Cal Cities presenter tells Lincoln council initiative would void many post‑2022 local fees and threaten services

Charles Anderson, public affairs manager with the League of California Cities, warned the Lincoln City Council on May 8 that the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act of 2024 would put many local revenues at risk and restrict local fee‑setting authority.

Anderson said the coalition backing the measure includes the California Business Roundtable, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and other industry groups, and he told council members the coalition has raised “just over $17,200,000” with most funding from real‑estate and property interests. “Contrary to what proponents say, the measure is not in the interest of taxpayers nor does it promote accountability and transparency,” Anderson said.

Anderson described several provisions he said were consequential for cities: a requirement that fees and taxes adopted after Jan. 1, 2022, be reenacted under the initiative’s stricter rules or be void; a new limit that fees may not exceed the “actual cost” of the service as defined in the measure; and a requirement that all future local taxes include a specified duration. “The measure is a bait and switch tax trick, a deception that would benefit corporations at the expense of everyday taxpayers and local public services,” Anderson said.

He and his slides cited Cal Cities estimates that billions of dollars in local government funding for services such as emergency response, public health and parks could be at risk. Anderson also said the initiative could invalidate the Upland decision that allows a majority of local voters to pass special taxes via citizen initiatives, effectively raising the voter threshold for some measures.

Council members asked how the League planned to oppose the initiative. Anderson said Cal Cities is part of a broad coalition conducting media outreach, building local coalitions and pursuing legal challenges to the initiative’s title and summary; he said a lawsuit over the title and summary was scheduled for an early‑May hearing.

Why it matters: Councilmembers noted the measure could force cities to revisit recent local measures and to defend routine fees and voter‑approved revenues in court, potentially reducing funds for core services. Anderson urged local officials to track the measure and prepare for the possible ballot fight.

Next steps: Anderson concluded his presentation and offered to return with more information as the legal and ballot processes proceed. Councilmembers and the public may monitor Cal Cities’ materials and the pending court challenge for developments.