Impacts franchise fees. Sets new standard for fees and charges paid for the use of local and state government property. The standard may significantly restrict the amount oil companies, utilities, gas companies, railroads, garbage companies, cable companies, and other corporations pay for the use of local public property. Rental and sale of local government property must be “reasonable” which must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence.”
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.
Restrict authority of state and local governments to issue fines and penalties for violations of law Requires 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.
Restrict local tax authority to provide local services
Requires voter approval to expand existing taxes (e.g., UUT, use tax, TOT) to new territory (e.g., annexation) or expanding the base (e.g., new utility service). City charters may not be amended to include a tax or fee. New taxes can be imposed only for a specific time period. Taxes adopted after Jan. 1, 2022, that do not comply with the new rules, are void unless reenacted. All state taxes require majority voter approval.
Prohibits any surcharge on property tax rate and allocation of property tax to state.
Other changes
No fee or charge or exaction regulating vehicle miles traveled can be imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy.
The proposed bill would result in the following fiscal impact if passed by voters:
Billions of local government fee and charge revenues placed at heightened legal peril. Related public service reductions across virtually every aspect of city, county, special district, and school services especially for transportation, and public facility use. Hundreds of millions of dollars of annual revenues from dozens of tax and bond measures approved by voters between January 1, 2022 and November 9, 2022 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 and associated impacts on housing and commercial development.
Date: February 22, 2022
Subject: CONSIDER AND ADOPT RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (AG# 21-0042A1)
Service and infrastructure impacts 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.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the adoption of the proposed resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378.
ATTACHMENTS
1. CBRT Fiscal Analysis (1-11-22)
2. CBRT Measure Opposition Fact Sheet (1-11-22)
3. 21-0042A1 (Taxes)
4. Opposition Resolution CAO Stamp
CONTACT
Felicia Escover, Assistant to the City Manager (707) 648-4577 [email protected]
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:
Billions of local government fee and charge revenues placed at heightened legal peril. Related public service reductions across virtually every aspect of city, county, special district, and school services especially for transportation, and public facility use. Hundreds of millions of dollars of annual revenues from dozens of tax and bond measures approved by voters between January 1, 2022 and November 9, 2022 subject to additional voter approval if not in compliance with the initiative.
Indeterminable legal and administrative burdens and costs on l ocal government from new and more empowered legal challenges, and bureaucratic cost tracking requirements. The delay and deterrence of municipal annexations and associat ed impacts on housing and commercial development.
Service and infrastructure impacts including in fire and emerg ency response, law enforcement, public health, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, public schools, affordable housing, homelessness prevention and mental health services.
1. Local Government Taxes and Services Threatened
With regard to taxes, Initiative 21-0042A1:
Prohibits advisory, non-binding measures as to use of tax proc eeds on the same ballot. o Voters may be less informed and more likely to vote against me asures. Eliminates the ability of special tax measures proposed by cit izen initiative to be enacted by majority voter approval (Upland).
o Because the case law regarding citizen initiative special taxe s approved by majority vote (Upland) is so recent, it is unknown how common these sorts of measures might be in the future. This initiative would prohibit such measures after the effective date of the initiative. Any such measures adopted after January 1, 2022 through November 8, 2022 would be void after November 9, 2023.
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 previousl y approved taxes at additional cost to taxpayers.
Requires that a tax or bond measure adopted after January 1, 2 022 and before the effective date of the initiative (November 9, 2022) 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 (November 9, 2023).
o If past election patterns are an indication, dozens of tax and bond measures approving hundreds of millions of annual revenues may not be in compliance and would be subject to reenactment.
Most will be taxes without a specific end date. Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, measures not in compliance would need to be placed on a special election ballot for approval before November 9, 2023 or the tax will be void after that date. General tax measures would require declaration of emergency and unanimous vote of the governing board.
2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616
Phone: 530.758.3952 • Fax: 530.758.3952
Rev. January 7, 2022
– 2 – r e v J a n u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 2
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Requires voter approval to expand an existing tax to new terri tory (annexations). This would require additional tax measures and would deter annexations and land de velopment 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 for general taxes would, under current law, each require unanimous vote of the agency board to be placed on a special election ballot or would be void after November 9, 20 23.
1.a. Number of Measures and Value of Local Taxes at Risk 1 In 2020, voters in California approved 293 local tax and bond m easures for cities, counties, special districts and schools (95 in March and 198 in November). The approved measures enacted $3.85 billion in new annual taxes including $1.3 billion for cities, $302 mil lion for counties, $208 million for special districts (fire, wastewater, open space and transit districts), and $2.037 billion for schools (including for school bonds).
Most tax measures go to the ballot during a presidential or gub ernatorial primary or general election in an even year. However, some tax measures are decided at other times. During 2019, there were 45 approved tax and bond measures (24 city, 14 special district, 7 school) adopting $154.0 million in new annual taxes ($124.0 million city, $10.5 million special district and $19.2 million school).
Most tax and bond measures comply with the new rules in Initiat ive 21-0042Amdt#1 except:
Dozens of taxes would require end dates. This would require ad ditional measures in future years to extend the taxes further. Very few extensions of existing local taxes fail. Majority vote general tax measures could not be accompanied on the same ballot with an advisory, non-binding measure as to use of tax proceeds. Special taxes placed on the ballot via citizen initiative woul d require two-thirds voter approval.
Bond measures have fixed terms. Historically, about 20 percent of other tax measures have included specific durations (i.e. sunsets). Advisory measures as to use of revenues are uncommon. I do not expect the provisions of 21-0042A1 to have any substantial effect on passage rates. However, some 2022 approved measures would likely have to put back on the ballot.
Based on history, a reasonable estimate of the annualized tax revenues estimated to be approved by
1 Source: Compilation and summary of data from County elections offices.
– 3 – r e v J a n u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 2
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
voters in 2022 and placed at risk by this initiative is at least $1.5 billion, including $1.0 billion from cities and $500 million from counties and special districts.2
1.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Tax Provisions In addition to service delays and disruption due to new tax revenues placed at greater legal risk, there will be substantial additional costs for legal defense. The deterrence of taxes for annexations will delay and deter municipal annexations.
2. “Exempt Charges” (fees and charges that are not taxes) and Services Threatened With regard to fees and charges adopted after January 1, 2022, Initiative 21-0042A1:
Subjects new fees and charges for a product or service to a ne w "actual cost” test defined as “(i) the minimum amount necessary to reimburse the government for the cost of providing the service to the payor, and (ii) where the amount charged is not used by the government for any purpose other than reimbursing that cost. In addition, subjects these same charges to a new, undefined, “reasonable” standard.
Subjects fees and charges for entrance to local government pro perty; and rental and sale of local government property to a new, undefined, “reasonable” test. Subjects a challenged fee or charge to new, higher burdens of proof if legally challenged. Prohibits a levy, charge or exaction regulating or related to vehicle miles traveled, imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy.
2.a. Value on New Local Government Fees and Charges at Risk3 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 $1 billion per year including those adopted since January 1, 2022. Of this $1 billion, about $570 million is for special districts, $450 million is cities, and $260 million is counties.4
Major examples of affected fees and charges are:
1. Nuisance abatement charges - such as for weed, rubbish and g eneral nuisance abatement to fund community safety, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanup programs.
2. Commercial franchise fees.
3. Emergency response fees - such as in connection with DUI.
4. Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges.
5. Document processing and duplication fees.
6. Transit fees, tolls, parking f ees, public airport and harbor use fees.
7. Facility use charges, fees for parks and recreation services , garbage disposal tipping fees.
In addition to fees and charges, the measure puts fines and penalties assessed for the violation of state and
2 This does not include citizen initiative special tax approved by majority but not two-thirds. Because this approach is new, th e number of these measures and amount of revenue involved cannot be estimated. 3 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. 4 School fees are also affected but the amount is negligible by comparison. – 4 – r e v J a n u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 2
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
local law at risk, making them taxes subject to voter approval under certain circumstances.
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
Stop the Corporate Loopholes Scheme
Deceptive Proposition Allows Major Corporations to Avoid Paying their Fair Share and Evade Enforcement when they Violate Environmental, Health & Safety Laws An association representing California’s wealthiest corporations — including oil, insurance, banks and drug companies — is behind a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2022 statewide ballot. Their measure would create major new loopholes that allow corporations to avoid paying their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities; while also allowing corporations to evade enforcement when they violate environmental, health, safety and other state and local laws. Here’s why a broad coalition of local governments, labor and public safety leaders, infrastructure advocates, and businesses oppose the Corporate Loophole Scheme:
Gives Wealthy Corporations a Major Loophole to Avoid Paying their Fair Share - Forcing Local Residents and Taxpayers to Pay More • 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, our environment, water quality, air quality, and natural resources – shifting the burden and making individual taxpayers pay more.
Allows Corporations to Dodge Enforcement When They Violate Environmental, Health, Public Safety and Other Laws
• The deceptive scheme creates new loopholes that makes 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.
Jeopardizes Vital Local and State Services
• This far-reaching measure puts at risk billions of dollars currently dedicated to critical state and local services.
• It could force cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services and more. • It would also reduce funding for critical infrastructure like streets and roads, public transportation, drinking water, new schools, sanitation, utilities and more.
Opens the Door for Frivolous Lawsuits, Bureaucracy and Red Tape that Will Cost Taxpayers and Hurt Our Communities
• The measure will encourage frivolous lawsuits, bureaucracy and red tape that will cost local taxpayers millions — while significantly delaying and stopping investments in infrastructure and vital services.
Undermines Voter Rights, Transparency, and Accountability • This misleading measure changes our constitution to make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and local infrastructure.
• It also includes a hidden provision that would retroactively cancel measures that were passed by local voters — effectively undermining the rights of voters to decide for themselves what their communities need.
• It would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures, where voters provide direction to politicians on how they want their local tax dollars spent.
BELL, McANDREWS & HILTACHK, LLP
Anabel Renteria
Initiative Coordinator
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSEL-ORS AT I.AW
455 C APIT O L MALL , S UITE 600
SACRAMENT O, CALIFOE=INIA 95014
(916) 44;a-7757
FA X [916) 44-;a-7 7 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
2 1 - 0 0 4 2 Arndt. # /
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act [Deleted codified text is denoted in strikeout. Added codified text is denoted by italics and underline.] Section 1. Title
This Act shall be known, and may be cited as, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act.
Section 2. Findings and Declarations
(a) Californians are overtaxed. We pay the nation's highest state income tax, sales tax, and gasoline tax. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, California's combined state and local tax burden is the highest in the nation. Despite this, and despite two consecutive years of obscene revenue surpluses, state politicians in 2021 alone introduced legislation to raise more than $234 billion in new and higher taxes and fees.
(b) Taxes are only part of the reason for California's rising cost-of-living crisis. Californians pay billions more in hidden "fees" passed through to consumers in the price they pay for products, services, food, fuel, utilities and housing. Since 2010, government revenue from state and local "fees" has more than doubled.
(c) California's high cost of living not only contributes to the state's skyrocketing rates of poverty and homelessness, they are the pushing working families and job-providing businesses out of the state. The most recent Census showed that California's population dropped for the first time in history, costing us a seat in Congress. In the past four years, nearly 300 major corporations relocated to other states, not counting thousands more small businesses that were forced to move, sell or close. (d) California voters have tried repeatedly, at great expense, to assert control over whether and how taxes and fees are raised. We have enacted a series of measures to make taxes more predictable, to limit what passes as a "fee," to require voter approval, and to guarantee transparency and accountability. These measures include Proposition 13 (1978), Proposition 62 (1986), Proposition 218 (1996), and Proposition 26 (2010).
(e) Contrary to the voters' intent, these measures that were designed to control taxes, spending and accountability , have been weakened and hamstrung by the Legislature, government lawyers, and the courts, making it necessary to pass yet another initiative to close loopholes and reverse hostile court decisions.
Section 3. Statement of Purpose
(a) In enacting this measure, the voters reassert their right to a voice and a vote on new and higher taxes by requiring any new or higher tax to be put before voters for approval. Voters also intend that all fees and other charges are passed or rejected by the voters themselves or a governing body elected by voters and not unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.
(b) Furthermore, the purpose and intent of the voters in enacting this measure is to increase transparency and accountability over higher taxes and charges by requiring any tax measure placed on the ballot- 1 either at the state or local level-to clearly state the type and rate of any tax, how long it will be in effect , and the use of the revenue generated by the tax.
(c) Furthermore, the purpose and intent of the voters in enacting this measure is to clarify that any new or increased form of state government revenue, by any name or manner of extraction paid directly or indirectly by Californians, shall be authorized only by a vote of the Legislature and signature of the Governor to ensure that the purposes for such charges are broadly supported and transparently debated. (d) Furthermore, the purpose and intent of the voters in enacting this measure is also to ensure that taxpayers have the right and ability to effectively balance new or increased taxes and other charges with the rapidly increasing costs Californians are already paying for housing, food, childcare, gasoline, energy , healthcare, education, and other basic costs of living, and to further protect the existing constitutional limit on property taxes and ensure that the revenue from such taxes remains local, without changing or superseding existing constitutional provisions contained in Section 1{c) of Article XIII A. (e) In enacting this measure, the voters also additionally intend to reverse loopholes in the legislative two thirds vote and voter approval requirements for government revenue increases created by the courts includin g, but not limited to, Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, Chamber of Commerce v. Air Resources Board, Schmeer v. Los Angeles County, Johnson v. County of Mendocino, Citizens Assn. of Sunset Beach v.
Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission, and Wilde v. City of Dunsmuir.
Section 4. Section 3 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution is amended to read:
Sec. 3(a} Every levy, charge. or exaction of any kind imposed by state law is either a tax or an exempt charge.
illlJ1l ~ Any change in state statute Jaw which results in any taxpayer paying a new or higher tax must be imposed by an act passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature , and submitted to the electorate and approved by a maiority vote, except that no new ad valorem taxes on real property, or sales or transaction taxes on the sales of real property, may be imposed. Each Act shall include:
(A) A specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed and an estimate of the annual amount expected to be derived from the tax.
(BJ A specific and legally binding and enforceable limitation on how the revenue from the tax can be spent.
If the revenue from the tax can be spent for unrestricted general revenue purposes. then a statement that the tax revenue can be spent for "unrestricted general revenue purposes" shall be included in a separate, stand-alone section. Any proposed change to the use of the revenue from the tax shall be adopted by a separate act that is passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature and submitted to the electorate and approved by a maiority vote. (2) The title and summary and ballot label or question required for a measure pursuant to the Elections Code shall. for each measure providing for the imposition of a tax, including a measure proposed by an elector pursuant to Article II, include:
{A) The type and amount or rate of the tax;
(BJ The duration of the tax: and
2 (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
11 General tax" means any tax imposed for general governmental purposes. (d} "Impose" means adopt, enact, reenact, create, establish, collect, increase, or extend. {clJb} "Local government" means any county, city, city and county, including a charter city or county, any special district, or any other local or regional governmental entity, or an elector pursuant to Article fl or the initiative power provided by a charter or statute . (f) "Local law" includes. but is not limited to, any ordinance, resolution, regulation. ruling, opinion letter, or other legal authority or interpretation adopted, enacted, enforced, issued, or implemented by a local government.
{gl_{t} "Special district" means an agency of the State, formed pursuant to general law or a special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions with limited geographic boundaries including, but not limited to, school districts and redevelopment agencies. f11L{d} "Special tax" means any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund.
111 i@} As used in this article, and in Section 9 of Article II, "tax" means every aRV-levy, charge, or exaction of any kind, imposed by a local go,;ernmeRt law that is not an exempt charge., exeept tl=le fellowiRg:
(i) As used in this section, "exempt charge" means only the following:
(1) A cl=large imposeel fer a speeifie beAefit eoAferreel or pri,;ilege graAteel eliFeetl')' to tl=le pa1,ior tl=lat is Rot pre1,•ieleel to these Rot ehargea, aA£l which £lees Rot exeeeel tl=le reaseAable costs to tl=le loeal gm,·ernFAeAt of conferriAg the beAefit or graAting tl:1e pri¥ilege.
ill R} A reasonable charge imposes for a specific local government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasoAable actual costs to the local government of providing the service or product. fl1 WA charge im13ose£l for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof.
W {4t A reasonable charge imposeel for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property.
Ml. fSt A fine, or penalty, or other FAOA@tar,· eharge including any applicable interest for nonpayment thereat imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government administrative enforcement agency pursuant to adiudicatorv due process, as a res1,1lt of to punish a violation of law. ill -f6t A charge imposed as a condition of property development. No levv, charge, or exaction regulating or related to vehicle miles traveled may be imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy. f.i1 f7t An AssessFAeRts a Rel property relate el fees assessment. fee. or charge imJ;1oseel iA aeeoraanee witl=l the pro¥isio A5 of subject to Article XI 11 D, or an assessment imposed upon a business in a tourism marketing district, a parking and business improvement area, or a property and business improvement district. 5 (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 Affordabili ty and Tax Cut Act of 2022" and "The Tax Cut and Housing Affordability Act," both of which would impose a new state property tax (called a "surcharge") on certain real property, and where the revenue derived from the tax is provided to the State, rather than retained in the county in which the property is situated and for the use of the county and cities and districts within the county, in direct violation of the provisions of this initiative. (3) If this initiative measure is approved by the voters, but superseded in whole or in part by any other conflicting initiative measure approved by the voters at the same election, and such conflicting initiative is later held invalid, this measure shall be self-executing and given full force and effect.
C. The provisions of this Act are severable. If any portion, section, subdivision, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, word, or application of this Act is for any reason held to be invalid by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Act. The People of the State of California hereby declare that they would have adopted this Act and each and every portion, section, subdivision, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, word, and application not 8 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 RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO OPPOSING THE TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (AG# 21-0042A1) WHEREAS, an association representing California’s wealthiest corporations is behind a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2022 statewide ballot; 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, our environment, water quality, air quality, and natural resources; 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 makes 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 state and local services at risk, and could force cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more;
WHEREAS, the measure would also reduce funding for critical infrastructure like streets and roads, public transportation, drinking water, new schools, sanitation, and utilities; and WHEREAS, the City’s 2022 legislative platform affirms that the City opposes legislation that has negative impacts on services, revenues, and costs, attempts to restrict, reduce, or eliminate the City's revenue base, and limits or interferes with City Council authority over local municipal affairs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City opposes Initiative 21-0042A1.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Vallejo will join the NO on Initiative 21-0042A1 coalition, a growing coalition of public safety, labor, local government, infrastructure advocates, and other organizations throughout the state.
We direct staff to email a copy of this adopted resolution to the League of California Cities at [email protected].
Adopted by the Council of the City of Vallejo at a regular meeting held on February 22, 2022 with the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_________________________________________
ROBERT H. MCCONNELL, MAYOR
ATTEST: _________________________________________
DAWN G. ABRAHAMSON, CITY CLERK
ACTION ITEM 9.D.
DATE: February 22, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Mike Malone, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT: REVIEW AND POTENTIALLY ADOPT A RESOLUTION RESCINDING THE ORDER OF
REQUIRING THE WEARING OF FACE COVERINGS INDOORS IN THE CITY OF
VALLEJO
RECOMMENDATION
Review Resolution No. 21-100 N.C. , a resolution ordering the use of face coverings in indoor and enclosed public spaces pursuant to the City's Emergency Powers and do one of the following:
Continue to enforce the order requiring the wearing of face coverings in indoor and enclosed public spaces, or
Adopt a resolution rescinding Resolution No. 21-100 N.C. terminating the order
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
At the regular meeting on October 26, 2001, the City Council reviewed and extended the order requiring the wearing of face coverings indoors. Due to the number of COVID-19 cases and hospitalization rates declining across the state, effective February 16, 2022, the State will end its indoor masking requirement for vaccinated people. Eight of the nine Bay Area counties will follow State guidance and drop the universal indoor mask mandate, including Solano County. After February 15, universal masking shall remain required in only specified settings. Only unvaccinated persons are required to mask in all Indoor Public Settings. Fully vaccinated individuals are recommended to continue indoor masking when the risk may be high.
Given the State guidance and it conflicting with the City Mask Mandate order, the City Manager is referring the matter back to the City Council for its review and consideration.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On August 31, 2021, the City Council unanimously voted to adopt Resolution No. 21-100 N.C. (Attachment 1) ordering the use of face coverings in indoor and enclosed public spaces pursuant to the City's Emergency Powers. The resolution took effect immediately and has remained in effect since that time. At its meetings on October 5 and 26, 2021, the City Council reviewed the order and unanimously took action to continue to enforce the order.
Due to the number of COVID-19 cases and hospitalization rates declining across the state, the State will end its indoor masking requirement for vaccinated people effective February 16, 2022. Eight of the nine Bay Area counties, including Solano, intend to follow State guidance. Given the State guidance and it conflicting with the City's Mask Mandate order, the City Manager is referring the matter back to the City Council for its review and consideration.
Council has the option to repeal the mask mandate or not to, thus continuing to enforce the order as outlined in Resolution No. 21-100 N.C. At its meeting on February 8, the Council adopted Resolution No. 22-022 N.C., a
Date: February 22, 2022
Subject: REVIEW AND POTENTIALLY ADOPT A RESOLUTION RESCINDING THE ORDER OF
REQUIRING THE WEARING OF FACE COVERINGS INDOORS IN THE CITY OF
VALLEJO
resolution requiring all City legislative bodies to return to in-person meetings effective March 8. The risk of transmission at such meetings may be reduced by continuing the mask mandate. It is important to note that there may be a relationship between continuing the mask mandate and returning to in-person Council meetings and should be considered by the City Council.
Out of an abundance of caution, and as an employer, the City tends to adopt the more restrictive standards of either CDPH or Cal OSHA, whichever is more protective. The City's adopted policies, applicable to employees only, cannot be more relaxed than what Cal OSHA dictates. It may take some time for Cal OSHA to react and adjust the Emergency Temporary Standards that are applicable to California employers.
Council meetings can be considered a hybrid meeting where our employees (staff and councilmembers) and the general public meet. Therefore, it would not be incorrect to adopt CDPH face covering guidelines that are applicable to the general public so long as our employees remain protected per Cal OSHA face covering guidelines, i.e., City employees will have to remain masked while we allow the general public to remove their face coverings.
The action before Council this evening is to either continue to enforce the order as set forth in Resolution No. 21-100 N.C., or adopt a resolution rescinding Resolution No. 21-100 N.C., and thereby terminating the order.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the review and consideration of the order requiring a mandatory use of face coverings in the City of Vallejo.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 21-100 Mask Mandate
2. CDPH Guidance for Face Coverings
3. Resolution Rescinding the Order Requiring the Wearing of Face Masks Indoors CAO stamp
CONTACT
Mike Malone, Interim City Manager (707) 648-4576
[email protected]
RESOLUTION NO. 21-100 N.C.
ORDERING THE USE OF FACE COVERINGS IN INDOOR AND ENCLOSED PUBLIC SPACES PURSUANT TO THE CITY’S EMERGENCY POWERS
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 8630 empowers the City Council to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a Local Emergency when the City is affected or likely to be affected by a public calamity; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 8634 empowers the City to promulgate orders and regulations to provide for the protection of life and property; and WHEREAS, the novel Coronavirus is highly contagious and poses a threat to the wellbeing of every person, which has since March 2020 resulted in the deaths of more than 4 million Americans and over 65,000 Californians; and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid conditions of extreme peril warranted and necessitated the proclamation of the existence of a Local Emergency; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020 the City Council of the City of Vallejo adopted Resolution 20- 026 proclaiming a state of Local Emergency relating to the COVID-19 virus and its rapid transmission, based upon state and federal guidance; and WHEREAS, despite the current availability of vaccines to slow the spread of COVID-19, the Delta variant has proved to be highly contagious, and appears to be affecting even vaccinated individuals some of whom appear to be asymptomatic but who nevertheless may be contagious; and
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2021, the CDC issued a recommendation that fully vaccinated people wear coverings in public indoor settings located in areas of substantial or high transmission of COVID-19, to reduce the spread of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2021, the California Department of Public Health issued its Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings, recommending fully vaccinated people wear face coverings in indoor public settings statewide; and
WHEREAS, in early August 2021, health officers in the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Sonoma and the City of Berkeley announced a mask mandate requiring every resident to wear a face mask indoors in public settings, regardless of vaccination status; and
WHEREAS, the County of Solano has not issued an order mandating the wearing of face coverings; and
WHEREAS, the City has an important governmental interest in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens and businesses; and
WHEREAS, in order to protect the health and safety of the City residents, visitors and businesses and in order to follow the sound guidance and recommendations of the CDC and the California Department of Public Health, the City Council finds that it is in the best interest of public health and safety, as affected by the emergency caused by the spread of COVID-19, and DocuSign Envelope ID: B8379C0B-E8F4-4F10-BF60-DC5A461F82A1 necessary to issue and implement this Resolution to protect life, health and safety of its citizens and the community at large.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Vallejo does hereby order as follows:
SECTION 1. Face Coverings Required.
1. Face Covering Requirement. Except as otherwise set forth in this Resolution, all persons, regardless of whether they are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or not fully vaccinated, shall wear well-fitted face coverings over the nose and mouth in all indoor public settings in the City. For the purposes of this Resolution, public settings include, but are not limited to, business offices, retail stores, restaurants and bars, theaters, family entertainment centers, conference and event centers, and State and local government facilities where services are provided to the public.
2. Operator and Host Requirements. Businesses, government agencies and other persons that operate inside indoor public settings, or host events inside indoor public settings, shall:
a. At all points of entry to the indoor public setting, promptly post conspicuous signage that communicates the face covering requirement of this Resolution; and
b. To the greatest extent practicable, require persons subject to the face covering requirement in this Resolution to wear face coverings upon entry into and while inside the indoor public setting.
3. Exceptions. The face covering requirement of this Resolution does not apply to individuals in the following circumstances:
a. When alone in a room.
b. When actively eating and/or drinking.
c. When swimming or showering in a fitness facility.
d. When receiving care or other service that requires removal of the face covering, including by way of example and without limitation, medical care requiring exposure of the nose or mouth, co smetic services involving the face, and dental procedures.
e. Performers at indoor live events such as theater, opera, symphony, religious choirs, and professional sports may remove masks while actively performing or practicing, though such individuals should maximize physical distancing as much as practicable.
f. Participants in indoor religious gatherings may remove masks when necessary to participate in religious rituals.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8379C0B-E8F4-4F10-BF60-DC5A461F82A1 g. Persons younger than four years old.
h. When exempt from wearing face coverings under the State Face Covering Guidance or other applicable CDPH guidance. The State Face Covering Guidance exempts the following individuals from wearing masks:
(1) Persons younger than two years old. Very young children must not wear a mask because of the risk of suffocation.
(2) Persons with a medical condition, mental health condition, or disability that prevents wearing a mask, including persons with a medical condition for whom wearing a mask could obstruct breathing or who are unconscious, incapacitat ed, or otherwise unable to remove a mask without assistance.
(3) Persons who are hearing impaired, or communicating with a person who is hearing impaired, where the ability to see the mouth is essential for communication.
(4) Persons for whom wearing a mask would create a risk to the person related to their work, as determined by local, state, or federal regulators or workplace safety guidance.
4. Conflicts. Where a conflict exists between this Resolution and more permissive standards pertaining to the wearing of face coverings set forth in any other Order of the Solano County Health Officer in effect, or between this Resolution and any State Public Health Officer order in effect or CDPH guidance in effect pertaining to the wearing of face coverings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the more restrictive provision controls.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the City Council of the City of Vallejo and shall remain in effect for six weeks and thereafter until at least 80% of the population of the City of Vallejo has achieved full vaccination status or until the City is not in a substantial or high transmission of COVID 19 status as defined by the CDC for a thirty-day period. This Resolution shall be reviewed by the Council after six weeks and thereafter upon referral by the City Manager.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a certified Resolution to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8379C0B-E8F4-4F10-BF60-DC5A461F82A1 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Vallejo at a regular meeting held on August 31, 2021 with the following vote:
AYES: Mayor McConnell, Vice Mayor Verder-Aliga, Councilmembers Arriola, Brown, Dew, Diaz and Miessner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
______________________________________
ROBERT H. MCCONNELL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________________
DAWN G. ABRAHAMSON, CITY CLERK
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8379C0B-E8F4-4F10-BF60-DC5A461F82A1
2/10/22, 4:34 PM guidance for face coverings
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/guidance-for-face-coverings.aspx#:~:text=Masks are required for all,with good fit are … 1/4 February 7, 2022
TO:
SUBJECT:
TOMÁS J. ARAGÓN, M.D., Dr.P.H.
State Public Health O icer & Director
GAVIN NEWSOM
Governor
State of California—Health and Human
Services Agency California Department ofPublic Health
All Californians
Guidance for the Use of Face Masks
This guidance will take e ect on February 16, 2022. For current Guidance for the Use of Face Masks, see the current guidance for face coverings.
Changes Taking E ect February 16, 2022:
Universal masking shall remain required in only specified settings.
Only unvaccinated persons are required to mask in all Indoor Public Settings. Fully vaccinated individuals are recommended to continue indoor masking when the risk may be high.
Related Materials: Face Coverings Q&A | Face Coverings Fact Sheet (PDF) | Face Mask Tips and Resources | Face Shields Q&A (PDF) | Safe Schools for All Hub | More Home & Community Guidance |All Guidance | More Languages
Guidance For the Use of Masks
Background
COVID-19 cases and hospitalization are declining across the state. This is due in large part to the collective e orts of Californians to get vaccinated, get boosted, and wear masks.
A universal indoor masking requirement was reinstated on December 15, 2021, to add a layer of mitigation as the Omicron variant, a Variant of Concern as labeled by the World Health Organization, increased in prevalence across California, the United States, and the world and spread much more easily than the original SARS-CoV-2 virus and
2/10/22, 4:34 PM guidance for face coverings
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/guidance-for-face-coverings.aspx#:~:text=Masks are required for all,with good fit are … 2/4 the Delta variant. Implementing the universal masking requirement in all indoor public settings during the winter season was an important tool to decrease community transmission during the highly infectious Omicron surge.
The current hospital census is still over capacity, but the dramatic surge in cases and hospitalizations due to the highly infectious Omicron variant over the last two months has declined significantly. Californians are also increasingly knowledgeable about how to protect themselves and their loved ones with e ective masks when there may be risk of COVID-19 exposure. Accordingly, it is now appropriate for the universal indoor masking requirement to expire on February 15, 2022 as scheduled.
The COVID-19 vaccines remain e ective in preventing serious disease, hospitalization, and death from the SARS- CoV-2 virus. Unvaccinated individuals are much more likely to become infected when compared to vaccinated and boosted individuals. Vaccination continues to remain the ultimate exit strategy out of the COVID-19 pandemic.
While the percentage of Californians fully vaccinated and boosted continues to increase, we continue to have areas of the state where vaccine coverage is low, putting individuals and communities at greater risk for COVID-19.
A series of cross-sectional surveys in the U.S. suggested that a 10% increase in self-reported mask wearing tripled the likelihood of slowing community transmission.[1] Our recently published case-control study conducted in California from February 18 to December 1, 2021 demonstrated that consistently wearing a face mask or respirator in indoor public settings reduces the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection. [2] The masking requirement in California schools has allowed us to keep schools open when compared to other parts of the country. California accounts for roughly 12% of all U.S. students, but accounted for only 1% of COVID- 19 related school closures during the Omicron surge. Nationally during the Delta surge in July and August 2021, jurisdictions without mask requirements in schools experienced larger increases in pediatric case rates, and school outbreaks were 3.5 times more likely in areas without school mask requirements.[3], [4].
Maintaining the masking requirements in other specified, high-risk settings continues to be consistent with CDC recommendations and allows us to protect our most vulnerable populations and the workforce that delivers critical services in these settings.
In workplaces, employers are subject to the Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) or in some workplaces the Cal/OSHA Aerosol Transmissible Diseases (ATD) (PDF) Standard and should consult those regulations for additional applicable requirements.
Masking Requirements
Masks are required for all individuals in the following indoor settings, regardless of vaccination status. Surgical masks or higher-level respirators (e.g., N95s, KN95s, KF94s) with good fit are highly recommended.
On public transit[5] (examples: airplanes, ships, ferries, trains, subways, buses, taxis, and ride-shares) and in transportation hubs (examples: airport, bus terminal, marina, train station, seaport or other port, subway station, or any other area that provides transportation) Indoors in K-12 schools[6], childcare[7]
Emergency[8] shelters and cooling and heating centers[9] Healthcare settings[10]
State and local correctional facilities and detention centers[11] Homeless shelters[12]
Long Term Care Settings & Adult and Senior Care Facilities[13] Additionally, masks are required* for unvaccinated individuals in indoor public settings and businesses (examples: retail, restaurants, theaters, family entertainment centers, meetings, state and local government o ices serving the public). Fully vaccinated individuals are recommended to continue indoor masking when the risk may 2/10/22, 4:34 PM guidance for face coverings
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/guidance-for-face-coverings.aspx#:~:text=Masks are required for all,with good fit are … 3/4 be high. Surgical masks or higher-level respirators (e.g., N95s, KN95s, KF94s) with good fit are highly recommended.
See State Health O icer Order, issued on July 26, 2021, for a full list of high-risk congregate and other healthcare settings where surgical masks are required for unvaccinated workers, and recommendations for respirator use for unvaccinated workers in healthcare and long-term care facilities in situations or settings not covered by Cal OSHA ETS or ATD.
For additional information on types of masks, the most e ective masks, and ensuring a well-fitted mask, individuals should refer to CDPH Get the Most out of Masking and see CDPH Masking Guidance Frequently Asked Questions for more information.
*Guidance for Businesses, Venue Operators or Hosts
In settings where masks are required only for unvaccinated individuals, businesses, venue operators or hosts may choose to:
Provide information to all patrons, guests and attendees regarding vaccination requirements and allow vaccinated individuals to self-attest that they are in compliance prior to entry.
Implement vaccine verification to determine whether individuals are required to wear a mask.
Require all patrons to wear masks.
No person can be prevented from wearing a mask as a condition of participation in an activity or entry into a business.
Exemptions to masks requirements
The following individuals are exempt from wearing masks at all times:
Persons younger than two years old. Very young children must not wear a mask because of the risk of su ocation.
Persons with a medical condition, mental health condition, or disability that prevents wearing a mask. This includes persons with a medical condition for whom wearing a mask could obstruct breathing or who are unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove a mask without assistance.
Persons who are hearing impaired, or communicating with a person who is hearing impaired, where the ability to see the mouth is essential for communication.
Persons for whom wearing a mask would create a risk to the person related to their work, as determined by local, state, or federal regulators or workplace safety guidelines.
[1] Rader B, White LF, Burns MR, et al. Mask-wearing and control of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the USA: a cross- sectional study. The Lancet Digital Health. 2021;3(3):e148–e157. [2] Andrejko KL, Pry JM, Myers JF, et al. E ectiveness of Face Mask or Respirator Use in Indoor Public Settings for Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 Infection — California, February–December 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. ePub: 4 February 2022
[3] Jehn M, McCullough JM, Dale AP, Gue M, Eller B, Cullen T, Scott SE. Association between K–12 school mask policies and school-associated COVID-19 outbreaks — Maricopa and Pima Counties, Arizona, July–August 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021; 70(39);1372–1373. 2/10/22, 4:34 PM guidance for face coverings
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/guidance-for-face-coverings.aspx#:~:text=Masks are required for all,with good fit are … 4/4 [4] Budzyn SE, Panaggio MJ, Parks SE, Papazian M, Magid J, Eng M, Barrios LC. Pediatric COVID-19 cases in counties with and without school mask requirements — United States, July 1–September 4, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021; 70(39);1377–1378.
[5] CDC Requirement for Face Masks on Public Transportation Conveyances and at Transportation Hubs [6] CDC Guidance for COVID-19 Prevention in K-12 Schools [7] CDC COVID-19 Guidance for Operating Early Care and Education/Child Care Programs [8] CDC's Interim Guidance for General Population Disaster Shelters During the COVID-19 Pandemic [9] CDC COVID-19 and Cooling Centers
[10] CDC Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic
[11] CDC Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities
[12] CDC Interim Guidance for Homeless Service Providers to Plan and Respond to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
[13] CDC Nursing Homes and Long-Term Care Facilities
California Department of Public Health
PO Box, 997377, MS 0500, Sacramento, CA 95899-7377
Department Website (cdph.ca.gov)
Approved as to form:
By: for
Veronica Nebb, City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 22- N.C.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 21-100 N.C. ORDERING THE USE OF FACE COVERINGS IN INDOOR
AND ENCLOSED PUBLIC SPACES
WHEREAS, on August 31, 2021, the Vallejo City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-100 N.C., a resolution ordering the use of face coverings in indoor and enclosed public spaces pursuant to the City’s Emergency Powers; and
WHEREAS, from the date of adoption, the resolution was to remain in effect for six weeks and thereafter until at least 80% of the population of the City of Vallejo had achieved full vaccination status or until the City is not in a substantial or high transmission of COVID 19 status as defined by the CDC for a thirty-day period; and
WHEREAS, the Vallejo City Council reviewed and extended this order on October 5 and 26, 2021 due to the City remaining at a substantial or high transmission of COVID-19 cases; and WHEREAS, over 80% of the population of the City of Vallejo has now been fully vaccinated and the State has lifted its universal mask mandate effective February 16, 2022, the City Council finds that the mandatory mask requirement is no longer necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Vallejo hereby resolves and orders as follows:
1. The ordering of the use of face coverings in indoor and enclosed public spaces as set forth in Resolution No. 21-100 N.C. is no longer necessary.
2. The City Council hereby rescinds Resolution No. 21-100 N.C. and reserves the right to re-instate a mask mandate in accordance with the City’s emergency powers, in the event that circumstances require it, to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Vallejo.
3. City residents shall comply with any masking orders issued by the California Department of Public Health or the Solano County Health Department.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Vallejo at a regular meeting held on February 22, 2022 with the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________________
ROBERT H. MCCONNELL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________________
DAWN G. ABRAHAMSON, CITY CLERK