CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

Page 3 of 4 • Commercial franchise fees. • Emergency response fees. • Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges. • Document processing and duplication fees. • Transit fees, tolls, parking fees, and public airport and harbor use fees. • Facility use charges, fees for parks and recreation services, garbage disposal tipping fees. Under existing law, cities are already required to provide due process before imposing a penalty or fine for violation of their municipal code: 1. A local agency must adopt administrative procedures that govern imposing fines and penalties, including providing a reasonable period of time for a person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or remedy the violation [Gov't Code 53069.4]. 2. Notice must be given to the violating party before imposing the penalty; and give the party an opportunity to be heard and present any facts or arguments [Merco Construction Engineers v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1969) 274 CA 2d 154, 166]. 3. The fine may not be "excessive" [U.S. Constitution amendments VIII and XIV]. The initiative converts administratively imposed fines and penalties into taxes unless a new, undefined, and ambiguous “adjudicatory due process” is followed. This provision may put at risk the authority to impose fines and penalties for violations of state and local law. Virtually every city, county, and special district must regularly (i.e., annually) adopt increases in fee rates and charges and revise rate schedules to accommodate new users and activities. Most of these would be subject to new standards and limitations under threat of legal challenge. Based on the current volume of fees and charges imposed by local agencies, including council-adopted increases to simply accommodate inflation, the League of California Cities estimates the amount of local government fee and charge revenue at risk is approximately $2 billion per year including those adopted since January 1, 2022. Over 10 years, $20 billion of local government fee and charge revenues will be at heightened legal risk. Hundreds of local tax measures were approved in 20227 that likely do not comply with the provisions of the initiative. Nearly $2 billion of annual revenues from these voter-approved measures will cease a year after the effective date of the measure, reducing the local public services funded by these measures, unless the tax is re-submitted for voter approval. Any such reductions to local government tax revenues have impacts on core services and infrastructure including fire and emergency response, law enforcement, streets and roads, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, affordable housing, homelessness prevention, and mental health services. The measure puts billions of local government tax and fee revenues at risk statewide with related core public service impacts. Specifically, the proposed initiative could have significant negative impacts on the City of Pleasanton operations and core service delivery, and as such staff recommends adopting a resolution opposing the measure (Attachment 2) and authorize Page 43 of 559