Riverside city’s transfer of money from the electric utility fund to the city’s general fund was approved by appellate court July 25.
The appellate ruling established that Measure C, which confirmed the practice in November 2021 with 16,127 yes votes to 13,455 no votes, was voted on during the proper election, in accordance with California tax law.
The city has transferred the funds since 1907, according to the appellate ruling. The transfer was responsible for $40 million of revenue, or 3.5% of the city’s annual budget, according to a city attorney report.
Suits timeline
In 2018, the city was sued in Parada v. City of Riverside (RIC1818642). Plaintiffs argued that the transfer was a tax not approved by voters in a general election, as required by California law. Riverside and Parada settled that lawsuit with an agreement that the transfer would be put before voters in the November 2021 election.
Riversiders Against Increased Taxes (RAIT) sued the city on Sept. 9, 2021, arguing that the November 2021 election was a special election, not a general election as required for tax measures.
On Nov. 15, 2021, Riverside Superior Judge Harold Hopp issued a preliminary injunction that stopped the city from certifying the results of the measure.
On April 25, 2022, the court ruled that the measure was decided in a special election in violation of California’s tax law, as RAIT argued, but that it could not alter the election results due to the separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches.
Both Riverside and RAIT appealed.
General election
The Court of Appeal found through review of conflicting segments of Riverside city charter, tax reform measure Proposition 218 and California’s Elections Code that the election was a general election. The court found that true under both the charter and the Elections Code.
“In this case, the City recognized that, as a general tax, the charter amendment relating to the transfer of revenue from the municipal utility to the general fund required placing the matter before the voters at a ‘regularly scheduled election.’ This, the City did, complying with Proposition 218,” the ruling said.
Removal from the ballot
RAIT argued that Hopp should have removed Measure C from the ballot.
The appellate court found that question moot, since the election was appropriate, and that RAIT forfeited its claim by waiting too long to file its suit.
“However, RAIT had multiple opportunities prior to the election to object, so it was within RAIT’s power to prevent the matter from becoming moot by objecting to the continuance that was ordered on September 24, 2021. Instead, after both parties submitted, the trial court recognized the need ‘to get this heard sooner rather than later’ but went on to state there was no emergency requiring that it be heard before the election date,” the ruling said.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Michael Raphael wrote that the majority opinion placed an improper burden on cities.
“The majority opinion adds a requirement, not derived from the constitutional text, that the tax vote be consolidated not just with a regularly scheduled local government election, but one occurring on the date of a ‘statewide general election.’ It does not appear that a statewide general election occurred on November 2, 2021. I reach the same result as the majority because there is no such requirement,” Raphael wrote.
Case information
Chad Morgan of his own law office represented RAIT.
City Attorney Phaedra Norton, Assistant City Attorney Susan Wilson represented the city.
Riverside Superior Judge Harold Hopp presided.
Case No. CVRI2104120
Appellate Case No. E078961
Read the ruling here.
Read prior coverage:
Measure C: Riverside Superior halts Certification of election results
Riverside city loses $40 million in annual budget after court ruling
