HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2302-10188.Resolution to Oppose the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act
(Initiative 21-0042A1)
1
7
6
8
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Meeting Date: April 17, 2023
Report #:2302-1018
TITLE
Resolution to Oppose the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (Initiative
21-0042A1)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to oppose the Taxpayer Projection
and Government Accountability Act (Initiative 21-0042A1) (Attachment A)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act would amend the California
Constitution with provisions that limit voters’ authority and input, adopt new and stricter rules
for raising taxes and fees, and may make it more difficult to impose fines and penalties for
violation of state and local laws. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution
supporting opposition for this initiative.
BACKGROUND
The City’s 2023 Federal and State Legislative Guidelines1 reflect the City’s priorities and guides
staff and the City’s legislative advocates on issues that are important to the City Council.
Protecting local government revenue sources is one of the Foundational Principles of the
guidelines and represents the core of the City’s policy agenda.
The Taxpayer and Government Accountability Act (Initiative 21-0042A1) was filed with the
California Attorney General’s Office (AGO) on November 30, 2021. On May 12, 2022, the
initiative sponsors announced their intention to forego the November 2022 election and
instead target the November 2024 election. On February 1, 2023, the initiative qualified for the
1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/city-manager/legislation/2023-legislative-guidelines-final.pdf
1
7
6
8
November 5, 2024 election. The full text of the initiative can be found on the California Office of
the Attorney General website2.
The authority for local government to raise revenue through fees and taxes is restricted by
State law, 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
would amend the California Constitution to further restrict the ability of the state, counties,
other local agencies, and the electorate to approve or collect taxes, fees, and other revenues.
The initiative also has a retroactive effect as any tax or fee adopted after January 1, 2022 that
was not adopted in compliance with the initiative is void within 12 months of the initiative’s
effective date unless reenacted to comply.
On January 19, 2022, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO)3 summarized the current
requirements to approve taxes and fees compared to the proposed amendments to the State
Constitution and outlined the amendments to the Constitution, should the initiative pass in the
November 2024 election. The table below summarizes the LAO’s analysis of the components of
the ballot initiative:
TABLE 1: Major Provisions of the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act
1. Expands the definition of tax Expands definition of tax and may result in the
reclassification of several fees and charges
that are used to support specific service
delivery as taxes subject to voter approval.
2. Requires voter approval for state taxes Require that new or increased taxes must be
passed by two-thirds note in each legislative
chamber and approved by simple majority of
voters. Applies to any state tax approved
between January 1, 2022 and the effective
date of the measure, unless the tax fulfills
certain requirements.
3. Requirements for approving local taxes Require that new or increased taxes must be
passed by two-thirds vote of the electorate.
Prohibits local advisory measures where local
voters express a preference for how local
general tax dollars should be spent.
Ta
x
e
s
4. Allowable uses and duration of state and
local tax revenues must be specified
Requires that state and local tax measures
identify the type and amount (or rate) of the
2California Office of Attorney General, Ballot Initiatives, Active Measures, #21-0041A1, Full Text of Amended Ballot
Initiative: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/21-0042A1%20%28Taxes%29.pdf
3 California Office of Attorney General, Ballot Initiatives, Active Measures, #21-0041A1, Legislative Analyst’s Office
letter dated January 19, 2022: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/fiscal-impact-estimate-
report%2821-0042A1%29.pdf
1
7
6
8
TABLE 1: Major Provisions of the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act
tax and duration of the tax; must state that the
revenue can be used for general purposes.
5. Requires the legislature and local
government bodies to impose state and
local fees
Requires that fees be imposed by majority
vote of the local governing body; restricts the
ability of local governments to delegate fee
changes to administrative entities. Any fee
approved between January 1, 2022 and the
effective date of the measure, if passed by
voters, unless the tax fulfills requirements of
the measure.
Fee
s
,
C
h
a
r
g
e
s
,
F
i
n
e
s
,
a
n
d
P
e
n
a
l
t
i
e
s
6. Some new state and local fees cannot
exceed actual costs
Except for licensing and other regulatory fees,
fees and charges may not exceed “the
minimum amount necessary.”
Fees and charges paid for use of government
property and the amount paid to purchase or
rent property must be “reasonable.” These
fees and charges are currently allowed to be
market based.
ANALYSIS
The initiative would significantly restrict the flexibility of state and local governments to raise
revenue for services and projects, and potentially jeopardizes billions in annual revenue across
California. The City’s major tax revenues are property tax, sales tax, utility users tax,
documentary transfer tax, and transient occupancy tax. Tax revenues are used to fund a variety
of services such as public safety, emergency response, library, and repair and maintenance of
streets and roads. Most proposed taxes require a two-thirds vote of Council before being
presented to the voters. Special taxes require two-thirds vote by the electorate while general
taxes require a majority vote of the electorate. The initiative expands the definition of a tax that
may result in the reclassification of a fees and charges that are used to support specific service
delivery as taxes subject to voter approval.
In addition to these taxes, a variety of fees and other charges are levied for a variety of services
provided by the City. Cities, counties, and special districts must regularly (e.g., annually) adopt
increases to fee rates and charges and revise rate schedules to adjust for changes in service
delivery costs (“actual cost”) or level of service. “Actual cost” is defined as the “minimum
amount necessary” to provide the service, however the initiative adds provisions that all fees
must be “reasonable to the payor” and does not define what “reasonable” is. The initiative also
increases the burden to show that a levy, charge or exaction is not a tax from a preponderance
of the evidence to a clear and convincing standard.
1
7
6
8
Finally, the initiative’s retroactive application is problematic as hundreds of local measures
were approved by the voters in 2022 which may not comply with the initiative’s requirements.
The City’s own Business Tax (Measure K) and Measure to Affirm the Natural Gas Utility Transfer
(Measure L) were approved by voters in November 2022. While we believe the two measures
comply with the requirements of the Initiative, they, like many other local tax measures across
the State, are subject to additional, unexpected scrutiny despite voter-approval.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Staff recommends the Council adopt an oppose position on this ballot initiative, as it restricts
the City’s local control and diminish the ability of voters and taxpayers to weigh in on local
spending decisions. The measure would significantly restrict the City’s flexibility to recover cost
for specific services and raise revenue for City services, projects and identified unfunded needs.
The City has been in close coordination with the League of California Cities as this process
develops.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
This report transmits a proposed resolution for Council adoption opposing the Taxpayer
Protection and Government Accountability Act (#21-0042A1).
This ballot initiative is supported by:
•California Business Roundtable
•California National Association for Industrial and Office Parks
•Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
This ballot initiative is opposed by:
•League of California Cities
•California State Association of Counties
•California Special Districts Association
•California Contract Cities Association
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This report is not a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as defined in
CEQA Guidelines, section 15378, because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct or
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Resolution to Oppose the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability
Act (Initiative 21-0042A1)
Attachment B: Fiscal and Program Effects of Initiative 21-0042A1 on Local Governments
APPROVED BY:
Kiely Nose, Assistant City Manager
1
7
6
8
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
0003_20230322_MV30
RESOLUTION NO. ____
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING
OPPOSITION TO THE TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (INIATIVE 21-0042A1)
WHEREAS, the measure would amend the Constitution to further restrict the ability of
the state, counties, other local agencies, and the electorate to approve or collect taxes, fees, and
other revenues; and
WHEREAS, the measure includes 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 puts billions of dollars across the State currently dedicated to
local services at risk and could force cuts to fire and emergency response, law enforcement,
public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental
health services, and more; and
WHEREAS, the measure would significantly restrict the City’s flexibility to recover cost for
specific services and raise revenue for City services, projects and identified unfunded needs; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act
(Initiative 21-0042A1);
SECTION 2. The City of Palo Alto will join the No on Initiative 21-0042A1 coalition, a
growing coalition of public safety, education, labor, local government, and infrastructure groups
throughout the state.
//
//
//
//
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
0003_20230322_MV30
SECTION 3. This resolution shall take effect as of the date of its passage and adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
CaliforniaCityFinance.Com
Fiscal and Program Effects of
Initiative 21-0042A1 on Local Governments
If Initiative 21-0042A1 is placed on the ballot and passed by voters, it will result in:
Over $20 billion of local government fee and charge revenues over 10 years placed at heightened legal
peril. Related public service reductions across virtually every aspect of city, county, special district, and
school services especially for drinking water, sewer sanitation, and public health and safety.
About $2 billion of revenues each year from fees and charges adopted after January 1, 2021 subject to
legal peril.1
Over $2 billion dollars of annual revenues from dozens of tax measures approved by voters between
January 1, 2022 and the effective date of the act2 subject to additional voter approval if not in compliance
with the initiative.
Indeterminable legal and administrative burdens and costs on local government from new and more
empowered legal challenges, and bureaucratic cost tracking requirements.
The delay and deterrence of municipal annexations.
Substantially higher legal and administrative cost of public infrastructure financing which will delay and
deter new residential and commercial development.
Service and infrastructure declines including in fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public
health, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, public schools, affordable housing,
homelessness prevention and mental health services.
1. Local Government Taxes and Services Threatened
With regard to taxes, Initiative 21-0042A1:
Prohibits advisory, non-binding measures as to use of tax proceeds on the same ballot.
o Voters may be less informed and more likely to vote against measures.
Eliminates the ability of special tax measures proposed by citizen initiative to be enacted by majority voter
approval (Upland).3
o Because the case law regarding citizen initiative special taxes approved by majority vote (Upland)
is so recent, it is unknown how common these sorts of measures might be in the future. This
initiative would prohibit such measures after the effective date of the initiative. Any such
measures adopted after January 1, 2022 through the effective date of the Act should it pass
would be void a year after the effective date of the initiative.
Requires that tax measures include a specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed. This seems to
require that all tax increases or extensions contain a sunset (end date).
o This would require additional tax measures to extend previously approved taxes.
A city charter may not be amended to impose, extend, or increase a tax might interfere with the ability of
cities that do not already have such authority in their charters to adopt Property Transfer Taxes.
o There are no more than a few of these every few years, but it is a valuable tax for those that
adopt it.
1 Assumes fee increases since January 1, 2022 would be subject to possible legal challenge if not adopted in compliance with the
Initiative.
2 The effective date of the initiative would be sometime in December 2024, the date the California Secretary of State certifies the
election results of the November 5, 2024 election.
3 Unlike the initiative 17-0050, this initiative does not eliminate that ability of cities and counties to adopt general taxes by majority
voter approval.
2 2 1 7 I s l e R o y a l e L a n e • D a v i s , C A • 9 5 6 1 6 - 6 6 1 6
P h o n e : 5 3 0 . 7 5 8 . 3 9 5 2 • F a x : 5 3 0 . 7 5 8 . 3 9 5 2
Rev. January 14, 2023
– 2 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Requires that a tax measure adopted after January 1, 2022 and before the effective date of the initiative
that was not adopted in accordance with the measure be readopted in compliance with the measure or
will be void twelve months after the effective date of the initiative.
o If past election patterns and elections in 2022 are an indication, over 200 tax measures approving
more than $2 billion annual revenues to support local public services would not be in compliance
and would be subject to reenactment. Most will be taxes without a specific end date and special
taxes (including parcel taxes). Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12
months following the effective date of the initiative, the measures would each require declaration
of emergency and unanimous vote of the governing board to be placed on a special election
ballot within a year for approval or the tax will be void after that date. I would expect most to
succeed, but some will not, in particular citizen initiative majority vote special taxes which would
have to meet a higher voter approval threshold to continue.
Requires voter approval to expand an existing tax to new territory (annexations). This would require
additional tax measures and would deter annexations and land development in cities.
o If a tax is "extended" to an annexed area without a vote after January 1, 2022, it will be void 12
months later until brought into compliance. Because there is no regularly scheduled election
within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, such extensions would each
require unanimous vote of the agency board to be placed on a special election ballot or would be
void a year later.
1.a. Number of Measures and Value of Local Taxes at Risk4
Over a hundred local measures were approved in 2022 that likely do not comply with the provisions of Initiative
21-0042A1. Nearly $2 billion of annual revenues from these voter approved measures will cease a year after the
effective date of the measure, reducing the local public services funded by these measures. We can expect a
similar volume of measures in 2024 and a similar volume of non-compliance. So the combined total of annual
local funding directly affected by Initiative 21-0042A1 due to its retroactivity provision is about $4 billion.
Citizen Initiative Special Taxes in 2022.
Special taxes placed on the ballot by citizen initiative and approved after January 1, 2022 by a majority but less
than two-thirds of the voters are out of compliance with Initiative 21-0042A1.
On June 7, 2022, there were three local special tax measures placed on the ballot by citizen initiative. Two failed
to get majority voter approval. A one percent transactions and use tax (sales tax) for the John C. Fremont
Healthcare District in Mariposa County received 69.6 percent approval, over the two thirds needed for any special
tax under California Constitution Article XIIIC. So this measure was passed in compliance with Initiative 21-
0042A1.
On November 8, 2022, there were 14 local special taxes placed on the ballot by citizen initiative. Seven of these
4 Source: Compilation and summary of data from County elections offices.
June 2022 Initiative Special Taxes - majority voter approval
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Estimated
Annual Revenue Use Sunset YES%
John C. Fremont
Healthcare District Mariposa Measure N Transactions
& Use Tax 1 cent $ 150,000 hospital 40yrs 69.6%PASS
County of Kings Kings Measure F Transactions
& Use Tax 1/2 cent $ 11,700,000 fire none 37.6%FAIL
Manhattan Beach
USD Los Angeles Measure A School Parcel
Tax $1095/yr $ 12,000,000 schools 12yrs 31.2%FAIL
– 3 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
measures failed with less than majority voter approval. The other seven measures received majority, but less than
two-thirds, voter approval. These measures passed under current law but are out of compliance with Initiative 21-
0042A1. Taken together these seven taxes will provide estimated annual revenues of from $900,000 to $1.4
billion in support of parks and recreation, zoo, library, affordable housing, transportation, homelessness
prevention, and schools in these communities.
Non-Specific Tax Durations in 2022
Voters approved 106 measures in June 2022 (10) and November 2022 (96) that do not provide a specific duration
of time that the tax will be imposed (end date). Typically, the ballot titles for these measures state that the tax
would be imposed “until ended by voters.” Four of these measures also did not include any estimate of the annual
revenues that the tax would generate, another violation of initiative 21-0042A1. Taken together, these approved
local measures generate $561 million per year that will expire a year after the effective date of the initiative if
Initiative 21-0042A1 passes.
November 2022 Initiative Special Taxes - majority voter approval
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Estimated
Annual Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Crockett Community
Services District Contra Costa Measure L Parcel Tax $50/parcel $ 60,000 parks/recr none 62.8%PASS
Oakland Alameda Measure Y Parcel Tax $68/parcel $ 12,000,000 zoo 20yrs 62.5%PASS
County of Mendocino Measure O Transactions
& Use Tax
1/8 cent then 1/4
cent in 2027 $ 4,000,000 library none 60.8%PASS
Los Angeles Los Angeles Measure ULA Property
Transfer Tax
4% if >$5m, 5.5%
if >$10m $600 m to $1.1 b affordable
housing none 57.3%PASS
County of Sacramento Measure A Transactions
& Use Tax same 1/2 cent $ 212,512,500
transportati
on
40yrs 55.3%PASS
San Francisco Proposition M Business
Operations Tax
$2500-$5000/
vacant resid unit $ 20,000,000 housing 30yrs 54.5%PASS
Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure GS Property
Transfer Tax
$56/$1000 if
>$8m $ 50,000,000
schools,
homelessne
ss, afford.
housing
none 53.3%PASS
Total $900,000 to
$1.4 billion
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Estimated
Annual Revenue Use Sunset YES%
County of Calaveras Measure A Transactions
& Use Tax 1 cent $ 5,000,000 fire none 49.4%FAIL
South San Francisco
(for Schools)San Mateo Measure DD School Parcel
Tax $2.50/sf $ 55,900,000 schools none 47.2%FAIL
County of Fresno (for CSU ) Measure E Transactions
& Use Tax
1/5 ct,
1/40 ct (Reedley) $ 36,000,000 Calif State
Univ 20yrs 46.9%FAIL
Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Measure N Parcel Tax $6k/v acant SFU xxx vacant
property xxx 44.2%FAIL
County of Monterey Measure Q Parcel Tax $49/parcel $ 5,500,000 childcare 10yrs 41.1%FAIL
San Francisco City
College
San
Francisco Measure O School Parcel
Tax $150/sfu $ 37,000,000 schools 10yrs 36.7%FAIL
Morro Bay San Luis
Obispo Measure B Parcel Tax $120+/parcel $ 680,000 harbor none 36.0%FAIL
Inverness Public
Utility District Marin Measure O Parcel Tax $0.20/sf,
$150/vacant $ 276,000 fire none 27.0%FAIL
– 4 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Oakland Alameda Measure T Business Tax
General various $ 20,900,000 none 71.4%PASS
Culver City Los Angeles Measure BL Business Tax
General various $ 10,000,000 none 60.5%PASS
El Segundo Los Angeles Measure BT Business Tax
General various $ 3,000,000 none 51.2%PASS
Pico Rivera Los Angeles Measure AB Business Tax
General various $ 5,800,000 none 75.5%PASS
Santa Ana Orange Measure W Business Tax
General various neutral none 64.8%PASS
Tracy San Joaquin Measure B Business Tax
General various $ 3,200,000 none 72.6%PASS
Burlingame San Mateo Measure X Business Tax
General various $ 2,500,000 none 75.1%PASS
Los Gatos Santa Clara Measure J Business Tax
General various $ 1,100,000 none 53.4%PASS
Santa Clara Santa Clara Measure H Business Tax
General
$45/employee,
$15/rental unit $ 6,000,000 none 59.5%PASS
Brisbane San Mateo Measure O Business Tax
lodging busn $2.50/rm/day $ 250,000 none 69.2%PASS
East Palo Alto San Mateo Measure L Business Tax
resid. rentals
2.5%
grossRcpts $ 1,480,000 none 69.9%PASS
County of Santa Cruz Unincorporated Measure C Busn Tax -
disp cups 12.5cents/cup $ 700,000 none 68.2%PASS
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado Measure G Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% retail,
manufacturing $ 950,000 none 62.9%PASS
McFarland Kern Measure O Busn Tax
Cannabis
8% of gross
receipts retail, $ 1,800,000 none 63.5%PASS
Avenal Kings Measure C Busn Tax
Cannabis
$25+/sf or
15% gr rcpts $ 600,000 none 61.8%PASS
Baldwin Park Los Angeles Measure CB Busn Tax
Cannabis
4%
grossRcpts $ 300,000 none 51.3%PASS
Claremont Los Angeles Measure CT Busn Tax
Cannabis
4%-7% gr
rcpts, $1- $ 500,000 none 61.1%PASS
County of Los Angeles Unincorporated Measure C Busn Tax
Cannabis
4% gross
receipts retail, $ 15,170,000 none 60.1%PASS
Cudahy Los Angeles Measure BA Busn Tax
Cannabis
15%
grossRcpts $ 3,600,000 none 54.0%PASS
El Segundo Los Angeles Measure Y Busn Tax
Cannabis
10%
GrossRcpt, $ 1,500,000 none 72.8%PASS
Hermosa Beach Los Angeles Measure T Busn Tax
Cannabis
10%
GrossRcpt, $ 1,500,000 none 67.6%PASS
Lynwood Los Angeles Measure TR Busn Tax
Cannabis 5%to10% $ 3,000,000 none 66.4%PASS
Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure HM Busn Tax
Cannabis
10% gross
Rcpts $ 5,000,000 none 66.4%PASS
South El Monte Los Angeles Measure CM Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% special
excise tax on $ 126,000 none 53.7%PASS
Monterey Monterey Measure J Busn Tax
Cannabis 6% grossRcpt $ 1,300,000 none 65.2%PASS
Pacific Grove Monterey Measure N Busn Tax
Cannabis 6% grossRcpt $ 300,000 none 70.8%PASS
Huntington Beach Orange Measure O Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% retail, 1%
other $ 600,000 none 54.7%PASS
– 5 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Notes
?= Ballot measure title did not include an estimate of annual revenues, also not in compliance with Initiative 21-0042A1.
n/a*= Arcadia Measure SW passed but sports betting remains illegal after the failure of Propositions 26 and 27 on the November
statewide ballot.
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Laguna Woods Orange Measure T Busn Tax
Cannabis
4%-10% of
gross receipts $ 750,000 none 61.1%PASS
Corona Riverside Measure G Busn Tax
Cannabis
9% of gross
receipts for $ 5,000,000 none 61.6%PASS
Montclair San Bernardino Measure R Busn Tax
Cannabis
7%
grossRcpts $ 3,500,000 none 70.3%PASS
County of San Diego Unincorporated Measure A Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% retail, 3%
distribution, $ 5,600,000 none 57.4%PASS
Encinitas San Diego Measure L Busn Tax
Cannabis
4% to 7% of
gross receipts $ 1,400,000 none 65.1%PASS
Healdsburg Sonoma Measure M Busn Tax
Cannabis 8% grossRcpt $ 500,000 none 72.7%PASS
Exeter Tulare Measure B Busn Tax
Cannabis
10% retail and
other, $10/sf ? none 66.5%PASS
Tulare Tulare Measure Y Busn Tax
Cannabis
10% retail and
other, $10/sf ? none 65.2%PASS
Woodland Yolo Measure K Busn Tax
Cannabis
10%
grossRcpts ? none 66.2%PASS
Redlands San Bernardino Measure J Busn Tax
Distrib centers
from $0.047/sf
to $0.105/sf $ 530,000 none 53.5%PASS
Arcadia Los Angeles Measure SW Busn Tax
Sports Betting
5%
grossRcpts n/a* none 63.9%PASS
Albany Alameda Measure K ParcelTax $0.074+/sf $ 1,950,000 fire/EMS none 76.0%PASS
Cameron Park Airport
District El Dorado Measure J ParcelTax by $600 to
$900/parcel $ 117,900 airport/
streets none 78.2%PASS
Highlands Village
Lighting Benefit Zone El Dorado Measure L ParcelTax $140+/parcel $ 10,920 streets none 86.3%PASS
Knolls Property
Owners CSD El Dorado Measure P ParcelTax by $300+ to
$600+/parcel $ 8,400 streets none 75.5%PASS
Sundance Trail Zone of
Benefit El Dorado Measure C ParcelTax $600+/yr $ 24,000 roads none 73.2%PASS
South Pasadena Los Angeles Measure LL ParcelTax xxx ? library none 86.2%PASS
River Delta Fire District Sacramento Measure H ParcelTax $90/yr $ 130,000 fire none 72.1%PASS
Emeryville Alameda Measure O PropTransfTax $15/$1000 if
$1m-$2m, $ 5,000,000 none 71.6%PASS
San Mateo San Mateo Measure CC PropTransfTax by 1% to 1.5%
if >$10m $ 4,800,000 none 71.8%PASS
Alameda Alameda Measure F TOT by 4% to 14% $ 910,000 none 59.2%PASS
Clovis Fresno Measure B TOT by 2% to 12% $ 500,000 none 69.7%PASS
Kerman Fresno Measure G TOT 10% $ 40,000 none 62.3%PASS
Trinidad Humboldt Measure P TOT by 4% to 12% $ 65,000 none 77.6%PASS
Imperial Imperial Measure G TOT by 4% to 12% $ 600,000 none 56.2%PASS
Arcadia Los Angeles Measure HT TOT by 2% to 12% $ 730,000 none 54.1%PASS
Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure CS TOT by 1%, 3%
home shares $ 4,100,000 none 73.7%PASS
– 6 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Anaheim Orange Measure J TOT online travel
companies $ 3,000,000 none 59.2%PASS
La Palma Orange Measure P TOT by 4% to 12% $ 200,000 none 71.1%PASS
Colfax Placer Measure B TOT by 2% to10% $ 29,000 none 73.5%PASS
Rocklin Placer Measure F TOT by 2% to 10% $ 300,000 none 59.8%PASS
Roseville Placer Measure C TOT by 4% to 10% $ 3,000,000 none 73.0%PASS
Big Bear Lake San Bernardino Measure P TOT by 2% to 10% $ 1,300,000 none 54.4%PASS
Grand Terrace San Bernardino Measure M TOT new 10% $ 250,000 none 51.9%PASS
Yucca Valley San Bernardino Measure K TOT by 5% to 12% $ 1,300,000 none 71.9%PASS
Imperial Beach San Diego Measure R TOT by 4% to 14% $ 400,000 none 67.4%PASS
El Paso de Robles San Luis ObispoMeasure F TOT by 1% to 11% $ 750,000 none 61.2%PASS
Belmont San Mateo Measure K TOT by 2% to 14% $ 600,000 none 79.3%PASS
Millbrae San Mateo Measure N TOT by 2% to 14% $ 1,500,000 none 75.8%PASS
County of Humboldt Unincorporated Measure J TOT by 2% to 12% $ 3,080,000 none 63.3%PASS
County of Placer -
North Tahoe TOT Area Measure A TOT by 2% to 10% $ 4,000,000 none 90.0%PASS
County of Santa Cruz Unincorporated Measure B TOT by 1% to 12% $ 2,300,000 none 69.2%PASS
County of El Dorado -
East Slope Tahoe Measure S TOT 2/3 by 4% to 14% $ 2,500,000 none 81.8%PASS
Chico Butte Measure H TrUT 1 cent $ 24,000,000 none 52.4%PASS
Mendota Fresno Measure H TrUT 1.25 cent $ 493,498 none 57.2%PASS
Blue Lake Humboldt Measure R TrUT 1 cent $ 30,000 none 55.4%PASS
Rio Dell Humboldt Measure O TrUT 3/4cent $ 400,000 none 53.3%PASS
County of Kern unincorporated areas Measure K TrUT 1 cent $ 54,000,000 none 50.8%PASS
McFarland Kern Measure M TrUT 1 cent $ 579,662 none 62.2%PASS
Tehachapi Kern Measure S TrUT 1 cent $ 4,000,000 none 57.2%PASS
Avenal Kings Measure A TrUT 1 cent $ 500,000 none 72.5%PASS
Susanville Lassen Measure P TrUT 1 cent $ 1,750,000 none 54.7%PASS
Baldwin Park Los Angeles Measure BP TrUT 3/4 cent $ 6,000,000 none 58.1%PASS
Malibu Los Angeles Measure MC TrUT 1/2 cent $ 3,000,000 none 52.6%PASS
Monterey Park Los Angeles Measure MP TrUT 3/4 cent $ 6,000,000 none 58.5%PASS
Torrance Los Angeles Measure SST TrUT 1/2 cent $ 18,000,000 none 55.0%PASS
Larkspur Marin Measure G TrUT 1/4 cent $ 700,000 none 59.4%PASS
Sand City Monterey Measure L TrUT by 1/2cent to
1.5cents $ 1,400,000 none 68.7%PASS
Hemet Riverside Measure H TrUT same 1 cent $ 15,000,000 none 58.0%PASS
Elk Grove Sacramento Measure E TrUT 1 cent $ 21,000,000 none 54.1%PASS
Galt Sacramento Measure Q TrUT 1 cent $ 3,600,000 none 52.4%PASS
Colton San Bernardino Measure S TrUT 1 cent $ 9,500,000 none 66.8%PASS
Ontario San Bernardino Measure Q TrUT 1 cent $ 95,000,000 none 53.2%PASS
Solana Beach San Diego Measure S TrUT 1 cent $ 3,000,000 none 66.7%PASS
Brisbane San Mateo Measure U TrUT 1/2 cent $ 2,000,000 none 63.9%PASS
Goleta Santa Barbara Measure B TrUT 1 cent $ 10,600,000 none 64.7%PASS
Solvang Santa Barbara Measure U TrUT 1 cent $ 1,600,000 none 63.1%PASS
– 7 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Co-temporal Advisory Measures in 2022
At the November 2022 election, there was just one local general tax measure that was accompanied by an
advisory measure as to the use of funds. The City of Santa Monica’s Measure DT property transfer tax failed with
just 34 percent approval as voters instead chose the citizen initiative Measure GS.
There was also just one such tax use advisory measure on the June 2022 election. Susanville’s voters passed
Measure P, a 1 percent transactions and use (sales) tax that generates $1.75 million per year5 for general city
services. The measure was accompanied by advisory Measure Q, accompanied the city’s It asked, “If Measure P
passes, should the revenues be used to balance the budget to maintain and enhance existing public safety
services (police and fire), and provide funding to support street infrastructure improvements and provide funding
to support economic development efforts designed to increase businesses, jobs and visitors to Susanville?” Both
measures passed. Under Initiative 21-0042A1, the tax will expire a year after the effective date of the initiative
(i.e., in December 2025).
1.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Tax Provisions
Assuming a similar volume of local measures through 2024 as we saw in 2022, there will be over 200 local
measures that will need to be redrafted to comply with the Initiative and placed back on the ballot for the taxes to
continue after December 2025. The costs of re-drafting, re-placing and re-voting on these measures, previously
legally approved by voters, will be in the tens of millions in total statewide.
2. “Exempt Charges” (fees and charges that are not taxes) and Services Threatened
With regard to fees and charges adopted after January 1, 2022, Initiative 21-0042A1:
Subjects new fees and charges for a product or service to a new "actual and reasonable test."
Subjects fees and charges for entrance to local government property; and rental and sale of local
government property to a new, undefined, “reasonable” test.
Allows legal challenge to any tax adopted before the effective date of the initiative and after January 1,
5 The Susanville measure also did not include a specific end date and so is included in the list and totals of those measures.
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Watsonville Santa Cruz Measure R TrUT 1/2 cent $ 5,000,000 none 64.4%PASS
Vallejo Solano Measure P TrUT 7/8 cent $ 18,000,000 none 54.7%PASS
Modesto Stanislaus Measure H TrUT 1 cent $ 39,000,000 none 62.8%PASS
County of Colusa Measure A TrUT 2/3 1/2 cent $ 2,400,000 EMS none 69.4%PASS
Atwater Merced Measure B TrUT 2/3 same 1 cent $ 4,000,000 police/fire none 73.7%PASS
Truckee Nevada Measure U TrUT 2/3 by 1/4 cent to
1/2 cent $ 3,000,000 open space
/ trails none 76.4%PASS
Palo Alto Santa Clara Measure L UtilityTransfer 18% gas $ 7,000,000 none 77.7%PASS
Santa Clara Santa Clara Measure G UtilityTransfer 5 % $ 30,000,000 none 84.2%PASS
Hercules Contra Costa Measure N UUT 8% $ 3,600,000 none 69.3%PASS
Carson Los Angeles Measure UU UUT 2% electr, gas $ 8,000,000 none 78.4%PASS
Sebastopol Sonoma Measure N UUT 3.75% (same) $ 700,000 none 83.5%PASS
– 8 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
2022. Such a lawsuit could enjoin (stop) the enactment of the tax pending the outcome of the legal
challenge.
Subjects a challenged fee to new, higher burdens of proof if legally challenged.
2.a. Value on New Local Government Fees and Charges at Risk6
Virtually every city, county, and special district must regularly (e.g., annually) adopt increases to fee rates and
charges and revise rate schedules to accommodate new users and activities. Most of these would be subject to
new standards and limitations under threat of legal challenge. Based on the current volume of fees and charges
imposed by local agencies and increases in those fees simply to accommodate inflation, the amount of local
government fee and charge revenue placed at risk is about $2 billion per year including those adopted since
January 1, 2022. Of $2 billion, about $900 million (45 percent) is for special districts, $800 million (40
percent) is cities, and $300 million (15 percent) is counties.7
Major examples of affected fees and charges are:
1. Certain water, sanitary sewer, wastewater, garbage, electric, gas service fees.
2. Nuisance abatement charges - such as for weed, rubbish and general nuisance abatement to fund
community safety, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanup programs.
3. Emergency response fees - such as in connection with DUI.
4. Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges.
5. Business improvement district charges.
6. Fees for processing of land use and development applications such as plan check fees, use permits,
design review, environmental assessment, plan amendment, subdivision map changes.
7. Document processing and duplication fees.
8. Facility use charges, parking fees, tolls.
9. Fines, penalties.
10. Fees for parks and recreation services.
2.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Fee/Charge Provisions
In addition to service delays and disruptions due to fee and charge revenues placed at greater legal risk, there
would be substantial additional costs for legal defense. The risk to fees and charges will make infrastructure
financing more difficult and will deter new residential and commercial development.
***********
mc
6 Source: California State Controller Annual Reports of Financial Transactions concerning cities, counties and special districts,
summarized with an assumed growth due to fee rate increases (not population) of 2 percent annually.
7 School fees are also affected but the amount is negligible by comparison.