10A Action 2016 1017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

64 Proposition 62 At the November 4, 1986, general election, the voters of the State approved Proposition 62, a statutory initiative (1) requiring that any tax imposed by local governmental entities for general governmental purposes be approved by resolution or ordinance adopted by two–thirds vote of the governmental agency’s legislative body and by a majority of the electorate of the governmental entity; (2) requiring that any special tax (defined as taxes levied for other than general governmental purposes) imposed by a local governmental entity be approved by a two– thirds vote of the voters within that jurisdiction; (3) restricting the use of revenues from a special tax to the purposes or for the service for which the special tax was imposed; (4) prohibiting the imposition of ad valorem taxes on real property by local governmental entities, except as permitted by Article XIIIA; (5) prohibiting the imposition of transaction taxes and sales taxes on the sale of real property by local governmental entities; and (6) requiring that any tax imposed by a local governmental entity on or after August 1, 1985, be ratified by a majority vote of the electorate within two years of the adoption of the initiative or be terminated by November 15, 1988. Following its adoption by the voters, various provisions of Proposition 62 were declared unconstitutional at the appellate court level. On September 28, 1995, however, the California Supreme Court, in Santa Clara City Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino, upheld the constitutionality of the portion of Proposition 62 requiring a two–thirds vote in order for a local government or district to impose a special tax and, by implication, upheld a parallel provision requiring a majority vote in order for a local government or district to impose any general tax. The Guardino decision did not address whether it should be applied retroactively. In response to Guardino, the California Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 1362, which provided that Guardino should apply only prospectively to any tax that was imposed or increased by an ordinance or resolution adopted after December 14, 1995. Assembly Bill 1362 was vetoed by the Governor; hence the application of the Guardino decision on a retroactive basis remains unclear. The Guardino decision also did not decide the question of the applicability of Proposition 62 to charter cities such as the City. Two cases decided by the California Courts of Appeals in 1993, Fielder v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 137 (rev. den. May 27, 1993), and Fisher v. County of Alameda (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 120 (rev. den. Feb. 24, 1994), held that the restriction imposed by Proposition 62 on property transfer taxes did not apply to charter cities because charter cities derive their power to enact such taxes under Article XI, Section 5, of the California Constitution relating to municipal affairs. Proposition 62, as an initiative statute, does not have the same level of authority as a constitutional initiative. It is analogous to legislation adopted by the State Legislature, except that it may be amended only by a vote of the State’s electorate. However, Proposition 218, as a constitutional amendment, is applicable to charter cities and supersedes many of the provisions of Proposition 62. Proposition lA Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 4 was enacted by the Legislature and subsequently approved by the voters as Proposition 1A at the November 2004 election. Among other things, Proposition 1A amended the State Constitution to reduce the Legislature’s authority over local government revenue sources by placing restrictions on the State’s access to