««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
School Services of California, Inc.
Community College Update
December 9, 1996
Copyright© 1996 by School Services of California, Inc.
««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»

Attorneys Conclude That Proposition 218
Does Not Threaten Existing Tax Levies

The LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae (LeBoeuf) law firm has kindly provided readers with a complete written opinion (see Attachment A) on the impact of Proposition 218, the constitutional initiative proposed by the Jarvis organization and entitled the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act." Of key importance, LeBoeuf opines in the writeup that there is no change in a school district's ability to "collect special taxes including special taxes comprising debt service ...."

This opinion eases the campaign rhetoric from a number of public agencies and legal professionals who expressed concern that Proposition 218 potentially gave authority to voters to repeal or reduce taxes even after an earlier two-thirds vote approving bonded indebtness. LeBoeuf concludes that voter-approved ad valorem or special taxes may not be withdrawn by subsequent action of the voters, since that action would impair existing contracts and is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

Thanks to Lisalee Wells at LeBoeuf who provided the writeup on Proposition 218 as a service to California school and community college districts.

&emdash; Ken Hall
[Posted 12/9/96]