CC SR 20201006 03 - Proposition 15
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 10/06/2020
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to take a position on Proposition 15 on the November
3, 2020 statewide ballot.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Consider the League of Women Voters of Palos Verdes Peninsula’s request to
endorse Proposition 15 on the November 3, 2020 statewide ballot;
(2) Determine whether or not to take a position on Proposition 15 and what that
position should be; and
(3) If taking a position, direct Staff to bring a resolution memorializing the City
Council’s position for consideration at the October 20, 2020 meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Jesse Villalpando, Senior Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Proposition 15 August 31, 2020 endorsement request letter from the
League of Women Voters of Palos Verdes Peninsula (page A-1)
B. League of Women Voters proposed resolution in support of Proposition 15
(page B-1)
C. Proposition 15 excerpt from California Voter Information Guide (page C-1)
D. League of Women Voters of Palos Verdes Peninsula Advocacy and Action
statement (page D-1)
E. Summary of the League’s positions as they relate to property tax (page E-
1)
F. Blue Sky Consulting Group Analysis (page F-1)
G. Public comments (page G-1)
1
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On August 31, 2020, the League of Women Voters of Palos Verdes Peninsula (League)
contacted Staff and asked the City Council to consider signing a letter (Attachment A)
and adopting a resolution (Attachment B) in support of Proposition 15 (Prop. 15). Known
as The California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2020, the proposition
has qualified for voter consideration on the November 3, 2020, ballot. Prop. 15 would
amend the California State Constitution to allow California jurisdictions to recover
additional property tax revenues by shifting the basis of the valuation of most
commercial properties to how much they could be sold for instead of their original
purchase price, effective in 2022.
Currently, all property taxes in California are governed by an initiative passed by voters
on June 6, 1978, known as the Tax Limitation Initiative, or California Proposition 13
(Prop. 13), which limits the tax rate for all property at 1% and caps annual increases to
the assessed value to no more than 2% per year. Property is only reassessed at market
value when there is a change in ownership or new construction. California cities,
counties, schools, and special districts rely on property tax revenues, which total around
$65 billion statewide and $6.3 billion in the County of Los Angeles (County) to provide
critical services and community programs.
Summary of Proposition 15
The California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act (Prop. 15) seeks to
constitutionally change the property tax law enacted under Prop . 13 as it applies to
commercial and industrial properties. This ballot measure is often referred to as “split
roll” since it would split how commercial properties are taxed from residential,
agricultural, and small business properties.
If approved by voters, Prop. 15 would require commercial and industrial properties to
undergo regular and ongoing reassessments to bring them to their current market value.
Property owners would then be required to pay property taxes on the newly assessed
value, eliminating Prop. 13’s limitation on increasing assessed value by no more than
2% per year. Prop. 15 proposes to preserve the current tax structure for residential
property and agricultural lands, as outlined under Prop. 13. The shift to market value
assessment would be phased in over three fiscal years, beginning in 2022-23. After the
initial reassessment, applicable commercial and industrial real property would be
regularly reassessed at intervals determined by the state Legislature, but no less
frequently than every three years.
Prop. 15 exempts residential property, property owned or occupied by small businesses
with a market value of less than $3 million and agricultural properties. The first $500,000
of a business’ personal property (e.g., machinery, computers, and office equipment)
would be exempt from taxation, and businesses with fewer than 50 employees would be
exempt from taxation on all personal property. In addition, the measure contains a
deferral until FY 2025-26 for commercial and industrial property where 50% or more is
2
occupied by “small businesses.” The measure defines “small business” as (1) having
fewer than 50 annual full-time equivalent employees; (2) the business is independently
owned and operated; and (3) the business owns real property located in California .
The Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) estimates that if Prop. 15 became law, between
$6.5 billion to $11.5 billion per year in new property taxes would go to local
governments after 2025. Specifically, funding for K-12 schools and community colleges
would receive 40% of the net increase in tax revenues. Each school or community
college’s share of the money is mostly based on student population. Cities, counties
and special districts would receive 60% of the net increase. Each city, county, or special
district’s share of revenues depends on several factors, including the amount of new
taxes paid by commercial properties in that community.
Prop. 15 has been met with opposition from business association groups due to
concerns its impact on small businesses. Despite provisions in the initiative designed to
exempt small businesses from this tax increase, opponents argue that small businesses
will inevitably be impacted. This is because landlords can increase rent or lease
contracts as a result of increased taxes, placing higher financial burdens on many small
businesses that do not own their own property. Opponents also argue that by raising
business and corporate property taxes, businesses will have no choice but to pass the
financial burden onto consumers by raising prices and hurting the workforce.
An excerpt from California Voter Information Guide for Prop. 15 is included as
Attachment C. The complete text of Prop. 15 is available at the following link:
https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/19-
0008%20%28The%20California%20Schools%20and%20Local%20Communities%20Fu
nding%20Act%20of%202020%29_1.pdf
The League of Women Voters of Palos Verdes Peninsula ’s Position on Prop. 15
The League of Women Voters of Palos Verdes Peninsula supports Prop. 15. Although
the League is known for being nonpartisan, the organization does take some positions,
on non-candidates, through a process outlined on its website (Attachment D):
“Positions result from a process of study. Any given study, whether it be National,
State, or Local, is thorough in its pursuit of facts and details. As the study
progresses, a continuing discussion of pros and cons of each situation occurs.
Prior to the results of the study being presented to the general membership,
study committee members fashion consensus questions that are then addressed
by the membership.
Additional discussion, pro and con, takes place as members (not part of the
study committee) learn the scope of the study. After the members reach
consensus, the board forms positions based on that consensus.
It is the consensus statement -- the statement resulting from the consensus
questions -- that becomes a position. Firm action or advocacy can then be taken
3
on the particular issue addressed by the position. Without a position,
action/advocacy cannot be taken”
Additionally, on September 18, Linda Herman, Co-President of the League of Women
Voters of Palos Verdes Peninsula, provided Staff with a brief summary of the League’s
positions as they relate to property tax (Attachment E). In summary, the League of
Women Voters of California’s Position on State and Local Finances is in support of
equitable, broad-based local property tax, that is easy and economical to administer,
and produces adequate revenue, with limitations on the types of services it funds. The
League is also in support of assessment practices and policies that are equitable,
accurate, easy to understand and well publicized, with like properties treated uniformly.
Additionally, Co-President Herman informed Staff that a subcategory of the League of
Women Voters of California’s Position on State and Local Finances states the goal to
ensure the use of property tax primarily for those services directly related to property,
such as police, fire protection, streets, water, sewage, and streetlighting; for such other
local services as libraries, parks, recreation, the general administrative costs of local
government and public schools. Additionally, the League believes it is important to
ensure sound assessment practices and policies that provide an adequate budget for
the assessor's office to permit accurate appraisals, a staff of qualified personnel
required to take ongoing training, and the use of modern appraisal tools whenever the
cost can be justified and to include regular, frequent reappraisals.
Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) Board of Education’s
Position on Prop. 15
To date, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) Board of
Education has taken no position on Prop. 15 . Staff is unaware of any plans for the
PVPUSD Board to do so.
Potential Financial Impact on the City
As noted above, the LAO estimates a range of $6.5 billion and $12.5 billion in additional
revenue would be generated per year statewide if Prop. 15 became law, with most of
that money going to local schools and jurisdictions. An analysis completed by the Blue
Sky Consulting Group (Attachment F) to estimate local revenue that would be
generated by the measure estimates nearly $1.7 million in additional revenue coming to
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes if the initiative is successful. Estimated net revenue
for PVPUSD are unknown at this time. Staff is unaware of the potential share of funds
for the school district.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends the City Council consider the League’s request and the information in
this report in considering whether to or not to take a position on Prop. 15, and what the
position should be. If the council wishes to take a position, Staff can bring a resolution to
the October 20 meeting memorializing the position.
4
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative action is available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Take no position on Prop. 15.
2. Take a position, via minute order, and do not request a resolution be
brought back at the October 20, 2020 meeting.
5
League of Women Voters of Palos Verdes Peninsula
P. O. Box 2933
Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274
August 31, 2020
The Honorable Mayor Cruikshank
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA l90275
Re: Proposition 15 titled “Schools and Communities First”
Dear Mayor Cruikshank and City Council Members
The League of Women Voters of Palos Verdes Peninsula writes to urge your support of
Proposition 15, “Schools and Communities First,” which will be on the November 2020 ballot.
In an effort to promote tax fairness, Schools & Communities First (Proposition 15) is a once in a
generation opportunity to reclaim $12 billion every year for our students and local
neighborhoods by reforming commercial and industrial property tax assessments to fair market
value.
The local benefit is significant, especially given the unprecedented budget shortfalls our local
governments are experiencing due to COVID 19. It is critical that our cities, counties and school
districts have the resources to keep our essential workers and services running. Proposition 15
empowers city and county officials, who know best how to address local problems and priorities,
to direct additional resources where they can best be used to meet local needs. (Estimates from
the Blue Sky Consulting Group indicate the City of Rancho Palos Verdes should receive
$1,786,000.)
Here’s what SCF does:
• Invests in educating our kids and providing critical services to our neighborhoods.
• Protects all homeowners and renters from property tax increases.
• Provides tax incentives for small businesses.
• Levels the playing field for all businesses to ensure all pay their fair share.
• Ensures accountability, equity and transparency so that the funds go to our students
and communities.
• Distributes the new revenues resulting from this measure to schools and local
communities, not to the state.
continued
A-1
Mayor Cruikshank and City Council Members Pg. 2
August 31, 2020
Would the City of Rancho Palos Verdes consider joining the growing list of endorsers for
Schools & Communities First? Endorsers include the Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors, 26th District Senator Ben Allen, Mayor Eric Garcetti and to mention only a few
from the Los Angeles City Council, Mike Bonin and Paul Koretz.
I am attaching the policy summary along with the Resolution of Support. I am happy to respond
to questions but am also cc'ing the campaign's Political Director, Jahmese Myres, who can also
answer questions that may arise.
We hope you will sign the enclosed Resolution of support on behalf of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes.
Thank you for your consideration,
Linda Herman
Co-President
lhermanpg@cox.net
310-541-3373 (Res.)
Janet MacLeod
Co-President
jmacle43@cox.net
310--833-1376 (Res.)
Attachments: Policy Summary, Resolution of Support
Cc: jahmesem@schoolsandcommunitiesfirst.org
A-2
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution of Support:
Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2020
Whereas, for the last four decades, cities and counties in California have experienced
underinvestment and devastating cuts to critical services and infrastructure that residents rely
on;
Whereas, the lack of adequate local funding is the result of an inequitable tax system in which
corporations and wealthy investors do not pay their fair share in property taxes;
Whereas, unfairness in California’s property tax system allow a fraction of major commercial
and industrial properties to avoid regular reassessment and use shady schemes to hide change in
ownership;
Whereas, these loopholes and tax schemes result in millions of dollars going to corporations and
wealthy investors rather than to local communities for essential services;
Whereas the property tax is one of the few discretionary sources of revenue for cities and
counties;
Whereas, experts estimate that the California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act
reclaims $12 billion in property tax revenue every year by closing loopholes in California’s
property tax system;
Whereas the California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act does not affect property
taxes for homeowners or renters because the initiative exempts all residential property;
Whereas, allocation of revenues to cities, counties and special districts will follow current
property tax allocation;
Whereas, the measure will provide billions in locally-controlled property tax funding yearly for
cities, counties, and special districts;
Whereas, academic researchers at the University of Southern California (USC) have identified
that the vast majority of reclaimed revenue will come from a fraction of large commercial and
industrial properties;
Whereas, USC research shows that a majority of commercial owners already pay close to market
value, making the current system inequitable among businesses, benefitting large owners who
have held land for a long period;
Whereas, the current failure to close the commercial property loophole has led to poor land use
and inflated land values, particularly affecting the ability to provide adequate high-density
housing;
continued
B-1
Pg. 2
Whereas, the measure incentivizes the development of residential units and provides more
funding for communities to invest in affordable housing;
Whereas, the measure provides new tax incentives to spur new investment in small businesses by
eliminating the business personal property tax on equipment for California’s small businesses;
Whereas, the measure also exempts all small business owners whose property is worth $3
million or less;
Whereas, the measure levels the playing field for businesses that already pay their fair share in
our communities;
Whereas, the California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2020
is expected to be on the November 2020 ballot;
Whereas, now more than ever, in light of the national and state economic crisis precipitated by
the COVID-19 global pandemic, California’s local communities need additional revenues for
their continued provision of services;
Therefore, be it resolved, that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes endorses the
California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2020 for a ballot measure in
November 2020.
_______________________________________
Mayor John Cruikshank
_______________________________________
Rancho Palos Verdes
_______________________________________
Date
B-2
PROPOSITION INCREASES FUNDING SOURCES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND
15 AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES BY CHANGING TAX ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The text of this measure can be found on the Secretary of State’s website at
voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
15
• Increases funding sources for K–12 public
schools, community colleges, and local
governments by requiring commercial and
industrial real property be taxed based on
current market value, instead of purchase
price.
• Exempts from taxation changes: residential
properties; agricultural land; and owners of
commercial and industrial properties with
combined value of $3 million or less.
• Any additional education funding will
supplement existing school funding
guarantees.
• Exempts small businesses from personal
property tax; for other businesses, provides
$500,000 exemption.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE
OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FISCAL IMPACT:
• Increased property taxes on commercial
properties worth more than $3 million
providing $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new
funding to local governments and schools.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND
Local Governments Tax Property. California cities,
counties, schools, and special districts (such as
a fire protection district) collect property taxes
from property owners based on the value of their
property. Property taxes raise around $65 billion
each year for these local governments. Overall,
about 60 percent of property taxes go to cities,
counties, and special districts. The other
40 percent goes to schools and community
colleges. These shares are different in different
counties.
Property Includes Land, Buildings, Machinery,
and Equipment. Property taxes apply to many
kinds of property. Land and buildings are taxed.
Businesses also pay property taxes on most
other things they own. This includes equipment,
machinery, computers, and furniture. We call
these things “business equipment.”
How Is a Property Tax Bill Calculated? Each
property owner’s annual property tax bill is equal
to the taxable value of their property multiplied
by their property tax rate. The typical property
owner’s property tax rate is 1.1 percent.
Taxable Value of Land and Buildings Is Based on
Original Purchase Price. In the year a piece of
land or a building is purchased, its taxable value
typically is its purchase price. Each year after
that, the property’s taxable value is adjusted for
inflation by up to 2 percent. When a property
is sold again, its taxable value is reset to its
new purchase price. The taxable value of most
land and buildings is less than what they could
be sold for. This is because the price most
properties could be sold for grows faster than
2 percent per year.
Taxable Value of Business Equipment Is Based on
How Much It Could Be Sold for. Unlike land and
buildings, business equipment is taxed based on
how much it could be sold for today.
Counties Manage the Property Tax. County
assessors determine the taxable value of
property. County tax collectors bill property
owners. County auditors distribute tax revenue
to local governments. Statewide, counties spend
about $800 million each year on these activities.
PROPOSAL
Tax Commercial and Industrial Land and Buildings
Based on How Much They Could Be Sold for. The
measure requires commercial and industrial
(after this referred to simply as “commercial”)
22 | Title and Summary / Analysis C-1
PROPOSITIONINCREASES FUNDING SOURCES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES BY CHANGING TAX ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 15
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
land and buildings to be taxed based on how
much they could be sold for instead of their
original purchase price. This change is put in
place over time starting in 2022. The change
does not start before 2025 for properties used
by California businesses that meet certain rules
and have 50 or fewer employees. Housing and
agricultural land continues to be taxed based on
its original purchase price.
Some Lower Value Properties Not Included.
This change does not apply if the owner has
$3 million or less worth of commercial land and
buildings in California (adjusted for inflation
every two years). These properties continue to be
taxed based on original purchase price.
Reduce Taxes on Business Equipment. The
measure reduces the taxable value of each
business’s equipment by $500,000 starting
in 2024. Businesses with less than $500,000
of equipment pay no taxes on those items.
All property taxes on business equipment are
eliminated for California businesses that meet
certain rules and have 50 or fewer employees.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Increased Taxes on Commercial Land and Buildings.
Most owners of commercial land and buildings
worth more than $3 million would pay higher
property taxes. Only some of these property
owners would start to pay higher taxes in
2022. By 2025, most of these property owners
would pay higher taxes. Beginning in 2025,
total property taxes from commercial land
and buildings probably would be $8 billion to
$12.5 billion higher in most years. The value of
commercial property can change a lot from year
to year. This means the amount of increased
property taxes also could change a lot from year
to year.
Decreased Taxes on Business Equipment. Property
taxes on business equipment probably would be
several hundred million dollars lower each year.
Money Set Aside to Pay Costs of the Measure.
The measure sets aside money for various
CONTINUED
costs created by the measure. This includes
giving several hundred million dollars per year to
counties to pay for their costs of carrying out
the measure. The measure would increase the
amount of work county assessors do and could
require changes in how they do their work.
Counties could have costs from the measure
before new money is available to cover these
costs. The state would loan money to counties
to cover these initial costs until new property tax
revenue is available.
New Funding for Local Governments and Schools.
Overall, $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion per
year in new property taxes would go to local
governments. 60 percent would go to cities,
counties, and special districts. Each city,
county, or special district’s share of the money
depends on several things including the amount
of new taxes paid by commercial properties in
that community. Not all governments would be
guaranteed new money. Some in rural areas may
end up losing money because of lower taxes on
business equipment. The other 40 percent would
increase funding for schools and community
colleges. Each school or community college’s
share of the money is mostly based on how many
students they have.
Visit http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/campaign/
measures/ for a list of committees primarily
formed to support or oppose this measure.
Visit http://www.fppc.ca.gov/
transparency/top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
If you desire a copy of the full text of this state
measure, please call the Secretary of State
at (800) 345-VOTE (8683) or you can email
vigfeedback@sos.ca.gov and a copy will
be mailed at no cost to you.
15
Analysis | 23 C-2
PROPOSITION INCREASES FUNDING SOURCES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND
15 AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES BY CHANGING TAX ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL
+ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 15 +
15
We are all better off when everyone pays their fair share. But
California is giving away billions of dollars in property tax
breaks to wealthy corporations. These billions could be used
instead to deal with increasing inequality, persistent poverty,
unemployment, unaffordable housing, homelessness and
underfunded schools.
While the wealthiest corporations avoid paying their fair share,
our schools have the most crowded classrooms in the nation
and our local communities are struggling to respond to the
impact of COVID-19.
Prop. 15 is a fair and balanced reform which:
• closes property tax loopholes benefiting wealthy corporations
• cuts small business taxes
• reclaims billions of dollars to invest in our schools and local
communities.
Prop. 15 will:
Close corporate loopholes: Wealthy corporations avoid
reassessment by employing highly paid tax lawyers and
accountants to exploit loopholes in the law. Prop. 15 closes
these loopholes by requiring nonresidential commercial
properties to be assessed based on their actual fair market
value.
• The top 10% of California’s most valuable nonresidential
commercial properties account for 92% of Prop. 15’s new
revenues.
Does not impact homeowners and renters: Prop. 15 exempts
all residential properties, maintaining FULL PROP. 13
PROTECTIONS for homeowners and renters.
Cut taxes for small businesses: Prop. 15 protects small
businesses and cuts their taxes by:
• Exempting businesses operated out of a home and
businesses owning $3,000,000 or less of nonresidential
commercial property
• Cutting business personal property taxes on equipment,
computers and fixtures.
Restore balance to the property tax: Since Prop. 13 passed,
the residential share of property taxes has skyrocketed from
55% to 72% and the nonresidential commercial share has
fallen. Meanwhile we’re paying more in fees, fines and other
taxes.
Prop. 15 rebalances the scales.
Increase funding for schools and community colleges: Every
school district and community college will receive additional
funding over and above existing funding guarantees. Prop. 15
funds go directly to education and state politicians can’t take
it away.
Invest in essential workers and local services: Prop. 15
gives local communities desperately needed resources so
essential services and frontline workers can respond to current
challenges and prepare for future crises, whether from a
wildfire, pandemic, or earthquake.
Support economic and racial equity: Prop. 15 makes sure
schools with the greatest needs get the most help and gives
local communities critically needed resources to deal with the
unequal impacts of COVID-19, unemployment, and housing
costs on communities of color.
Prioritize full transparency and accountability by requiring
schools and local governments to publicly disclose all new
revenues they receive and how they are spent.
Protect agricultural land: Prop. 15 makes no change to
existing laws affecting the taxation or preservation of
agricultural land.
We can’t afford business as usual. Prop. 15 rebalances the
scales by closing loopholes and supporting our schools, local
communities and small businesses.
Prop. 15 takes a big step forward toward a better future for all
Californians. It was placed on the ballot by the signatures of
over 1,700,000 voters who want wealthy corporations to pay
their fair share.
Please add your voice to theirs: Vote Yes on Prop. 15.
TONY THURMOND, California Superintendent of Public
Instruction
JACQUELINE MARTINEZ, CEO
Latino Community Foundation
SASHA CUTTLER, Public Health Nurse
San Francisco Department of Public Health
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 15 +
PROP. 15: ALL CALIFORNIANS WILL PAY FOR THE LARGEST
PROPERTY TAX INCREASE IN STATE HISTORY!
REPEALS PROP. 13 PROTECTIONS
Prop 13 limits property tax increases to 2% annually, providing
certainty to homeowners and small businesses that they can
afford their taxes in the future. Supporters of Prop 15 admit
they’ll go after Prop 13 protections for homes next - meaning
skyrocketing taxes for all homeowners!
PROP. 15: RAISES OUR COST OF LIVING AND MAKES
INCOME INEQUALITY WORSE
Billions in higher taxes will be passed on to California’s small
businesses in the form of higher rents, forcing businesses that
are barely surviving now to lay off employees and raise prices.
Higher costs for food and everyday necessities will hit all of us
and low-income families hardest. We can’t afford to raise our
cost of living.
PROP. 15: DOESN’T SOLVE OUR CURRENT BUDGET CRISIS
Prop. 15 will not solve today’s budget deficits. The nonpartisan
Legislative Analyst says most funding won’t arrive until
2025. Additionally, the California Assessors’ Association says
Prop. 15 will cost more than $1 billion to implement, meaning
deeper cuts to already stretched local government budgets.
PROP. 15: MISLEADING AND LACKS ACCOUNTABILITY
Prop. 15’s supporters say it’s about more money for education,
but nearly 70% of the tax money doesn’t even go to schools.
Politicians can even divert the local government tax money for
other purposes, just like they’re doing with the gas tax.
NO ON PROP. 15. www.NOonProp15.org
JON COUPAL, President
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
ALICE HUFFMAN, President
California State Conference of the NAACP
BETTY JO TOCCOLI, President
California Small Business Association
24 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. C-3
PROPOSITIONINCREASES FUNDING SOURCES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES BY CHANGING TAX ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 15
+ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 15 +
PROP. 15 WILL BE THE LARGEST ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX
INCREASE IN CALIFORNIA HISTORY—UP TO $12.5 BILLION
PER YEAR!
Prop. 15’s massive increase in annual property taxes will have
disastrous economic impacts for every Californian—from small
businesses and consumers to farmers and homeowners.
PROP. 15 REPEALS TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS IN PROP. 13
Prop. 13’s taxpayer protections have kept property taxes
affordable by capping property taxes and limiting increases
annually, providing taxpayers certainty they can afford their
property taxes now and into the future. Prop. 15 eliminates
that certainty for millions of taxpayers.
• “Prop. 15 is a direct threat to homeowners. Supporters of
the tax hike openly admitted that this is merely the first step in
completely dismantling Prop. 13 which voters approved to stop
skyrocketing property taxes.”—Jon Coupal, President, Howard
Jarvis Taxpayers Association
PROP. 15 RAISES OUR COST OF LIVING
Prop. 15’s tax hike will increase costs on everything people
buy, including groceries, fuel, utilities, day care and health
care.
• “Too many families have been priced out of their
neighborhoods because of the rising cost of living. Prop. 15
will raise the cost of living for California families by up to
$960 and will especially hurt lower-income communities.”
—Alice Huffman, President, California State Conference of
the NAACP
PROP. 15 DESTROYS JOBS AND SMALL BUSINESSES
Seven million Californians work for a small business. Millions
of Californians are filing for unemployment and are at risk of
losing everything. NOTHING in Prop. 15 stops the tax from
being passed on to small business tenants. Prop. 15 will make
the economic crisis worse by devastating small businesses—
including our neighborhood restaurants, barbershops, and dry
cleaners.
• “Most small businesses rent the property on which
they operate. Prop. 15’s higher property taxes will mean
skyrocketing rents at a time we can least afford it.”
—Jot Condie, President, California Restaurant Association
PROP. 15 RAISES TAXES FOR FAMILY FARMERS,
RESULTING IN HIGHER COSTS FOR FOOD
Prop. 15 will raise property taxes on farming—including barns,
dairies, processing plants and even fruit and nut trees.
• “Prop. 15 hurts family farmers and we all will end up
paying higher costs for groceries including milk, eggs and
meat.”—Jamie Johansson, President, California Farm Bureau
Federation
PROP. 15 LACKS ACCOUNTABILITY
Prop. 15 will cost taxpayers $1 billion each year in
bureaucratic expenses, and politicians can spend the higher
property tax revenue on anything they want, including
administrative costs, outside consultants and pay raises.
• “Prop. 15 allows politicians to divert its tax hike revenue to
anything the special interests want, just like they’re doing with
the gas tax.”—Marilyn Markham, Board Member, California
Senior Advocates League
INDEPENDENTS, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
AGREE—NO ON PROP. 15.
NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO RAISE PROPERTY TAXES IN
CALIFORNIA.
ROBERT GUTIERREZ, President
California Taxpayers Association
ALICE HUFFMAN, President
California State Conference of the NAACP
BETTY JO TOCCOLI, President
California Small Business Association
15
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 15 +
Prop. 15 is a fair and balanced reform which: - Closes
property tax loopholes benefiting wealthy corporations - Cuts
small business taxes - Does not impact homeowners and
renters - Reclaims billions of dollars for schools and local
communities
California must take these steps right now to secure a better
future for us all.
Wealthy owners of the MOST EXPENSIVE 10% OF BUSINESS
PROPERTIES account for 92% of Prop. 15’s revenues.
Prop. 15 supporters: teachers, nurses, small business
owners, clergy, affordable housing advocates, and community
organizations who want to close corporate tax loopholes and
rebalance the scales.
Prop. 15 opponents: wealthy corporations and out-of-state
investors trying to keep their tax breaks by using scare tactics
to confuse the issue.
Read the measure for yourself and remember, Prop. 15:
• Maintains FULL PROP. 13 PROTECTIONS for homeowners
and renters. • CUTS small business taxes AND specifically
exempts all home-based businesses AND exempts small
businesses owning $3,000,000 or less in business property.
• Guarantees transparency and accountability by requiring full
public disclosure of all new revenues and how they’re spent.
• Keeps Prop. 13’s low 1% limit, so California’s business
property taxes will still be below most states.
Learn more at scaretactics15.org.
As we rebuild from the COVID-19 shut down and prepare for
challenges ahead, business as usual won’t do. It’s time we
invest in small businesses, students, healthy families, and safe
neighborhoods.
Prop. 15 is a balanced reform that closes corporate loopholes
benefiting the top 10% and restores billions to our schools and
communities—Vote Yes on Prop. 15.
E. TOBY BOYD, President
California Teachers Association
CAROL MOON GOLDBERG, President
League of Women Voters
TARA LYNN GRAY, CEO
Fresno Metro Black Chamber of Commerce
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments | 25 C-4
D-1
1
Jesse Villalpando
From:Linda Herman <lhermanpg@cox.net>
Sent:Friday, September 18, 2020 3:24 PM
To:Jesse Villalpando
Subject:FW: Proposition 15 - Position in brfief and additional summary information FYI
Attachments:The California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2020_final rev-7-16-20.pdf
HI Jessie,
In response to your request to the League of Women Voters of the Palos Verdes Peninsula to provide a brief
summary of our positions as they relate to the property tax, I submit the following:
Under the League of Women Voters of California State and Local Finances positions , our position in brief
regarding property taxes is as follows:
Support an equitable, broad‐based local property tax, easy and economical to administer, producing adequate
revenue, with limitations on the types of services it funds. Support assessment practices and policies that are
equitable, accurate, easy to understand and well publicized, with like properties treated uniformly.
A subcategory which follows states our goal is to ensure use of the property tax primarily for those services
directly related to property such as police, fire protection, streets, water, sewer‐age, and street lighting; for
such other local services as libraries, parks, recreation, the general administrative costs of local government
and public schools. Additionally, we believe it important to ensure sound assessment practices and policies
that provide an adequate budget for the assessor's office to permit accurate appraisals, a staff of qualified
personnel required to take ongoing training, and use of modern appraisal tools whenever the cost can be
justified and to include regular, frequent reappraisals.
I have also attached an excellent summary which lays out the problem as well as how we believe its passage
would make a significant difference in terms of funding for our local cities and local school district. Also
attached as part of this document is the two page flyer which provides the detail of the proposition in brief
form. I hope you find this document helpful.
The City Councils of Long Beach; Santa Monica and Los Angeles have endorsed the measure as has the Los
Angeles Board of Supervisors. I believe there are others and will do my best to update that information for
you within the next week.
Please do hesitate to contact me if there is any further way I can be of assistance.
Linda Herman
Co‐President
League of Women Voters of Palos Verdes Peninsula
310‐541‐3373 (Res.)
310‐766‐1630 (Cell)
E-1
Policy Brief Summary
The California Schools and Local Communities
Funding Act proposes a constitutional amendment
that will:
u Reclaim $12 billion for schools and local
government by closing a huge property tax
loophole that benefits large corporations and
wealthy investors.
u Require the regular reassessment of some
commercial and industrial properties at fair market
value for property tax purposes and keep the
1% cap on the property tax rate to ensure that
property taxes will continue to be among the
lowest in the country.
u Maintain all Prop 13 protections for homeowners,
rental properties and agricultural land.
u Protect small business property owners by
excluding from reassessment properties under
$3 million in market value when these properties
are owned independently.
u Provide relief from the business personal property
tax for ALL businesses by exempting the first
$500,000 of fixtures and equipment, significantly
benefiting small businesses.
u Direct at least $4.5 billion for schools toward all
students, with a focus on high-need students,
improving our educational system everywhere in
the state.
u Provide cities with substantially increased revenue
to spend on critical municipal services, including
homeless services, parks and libraries, roads,
infrastructure, and business improvements.
u Help counties to provide improved health and
human services, emergency response services,
roads and infrastructure, and have a stable source
of their own revenue, controlled locally.
u Improve land use greatly, including increased
housing and transit, reduced urban sprawl and
decreased carbon footprint.
The Problem
The system for assessment of commercial and industrial
property is loophole-ridden, harmful to sound land use,
housing, and new investment, and negatively impacts
revenue for cities, counties, and schools. Not even the
largest beneficiaries of the system—wealthy property
owners and large corporations—can provide a rationale
for its continuation.
A. Failed Fiscal Policy
Even with massive economic growth and a proliferation
of new local taxes, tax revenue per capita for cities and
counties has fallen from $790 per person to $640 since
1978, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO),
generating fiscal stress on most local governments in
the state. The property tax has shifted away from the
commercial/industrial sector to residential in virtually
every county. Our infrastructure investment has declined
because local governments cannot generate the revenue
needed from the growth in land values, while fees and
other taxes have gone up on ordinary citizens.
Public schools continue to struggle and still lag behind
much of the nation despite new state revenue streams
since 2012. Over the past 40 years, California has
disinvested from public education, sliding from one of the
top states to one that now ranks near the bottom. In 1977
before Proposition 13 passed, California ranked 7th out of
50 states in per student spending nationally. Yet, California
now ranks 39th among all states in per student spending
for K-12 education relative to the cost of living in California.
B. Loophole-Ridden System
Property tax assessment under Proposition 13 is based
on a “change of ownership”, which locks in assessment
at the purchase price (plus 2% per year) and limits
the tax rate for all properties to 1%. Intended to help
homeowners, change of ownership is easily avoided
by corporations and wealthy investors because of
the complex ways commercial and industrial property
is legally held, and cannot be reformed without
How to Raise Billions for Schools and Services
by Reforming the Commercial Property Tax System
July 2020
The California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2020 page 1E-2
maintaining loopholes and inequities. For publicly-traded
corporations, whose stock turns over regularly, change
of ownership fails to trigger reassessment, unless those
companies are fully bought out. For example, Chevron,
Intel and IBM own land still assessed at 1975 values
while nearby land is assessed at 50 times the value or
more. For investor-owned property, complex ownership
patterns using real estate investment trusts, LLCs, land
leases, trusts and partnerships allow wealthy investors
to avoid reassessment in many ways, on everything from
industrial parks, offices, shopping centers and hotels to
parking lots and mini-malls. Many of these investors are
out of state or foreign.
C. Unfair to New Investment
The current system taxes new investment heavily while
failing to tax windfalls, the opposite of good economics.
It holds land off the market, inflating land prices, which
is bad for housing affordability and new investment. It is
anti-competitive, as new businesses have to pay higher
property taxes than their competitors, even though they
are charging the same prices for their rents, products
and/or services. Newer investors pay taxes on inflated
market values and substantial fees and mitigations, while
older commercial property owners who benefit from
infrastructure growth and rising markets continue to pay
on the old, outdated property values.
D. Works Against “Smart Growth” Land Use
The system has negative impacts on land use and the
environment. The LAO and academic research shows
that the system promotes keeping urban land vacant.
It increases speculation and sprawl, the opposite of
“Smart Growth”. It drives up land prices that make
housing less affordable. Important approaches to climate
change and livability—increased density and transit—
are discouraged by the current failure to tax commercial
land appropriately.
The California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2020 page 2
Decline in Cities/Counties
Per Person Revenues,
1977 to 2014
$1,000
$900
$800
$700
$600
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
$790
$640
$150
difference
1977-78 2014-15$ REVENUES PER PERSONLegislative Analyst’s Office. September 2016.
Common Claims about Proposition 13.
http://lao.ca.gov/reports/2016/3497/
common-claims-prop13-091916.pdf.
Property Tax Shift
in 55 of 58 Counties
16 www.sccassessor.org
Published September 2016
Proposition 13
Passed by the voters in June 1978, Proposition 13 amended the California Constitution limiting the assess-
ment and taxation of property in California. It restricts both the tax rate and the annual increase of assessed
value as follows:
•The property tax cannot exceed 1 percent of a property’s taxable value (plus service fees, improvement
bonds and special assessments, many of which require voter approval).
•A property’s original base value is its 1975-76 market value. A new base year value is established by
reappraisal whenever there is a change in owner-
ship or new construction. An increase in the
assessed value of real property is limited to no
more than two percent per year.
•The adjusted (factored) base year value of real
property is the upper limit of value for property
tax purposes.
•Business personal property, boats, airplanes and
certain restricted properties are subject to annual
reappraisal and assessment.
During a recession the gap between the market value
and assessed value of single family homes declines.
However as the as the economy recovers, the gap
widens.
Historical Trend of Assessed Values in Santa Clara County
The chart compares the total net
assessed value of single family
and condominium properties to
other property, including com-
mercial and industrial
properties. Since Proposition 13
passed in 1978, the portion of
the secured assessment roll com-
prised of commercial and indus-
trial properties declined 15
percent, a trend consistent with
data from other counties.
Historic Trend of Assessed Values in Santa Clara County
Percent of Total Assessed Value 70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
1977-78 1985-86 1990-91 1995-96 2000-01 2005-06 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2015-16 2016-17
Residential (Single Family and Condominiums) All Other Property
Single Family Homes
Average Assessed Value vs. Average “Sale” Value
Average Assessed Value
Annual Average “Sale” Value (Source MLS)
1978 1985 1990 1995 1999 2003 2006 2009 2014 2015
$1,245,657
$1,000,000
$900,000
$800,000
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
0
...428,258 properties received
the CCPI increase of
1.525 percent in accordance
with Proposition 13...
Office of the County Assessor. September
2016. 2016-2017 Assessor’s Annual Report.
https://www.sccassessor.org/
edocman/AnnualReport2016_2017.pdf
E-3
This tax avoidance scheme, which was ruled to
be perfectly legal by a judge, is just one example
of how corporations and wealthy land-owners
have been taking advantage of California’s unique
commercial property tax system that has resulted
in $12 billion per year in lost funding for our local
schools and communities.
SHELL OIL
COMPANY
in Carson
Oil extraction and production
have played a pivotal role in the
development of Southern California.
The Shell Carson Distribution
Complex, which was originally
built in 1924 as a refinery, 44 years before the City
of Carson was established, is greatly underassesed
and illustrates how oil companies with a long legacy
in California benefit from the current system.
Shell Oil owns over 400 acres of industrial land in
Carson assessed between $3.40 and 3.60 per square
foot. This property was last reassessed in 1975.
Much of the land is vacant, and large sections are
used for yard and warehouse storage. Recently
purchased industrial land in the surrounding area
is assessed as high as $50 per square foot, with
other properties in the range of $25-40 per square
foot. Even assuming the mid-point (approximately
$25 per square foot for vacant land) between their
current assessment and the highest in the area,
Shell Oil would pay nearly $4 million more. If it were
reassessed to the highest rate of similar industrial
land in the area, Shell would pay $8 million more
each year to benefit schools, parks and local services
in Carson and LA County.
The California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2020 page 3
E. Regional Examples
FAIRMONT MIRAMAR HOTEL
in Santa Monica
“Large corporate property owners have been among the
law’s biggest beneficiaries, thanks in part to loopholes
such as the one Dell used… the tax burden has steadily
shifted from businesses to homeowners.”1
For the past 40 years, large corporate property owners
have taken advantage of California’s property tax system
by exploiting loopholes and underpaying local schools
and communities in needed tax revenue. One prominent
example is that of billionaire Michael Dell’s use of a
loophole in the 2006 purchase of the Fairmont Miramar
Hotel in Santa Monica, resulting in a $1.14 million per
year tax avoidance—totaling $16.8 million since 2006.
Here’s how Michael Dell and his associates exploited
the commercial property tax loophole:
1 Michael Dell paid $200 million for the Fairmont
Miramar Hotel in Santa Monica hotel.
2 The deal is reshuffled to avoid a legal change in
ownership by buying the company that owns the
hotel, rather than the Miramar itself—avoiding
reassessment and corresponding property tax change.
3 Michael Dell reduced tax bill by $1.14 million/year.
4 2006-18: Dell’s tax avoidance scheme has kept
$16.8 million in total tax revenue from funding
local schools and communities.
1LA Times, “Opinion: Michael Dell: Poster boy for a Proposition 13
tweak”, May 15, 2014.
E-4
E. Regional Examples continued
THE WALT DISNEY
AND BURBANK
STUDIOS
in Burbank
Los Angeles’ unique history as the home to major movie
studios also places them in the spotlight with regard
to commercial property tax disparity. Most of these
multi-national companies are also multi-billion dollar
enterprises, yet most pay property taxes based on old
land values.
The Walt Disney Studios in Burbank sit on 43 acres of
land assessed at 1975 land values, resulting in the loss
of millions each year. The Disney Studios are assessed at
$5 per square foot, while the nearby Burbank Studios are
assessed at $180. If the Disney Studios and the Burbank
Studios were similarly assessed, the owners would
compete on a level playing field and restore $3.5 million
in additional revenue every year for schools and local
services.
MALLS IN
CORTE MADERA
in Marin County
Marin County is a suburban area whose residents
have some of the nation’s greatest purchasing power
as income per capita is one of the highest. Yet a few
landowners who own retail space are not paying their
fair share in local property taxes. In the City of Corte
Madera, two neighboring malls of the same size serve
the same consumers, but one is assessed radically less
than its competitor.
The Town Center at Corte Madera, a 1.3 million
square foot property owned by Heitman, a real estate
management firm from Chicago, is assessed between
$13 and $249 per square foot. Its neighbor, the Village at
Corte Madera, a 1.3 million square foot property partly
owned by Macerich, a publicly traded company from
Santa Monica, is assessed between $12 and $46 per
square foot. If The Village at Corte Madera was assessed
like its competitor at $249, it would pay $3.6 million
more in property taxes every year. If the Town Center
was entirely taxed at $249 it would also pay $3.6 million
more in property taxes.
The California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2020 page 4
Share of Total
Commercial/Industrial
Properties and Share
of Statewide Revenue
Gain by Estimated
Market Value, 2021-22
About 92% of the new
property tax revenue would
come from just 10% of all
properties that are worth
over $3 million.
Source: USC PERE analysis of disparity
ratios of commercial and industrial
properties based on CoreLogic assessor
roll data for 2017-2018.
2
On average, properties that will be reassessed under Schools and Communities First are
under-assessed by 50 percent or more.The large share of revenues coming from a small
percentage of commercial properties results in large part from the fact that those properties are
the most under-assessed, meaning that they have the largest gap between their assessed and
market values.On average, properties that will be reassessed under Schools and Communities First
are under-assessed by 50 percent or more. This means that their assessed value under Proposition
13 is about half or less than half of their market value because they have not been reassessed for a
considerable period of time. Because this is an average, some properties are under-assessed by a
smaller percentage and some are under-assessed by larger percentages.Thus,as shown on the
graph on the next page,18.7 percent of commercial and industrial properties that would be
reassessed under the measure are assessed at less than 40 percent of their market value,and 55.5
percent at less than 60 percent of their market value.
E-5
The Solution
This policy proposal will require a constitutional
amendment to be approved by California voters in order
to reform the system for assessment of commercial and
industrial property.
A. Reassessment
The core component of this proposal is the reassessment
of commercial and industrial property to market value on
a periodic basis, as occurs nearly everywhere else in the
country. The current constitutionally mandated rate
of 1% would remain unchanged.
B. Protecting Residential and Agricultural Property
Periodic reassessment will only affect commercial and
industrial property, NOT residential and agricultural
property. The measure makes sure that no residential
property will be impacted, using current use to protect
residential and agriculture property from reassessment,
and zoning for vacant land. No residential properties will
be reassessed, whether rental residential (apartments
and rental homes), homeowner or condominium owner,
or mobile home. To the extent that any definitional
questions are raised, the legislature is required to make
certain by statute than no residential property will ever
be affected. Mixed-use property is to be assessed based
on proportion of commercial to residential footage and
is likely to be exempt if it is predominantly residential.
Open space and natural and scenic properties are explicitly
protected.
C. Phasing-In the New System
Since the system has not been changed in 40 years,
a transition period will be necessary. The measure
creates a task force to implement a phase-in timetable
and process, working with assessors and the Board of
Equalization, and requires that all start up and on-going
costs shall be provided, to ensure a reasonable workload
and implementation period for assessors. It then
requires on-going assessment on a periodic basis, but
no less than every three years, after initial reassessment
is completed. There are many ways for the assessors
to approach this work. For example, assessing the
oldest properties and the largest properties first would
generate substantial revenue while allowing smaller
properties to be phased-in over a longer period.
D. Small Business Protections
1. Business Personal Property Tax Relief: The measure
provides relief from the business personal property
tax, providing an exemption of the first $500,000 for
California businesses. This exemption helps the vast
majority of businesses that lease but do not own their
property, providing significant relief from a nuisance tax
as well as financial relief to small businesses.
2. Small properties: Properties with value of $3 million
or less will be excluded if they are independently owned
and not part of chains or owned by larger investors.
E. Revenue Allocation
1. Local Government Share of Revenue: The proposal
calls for revenue in each county to be allocated based on
the current proportions of the property tax which go to
the cities, counties, schools, and special districts. Except
for the schools, the local jurisdictions in each county will
receive the new revenue based on the share of the
local property tax they currently receive. The measure
leaves property tax allocation unchanged, because a
combination of Proposition 13 (which puts property tax
allocation in the hands of the legislature) and a subsequent
constitutional measure (Prop 1A) control allocation.
2. School Share of Revenue: Because of the potentially
great fiscal differences among school districts in richer
vs. poorer areas, the school revenue generated in
each county from the share of the property tax in each
school district will be pooled statewide and protected
for use solely by K-12 schools and community colleges.
This incremental revenue will be over and above Prop.
98 formulas, so will not lower any state support for
schools. To further address equity, it will be distributed
based on the current Local Control Funding Formula.
Basic aid districts, which are typically in the wealthiest
communities, will receive what they previously would
have received, plus at least $100 per student, a minimum
that all districts will receive over and above current revenue.
3. Revenue Reimbursements: The state General Fund
will be reimbursed against any losses resulting from
an increase in commercial property tax deductions
caused by reassessment, with the Franchise Tax Board
to provide an estimate yearly. And assessors will be
reimbursed from the new revenue for any increased
costs of implementation. Revenue will be allocated to
the newly-created school fund and to local districts after
these General Fund reimbursements, which amount to
very small percentage of total revenue.
F. Accountability to Taxpayers
All school districts and local governments receiving
revenue from the measure will be required to prepare
reports to provide accountability to taxpayers for
the use of the incremental revenue from collections.
The legislature shall develop a consistent method to
calculate the incremental revenues received.
The California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2020 page 5E-6
The California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2020 page 6
Impact
A. Projected Revenue
1. Statewide Revenue: The Legislative Analyst Office
(LAO) estimates that the initiative will generate up
to $12 billion every year. This amount will grow with
economic growth. The reform will generate substantial
revenue increases for all counties.
2. Schools: Schools and community colleges will receive
40% of the $12 billion in increased revenue yearly. This
translates into between $15,000-$20,000 per classroom
when fully implemented. Every school district will
receive increased revenue for students in need based on
the Local Control Funding Formula applied statewide,
and Basic Aid districts that already meet their target
funding level will also receive a minimum of $100 per
student in additional revenues. All revenue will be in
addition to and on top of current revenue guaranteed
by Proposition 98.
3. Local Government: Cities, counties, and special
districts will receive 60% of the $12 billion in increased
revenues. Like all property taxes, revenues will be spent
at local government discretion, for parks, libraries, capital
outlay, health and social services, etc.
B. Who Pays?
1. Highest-Value Properties Pay the Most: The highest-
value properties provide most of the revenue.
92% of the revenue comes from a small share of
properties—that is, from properties estimated worth
over $3 million, or about 10% of commercial and
industrial properties. These are mostly corporate-
owned and wealthy investor-owned and have the lowest
current assessment compared to market value. In
contrast, nearly 77% of properties are worth under
$1 million and generate only 2% of the total revenue.
2. Many Properties See Little Change: Many properties
will see little or no impact. 45% of all commercial/
industrial properties are currently assessed at 60% or
more of market value, with many of those close to or at
market, and will pay little or no additional taxes as the
measure phases in.
3. Oldest Properties Pay: Nearly 50% of the revenue
comes from properties which were last reassessed
before 2000. These include large corporate and
investor-owned properties, many of which have not
been reassessed since the 1970s and 1980s.
4. Most Value in Land, Not Buildings: Sixty percent
(60%) of the revenue comes from the reassessment
of land as compared to buildings and improvements.
Buildings which are improved are currently reassessed
while land may still be held at very old values. The
differences in building values are nowhere near the
disparities in land values, which can be as high as
100 to 1 in places where values have grown rapidly, such
as Silicon Valley, San Francisco, and west Los Angeles.
5. Out of State Investors: Substantial amounts of the
new tax revenue will be paid by out-of-state and foreign
investors and the very wealthy. Large properties are
often owned by Real Estate Investment Trusts and are
publicly-traded on national and international exchanges,
and foreign investors have seen California commercial
property as a safe long-term investment. Corporate
shareholders are widely distributed nationally and
internationally and would pay much of the property tax.
Owners of commercial property are far wealthier than
most citizens, generally within the top 1% of earners.
C. Broader Benefits and Impacts
1. Relief from Fees and Local Tax Pressures: Increasing
revenue from commercial property taxes eliminates
pressures for additional local taxes and fees, which have
grown considerably as a portion of local government
expenses. Over time, citizens and businesses have
borne many of these new taxes and fees because large
property owners have paid so little.
2. Infrastructure Benefits: Because rising land values
will be captured, the ability to finance infrastructure is
greatly improved, particularly for transit, where new
investments can recover costs from rising land values.
The measure will increase the rate of payment of
bonded indebtedness by expanding the tax base.
3. “Smart Growth” Benefits: Development which
concentrates urban land use instead of promoting
suburban sprawl and big-box retail will increase as
underutilized, in-fill properties with high value but
low assessments will be brought onto the market. Smart
growth is a necessary part of combating climate change.
4. Regulatory Climate Will Improve for Business:
The regulatory burden of fees and exactions put on
new economic development will diminish, as cities have
stronger fiscal incentives for new development and will
be able to finance the costs of economic growth.
5. Affordable Housing: Low-density commercial strips will
be available for higher-density housing. Local revenues
from reassessment will enable cities to meet their
local affordable housing obligations and address their
homeless problems. The heavy fee burden on new housing
development is likely to diminish. And the land use
benefits will improve affordability for all types of housing.
6. Small Business Benefits: Every small business will
benefit from the exemption of the first $500,000 of
the business personal property tax, and for most,
this tax will be completely eliminated. The exclusion
of properties of $3 million or less also will provide
significant relief to small business. Since many
properties will face little or no increases, many
businesses will have net benefits due to the elimination
and/or reduction of the business personal property tax.
E-7
More information at: Yes15.org
email: info@schoolsandcommunitiesfirst.org
phone: 213-935-8009
The California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2020 page 7
Schools and Communities First Executive Committee
Schools and Communities First Steering Committee
The California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act reclaims $11 billion robbed from
our schools and neighborhood services because of the Prop 13 corporate tax loophole. This
measure protects homeowners and renters while taxing undervalued commercial land at fair
market value, creating a level playing eld among businesses and ending the unfair advantage
given to big corporations.
Schools and Communities First is a broad statewide coalition of community, faith and labor
organizations who have joined together to restore funding to schools and critical services and
make our tax system fair.
Paid for by Yes on 15 - Schools and Communities First sponsored by a Coalition of
Labor Groups and Social Justice Organizations Representing Families, Students and
Essential Workers. Committee major funding from:
California Teachers Association
SEIU California State Council
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Advocacy
Funding details at http://fppc.ca.gov
777 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 4050, Los Angeles, CA 90017
COALITION MEMBERS
Schools and Communities First Executive Committee
Schools and Communities First Steering Committee
The California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act reclaims $11 billion robbed from
our schools and neighborhood services because of the Prop 13 corporate tax loophole. This
measure protects homeowners and renters while taxing undervalued commercial land at fair
market value, creating a level playing eld among businesses and ending the unfair advantage
given to big corporations.
Schools and Communities First is a broad statewide coalition of community, faith and labor
organizations who have joined together to restore funding to schools and critical services and
make our tax system fair.
Schools and Communities First Executive Committee
Schools and Communities First Steering Committee
The California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act reclaims $11 billion robbed from
our schools and neighborhood services because of the Prop 13 corporate tax loophole. This
measure protects homeowners and renters while taxing undervalued commercial land at fair
market value, creating a level playing eld among businesses and ending the unfair advantage
given to big corporations.
Schools and Communities First is a broad statewide coalition of community, faith and labor
organizations who have joined together to restore funding to schools and critical services and
make our tax system fair.
Over 1,000 endorsers, including:
AFL-CIO
E-8
Allocation of Revenues From Schools and
Communities First for Selected Counties
Prepared by
Blue Sky Consulting Group
May 4, 2020
F-1
METHODOLOGY
Estimates of the amount of additional property taxes from the SCF initiative for individual
local jurisdictions were developed by first estimating the additional revenue to be
contributed by individual parcels in each community. The additional revenue from each
parcel was then allocated to the relevant jurisdictions in which the parcel is located (e.g.,
to the city, school district, any special districts serving the parcel and the county) based on
the current allocation of property taxes for that parcel. Fo r each jurisdiction, the total
amount of additional revenue was calculated by summing the contributions from each
parcel in that jurisdiction. The amount of additional revenue generated by each parcel
was adjusted to reflect estimated 2021-22 revenues and reduced by the proportionate
share of the anticipated administrative costs.
The amount of additional revenue to be generated by each parcel was estimated based on
disparity ratio for that parcel as calculated by USC PERE. (The disparity ratio is the
relationship between a property’s market value and its assessed value.)
The total amount of revenue based on USC PERE’s midpoint estimate of new revenues for
2021-22 is $11.4 billion, and the net revenue is $10.9 billion after subtracting the LAO’s
estimate of reductions due to administrative costs, etc., ($0.5 billion).
F-2
Commercial Property Tax Reform
Estimated Allocation of Revenues 2021-22
Alameda
Entity Amount
COUNTY GENERAL 175,369,000
COUNTY LIBRARY 4,291,000
ALAMEDA CO. FIRE DEPT.3,070,000
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT 1,353,000
ALAMEDA CO.MOSQUITO ABATEMENT 562,000
AC TRANSIT 24,168,000
SF-BART 3,973,000
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK 17,610,000
ALAMEDA COUNTY WATER 1,220,000
E.B.M.U.D.6,563,000
CITY OF ALAMEDA 6,947,000
CITY OF EMERYVILLE 5,245,000
CITY OF FREMONT 20,660,000
CITY OF HAYWARD 15,182,000
HAYWARD AREA REC & PARK 3,985,000
CITY OF NEWARK 4,521,000
CITY OF OAKLAND 60,466,000
OAKLAND ZOO 297,000
CITY OF PLEASANTON 12,918,000
CITY OF SAN LEANDRO 8,357,000
CITY OF UNION CITY 5,635,000
CITY OF LIVERMORE 8,218,000
LIVERMORE AREA REC & PARK 2,267,000
CITY OF BERKELEY 17,557,000
CITY OF ALBANY 1,247,000
CITY OF DUBLIN 6,076,000
CITY OF PIEDMONT 419,000
OTHER 11,085,000
TOTAL 429,261,000
F-3
Commercial Property Tax Reform
Estimated Allocation of Revenues 2021-22
Fresno
Entity Amount
FRESNO COUNTY 23,879,000
FRESNO CO FIRE 1,166,000
FRESNO CO LIBRARY 1,089,000
CITY OF CLOVIS 2,445,000
CITY OF COALINGA 238,000
CITY OF FIREBAUGH 348,000
CITY OF FOWLER 167,000
CITY OF FRESNO 15,391,000
CITY OF HURON 80,000
CITY OF KERMAN 248,000
CITY OF KINGSBURG 346,000
CITY OF MENDOTA 130,000
CITY OF PARLIER 249,000
CITY OF REEDLEY 404,000
CITY OF SANGER 441,000
CITY OF SELMA 222,000
CITY ORANGE COVE 109,000
CITY SAN JOAQUIN 40,000
CEMETARY DISTRICTS 236,000
NORTH CENTRAL FIRE 232,000
CONSOLIDATED MOSQ 335,000
FRESNO MET FLOOD 1,399,000
FRESNO MOSQ ABMT 156,000
COAL HURON PRK-REC 309,000
CLOVIS MEMORIAL 280,000
COALINGA HOSPITAL 263,000
COALINGA LIBRARY 125,000
OTHER 615,000
TOTAL 50,942,000
F-4
Commercial Property Tax Reform
Estimated Allocation of Revenues 2021-2022
KERN
Entity Amount
CO. GENERAL FUND 25,694,000
CO ADVERTISING 59,000
CO. FIRE FUND 5,297,000
CITY OF ARVIN 218,000
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 9,787,000
CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY 350,000
CITY OF DELANO 1,038,000
CITY OF MARICOPA 14,000
CITY OF MC FARLAND 166,000
CITY OF RIDGECREST 302,000
CITY OF SHAFTER 467,000
CITY OF TAFT 169,000
CITY OF TEHACHAPI 366,000
CITY OF WASCO 394,000
CEMETARY DISTRICTS 213,000
EAST KERN HEALTH CARE
DISTRICT
52,000
KERN VALLEY HOSPITAL 21,000
MUROC HOSPITAL 50,000
NORTH KERN-SO TULARE
HOSPITAL
53,000
TEHACHAPI VALLEY HLTH CARE
DST
53,000
WEST SIDE HOSPITAL 54,000
DELANO MOSQ ABATE 84,000
Entity Amount
KERN VECTOR CONT 503,000
WEST SIDE MOSQ 39,000
BEAR MNT REC&PARK 83,000
MCFARLAND REC-PK 30,000
NOR REC & PK DIST 533,000
SHAFTER REC & PK 60,000
TEH. REC & PARK 64,000
WASCO REC & PARK 51,000
WST SIDE REC & PK 25,000
MOJAVE UTIL DIST 48,000
S SAN JOAQUIN MUNICIP
UTILITY
107,000
EAST KERN AIRPORT 42,000
E NILES COM SER 32,000
STALLION SPRG CSD 27,000
KERN DELTA WTR 204,000
TEHACHAPI-CUMMINGS WATER 343,000
ANTELOPE VAL E KERN WTR
AGENCY
110,000
KERN CO WATER AGENCY 516,000
NOR MUNI WATER 63,000
OTHER 196,000
TOTAL 47,781,000
F-5
Commercial Property Tax Reform
Estimated Allocation of Revenues 2021-2022
Los Angeles County
Entity Amount
LOS ANGELES COUNTY GENERAL 1,337,450,000
L.A. COUNTY ACCUM CAP OUTLAY 353,000
L A COUNTY LIBRARY 16,485,000
COUNTY ROAD DISTRICT 907,000
CONSOL. FIRE PRO.DIST.OF L.A.CO.128,246,000
L A C FIRE-FFW 21,540,000
CO LIGHTING MAINT DIST 3,036,000
L.A.CO.FL.CON.DR.IMP.DIST.MAINT.5,133,000
LA CO FLOOD CONTROL MAINT 29,041,000
BELVEDERE GARBAGE DISPOSAL
DIST
431,000
FIRESTONE GARBAGE DISPOSAL
DIST
374,000
L A CO WATER WORKS 585,000
PALOS VERDES LIBRARY DIST
MAINT
359,000
L A CO WEST VECTOR CONTROL
DIST.
293,000
GREATER L A CO VECTOR CONTROL 477,000
CO SANITATION DIST 17,470,000
STA CLRTA VLY SANIT DIS OF LA CO 992,000
SOUTH BAY CITIES SANIT DIST OPER 281,000
BEACH CITIES HOSPITAL DIST 370,000
CITY-ALHAMBRA 4,933,000
CITY-ALHAMBRA -OTHER 327,000
CITY-AGOURA HILLS 1,063,000
CITY-ARCADIA 4,054,000
CITY-ARTESIA CTRL COM'L CORR RP 785,000
CITY-AVALON 496,000
CITY-AZUSA 3,256,000
CITY-BALDWIN PK 3,595,000
CITY-BALDWIN PK CONSOL. LT DIST 389,000
CITY-BELL 1,309,000
CITY-BELLFLOWER 2,741,000
CITY-BELL GARDEN 1,608,000
CITY-BEV HILLS 14,462,000
CITY-BRADBURY 35,000
CITY-BURBANK 16,720,000
CITY-CARSON 6,909,000
CITY-CALABASAS 1,039,000
CITY-CALABASAS -OTHER 349,000
CITY-CLAREMONT 1,740,000
Entity Amount
CITY-COMMERCE 2,917,000
CITY-COMPTON 5,097,000
CITY-COVINA 3,262,000
CITY-CUDAHY 841,000
CITY-CULVER CITY 4,973,000
CITY-CERRITOS LOS COYOTES RP 3,159,000
CITY-CERRITOS -OTHER 578,000
CITY-DOWNEY 6,397,000
CITY-DOWNEY -OTHER 153,000
CITY-EL MONTE 5,291,000
CITY-DUARTE 1,541,000
CITY-DUARTE -OTHER 334,000
CITY-DIAMOND BAR 1,978,000
CITY-EL SEGUNDO 4,580,000
CITY-GARDENA 3,753,000
CITY-GLENDALE 15,529,000
CITY-GLENDORA 2,521,000
CITY-HAWAII GDNS 575,000
CITY-HAWTHORNE 4,379,000
CITY-HERMOSA BCH 1,585,000
CITY-HIDDEN HILL 69,000
CITY-HUNTINGTN P 2,332,000
CITY-INDUSTRY 4,716,000
CITY-INGLEWOOD 7,592,000
CITY-IRWINDALE 1,599,000
CITY-LA PUENTE 1,420,000
CITY-LA PUENTE -OTHER 106,000
CITY-LAKEWOOD 2,892,000
CITY-LA VERNE 2,253,000
CITY-LAWNDALE 1,162,000
CITY-LA MIRADA 2,357,000
LA MIRADA -S. E. REC AND PARK 697,000
CITY-LOMITA 781,000
CITY-LOMITA -OTHER 102,000
CITY-LONG BEACH 32,031,000
CITY-LA CANADA-F 933,000
CITY-LANCASTER 5,179,000
CITY-LANCASTER -OTHER 175,000
CITY-LA HABRA HT 176,000
CITY-LOS ANGELES 473,601,000
F-6
Los Angeles, cont.
Entity Amount
CITY-LYNWOOD 3,313,000
CITY-MALIBU 1,021,000
CITY-MANHATTAN B 3,329,000
CITY-MAYWOOD 885,000
CITY-MONROVIA 3,202,000
CITY-MONTEBELLO 3,627,000
CITY-MONTEREY PK 4,065,000
CITY-NORWALK 3,758,000
NORWALK -S. E. REC AND PARK 752,000
CITY-PALOS VRD 484,000
CITY-PALMDALE 5,338,000
CITY-PALMDALE STREETLIGHT DIST 244,000
CITY-PARAMOUNT 2,587,000
CITY-PASADENA 21,460,000
CITY-PICO RIVERA 2,829,000
CITY-PICO RIVERA -OTHER 279,000
CITY-POMONA 11,017,000
CITY-POMONA -OTHER 25,000
CITY-RANCHO P V 1,693,000
CITY-REDONDO BCH 5,651,000
CITY-ROSEMEAD 2,276,000
CITY-ROSEMEAD -OTHER 225,000
CITY-ROLLING HLS 55,000
CITY-ROLL HLS ES 438,000
CITY-S FERNANDO 1,550,000
CITY-SAN DIMAS 1,583,000
CITY-SAN DIMAS -OTHER 275,000
CITY-SAN GABRIEL 2,303,000
CITY-SAN MARINO 859,000
CITY-SANTA CLARITA 7,832,000
STA CLRTA STREET LIGHT MAINT #2 475,000
Entity Amount
CITY-SANTA CLARITA LIBRARY 956,000
CITY-SANTA FE SP 3,683,000
CITY-SANTA MONIC 16,418,000
CITY-SIERRA MADR 545,000
CITY-SIGNAL HILL 839,000
CITY-SO EL MONTE 1,515,000
CITY-SOUTH GATE 3,434,000
CITY-SO PASADENA 1,763,000
CITY-TEMPLE CITY 1,499,000
CITY-TEMPLE CITY -OTHER 111,000
CITY-TORRANCE 14,494,000
CITY VERNON 2,794,000
CITY-WALNUT 1,095,000
CITY-WEST COVINA 5,289,000
CITY-W LAKE VILL 769,000
CITY-W LAKE VILL -OTHER 143,000
CITY-W HOLLYWOOD 6,885,000
W HOLLYWOOD LIGHTING MAINT
DIST
411,000
CITY-WHITTIER 4,023,000
ANTELOPE VY.-EAST KERN WATER
AGY
1,082,000
SANTA CLARITA VALLEY WATER-
CLWA
3,470,000
PALMDALE WATER DIST 327,000
THREE VALLEY MWD 454,000
SAN GABRIEL VAL MUN WATER
DIST
949,000
OTHER 9,383,000
TOTAL 2,415,008,000
F-7
Commercial Property Tax Reform
Estimated Allocation of Revenues 2021-22
Merced
Entity Amount
COUNTY GENERAL FUND 6,887,000
COUNTY FIRE 1,017,000
ATWATER CITY 590,000
ATWATER CITY FIRE 141,000
DOS PALOS CITY 59,000
GUSTINE CITY 54,000
MERCED CITY 2,173,000
MERCED CITY FIRE 13,000
LIVINGSTON CITY 427,000
LOS BANOS CITY 626,000
REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL 47,000
MOSQUITO ABATEMENT 238,000
CEMETARY DISTRICTS 117,000
WINTON LT 6,000
BLOSS HEALTHCARE DIST 41,000
WESTSIDE HOSPITAL 10,000
DELHI COUNTY WATER 7,000
HILMAR COUNTY WATER 12,000
SANTA NELLA CO WATER 17,000
WINTON SANITARY 6,000
DOS PALOS DRAINAGE 7,000
GUSTINE DRAINAGE 5,000
MERCED IRRIGATION DIS 316,000
OTHER 48,000
TOTAL 12,864,000
F-8
Commercial Property Tax Reform
Estimated Allocation of Revenues 2021-2022
ORANGE
Entity Amount
ORANGE CO GEN. FUND 126,735,000
ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY 8,486,000
O C FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 19,338,000
O C PARKS CSA 26 14,948,000
ANAHEIM CITY 19,453,000
ALISO VIEJO CITY 1,249,000
BREA CITY 3,997,000
BUENA PARK CITY 4,450,000
COSTA MESA CITY 10,015,000
COSTA MESA CITY -DISTRICTS 10,000
CYPRESS CITY 1,982,000
CYPRESS CITY -DISTRICTS 248,000
DANA POINT CITY 1,184,000
DANA POINT CITY -OTHER 607,000
FOUNTAIN VALLEY CITY 4,029,000
FULLERTON CITY 8,417,000
GARDEN GROVE CITY 6,609,000
GARDEN GROVE CITY -DISTRICTS 548,000
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY 10,550,000
IRVINE CITY 9,058,000
IRVINE CITY -DISTRICTS 678,000
LA HABRA CITY 3,097,000
LA PALMA CITY 632,000
LA PALMA CITY -DISTRICTS 13,000
LAGUNA BEACH CITY 3,046,000
LAGUNA BEACH CITY -DISTRICTS 301,000
LAGUNA HILLS CITY 1,130,000
LAGUNA HILLS CITY -DISTRICTS 300,000
LAGUNA NIGUEL CITY 1,330,000
LAGUNA NIGUEL CITY -DISTRICTS 913,000
LAGUNA WOODS CITY 426,000
LAKE FOREST CITY 2,133,000
LAKE FOREST CITY -OTHER 749,000
LOS ALAMITOS CITY 881,000
LOS ALAMITOS CITY -OTHER 80,000
MISSION VIEJO CITY 2,166,000
MISSION VIEJO CITY -OTHER 2,935,000
Entity Amount
NEWPORT BEACH CITY 11,650,000
ORANGE CITY 9,121,000
PLACENTIA CITY 1,911,000
PLACENTIA CITY -DISTRICTS 118,000
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CITY 1,094,000
SAN CLEMENTE CITY 3,136,000
SAN CLEMENTE CITY -OTHER 90,000
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO CITY 1,711,000
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO CITY -OTHER 158,000
SANTA ANA CITY 19,189,000
SANTA ANA CITY -OTHER 83,000
SEAL BEACH CITY 1,388,000
STANTON CITY 1,398,000
STANTON CITY -OTHER 201,000
TUSTIN CITY 3,678,000
TUSTIN CITY -DISTRICTS 313,000
VILLA PARK CITY 125,000
WESTMINSTER CITY 3,128,000
WESTMINSTER CITY -OTHER 414,000
YORBA LINDA CITY 1,991,000
YORBA LINDA CITY -OTHER 371,000
CYPRESS RECREATION AND PARK DIST 1,038,000
BUENA PARK LIBRARY DIST-GEN
FUND(FMR 704.01)
789,000
IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST 2,826,000
MIDWAY CITY SANITARY DIST-
GEN.FUND
691,000
MOULTON NIGUEL WATER DIST 3,014,000
ORANGE CO VECTOR CONTROL DIST 1,092,000
SANTA MARGARITA WATER DIST 484,000
O C FIRE AUTHORITY-GEN FUND 35,639,000
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 5,295,000
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT
AUTHORITY
2,744,000
OC SANITATION 20,809,000
OTHER 2,432,000
TOTAL 410,844,000
F-9
Commercial Property Tax Reform
Estimated Allocation of Revenues 2021-2022
Riverside
Entity Amount
COUNTY GENERAL PURPOSE 82,695,000
CO FREE LIBRARY 2,224,000
CO STRUCTURE FIRE PROTECTION 6,248,000
COUNTY -DISTRICTS 106,000
CITY OF BANNING 751,000
CITY OF BEAUMONT ANX 1,252,000
CITY OF BLYTHE ANX 415,000
CITY OF CALIMESA 222,000
CALIMESA CITY FIRE 147,000
CITY OF CANYON LAKE 167,000
CATHEDRAL CITY FIRE 330,000
CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY 1,138,000
CITY OF COACHELLA ANX 935,000
CITY OF CORONA 6,863,000
CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS 564,000
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ANX 1,473,000
CITY OF LA QUINTA 1,103,000
CITY OF HEMET BASIC AREA ANX 1,986,000
CITY OF INDIAN WELLS 257,000
CITY OF INDIO DS 2,807,000
CITY OF MORENO VALLEY 4,524,000
MORENO VALLEY FIRE 1,152,000
CITY OF MORENO VALLEY LIBRARY 318,000
CITY OF MURRIETA 2,095,000
CITY OF MURRIETA LIBRARY 183,000
CITY OF NORCO 802,000
CITY OF PALM DESERT 1,077,000
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 3,657,000
CITY OF PERRIS 2,374,000
CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE 687,000
CITY OF RIVERSIDE 11,062,000
CITY OF SAN JACINTO ANX 833,000
CITY OF TEMECULA 2,414,000
CITY OF MENIFEE 1,507,000
CITY OF MENIFEE FIRE PROTECTION 356,000
CITY OF WILDOMAR 568,000
Entity Amount
CITY OF WILDOMAR FIRE
PROTECTION
143,000
CITY OF EASTVALE 905,000
CITY OF EASTVALE FIRE PROTECTION 295,000
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY 2,433,000
RIV CO REGIONAL PARK & OPEN SP 685,000
FLOOD CONTROL 8,235,000
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS 121,000
RANCHO MIRAGE CSD FIRE 672,000
RANCHO MIRAGE CSD LIBRARY 280,000
CEMETERY DISTRICTS 418,000
CATHEDRAL CITY COMMUNITY
SERVICE
304,000
EDGEMONT COMMUNITY SERVICES 373,000
JURUPA COMMUNITY SERVICES 835,000
RUBIDOUX COMMUNITY SERVICES 520,000
MORENO VALLEY CS 338,000
COACHELLA FIRE PROTECTION 227,000
IDYLLWILD FIRE PROTECTION 167,000
MURRIETA FIRE 1,174,000
DESERT HOSPITAL 997,000
SAN GORGONIO PASS MEM HOSPITAL 175,000
BANNING LIBRARY DIST 76,000
BEAUMONT LIBRARY 110,000
CV MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTROL 787,000
NW MOSQUITO & VECTOR CNTL DIST 353,000
BEAUMONT CHERRY VALLEY REC & PK 130,000
DESERT RECREATION 545,000
JURUPA AREA REC & PK 177,000
VALLEY WIDE REC & PK 129,000
VALLEY SANITARY 243,000
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,714,000
CVWD 2,709,000
MISSION SPRINGS WTR DIST 241,000
IDYLLWILD CO WATER 120,000
F-10
Riverside, cont.
Entity Amount
DESERT WTR AGENCY 204,000
SAN GORGONIO PASS WTR AGENCY
DS
320,000
EMWD 4,232,000
ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER 762,000
LAKE HEMET MUNICIPAL WATER 79,000
WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER 2,943,000
CITY BEAUMONT -OTHER 140,000
RIV CORONA RESOURCE
CONSERVATION
156,000
RCWD 1,568,000
OTHER 550,000
TOTAL 182,877,000
F-11
Commercial Property Tax Reform
Estimated Allocation of Revenues 2021-22
Sacramento
Entity Amount
COUNTY -OTHER 56,000
SACRAMENTO WATER AGENC 447,000
COUNTY LIBRARY 1,122,000
COUNTY GENERAL 38,274,000
SACRAMENTO METRO FIRE 10,703,000
COSUMNES CSD 2,343,000
NATOMAS FIRE 374,000
PACIFIC-FRUITRIDGE FIRE 405,000
MISSION OAKS PARK 160,000
SUNRISE PARK 274,000
FULTON -EL CAMINO PAR 209,000
RIO LINDA-ELVERTA PARK 158,000
CORDOVA PARK 473,000
SOUTHGATE PARK 300,000
CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA 1,799,000
REGIONAL OCCUP CENTER 109,000
CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS 1,130,000
SACTO-YOLO MOSQUITO 986,000
CITY OF FOLSOM 2,636,000
CITY OF GALT 387,000
CITY OF ISLETON 25,000
CITY OF SACRAMENTO 19,519,000
CITY OF ELK GROVE 1,723,000
ELK GROVE CITY-LAGUNA 254,000
CITY OF FOLSOM SOUTH 50,000
DEV CENTER HANDICAPPED 139,000
OTHER 1,006,000
TOTAL 85,061,000
F-12
Commercial Property Tax Reform
Estimated Allocation of Revenues 2021-22
San Bernardino
Entity Amount
COUNTY GENERAL FUND 138,321,000
FLOOD CONTROL 10,844,000
COUNTY FREE LIBRARY 3,000,000
CITY OF ADELANTO 827,000
TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY 2,645,000
CITY OF BARSTOW 1,102,000
CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE 488,000
CITY OF CHINO 6,096,000
CITY OF CHINO HILLS 2,671,000
CITY OF COLTON 2,477,000
CITY OF FONTANA 7,012,000
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 550,000
CITY OF HIGHLAND 2,001,000
CITY OF LOMA LINDA 1,563,000
CITY OF HESPERIA 2,451,000
CITY OF MONTCLAIR 1,989,000
CITY OF NEEDLES 297,000
CITY OF ONTARIO 18,729,000
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 7,474,000
CITY OF REDLANDS 5,794,000
CITY OF RIALTO 6,345,000
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 11,477,000
Entity Amount
CITY OF TWENTYNINE PALMS 1,162,000
CITY OF UPLAND 4,367,000
CITY OF VICTORVILLE 5,471,000
CITY OF YUCAIPA 2,101,000
TOWN OF YUCCA VALLEY 984,000
FONTANA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 9,411,000
HESPERIA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1,293,000
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRICT 5,090,000
SAN BDNO CNTY FIRE PROTECT
DISTRICT
5,679,000
BARSTOW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 844,000
APPLE VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DIST 1,409,000
CHINO VALLEY INDEPENDENT FIRE DIST 3,851,000
CHINO BASIN WTR CONSERVATION DIST 836,000
INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY 9,782,000
SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNI WATER 2,915,000
WATER DISTRICTS 1,747,000
CSAs 1,182,000
OTHER 3,946,000
TOTAL 296,223,000
F-13
Commercial Property Tax Reform
Estimated Allocation of Revenues 2021-22
San Francisco
Entity Amount
GENERAL FUND 480,611,000
BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT 4,434,000
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
DIST.
1,462,000
TOTAL 486,507,000
F-14
Commercial Property Tax Reform
Estimated Allocation of Revenues 2021-22
San Joaquin
Entity Amount
COUNTY GENERAL 24,350,000
ROAD DISTRICTS 658,000
COUNTY LIBRARY 669,000
CEMETARY DISTRICTS 75,000
FIRE DISTRICTS 2,855,000
SJC FLOOD CONTROL 219,000
LIGHTING DISTRICTS 9,000
SJC MOSQUITO ABATEMENT 531,000
RECL.DISTRICTS 36,000
CSA/CSD 51,000
WATER DISTRICTS 113,000
IRRIGATION DISTRICTS 902,000
S J REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT 126,000
CITY OF ESCALON 208,000
CITY OF LODI 1,850,000
CITY OF MANTECA 1,545,000
CITY OF RIPON 335,000
CITY OF STOCKTON 6,379,000
CITY OF TRACY 2,071,000
CITY OF LATHROP 847,000
OTHER 48,000
TOTAL 43,877,000
F-15
Commercial Property Tax Reform
Estimated Allocation of Revenues 2021-22
San Diego County
Entity Amount
COUNTY GENERAL 147,281,000
COUNTY LIBRARY 3,642,000
COUNTY DISTRICTS -OTHER 66,000
PERMANENT ROAD DIVISION 10,000
COUNTY SERVICE AREA 255,000
SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT
214,000
ALPINE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 120,000
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS -OTHER 149,000
NORTH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT OF SD COUNT
510,000
LAKESIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 503,000
RANCHO SANTA FE FIRE PROTECTION
DIST. OF SD COUNT
347,000
SAN MIGUEL CONSOL.FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT
880,000
BORREGO SPRINGS FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT
103,000
NORTH COUNTY CEMETERY 162,000
CEMETERY DISTRICTS -OTHER 88,000
CARLSBAD CITY 6,516,000
CARLSBAD CITY 1973 ANNEX ORD
1147
265,000
CHULA VISTA CITY 4,849,000
CHULA VISTA CITY -OTHER 829,000
CORONADO CITY 2,785,000
DEL MAR CITY 281,000
EL CAJON CITY 2,890,000
ENCINITAS CITY 3,175,000
ENCINITAS CITY -OTHER 64,000
ESCONDIDO CITY 3,692,000
IMPERIAL BEACH CITY 521,000
LA MESA CITY 1,554,000
LEMON GROVE CITY 615,000
NATIONAL CITY 2,477,000
OCEANSIDE CITY -DIST 5,531,000
POWAY CITY 1,209,000
Entity Amount
POWAY CITY POWAY MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT
1,665,000
POWAY CITY -OTHER 203,000
SAN DIEGO CITY 79,741,000
SAN MARCOS CITY 1,835,000
SANTEE CITY 1,903,000
SOLANA BEACH CITY 879,000
SOLANA BEACH CITY -OTHER 54,000
VISTA CITY 3,674,000
GROSSMONT HEALTHCARE DISTRICT 684,000
PALOMAR HEALTH 2,092,000
TRI CITY HOSPITAL DISTRICT MAINT 1,078,000
SAN MARCOS FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT
855,000
VISTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 140,000
FALLBROOK PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT 148,000
SANTA FE IRRIGATION
LAN
122,000
VALLECITOS WATER DISTRICT 614,000
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT
428,000
OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT
151,000
OTAY WATER IMP DIST B -WATER
SERVICE
250,000
RAMONA MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT
417,000
RINCON DEL DIABLO MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT
124,000
PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT
251,000
CWA CITY OF SAN DIEGO 1,203,000
CWA VISTA IRRIGATION 120,000
OTHER 543,000
Total 290,757,000
F-16
Commercial Property Tax Reform
Estimated Allocation of Revenues 2021-22
SANTA BARBARA
Entity Amount
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY GENERAL 28,906,000
BUELLTON CITY PROPERTY TAX 359,000
CARP CITY 480,000
GOLETA CITY PROPERTY TAX 1,222,000
GUADALUPE CITY 145,000
LOMPOC CITY 883,000
SANTA BARBARA CITY 5,326,000
SANTA MARIA CITY 3,455,000
SOLVANG CITY 231,000
SB COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DIST 4,973,000
SB COUNTY FLOOD CNTRL/WTR CNSRV 301,000
SANTA MARIA FLOOD ZN 3 218,000
SOUTH COAST FLOOD ZN 2 856,000
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY WTR AGENCY 387,000
SANTA MARIA PUBLIC AIRPORT DIST 273,000
SANTA MARIA CEMETERY DIST 134,000
CARP/SUMMERLAND FIRE DIST 867,000
MONTECITO FIRE DIST 377,000
SANTA BARBARA MET TRANSIT DIST 136,000
GOLETA WEST SAN RUNNING 395,000
OTHER 1,025,000
Total 50,949,000
F-17
Commercial Property Tax Reform
Estimated Allocation of Revenues 2021-22
Santa Clara
Entity Amount
SANTA CLARA COUNTY 255,781,000
SANTA CLARA COUNTY LIBRARY 4,658,000
CAMPBELL 3,463,000
CUPERTINO 4,914,000
GILROY 2,891,000
LOS ALTOS 2,423,000
LOS ALTOS HILLS 341,000
LOS GATOS 2,932,000
MILPITAS 9,396,000
MONTE SERENO 111,000
MORGAN HILL 2,378,000
MOUNTAIN VIEW 18,624,000
PALO ALTO 20,940,000
SAN JOSE 76,867,000
SANTA CLARA 18,413,000
SARATOGA 1,272,000
SUNNYVALE 22,602,000
SARATOGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 318,000
CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 10,934,000
CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION ZONE NO. 1 349,000
LOS ALTOS HILLS COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 308,000
SOUTH SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT
303,000
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT
9,146,000
SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 19,431,000
EL CAMINO HOSPITAL 4,832,000
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT
2,449,000
CAMPBELL MUNICIPAL LIGHTING
DISTRICT
279,000
MOUNTAIN VIEW PARKING DISTRICT
NO.02
548,000
SANTA CLARA COUNTY IMPORTATION
WATER-MISC DISTRICT
6,473,000
OTHER 359,000
TOTAL 503,735,000
F-18
Commercial Property Tax Reform
Estimated Allocation of Revenues 2021-22
VENTURA
Entity Amount
COUNTY GENERAL FUND 40,497,000
COUNTY LIBRARY 480,000
FIRE PROTECTION DIST 12,397,000
County Flood 2,878,000
CONEJO REC & PK 2,277,000
PL VLY REC & PK 607,000
SIMI REC & PK 976,000
WATER DISTRICTS 57,000
VENTURA PORT 217,000
UNITED WTR CONS DIST 399,000
CITY CAMARILLO 1,379,000
CITY FILLMORE 425,000
CITY OJAI 288,000
CITY OXNARD 8,567,000
CITY PORT HUENEME 414,000
CITY SANTA PAULA 831,000
CITY SIMI VALLEY 2,435,000
CITY SIMI VALLEY -DISTRICTS 965,000
CITY THOUSAND OAKS 3,657,000
THOUSAND OAKS VRSD 180,000
CITY SAN BUENAVENTURA 5,056,000
CITY OF MOORPARK 729,000
CITY OF MOORPARK -DISTRICTS 31,000
CAMARILLO SAN M & O 131,000
CALLEGUAS MUN WTR 1,047,000
CASITAS MUN WTR 326,000
CAM LTE MAINT 245,000
T O CITY WIDE LTE ZN 1 266,000
VTA CO MAINT #1 T O 141,000
CAMARILLO HEALTH CARE 248,000
OTHER 418,000
TOTAL 88,564,000
F-19
1
Jesse Villalpando
From:Jesse Villalpando
Sent:Wednesday, September 23, 2020 4:40 PM
To:Jesse Villalpando
Subject:FW: I would like to go on record on Prop 15
Attachments:RPV CC (rev1).docx
From: Lannon Tanchum <lannon.tanchum@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 12:32 PM
To: John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: I would like to go on record on Prop 15
Honorable Mayor and City Councilors
Please see the attached for my concerns and analysis of Prop 15 and its detrimental impact on our City and our State.
I understand from Honorable Mayor Cruickshank that this matter will be raised at the October 1st meeting and I want to
be on record with my opposition and recommendation for the council.
Thank you
‐‐lan‐‐
G-1
Lannon Tanchum
Rancho Palos Verdes
September 14, 2020
The Honorable Mayor John Cruikshank and Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
RE: Proposition 15
Honorable Mayor and City Councilors
I write to you to urge you to defend the rights of the residents of RPV, whom you are
sworn to represent, against the mislabeled and misleading Prop 15. Proposition 15 is a
sly and pernicious attack on our rights as currently enshrined in the Constitution of
California as bolstered by the overwhelming passage (65%) in 1978 of Prop 13, to limit
the previous excesses of property tax increases. While Prop 15 purports to invest in our
“Schools and Communities First,” the misleading title of the Proposition, it would in fact
repeal part of Prop 13 and require all business property to be reassessed to market
value. This would result in tax increases to every business property owner ensuring they
pass the increase on to their customers. Even businesses that do not own the property
would be impacted by higher rents. The net impact would be higher prices, increases in
the already sky-high cost of living and likely further job losses in an economy already
devastated by the Covid pandemic. We need to protect our local businesses, many of
which are owned by residents, that have been serving our residents and providing local
property taxes to our city. Small and medium sized businesses are already at risk
because of COVID.
No doubt, you are being urged to find favor in this Proposition by many due to its
positioning as ‘for the children.’ However, keep in mind that no matter how well-funded
education is, (and it should be well-funded — there are other ways to do this which, as
our council, you should be investigating) if parents are poorer or jobless their childrens’
education remains at risk.
G-2
No doubt you will have been told that Prop 15 merely closes a loophole and that voters
never intended Prop 13 to apply to businesses. That is untrue. California has had a
Unified property tax role since the 1800’s. Prop 13 did not change that. In fact, Prop 8
on the same 1978 ballot the voters overwhelmingly approved Prop 13, was a so-called-
split roll tax and was roundly rejected by voters by 53%.
Finally, this is a thinly disguised assault on the very core of Prop 13. As you can see,
the wording of the measure lays the groundwork for full elimination of Prop 13. If the
argument is that commercial property market value is increasing faster than i ts tax-
assessed value and thus should be taxed at the market value why would that reasoning
not also be applied to the private property taxes in the near future? In fact, if you read
Section 2 — Findings, of the ballot measure and simply substitute ‘privat e property’ for
every mention of ‘commercial property’ you will see that this argument could just as
easily be (and no doubt will be) made for repealing Prop 13.
Furthermore, if the primary justification for the tax increase is for education — for School
and Community College funding — why is it that the first 60% of the taxes raised goes
to fund local governments and special districts and only then does the remaining
balance go to education?
City-data.com shows you govern over a city with a mean income o f $75,000.
Predictably, Measure PV, the largest bond in the state this year was resoundingly voted
down by 20 points. ‘Low taxes' are part of our city's mission statement and DNA as a
city. I urge you to pass a resolution in opposition of Prop 15 and use o ur mission
statement and resident sentiment as your guide.
I would be honored and appreciative to speak to any one of you on this matter.
Respectfully
Lannon Tanchum
G-3
1
Jesse Villalpando
From:Jesse Villalpando
Sent:Wednesday, September 23, 2020 4:42 PM
To:Jesse Villalpando
Subject:FW: Opposition to supporting Prop 15
From: William Patton [mailto:billpatton21@icloud.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2020 3:10 PM
To: Friends <bill@pattonsite.com>
Cc: Alanna Kennedy <akalannakennedy513@gmail.com>; Andrea Lewis <andrealewis23@yahoo.com>; Anna Gerts
<annagerts@yahoo.com>; Dave Armitage <armitagedavidd@gmail.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Aedyn
Tisine Lao <laojeweler@sbcglobal.net>; A SANDY <sandy@pattonsite.com>; Gores Ali Vicuna Vicuna
<avicuna@gores.com>; AC Plumbing Inc <ac_plumbinginc14@yahoo.com>; Alexander Cherniss x404
<chernissa@pvpusd.net>; Alexey Steele <flamebrush@yahoo.com>; Dr William Dillin Asst Nicole Welsch 7272 Wife
MaryAnn <wdillin@earthlink.net>; Jamie Rosenwald <avora@daltoninvestments.com>; John Cuello
<audiovideo23@gmail.com>; John Cruikshank <john@johncruikshank.us>; Jon & Kay Niemann
<jonniemann@hotmail.com>; Joseph Skarzenski “Joey” personal #3631 <jskarzenski@gores.com>; John & Tashia
Morgridge <morgridg@cisco.com>; Joe & Gillian Roebuck <joeroebuck@comcast.net>; John Schoenfeld
<john@jalexanderco.com>; Dr <John.Chretin@vca.com>; Dr Chris Zoumalan <czoumalan@gmail.com>; Dr Eric Millstein
Eric 6999 Mariana 8078 Practice Coordinator <mariana@millsteinorthopedics.com>; Dr David Bruyette
<david@anivive.com>; Dr David Aftergood Endocrinology <davidaftergood@hotmail.com>; Dave Emenhiser
<emenhiser@aol.com> <emenhiser@aol.com>; Dr David Kulber 8635 W. 3rd 990W <david.kulber@cshs.org>; Dr Jeff
Sherman <towergastro@gmail.com>; Dr Jeffrey Lulow <jmlulowphd@drlulow.com>; Dr Jo Cornell
<jorichholly@aol.com>; Bob & Fran Johnson <johnsonbobw@yahoo.com>; Dr Vernon Williams Off 7286 Wife Brenda
<vernon.williams@kerlanjobe.com>; Dr Vernon Williams Off 7286 Wife Brenda <vernon.williams@kerlanjobe.com>;
Mary Ann & Dr William Dillin <mdill4@aol.com>; J & C Trees San Pedro <trees@gmail.com>; John Schoenfeld
<john@jalexanderco.com>; Vicki Schoenfeld <queeniev@earthlink.net>; Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com>
<nelsongang@aol.com>; Barbara Culver <culverpve@cox.net>; Bryan Fried <bfried@visionairelighting.com>; Brian
Campbell <bssi.campbell@gmail.com>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; Bob & Laura McGaha
<macgfamily2004@yahoo.com>; Wine Bob Golbahar President Twenty Twenty Wine Merchants
<sales@2020wines.com>; Ty Bobit <bobit@cox.net>; Tony Rubino <docr10@aol.com>; Sam Rubino
<IAMSAMBINO@aol.com>; Sam Sim <ssim@cgemgmt.com>
Subject: Opposition to supporting Prop 15
Excellent Letter re
“Why Opposing Prop 15”
Let us NOT start the repeal of Prop 13!
Read and do pass along!
Bill & Sandy
From: David Cross <dvcross@dslextreme.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 2:55 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Opposition to City's support of Prop 15
G-4
2
To the Honorable PVE Mayor and PVE City Council Members -
We have been informed that certain community groups may have approached you to solicit your support for California Proposition 15
on behalf of the City of PVE.
If this is the case, we would like to express our ardent opposition to this course of action.
Proposition 15 would raise property taxes on virtually all commercial properties in our city, given the Proposition's paltry exemption
for exceptionally small properties. These increased taxes would almost certainly be passed along to the small businesses that rent
space in these commercial buildings.
These small businesses have already been severely impacted by operating restrictions and fall-off in customer volume due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, and many would likely be forced to either raise prices to non-competitive levels, or to go out of business
entirely as a result of such rent increases. At a time when the City is so desperately in need of revenue, it is difficult to understand why
the City would advocate actions which would eliminate the sales tax revenue that these businesses generate.
Furthermore, to the degree that this Proposition would make it more profitable for commercial property owners in the City to sell their
properties than continue to lease space in them, the recent zoning actions by the City would effectively guarantee that these properties
would be converted to ultra-high-density residential development, forever changing the character of the City, and placing even more
strain on the outdated City infrastructure that is barely adequate to handle the current population density.
For all of these effects on the City that this Proposition would engender (not to mention the statewide effects), we urge you to refrain
from taking any action in support of Proposition 15 in the name of the City of PVE.
Respectfully
David & Janis Cross
Via Coronel
G-5