RICHARD J. RIDER et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO et al., Defendants and Appellants, 1 Cal. 4th 1

Opinion LUCAS, C. J. Introduction In this case we consider, among other issues, a question previously left open (see Los Angeles County Transportation Com. v. Richmond (1982) 31 Cal.3d 197, 208 [182 Cal.Rptr. 324, 643 P.2d 941] [hereafter Richmond}) regarding the validity of a taxation scheme enacted for the apparent purpose of avoiding the supermajority voter approval requirement imposed by a 1978 initiative measure (Prop. 13) with respect to any “special taxes” sought to be imposed by “cities, counties and special districts” (see Cal. Const., art. XIII A, § 4 [hereafter

section 4]). At issue here is the validity of a sales tax (retail transaction and use tax) imposed on sales occurring in San Diego County (hereafter the County) for the purpose of financing the construction and operation of criminal detention and/or courthouse facilities (hereafter justice facilities) for the County. We conclude the tax is invalid because it was not approved by at least two-thirds of the County’s voters, as required by

section 4. In 1987, in express recognition of the County’s need for improved courtrooms and jails, the Legislature passed

an act (Gov. Code, §§ 26250-26285) creating the San Diego County Regional Justice Facility Financing Agency (hereafter the Agency) and setting forth the Agency’s obligations.

Under the act, the Agency was charged with adopting a tax ordinance imposing a supplemental sales tax of one-half of 1 percent throughout the County for the purpose of financing the construction of justice facilities. (Id., §§ 26267, 26271-26275.) The act provided for a county wide election held for the purpose of approving the tax ordinance by simple majority vote. (Id., §§ 26271, 26273.) The act also provided that the Agency possesses no tax power other than the foregoing sales tax. (Id., § 26283.) At an election held in June 1988, the County’s voters approved the tax ordinance by a bare (50.8 percent) majority vote.

Plaintiffs, being County taxpayers, filed the present suit to challenge the validity of the tax. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 863.) As pertinent here, the complaint asserted the tax violated the supermajority vote requirements of both

section 4 and Government Code sections 53720-53730 (added by Prop. 62, discussed below). Prior to trial, the tax went into operation; tax revenues have been collected and accumulated pending final decision. The trial court found in plaintiffs/taxpayers’ favor, concluding the tax constituted a deliberate and unavailing attempt to circumvent

section 4 and its requirement of two-thirds voter approval of special taxes imposed by special districts such as the Agency. The Court of Appeal disagreed and reversed the trial court’s judgment declaring the tax invalid. The appellate court acknowledged that the act creating the Agency “gives the Agency no significant governmental discretion . . . with respect to how the tax revenues will be spent. In this case, it is distressingly clear that the Agency is nothing more than an empty shell through which the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego can exercise its discretion.” Nonetheless, deeming itself bound by Richmond, the Court of Appeal reasoned that

section 4 is inapplicable to districts such as the Agency which have no power to levy a property tax. The appellate court further concluded that application to the Agency of a similar statutory supermajority voter approval provision in Government Code

section 53722 would be improper as an attempted local tax referendum. As will appear, we conclude (1) the Court of Appeal erred in holding the provisions of

section 4 were inapplicable to the Agency’s tax, (2) the tax was invalid for failure to secure the requisite two-thirds voter approval, and (3) accordingly we need not reach the question of the effect, application, or validity of Government Code

section 53722. Discussion We have observed that

section 4, although written in permissive terms, was intended to circumscribe the taxing power of local government. (See, e.g., Richmond, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 201.) In pertinent part, the

section provides that “Cities, Counties and special districts, by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors of such district, may impose special taxes on such district, except ad valorem taxes on real property or a transaction tax or sales tax on the sale of real property within such City, County or special district.” As we stated in Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v.

State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 231 [149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281] (hereafter Amador), upholding the validity of Proposition 13, “since any tax savings resulting from the operation of sections 1 and 2 [the property tax rate and assessment limitations of the measure] could be withdrawn or depleted by additional or increased state or local levies of other than property taxes, sections 3 [providing that increased state taxes require legislative approval by a two-thirds vote] and 4 combine to place restrictions upon the imposition of such taxes.” In other words,

section 4’s restriction on local taxes is part of an “interlocking ‘package’ deemed necessary by the initiative’s framers to assure effective real property tax relief.” (Amador, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 231.) Plaintiffs’ primary argument is that the Court of Appeal’s decision herein undermines Proposition 13 by presenting cities, counties and other governmental entities with a ready means of avoiding its limitation on new taxes.

Richmond, supra, 31 Cal.3d 197, concerned the validity of a sales tax imposed by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC), an entity created in 1976 prior to the adoption of Proposition 13. The enabling act authorized LACTC to impose the tax once the measure was approved by a majority of the county’s voters; LACTC was not empowered to levy a tax on real property. After 54 percent of the voters approved the measure, the question arose whether the supermajority voter approval provision of

section 4 was applicable. We concluded it was not applicable. We focused on the subsidiary issue whether the LACTC was a “special district” within the meaning of

section 4. We found that term ambiguous, having been given varying

interpretations in prior cases and statutes. Stressing the “fundamentally undemocratic nature” of supermajority vote requirements (31 Cal.3d at p. 205), we resolved the ambiguity by applying to

section 4 a rule of strict construction in favor of upholding the tax. (Ibid.) We concluded that an agency lacking the power to impose a tax on real property could not be deemed a special district. (Id. at pp. 205-206.) Relying on portions of the voters’ pamphlet, we determined that Proposition 13 was aimed at property tax relief, and that

section 4 thereof was intended to restrict the ability of local taxing agencies to impose new taxes to replace the loss of property tax revenue arising from the tax rate and assessment restrictions of that measure.

The plurality opinion of Justice Mosk reasoned that “Since only those ‘special districts’ which levied property taxes could ‘replace’ the ‘loss’ of such taxes, these statements [in the voters’ pamphlet] imply that the ‘special districts’ referred to are those which are authorized to levy a property tax.” (Richmond, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 206; see also id. at pp. 208-209 [conc. opn. by Kaus, J.].) Because LACTC had no such power, it could not be deemed a “special district” within the meaning of

section 4. In dissent, Justice Richardson observed that the majority’s analysis in Richmond could be used to readily circumvent the supermajority vote requirement of

section 4 “by the simple creation of a district which is geographically precisely coterminous with a county, but which lacks its real property taxing power. . . . The majority has cut a hole in the financial fence which the people in their Constitution have erected around their government.

Governmental entities may be expected, instinctively, to pour through the opening seeking the creation of similar revenue-generating entities in myriad forms which will be limited only by their ingenuity.” (31 Cal.3d at p. 213 [dis. opn. by Richardson, J.].) The dissent took the position that the phrase “special district” applies to any governmental agency “formed ... for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited boundaries” (Gov. Code, § 50077, subd. (d) [implementing Prop. 13]).

As the dissent observed, LACTC sought to impose a sales tax to generate funds for ordinary public services that could as readily have been funded by a county real property tax, but for the limitations of Proposition 13. (31 Cal.3d at pp. 212-213 [dis. opn. by Richardson, J.].) Consequently, LACTC must be deemed a “special district.” In response to the dissent’s prediction of future circumvention of

section 4, the Richmond plurality stated, “We cannot assume that the Legislature will attempt to avoid the goals of

article XIII A by such a device. In any event, that problem can be dealt with if and when the issue arises. The legislation creating LACTC and granting it the power to levy only a sales tax antedated Proposition 13 by two years. Thus, there can be no claim here that the Legislature was attempting to evade the restrictions imposed by

section 4.” (31 Cal.3d at p. 208, italics added.) We reaffirmed the Richmond analysis in Huntington Park Redevelopment Agency v. Martin (1985) 38 Cal.3d 100, 106-107 [211 Cal.Rptr. 133, 695 P.2d 220].

Unlike the situation in Richmond, supra, 31 Cal.3d 197, in the present case the trial court expressly found that “Proposition 13 has been purposely circumvented” by the act which formed the Agency, in that the Agency “was created solely for the purpose of avoiding the strictures of Proposition 13.” In addition, as previously noted, the Court of Appeal deemed the Agency “an empty shell” used by the County to exercise its own fiscal discretion. The record amply supports those findings.

In 1985, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors began considering the possibility of a sales tax increase to obtain additional funds for the County’s justice facilities, and in 1986 legislation was passed (former Gov. Code, §§ 26250-26263) authorizing such a tax increase, and calling for the creation of a special county fund for administering and operating those facilities. An election was held in November 1986 to secure the voters’ two-thirds approval of the new sales tax, as required by

section 4. The measure failed, however, being supported by only 51 percent of the voters. Thereafter, as an alternative method of raising funds for the County’s justice facilities, the board of supervisors directed a local legislator to introduce legislation creating a “limited purpose special district” (the Agency) with limited tax powers, to impose a one-half cent sales tax increase upon approval by the County’s voters. The initial version of the bill named the County’s entire board of supervisors as the Agency’s board of directors.

The Legislative Counsel thereafter advised against creating such a close relationship between the Agency and the County, and the final version included only two county supervisors among the seven Agency directors. The County, however, retained substantial control over operations and expenditures, and the act required compliance with the County’s master plan. Territorially, the Agency’s boundaries are coterminous with the County’s. Although the Agency may hold title to land and facilities, it must convey title thereto to the County on request of the County’s board of supervisors.

After the tax scheme had been “approved” in June 1988 by 50.8 percent of the County voters, the Agency began operations, hiring several County employees for its staff and incurring expenses paid from funds advanced by the County. The tax went into effect on January 1, 1989. According to plaintiffs, approximately $200 million has been accumulated to date; it is anticipated that $1.6 billion in revenues will be raised during the Agency’s 10-year term. Having found that the Agency was created to circumvent Proposition 13, and that the Agency is properly deemed a “special district” under

section 4, the trial court further found that the Agency’s proposed sales tax is a “special tax” under that

section because the tax proceeds were not to be spent for general County purposes but for the special and limited purposes of constructing and operating the County’s justice facilities. (See City and County of San Francisco v. Farrell (1982) 32 Cal.3d 47, 57 [184 Cal.Rptr. 713, 648 P.2d 935].) As previously indicated, the Court of Appeal considered Richmond controlling and did not reach the special tax issue. We consider both issues. 1. Special District We conclude that the Agency must be deemed a “special district” under

section 4, despite its lack of power to levy a tax on real property. To hold otherwise clearly would create a wide loophole in Proposition 13 as feared by the dissent in Richmond. As we explained in Amador, the evident purpose of

section 4 was to “assure effective real property relief” by imposing restrictions on “additional or increased state or local levies other than property taxes . . . .” (22 Cal.3d at p. 231.) Richmond, supra, 31 Cal.3d 197, 205-206, makes

section 4 inapplicable to special taxes levied by local districts which, prior to the passage of Proposition 13, lacked the power to levy real property taxes. The Court of Appeal decision herein would extend Richmond to any local district or agency, whenever created, which lacks such power, even if purposefully formed for the sole purpose of circumventing

section 4. We are convinced the framers of, and voters for, Proposition 13 did not intend that

section 4 be construed in such a manner. As the Court of Appeal herein acknowledged, plaintiffs/taxpayers are correct in observing an “increase in the number of revenue-generating governmental entities which lack the power to assess property taxes. . . . [T]here are now numerous ‘justice facility financing agencies’ (such as the Agency herein) which have been given life by the state Legislature [citing provisions for creating such facilities in seven other counties]. Further, . . . a generalized provision (Rev. & Tax.

Code, § 7285.5) . . . permits ‘rural’ counties ... to establish ‘an authority for specific purposes’ with the power to assess a sales tax (a transaction and use tax) of one-half of one percent (0.5 %).” (We note that in 1990, the procedures authorized by the foregoing

section were extended to all counties.) In addition, plaintiffs/taxpayers note that the Legislature has authorized the counties to create special transportation districts, funding their programs exclusively through increased sales taxes (e.g., Pub. Util. Code, §§ 131000 et seq., 180000 et seq.). But for the potential implications of our holding in Richmond, the counties arguably would be required to obtain two-thirds voter approval to fund such projects.

The Agency and the County cite cases supporting the general rule that the possible improper motivations of the Legislature or its members in passing legislation are immaterial to questions involving the validity of such legislation. (E.g., County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 721, 726-727 [119 Cal.Rptr. 631, 532 P.2d 495].) They further doubt that plaintiffs/taxpayers have demonstrated any improper legislative intent in creating the Agency, and they dispute plaintiffs’ suggestion that the Agency is merely the “alter ego” of the County.

As previously indicated, the record amply supports the trial court’s finding of “purposeful circumvention.” But we are less concerned here with the factual support for the trial court’s finding than with the probable intent of the framers of

section 4 of Proposition 13. We must attempt to determine whether the framers, in using the term “special district,” intended to adopt a definition that could so readily permit circumvention of

section 4. The fact that, following Richmond, supra, 31 Cal.3d 197, numerous “special purpose” districts were created to accomplish aims comparable to LACTC strongly indicates a large “hole” has indeed been created in Proposition 13, confirming Justice Richardson’s prediction. In our view, the framers of Proposition 13, and the voters who adopted it, would not have intended that result.

It seems evident that Richmond's limitation of the term “special district” to those districts possessing property tax power is unworkable as applied to districts formed after the adoption of Proposition 13, because to our knowledge no such agencies possess that power. With limited exceptions, only counties are empowered to levy the 1 percent maximum property tax allowed by Proposition 13. (See Rev. & Tax. Code, former § 2237, now § 93, subd. (a); Carman v.

Alvord (1982) 31 Cal.3d 318, 331 [182 Cal.Rptr. 506, 644 P.2d 192].) In other words, as a practical matter, the proposed extension of Richmond to all districts, whenever created, which lack property tax power would read

section 4’s reference to “special districts” out of existence as applied to districts formed after 1978. As the plurality opinion in Richmond explained,

section 4 of Proposition 13 was intended to restrict the ability of local governments to impose new taxes to replace property tax revenues lost under the other provisions of that measure. (See 31 Cal.3d at p. 206.) This intent would be frustrated if cities and counties were nonetheless permitted to arrange for the formation of local taxing districts to finance municipal functions without securing the requisite two-thirds voter approval.

Thus, we hold that “special district” would include any local taxing agency created to raise funds for city or county purposes to replace revenues lost by reason of the restrictions of Proposition 13. In the present case, the evidence that the Agency was created to raise funds for county purposes and thereby circumvent Proposition 13 is strong. In future cases, however, marshalling such evidence of intentional circumvention may be difficult.

Thus, we believe that courts may infer such intent whenever the plaintiff has proved the new tax agency is essentially controlled by one or more cities or counties that otherwise would have had to comply with the supermajority provision of

section 4. In determining whether such control exists, a variety of considerations may be relevant, including the presence or absence of (1) substantial municipal control over agency operations, revenues or expenditures, (2) municipal ownership or control over agency property or facilities, (3) coterminous physical boundaries, (4) common or overlapping governing boards, (5) municipal involvement in the creation or formation of the agency, and (6) agency performance of functions customarily or historically performed by municipalities and financed through levies of property taxes.

The “essential control” standard posited above is not necessarily the functional equivalent of the “alter ego” theory used to “pierce the corporate veil” for purposes of imposing liability on the individual shareholders. (See, e.g., Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 300-301 [216 Cal.Rptr. 443, 702 P.2d 601].) Rather than attempting to demonstrate that the subject agency and county are identical entities, application of the “essential control” test simply affords ground for reasonably inferring an intent to circumvent Proposition 13. Vanoni v.

County of Sonoma (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 743, 748-751 [115 Cal.Rptr. 485], serves as an instructive analogous precedent. There, the appellate court considered whether a water district should be deemed the alter ego of a county for purposes of applying the constitutional debt limitation applicable to cities, counties and school districts, but not to water districts. (Cal. Const., former art. XIII, § 40; see id., art.

XVI, § 18.) The court observed that although the county and water district shared common boundaries, governing boards, citizens and taxable property, and the district was performing functions traditionally performed by counties (40 Cal.App.3d at pp. 748-749), the district remained a separate legal entity not subject to the debt limitation in the absence of a showing “the entity subject to the limitation [i.e., the county] controlled the decision to incur the debt or levy the tax.” (Id. at p. 750, italics added.) As Vanoni concluded, “Although the Sonoma Water District may be performing functions traditionally performed by counties, appellants have offered no evidence, beyond the fact that the same individuals sit on the governing boards of both the county and the water district, that Sonoma County exercises actual control over the actions of the district.

The fact that the same individuals are members of both boards is not sufficient to establish that control. [Citation.]” (Vanoni v. County of Sonoma, supra, 40 Cal.App.3d at pp. 750-751, italics added.) We agree with Vanoni that common governing boards do not invariably indicate county control, but certainly that fact is relevant to the inquiry. The determination whether a city or county essentially controls a taxing agency is one that necessarily must be made on a case-by-case basis, using the criteria suggested above.

We are unconvinced that application of the “essential control” standard would necessarily jeopardize all taxing agencies created since 1978. As plaintiffs observe, the statutes establishing such agencies and providing for the adoption of tax ordinances typically contain strict time limitations governing commencement of litigation challenging their validity. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 26282 [pertaining to the San Diego County agency involved herein]; Code Civ.

Proc., §§ 860 [in rem validation procedure], 863 [60-day statute of limitations for challenging validity of agency action].) Unlike curative acts, which generally are unable to cure constitutional defects (see Hoffman v. City of Red Bluff (1965) 63 Cal.2d 584, 592 [47 Cal.Rptr. 553, 407 P.2d 857]; Aughenbaugh v. Board of Supervisors (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 83, 90-91 [188 Cal.Rptr. 523]), such statutes of limitations are deemed within legislative power to provide a prompt validating procedure for asserting such challenges (see Rand v. Bossen (1945) 27 Cal.2d 61, 64-67 [162 P.2d 457]; Graydon v.

Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 631, 645-646 [164 Cal.Rptr. 56]). Thus, although we do not decide the point here, some tax districts, and the taxes they have collected, may be unaffected by our holding. We likewise leave open the question of a possible prospective application of our holding to agencies other than the Agency involved herein. The issue of prospectivity involves difficult constitutional and policy considerations largely unbriefed in this case.

In addition, resolution of the prospectivity issue may depend on a variety of case-specific factors, including the degree of hardship or other adverse consequences that would result from a retroactive application of our holding in a particular setting. Under these circumstances, we believe that any blanket pronouncement on the prospectivity issue at this time would be inappropriate. 2. Special Tax The conclusion that the Agency is a “special district” under

section 4 does not end our analysis, for by its terms that

section is applicable only to “special taxes” imposed by cities, counties and special districts. The Agency urges us to hold that its sales tax is a general tax because its revenues are not earmarked for any special purposes within the Agency, but are to be placed in the Agency’s general fund for “the general governmental purposes of the agency . . . .” (See Gov.

Code, § 26272.) As we explain, consistent with the trial court’s conclusion, we hold that a special tax is indeed involved here: tax revenues are being collected for the special and limited governmental purposes of constructing and operating the County’s justice facilities (see id., § 26267 [outlining the Agency’s specific duties]). The Court of Appeal did not reach the issue. In City and County of San Francisco v. Farrell, supra, 32 Cal.3d 47 (Farrell), we addressed the meaning of the phrase “special taxes” in

section 4. The City and County of San Francisco (the City) had imposed a payroll and general receipts tax, the proceeds of which were to be placed in the City’s treasury to be used for general governmental expenditures. Because the tax had been approved by a mere majority of the City’s voters, a question arose as to the application of

section 4. The Farrell majority observed that “special taxes” was an ambiguous term that has been given varying

interpretations, but that applying settled interpretive principles (including Richmond's rule of strict construction), the term as used in

section 4 means “taxes which are levied for a specific purpose rather than, as in the present case, a levy placed in the general fund to be utilized for general governmental purposes." (32 Cal.3d at p. 57, italics added.) Because the City’s payroll tax revenues were to be used for general City expenses, the tax was deemed a “general” one beyond the reach of

section 4.

Justice Richardson again dissented, believing the majority “widens still further the hole which they have cut in that protective fence which the people of California thought they had constructed around their collective purse” by adopting Proposition 13. (Farrell, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 57 [dis. opn. by Richardson, J.]; see also id. at pp. 58-59 [dis. opn. by Kaus, J., construing “special taxes” to mean “ ‘new,’ ‘additional,’ or ‘supplemental’ taxes which are enacted to replace tax revenue lost as a result of Proposition 13’s limitation on the property tax”].) Justice Richardson observed the Farrell rationale would allow a municipality to recover completely any property tax revenues lost under Proposition 13 merely by enacting an alternative form of taxation, the revenues of which being earmarked for general governmental purposes. (Id. at p. 58 [dis. opn. by Richardson, J.].) We believe the Farrell, supra, 32 Cal.3d 47, rationale does not extend to limited purpose agencies such as the Agency herein.

To hold that a tax cannot be deemed a “special tax” if revenues thereof are deposited in the taxing agency’s general fund pulls any remaining teeth from

section 4’s restriction on special taxes. As previously indicated, the trial court applied Farrell’s test and nonetheless concluded that the Agency’s sales tax was indeed a “special tax” because its revenues were earmarked for the specific purpose of funding the County’s justice facilities, and not for “general governmental purposes.” The Agency and the County argue, however, that because the Legislature expressly designated the Agency’s tax as a “general tax” (Gov. Code, § 26251; see Methodist Hosp. of Sacramento v.

Saylor (1971) 5 Cal.3d 685, 692 [97 Cal.Rptr. 1, 488 P.2d 161] [presumption favoring legislative construction of Constitution]), and because the sales tax revenues are to be used for the Agency’s “general governmental purposes” (Gov. Code, § 26272), the tax should be deemed a general tax, exempt from the restrictions of

section 4. Again, if we are to preserve the spirit, if not the letter, of Proposition 13, we must disagree. First, with respect to defendants’ reliance on the Legislature’s designation of the tax as a “general tax,” such nomenclature is of minor importance in light of the realities underlying its adoption and its probable object and effect. (See Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc. v. Johnson (1939) 13 Cal.2d 545, 550 [90 P.2d 572] [legislative designation of nature of tax entitled to “some weight” but not conclusive].) The statute at issue was undoubtedly drafted with

section 4 and Farrell’s (supra, 32 Cal.3d 47) holding firmly in mind. Nor can we accept defendants’ “general fund” argument. It is undisputed that if the County had directly adopted the tax in question, earmarking its revenues for the special, limited purpose of financing the County’s justice facilities, it would have been deemed a “special tax” under Farrell. As plaintiffs observe, it would be anomalous if the “special” tax of one agency could so readily become the “general” one of another. Under defendants’ proposed test, the Legislature could readily avoid

section 4’s supermajority voter approval requirement by simply creating a local taxing agency to accomplish a specific, narrow governmental purpose (e.g., lifeguard towers for county beaches), and provide that tax revenues shall be deposited in the agency’s “general fund” for the “general governmental purposes” of that agency. A more reasonable

interpretation of

section 4, consistent with Farrell's (supra, 32 Cal.3d 47) guidelines, is that a “special tax” is one levied to fund a specific governmental project or program, such as the construction and financing of the County’s justice facilities. It is true that, under the foregoing principle, every tax levied by a “special purpose” district or agency would be deemed a “special tax.” But this

interpretation seems most consistent with the probable intent of the framers of Proposition 13. 3. Proposition 62 In addition to their arguments under Proposition 13, plaintiffs/taxpayers contended that the Agency’s tax is an invalid “special tax” under the supermajority voter approval provisions of Proposition 62, a statutory initiative measure adopted in 1986. Because we hold that the Agency’s sales tax offends Proposition 13, we (like the trial court herein) need not reach plaintiffs’ alternative arguments under Proposition 62. 4.

Subsidiary Objections to Trial Court Order The Agency, the County, and some amici curiae, including the State Board of Equalization, have raised on appeal several additional issues regarding uncertain or questionable aspects of the trial court’s order, including its award of attorney fees, its remedy of reducing the County’s combined sales tax rate and enjoining further tax collection, its failure to provide for distribution of sales taxes already collected, and its determination of the County’s liability for the Agency debts incurred in contravention of the court’s order.

The Court of Appeal passed on none of these subsidiary issues, and it is appropriate that we remand for an initial determination thereof by that court, consistent with our opinion. Conclusion We are sympathetic to the plight of local government in attempting to deal with the ever-increasing demands for revenue in the post-Proposition 13 period, and we are especially reluctant to interfere with sorely needed projects for new and improved courtrooms, criminal detention facilities, and other justice facilities.

Yet Proposition 13 and its limitations on local taxation are constitutional mandates of the people which we are sworn to uphold and enforce. Any modification of these mandates must come from the people who, by constitutional amendment, may adopt such changes by a simple majority vote. (Cal. Const., art. XVIII, § 4.) The judgment of the Court of Appeal validating the Agency’s tax levy is reversed and that court is directed to resolve any remaining appellate contentions of the Agency and the County consistent with our opinion. Arabian, J., Baxter, J., and George, J., concurred.