Laws, Regulations & Annotations
Property Taxes Law Guide – Revision 2010
California Constitutional Provisions
Article XIII C Voter Approval for Local Tax Levies
Sec. 2. Local government tax limitation. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution. (a) All taxes imposed by any local government shall be deemed to be either general taxes or special taxes. Special purpose districts or agencies, including school districts, shall have no power to levy general taxes.
(b) No local government 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 general tax imposed, extended, or increased, without voter approval, by any local government on or after January 1, 1995, and prior to the effective date of this article, shall continue to be imposed only if approved by a majority vote of the voters voting in an election on the issue of the imposition, which election shall be held within two years of the effective date of this article and in compliance with subdivision (b).
(d) No local government may impose, extend, or increase 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.
Construction.—A tax measure proposing to ratify an existing city utility user's tax was ineffective, since it constituted a special tax requiring approval by two-thirds of the voters but received only majority approval. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Roseville, 106 Cal.App.4th 1178. A fee levied upon residential property owners engaged in the rental of their properties, and imposed for the primary purpose of recovering the cost of collecting and administering a general tax levied on those same property owners, was itself a general tax, and was void because it was not approved by a majority vote of the municipal electorate. Weisblat v. City of San Diego, 176 Cal. App. 4th 1022.
Changes in methods of calculating taxes.—A city's increased cell phone service tax, which changed the way the tax was calculated, violated Proposition 218 because the city failed to submit the increase to the voters before implementing the new tax. A local government's methodology cannot evolve. Proposition 218 does not allow a fluctuating local government tax even if the fluctuation is due to expanding constitutional boundaries. AB Cellular LA, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 150 Cal.App.4th 747.
Payment of money judgments.—The initiative limitations on taxing and spending contained in Article XIII A, Article XIII B, and Article XIII C do not preclude judicial enforcement by writ of mandate of a judgment imposing inverse condemnation liability, an obligation imposed by statutory . Payment of such a judgment does not implement a municipal "purpose" within the meaning of the Articles' provisions; rather, such payment acts solely to vindicate the constitutional rights of the landowner. F & L Farm Co. v. City Council of the City of Lindsay, 65 Cal.App.4th 1345. This article prohibits a county from levying property taxes in excess of 1 percent to pay a money judgment under Harbors and Navigation Code Section 6361 and Government Code Sections 970 through 971. Although Section 6361 authorizes a board of supervisors to levy a special tax sufficient to meet a port district's annual estimate of the amount of money it will need "for all purposes," that statute has been superseded by the statutes implementing Proposition 13 insofar as they are inconsistent. Formulae for the distribution of tax funds to local agencies and districts have been enacted by the Legislature (Rev. & Tax. Code, Sec. 93 et seq.), and a district can no longer expect a county to levy taxes to raise whatever sum the district budget calls for. (Disapproving F & L Farm Co. v. City Council, 65 Cal.App.4th 1345 to the extent it holds to the contrary.) Ventura Group Ventures, Inc. v. Ventura Port District, 24 Cal.4th 1089.
Groundwater augmentation fee.—A groundwater augmentation fee to be charged to operators of wells who extract water from the wells for the purposes of paying the costs of purchasing, capturing, storing, and distributing supplemental water for use, while not a tax or assessment, is a property-related fee or charge "imposed . . . as an incident of property ownership," and, thus, subject to constitutional preconditions for the imposition of such charges. Pajaro Valley Water Mgmt. Agency v. Amrhein, 150 Cal.App.4th 1364.