Coal. of Cnty. Unions v. L. A. Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors

93 Cal.App.5th 1367

311 Cal.Rptr.3d 710

COALITION OF COUNTY UNIONS, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, et al., Defendants and Appellants;

Re-Imagine Los Angeles County Coalition, et al., Intervenors and Appellants.

B314973

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

Filed July 28, 2023

As Modified July 31, 2023

Office of County Counsel, Peter M. Bollinger, Los Angeles, and Michael S. Buennagel ; Kendall Brill & Kelly, Laura W. Brill, Los Angeles, and David T. Freenock, for Defendants and Appellants.

Strumwasser & Woocher, Dale K. Larson, Fredric D. Woocher, Los Angeles, Salvador E. Perez, Los Angeles, and Julia Michel, for Intervenors and Appellants.

Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, Thomas W. Hiltachk, Sacramento, and Paul Gough, Sacramento, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

EDMON, P. J.

In November 2020, the voters of Los Angeles County (County) amended the County charter by enacting Measure J. The charter amendment adopted by Measure J requires the County Board of Supervisors (Board) to annually allocate at least 10 percent of the County's locally generated unrestricted revenues in the general fund to direct community investment (such as youth programs, job training, rental assistance, and affordable housing) and alternatives to incarceration (including health, mental health, and substance use disorder programs). The charter amendment also specifically prohibits Measure J funds from being allocated to any carceral system or law enforcement agency.

Immediately after Measure J's enactment, a coalition of County employee unions and two individuals filed a petition for a peremptory writ of mandate prohibiting the Board, the Los Angeles County Auditor (auditor), and the Los Angeles County Chief Executive Officer (CEO) from enforcing the charter amendment. The trial court granted the petition, concluding that the amendment would severely impair the County's ability to exercise essential government functions, including managing the County's budget and protecting public safety, which were matters of statewide concern.

We reverse. Article XI, section 4, subdivision (g) of the California Constitution provides that if a county has adopted a charter for its own governance, "the general laws adopted by the Legislature in pursuance of Section 1(b) of this article, shall, as to such county, be superseded by said charter as to matters for which, under this section it is competent to make provision in such charter, and for which provision is made therein, except as herein otherwise expressly provided." (Italics added.)

Such matters include "[t]he performance of functions required by statute" (id . art. XI, § 4, subd. (d) ( § 4 (d))) and "[t]he powers and duties of governing bodies and all other county officers" (id. , art. XI, § 4, subd. (e) ( § 4 (e))). Because the charter amendment enacted by Measure J defines a "power" (allocating locally generated unrestricted revenues) and a "duty" (directing 10 percent of such revenues to particular purposes) of the County's "governing bod[y]" (the Board)—and because it concerns "[t]he performance of functions required by statute" (adopting a budget)—it is a permissible exercise of the County's authority to amend its charter. Further, contrary to petitioners’ contentions, the amendment neither impairs the exercise of essential government functions nor violates state law. Measure J thus is enforceable, and we therefore will reverse the judgment granting the petition for writ of mandate.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Adoption of Measure J by Los Angeles County voters.

In July 2020, the Board adopted a resolution placing Measure J, a proposal to amend the Los Angeles County Charter (Charter), on the November 2020 ballot. Measure J asked County voters to decide whether the Charter should be amended to require the County to "annually allocat[e] in the County's budget no less than ten percent (10%) of the County's locally generated unrestricted revenues in the general fund to address the disproportionate impact of racial injustice through community investment and alternatives to incarceration and prohibit[ ] using those funds for carceral systems and law enforcement agencies as detailed in the ordinance adopting the proposed charter amendment."

The accompanying ordinance proposed amending article III, section 11 of the Charter as follows:

"It shall be the duty of the Board of Supervisors: [¶] ... [¶] (8) To allocate, in compliance with all laws and regulations, the County's locally generated unrestricted revenues in the general fund as follows:

"A. Set aside a baseline minimum threshold of at least ten percent (10%) of the County's locally generated unrestricted revenues in the general fund (Net County Cost), as determined annually in the budget process or as otherwise set forth in the County Code or regulations, to be allocated on an annual basis, after input from, among others, the public and County departments at a public hearing, for the following primary purposes:

"i. Direct Community Investment.

"1. Community-based youth development programs.

"2. Job training and jobs to low-income residents focusing on jobs that support the implementation of the ‘Alternatives to Incarceration’ workgroup recommendations as presented to the County Board of Supervisors on March 10, 2020, especially construction jobs for the expansion of affordable and supportive housing, restorative care villages, and a decentralized system of care.

"3. Access to capital for small minority-owned businesses, with a focus on Black-owned businesses.

"4. Rent assistance, housing vouchers and accompanying supportive services to those at risk of losing their housing, or without stable housing.

"5. Capital funding for transitional housing, affordable housing, supportive housing, and restorative care villages with priority for shovel-ready projects.

"ii. Alternatives to incarceration.

"1. Community-based restorative justice programs.

"2. Pre-trial non-custody services and treatment.

"3. Community-based health services, health promotion, counseling, wellness and prevention programs, and mental health and substance use disorder services.

"4. Non-custodial diversion and reentry programs, including housing and services.

"B. The set aside shall not be used for any carceral system or law enforcement agencies, including the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Los Angeles County Superior Courts, or Los Angeles County Probation Department, including any redistribution of funds through those entities. This restriction does not extend to State law requiring the County to fund court facilities and expenditures, including but not limited to, the Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002 (2002 Senate Bill No. 1732) and Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 (1997 Assembly Bill No. 233), other mandatory fines and fees, or any other County commitments to the extent required by law.

"C. The unrestricted revenues that are set aside shall phase in over a three-year period, beginning July 1, 2021, and incrementally grow to the full set-aside by June 30, 2024, pursuant to the procedures codified in the County Budget Act in the Government Code.

"D. The set-aside cannot supplant monies otherwise allocated for the same categories listed in Subsection (8)(A), as defined and set forth in the County Code or regulations.

"E. The Board of Supervisors shall establish an inclusive and transparent process on the allocation of funds set aside by this Subsection (8).

"F. Notwithstanding this Subsection (8), the Board of Supervisors may, by a four-fifths vote, reduce the set-aside in the event of a fiscal emergency, as declared by the Board of Supervisors, that threatens the County's ability to fund mandated programs."

On November 30, 2020, the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters certified that Measure J had been approved by the voters.

II. Petition for writ of mandate.

On December 8, 2020, the Coalition of County Unions¹ and two individual taxpayers (collectively, Coalition) filed a petition for writ of mandate against the Board, auditor, and CEO seeking to invalidate Measure J on the ground that the voters lacked constitutional and statutory authority to require the Board and County officers to take specific budget actions.

The Coalition asserted, first, that the matters that may be included in a county's charter are limited to those enumerated in article XI, section 4 of the State Constitution. Because "[n]o provision of article XI, section 4 authorizes a county charter to prescribe the duties of [a board of supervisors, auditor, or CEO] in connection with the county budget or the mandatory allocation of revenue to any specific county program," the Coalition urged that Measure J is unconstitutional. The Coalition further contended that the Board's specific powers and duties with respect to County budgets derive from the County Budget Act, Government Code ² section 29000 et seq. (County Budget Act). Pursuant to the County Budget Act, the Board, auditor, and CEO "each have a specific role in crafting and ultimately enacting the annual County budget." Measure J "conflicts with the powers and duties of" the Board, auditor, and CEO as set forth in the County Budget Act because Measure J requires the Board and these individuals to "comply with the dictates of Measure J, regardless of the public testimony ..., the requests of [the] department heads, ... [and] the [Board's] own determination of whether it deems the mandated expenditures advisable." Finally, the Coalition urged that Measure J seriously impairs the Board's exercise of its essential government function of managing the county's financial affairs and "unlawfully binds the hands of future Boards."

III. Answer and opposition to petition for writ of mandate.

The Board filed an answer and opposition to the mandate petition. First, it asserted that county charters are constitutionally permitted to address budgeting. Second,...