Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-04-11; City Council Legislative Subcommittee; ; Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (2024 Ballot Measure)LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE Staff Repor t Meeting Date: April 11, 2023 To: Legislative Subcommittee From: Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director Staff Contact: Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director jason.haber@carlsbadca.gov, 442-339-2958 Subject: District: Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (2024 Ballot Measure) All Recommended Action Review and discuss options concerning the city's position on the 2024 Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act ballot measure; determine the Subcommittee's recommendation, if any, to the City Council. Discussion On February 21, 2023, the City of Carlsbad received written correspondence from the League of California Cities Executive Director and CEO calling on the city to adopt a resolution formally opposing a 2024 ballot measure being proposed by the California Business Roundtable (Exhibit 1). The League correspondence referenced a February 6, 2023, letter and fact sheet that was sent from the Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Ad Committee to Mayors and Council Members throughout the state requesting they endorse the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act ballot measure (Exhibit 2). Additional information, including the group's reasons for pursuing the initiative, is available at https ://taxpayerprotection .com/. The League's correspondence references an Action Alert (available at https://www.calcities.org/advocacy/take-action#O), which characterizes the proposed measure as a "State Ballot Measure Restricting Voters' Input and Local Taxing Authority." The Leagues' Action Alert states that "the anti-local control California Business Roundtable measure has qualified for the November 2024 ballot. This anti-local control measure will decimate vital local and state services to the benefit of the largest and wealthiest corporations in California. Cal Cities, along with a broad coalition of local governments, labor, public safety, education, and infrastructure advocates, strongly oppose this initiative." The League's Action Alert requests that cities "make sure your city's voice is heard by adopting a resolution opposing the harmful measure." A sample resolution and a sample letter of opposition, as proposed by Cal Cities, are attached for Subcommittee consideration (Exhibits 3 and 4). Representatives from the League of California Cities and the California Business Roundtable have been notified of this agenda item, and were invited to address the Subcommittee at this meeting. April 11, 2023 Item #2 Page 1 of 12 State law allows a public agency to adopt a position on a ballot measure as long as the position is taken at an open meeting where all voices have the opportunity to be heard. However, state law prohibits the use of public resources to campaign for or against a ballot measure. A summary of permissible and impermissible activities is included in Exhibit 5. Next Steps ' If the Subcommittee decides to recommend that the city adopt a position concerning the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act Ballot Measure, staff will work with the City Manager to place an item on a future City Council agenda for consideration. The language of any proposed resolution will be reviewed and revised, if needed, by the City Attorney's Office to ensure legal compliance. Public Notification Public notice of this item was posted in keeping with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for public viewing and review at least 72 hours before the scheduled meeting date. Exhibits 1. Correspondence from the League of California Cities Executive Director and CEO 2. Endorsement Request from the Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act Committee 3. Sample resolution of opposition 4. Sample letter of opposition 5. Ballot Measure Activities & Public Resources April 11, 2023 Item #2 Page 2 of 12 Exhibit 1 February 21, 2023 To: City Managers From: Carolyn Coleman, Executive Director and CEO, League of California Cities Re: California Business Roundtable Great to see everyone at the City Managers Conference in Carlsbad! As a follow up to my remarks during the Conference, I wanted to let you know that the California Business Roundtable has mailed a letter and fact sheet to Mayors and Council Members throughout the state requesting they endorse the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (see attachment). In anticipation of you receiving questions from your elected officials, I want you to know the letter and fact sheet mischaracterize the impacts the measure will have on cities if the voters approve it in November 2024. Specifically, the measure: 1. Does not clear up "confusion" about what a tax is. Rather, it expands what a tax is by converting some fees into taxes. 2. Does not preserve the predictability of tax dollars. It actually creates fiscal uncertainty by making the measure retroactive to Jan. 1, 2022. 3. Does not preserve local control. It prevents a city from negotiating the rental and sale of its own property. 4. Cannot "eliminate hidden taxes" because there is no such thing as a hidden tax. s. Cannot "require truthful descriptions of new tax proposals" because truthful descriptions are already required. A general tax can be used for any governmental purpose, and a special tax must be used for the particular purpose earmarked by the voters. 6. Falsely argues that "massive increases in taxes and fees" punish hard-working families, when the measure in fact makes it more difficult for a city to punish municipal code violators and protect residents. No matter how the California Business Roundtable tries to paint a different picture, let me be clear: this measure is one of the biggest threats to local control that we have ever faced. Why do we all oppose it? 1. This measure calls for stricter rules for raising taxes, fees, assessments, and property-related fees that fund critical local services. April 11, 2023 Item #2 Page 3 of 12 2. The measure puts at risk the billions of dollars currently dedicated to funding critical local services by creating new mechanisms to challenge or repeal local revenue-raising measures. 3. It could force cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services that support homeless residents, mental health services, and more. 4. The measure reduces funding for critical infrastructure like streets and roads, public transportation, drinking water, new schools, sanitation, and utilities. Your regional public affairs manager has shared an Action Alert calling on all cities to adopt a resolution formally opposing this measure. Currently, over 100 cities have passed resolutions. If you have not already adopted one, be sure your city is on record opposing this dangerous ballot measure as soon as possible. Thank you for all you do and for supporting Cal Cities! As always, please do not hesitate to reach out to me if you have any questions. Carolyn Carolyn M . Coleman Executive Director and CEO League of California Cities Office: 9 16.658.827 5 Cell: 916.7 69 .5729 ccoleman@calcities.org I www.calcities.org Twitter I Focebook I YouTube I Linkedln CAUTION: Do not o en attachments or click on links unless know the content is safe. April 11, 2023 Item #2 Page 4 of 12 TAXPAYER PR 5 TECTION and Government Accountability Act February 6, 2023 The Honorable Katherine Aleman 2870 Clark Ave Norco, CA 92860-1903 Dear Council Member Aleman: ~,,-.- 1,;;r-;, b. .• RECEIVED CITY OF NORCO FEB 1 3 2023 CITY CLERK .. .,,~ __ ,...;j Exhibit 2 Five years ago, the will of the voters and the decades of tax law they created started unraveling in highly mistaken appellate court responses to the California State Supreme Court's decision in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland. Two Courts of Appeal took this case beyond its holding to create significant loopholes in established tax law and policy relied upon wisely by voters and government for over forty years. Combined with several other court cases, including Ca/Chamber v. California Air Resources Board, the courts have created uncertainty and confusion that must be addressed. In an effort to close these loopholes and restore the tax policy prior to these decisions, we recently qualified the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act initiative for the November 2024 statewide ballot. The Act builds upon decades of popular voter-approved ballot measures, beginning with Prop. 13 in 1978 and further strengthened by Prop. 218 (1996) and Prop. 26 (2010). In the past decade, each of these ballot measures has been significantly weakened by the courts, unraveling the status quo and decades of established tax law for cities, counties, and the entire state. The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act has been enthusiastically supported by voters, as evidenced by the more than 1,430,000 signatures we submitted to local county registrars to qualify the Act for the 2024 ballot. Prop. 218 was settled law-undisputed by cities and counties-and created a clear framework that provided taxpayers certainty on new and higher taxes, while giving local jurisdictions the ability to raise both general and special taxes. In fact, local governments were so comfortable with the framework of Prop. 218, and their ability to raise necessary revenue under its provisions, that the League of Cities defended Prop. 218's taxpayer protection provisions in an Amicus Curiae brief filed in the California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland case: "The core issue in this case is whether a local tax measure proposed by a citizen of a municipal corporation (or other local government agency) through an initiative is subject to the same constitutional requirements as one proposed by the municipal corporation's governing body. The trial court held yes, but in an unprecedented Ad paid for by Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability. sponsored by California homeowners. taxpayers. and businesses Ad Committee's Top Funders California Business Roundtable AMR Holdco Kilroy Realty LP Funding details at www.fppc.ca.qov April 11, 2023 Item #2 Page 5 of 12 0000328 opinion the Court of Appeal held that article XIII Cs requirements do not apply to taxes imposed through the initiative process. As a result, the League finds itself ironically aligned in this case with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, proponents of Propositions 218 and 26, in arguing that a proper interpretation of the Constitution does not countenance different treatment for local tax measures, regardless of their origin, and certainly does not create an exemption for initiatives that swallows all the rules created by Proposition 218." (emphasis added) So, what does the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountabl/lty Act do? In short, at the local level it restores the key provisions of Prop. 218, requiring special taxes placed on the ballot by citizen initiative to obtain a two-thirds vote of the electorate once again. In addition, the Act clearly clarifies the existing definition of what is a 'tax,' and requires either voters, or the local governing body, to approve all taxes and exempt charges. Despite the clear intent of the voters when they passed Prop. 13, Prop. 218, and Prop. 26, the courts have, for the last decade, created significant loopholes that directly contradict what voters approved at the ballot box. Lastly, to preserve local control and predictability of tax dollars, the Act requires local property tax revenue to stay in the county in which it is collected. There have been repeated attempts to direct this revenue to the state for redistribution back to the counties, forcing some counties to lose millions of dollars in local property tax revenue. Thanks to Prop. 13, local property tax revenue is one of the most predictable and stable funding sources for a county. The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act ensures these dollars-and the certainty they provide-stay within the county in which they were generated. The Act also applies many of these same provisions at the state level, requiring voters to approve all statewide taxes passed by the Legislature and requiring the Legislature to approve all fees and other charges, as defined by the measure. Attached please find a fact sheet on the measure, which gives additional information on the key provisions of the Act. Please do not hesitate to r~ach out if you have any questions regarding the measure or its provisions. Thank you, Robert C. Lapsley President California Business Roundtable April 11, 2023 Matthew Hargrove President and CEO California Business Properties Association Jon Coupal President Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Asso- ciation Item #2 Page 6 of 12 TAXPAYER PReTECTION and Government Accountablllty Act TaxpayerProtection.com California has the highest tax rates in America. Massive increases in taxes and fees over the past decade only add to the state's already sky-high cost of living -punishing hard-working families who are now struggling with soaring inflation. Even still, politicians, bu reaucrats and special interests continue to make it harder for Californians to make ends meet. In 2022 alone, they considered nearly $200 billion in higher taxes and fees. THE SOLUTION The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act is a simple measure that gives voters the final say on new and higher taxes and closes court-created loopholes that have made it easier for special interests and politicians to raise taxes. ✓ Gives voters the final say on all new and higher taxes Requires all new taxes passed by the Legislature to be approved by voters. Restores two-thirds voter approval for all new local special tax increases. ✓ Eliminates all "hidden taxes" Clearly defines what is a tax or fee -addressing recent court decisions that overturned decades of established taxpayer protections. Prevents unelected boards and commissions from passing hidden taxes or fees without approval from elected officials or voters. ✓ Requires truthful descriptions of new tax proposals Holds politicians accountable by requiring they clearly identify how revenue will be spent before any tax or fee is enacted and ensures it is not diverted to other purposes. Ensure s that the tax rate and length of time a new or higher tax will be in effect is listed on the ballot. With families across California struggling and the cost of living continuing to skyrocket, we must act now. The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act will guarantee voters, not politicians, have the final say on whether or notto raise taxes, while maintaining current revenue and spen ding. Join our coalition to protect taxpayers and hold the government accountable! Ad paid for by Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability. sponsored by California homeowners. taxpayers. and businesses Ad Committee's Top Funders California Business Roundtable AMR Holdco Kilroy Realty LP April 11, 023 Funding details at www.fppc,ca,qov Item #2 Pa e 7 of 12 Exhibit 3 Sample Resolution to Oppose Initiative 21-0042A 1 WHEREAS, an association representing California's wealthiest corporations and developers is spending millions to push a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2024 statewide ballot; and WHEREAS, the measure includes undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and infrastructure, and would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures where voters provide direction on how they want their local tax dollars spent; and WHEREAS, the measure creates new constitutional loopholes that a llow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure and our environment; and WHEREAS, the measure may make it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to local services at risk and could force cuts to fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more; and THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City/Town of [NAME] opposes Initiative 21 - 0042A l ; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City/Town of [NAME] will join the No on Initiative 2 l-0042A l coalition, a growing coalition of public safety, education, labor, local government, and infrastructure groups 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 __ of __ , 2023. April 11, 2023 Item #2 Page 8 of 12 SAMPLE OPPOSE LETTER Email a copy to BallotMeasures@calcities.org as well as your Regio na l Public A ffairs M anager. ***CITY LETTERHEAD*** DATE Bismarck Obando Director of Public Affairs, League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Letter Opposing Initiative 21-0042A 1 On DA TE, the City /Town of ____ voted to oppose Initiative 2 l-0042A 1, a Exhibit 4 deceptive, developer-sponsored proposition aimed for the November 2024 statewide ballot that would significantly jeopardize cities' ability to provide essential services and infrastructure for our residents. The measure includes undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and p rojects and would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures where voters can express a preference on how they want their local tax dollars spent. Th is measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including impacts on local infrastructure and our environment. This measure also may make it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods. Unless defeated, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to local services at risk, and could force cuts to fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more. PLEASE CITE SPECIFIC IMPACTS TO YOUR CITY THAT WOULD RESULT FROM THIS INITIATIVE. April 11, 2023 Item #2 Page 9 of 12 The measure benefits wealthy corporations and real estate developers while decimating our local communities and neighborhoods. You may list the City /Town of _____ in formal opposition to Initiative #2 l -0042A l and include our city as part of the growing coalition of public safety, labor, local government, infrastructure advocates, and other organizations throughout the state opposed to this deceptive proposition. Sincerely, NAME TITLE CITY/TOWN of ____ ~. April 11, 2023 Item #2 Page 10 of 12 Exhibit 5 IIJII INSTITUTE FOR llll LOCAL GOVERNMENTS." Promoting Good Goven,ment at tire Local uv~/ As important as ballot measures are to policymaking, public agencies and officials face important restrictions and requirements related to ballot measure activities. The basic rule is that public resources may not be used for ballot measure campaign activities. Public resources may be used, however, for informational activities. The key difference between campaign activities and informational activities is that campaign activities support or oppose a ballot measure, while informational activities provide accurate context and facts about a ballot measure to voters. This document summarizes some of the key applications of these principles. The law, however, is not always clear and the stakes are high. Missteps in this area are punishable as both criminal and civil offenses. Always check with agency counsel for guidance on how these rules apply in any specific situation. Public Agency Resources May Be Used To ✓ Place a measure on the ballot. ✓ Prepare and distribute an objective and fact-based analysis on the effect a ballot measure may have on the agency and those the agency serves. ✓ Express the agency's views about the effect of the measure on the agency and its programs, provided the agency is exceedingly careful not to advocate for or against the measure's passage. ✓ Adopt a position on the measure, as long as that position is taken at an open meeting where all voices have the opportunity to be heard. ✓ Respond to inquiries about the ballot measure in an objective and fact-based manner. ✓ Agency communications about ballot measures should not contain inflammatory language or argumentative rhetoric. ✓ Public employees and elected officials may, on their own time and with their own resources, engage in the following activities: o Work on ballot measure campaigns or attend campaign-related events on personal time (for example, evenings, weekends and lunch hours). o Make campaign contributions to ballot measures, using one's own money or campaign funds (while observing campaign reporting rules). o Send and receive campaign related emails using one's personal (non-agency) computer and email address. INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT www.ca-ilg.org April 11, 2023 Item #2 Page 11 of 12 Ballot Measure Activities & Public Resources Public Officials Should Not x Engage in campaign activities while on agency time or with agency resources. x Use agency resources (including office equipment, supplies, staff time, vehicles or public funds) to engage in advocacy- related activities, including producing campaign-type materials or performing campaign tasks. x Use public funds to pay for campaign-related expenses (for example, television or radio advertising, bumper stickers, or signs) or make campaign contributions. x Use agency computers or email addresses for campaign communication activities. Best Practices ✓ Inform agency employees and public officials about these legal restrictions, particularly once a ballot measure affecting the agency has qualified for the ballot. ✓ Include language on informational materials that clarifies that they are for informational purposes only. For example, "these statements shall not be construed in support of or against XX ballot measure." WHEN DO THESE RESTRICTIONS KICK IN? The rules against the use of public resources for campaign activities are triggered once a measure has qualified for the ballot. There may be more latitude before a measure has qualified, but consult with agency counsel regarding the permissibility of specific activities. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS Ballot measure activities that cross the line into advocacy are also subject to disclosure (transparency) requirements under California's Political Reform Act (Government Code sections 81000 et seq.). The Institute for Local Government (ILG) is the nonprofit 501 (c)(3) research and education affiliate of the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties and the California Special Districts Association. Our mission is to promote good government at the local level with practical, impartial and easy-to-use resources for California communities. For more resources related to ballot measures and campaigns, visit www.ca-ilg.org/campaigns. © 2018 Institute for Local Government. All rights reserved. INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT www.ca-ilg.org April 11, 2023 Item #2 Page 12 of 12 2 City of Carlsbad Legislative Subcommittee UpdateApril 11, 2023 Renne Public Policy Group │ www.publicpolicygroup.com Sharon Gonsalves, Director of Government Affairs, RPPG 2023 Legislative Calendar Critical Dates to Know •March 30 –Spring recess begins •April 10 –Legislature reconvenes from Spring recess •Mid May –Governor’s May Revise •May 12 –Last day for policy committees to meet prior to June 5 •June 2 –House of Origin Deadline Renne Public Policy Group │ www.publicpolicygroup.com City Sponsored Legislation SB 428 (Blakespear): Employee Harassment •Bill was introduced February 13, 2023 •Bill was on consent in Senate Judiciary •RPPG has reached out to key stakeholders including District Attorney’s Association and Public Employer Advocates •SB 428 is on Second Reading Renne Public Policy Group │ www.publicpolicygroup.com Legislative Update: Brown Act/Public Meetings AB 817 (Pacheco) Open Meetings: Teleconferencing: Non-Decision-Making BodiesProvides a narrow exemption under the Brown Act for non-decision-making bodies to participate in two-way virtual teleconferencing without posting a physical location.City Position: Support AB 557 (Hart) Open MeetingsEliminates the sunset provision in AB 361 (R. Rivas, 2021)and would extend renewal period from 30 days to 45 days.City Position: Support •Note: AB1379(Papan), SB537(Becker)and SB411(Portantino)pertain to open meetings and teleconferencing. Renne Public Policy Group │ www.publicpolicygroup.com Legislative Update: Mental Health SB 43 (Eggman) Conservatorships Expands the definition of gravely disabled to included a person’s inability to provide for their needs for nourishment, personal or medical care, or safety due to mental health or substance abuse disorder. City Position: Support SB 363 (Eggman) Mental Health Database Establishes a real time internet-based dashboard to collect and display information about beds in inpatient mental health and drug abuse facilities. City Position: Support Renne Public Policy Group │ www.publicpolicygroup.com Legislative Update: Operations AB 40 (Rodriguez) Emergency Medical Services This bill would establish a statewide standard for ambulance patient offload time and require a protocol to reduce ambulance patient offload time if it exceeds the statewide standard. AB 1484 (Zbur) Temporary Employees This bill would require temporary employees of cities and counties to be automatically included in the same bargaining unit as permanent employees. Renne Public Policy Group │ www.publicpolicygroup.com Legislative Update: Public Safety AB 1708 (Muratsuchi) Theft: Repeat Offenses This bill would redefine the definition of shoplifting and require a person convicted of petty theft or shoplifting and has more than two theft related convictions to be punished by imprisonments in county jail for 1-3 years. AB 742 (Jackson) Police Canines Prohibits the use of police canines by law enforcement to apprehend a person and for crowd control. Note: All fentanyl related Assembly Bills will be held in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. Renne Public Policy Group │ www.publicpolicygroup.com Legislative Update: Housing and Land Use SB 423 (Wiener) Streamlined Housing Approvals This bill would remove the sunset from SB 35 (Wiener, 2017) and make the law permanent, allowing for a streamlined, ministerial approval of projects in cities that have not met their RHNA goals or adopted a compliant housing element. AB 480 (Ting) Surplus Lands Act This bill makes numerous changes to the SLA including penalty provisions and noticing provisions. SB 747 (Caballero) Surplus Lands Act This bill makes numerous changes to the SLA including expanding the definition of exempt property and modifies HCD guidelines. Renne Public Policy Group │ www.publicpolicygroup.com Legislative Update: Environmental Quality AB 584 (Hart) California Coastal Act of 1976: Coastal Development: Emergency Waiver This bill increases the value of a structure, from $25,000 to $125,000, eligible for an exemption from the permit requirements under the CA Coast Act under specified condition and adjusts the value of the cap annually for inflation. Several Bond measures have been introduced to funds climate change, flood protection, drought preparations and wildfire projects. Renne Public Policy Group │ www.publicpolicygroup.com Legislative Update: Active Transportation AB 1188 (Boerner Horvath and Low) Bicycle Safety Handbook Upon appropriation by the legislature, this bill would require the Department of Transportation to create a handbook on existing laws regulating bicycles and e-bikes, safety equipment, and sharing roads and bikeways with other users. SB 381 (Min) E-bike Safety StudyRequires the Mineta Transportation Institute to conduct a study on e-bikes to inform and improve safety of riders and pedestrians. SB 689 (Blakespear) Local Coastal Program Conformity DeterminationThis bill would require any project within or consistent with a bicycle transportation plan to be deemed consistent and in conformity with any applicable certified local coastal program. Renne Public Policy Group │ www.publicpolicygroup.com Looking Forward •Legislature is extremely busy with policy committees •This week is the Cal Cities City Leader’s Summit •RPPG is working with staff to arrange meetings with State Agencies including Cal Trans and Department of Fish and Wildlife. Renne Public Policy Group │ www.publicpolicygroup.com Thank You! Renne Public Policy Group │ www.publicpolicygroup.com