HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - March 1, 2023 C-10CITY OF
tie
0 Z
CALIFORNIA
AGENDA ITEM
(!onto
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA TITLE: Adopt Resolution Opposing Initiative No. 21-0042A1, the Taxpayer Protection and
Government Accountability Act
MEETING DATE: March 1, 2023
PREPARED BY: City Clerk
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution opposing Initiative No. 21-0042A1, the Taxpayer
Protection and Government Accountability Act.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The League of California Cities has requested the support of California
cities by adopting a resolution opposing Initiative No. 21-0042A1, the
Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act.
On January 4, 2022, the California Business Roundtable filed the "Taxpayer Protection and Government
Accountability Act" or AG# 21-0042A1. On February 1, 2023, the measure qualified for the November 2024
ballot. The League of California Cities, along with a broad coalition of local governments, labor and public safety
leaders, infrastructure advocates, and businesses, strongly opposes this initiative. Local government revenue -
raising authority is currently substantially restricted by state statute and constitutional provisions, including the
voter approved provisions of Proposition 13 of 1978, Proposition 218 of 1996, and Proposition 26 of 2010. The
Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act adds and expands restrictions on voters and local
government tax and fee authority.
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act would amend the California Constitution with
provisions that limit voters' authority and input, adopt new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and may
make it more difficult to impose fines and penalties for violation of state and local laws.
The measure puts billions of local government tax and fee revenues at risk statewide with related core public
service impacts. The measure would have significant negative impacts on City of Lodi operations and core
service delivery. The proposed constitutional initiative is sponsored by the California Business Roundtable.
Virtually every city, county, and special district must regularly (e.g., annually) adopt increases to fee rates and
charges and revise rate schedules to accommodate new users and activities. Most of these would be subject
to new standards and limitations under threat of legal challenge. Based on the current volume of fees and
charges imposed by local agencies, including council -adopted increases to simply accommodate inflation,
Cal Cities estimates the amount of local government fee and charge revenue at risk is approximately $2 billion
per year, including those adopted since January 1, 2022. Over ten years, $20 billion of local government fee
and charge revenues will be at heightened legal peril.
Hundreds of local tax measures were approved in 2022 that likely do not comply with the provisions of the
initiative. Nearly $2 billion of annual revenues from these voter -approved measures will cease a year after the
Stephen Schwabauer, City Manager
Adopt Resolution Opposing Initiative No. 21-0042A1, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act
March 1, 2023
Page 2
effective date of the measure, reducing the local public services funded by these measures, unless the tax is
re -submitted for voter approval.
Reductions on local government tax revenues have impacts on core services and infrastructure, including fire
and emergency response, law enforcement, streets and roads, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks,
libraries, public schools, affordable housing, homelessness prevention, and mental health services.
Fees and Charges:
• Except for licensing and other regulatory fees, fees and charges may not exceed the "actual cost" of
providing the product or service for which the fee is charged. "Actual cost" is the "minimum amount
necessary." The burden to prove the fee or charge does not exceed "actual cost" is changed to "clear
and convincing" evidence.
• Requires fees and charges paid for the use of local and state government property and the amount
paid to purchase or rent government property to be "reasonable." These fees and charges are currently
allowed to be market-based. Whether the amount is "reasonable" (introducing a new legal standard
aiming to force below market fee and charge amounts) must be proved by "clear and convincing
evidence." The standard may significantly reduce the amount large companies (e.g., oil, utilities, gas,
railroads, garbage/refuse, cable, and other corporations) will pay for the use of local public property.
• Prohibits fees on new development based on vehicle miles traveled.
Taxes:
• Taxes and fees adopted after January 1, 2022, that do not comply with the new rules, are void unless
reenacted.
• Invalidates Upland decision that allows a majority of local voters to pass special taxes. The measure
specifies that taxes proposed by the initiative are subject to the same rules as taxes placed on the
ballot by a city council.
• Expressly prohibits local advisory measures which allow local voters to express a preference for how
local general tax dollars should be spent.
• Requires voter approval to expand existing taxes (e.g., Utility, Transient Occupancy) to new territory
(e.g., annexations) or to expand the tax base (e.g., new utility service)
• New taxes can only be imposed for a specific time period.
• City charters may not be amended to include a tax or fee.
• All state taxes require majority voter approval.
Fines and Penalties:
• May require voter approval of fines, penalties, and levies for corporations and property owners that
violate state and local laws unless a new, undefined adjudicatory process is used to impose the fines
and penalties.
FISCAL IMPACT. Not applicable.
FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable.
Olivia Nashed
Olivia Nashed
City Clerk
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Letter of Opposition
3. Summary Outline
4. Fiscal Analysis
Signature:
Email: onashed@lodi.gov
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-46
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL
OPPOSING INITIATIVE NO. 21-0042A1,
THE TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
WHEREAS, an association representing California's wealthiest corporations and
developers is spending millions to push a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2024
statewide ballot; and
WHEREAS, the measure includes undemocratic provisions that would make it more
difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and infrastructure, and
would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures where voters provide direction on
how they want their local tax dollars spent; and
WHEREAS, the measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to
pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local
infrastructure and our environment; and
WHEREAS, the measure may make it much more difficult for state and local regulators
to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment,
public health and safety, and our neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to local services at
risk and could force cuts to fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health,
parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health
services, and more.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lodi City Council does hereby oppose
Initiative No. 21-0042A1; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Lodi City Council does hereby join the "No on
Initiative 21-0042A1" coalition, a growing coalition of public safety, education, labor, local
government, and infrastructure groups throughout the state.
Dated: March 1, 2023
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2023-46 was passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held March 1, 2023 by the following votes:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Bregman, Craig, Nakanishi, and Mayor Hothi
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
()�-A �&�
OLIVIA NASHED
City Clerk
2023-46
CITY COUNCIL
Mikey Hothi, Mayor
Lisa Craig, Mayor Pro Tempore
Cameron Bregman
Shak Khan
Alan Nakanishi
CITY OF
ago
•
O Z
CALIFORNIA
Bismarck Obando
Director of Public Affairs, League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Letter Opposing Initiative 21-0042A1
Stephen Schwabauer
City Manager
Olivia Nashed
City Clerk
Janice D. Magdich
City Attorney
On March 1, 2023, the City of Lodi City Council voted to oppose Initiative 21-0042A1, a deceptive,
developer -sponsored proposition aimed for the November 2024 statewide ballot that would
significantly jeopardize cities' ability to provide essential services and infrastructure for our residents.
The measure includes undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass
measures needed to fund local services and projects and would limit voter input by prohibiting local
advisory measures where voters can express a preference on how they want their local tax dollars
spent.
This 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 impacts on local infrastructure and our
environment.
This measure also may make it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies
on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and
our neighborhoods.
Unless defeated, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to local services at risk, and
could force cuts to fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries,
affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more.
The measure benefits wealthy corporations and real estate developers while decimating our local
communities and neighborhoods.
You may list the City of Lodi in formal opposition to Initiative #21-0042A1 and include our city as part of
the growing coalition of public safety, labor, local government, infrastructure advocates, and other
organizations throughout the state opposed to this deceptive proposition.
Sincerely,
Mikey Hothi
Mayor
City of Lodi
City Hall, 221 W. Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240 • (209) 333-6702 / Fax (209) 333-6807 . Lodi.gov . cityclerk@lodi.gov
LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA
CITI ES
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act
Initiative No. 21-0042A1
Feb. 1, 2023
Effective date: Any new or increased tax or fee adopted by the Legislature, a
city council, or the local voters after January 1, 2022, must comply with the Act's
new rules.
Voters
• Local advisory measures are prohibited. No measure may appear on the
ballot asking for approval of a general tax that would allow the voters to
express a preference for how the revenue from the general tax will, could, or
should be used.
• Overturns Upland decision which upheld a special tax that had been placed
on the ballot by the voters to be approved by a majority vote. Taxes
proposed by initiative will be subject to the same rules as taxes placed on the
ballot by a city council.
• Voters may not amend a city charter to impose, extend, or increase a tax or
fee.
Local taxes
• Requires voter approval in order to apply an existing tax:
o to territory that is annexed.
o to a new service or product, for example when a utility user tax is
applied to a new service.
• All new or increased taxes adopted after Jan. 1, 2022, must include a sunset
date.
State taxes
• All new or increased state taxes require statewide voter approval.
• Prohibits a property tax "surcharge" (increase). Prohibits any allocation of
property tax to the state.
1 This is a summary of some of the more significant provisions of the Act. Please review the Act for
a complete understanding of the changes it makes to the Constitution.
LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA
CITI ES
Fees and charges
• Fees and charges for services and permits may not exceed the "actual cost"
of providing the product or service for which the fee is charged. "Actual
cost" is the "minimum amount necessary." Examples include planning
services, excavation and encroachment permits, preparation of candidate
statement, and permit parking.
• State and cities have the burden of proving by "clear and convincing
evidence" that a fee/charge is not a tax, that the amount is reasonable, and
that it does not exceed "actual cost."
• Franchise fees — historically considered fees, not taxes — will more likely be
considered taxes due to the elimination of an existing category of "fee" and
the requirement that charges to entrance, purchase, rental, or lease of
government property be "reasonable." The state and cities issue franchises to
oil companies, utilities, gas companies, railroads, garbage companies, cable
companies, and other corporations.
• No fee or charge or exaction regulating vehicle miles traveled can be
imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy.
Fines and penalties (administrative enforcement of state law and municipal
codes)
• May require voter approval of fines and penalties for corporations and
property owners that violate state and local laws unless a new, undefined
adjudicatory process is used to impose the fines and penalties. Examples
include nuisance abatement, organic waste reduction requirements, and
failure to maintain a vacant property.
F
Cal iforKiaCit,gFiK6tKce.COWI Rev. January 14, 2023
Fiscal and Program Effects of
Initiative 21-0042A1 on Local Governments
If Initiative 21-0042A1 is placed on the ballot and passed by voters, it will result in:
• Over $20 billion of local government fee and charge revenues over 10 years placed at heightened legal
peril. Related public service reductions across virtually every aspect of city, county, special district, and
school services especially for drinking water, sewer sanitation, and public health and safety.
• About $2 billion of revenues each year from fees and charges adopted after January 1, 2021 subject to
legal peril.'
• Over $2 billion dollars of annual revenues from dozens of tax measures approved by voters between
January 1, 2022 and the effective date of the act2 subject to additional voter approval if not in compliance
with the initiative.
• Indeterminable legal and administrative burdens and costs on local government from new and more
empowered legal challenges, and bureaucratic cost tracking requirements.
• The delay and deterrence of municipal annexations.
• Substantially higher legal and administrative cost of public infrastructure financing which will delay and
deter new residential and commercial development.
• Service and infrastructure declines including in fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public
health, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, public schools, affordable housing,
homelessness prevention and mental health services.
1. Local Government Taxes and Services Threatened
With regard to taxes, Initiative 21-0042A1:
• Prohibits advisory, non-binding measures as to use of tax proceeds on the same ballot.
o Voters may be less informed and more likely to vote against measures.
• Eliminates the ability of special tax measures proposed by citizen initiative to be enacted by majority voter
approval (Upland).'
o Because the case law regarding citizen initiative special taxes approved by majority vote (Upland)
is so recent, it is unknown how common these sorts of measures might be in the future. This
initiative would prohibit such measures after the effective date of the initiative. Any such
measures adopted after January 1, 2022 through the effective date of the Act should it pass
would be void a year after the effective date of the initiative.
• Requires that tax measures include a specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed. This seems to
require that all tax increases or extensions contain a sunset (end date).
o This would require additional tax measures to extend previously approved taxes.
• A city charter may not be amended to impose, extend, or increase a tax might interfere with the ability of
cities that do not already have such authority in their charters to adopt Property Transfer Taxes.
o There are no more than a few of these every few years, but it is a valuable tax for those that
adopt it.
1 Assumes fee increases since January 1, 2022 would be subject to possible legal challenge if not adopted in compliance with the
Initiative.
2 The effective date of the initiative would be sometime in December 2024, the date the California Secretary of State certifies the
election results of the November 5, 2024 election.
3 Unlike the initiative 17-0050, this initiative does not eliminate that ability of cities and counties to adopt general taxes by majority
voter approval.
2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616
Phone: 530.758.3952 • Fax: 530.758.3952
1WM
rev January 14, 2023
• Requires that a tax measure adopted after January 1, 2022 and before the effective date of the initiative
that was not adopted in accordance with the measure be readopted in compliance with the measure or
will be void twelve months after the effective date of the initiative.
o If past election patterns and elections in 2022 are an indication, over 200 tax measures approving
more than $2 billion annual revenues to support local public services would not be in compliance
and would be subject to reenactment. Most will be taxes without a specific end date and special
taxes (including parcel taxes). Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12
months following the effective date of the initiative, the measures would each require declaration
of emergency and unanimous vote of the governing board to be placed on a special election
ballot within a year for approval or the tax will be void after that date. I would expect most to
succeed, but some will not, in particular citizen initiative majority vote special taxes which would
have to meet a higher voter approval threshold to continue.
• Requires voter approval to expand an existing tax to new territory (annexations). This would require
additional tax measures and would deter annexations and land development in cities.
o If a tax is "extended" to an annexed area without a vote after January 1, 2022, it will be void 12
months later until brought into compliance. Because there is no regularly scheduled election
within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, such extensions would each
require unanimous vote of the agency board to be placed on a special election ballot or would be
void a year later.
1.a. Number of Measures and Value of Local Taxes at Risk
Over a hundred local measures were approved in 2022 that likely do not comply with the provisions of Initiative
21-0042A1. Nearly $2 billion of annual revenues from these voter approved measures will cease a year after the
effective date of the measure, reducing the local public services funded by these measures. We can expect a
similar volume of measures in 2024 and a similar volume of non-compliance. So the combined total of annual
local funding directly affected by Initiative 21-0042A1 due to its retroactivity provision is about $4 billion.
Citizen Initiative Special Taxes in 2022.
Special taxes placed on the ballot by citizen initiative and approved after January 1, 2022 by a majority but less
than two-thirds of the voters are out of compliance with Initiative 21-0042A1.
On June 7, 2022, there were three local special tax measures placed on the ballot by citizen initiative. Two failed
to get majority voter approval. A one percent transactions and use tax (sales tax) for the John C. Fremont
Healthcare District in Mariposa County received 69.6 percent approval, over the two thirds needed for any special
tax under California Constitution Article XIIIC. So this measure was passed in compliance with Initiative 21-
0042A1.
June 2022 Initiative Special Taxes - majority voter approval
Estimated
Agency Name Coun Tax/Fee Rate Annual Revenue
Use
Sunset YES%
John C. Fremont Mariposa Measure N Transactions 1 cent $ 150,000
hospital
40yrs 69.6% PASS
Healthcare District & Use Tax
County of Kings Kings Measure F Transactions 1/2 cent $11,700,000
fire
none 37.6% FAIL
& Use Tax
_._. __--------- ,___............ ,__............ ,__._.......... ...........................
........................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Manhattan Beach Los Angeles Measure A School Parcel $1095/yr $12,000,000
schools
12yrs 31.2% FAIL
USD Tax
On November 8, 2022, there were 14 local special taxes placed on the ballot by citizen initiative. Seven of these
4 Source: Compilation and summary of data from County elections offices.
Cal iforvtiaCityFiv�av�ce.com
-3— rev January 14, 2023
measures failed with less than majority voter approval. The other seven measures received majority, but less than
two-thirds, voter approval. These measures passed under current law but are out of compliance with Initiative 21-
0042A1. Taken together these seven taxes will provide estimated annual revenues of from $900,000 to $1.4
billion in support of parks and recreation, zoo, library, affordable housing, transportation, homelessness
prevention, and schools in these communities.
November 2022 Initiative Special Taxes - majority voter approval
Estimated
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate Annual Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Crockett Community Contra Costa Measure L Parcel Tax $50/parcel $ 60,000 parks/recr none 62.8% PASS
Services District
Oakland Alameda Measure Y Parcel Tax $68/parcel $ 12,000,000 zoo 20yrs 62.5% PASS
County of Mendocino
Measure O
Transactions
1/8 cent then 1/4
$ 4,000,000
library
none
60.8% PASS
Agency Name County
& Use Tax
cent in 2027
Annual Revenue
Use
Sunset
YES%
Los Angeles Los Angeles
Measure ULA
Property
4% if>$5m, 5.5%
$600 roto $1.1 b
affordable
none
57.3% PASS
Inverness Public
Marin Measure O
Transfer Tax
if>$lom
$ 276,000
housing
.......................
Utility District
County of Sacramento
Measure A
Transactions
same 1/2 cent
$ 212,512,500
transportati
40yrs
55.3% PASS
(for Schools)
& Use Tax
_...............................................................................................................
San Francisco
Proposition M
Business
$2500-$5000/
$ 20,000,000
housing
30yrs
54.5% PASS
Operations Tax vacant resid unit
1/40 ct (Reedley)
Univ
Santa Cruz Santa Cruz
Measure N
Parcel Tax
$6k/vacant SFU
schools,
vacant
xxc
Santa Monica Los Angeles
Measure GS
Property
$56/$1000 if
$ 50,000,000
homelessne
none
53.3% PASS
County of Monterey
Transfer Tax
>$8m
$49/parcel
ss, afford.
childcare
10yrs
41.1% FAIL
housing
Total $900,000 to
$1.4 billion
San Francisco City
SanMeasure O
School Parcel
$150/sfu
Estimated
schools 10yrs 36.7% FAIL
College
Francisco
Agency Name County
Tax/Fee
Rate
Annual Revenue
Use
Sunset
YES%
County of Calaveras
Measure A
Transactions
1 cent
$ 5,000,000
fire
none
49.4% FAIL
Inverness Public
Marin Measure O
& Use Tax
$0.20/sf,
$ 276,000
fire none 27.0% FAIL
Utility District
_
South San Francisco San Mateo
Measure DD
School Parcel
$2.50/sf
$ 55,900,000
schools
none
47.2% FAIL
(for Schools)
Tax
_...............................................................................................................
......................
County ofFresno (for CSU)
Measure E
Transactions
....
115ct,
$ 36,000,000
Calif State
20yn;
46.9% FAIL
& Use Tax
1/40 ct (Reedley)
Univ
Santa Cruz Santa Cruz
Measure N
Parcel Tax
$6k/vacant SFU
xsac
vacant
xxc
44.2% FAIL
property
County of Monterey
Measure Q
Parcel Tax
$49/parcel
$ 5,500,000
childcare
10yrs
41.1% FAIL
San Francisco City
SanMeasure O
School Parcel
$150/sfu
$ 37,000,000
schools 10yrs 36.7% FAIL
College
Francisco
Tax
Morro Bay
San Luis Measure B
Parcel Tax
$120+/parcel
$ 680,000
harbor none 36.0% FAIL
Obispo
__._._.
................
Inverness Public
Marin Measure O
Parcel Tax
$0.20/sf,
$ 276,000
fire none 27.0% FAIL
Utility District
$150/vacant
Non -Specific Tax Durations in 2022
Voters approved 106 measures in June 2022 (10) and November 2022 (96) that do not provide a specific duration
of time that the tax will be imposed (end date). Typically, the ballot titles for these measures state that the tax
would be imposed "until ended by voters." Four of these measures also did not include any estimate of the annual
revenues that the tax would generate, another violation of initiative 21-0042A1. Taken together, these approved
local measures generate $561 million per year that will expire a year after the effective date of the initiative if
Initiative 21-0042A1 passes.
Ca l ifo rnia City Finance. co Inn
-4— rev January 14, 2023
Measures in 2022 with Non -Specific Durations
Annual
Agency Name
County
Tax/Fee
Rate
Revenue
Use Sunset
YES%
Oakland
Alameda
Measure T
Business Tax
various
$ 20,900,000
none
71.4% PASS
General
Culver City
Los Angeles
Measure BL
Business Tax
various
$ 10,000,000
none
60.5% PASS
General
El Segundo
Los Angeles
Measure BT
Business Tax
various
$ 3,000,000
none
51.2% PASS
General
Pico Rivera
Los Angeles
Measure AB
Business Tax
various
$ 5,800,000
none
75.5% PASS
General
Santa Ana
Orange
Measure W
Business Tax
various
neutral
none
64.8% PASS
General
Tracy
San Joaquin
Measure B
Business Tax
various
$ 3,200,000
none
72.6% PASS
General
Burlingame
San Mateo
Measure X
Business Tax
various
$ 2,500,000
none
75.1% PASS
General
Los Gatos
Santa Clara
Measure J
Business Tax
various
$ 1,100,000
none
53.4% PASS
General
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Measure H
Business Tax
$45/employee,
$ 6,000,000
none
59.5% PASS
General
$15/rental unit
Brisbane
San Mateo
Measure O
Business Tax
$2 50/mi/day
$ 250,000
none
69.2% PASS
lodging busn
East Palo Alto
San Mateo
Measure L
Business Tax
2.5%
$ 1,480,000
none
69.9% PASS
resid. rentals
grossRcpts
County of Santa Cruz
Unincorporated
Measure C
Busn Tax-
12.5cents/cup
$ 700,000
none
68.2% PASS
disp cups
South Lake Tahoe
El Dorado
Measure G
Busn Tax
6% retail,
$ 950,000
none
62.9% PASS
Cannabis
manufacturing
McFarland
Kern
Measure O
Busn Tax
8% of gross
$ 1,800,000
none
" PASS
63.5 /o
Cannabis
receipts retail,
Avenal
Kings
Measure C
Busn Tax
$25+/sfor
$ 600,000
none
61.8% PASS
Cannabis
15% gr rcpts
Baldwin Park
Los Angeles
Measure CB
Busn Tax
4%
$ 300,000
none
51.3% PASS
Cannabis
grossRcpts
Claremont
Los Angeles
Measure CT
Busn Tax
4%-7% gr
$ 500,000
none
61.1% PASS
Cannabis
rcpts, $1 -
County of Los Angeles Unincorporated Measure C
Busn Tax
4% gross
$ 15,170,000
none
60.1% PASS
Cannabis
receipts retail,
Cudahy
Los Angeles
Measure BA
Busn Tax
15%
$ 3,600,000
none
54.0% PASS
Cannabis
grossRcpts
F1 Segundo
Los Angeles
Measure Y
Busn Tax
10%
$ 1,500,000
none
72.8% PASS
Cannabis
GrossRcpt,
Hermosa Beach
Los Angeles
Measure T
Busn Tax
10%
$ 1,500,000
none
67.6% PASS
Cannabis
GrossRcpt,
Lynwood
Los Angeles
Measure TR
Busn Tax
5%to 10%
$ 3,000,000
none
66.4% PASS
Cannabis
Santa Monica
Los Angeles
Measure HM
Busn Tax
10% gross
$ 5,000,000
none
66.4% PASS
Cannabis
Rcpts
South F1 Monte
Los Angeles
Measure CM
Busn Tax
6% special
$ 126,000
none
53.7% PASS
Cannabis
excise taxon
Monterey
Monterey
Measure J
Busn Tax
6% grossRcpt
$ 1,300,000
none
65.2% PASS
Cannabis
Pacific Grove
Monterey
Measure N
Busn Tax
6% grossRcpt
$ 300,000
none
70.8% PASS
Cannabis
Huntington Beach
Orange
Measure O
Busn Tax
6% retail, 1%
$ 600,000
none
54.7% PASS
Cannabis
other
Ca l ifo mia City Finance. co m
-5— rev January 14, 2023
Measures in 2022 with Non -Specific Durations
Annual
Agency Name
County
Tax/Fee
Rate
Revenue
Use Sunset
YES%
Laguna Woods
Orange
Measure T
Busn Tax
4%-101/0 of
$ 750,000
none
61.1'% PASS
Cannabis
gross receipts
Corona
Riverside
Measure G
Busn Tax
9% of gross
$ 5,000,000
none
61.6% PASS
Cannabis
receipts for
Montclair
San Bernardino Measure R
Busn Tax
7%
$ 3,500,000
none
70.3% PASS
Cannabis
grossRcpts
County of San Diego Unincorporated
Measure A
Busn Tax
6% retail, 3%
$ 5,600,000
none
57.4% PASS
Cannabis
distribution,
Encinitas
San Diego
Measure L
Busn Tax
4% to 7% of
$ 1,400,000
none
65.1% PASS
Cannabis
gross receipts
Healdsburg
Sonoma
Measure M
Busn Tax
8% grossRcpt
$ 500,000
none
72.7% PASS
Cannabis
Exeter
Tulare
Measure B
Busn Tax
101/o retail and
?
none
66.5% PASS
Cannabis
other, $10/sf
Tulare
Tulare
Measure Y
Busn Tax
101/o retail and
?
none
65.2% PASS
Cannabis
other, $10/sf
Woodland
Yo to
Measure K
Busn Tax
10%
?
none
66.2% PASS
Cannabis
grossRcpts
Redlands
San Bernardino Measure J
Busn Tax
from$0.047/sf
$ 530,000
none
53.5% PASS
Distrib centers
to $0.105/sf
Arcadia
Los Angeles
Measure SW
Busn Tax
5%
n/a*
none
63.9% PASS
Sports Betting
grossRcpts
Albany
Alameda
Measure K
ParcelTax
$0.074+/sf
$ 1,950,000
fire/IMS none
76.0% PASS
Cameron Park Airport
El Dorado
Measure J
ParcelTax
by $600 to
$ 117,900
airport/ none
78.2% PASS
District
$900/parcel
streets
Highlands Village
E1 Dorado
Measure L
ParcelTax
$140+/parcel
$ 10,920
streets none
86.3% PASS
Lighting Benefit Zone
Knolls Property
El Dorado
Measure P
ParcelTax
by $300+ to
$8,400
streets none
75.5% PASS
Owners CSD
$600+/2arcel
Sundance Trail Zone of El Dorado
Measure C
ParcelTax
$600+/yr
$ 24,000
roads none
73.2% PASS
Benefit
South Pasadena
Los Angeles
Measure LL
ParcelTax
xxx
?
library none
86.2% PASS
River Delta Fire District
Sacramento
Measure H
ParcelTax
$90/yr
$ 130,000
fire none
72.1% PASS
Emeryville
Alameda
Measure 0
PropTransfrax
$15/$1000 if
$ 5,000,000
none
71.6% PASS
$lm -$2m
San Mateo
San Mateo
Measure CC
PropTransfrax
by 1% to 1.5%
$ 4,800,000
none
71.8% PASS
if>$ l Om
Alameda
Alameda
Measure F
TOT
by 4% to 141/o
$ 910,000
none
59.2% PASS
Clovis
Fresno
Measure B
TOT
by 2% to 12%
$ 500,000
none
69.7% PASS
Kerman
Fresno
Measure G
TOT
10%
$ 40,000
none
62.3% PASS
Trinidad
Humboldt
Measure P
TOT
by 4% to 121/o
$ 65,000
none
77.6% PASS
Imperial
Imperial
Measure G
TOT
by 4% to 121/o
$ 600,000
none
56.2% PASS
Arcadia
Los Angeles
Measure HT
TOT
by 2% to 12%
$ 730,000
none
54.1% PASS
Santa Monica
Los Angeles
Measure CS
TOT
by 1%, 3%
$ 4,100,000
none
73.7% PASS
home shares
Notes
?= Ballot measure title did not include an estimate of annual revenues, also not in compliance with Initiative 21-0042A1.
n/a*= Arcadia Measure SW passed but sports betting remains illegal after the failure of Propositions 26 and 27 on the November
statewide ballot.
Ca l ifo mia City Finance. co m
_M
Measures in 2022 with Non -Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Anaheim Orange Measure J TOT online travel
rev January 14, 2023
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
$ 3,000,000 none 59.2% PASS
La Palma
Orange Measure P
TOT
by
4% to 12%
$ 200,000
none
71.1% PASS
Colfax
Placer Measure B
TOT
by
2% to 10%
$ 29,000
none
73.5% PASS
Rocklin
Placer Measure F
TOT
by
2% to 101/o
$ 300,000
none
59.8% PASS
Roseville
Placer Measure C
TOT
by
4% to 101/o
$ 3,000,000
none
73.0% PASS
Big Bear Lake
San Bernardino Measure P
TOT
by
2% to 101/o
$ 1,300,000
none
54.4% PASS
Grand Terrace
San Bernardino Measure M
TOT
new 10%
$ 250,000
none
51.9% PASS
Yucca Valley
San Bernardino Measure K
TOT
by
5% to 12%
$ 1,300,000
none
71.9% PASS
Imperial Beach
San Diego
Measure R
TOT
by
4% to 14%
$ 400,000
none
67.4% PASS
El Paso de Robles
San Luis Obispo Measure F
TOT
by
1% to 11%
$ 750,000
none
61.2% PASS
Belmont
San Mateo
Measure K
TOT
by
2% to 14%
$ 600,000
none
79.3% PASS
Millbrae
San Mateo
Measure N
TOT
by
2% to 14%
$ 1,500,000
none
75.8% PASS
County of Humboldt Unincorporated
Measure J
TOT
by
2% to 12%
$ 3,080,000
none
63.3% PASS
County of Placer -
$ 6,000,000
Measure A
TOT
by
2% to 101/o
$ 4,000,000
none
90.0% PASS
North Tahoe TOT Area
none
52.6% PASS
Monterey Park
Los Angeles
Measure MP
TrUT
3/4 cent
$ 6,000,000
County of Santa Cruz Unincorporated
Measure B
TOT
by
1% to 12%
$ 2,300,000
none
69.2% PASS
County of El Dorado -
55.0% PASS
Measure S
TOT 2/3
by
4% to 14%
$ 2,500,000
none
81.8% PASS
East Slope Tahoe
Sand City
Monterey
Measure L
TrUT
by 1/2cent to
$ 1,400,000
none
68.7% PASS
Chico
Butte
Measure H
TrUT
1.5cents
1 cent
$ 24,000,000
none
52.4% PASS
Mendota
Fresno
Measure H
TrUT
$ 15,000,000
1.25 cent
$ 493,498
none
57.2% PASS
Blue Lake
Humboldt
Measure R
TrUT
none
1 cent
$ 30,000
none
55.4% PASS
Rio Dell Humboldt Measure O TrUT 3/4cent $ 400,000 none 53.3% PASS
County of Kern unincorporated areas
Measure K
TrUT
1 cent
$ 54,000,000
none
50.8% PASS
McFarland
Kern
Measure M
TrUT
1 cent
$ 579,662
none
62.2% PASS
Tehachapi
Kern
Measure S
TrUT
1 cent
$ 4,000,000
none
57.2% PASS
Avenal
Kings
Measure A
TrUT
1 cent
$ 500,000
none
72.5% PASS
Susanville
Lassen
Measure P
TrUT
1 cent
$ 1,750,000
none
54.7% PASS
Baldwin Park
Los Angeles
Measure BP
TrUT
3/4 cent
$ 6,000,000
none
58.1% PASS
Malibu
Los Angeles
Measure MC
TrUT
1/2 cent
$ 3,000,000
none
52.6% PASS
Monterey Park
Los Angeles
Measure MP
TrUT
3/4 cent
$ 6,000,000
none
58.5% PASS
Torrance
Los Angeles
Measure SK
TrUT
1/2 cent
$ 18,000,000
none
55.0% PASS
Larkspur
Marin
Measure G
TrUT
1/4 cent
$ 700,000
none
59.4% PASS
Sand City
Monterey
Measure L
TrUT
by 1/2cent to
$ 1,400,000
none
68.7% PASS
1.5cents
Hemet
Riverside
Measure H
TrUT
same 1 cent
$ 15,000,000
none
58.0% PASS
Elk Grove
Sacramento
Measure E
TrUT
1 cent
$ 21,000,000
none
54.1% PASS
Galt
Sacramento
Measure Q
TrUT
1 cent
$ 3,600,000
none
52.4% PASS
Colton
San Bernardino Measure S
TrUT
1 cent
$ 9,500,000
none
66.8% PASS
Ontario
San Bernardino Measure Q
TrUT
1 cent
$ 95,000,000
none
53.2% PASS
Solana Beach
San Diego
Measure S
TrUT
1 cent
$ 3,000,000
none
66.7% PASS
Brisbane
San Mateo
Measure U
TrUT
1/2 cent
$ 2,000,000
none 63.9% PASS
Goleta
Santa Barbara
Measure B
TrUT
1 cent
$ 10,600,000
none 64.7% PASS
Solvang
Santa Barbara
Measure U
TrUT
1 cent
$ 1,600,000
none 63.1% PASS
Ca l ifo mia City Finance. co m
-7— rev January 14, 2023
Measures in 2022 with Non -Specific Durations
Annual
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Watsonville Santa Cruz Measure R TrUT 1/2 cent $ 5,000,000 none 64.4% PASS
Vallejo
Solano
Measure P
TrUT
7/8 cent
$ 18,000,000
none
54.7% PASS
.............
Modesto
Stanislaus
Measure H
................................................................................................................
TrUT
1 cent
$ 39,000,000
none
62.8% PASS
County of Colusa
Measure A
TrUT 2/3
- - -
1/2 cent
- -----------
2,400,000 ---------
EMS
none
69.4% PASS
Atwater
Merced
Measure B
TrUT 2/3
same 1 cent
$ 4,000,000
police/fire
none
73.7% PASS
Truckee
Nevada
Measure U
TrUT 2/3
by 1/4 cent to
$ 3,000,000
open space
none
76.4% PASS
1/2 cent
trails
Palo Alto
Santa Clara
Measure L
UtilityTransfer
18% gas
$ 7,000,000
none
77.7% PASS
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Measure G
UtilityTransfer
5%
$ 30,000,000
none
84.2% PASS
........
Hercules
Contra Costa
Measure N
UUT
8%
$ 3,600,000
none
69.3% PASS
Carson
Los Angeles
Measure UU
UUT
2% electr, gas
W $ 8,000,000
none
78.4% PASS
...._.
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Measure N
UUT
3.75% (same)
._._._....................
$ 700,000
none
83.5% PASS
Co -temporal Advisory Measures in 2022
At the November 2022 election, there was just one local general tax measure that was accompanied by an
advisory measure as to the use of funds. The City of Santa Monica's Measure DT property transfer tax failed with
just 34 percent approval as voters instead chose the citizen initiative Measure GS.
There was also just one such tax use advisory measure on the June 2022 election. Susanville's voters passed
Measure P, a 1 percent transactions and use (sales) tax that generates $1.75 million per years for general city
services. The measure was accompanied by advisory Measure Q, accompanied the city's It asked, "If Measure P
passes, should the revenues be used to balance the budget to maintain and enhance existing public safety
services (police and fire), and provide funding to support street infrastructure improvements and provide funding
to support economic development efforts designed to increase businesses, jobs and visitors to Susanville?" Both
measures passed. Under Initiative 21-0042A1, the tax will expire a year after the effective date of the initiative
(i.e., in December 2025).
1.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Tax Provisions
Assuming a similar volume of local measures through 2024 as we saw in 2022, there will be over 200 local
measures that will need to be redrafted to comply with the Initiative and placed back on the ballot for the taxes to
continue after December 2025. The costs of re -drafting, re -placing and re -voting on these measures, previously
legally approved by voters, will be in the tens of millions in total statewide.
2. "Exempt Charges" (fees and charges that are not taxes) and Services Threatened
With regard to fees and charges adopted after January 1, 2022, Initiative 21-0042A1:
• Subjects new fees and charges for a product or service to a new "actual and reasonable test."
• Subjects fees and charges for entrance to local government property; and rental and sale of local
government property to a new, undefined, "reasonable" test.
• Allows legal challenge to any tax adopted before the effective date of the initiative and after January 1,
The Susanville measure also did not include a specific end date and so is included in the list and totals of those measures.
Californ aCityFinance.com
-8— rev January 14, 2023
2022. Such a lawsuit could enjoin (stop) the enactment of the tax pending the outcome of the legal
challenge.
• Subjects a challenged fee to new, higher burdens of proof if legally challenged.
2.a. Value on New Local Government Fees and Charges at Risk
Virtually every city, county, and special district must regularly (e.g., annually) adopt increases to fee rates and
charges and revise rate schedules to accommodate new users and activities. Most of these would be subject to
new standards and limitations under threat of legal challenge. Based on the current volume of fees and charges
imposed by local agencies and increases in those fees simply to accommodate inflation, the amount of local
government fee and charge revenue placed at risk is about $2 billion per year including those adopted since
January 1, 2022. Of $2 billion, about $900 million (45 percent) is for special districts, $800 million (40
percent) is cities, and $300 million (15 percent) is counties.'
Major examples of affected fees and charges are:
1. Certain water, sanitary sewer, wastewater, garbage, electric, gas service fees.
2. Nuisance abatement charges - such as for weed, rubbish and general nuisance abatement to fund
community safety, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanup programs.
3. Emergency response fees - such as in connection with DUI.
4. Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges.
5. Business improvement district charges.
6. Fees for processing of land use and development applications such as plan check fees, use permits,
design review, environmental assessment, plan amendment, subdivision map changes.
7. Document processing and duplication fees.
8. Facility use charges, parking fees, tolls.
9. Fines, penalties.
10. Fees for parks and recreation services.
2.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Fee/Charge Provisions
In addition to service delays and disruptions due to fee and charge revenues placed at greater legal risk, there
would be substantial additional costs for legal defense. The risk to fees and charges will make infrastructure
financing more difficult and will deter new residential and commercial development.
***********
F
6 Source: California State Controller Annual Reports of Financial Transactions concerning cities, counties and special districts,
summarized with an assumed growth due to fee rate increases (not population) of 2 percent annually.
School fees are also affected but the amount is negligible by comparison.
Cal iforvtiaCityFiv�cmce.covtn