This case involves the validity of a parcel tax approved by Alameda Unified School District (District) voters in June 2008 as Measure H. The issue before us is whether the tax violates Government Code section 50079, which authorizes school districts to levy "qualified special taxes." (Gov. Code, § 50079, subd. (a).)
Plaintiffs and appellants contend Measure H's property classifications, differing tax rates and conditional exemptions violate section 50079's definitional language that special taxes apply "uniformly" to all taxpayers or all real property within the district. The District views this statutory language as reflecting long-established equal protection principles which allow a governmental entity to create reasonable tax classifications, so long as all taxpayers within a classification are treated the same.
As we will discuss, section 50079 is one of a number of statutes enacted in the wake of Proposition 62, a statewide initiative approved by California voters in 1986 and aimed at closing perceived loopholes in Proposition 13. In addition to defining the terms "special taxes" and "general taxes" and specifying the voter approval requirements for each, Proposition 62 specified that neither Proposition 13 nor general enabling legislation passed in response to that initiative invested local governmental entities with the power to levy taxes. The Legislature responded with a host of statutory provisions expressly delegating taxing authority to a panoply of local districts, including school districts. Many of these statutes contain the same language appearing in section 50079 and at issue here — that special taxes are "taxes that apply uniformly to all taxpayers or all real property within the" particular district.
After examining the language and legislative history of section 50079, and that of the correlative enabling statutes, we conclude the Legislature did not
We are aware that we are being called on to interpret statutory language enacted in a different economic era and in the wake of two of the most far-reaching tax constraining measures ever passed by the state electorate (Propositions 13 and 62), that the state has since faced crippling economic conditions, and that school districts and other local governmental entities are more dependent than ever on the revenues from special taxes. The courts, however, cannot recalibrate the taxing power statutorily delegated to local entities; any adjustment in that regard must be made by the state Legislature.
The essential facts are limited and undisputed. On March 4, 2008, the District's Board of Education adopted resolution No. 08-0010. This resolution authorized the Alameda County Superintendent of Schools to call a districtwide election on June 3, 2008, on a measure to impose a qualified special tax on taxable residential, commercial and industrial property for a four-year period, commencing July 1, 2008, and ending June 30, 2012. District voters approved the measure (Measure H) by just over a two-thirds vote.
Measure H taxes residential and commercial/industrial properties differently. Nonexempt residential parcels are taxed at $120 per year. Commercial and industrial parcels less than 2,000 square feet are also taxed at $120 per year; those greater than 2,000 square feet are taxed at $0.15 per square foot to a maximum of $9,500 per year.
The measure also has a severability clause providing: "If any section, subsection, sentence, phrase, part or clause of this measure is, for any reason, held to be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, such decision shall not affect or impair the validity of the remaining portions of this measure. It is hereby declared that the intention of the Board of Education of the District and the electorate [is] that this measure would have been adopted had such unconstitutional, illegal or invalid section, subsection, sentence, phrase, part or clause thereof not been included."
On August 21, 2008, George J. Borikas, trustee of the George J. Borikas 1999 Revocable Trust, filed suit seeking to have the special tax authorized by Measure H declared invalid and not a lien on properties he owns. Specifically, Borikas alleged Measure H exceeded the taxing authority given to school districts under section 50079 because the tax does not apply "uniformly" to all parcels in the district. On November 10, 2008, Borikas filed a first amended complaint, adding as plaintiffs Edward Hirshberg, trustee of the Hirshberg Trust, Santa Clara Investors II, a general partnership, and Nelco, Inc. The substance of the complaint remained the same.
After numerous pretrial proceedings, including demurrers, motions to strike, and motions for summary judgment, the case was consolidated with another action challenging the parcel tax. The case was then tried by the court on a stipulated written record consisting of previously submitted separate statements of undisputed facts, responding statements and supporting documentation, exhibits and requests for judicial notice.
Numerous legal challenges to Proposition 13 and to newly imposed taxes followed. In several decisions the Supreme Court departed from the liberal approach it initially had taken in construing the proposition, and read its language narrowly. (City and County of San Francisco v. Farrell (1982) 32 Cal.3d 47 [184 Cal.Rptr. 713, 648 P.2d 935] (Farrell)
In response to these decisions, the proponents of Proposition 13 successfully placed another proposition on the statewide ballot in 1986, Proposition 62. (See Guardino, supra, 11 Cal.4th at pp. 235, 237 [noting ballot arguments targeting Farrell decision and observing "evident intent of the drafters of Proposition 62 [was] to close by legislation what they perceived were court-made `loopholes' in Proposition 13"]; Rider, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 11 [that after Richmond numerous "`special purpose'" districts were created and authorized to impose taxes on a simple majority vote "strongly indicate[d] a large `hole' ha[d] indeed been created in Proposition 13"].)
Of particular significance to the issue before us, Proposition 62 also specified neither it, nor Proposition 13, "nor Article 3.5 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code (commencing with Section 50075) shall be construed to authorize any local government or district to impose any general or special tax which it is not otherwise authorized to impose." (§ 53727, subd. (a).) This provision called into question the taxing power of all local districts that looked to the general enabling legislation enacted after Proposition 13 and commencing with section 50075 as the source of their authority. (See CBIA, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at pp. 224-225.)
A flurry of legislative activity ensued, resulting in a host of statutory provisions expressly authorizing local districts, including school districts, to levy special taxes in accordance with the dictates of Propositions 13 and 62. (See CBIA, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at pp. 224-225; Ops. Cal. Legis. Counsel, No. 3061 (Apr. 17, 1987) Proposition 62: Voter Approval of Special Taxes Levied by School Districts re Assem. Bill No. 1440 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.).)
With this background, we turn to the enabling statute in question, section 50079.
Section 50079 is comprised of two subdivisions. The first authorizes school districts to impose "qualified special taxes" consistent with Proposition 13 and pursuant to procedures "established in Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 50075)." (§ 50079, subd. (a).) The second subdivision states: "As used in this section, `qualified special taxes' means special taxes that apply uniformly to all taxpayers or all real property within the school district, except that `qualified special taxes' may include taxes that provide for an exemption from those taxes for taxpayers 65 years of age or older or for persons receiving Supplemental Security Income for a disability, regardless of age." (§ 50079, subd. (b)(1).) "`Qualified special taxes' do not include special taxes imposed on a particular class of property or taxpayers."
Plaintiffs contend the definitional language set forth in section 50079, subdivision (b) — and specifically the language that qualified special taxes
Plaintiffs also point out the statute provides two exceptions to the requirement that special taxes "apply uniformly to all taxpayers or all real property within the school district" — senior citizens and persons receiving permanent disability assistance can be exempted from the tax and thus treated differently than other taxpayers. That the statute expressly allows these two classifications, say plaintiffs, reinforces that classifications are not otherwise permissible and the definitional language, in and of itself, means all taxpayers and all real property must be treated the same. (Cf. Fox etc. Corp. v. City of Bakersfield (1950) 36 Cal.2d 136, 142-144 [222 P.2d 879] (Fox Bakersfield Theatre) [exemptions are a form of taxpayer classification — "[w]hether the tax statute may make a valid exemption [and thereby place the tax burden on other taxpayers] presents the same problem as that of classification; if the exempted persons or businesses may be included in a distinct class then the equal protection of the laws is not denied to those taxed"].) If the definitional language, alone, allowed rationally based classifications and differential tax treatment, there would be no need for the express exemptions for seniors and disabled persons, and these exemptions would be meaningless surplusage. (See McCarther v. Pacific Telesis Group (2010) 48 Cal.4th 104, 110 [105 Cal.Rptr.3d 404, 225 P.3d 538] (McCarther) ["`A construction making some words surplusage is to be avoided.'"].)
Plaintiffs further point out section 50079 is one of a number of tax enabling statutes enacted in the wake of Proposition 62. Many include the same language — that a special tax must apply "uniformly to all taxpayers or real property within the district" — including section 50079.1, which immediately follows section 50079 and authorizes community college districts to impose special taxes. (§ 50079.1) Because section 50079.1 was enacted for the same reason and purpose as section 50079 (in response to Prop. 62 and to expressly provide taxing authority), and because it is part of the same statutory scheme as section 50079, plaintiffs maintain the same language in both statutes reflects the same legislative intent and should be given the same
Thus, it is significant, say plaintiffs, that in section 50079.1 the Legislature did not authorize exemptions for seniors or disabled persons. Instead, the Legislature included additional language expressly authorizing community college districts to classify real property as "improved" and "unimproved" and to tax unimproved property at "a lower rate."
The District, in turn, maintains "uniformity" in the realm of tax law has a well-established meaning that allows rational classifications and requires only that all taxpayers or property within a classification be treated the same. The District cites to a long line of cases involving constitutionally based equal protection challenges to a variety of tax laws. (E.g., Fox Bakersfield Theatre, supra, 36 Cal.2d at pp. 138-144 [upholding city licensing tax imposed on some entertainment businesses; "[n]o constitutional rights are violated if the burden of the license tax falls equally upon all members of the class, though other classes have lighter burdens or are wholly exempt, provided that the classification is reasonable ..."]; McCreery v. McColgan (1941) 17 Cal.2d 555, 559-562 [110 P.2d 1051] [upholding state income tax statute aimed at undistributed profits of personal holding companies; statute operated "uniformly" on all resident shareholders of such corporations, and the fact
As the District points out, the threshold for tax legislation to pass constitutional muster against an equal protection challenge is very low. "The party who challenges the constitutionality of a classification in a tax statute bears a very heavy burden; it must negate any conceivable basis [that] might support the classification." (Retail Tobacconists, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 842.) "If the challenged classification is based on natural, intrinsic or fundamental distinctions that are reasonable in their relation to the object of the legislation, then it will be deemed to be valid and binding." (Id. at pp. 841-842.)
The District also cites a series of cases involving national banks and the classification of property as either a "fixture," which is a form of real property on which national banks can be taxed, or "personal" property, as to which they are tax exempt. (E.g., Crocker National Bank v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 49 Cal.3d 881, 885-892 [264 Cal.Rptr. 139, 782 P.2d 278] (Crocker National Bank) [holding bank's electronic data processing equipment was erroneously classified as a fixture, and was, instead, personal property]; Simms v. County of Los Angeles (1950) 35 Cal.2d 303, 308-318 [217 P.2d 936] [holding bank vault doors and counterlines were properly classified as fixtures, and like property of other businesses, such as jewelers, also should have been classified as fixtures; however, bank failed to show resulting economic disparity and therefore failed to establish equal protection claim under the federal Const. or former art. 1, § 11 (now Cal. Const., art. IV,
In Crocker National Bank, the Supreme Court also addressed the standard of review applicable to a trial court's ruling that bank property is a "fixture" or "personal property." Although a "mixed" question of fact and law, the court held the inquiry is "predominantly legal" subject to de novo review. (Crocker National Bank, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 888.) This standard, observed the court, was also "supported by the following consideration. Taxation must, of course, be uniform and the tax laws uniformly applied. (See Trabue Pittman Corp. v. County of L.A., supra, 29 Cal.2d at pp. 392-393, 397-398.) Uniformity depends on proper classification. And proper classification is furthered through the application of independent review." (Crocker National Bank, at pp. 888-889.) As noted in Trabue, the court had addressed the classification of bank property as a fixture or personalty and set forth the proper test for assessors to use in classifying property as such. (Trabue, supra, 29 Cal.2d at pp. 391-401.) In doing so, the court had rejected the argument that the "trade fixture" doctrine (as applied in the landlord and tenant context) should control for tax classification purposes, pointing out use of the doctrine would result in different tax treatment of the same property, depending merely on the ownership arrangement. That, the court had said, would be contrary to the principle of "uniformity," the purpose of which is to ensure "`that all property in the state carry its fair burden and contribute its just amount in taxation.'" (Id. at p. 398.)
As the District points out, the Legislature is deemed to be aware of existing law. (See City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (2010) 49 Cal.4th 597, 606 [110 Cal.Rptr.3d 718, 232 P.3d 701] [noting "legal presumption that the Legislature is deemed to be aware of existing judicial decisions that have a direct bearing on the particular legislation enacted"]; Yu v. University of La Verne (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 779, 788 [126 Cal.Rptr.3d 763] ["`"We presume that the Legislature, when enacting a statute, was aware of existing related laws and intended to maintain a consistent body of rules."'"].) The District thus contends the Legislature — in using the term
Therefore, says the District, it may establish rational classifications and impose different tax rates, so long as all taxpayers or property within a classification are treated the same. The District maintains wholesale exemptions for senior and disabled homeowners are not inconsistent with a construction that allows for classification and differential taxation of other taxpayers and property. It also maintains the provisions of other tax enabling statutes, such as section 50079.1, which was added four years after section 50079, are irrelevant. (See Wolski v. Fremont Investment & Loan (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 347, 357 [25 Cal.Rptr.3d 500] [materials that postdate passage of legislation often do not bear on intent of drafters].)
We agree with plaintiffs that the plain language of section 50079 and attendant rules of statutory construction demonstrate the definitional language at issue is language of limitation and does not empower school districts to classify taxpayers and property, and impose different tax rates.
Any doubt that the definitional language in question does not, in and of itself, authorize the classification and differential taxation of taxpayers and property is dispelled by the language of section 50079.1. This section immediately follows section 50079, authorizes community colleges to impose special taxes, and contains the same language at issue here — that "special taxes shall be applied uniformly to all taxpayers or real property within the district." (§ 50079.1.) Section 50079.1 does not include exemptions for senior or disabled taxpayers. It does, however, provide that "unimproved property may be taxed at a lower rate than improved property." (Ibid.) The inclusion of this additional language — expressly allowing community college districts to classify and differentially tax real property — makes manifest that the definitional language, alone, does not allow districts to establish rational classifications and impose different tax rates.
Because we conclude the meaning of section 50079 can be discerned from its language and the statutory context of which it is a part, we need not consider its legislative history. We nevertheless have reviewed the legislative history, supplied by both parties to the trial court, and it confirms what the plain language of section 50079 indicates — that the definitional language in question is language of limitation. (See Goodman v. Lozano (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1327, 1335 [104 Cal.Rptr.3d 219, 223 P.3d 77] [although statutory language was "plain" it was "helpful to look at [the statute's] legislative history"]; McCarther, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 116 [although "the plain language of the statute is clear, an examination of [the statute's] legislative history confirms that the statute was not intended to broadly apply to all types of sick leave policies"].)
Section 50079 was enacted through Assembly Bill No. 1440 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.), which was carried by Assemblyman Tom Hannigan at the request of the Davis Unified School District and supported by a number of other school districts in which voters had recently approved special taxes. (See Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1440 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 22, 1987, p. 2.) As introduced, the legislation broadly provided that subject to Proposition 13, "any school district may impose qualified special taxes upon the district pursuant to the procedures established in Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 50075) and any other applicable procedures provided by law." (Legis. Counsel's Dig., Assem. Bill No. 1440 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) 4 Stats. 1987, Summary Dig., p. 33, italics omitted.)
The bill was referred to the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee where it was amended, at the insistence of Assemblyman Charles W. Bader,
Kentfield School District, a supporter of the legislation, then apprised Assemblyman Hannigan's office of several concerns, shared by other school districts, about the amended legislation. (See Robert B. Caine, Superintendent of Kentfield School Dist., letter to Annette Porini, Chief of Staff to Assemblyman Thomas Hannigan, June 11, 1987, p. 1.) Kentfield, along with Mill Valley, Albany and Lagunitas school districts, had obtained an opinion letter on the amended legislation, which it provided to Assemblyman Hannigan's office. (See Thomas Steele, letter to Robert Caine, Superintendent of Kentfield School Dist., June 9, 1987.) The opinion letter concluded the Legislature probably had the power to validate the districts' newly enacted parcel taxes, particularly if the legislation was enacted prior to the effective date of the tax measures. (Id, at p. 3.)
However, the opinion letter also stated the bill as amended "would not appear to provide the necessary authority for the districts to impose their special taxes." (Thomas Steele, letter to Robert Caine, Superintendent of Kentfield School Dist., June 9, 1987, p. 3.) First, the Kentfield, Mill Valley and Lagunitas special tax measures all allowed exemptions for individuals 65 years and older, and the Albany tax differentiated between and imposed different tax rates on residential and non-residential property. (Id. at pp. 2, 4.) The opinion letter observed "the plain meaning of the language suggests that no exemptions would be tolerated. In addition, the bifurcated rate provided by the Albany special tax also appears inconsistent with this phrase, since the tax is apparently not applied uniformly to residential and nonresidential properties." (Id. at p. 4.) Second, the amended bill did not appear to validate existing special taxes, but only to authorize taxes approved after enactment of
Representatives of Kentfield then met with Assemblyman Hannigan's staff, but were unable to persuade Hannigan to revisit the added language and, in fact, were "persuaded ... to drop any attempt to rewrite Section 50079.1(b), the Bader amendment." (Robert Caine, Superintendent of Kentfield School Dist., letter to Annette Porini, Chief of Staff to Assemblyman Thomas Hannigan, June 11, 1987, p. 1.) The districts, accordingly, abandoned their proposed amendments and "[i]nstead urge[d] ... only that language be added such as we presently propose making it clear that exemptions for senior citizens (like those provided by the three Marin County school district taxes that were recently passed) are not prohibited by AB 1440." (Ibid.) The districts also proposed language expressly validating parcel tax measures approved after Proposition 62 to spare school districts "the enormous additional expense and effort required to resubmit the tax measure[s] to the electorate." (Robert Caine, Superintendent of Kentfield School Dist., letter to Annette Porini, Chief of Staff to Assemblyman Thomas Hannigan, June 11, 1987, p. 1.)
Kentfield, Mill Valley, Albany and Lagunitas school districts also made a direct appeal to Senator John Garamendi, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Revenue and Taxation, to address problems facing districts with recently approved special tax measures. (James W. Burnder, Jr., Director of Governmental Affairs, letter to Sen. John Garamendi, Chairman of the Sen. Com. on Revenue and Taxation, June 16, 1987, p. 1.) The districts urged that their proposed validation language be added, as well as an exemption for seniors. (Id. at p. 2.) They explained to Senator Garamendi: "AB 1440, as amended in the Assembly (the `Bader Amendment'), requires that the special tax be
The report prepared for the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee discussed the concerns expressed by the school districts, noting the "[c]urrent language" of the bill might "not solve" the "problem" faced by all school districts with recently approved taxes. (Sen. Com. on Revenue and Taxation, Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 1440 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 1, 1987, p. 2.) The report explained: "AB 1440 presently requires that any special tax imposed pursuant to its authority must apply uniformly to all property and all taxpayers in the district. Apparently some of the school district parcel taxes which have been imposed apply differentially to different types of property, and one exempts those aged 65 or older. In its present form this bill may not `validate' these special taxes."
The report prepared for the concurring vote on the Senate amendments summarized the legislation as follows: "As passed by the Assembly, this bill permitted school districts to impose special taxes with the approval of 2/3 of the voters in the district. Such taxes must be uniform and not discriminate against a class of property or taxpayers. [¶] The Senate amendments makes [sic] an exception to the uniformity requirement, which allows special taxes which provide for an exemption for taxpayers age 65 or older." (Sen. Conc. Sen. Amends. to Assem. Bill No. 1440 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 22, 1987, p. 1.) The assembly approved the bill as amended, and the
This legislative history confirms that the definitional language at issue is language of limitation. As we have discussed, there was no need to include this language if the Legislature intended school districts to have the broadest possible taxing authority bounded only by constitutional equal protection principles — and which they would have had under the provisions of the bill as introduced. The vigor of the debate over the "Bader amendment," which added the definitional language, further reinforces the intent was to constrain the districts' taxing power. It is significant that school districts that were in immediate need of the legislation and closely following its course through the Legislature, opposed the language and tried on multiple fronts to have it removed from the bill — specifically because it appeared to preclude the kind of differential tax treatment required by their special tax measures, including treating seniors differently from other taxpayers and treating residential properties differently from commercial properties. When it became clear the districts could not effect removal of the language, they sought and obtained only an exemption for seniors, which was described in the committee report for the concurring vote as an "exception to the uniformity requirement." (Sen. Conc. Sen. Amends. to Assem. Bill No. 1440 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 22, 1987, p. 1, italics added.) Thus, it is apparent the Legislature and school districts understood districts otherwise did not have authority to classify taxpayers and property and impose differential tax rates.
As we have discussed, section 50079 was one of the first statutes enacted in the wake of Proposition 62 empowering local districts to levy special taxes. Many share the definitional language at issue here, and an examination
The year after the Legislature enacted section 50079, it enacted section 53730.01, authorizing local hospital districts owning their own hospital facilities to impose "special taxes" in accordance with Proposition 13. (Stats. 1998, ch. 345, § 1, p. 2746; Assem. Bill No. 3596, Assem. Final Hist. (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.); see Assem. Com. on Local Government, Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 3596 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 27, 1988, p. 2 [purpose of legislation was to rectify the "problem" caused by Proposition 62 and provide express statutory authority for hospital districts to levy taxes consistent with Prop. 13].) At the first committee hearing, before the Assembly Committee on Local Government, the bill was amended to include the same definitional language and senior exemption that had been added to section 50079. (Assem. Com. on Local Government, Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 3596 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 27, 1988, pp. 2-3 [language "taken directly from provisions in AB 1440 (Hannigan) of 1987, which gave specific authority to school districts to levy special taxes" and addressed "the concern expressed by the California Association of Realtors... about the prospect of a hospital district, or any other type of local agency, imposing a general or special tax on new homebuyers alone"].
In the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation questions were raised about the requirement that any tax apply uniformly and the proposed exemptions. (Assem. Com. on Revenue and Taxation, Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 3596 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) as amended May 16, 1988, p. 4.) As to the exemption for seniors, specifically, the report stated: "This bill follows the AB 1440 example in requiring any hospital district special tax to be uniform except that an exemption may apply to senior citizens. Presumably in the case of school special taxes in AB 1440, the rationale for allowing that exemption is that senior citizens receive less direct benefit from schools than other citizens. Does that rationale apply in the case of hospitals?" (Ibid.) No changes, however, were made to the exemptions.
The hospital district bill then moved to the Senate Committee on Local Government, where questions were again raised as to the wisdom of the exemptions: "AB 3596 allows hospital districts to grant local exemptions to senior citizens, to agricultural land, and to timberland. If these exemptions are desirable public policy, will other interest groups seek their own special treatment? The Committee may wish to consider whether special taxes should be uniform or should permit local exemptions." (Sen. Local Government Com., Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 3596 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 29, 1988, p. 2.) Upon second reading in the Senate, the bill was amended to remove all the exemptions. (Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill No. 3596 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 18, 1989.) The Assembly concurred, and the bill was signed into law by the Governor.
Two years later, the Legislature authorized recreation and park districts to impose special taxes. (Pub. Resources Code, § 5789.1, subd. (a) [originally
In the Senate, the bill was amended to add the definitional language. Initially, no exemptions were provided. However, upon lobbying by a local park district, the Senate further amended the legislation to allow park districts to differentially tax improved and unimproved property. (Sen. Local Government Com., Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 4158 (1989-1990 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 12, 1990, p. 1 [while the language of the bill followed "precedent" authorizing other local entities, including school districts, to levy special taxes, the Georgetown Park and Recreation District wanted to levy a lower tax on unimproved property].)
The report prepared for the Assembly's concurring vote thus explained that the Senate amendments "[c]onform the authority granted in this bill to existing provisions governing special taxes," although "[g]enerally, special districts have not been authorized to levy a different tax rate on improved versus unimproved property." (Assem. Conc. Sen. Amends. to Assem. Bill No. 4158 (1989-1990 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 21, 1990.) The Assembly approved the bill as amended, and the legislation was signed into law by the Governor.
The following year, the Legislature passed omnibus legislation adding statutes to a number of codes, all authorizing local districts to impose special taxes. (Legis. Counsel's Dig., Sen. Bill No. 158 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) 4 Stats. 1991, Summary Dig., pp. 29-30.) The report prepared for the Senate Committee on Local Government explained that, having enacted a number of
The committee report further explained "[t]he language in SB 158 is identical to the language worked out and approved by the Legislature for special districts in bills over the last two years." (Sen. Local Government Com., Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 158 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) as amended Feb. 11, 1992, p. 2.) Accordingly, every proposed enabling statute contained the language that first appeared in section 50079 — that a special tax must apply "uniformly to all taxpayers or all real property" within the district. Every proposed statute also contained the additional language that first appeared in Public Resources Code section 5789.1, subd. (a) — allowing unimproved and improved property to be taxed at different rates. (Sen. Bill No. 158 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) as enacted by Stats. 1991, ch. 70, p. 190.)
Community college districts were among the local districts included in this omnibus legislation. We have already discussed the plain language of section 50079.1. Its legislative history is also of note. As introduced, the legislation, as it pertained to community colleges, proposed amending section 50079 to include both school districts and community college districts. (Sen. Bill No. 158 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) as introduced Jan. 10, 1991.) However, objections were raised to community college districts being allowed to exempt senior citizens from their special taxes. (See Amend. to Sen. Bill No. 158 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) as amended Mar. 19, 1991, p. 1; Peter M. Detwiler, letter to Office of State Sen. Marian Bergeson (bill author) Apr. 22, 1991, and May 6, 1991.) Accordingly, the legislation was amended to delete the language adding community college districts to section 50079 and to add another new enabling statute specifically pertaining to community college districts, section 50079.1. The language of this proposed statute was identical to that of every other proposed enabling statute to be added by the omnibus bill, and thus specified that any "special taxes shall be applied uniformly to all taxpayers or real property within the district, except that unimproved property may be taxed at a lower rate than improved property." (Amend. to
This string of enabling legislation further demonstrates that the definitional language at issue, originating in section 50079, is language of limitation and does not, in and of itself, authorize local districts to establish classifications and impose differential tax rates. In authorizing hospital districts to impose special taxes, for example, the Legislature initially added, but ultimately removed, exemptions for seniors and for protected agricultural/timber lands. Significantly, the contemplated exemptions were viewed as exceptions to the requirement that such taxes "apply uniformly." (E.g., Sen. Local Government Com., Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 3596 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 29, 1988, p. 2 ["The committee may wish to consider whether special taxes should be uniform or should permit local exemptions." (italics added)]; Assem. Com. on Revenue and Taxation, Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 3596 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) as amended May 16, 1988, p. 4 ["This bill follows the AB 1440 example in requiring any hospital district special tax to be uniform except that an exemption may apply to senior citizens." (italics added)].)
It is also apparent that when the Legislature added the "apply uniformly" language to these enabling statutes, it also viewed classification and differential tax rates as matters requiring express authorization. Thus, the Legislature included in most of these statutes not only the core, definitional language that was first added to section 50079, but also included (e.g., for recreation and park districts and community college districts, but not for hospital districts) additional language authorizing the districts to classify property as improved or unimproved and to tax unimproved property at a lower rate. There was no need to include this additional language if the definitional language, alone, empowered the districts to create classifications and impose different tax rates.
Having determined Measure H's imposition of a higher tax on commercial or industrial property over 2,000 square feet exceeds the District's taxing authority under section 50079, we now turn to the question of whether the tax measure must be invalidated in its entirety or whether it can be sustained, as the District suggests, in a form consistent with section 50079.
However, "`"`[s]uch a clause plus the ability to mechanically sever the invalid part while normally allowing severability, does not conclusively
Starting with the first two of these components, "[t]o be grammatically separable, the valid and invalid parts of the statute can be separated by paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or even single words. (People's Advocate, Inc. v. Superior Court (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 316, 330 [226 Cal.Rptr. 640].)" (Abbott, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 1358.) When a defect can be "`"cured by excising any word or group of words,"'" severance may be possible and proper. (People's Advocate, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 181 Cal.App.3d at p. 330 (People's Advocate), quoting In re Blaney (1947) 30 Cal.2d 643, 655 [184 P.2d 892].) "To be functionally separable, the remainder after separation of the invalid part must be `"`complete in itself'"' and `capable of independent application.' (People's Advocate, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 181 Cal.App.3d at pp. 331-332.)" (Abbott, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 1358.)
The language in Measure H imposing a different and higher tax rate on nonresidential property over 2,000 square feet is easily excised, and its absence leaves a coherent, functioning tax measure. The measure currently levies the qualified special tax as follows: "(A) On each taxable, residential parcel at the rate of $120 per year, and (B) on each taxable, commercial or industrial property at the rate of $0.15 per square foot per year (but commercial or industrial property of 2,000 square feet or smaller paying $120 per year and commercial or industrial property larger than 2,000 square feet paying a maximum of $9,500 per year)." The District proposes, essentially, deleting the word "residential" and deleting subsection (B), so the levy reads: "On each taxable parcel at the rate of $120 per year."
According to the Board of Education resolution that put Measure H on the ballot, the board believed the measure was necessary to cope with serious budget shortfalls facing the District. The text of Measure H declares its purpose is "[t]o offset severe state budget cuts to Alameda schools, minimize school closures, and protect the quality of education, student safety, class sizes, excellent teachers and staff, and to restore prioritized cuts to music, athletics, advanced placement courses and other programs." Measure H further specifies it would raise the needed funds by levying a tax of at least $120 per parcel on every taxable parcel, more on larger commercial and industrial parcels.
Voters, at a minimum, chose to support local schools with a new tax of at least $120 per parcel. Although voters approved taxing larger, nonresidential parcels at a higher rate, it "seems eminently reasonable to suppose that those who favor[ed] the proposition would be happy to achieve at least some substantial portion of their purpose" (Santa Barbara School Dist., supra, 13 Cal.3d at pp. 331-332) by imposing the $120 rate on these properties. Voiding the entire tax would wholly defeat voter expectations. We therefore conclude Measure H is "volitionally separable."
Measure H provides exemptions for some senior and disabled taxpayers, specifically those who own and reside in single-family units. Plaintiffs contend these limited exemptions are at odds with section 50079 for two reasons. First, they discriminate among senior taxpayers and disabled taxpayers and thus do not apply uniformly to all senior and all disabled taxpayers. Second, they are predicated on property classifications and treat residential property differently from nonresidential property, and further distinguish between owner-occupied residential property and other residential property. The District maintains that because section 50079 permits, but does not require, exemptions for senior and disabled taxpayers, it can adopt any kind of exemption — complete or limited — for these taxpayers. It points out the "middle path" the District chose in Measure H is akin to the provision in
The language of the exemptions is silent as to their scope and, thus, does not indicate whether a school district can provide exemptions for some, but not all, senior and disabled taxpayers, based on the type of property the taxpayer owns. Plaintiffs' assertion that the parameters of the exemptions are fleshed out by the other provisions of the statute — which as we have discussed, do not authorize school districts to establish classifications and impose differential tax rates — has some logical appeal. In our view, however, the answer is provided by the legislative history of section 50079 and subsequent, like enabling statutes.
The judgment in favor of the District is reversed in part and affirmed in part. The trial court is directed to enter judgment declaring the special tax imposed by Measure H invalid to the extent it imposes a tax other than $120 per parcel, unless the parcel is exempt from the special tax under the provisions of the measure, in which case, no tax may be imposed. The trial court shall also determine whether plaintiffs are entitled to any further
Dondero, J., concurred.
MARCHIANO, P. J., Concurring. —
I concur in the result and trumpet Justice Felix Frankfurter's imperative on the rules of statutory construction: "`... Read the statute; ... read the statute; ... read the statute!'"
I have read and reread the statute in context as part of title 5, division 1, part 1, chapter 1 of the Government Code.
Within the statutory framework of article 3.8, section 50079 is immediately followed by section 50079.1 whereby the Legislature specifically authorized community college districts to impose, differentiated nonuniform taxes for unimproved real property as opposed to other property: "special taxes shall be applied uniformly to all taxpayers or real property within the district, except that unimproved property may be taxed at a lower rate than improved property." By contrast with section 50079, a reader looking for guidance can see section 50079.1 provides more than section 50079 does, with a clearly expressed differentiation for improved and unimproved property.
Respondent does not seek a construction of section 50079, but an enlargement of it, so that what was omitted intentionally or inadvertently may be included within its scope. We do not have the power to ignore the commonsense reading of the words "apply uniformly to all taxpayers or all real property" to judicially supply a meaning that may seem wiser than what was
The majority opinion discussion on legislative history, including later related legislation, is interesting, and arguably supportive of the result, but is unnecessary for contextual construction in this instance and is not controlling where the statute means what it says.
