CC - Item 6B - Resolution to Oppose State Ballot Measure Restricting Voters' Input and Local Taxing AuthorityROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BEN KIM, ACTING CITY MANAGER
DATE: APRIL 26, 2022
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE STATE BALLOT MEASURE RESTRICTING
VOTERS' INPUT AND LOCAL TAXING AUTHORITY
SUMMARY
The City Council will consider adopting a resolution in opposition to the Taxpayer Protection and
Government Accountability Act, a statewide ballot initiative that has been cleared for circulation
to gather the required number of signatures to qualify for placement on the November 8, 2022,
general election. The measure, if approved, would, among other things, redefine what a tax is and
would require the affirmative vote of 2/3 of the members of the Legislature's or local legislative
bodies for adoption of new taxes and fees.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The California Business Roundtable (CBRT) has sponsored a proposed constitution initiative to
restrict voters' input and local taxing authority. The CBRT is an association comprised of the
largest corporations in California. Upon review of filed documentation, the Attorney General
issued the title and summary on February 3, 2022, for what is now commonly referred to as the
Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (AG# 21-00421A1). This action then
allowed the initiative's proponents to start the signature gathering process. Since this is a
Constitutional Amendment, proponents will have to gather 997,139 valid signatures by the
deadline. The gathered signatures will then be turned over to the California Secretary of State
office to verify the validity of the signatures. If the required number of signatures are gathered
and certified, the initiative will appear on the November 8, 2022, general election.
In 2017, a similar initiative was proposed, and signatures were gathered in 2018 for what at the
time it was referred to as the "Tax Fairness, Transparency and Accountability Act" (AG# 17-0050
Amendment #1). At the time, proponents aimed to qualify the initiative for the November 2018
ballot. Much like the initiative being proposed now, the measure would have drastically limited
local revenue authority. Through the successful work and advocacy of the League of California
Cities and a broad coalition of organizations, the measure's proponents withdrew the initiative
from the ballot in June 2018.
AGENDA ITEM 6.11
City Council Meeting
April 26, 2022
Page 2 of 5
Prior ballot initiatives approved by California voters such as Proposition 13 (1978), Proposition
62 (1986), Proposition 218 (1996), and Proposition 26 (2010) already limited the States' and local
governments' abilities to create new taxes or increase existing ones.
THE TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act would amend the California
Constitution to restrict the ability of the state, counties, other local agencies, and the electorate to
approve or collect taxes, fees, and other revenues. It would require voter approval of all state
taxes, would further restrict local fee authority by limiting it to the "minimum amount necessary"
to provide government services, and would require voter approval for local measures such as
franchise fees. Its provisions would make it easier to challenge local revenue measures by
increasing the burden of proof on local agencies while disallowing an agency's characterization of
a measure from being considered by the court. The following summarizes the impact of the
measure on local government entities.
Taxes
For State and local governments, it broadens the definition of tax to include some current
fees charged by the State and local governments to users of certain services. By changing
a fee to a tax, said new tax will now have to be approved by 2/3 of the members of the
Legislature's bodies or local governments and a majority of the voters participating in the
general election.
• Approval of local governments' general and special taxes:
o A tax proposed by an elector or governing body must be first approved by 2/3 majority
vote of the governing body.
o For general purpose taxes, it requires the same as above and approval of a majority of
voters.
o For special taxes, which its proceeds are for specific purposes, the initiative requires
that it must also be approved by a 2/3 majority vote of the governing body and a 2/3
voter majority.
o It also mandates that the approval of a tax increase ordinance be placed on a general
election and not be submitted to the voters in a special election unless the local
legislative body unanimously declares an emergency and approves the placement of
the measure. Voters could still place a tax measure for voters' consideration and will
only require the approval of a majority of the voters participating in the election.
The initiative will require tax measures to identify the duration of the tax and any sunset
date, the amount of revenues expected to be raised and the specific uses of those revenues.
If the tax revenues are to be used for general purposes, then the measure must explicitly
indicate that revenues will be used for "unrestricted general revenue purposes." These
requirements will apply to State and local governments taxes.
City Council Meeting
April 26, 2022
Page 3 of 5
• Any subsequent changes to the purposes of revenues collected via taxes will have to be
approved by a 2/3 majority vote of the Legislature and a majority vote of the electorate.
For local governments, a 2/3 majority approval of the local legislative body and 2/3 voter
majority approval will be required.
Fees
For increasing State and local government fees, the initiative also proposes raising the
approval threshold. Specifically:
o For the State, any increases of fees will require a 2/3 majority vote of the
Legislature, and State Departments and agencies will no longer be able to increase
fees via an administrative decision.
o For local government, any increases of fees will require a 2/3 majority vote of a
local legislative body. The measure also provides for the repealing of locally
adopted fees via referenda. Fees approved after October 21, 2021, and the effective
date of the measure would need to meet such approval threshold within 12 months;
otherwise, they would be invalidated until the fees are reenacted following the
requirements of this initiative.
For some new and existing fees, the measure requires that fee to "be reasonable" and
closely reflect the actual costs to the State or local governments. If a fee payer challenges
the cost of the fee, State and local governments will be required to provide clear and
convincing evidence that the levy is a fee and not a tax, which would otherwise be subject
to the new requirements mandated by the initiative.
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.
FISCAL IMPACT OF THE INITIATIVE ON STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
The California Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), a non-partisan agency that provides an
analysis on a range of issues, including the annual budget proposed by the Governor, ballot
initiatives as this one, and other relevant proposals considered by the Legislature.
In its November 22, 2021, letter to California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the LAO states that
about ninety percent of California's $225 billion budget is derived from revenues collected via
taxes and fees. In its analysis, the LAO finds that the initiative could lead to "potentially
substantially lower annual state and local revenues, depending on future actions of the Legislature,
local government bodies, voters, and the courts." The LAO arrives to this conclusion based on the
following:
City Council Meeting
April 26, 2022
Page 4 of 5
• Lower State Tax and Fee Revenue: The expanded definition of tax and the higher threshold
for approval of new taxes will make it harder for the State to collect revenues. Programs
that are funded by fees could see the most significant impacts.
• Lower Local Government Tax and Fee Revenue: Same as above, the expanded definition
of taxes and the new, higher approval threshold will make it harder for local governments
to raise revenues.
• Possible Increased State and Local Governments Administrative Costs Related to
Calculation of Actual Costs for Setting Fees: As the new measure requires that fees closely
relate to actual costs, the State and local governments will have to develop methodology to
analyze actual costs and calculate fees. This methodology and the fees itself could be
subject to litigation, which in and of itself will also require the State and local governments
to invest resources to defend its methodologies and decisions.
IMPACT OF THIS INITIATIVE ON ROSEMEAD
As a local government, the City of Rosemead adopts an annual budget that includes the expenditure
of revenues collected via fees, and a variety of taxes derived from local sales taxes, property taxes,
etc. As a general law city, the City imposes fees and approves new taxes following the laws of the
State of California. In the case of fees associated with the provision of services, the City adopts
and revises such fees, annually, via the approval of an annual fee resolution. Fees are closely
associated with the City's prorated costs of providing a service or benefit to a user that is not
otherwise provided to everyone. The fee is intended as a means for the City to recover the cost of
providing such benefit to a user. For instance, when a homeowner remodels a kitchen and installs
new plumbing fixtures, the plumbing permit's fee includes the cost associated with staff's time
that will be spent on reviewing the request and conducting an inspection of the work performed by
a licensed plumber.
If some of the fees included in the annual fee resolution were to be challenged, and the courts were
to find that certain fees should be treated as taxes pursuant to the initiative, the Rosemead City
Council would be required to approve with a 2/3 majority the placement of a tax measure at a
general election and a majority of the voters participating in the election will be required to pass
the measure.
RESPONSE TO INITIATIVE BY CALIFORNIA CITIES
During its December 23, 2021, meeting, the League of California Cities Board of Directors voted
unanimously to oppose Initiative 21-0042AL Following the Board's unanimous decision, a
coalition of public safety, labor, local government, and infrastructure advocates have joined
together to fight against this measure. Cal Cities is requesting local jurisdictions adopt a resolution
to demonstrate how harmful this measure would be to local communities and the people of
California. If passed, Initiative 21-0042A1 has the potential to jeopardize vital local and state
services by risking billions of dollars currently dedicated to critical state and local services and
potentially forcing cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public
health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health
City Council Meeting
April 26, 2022
Page 5 of 5
services, and more. It also has the potential to reduce funding for critical infrastructure like streets,
roads, public transportation, drinking water, new schools, sanitation, and utilities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is staff's recommendation that the City Council adopt Resolution 2022-27 (Attachment A)
opposing the voter Initiative No. 21-0042A1 (Taxpayer Protection and Government
Accountability Act).
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the requested action.
STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT
If this initiative gains voter approval, it may hinder the City's ability to successfully finance many
of the goals and objectives within the 2030 Strategic Plan.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process.
Prepared by:
Daisy Guerrero,e 'or Management Analyst
Submitted by:
Paula Chamberlain, Interim Finance Director
Attachment A:
Resolution No. 2022-27
Attachment B:
Initiative 21-0042A1
Attachment C:
CBRT Measure Opposition Fact Sheet
Attachment D:
CBRT Fiscal Analysis
Attachment E:
Legal Analysis
Attachment F:
LAO Fiscal Analysis
Attachment A
Resolution No. 2022-27
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, IN
OPPOSITION TO INITIATIVE 21-0042A1, THE
TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
WHEREAS, a group of wealthy corporations and individuals, in collaboration with
organizations that seek to reduce government fees and taxes have filed documents with the
California Attorney General's (AG) office with the intent of securing title and summary for a
statewide ballot measure; and
WHEREAS, following State law, the AG prepared title and summary upon the
proponents' request; the AG's title is LIMITS ABILITY OF VOTERS AND STATE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO RAISE REVENUES FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICES.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT; and
WHEREAS, the initiative, which proponents have named "the Taxpayer Protection and
Government Accountability Act" broadens the definition of tax to include some current fees
charged by the State and local governments to users of certain services. By changing a fee to a
tax, said new tax will now have to be approved by 2/3 of the members of the Legislature's bodies
or local governments and a majority of the voters participating in the general election; and
WHEREAS, the initiative will require tax measures to identify the duration of the tax and
any sunset date, the amount of revenues expected to be raised and the specific uses of those
revenues. If the tax revenues are to be used for general purposes, then the measure must explicitly
indicate that revenues will be used for "unrestricted general revenue purposes". These
requirements will apply to State and local governments taxes; and
WHEREAS, for increasing local government fees, the initiative requires the affirmative
vote of a 2/3 majority of a local legislative body. The measure also provides for the repealing of
locally adopted fees via referenda; and
WHEREAS, the initiative 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; and
WHEREAS, according to an analysis by the California League of Cities (CalCities), "the
initiative puts at risk billions of dollars currently dedicated to critical state and local services. It
could also 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, and utilities"; and
WHEREAS, the nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), sent a letter
to Attorney General Rob Bonta on November 22, 2021, in which states that the initiative could
lead to "potentially substantially lower annual state and local revenues, depending on future
actions of the Legislature, local government bodies, voters, and the courts".
WHEREAS, if some of the fees included in the City's annual fee resolution were to be
challenged, and the courts were to find that certain fees should be treated as taxes pursuant to the
initiative, the Rosemead City Council would be required to approve with a 2/3 majority the
placement of a tax measure at a general election and a majority of the voters participating in the
election will be required to pass the measure; and
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rosemead opposes
Initiative 21-0042A 1 — the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act.
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Rosemead 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
BallotMeasures@calcities.org.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day 26th of April, 2022.
Polly Low, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
Rachel Richman, City Attorney Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)
CITY OF ROSEMEAD )
I, Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California,
do hereby certify that the foregoing City Council Resolution No. 2022-27, was duly adopted by
the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the
26th day of April, 2, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk
Attachment B
Initiative 21-0024A 1
BELL, McANDREW'S & ITILTACHS, LLP
ATTORNMYS .AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
455 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 600
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
(916) 442-7757
FAX (916) 442-7759
www.bmhlaw.cam
January 4, 2022
Anabel Renteria
Initiative Coordinator
Office of the Attorney General
State of California
PO Box 994255
Sacramento, CA 94244-25550
Re: Initiative 21-0042 Amendment Number One
Dear Initiative Coordinator:
21 -0042 AM
RECEIVED
JAN 0 4 2022
INITIATIVE COORDINATOR
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
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 Amt. #I
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act
[Deleted codified text is denoted in stAkeeut. 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 consecutiveyearsof 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) inenactingthis 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
including, but not limited to, Cannabis Coalition v. Clty 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 XI II 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
charae•
b 1 {a} Any change instate rA a law which results in any taxpayer paying anew 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 moiority 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 taxa
(B) A specific and legally bindina and enforceable limitation on haw 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 ot all members elected to each of the two houses
of the Legislature and submitted to the electorate and approved by a malority vote.
(2) The title and summary and ballot label or question required for 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 11, include:
(A) The type and amount or rate of the tax;
(B) The duration of the tax and
2
(C) The use of the revenue derived from the tax.
(c) Any change in state law which results in any taxpayerpaypgvina a new or higher exempt charge must be
imposed bran act passed by each of the two houses of the Legislature. Each act shallspec* the type of
exempt charge as provided In subdivision (e)and the amount or rate of the exempt charge to be imposed.
dLW As used in this section and in Section 9 of Article fl, "tax" means every a levy, charge, or exaction
of any kind imposed by the State state law that is not an exempt charge. exeept the foil,..aiMh•
(e) As used in this section, "exempt charge" means only the following:
Fhe W-R8fit ... -..FaRtiAg the .. ..,hese to !he p
(1) Q4 A reasonable charge imposed 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 Feaeenable actual costs
to the State of providing the service or product to the payor.
0 W A charge impesed-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) Areasonable charge imposed 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, eF ethe...+ .. twy shag .e including any applicable interest for nonpayment thereof;
imposed by the judicial branch of government or the State, as al Lsult of a state administrative
enforcement agency pursuant to adjudicatory due ,process, to punish a violation of Jaw.
(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.
f fLW Any tax or exempt charge adopted after January 1, 2022 29-9, 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 by the LwegiSlatbiFe and si,gAed- iRt-e
law bythe _Ge„eFner in compliance with the requirements _ofthis section.
(a)(1) (-e} The State bears the burden of proving by a ^-ependeFanee of the 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 charoe_is reasonable and that
the amount charged does not exceed the actual cost of providing the service or product to the govor. 4hat
paye✓ h ..,dn OF henefitS reeei„ed fr_effi the governmental activity
(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 state law, shall not be a factor in determining whether the levy charae, 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 proyidina 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 Oi) where the amount
charged Is not used by the aovernment for any purpose other than reimbursing that cost. In computing
"actual cost" the maximum amount that maybe imposed is the actual cost less all othersources 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 of payor, 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 letter, ar other I aal 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 Callfornia. Trustees of the
Califbmia State University. or the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges.
Section 5. Section 1 of Article XIII C of the CaliforniaConstitution is amended, to read:
Sec. 1. Definitions. As used in this article:
a "Actual cost" of providinga service or product means: i the minimum amountnecessary 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 aovemment for any purpose other than reimbursing that cost. In computing
"actual cost" the maximum amount that maybe imposed is the actual cost less all othersources 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 followina with respect to a tax, exempt charge,
orArticle 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.
LcL(a} "General tax" means any tax imposed for general governmental purposes.
(d) "Impose" means adopt enact reenact create, establish, collect, increase, or extend.
jeLM "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 11 or
the initiativepower provided by a charter or statute.
W "Local law" includes. but is not limited to, any ordinance, resolution, regulation, ruling, opinion letter,
or other legal authority or interpretation adapted enacted, enforced issued or implemented by a local
government.
Lq { "Special district" means an agency of the State, formed pursuant to general law ora 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.
LL(d) "Special tax" means any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific
purposes, which is placed into a general fund.
jigW As used in this article, and in Section 9 of Article il. "tax" means every a+ay-levy, charge, or exaction
of any kind, imposed by a local gave: - meat law that is not an exempt chgMee., eK-ep *he GI4G hig
(i) AS used in this section, "exempt charae"means only the following:
(11 ) (-} A reasonable charge imposed for a specific local government service or product provided directly
to the payor that isnot provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the Teasenable actual
costs to the local government of providing the service or product.
2) WA charge dosed 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.
(4} A reasonable charge impesed for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase,
rental, or lease of local government property.
W A fine; or penalty, OF etheF menetaFy ehaFge including any applicable interest for nonpayment
thereof, imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government administrative enforcement
agency pursuant to ad
iudicatory due process, ',t to punish a violation of law.
MW A charge imposed as a condition of property development. No levy, charge, or exaction regulating
or related to vehicle miles traveled may be imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy.
(6)(.7An sses..mew and ., „eFty r-Plai+ d &Ps assessment fee, or charge imposed an aceeFdance with
the-pFevisionse#subiect 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 charae imposed for a specific health care service provided directs 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'Sofety Code..
levy, ,.
or ether e)(aetion is Aet a tax-, that thin a-mOURt is AG MOFe than RecessaFy to eewr thp r.P;;QARahIP r-ag-c of
,
Section 6. Section 2 of Article Xlll 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 eithergeneral taxes orspecial taxes. Special
purpose districts or agencies, including school districts, shall have no power to levy general taxes.
(b) No local law ge:e.~~:~_~+, whetherproposed 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) Any geneFal tax impesed, , _ , by aRy local geyernment on
, '
,.
elec-tie;; shall be held wIthin twe Years ef the AeOve date ef thus artoele and in eempliwanee with
5,.ti,d:,.;s'le-A (b) (d) No local law SeveMmen , whether proposed by the governing body or by an elector,-
may impose, extend, OF InGFease 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 auestion required Lor 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 some ballot that would
indicate that the revenue from the general tax will, could, or should be usedfor a spec)ficpurpose.
(e) Only the governing body of a local government other than an elector pursuant to Article 11 or the
initiative power provided by a charter or statute, shall have the outhority to impose any exempt charge.
The governing body shall impose an exempt charge by an ordinance specifying the type of exempt charge
as provided in Section 16) and the amount or rate of the exempt charge to be imposed, and passed by the
governina body, This subdivision shall not apply to charges specified in paragraph (7) of subdivision j
Section 1.
No amendment to a Charter which Provides for the imposition, extension or increase of a tax or exem t
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.
(a) Any tox or exempt charge adopted ofterlanuary 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 charcie is reenacted in compliance with the requirements of this
section.
(h)(1) The local 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 revenueby, or the Payment to, anon -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
exchonae 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, of charge orsurcharae, including a surcharge based on the value of property,
shall be assessed by - any ageRr. upon any parcel of property or upon any personas an incident of property
ownership except:
(1) The ad valorem property tax imposed PUFSuant to described in Section 1(a) of Article XIiI and Section
1(a) of Article XIl1 A and described and enacted pursuant to the voter approval requirement in Section IN
o
LArticle XII I A.
(2) Any special non -ad valorem tax receiving a two-thirds vote of qualified electors pursuant to Section 4
of Article X111 A orafter receivin a two-thirds vote of those authorized to vote in a community facilities
district by the Legislature pursuant to statute os 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.
(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. Sections1 and 14 of Article Xlll 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.
Q 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 law, such stote 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 of the other initiative measure or measures shall be null and void.
(2) In furtherance of this provision, the voters hereby declare that this measure conflicts with the
provisions of the "Housing Affordability and Tax Cut Act of 2022" and "The Tax Cut and Housing
Affordability Act," both of which would impose a new state property tax (called a "surcharge") on certain
real property, and where the revenue derived from the tax is provided to the State, rather than retained
in the county in which the property is situated and for the use of the county and cities and districts within
the county, in direct violation of the provisions of this initiative
(3) If this initiative measure is approved by the voters, but superseded in whole or in part by any other
conflicting initiative measure approved by the voters at the same election, and such conflicting initiative
its 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
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 of Title 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.
(Q) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the proponents of this Act, or a bona fide taxpayers association,
from intervening to defend this Act.
Attachment C
CBRT Measurer Opposition Fact Sheet
LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA
CITIES
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.
LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA
CITIES
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.
Attachment D
CBRT Fiscal Analysis
Rev January 7, 2022
Cal iforni6tCityFin6tnce.Cow►
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 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.
• 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.
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 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 previously approved taxes at additional cost
to taxpayers.
• Requires that a tax or bond measure adopted after January 1, 2022 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
-2— rev January 7, 2022
• 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 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, 2023.
Local Tax and Bond Measures - California
Cities, Counties, Special Districts, Schools
600 Wass OFail
500--
I
400
300 I i
i
200
r r � fi■i r �
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
1.a. Number of Measures and Value of Local Taxes at Risk'
In 2020, voters in California approved 293 local tax and bond measures 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 million 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 gubernatorial 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 Initiative 21-0042Amdt#1 except:
• Dozens of taxes would require end dates. This would require additional 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 would 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.
California City Finance. com
-3— rev January 7, 2022
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 new "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 property; 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 general 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 fees, 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, the
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.
Cal iforvuaCityFinance.coPK
-4— rev January 7, 2022
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.
***********
Cal iforvtiaCityFivtavtce.cowt
Attachment E
Legal Analysis
LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA
CITIES
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act
Initiative No. 21-0042A1
January 21, 2022
Summary: The measure limits the voters' input, adopts new and stricter rules for
raising taxes and fees, and makes it more difficult to hold state and local law
violators accountable.
Limiting Voter Authority and Accountability
• Limits voter input. Prohibits local voters from providing direction on how
local tax dollars should be spent by prohibiting local advisory measures.
• Invalidates Upland decision that allows majority of local voters to pass
special taxes. Taxes proposed by the Initiative are subject to the same
rules as taxes placed on the ballot by a city council. All measures passed
between January 2022 and November 2022 would be invalidated unless
reenacted within 12 months.
Restricting Local Fee Authority to Provide Local Services
• 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.
Restricting 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.
LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA
CITIES
Restricting Local Tax Authority to Provide Local Services
• Expanding existing taxes (e.g., UUT, use tax, TOT) to new territory (e.g.,
annexation) or expanding the base (e.g., new utility service) requires voter
approval.
• 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 January 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.
Attachment F
LAO Fiscal Analysis
January 19, 2022
Hon. Rob Bonta
Attorney General
1300 I Street, 17th Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
Attention: Ms. Anabel Renteria
Initiative Coordinator
Dear Attorney General Bonta:
LAOS
21-0042 Amdt. 1
RECEIVED
Jan 19 2022
INITIATIVE COORDINATOR
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9005, we have reviewed the proposed constitutional
Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act initiative (A.G. File No. 21-0042,
Amendment #1).
Background
State Government
Taxes and Fees. This year's state budget spends over $255 billion in state funds. Over
90 percent of the state budget is funded with revenues from taxes. These include, for example,
sales taxes paid on goods and income taxes paid on wages and other sources of income. Much of
the rest of the state budget is funded by fees and other charges. Examples include: (1) charges
relating to regulatory activities; (2) charges for specific government services or products, like
fees charged to drivers to improve roads; (3) charges for entering state property, such as a state
park; and (4) judicial fines, penalties, and other charges. The State Constitution requires the state
to set fees at a reasonable level, generally reflecting the costs of the services or benefits provided.
The state uses revenue from taxes and fees to fund a variety of programs and services, including
education, health care, transportation, and housing and homelessness services.
Current Requirements to Approve Taxes and Fees. Under the State Constitution, state tax
increases require approval by two-thirds of each house of the Legislature or a majority vote of
the statewide electorate. The Legislature can reduce taxes with a majority vote of each house,
provided the change does not result in an increase in taxes paid by any single taxpayer. In many
cases, the Legislature has enacted statutes that delegate its authority to adjust fees and other
Legislative Analyst's Office
California Legislature
Gabriel Petek, Legislative Analyst
925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento. CA 95814
(916)445-4656
Hon. Rob Bonta 2 January 19, 2022
charges to administrative entities, like state departments. In these cases, these charges can be
increased or changed by the department within certain limits.
Local Government
Taxes and Fees. The largest local government tax is the property tax, which raises roughly
$75 billion annually. Other local taxes include sales taxes, utility taxes, and hotel taxes. In
addition to these taxes, local governments levy a variety of fees and other charges. Examples
include parking meter fees, building permit fees, regulatory fees, and judicial fines and penalties.
In order to be considered a fee, the charge cannot exceed the reasonable costs to the local
government of providing the associated product or service. Local governments use revenues
from taxes and fees to fund a variety of services, like fire and police, public works, and parks.
Current Requirements to Approve Taxes and Fees. State law requires increases in local
taxes to receive approval of the local governing body—for example, a city council or county
board of supervisors—as well as approval of voters in that local jurisdiction. Most proposed
taxes require a two-thirds vote of the local governing board before being presented to the voters.
Special taxes (those used for a specific purpose) require a two-thirds vote of the electorate while
other types of taxes require a majority vote of the electorate. The majority -vote general taxes can
be used for any purpose. Recent case law suggests that citizen initiative special taxes may be
approved by majority vote, rather than a two-thirds vote. Currently, local governing bodies have
the ability to delegate their authority to adjust fees and other charges to administrative entities,
like city departments. In these cases, these charges can be increased or changed by the
department within certain limits.
Proposal
This measure amends the State Constitution to change the rules for how the state and local
governments can impose taxes, fees, and other charges.
State and Local Government Taxes
Expands Definition of Tam The measure amends the State Constitution to expand the
definition of taxes to include some charges that state and local governments currently treat as
fees and other charges. For example, certain charges imposed for a benefit or privilege granted to
a payer but not granted to those not charged would no longer be considered fees. As a result, the
measure could increase the number of revenue proposals subject to the higher state and local
vote requirements for taxes discussed below.
Requires Voter Approval for State Taxes. The measure increases the vote requirements for
increasing state taxes. Specifically, the measure requires that legislatively proposed tax increases
receive approval by two-thirds of each house and a majority vote of the statewide electorate.
Voters would still be able to increase taxes by majority vote of the electorate without legislative
action, however. Any state tax approved between January 1, 2022 and the effective date of this
measure would be nullified unless it fulfills the requirements of the measure.
Requirements for Approving Local Taxes. Whether sought by the local governing body or
the electorate, the measure establishes the same approval requirements for increasing local
Hon. Rob Bonta
January 19, 2022
special taxes. Any local tax approved between January 1, 2022 and the effective date of this
measure would be nullified unless it fulfills the requirements of the measure.
Allowable Uses and Duration of State and Local Tax Revenues Must Be Specified. The
measure requires state and local tax measures to identify the type and amount (or rate) of the tax
and the duration of the tax. State and local government general tax measures must state that the
revenue can be used for general purposes.
State and Local Government Fees
Requires the Legislature and Local Government Bodies to Impose State and Local Fees.
Fees would have to be imposed by a majority vote of both houses of the Legislature or local
governing bodies. The measure would restrict the ability of state and local governments to
delegate fee changes to administrative entities. The extent of these restrictions would depend on
future court decisions. Any fee approved between January 1, 2022 and the effective date of this
measure would be nullified unless it fulfills the requirements of the measure.
Some New State and Local Fees Could Not Exceed Actual Costs. For some categories of
fees, if the Legislature or a local governing body wished to impose a new fee or make changes to
an existing fee, the measure generally would require that the charge be both reasonable and
reflect the actual costs to the state or local government of providing the service. The measure
also specifies that actual cost should not exceed "the minimum amount necessary." In many
cases, existing fees already reflect the government's actual costs. In other cases, some fees would
have to more closely approximate the payer's actual costs in order to remain fees. If a fee payer
challenged the charge, the state or local government would need to provide clear and convincing
evidence that the fee meets this threshold. State and local governments also would bear the
burden of providing clear and convincing evidence that the levy is a fee—which is not subject to
a vote by the electorate—and not a tax under the new definition.
Fiscal Effects
Lower State Tax and Fee Revenue. By expanding the definition of a tax, increasing the vote
requirements for approving taxes, and restricting administrative changes to fees, the measure
makes it harder for the Legislature to increase nearly all types of state revenues. The extent to
which revenues would be lower under the measure would depend on various factors, most
notably future decisions made by the Legislature and voters. For example, requirements for
legislative approval of fee increases currently set administratively could result in lower fee
revenues, depending on future votes of the Legislature. That lower revenue could be particularly
notable for some state programs largely funded by fees. Due to the uncertainty of these factors,
we cannot estimate the amount of reduced state revenue, but it could be substantial.
Lower Local Government Tax and Fee Revenue. Compared to the state, local governments
generally face greater restrictions to raising revenue. By expanding the definition of taxes and
restricting administrative changes to fees, the measure would make it somewhat harder for local
governments to raise revenue. Consequently, future local tax and fee revenue could be lower
than they would be otherwise. The extent to which revenues would be lower is unknown, but
Hon. Rob Bonta 4 January 19, 2022
fees could be more impacted. The actual impact on local government revenue would depend on
various factors, including future decisions by the courts, local governing bodies, and voters.
Possible Increased State and Local Administrative Costs to Change Some Fee Levels. In
some cases, state and local departments would need to develop methods for setting fees to reflect
actual costs if the Legislature or local governing bodies wanted to change those fees in the
future. Estimating actual costs by program and fee source could involve some added workload
for those state and local departments, which likely would be supported by fee revenue. The
extent of these administrative costs would depend on (1) whether the state and local governments
determine a fee increase is needed in order to maintain their current level of programs and
services funded through fee revenue and (2) future court decisions.
Summary of Fiscal Effects. We estimate that this measure would have the following major
fiscal effects:
• Lower annual state and local revenues, potentially substantially lower, depending on
future actions of the Legislature, local governing bodies, voters, and the courts.
Sincerely,
�-�& V&O-
for Gabriel Petek
Legislative Analyst
for Keely Martin Bosler
Director of Finance