer St Strozier Ave Millet Ave E AC 2 270 32 8,640 5/10/2023 84 100 0 0 Type II Slurry $4,493 2026-27 Remer St 3990 Remer St Millet Ave Central Ave E AC 2 660 32 21,120 5/10/2023 86 100 0 0 Type II Slurry $10,982 2026-27 Remer St 4010 Remer St Lexham Ave Leafdale Ave E AC 2 730 26 21,460 5/11/2023 39 34 66 0 AC Grind-Overlay $84,767 $567,721
2027-28 Cogswell R 920 Cogswell Rd Michael Hunt Dr Thienes Ave E AC 2 1,280 36 46,080 5/11/2023 75 43 17 40 Type II Slurry $25,344 2027-28 Cogswell R 930 Cogswell Rd Thienes Ave Rush St E AC 2 1,272 37 47,064 5/11/2023 66 29 71 0 Type II Slurry $25,885 2027-28 Continenta 940 Continental Ave Weaver Ave Klingerman St E AC 2 908 36 32,688 5/10/2023 83 75 0 25 Type II Slurry $17,978 2027-28 Continenta 950 Continental Ave Klingerman St Elliott Ave E AC 2 895 36 32,220 5/10/2023 42 38 62 0 AC Grind-Overlay $133,391 2027-28 Cortada St 980 Cortada St Cul-De-Sac (SW) City Limits 180' E/ CDS E AC 2 180 35 8,625 5/16/2023 71 69 27 4 Type II Slurry $4,744 2027-28 Fineview S 1740 Fineview St Tyler Ave Cogswell School Gate E AC 2 280 40 11,200 5/10/2023 40 54 46 0 AC Grind-Overlay $46,368 2027-28 Frank Stil 1780 Frank Stiles St Rush St Cul-De-Sac (S) E AC 2 545 36 23,148 5/11/2023 67 50 18 32 Type II Slurry $12,731 2027-28 Lexham Ave 2780 Lexham Ave Andrews St Fawcett Ave E AC 2 635 36 22,860 5/31/2023 40 35 63 2 AC Grind-Overlay $94,640 2027-28 Lexham Ave 2790 Lexham Ave Michael Hunt Dr Remer St E AC 2 507 26 14,155 5/15/2023 34 35 65 0 AC Grind-Overlay $58,602 2027-28 Potrero Av 3900 Potrero Ave Rush St Klingerman St E AC 2 1,295 34 44,030 4/25/23 29 33 59 8 AC Grind-Overlay $182,284 $601,968
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 9.c.
DATE: March 12, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rene Salas, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Rene Salas, City Manager
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO.
24-137, IN SUPPORT OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME
COURT REMOVING THE TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT
AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT FROM THE
NOVEMBER 2024 BALLOT
SUMMARY: The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act would revise 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 could have significant negative impacts on City of South El Monte operations and core service delivery.
The proposed constitutional initiative is sponsored by the California Business Roundtable (CBRT).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council Adopt Resolution No. 24- 137, In Support of the California Supreme Court Removing The Taxpayer Protection Act and Government Accountability Act from the November 2024 Ballot.
FISCAL/FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
DISCUSSION: MAJOR PROVISIONS
The California Supreme Court has a pending case entitled Legislature of the State of California v. Weber (Hiltachk), Case No. S281977. The Court issued an order to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted to remove the Taxpayer Protection Act and Government Accountability Act from the November 2024 ballot.
This California Supreme Court case presents the following issues: (1) Does the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act constitute an impermissible attempted revision of the California Constitution by voter initiative? (2) Is this initiative measure subject to invalidation on the ground that, if adopted, it would impair essential government functions?
A date for the oral argument of the case before the California Supreme Court has not been set. Many different public entities have filed amicus briefs with the California Supreme Court urging the Court to invalidate the Taxpayer Protection Act and Government Accountability Act as an illegal restraint on the taxing authority of local government and because the Taxpayer Protection Act and Government Accountability Act could possibly apply retroactively to invalidate taxes that the voters approved statewide in November 2022.
The reason for this possible retroactive application is that the above requirements of the Taxpayer Protection Act and Government Accountability Act were not met when measures where placed on the ballot for the November 2022 election because the Taxpayer Protection Act and Government Accountability Act did not exist at that time.
The attached resolution is in support of requests to remove the Taxpayer Protection Act and Government Accountability Act from the November 2024 ballot for the above reasons.
ATTACHMENT(S):
A. Initiative 21-0042A1 (Taxes)
B. Resolution No. 24-137 Opposing CBRT Measure
C. Corporate Tax Trick_Top5Reasons_Factsheet_2024_FINAL D. City&Town Coalition List 02.12.24
E. Major Organizations Coalition List 02.12.24
BELL, McANDREWS & HILTACHK, LLP
Anabel Renteria
Initiative Coordinator
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSEL-ORS AT I.AW
455 C APITO L MALL, S UITE 600
SACRAMENTO, CALIFOE=INIA 95014
(916) 44;a-7757
FAX [916) 44-;a-77 59
www.bmhlaw.com
January 4, 2022
2 1 - 0 0 4 2
RECEIVED
JAN O 4 2022
Office of the Attorney General
State of California
INITIATIVE COORDINATOR
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
PO Box 994255
Sacramento, CA 94244-25550
Re: Initiative 21-0042 - Amendment Number One
Dear Initiative Coordinator:
Pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 9002 of the Elections Code, enclosed please find Amendment #1 to Initiative No. 21-0042 "The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act." The amendments are reasonably germane to the theme, purpose or subject of the initiative measure as originally proposed.
I am the proponent of the measure and request that the Attorney General prepare a circulating title and summary of the measure as provided by law, using the amended language.
Thank you for your time and attention processing my request.
Sincerely,
Thomas W.
~ Hiltachk
ATTACHMENT A
2 1 - 0 0 4 2 Arndt. # /
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act [Deleted codified text is denoted in strikeout. Added codified text is denoted by italics and underline.] Section 1. Title
This Act shall be known, and may be cited as, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act.
Section 2. Findings and Declarations
(a) Californians are overtaxed. We pay the nation's highest state income tax, sales tax, and gasoline tax. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, California's combined state and local tax burden is the highest in the nation. Despite this, and despite two consecutive years of obscene revenue surpluses, state politicians in 2021 alone introduced legislation to raise more than $234 billion in new and higher taxes and fees.
(b) Taxes are only part of the reason for California's rising cost-of-living crisis. Californians pay billions more in hidden "fees" passed through to consumers in the price they pay for products, services, food, fuel, utilities and housing. Since 2010, government revenue from state and local "fees" has more than doubled.
(c) California's high cost of living not only contributes to the state's skyrocketing rates of poverty and homelessness, they are the pushing working families and job-providing businesses out of the state. The most recent Census showed that California's population dropped for the first time in history, costing us a seat in Congress. In the past four years, nearly 300 major corporations relocated to other states, not counting thousands more small businesses that were forced to move, sell or close. (d) California voters have tried repeatedly, at great expense, to assert control over whether and how taxes and fees are raised. We have enacted a series of measures to make taxes more predictable, to limit what passes as a "fee," to require voter approval, and to guarantee transparency and accountability. These measures include Proposition 13 (1978), Proposition 62 (1986), Proposition 218 (1996), and Proposition 26 (2010).
(e) Contrary to the voters' intent, these measures that were designed to control taxes, spending and accountability, have been weakened and hamstrung by the Legislature, government lawyers, and the courts, making it necessary to pass yet another initiative to close loopholes and reverse hostile court decisions.
Section 3. Statement of Purpose
(a) In enacting this measure, the voters reassert their right to a voice and a vote on new and higher taxes by requiring any new or higher tax to be put before voters for approval. Voters also intend that all fees and other charges are passed or rejected by the voters themselves or a governing body elected by voters and not unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.
(b) Furthermore, the purpose and intent of the voters in enacting this measure is to increase transparency and accountability over higher taxes and charges by requiring any tax measure placed on the ballot1 either at the state or local level-to clearly state the type and rate of any tax, how long it will be in effect, and the use of the revenue generated by the tax.
(c) Furthermore, the purpose and intent of the voters in enacting this measure is to clarify that any new or increased form of state government revenue, by any name or manner of extraction paid directly or indirectly by Californians, shall be authorized only by a vote of the Legislature and signature of the Governor to ensure that the purposes for such charges are broadly supported and transparently debated. (d) Furthermore, the purpose and intent of the voters in enacting this measure is also to ensure that taxpayers have the right and ability to effectively balance new or increased taxes and other charges with the rapidly increasing costs Californians are already paying for housing, food, childcare, gasoline, energy, healthcare, education, and other basic costs of living, and to further protect the existing constitutional limit on property taxes and ensure that the revenue from such taxes remains local, without changing or superseding existing constitutional provisions contained in Section 1{c) of Article XIII A. (e) In enacting this measure, the voters also additionally intend to reverse loopholes in the legislative twothirds vote and voter approval requirements for government revenue increases created by the courts including, but not limited to, Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, Chamber of Commerce v. Air Resources Board, Schmeer v. Los Angeles County, Johnson v. County of Mendocino, Citizens Assn. of Sunset Beach v.
Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission, and Wilde v. City of Dunsmuir.
Section 4. Section 3 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution is amended to read:
Sec. 3(a} Every levy, charge. or exaction of any kind imposed by state law is either a tax or an exempt charge.
illlJ1l ~ Any change in state statute Jaw which results in any taxpayer paying a new or higher tax must be imposed by an act passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature, and submitted to the electorate and approved by a maiority vote, except that no new ad valorem taxes on real property, or sales or transaction taxes on the sales of real property, may be imposed. Each Act shall include:
(A) A specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed and an estimate of the annual amount expected to be derived from the tax.
(BJ A specific and legally binding and enforceable limitation on how the revenue from the tax can be spent.
If the revenue from the tax can be spent for unrestricted general revenue purposes. then a statement that the tax revenue can be spent for "unrestricted general revenue purposes" shall be included in a separate, stand-alone section. Any proposed change to the use of the revenue from the tax shall be adopted by a separate act that is passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature and submitted to the electorate and approved by a maiority vote. (2) The title and summary and ballot label or question required for a measure pursuant to the Elections Code shall. for each measure providing for the imposition of a tax, including a measure proposed by an elector pursuant to Article II, include:
{A) The type and amount or rate of the tax;
(BJ The duration of the tax: and
2 (CJ The use of the revenue derived from the tax.
(c} Any change in state law which results in any taxpayer paying a new or higher exempt charge must be imposed by an act passed by each of the two houses of the Legislature. Each act shall specify the type of exempt charge as provided in subdivision (e ), and the amount or rate of the exempt charge to be imposed.
Ml._fbt As used in this section and in Section 9 of Article II, "tax" means every aA1f levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by the State state law that is not an exempt charge. e1<eept the follo•Ning:
(e) As used in this section. "exempt charge" means only the following:
(1) a el:iarge imposes fer a s1=1eeifie eenefit eonferreEl or pri'+'ilege granteEl aireetly to tl:ie 13ayor tl:iat is not 1=1ro>viaeEl to tl:iose not et:iargeEI, anEI whiel:i aoes not e1<ceeEl tl:ie reasonal3Ie costs to tl:ie State of eonferring the benefit or granting the pri¥ilege to the 1=1a¥OF.
ill {-2+ A reasonable charge irnposeEl for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the rnasonable actual costs to the State of providing the service or product to the payor. f.11 ~ A charge in,poseEl for the reasonable regulatory costs to the State incident to issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof. (3) A levy, charge. or exaction collected from local units of government. health care providers or health care service plans that is primarily used by the State of California for the purposes of increasing reimbursement rates or payments under the Medi-Cal program, and the revenues of which are primarily used to finance the non-federal portion of Medi-Cal medical assistance expenditures. (4) A reasonable charge iR'l13oseEl for entrance to or use of state property, or the purchase. rental, or lease of state property, except charges governed by Section 15 of Article XI. (5} A fine, or penalty, or other monetary el:large including any applicable interest for nonpayment thereot imposed by the judicial branch of government or the State, as a result of a state administrative enforcement agency pursuant to adiudicatorv due process, to punish a violation of law. (6} A levy, charge, assessment, or exaction collected for the promotion of California tourism pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 13995) of Part 4.7 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. flL~Any tax or exempt charge adopted after January 1, 2022 ~, but prior to the effective date of this act, that was not adopted in compliance with the requirements of this section is void 12 months after the effective date of this act unless the tax or exempt charge is reenacted B'l the begislatuFe anel signea into law ey tl:ie <iio¥ernoF in compliance with the requirements of this section. [gl[.JlJG:} The State bears the burden of proving by a preponEleranee oftl:le clear and convincing evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is an exempt charge and not a tax. The State bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the amount of the exempt charge is reasonable and that the amount charged does not exceed the actual cost of providing the service or product to the payor. ,tR-a-t tl:ie amouRt is RO n,ore tl:ian neeessary to cover the reasonable costs of the go•.•emn,ental actii,•i:t>,• ane 3 that the manner in •Nhiel.:i these cests are allecated ts a pa·1er bear a fair er reasenable relatienshi13 ts the 13a·1or's b1:1relens on, or benefits reeei11eel from, the go•.ieFRmental actit.iit'( (2) The retention ofrevenue by, or the payment to. a non-governmental entity ofa levv. charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by state law, shall not be a factor in determining whether the levy. charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge.
(3) The characterization of a levy, charge, or exaction of any kind as being voluntary, or paid in exchange for a benefit, privilege, allowance, authorization, or asset, shall not be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or an exempt charge. /4} The use of revenue derived from the levy, charge or exaction shall be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge. (h) As used in this section:
(1) "Actual cost" of providing a service or product means: (i) the minimum amount necessary to reimburse the government for the cost of providing the service or product to the payor, and {ii) where the amount charged is not used by the government for any purpose other than reimbursing that cost. In computing "actual cost" the maximum amount that may be imposed is the actual cost less all other sources of revenue including, but not limited to taxes, other exempt charges, grants, and state or federal funds received to provide such service or product.
(2) "Extend" includes, but is not limited to, doing any of the following with respect to a tax or exempt charge: lengthening its duration. delaying or eliminating its expiration, expanding its application to a new territory or class ofpayor, or expanding the base to which its rate is applied. (3) "Impose" means adopt, enact, reenact, create, establish, collect, increase or extend. (4) "State law" includes, but is not limited to. any state statute, state regulation, state executive order. state resolution, state ruling, state opinion Jetter, or other legal authority or interpretation adopted, enacted. enforced, issued, or implemented by the legislative or executive branches of state government. "State law" does not include actions taken by the Regents of the University of California, Trustees of the California State University, or the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges.
Section 5. Section 1 of Article XIII C of the California Constitution is amended, to read:
Sec. 1. Definitions. As used in this article:
{a) "Actual cost" of providing a service or product means: (i) the minimum amount necessary to reimburse the government for the cost of providing the service or product to the payor. and {ii) where the amount charged is not used by the government for any purpose other than reimbursing that cost. In computing "actual cost" the maximum amount that may be imposed is the actual cost less all other sources of revenue including, but not limited to taxes. other exempt charges, grants, and state or federal funds received to provide such service or product.
(b) "Extend" includes, but is not limited to. doing any of the following with respect to a tax. exempt charge, or Article XIII D assessment. fee, or charge: lengthening its duration, delaying or eliminating its expiration. expanding its application to a new territory or class of payor, or expanding the base to which its rate is applied.
4 .lfl..W 11General tax" means any tax imposed for general governmental purposes. (d} "Impose" means adopt, enact, reenact, create, establish, collect, increase, or extend. {clJb} "Local government" means any county, city, city and county, including a charter city or county, any special district, or any other local or regional governmental entity, or an elector pursuant to Article fl or the initiative power provided by a charter or statute.
(f) "Local law" includes. but is not limited to, any ordinance, resolution, regulation. ruling, opinion letter, or other legal authority or interpretation adopted, enacted, enforced, issued, or implemented by a local government.
{gl_{t} "Special district" means an agency of the State, formed pursuant to general law or a special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions with limited geographic boundaries including, but not limited to, school districts and redevelopment agencies. f11L{d} "Special tax" means any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund.
111 i@} As used in this article, and in Section 9 of Article II, "tax" means every aRV-levy, charge, or exaction of any kind, imposed by a local go,;ernmeRt law that is not an exempt charge., exeept tl=le fellowiRg:
(i) As used in this section, "exempt charge" means only the following:
(1) A cl=large imposeel fer a speeifie beAefit eoAferreel or pri,;ilege graAteel eliFeetl')' to tl=le pa1,ior tl=lat is Rot pre1,•ieleel to these Rot ehargea, aA£l which £lees Rot exeeeel tl=le reaseAable costs to tl=le loeal gm,·ernFAeAt of conferriAg the beAefit or graAting tl:1e pri¥ilege.
ill R} A reasonable charge imposes for a specific local government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasoAable actual costs to the local government of providing the service or product. fl1 WA charge im13ose£l for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof.
W {4t A reasonable charge imposeel for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property.
Ml. fSt A fine, or penalty, or other FAOA@tar,· eharge including any applicable interest for nonpayment thereat imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government administrative enforcement agency pursuant to adiudicatorv due process, as a res1,1lt of to punish a violation of law. ill -f6t A charge imposed as a condition of property development. No levv, charge, or exaction regulating or related to vehicle miles traveled may be imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy. f.i1 f7t An AssessFAeRts a Rel property relate el fees assessment. fee. or charge imJ;1oseel iA aeeoraanee witl=l the pro¥isio A5 of subject to Article XI 11 D, or an assessment imposed upon a business in a tourism marketing district, a parking and business improvement area, or a property and business improvement district. 5 (7) A charge imposed for a specific health care service provided directly to the payor and that is not provided to those not charged. and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the health care service. As used in this paragraph, a "health care service" means a service licensed or exempt from licensure by the state pursuant to Chapters 1. 1.3, or 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code.
The local government bears the b1:1rden of proving by a preponderance of the e .. ·ielence that a lew, charge, or other exaction is not a ta1<, that the amo1:1nt is no more than necessaPJ' to cover the reasonable costs of the go•,ernfflental acti•.«ity anel that tJ:ie manner in which those costs are allocateel to a pa•ror bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the pa•ror's blslrdens on, or bene:fits receiveel from, the go1a1ernmental acfa•ity.
Section 6. Section 2 of Article XIII C of the California Constitution is amended to read:
Sec. 2. Local Government Tax Limitation. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution:
(a) Every levy. charge. or exaction of any kind imposed by local law is either a tax or an exempt charge. All taxes imposed by any local government shall be deemed to be either general taxes or special taxes. Special purpose districts or agencies, including school districts, shall have no power to levy general taxes. (b) No local Jaw go,.·ernment whether proposed by the governing body or by an elector, may impose, extend, or increase any general tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote. A general tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved. The election required by this subdivision shall be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body. (c) An•r general tax imposed, el<tended, or increaseel, •.-.iitho1:1t •.·oter approval, lay any local go,.·ernment on or after Janlslary 1, 1995, ana prior ta the effecti,.·e date of this article, shall contin1:1e to be imposed only if appro,.·ea b1• a majority vote of the voters voting in an election OR the issye of the in:iposition, whicl::i election sl::iall be l::ield witl::iin t•Ne 1•ears ef the effectii.ie date of this article and in com13liance with slslbdi\·isien (b}. {El) No local law government. whether proposed by the governing body or by an elector. may impose, eMteRd, er increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote. A special tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved. {d) The title and summary and ballot label or question required for a measure pursuant to the Elections Code shall. for each measure providing for the imposition of a tax, include:
(1) The type and amount or rate of the tax;
(2) the duration of the tax; and
(3) The use of the revenue derived from the tax. If the proposed tax is a general tax. the phrase "for general government use" shall be required, and no advisory measure may appear on the same ballot that would indicate that the revenue from the general tax will. could. or should be used for a specific purpose. (e) Only the governing body of a local government. other than an elector pursuant to Article II or the initiative power provided by a charter or statute. shall have the authority to impose any exempt charge.
The governing body shall impose an exempt charge by an ordinance specifying the type of exempt charge 6 as provided in Section l(i) and the amount or rate of the exempt charge to be imposed. and passed by the governing body. This subdivision shall not apply to charges specified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (i) of Section 1.
ff) No amendment to a Charter which provides for the imposition, extension, or increase of a tax or exempt charge shall be submitted to or approved by the electors. nor shall any such amendment to a Charter hereafter submitted to or approved by the electors become effective for any purpose. (q) Any tax or exempt charge adopted after January 1, 2022, but prior to the effective date of this act, that was not adopted in compliance with the requirements of this section is void 12 months after the effective date of this act unless the tax or exempt charge is reenacted in compliance with the requirements of this section.
{h)(1) The focal government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a levy, charge or exaction is an exempt charge and not a tax. The local government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the amount of the exempt charge is reasonable and that the amount charged does not exceed the actual cost of providing the service or product to the payor. (2} The retention of revenue by, or the payment to, a non-governmental entity of a levy. charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local law, shall not be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge.
(3) The characterization of a levy. charge. or exaction of any kind imposed by a local law as being paid in exchange for a benefit. privilege, allowance, authorization, or asset, shall not be factors in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or an exempt charge. (4) The use of revenue derived from the levy, charge or exaction shall be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge.
Section 7. Section 3 of Article XIII D of the California Constitution is amended, to read:
Sec. 3. Property Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges Limited (a) No tax, assessment, fee, 6f charge, or surcharge, including a surcharge based on the value ofpropertv, shall be assessed 13y a Ry ageRC'f upon any parcel of property or upon any person as an incident of property ownership except:
(1) The ad valorem property tax impeseEI p1::1rsYaRt te described in Section 1(a) of Article XIII and Section 1/a) of Article XIII A, and described and enacted pursuant to the voter approval requirement in Section 1/b) Q[Article XII I A.
(2) Any special non-ad valorem tax receiving a two-thirds vote of qualified electors pursuant to Section 4 of Article XIII A, or after receiving a two-thirds vote of those authorized to vote in a community facilities district by the Legislature pursuant to statute as it existed on December 31, 2021. (3) Assessments as provided by this article.
(4) Fees or charges for property related services as provided by this article. 7 (b) For purposes of this article, fees for the provision of electrical or gas service shall not be deemed charges or fees imposed as an incident of property ownership.
Section 8. Sections 1 and 14 of Article XIII are amended to read:
Sec. 1 Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or the laws of the United States:
(a) All property is taxable and shall be assessed at the same percentage of fair market value. When a value standard other than fair market value is prescribed by this Constitution or by statute authorized by this Constitution, the same percentage shall be applied to determine the assessed value. The value to which the percentage is applied, whether it be the fair market value or not, shall be known for property tax purposes as the full value.
(b) All property so assessed shall be taxed in proportion to its full value. (c) All proceeds from the taxation of property shall be apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.
Sec. 14. All property taxed by state or local government shall be assessed in the county, city, and district in which it is situated. Notwithstanding any other provision of/aw, such state or local property taxes shall be apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.
Section 9. General Provisions
A. This Act shall be liberally construed in order to effectuate its purposes.
B. (1) In the event that this initiative measure and another initiative measure or measures relating to state or local requirements for the imposition, adoption, creation, or establishment of taxes, charges, and other revenue measures shall appear on the same statewide election ballot, the other initiative measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this measure. In the event that this initiative measure receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety, and the provisions ofthe other initiative measure or measures shall be null and void. (2) In furtherance of this provision, the voters hereby declare that this measure conflicts with the provisions of the "Housing Affordability and Tax Cut Act of 2022" and "The Tax Cut and Housing Affordability Act," both of which would impose a new state property tax (called a "surcharge") on certain real property, and where the revenue derived from the tax is provided to the State, rather than retained in the county in which the property is situated and for the use of the county and cities and districts within the county, in direct violation of the provisions of this initiative. (3) If this initiative measure is approved by the voters, but superseded in whole or in part by any other conflicting initiative measure approved by the voters at the same election, and such conflicting initiative is later held invalid, this measure shall be self-executing and given full force and effect.
C. The provisions of this Act are severable. If any portion, section, subdivision, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, word, or application of this Act is for any reason held to be invalid by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Act. The People of the State of California hereby declare that they would have adopted this Act and each and every portion, section, subdivision, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, word, and application not 8 declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of this Act or application thereof would be subsequently declared invalid.
D. If this Act is approved by the voters of the State of California and thereafter subjected to a legal challenge alleging a violation of state or federal law, and both the Governor and Attorney General refuse to defend this Act, then the following actions shall be taken:
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter 6 of Part 2 of Division 3 ofTitle 2 of the Government Code or any other law, the Attorney General shall appoint independent counsel to faithfully and vigorously defend this Act on behalf of the State of California. (2) Before appointing or thereafter substituting independent counsel, the Attorney General shall exercise due diligence in determining the qualifications of independent counsel and shall obtain written affirmation from independent counsel that independent counsel will faithfully and vigorously defend this Act. The written affirmation shall be made publicly available upon request. (3) A continuous appropriation is hereby made from the General Fund to the Controller, without regard to fiscal years, in an amount necessary to cover the costs of retaining independent counsel to faithfully and vigorously defend this Act on behalf of the State of California. (4) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the proponents of this Act, or a bona fide taxpayers association, from intervening to defend this Act.
9 ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION NO. 24-137
A RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTH EL MONTE CITY COUNCIL
IN SUPPORT OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
REMOVING THE TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT AND
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT FROM THE
NOVEMBER 2024 BALLOT
WHEREAS, an association representing California’s wealthiest corporations is spending tens of millions of dollars to promote a deceptive ballot measure currently eligible for the November 2024 statewide ballot; and
WHEREAS, the measure creates constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, which could force residents and taxpayers to pay more to maintain services; and WHEREAS, the measure threatens billions of dollars every year in local government funding for services like fire and emergency response, law enforcement, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more; and WHEREAS, the measure could affect significant revenue sources for the City, increase legal defense costs, invalidate taxes, reduce future tax revenues, delay annexations/developments, and hinder the City’s ability to implement new fees or increase existing fee; and WHEREAS, the measure is an attack on voters’ rights, containing undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures to fund services, provisions that retroactively cancel measures recently passed by voters, and provisions that prevent voters from passing advisory measures that provide direction on how they want their local tax dollars spent; and
WHEREAS, the measure contains intentionally restrictive language that will encourage hundreds of frivolous lawsuits against cities and local governments – costing taxpayers many millions and stopping investments in vital local services; and WHEREAS, the measure would 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 is opposed by hundreds of local governments, teachers, firefighters, working families and local elected officials.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE SOUTH EL MONTE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the City of South El Monte opposes Initiative #21-0042A1; SECTION 2: That the South El Monte will join the “Stop the Corporate Tax Trick” coalition, a growing coalition of public safety, education, labor, local government, and infrastructure groups throughout the state.
SECTION 3: The City Council urges the California Supreme Court to remove the Taxpayer Protection Act and Government Accountability Act from the November 2024 ballot on the grounds that the ballot measure is illegal and improperly infringes on the rights of the voters from the November 2022 election due to its possible retroactive application to all November 2022 ballot measures statewide.
SECTION 4: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution.
SECTION 5: This resolution shall be effective when adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of March 2024. ____________________________
Gloria Olmos, Mayor
ATTEST:
Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:
CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE )
I, Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk of the City of South El Monte, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 24-137 was passed and approved by the City Council of the City of South El Monte at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 12th day of March 2024 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmember(s):
NOES: Councilmember(s):
ABSENT: Councilmember(s):
ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):
Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk
Top 5 Reasons Cities Should Oppose the
Corporate Tax Trick
An association representing California’s wealthiest corporations — developers, oil, insurance, and drug companies — is behind a deceptive November 2024 statewide ballot proposition that would revise the state Constitution, creating new loopholes that enrich corporations at the expense of residents and our communities. Here are the top 5 reasons cities should oppose this dangerous and undemocratic measure.
According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, this measure would significantly reduce funding for state and local services. It could force billions of dollars in cuts to fire and 911 emergency response, law enforcement, services that support homeless residents, and much more. 1 Jeopardizes Funding for Vital Local Services
The measure contains intentionally vague language that will encourage hundreds of frivolous lawsuits against cities and local governments — costing taxpayers millions and blocking investments in local vital services.
2 Opens the Door for Frivolous Lawsuits Against Cities
This measure fundamentally changes our constitution to make it far more difficult for voters to pass measures to fund local services. It also includes a hidden provision that would retroactively cancel measures recently passed by voters — undermining the decisions of local voters. It would also limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures, where voters provide direction to politicians on how they want their local tax dollars spent. 3 Attacks Voter Rights
4 This measure is opposed by a broad, bipartisan coalition of cities and counties, firefighters, nurses, teachers, environmental groups, unions, and business leaders across the state. 5 Opposed by a Broad Coalition
Allows Wealthy Corporations to Avoid Paying Their Fair Share Creates major new constitutional loopholes that allow wealthy corporations to avoid paying their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities. It shifts the burden and forces individual taxpayers to pay more.
Paid for by Protecting Local Democracy and Vital Services, a Committee Opposed to Initiative 1935 Sponsored By The League Of California Cities
ATTACHMENT C
Cities and Towns Opposed
to the California Business Roundtable Measure
Agoura Hills
Alameda
Albany
Anderson
Angels Camp
Antioch
Apple Valley
Artesia
Atwater
Avalon
Azusa
Banning
Beaumont
Bell
Bell Gardens
Bellflower
Belmont
Benicia
Beverly Hills
Big Bear Lake
Blue Lake
Brea
Brentwood
Brisbane
Buena Park
Burbank
Burlingame
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Carpinteria
Carson
Cathedral City
Ceres
Chino Hills
Chowchilla
Clayton
Clearlake
Cloverdale
Clovis
Colton
Concord
Corona
Corte Madera
Cotati
Cupertino
Cypress
Danville
Dinuba
Dos Palos
Downey
Dunsmuir
El Cerrito
Elk Grove
Emeryville
Eureka
Fairfax
Fairfield
Farmersville
Fowler
Glendora
Goleta
Grand Terrace
Grass Valley
Grover Beach
Gustine
Hayward
Hermosa Beach
Hesperia
Highland
Hollister
Hughson
Indian Wells
Indio
Irwindale
Kerman
King City
La Palma
Lafayette
Lakeport
Lakewood
Larkspur
Lathrop
Lincoln
Livermore
Lodi
Lomita
Long Beach
Los Banos
Los Gatos
Madera
Mammoth Lakes
Manhattan Beach
Manteca
Marina
Maywood
Mill Valley
Monrovia
Montebello
Monterey
Monterey Park
Moorpark
Morgan Hill
Mountain View
Needles
Newman
Norco
Norwalk
Novato
Oakdale
Oakley
Ontario
Orinda
Orland
Oroville
Oxnard
Palm Desert
Paramount
Patterson
Perris
Petaluma
Pico Rivera
Pismo Beach
Placentia
Placerville
Pleasant Hill
Rancho Cucamonga
Redlands
Richmond
Rio Vista
Riverbank
Rohnert Park
Rolling Hills Estates
Rosemead
Roseville
Salinas
San Anselmo
San Diego
ATTACHMENT D
San Joaquin
San Jose
San Juan Bautista
San Leandro
San Pablo
San Rafael
San Ramon
Sand City
Santa Cruz
Santa Fe Springs
Santa Monica
Santa Rosa
Scotts Valley
Sebastopol
Selma
Shasta Lake
Sierra Madre
Signal Hill
Soledad
Sonoma
Sonora
South Gate
South Pasadena
St. Helena
Stanton
Stockton
Sunnyvale
Tehachapi
Tehama
Temecula
Torrance
Tracy
Truckee
Tulelake
Ukiah
Union City
Upland
Vallejo
Ventura
Victorville
Walnut
Walnut Creek
Watsonville
West Hollywood
West Sacramento
Williams
Woodlake
Woodland
Yountville
Yuba City
Yucca Valley
Join the coalition by sending a copy of your city/town resolution or opposition letter to [email protected].
Contact your Cal Cities regional public affairs manager for a sample letter, a sample resolution, and a sample staff report.
A Growing List of Major Organizations Opposed
to the California Business Roundtable Measure
*signed amicus brief
**signed 2/11/24 LA Times ad
***included in SIEU Coalition
AFSCME California
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)*
Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA)
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association*
California Alliance for Jobs
California Association of Sanitation Agencies*
California Contract Cities
California Faculty Association
California Federation of Teachers (CFT)
California Fire Chiefs Association
California Labor Federation
California Medical Association**
California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA)
California Professional Firefighters (CPF)
California School Boards Association
California School Employees Association
California Society of Municipal Finance Officers
California Special Districts Association (CSDA)
California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
California State Council of Laborers
California Teachers Association (CTA)
California YIMBY
Fire Districts Association of California*
League of California Cities
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California**
SEIU California
Sierra Club California***
SoCal Rebuild
ATTACHMENT E
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 11.a.
DATE: March 12, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rene Salas, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Dianna Gomez, Executive Assistant
SUBJECT: CORRESPONDENCE FROM ACTIVE SGV REQUESTING A
SUPPORT LETTER FOR A DECADES-LONG VISION TO
PROTECT THE SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS AND USE THE
ANTIQUITIES ACT TO ADD 109,000 ACRES TO THE SAN
GABRIEL MOUNTAINS NATIONAL MONUMENT
SUMMARY: In 2014, President Barack Obama used the Antiquities Act to designate approximately 346,177 acres of the San Gabriel Mountains as a national monument. This was a critical step towards permanently protecting the mountains. Since then, community support has continued to grow for safeguarding public lands in the western Angeles Forest that were not included in the original monument designation. These lands are the gateway to the forest and welcome millions of visitors each year. They should be included in the national monument.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff request direction to compose a support letter for the San Gabriel Mountains conservation requested by Active San Gabriel Valley.
FISCAL/FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact expected.
DISCUSSION: Representative Judy Chu and Senator Alex Padilla are championing this effort and have urged your administration to expand the existing San Gabriel Mountains National Monument. I add my voice to theirs and ask you to use the Antiquities Act to permanently protect these important public lands.
ATTACHMENT(S):
A. Email from SGVALLEYSGV
B. Template Support Letter - San Gabriel Mountains
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
Template Support Letter
Month X, 2023
The Honorable Joe Biden
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
I am writing to urge you to advance a decades-long vision to protect the San Gabriel Mountains and use the Antiquities Act to add 109,000 acres to the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument. This would permanently protect a significant portion of the western Angeles National Forest in the Los Angeles, California metropolitan area.
The San Gabriel Mountains are the backyard for many urban and culturally diverse communities within Los Angeles. Every year, the Angeles National Forest welcomes about 4 million visitors. Over 18 million people live within a 90 mile radius of the proposed national monument expansion. Protecting these public lands will help increase equitable access to nature, improve public health, conserve a critical drinking water source for local residents, and address the climate and biodiversity crisis.
For over 20 years, Nature for All, a coalition of community based organizations, along with national and statewide partners, has worked to protect the public lands and rivers of the San Gabriel Mountains and improve access to the outdoors for people in the Los Angeles region. This long standing process has resulted in an unprecedented amount of input and widespread community support for protecting the San Gabriel Mountains.
In 2014, President Barack Obama used the Antiquities Act to designate approximately 346,177 acres of the San Gabriel Mountains as a national monument. This was a critical step towards permanently protecting the mountains. Since then, community support has continued to grow for safeguarding public lands in the western Angeles Forest that were not included in the original monument designation. These lands are the gateway to the forest and welcome millions of visitors each year. They should be included in the national monument.
Representative Judy Chu and Senator Alex Padilla are championing this effort and have urged your administration to expand the existing San Gabriel Mountains National Monument. I add my voice to theirs and ask you to use the Antiquities Act to permanently protect these important public lands.
Sincerely,
NAME, TITLE
ORGANIZATION
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 11.b.
DATE: March 12, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rene Salas, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Dianna Gomez, Executive Assistant
SUBJECT: CORRESPONDENCE FROM RUDY BERMUDEZ, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA CITIES GAMING AUTHORITY, JPA,
REQUESTING A LETTER OF OPPOSITION FOR H.R. 6859.
BY CONGRESS MEMBER SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE (DLOS ANGELES) SUMMARY: H.R. 6859 would grant federal recognition to the Gabrielino Tongva Tribal Nation allowing them to take up to 300-acres of noncontiguous land into trust as reservation land.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: If H.R. 6859 is signed into law, it would permit the Gabrielino Tongva Tribe to go into any city in Los Angeles County, acquire that city's largest property, a retail shopping center, that city's largest sales tax revenue generator, and place that land into trust.
FISCAL/FINANCIAL IMPACT: This results in the city losing all the sales tax revenue generated from that property and the businesses on that property. The affected city would have no say on the land acquisition and use, while suffering a fiscal crisis due to the loss of its largest source of sales tax general fund revenue.
DISCUSSION: H.R. 6859 does not limit what land in a city, developed or undeveloped, can be taken into trust and it also does not require the tribe to adhere to the Federal Recognition process and guidelines.
ATTACHMENT(S):
A. RBermudez
Dear Mr. Rene Salas,
I am writing to ask for the support of the City of South El Monte in opposing H.R. 6859 by Congress Member Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles). H.R. 6859 would grant federal recognition to the Gabrielino Tongva Tribal Nation allowing them to take up to 300-acres of noncontiguous land into trust as reservation land. There is no requirement that the land taken into trust be contiguous, developed or undeveloped, thus enabling the tribe to acquire land in numerous cities within Los Angeles County.
Congress Member Sydney Kamlager-Dove’s legislation creates a precedent by allowing individuals to circumvent the Federal Recognition process. Congress created the federal recognition process, administered by the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Acknowledgment (OFA), to protect the rights and benefits of true Native-Americans and local governments like yours. Under H.R. 6859, non-Native American could obtain all the rights and benefits granted to only true Native Americans without having to prove their legitimate ancestry.
If H.R.6859 is signed into law, the Gabrielino Tongva Tribe would be able to take land into trust and build and operate a Tribal Las Vegas style gambling casino in any city within Los Angeles County without the input or authorization of that city. The Gabrielino Tongva Tribe does not have to comply with that city's ordinances and zoning requirements or seek permission from the affected city so long as the land is within Los Angeles County. That city and its neighboring cities would be burdened with all the negative economic, environmental, health, and social consequences without any protections or benefits.
For example, if H.R. 6859 is signed into law, it would permit the Gabrielino Tongva Tribe to go into any city in Los Angeles County, acquire that city's largest property, a retail shopping center, that city's largest sales tax revenue generator, and place that land into trust. This results in the city losing all the sales tax revenue generated from that property and the businesses on that property. The affected city would have no say on the land acquisition and use, while suffering a fiscal crisis due to the loss of its largest source of sales tax general fund revenue. H.R. 6859 does not limit what land in a city, developed or undeveloped, can be taken into trust and it also does not require the tribe to adhere to the Federal Recognition process and guidelines. It is also important to note that federally recognized tribes are exempt from paying any taxes and/or fees and from having to comply with any state, county, or city legal ordinances. However, the tribe will be entitled to full services from County and City law-enforcement and fire departments, hospitals, water, sewer, road and flood control systems at the expense of the city governance and their taxpayers.
We are asking for the City of South El Monte to join in this fight to oppose H.R. 6859 by submitting a letter of opposition. The viability of all our cities is dependent on all cities working together as one.
Summary of H.R. 6859
House of Representative Bill 6859 (Kamlager-Dove) Extend Federal Recognition to the Gabrielino Tongva Nation Act of 2023 12-19-2023, the bill was introduced.
12-19-2023, the bill was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources and the bill has not been set for a hearing as of this writing. The Bill will most likely be heard in the House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs.
Subcommittee Members
Chair Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.)
Vice Chair Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon (R-Puerto Rico)
Jerry Carl (R-ALA)
Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif)
Jim Moylan (R-Guam)
Amata Coleman Radewagen (R-American Samoa)
Subcommittee Address
Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs
House Committee on Natural Resources
5131 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 2004004
H.R. 6859, the Gabrielino/Tongva Nation Recognition Act by Congress Member Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles)
The Gabrielino/Tongva Nation Recognition Act would grant federal recognition to un-named individuals as members of the Gabrielino Tongva Tribal Nation. These un-named individuals would be allowed to take up to 300-acres of noncontiguous land in Los Angeles County into trust as reservation land. H.R. 6859 identifies the traditional homelands of the Gabrielino/Tongva Nation are the Los Angeles Basin and the islands of Santa Catalina, San Nicholas, San Clemente, and Santa Barbara, from Topanga Canyon to Laguna Beach, from the San Gabriel Mountains to the sea.
Augments Against
Congress Member Sydney Kamlager-Dove’s legislation creates a precedent by allowing un-named individuals to circumvent the Federal Recognition process. Congress created the federal recognition process, administered by the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Acknowledgment (OFA), to protect the rights and benefits of true NativeAmericans. Under H.R. 6859, non-Native American could obtain all the rights and benefits that are granted to only true Native Americans without having to prove their legitimate ancestry to the Gabrielino Tongva Tribal Nation. These rights and benefits include the ability to participate in scholarships for Native Americans, access healthcare services through the Indian Health Service, obtain educational and housing assistance, possess eagle feathers to practice their religious beliefs, or acquire and honor the remains of their ancestors, among the many other privileges only given to Federally recognized Tribes, including the right to development and operation of a Las Vegas style gambling casino only given to Federally recognized Tribes.
HR 6859 does not require the land taken into trust be contiguous, thus enabling them to acquire land in numerous cities within Los Angeles County up to the cumulative total of 300-acres. If H.R. 6859 is signed into law, the Gabrielino Tongva Tribal Nation would be able to take land into trust in any city within Los Angeles County without the input or authorization of that city. The affected cities and its neighboring cities would be burdened with all the negative economic, environmental, health, and social consequences without any protections or benefits. For example, if H.R. 6859 is signed into law, it would permit the Gabrielino Tongva tribe to go into any city in Los Angeles County, acquire that city's largest property, a retail shopping center, that city's largest sales tax revenue generator, and place that land into trust. The affected city would have no say on the land acquisition and use, while suffering a fiscal crisis due to the loss of its largest source of sales tax general revenue. H.R. 6859 does not limit what land in a city, developed or undeveloped, can be taken into trust or require the tribe to adhere to the Federal Recognition process and guidelines. The Gabrielino Tongva Tribal Nation will also be able to build and operate a Tribal Las Vegas style gambling casino in any city where they acquire land without complying with that city's ordinances and zoning requirements, input or permission so long as the land is within Los Angeles County. It is also important to note that federally recognized tribes are exempt from paying any taxes and/or fees and from having to comply with any state, county, and city legal ordinances. However, the tribe will be entitled to full services from County and City law-enforcement authorities, fire departments, hospitals, and the maintenance and construction roads, flood control, sewer, and water systems at the expense of the city governance and their taxpayers.
The Gabrielino Tongva Tribe does not need H.R. 6859 to obtain Federal Recognition. There is a legal process available to the Gabrielino Tongva Tribe to become Federally Recognized. The Gabrielino Tongva Tribe can apply for Federal Recognition through the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Acknowledgment (OFA) just like all the California Native American tribes that are federally recognized.
I have attached a copy of H.R. 6859 and a draft boilerplate letter opposing H.R. 6859 for your use. Please consider submitting a letter of opposition. Should you submit a letter of opposition to H.R. 6859, please provide me with a copy of your letter. I will be delivering all the letters to the Washington, D.C. lobbying firm that is working to oppose H.R. 6859. I am available at (562) 305-5556 and by email at [email protected].
Thank you,
Rudy Bermudez
Executive Director
California Cities Gaming Authority, JPA
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 12.a.
DATE: March 12, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rene Salas, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY:
SUBJECT: MAYOR PRO TEM RUDY BOJORQUEZ
1. Discussion in regard to the Flags of Valor event and how the City can help promote the event.
RECOMMENDATION: Discussion and/or action.
SUMMARY:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
FISCAL/FINANCIAL IMPACT:
DISCUSSION:
ATTACHMENT(S):
None
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 12.b.
DATE: March 12, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rene Salas, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY:
SUBJECT: COUNCILMEMBER MANUEL ACOSTA
1. Consideration of partnering with the Valle Lindo School District to co-sponsor an event where children write letters to representatives for park space/improvements funding and participate in a park/clean up day BBQ at city parks with representatives and city staff. City parks are utilized by the community year round and by three nonprofit youth sports organizations. Events like this would shed light on the need for funding for improvements.
RECOMMENDATION: Discussion and/or action.
SUMMARY:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
FISCAL/FINANCIAL IMPACT:
DISCUSSION:
ATTACHMENT(S):
None
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 12.c.
DATE: March 12, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rene Salas, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY:
SUBJECT: MAYOR GLORIA OLMOS
1. Discussion on creating an annual men's event and an AdHoc/Subcommittee.
RECOMMENDATION: Discussion and/or action.
SUMMARY:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
FISCAL/FINANCIAL IMPACT:
DISCUSSION:
ATTACHMENT(S):
None