Oakland, California, Measure AA, Education Parcel Tax Charter Amendment (November 2018)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Local ballot measure elections in 2018
Measure AA: Oakland Education Parcel Tax Charter Amendment
LocalBallotMeasures Final.png
The basics
Election date:
November 6, 2018
Status:
Approveda Approved
Topic:
California parcel tax
Amount: $198 per parcel
Expires in: 30 years
Related articles
California parcel tax on the ballot
November 6, 2018 ballot measures in California
Alameda County, California ballot measures
City tax on the ballot
See also
Oakland, California

A charter amendment to establish an education parcel tax was on the ballot for Oakland voters in Alameda County, California, on November 6, 2018. It received 62 percent approval. The city council voted to certify the measure as approved. The city council's vote was upheld by an appellate court ruling.[1] See below for more information.

A yes vote was a vote in favor of amending the city charter to establish a parcel tax—a kind of property tax based on units of property rather than assessed value—at the rate of $198 per parcel for 30 years to fund education services for pre-K through college students and career readiness.
A no vote was a vote against amending the city charter to establish a parcel tax at the rate of $198 per parcel for 30 years to fund education services and career readiness.

Aftermath

Council votes not to collect tax in first year

On April 16, 2019, the Oakland City Council voted 5-2 against collecting the Measure AA tax in the first year, 2019. This decision came after a December 2018 city council vote to certify Measure AA with 62 percent approval, though the measure and other initiatives in California faced legal challenges regarding the majority vote requirement.

Council certification of Measure AA and subsequent lawsuit

Though the official summary and impartial analysis for Measure AA stated that a two-thirds (66.67%) vote was required for approval, the Oakland City Council voted to declare the measure certified with 62 percent approval on December 11, 2018.[2]

On February 1, 2019, a group made up of homeowners, landlords, and the Jobs and Housing Coalition filed a lawsuit against the city in Alameda County Superior Court, arguing that the certification of Measure AA was illegal.[3]

On October 11, 2019, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Ronnie MacLaren ruled in favor of Jobs and Housing Coalition and half a dozen homeowners and landlords that filed a lawsuit against the city of Oakland for certifying the approval of Measure AA with a simple majority, not a two-thirds (66.67%) vote. The ruling concluded that Measure AA cannot go into effect with 62 percent of the vote.[4]

The city appealed the ruling in November 2019. On December 30, 2021, an appellate court overturned the lower court ruling and decided that Measure AA required a simple majority vote for approval.[5][6]

Vote requirement for special taxes proposed through citizen initiatives

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

Superior court ruling and appeal

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman ruled on July 5, 2019, that two measures (both called Proposition C) on the San Francisco ballot in June and November of 2018 were properly certified as approved by city officials. Schulman ruled that Proposition C (June 2018) and Proposition C (November 2018), which proposed tax increases for specific purposes, required a simple majority for approval because they were put on the ballot through a citizen signature petition. The ruling stated that the two-thirds supermajority vote requirement for local special taxes in California applies to tax measures referred to the ballot by lawmakers but not to citizen initiatives.[7]

Christin Evans, a supporter of November’s Proposition C, said, “Obviously, we’re thrilled. We felt that Prop. C was on firm legal ground from the beginning, and the judge’s opinion left no question that voter-led initiatives will be possible going forward to allow the people to help shape city policy.”[7]

Rex Hime, president of the California Business Properties Association and representing the Howard Jarvis association and the California Business Roundtable, said, “We are disappointed in today’s ruling but will continue to fight to uphold the will of the voters. Prop. 13 and Prop. 218 are unambiguous — voters want a two-thirds vote requirement for special taxes. We will be filing an immediate appeal.”[7]

Appellate court ruling on Proposition C (November 2018), 2020

On June 30, 2020, a panel of three California First District Court of Appeal judges upheld Judge Schulman's ruling and said that the city was correct to apply a simple majority requirement, rather than a two-thirds supermajority requirement, to Proposition C.[8]

California Supreme Court denial to review rulings, 2020

On September 9, 2020, the California Supreme Court denied a request to review the lower courts' rulings.[9]

California appeals court ruling on Proposition C (June 2018), 2021

In August 2018, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate Proposition C, alleging that it required a two-thirds supermajority requirement to pass. On January 27, 2021, the First District Court of Appeal ruled that the supermajority requirement did not apply to Proposition C and only applied to measures placed on the ballot by the city council, board of supervisors, or school board. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association President Jonathan Coupal said the group was prepared to sponsor an initiative to require a two-thirds supermajority vote of the people for local tax increases for specific purposes.[10]

On April 28, 2021, the California Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the ruling on Proposition C (June 2018), leaving the lower court ruling in place and allowing the city to continue collecting the tax and to spend the revenue from the tax.[11]

Fresno Measure P ruling

In Fresno, a judge ruled that special sales tax initiative Measure P required a two-thirds supermajority to pass despite being put on the ballot through a signature petition drive. Click here to read more.

The ruling was appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. In December 2020, the Fifth District Court of Appeal overturned Judge Gaab's ruling and stated that the measure required approval from a simple majority to pass. Representatives of the city said that it would not appeal the ruling further. The Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled that California's Proposition 218 (1996) does not apply to tax measures put on the ballot through a citizen initiative signature petition drive.[9][12]

Background and arguments

An August 2017 California Supreme Court decision raised questions about how to interpret the state constitution’s voting requirements for special taxes proposed through citizen initiatives.

California voters approved Proposition 218 in 1996, adding Article XII C Voter Approval For Local Tax Levies to the California Constitution. The article includes the requirement that local governments may only enact, extend, or increase a special tax with a two-thirds (66.67%) vote of the electorate.[13][14] Following the passage of Proposition 218, the two-thirds supermajority vote requirement was applied to legislative referrals, referendums, and citizen initiatives.

In August 2017, however, the California Supreme Court ruled in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland that one requirement contained in Article XIII C—that general taxes must be put on the ballot during general elections—did not apply to citizen initiatives. The court categorized taxes imposed by citizen initiatives as separate from taxes imposed by local governments. This ruling brought the two-thirds (66.67%) vote requirement into question for special taxes proposed through citizen initiatives.

City and county officials in San Francisco argued that the court's 2017 decision meant that a simple majority—not a two-thirds supermajority—was required for the approval of local citizen initiatives, including tax measures that designate funds for specific purposes. Based on those arguments, the city certified the measures as approved. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit against the city and county in August 2018 stating that the commercial rent tax for childcare initiative did not receive sufficient votes.[15]

The association stated the following on its website:[15]

“

Because the tax is expressly for a special purpose, it required a 2/3 vote of the city’s electorate under both Propositions 13 and 218. But it did not pass by that margin. Rather, the tax proposal, designated as Measure C, received a scant 50.87% vote.[16]

”
—Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Del Norte Deputy County Counsel Joel Campbell-Blair defended the simple majority requirement in the following statement regarding Measure C, the Hotel Tax Increase for Crescent City Harbor District (November 2018):

“

Based on the reasoning of the California Supreme Court in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, it is County Counsel’s position that, because Measure C was submitted to the electorate by voter initiative, rather than a local government, a simple majority is sufficient for approval, even though it is a special tax. Measure C has therefore passed.[16]

”
—Del Norte Deputy County Counsel

Initiatives in 2018 to establish special taxes

In 2018, eight local citizen initiatives in California proposing special taxes were approved by more than a simple majority but less than a two-thirds (66.67%) vote. Local officials declared two of the measures to be defeated based on the two-thirds supermajority requirement. The other six measures were certified as approved. In one case, Oakland Measure AA, the impartial analysis of the measure stated that it required a two-thirds supermajority vote for approval, but the city council certified the measure as approved after it received 62 percent approval. Measure AA was ruled unenforceable by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Ronnie MacLaren on October 15, 2019. MacLaren wrote that "the court determined that the city is barred from enforcing Measure AA because the ballot measures prepared by the City unambiguously advised voters that Measure AA would require two-thirds of the votes to pass."[17] These measures are listed below:

Election results

Oakland, California, Measure AA, Education Parcel Tax Charter Amendment (November 2018)

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

96,452 62.47%
No 57,946 37.53%
Results are officially certified.
Source

Text of measure

Ballot question

The ballot question was as follows:[18]

“

Shall the measure amending Oakland's Charter for the purposes of funding services to: expand access to early childhood and preschool education; improve high school and college graduation and career readiness; provide mentoring and college financial assistance; by establishing a $198, 30-year parcel tax for single family parcels and specified rates for other parcel types, raising approximately $25,000,000 - annually, with citizen's oversight, and exemptions for low-income households and others, be adopted?[16]

”

Impartial analysis

The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Oakland City Attorney:

“

This measure would amend the Oakland City Charter to add Article XVI, "The Children's Initiative of 2018", and authorize a thirty-year annual parcel tax from fiscal year ("FY") 2019-2020 through FY 2048-2049.

The parcel tax revenue would be used solely to fund three new funds, with the revenue allocated as follows:

  • 62% to the Early Education Fund,
  • 31% to the Oakland Promise Fund, and
  • 7% to the Oversight Accountability and Evaluation Fund.

See the Ballot Summary for details of allowable uses of the revenue in each fund.

This measure would create a new City staff position, funded by the tax revenue, to serve as the accountability officer to oversee the programs funded by the measure. This measure would establish a Citizens' Oversight Commission ("Commission"); the Mayor would appoint members subject to City Council confirmation.


After it receives the accountability officer's recommendation, the Commission would select a nonprofit agency, government agency or City department, as specified in the measure, to administer the funds, and submit its selection to the City Council for approval. The Council must approve or reject the Commission's recommendation. First 5 Alameda County (a County agency) or another public entity would administer the Early Education Fund for the first five years. The measure requires independent financial audits of fund expenditures and external evaluations of the entities administering the funds.

This measure would establish guidelines for the programs funded by the measure; those guidelines cannot be amended for the first five years. After the first five years, the accountability officer would develop the guidelines and the Commission would approve them. The measure would establish additional requirements for the Early Education Fund for the first five years, and thereafter unless the Commission recommends and the City Council decides that they shall no longer apply.

The tax for each single-family residential parcel would be $198. For multiple unit residential parcels, the tax would be $135.25 per occupied unit. For non-residential parcels, the tax would vary depending on parcel frontage and square footage based on a formula specified in the measure. For hotels, the tax would depend on the percentage of transient occupancy based on a formula specified in the measure.


Exemptions from the parcel tax would be available to qualifying low-income households, low-income senior households, and affordable housing projects as defined in the measure. The City would provide a rebate of 50% of the tax to qualifying tenants in foreclosed upon single-family homes who paid a passed through parcel tax.

Each year beginning in fiscal year 2020-2021, the City Council, after making certain findings, may increase the parcel tax by the greater of the increase in the Bay Area cost of living or the increase in California per capita personal income.

This measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters. This special tax measure requires a two-thirds vote for passage. [16]

”
—Oakland City Attorney[19]

Full text

The full text of the measure is available here.

Support

Supporters

The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[19]

  • Barbara Lee, member of Congress
  • Libby Schaaf, mayor of Oakland
  • George Holland, sr. president, NAACP Oakland
  • Jorge Lerma, co-founder, Latino Education Network, former Oakland teacher, principal, and preschool director
  • Gary F. Jimenez, vice president, SEIU 1021

Arguments in favor

Official argument

The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[19]

“

Measure AA will invest in early childhood education and increase high school and college graduation rates for more than 10,000 Oakland children annually. By voting YES, we will dramatically expand access to quality affordable preschool for children from low-income backgrounds, and increase access to and graduation from 2- or 4- year colleges and trade certificates by providing mentoring and scholarships.

In Oakland, 20% of residents live below the poverty level, and every year more than 2,000 children are born into poverty. By focusing resources on students from low- income backgrounds, this measure gives us a chance to disrupt poverty. Currently, only 15% of high school freshman will go on to earn college degrees. When 90% of a child's brain develops before age 5, expanding preschool in these critical years ensures that every child in Oakland is on the path to success. That's why we support YES on Oakland Measure AA.

Preschool shouldn't be a luxury, but many Oakland families are forced to dedicate up to 25% of their income on preschool. For many families, even working two jobs isn't enough to afford preschool. That means more children entering kindergarten underprepared. Measure AA ensures that Oakland has the resources necessary to improve preschool, high school, college, and career readiness for students and sets them up for success. This measure invests in children and makes sure every child achieves their potential, regardless of their family's income.

Oakland will be required to spend this money only on preschool and college access. An independent citizens' oversight commission, mandatory annual audits and external evaluations will ensure that funds are spent properly. It also includes exemptions for low-income residents and seniors, and affordable housing.

Join teachers, health advocates, childcare providers, labor leaders, parents, community leaders, and us in voting YES on Measure AA.

www.YesOnMeasureAA.com [16]

”

Opposition

Opponents

The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[19]

  • Georgia W. Richardson,homeowner
  • Vito Esposito, homeowner
  • Karen Francisco, homeowner
  • Homayoun Ghaderi, homeowner
  • Grant Chappell, homeowner

Arguments against

Official argument

The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[19]

“

This is one of the largest parcel tax proposals in Oakland's history.

It was put on the ballot without community input and without a plan on how to spend the $30,000,000 a year the measure would generate. Lost in the details of the measure is the fact that the money can be used to fund the growing bureaucracy of the city.

We share the wonderful goals of this 15-page ballot measure. Unfortunately, we don't see any realistic steps to reaching them. "Give us the money and we'll figure out how to do it" is not acceptable.

Who controls the estimated $30 million annually? New, unnamed city employees. But nothing in this measure holds public employees accountable for all this money! A "Citizens' Oversight Commission" is created, but its members would be handpicked by city bureaucrats.

The "Oakland Promise Fund" is full of promises to "increase early college awareness and expectations" and fincrease college persistence and graduation rates." How? What exactly is the plan? There is no plan. Over and over we've seen similar taxes raising money with good intentions but without clear programs. Local organizations are promised funding and taxpayers get the bill.

While we share Mayor Libby Schaaf's commitment to address persistent problems with the Oakland schools, this initiative is deeply flawed. Our children deserve better! This measure will last 30 years, long past the term of this Mayor.

Oakland children, born today will be over 30 before this tax expires.

Rather than work with the Council or the School District to prioritize funding for Oakland's children, Schaaf is passing the buck to homeowners without a realistic plan.

Despite the feel good language, this 'Initiative' is nothing but another thinly disguised attempt to raise more moneyfor programs that sound good but yield little results.

Please vote NO! [16]

”

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

This measure was put on the ballot through a successful initiative petition campaign.

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ The Mercury News, "Oakland parcel tax fell short of two-thirds threshold — and might have won," December 12, 2018
  2. ↑ The Mercury News, "Oakland parcel tax fell short of two-thirds threshold — and might have won," December 12, 2018
  3. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Oakland sued for certifying education tax measure without two-thirds of vote," February 3, 2019
  4. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Judge rules against Oakland on education measure that fell short of votes," published October 15, 2019
  5. ↑ SF Chronicle, "Oakland appeals ruling that bars it from collecting education tax," November 22, 2019
  6. ↑ Court House News, "Jobs & Housing Coalition v. City of Oakland," December 30, 2021
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 The San Francisco Chronicle, "Judge says SF correct in passing two tax measures on simple majority vote," July 5, 2019
  8. ↑ Mission Local, "Court of Appeal sides with San Francisco on Prop. C — City on cusp of unlocking hundreds of millions of dollars for homeless services," June 30, 2020
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Lexology, "California Supreme Court Denies Review in Local Tax Simple vs. Super-Majority Vote Case," September 9, 2020
  10. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Calif. appeals court upholds S.F.'s commercial rent tax to pay for children's services," accessed February 11, 2021
  11. ↑ Courthouse News Service, "San Francisco Wins Legal Battle Over Disputed Childcare Tax," April 28, 2021
  12. ↑ Fresno Bee, "Big victory for Fresno parks as Measure P tax wins in court. City opponents accept ruling," December 17, 2020
  13. ↑ Article XII C of the California Constitution defines a special tax as “any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund.”
  14. ↑ California Legislative Information, “California Constitution, Article XIII C, Voter Approval For Local Tax Levies,” accessed December 8, 2021
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, "(PR): HJTA Files Suit Over San Francisco's Measure C Special Tax," August 3, 2018
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  17. ↑ Mercury News, "Oakland loses Measure AA lawsuit, judge calls it a ‘fraud on voters’," accessed October 16, 2019
  18. ↑ Alameda County, "Election Information," accessed September 5, 2018
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 Alameda County, "Measure AA Text," accessed September 6, 2018
v • e
Local ballot measures in California
Counties
California
Analysis
Political topics
Tax measures
Flag of California
v • e
State of California
Sacramento (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Oakland,_California,_Measure_AA,_Education_Parcel_Tax_Charter_Amendment_(November_2018)&oldid=8641120"