Opinion ID: 2631172
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Harbors and Navigation Code Section 6361

Text: VGV next contends Proposition 13 was not intended to repeal Harbors and Navigation Code section 6361. The State Legislature is understandably concerned as much now as it was in 1937 that any port district formed in this state be financially sound. This concern is clearly one reason why the Legislature has left these statutes intact. If that key piece of this legislation, i.e., the pledge of taxing support, were impliedly deleted by Proposition 13, it would destroy the statutory framework the Legislature adopted in 1937 governing the formation and operation of local port districts that is essentially unchanged to the present. For this reason alone, it is not reasonable to conclude that Proposition 13 was intended to repeal Harbors and Navigation Code section 6361. The District aptly characterizes pre-Proposition 13 practice under Harbors and Navigation Code section 6361 as budgeting first, taxing later. That is, as we have explained above, a port district was required to furnish the county board of supervisors with a written estimate of the amount of money the district would need in the coming fiscal year, and it was then the duty of the board to levy a special tax, on all taxable property of the county lying within the district, sufficient in amount to raise that sum. (Harb. & Nav.Code, § 6361.) If VGV is contending that in adopting Proposition 13, the voters intended to permit counties, on behalf of port districts, to continue to levy property taxes without regard to the 1 percent limit, VGV is plainly wrong. Moreover, VGVs argument appears to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding as to whose intent controls here. We may assume for the sake of argument that, as VGV contends, [t]he State Legislature is understandably concerned as much now as it was in 1937 that any port district formed in this state be financially sound. However, the question is what the voters intended when they adopted Proposition 13, and it is clear that, as far as they were concerned, the practice of budgeting first, taxing later was no longer acceptable. Harbors and Navigation Code section 6361 has been superseded by the statutes implementing article XIII A insofar as, where applicable, they are inconsistent. Article XIII A, section 1, subdivision (a) provides that the 1 percent tax collected by the counties is to be apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties. The Legislature read this language as conferring authority to legislate on the subject and to apportion the tax funds to local agencies and districts. ( Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 246, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281 ( Amador ).) Formulae for the distribution of tax funds to local agencies and districts have been enacted by the Legislature. (See Rev. & Tax. Code, § 93 et seq.) Therefore, a district can no longer expect a county to levy taxes to raise whatever sum the district budget calls for. That those days are long gone should come as no surprise to VGV or anyone else.