Nearly four years after California courts determined Fresno voters approved a 30-year parks tax, a judge ruled on Friday that the taxpayers are only required to pay half of the demanded atorneys’ fees to social justice activist group Fresno Building Healthy Communities.
Fresno BHC – the lead litigant in overturning an assumed electoral defeat in November 2018 – had originally requested $600,000 in fees.
The backstory: The case involving Measure P went through the appellate court and eventually back down to Fresno County Superior Court.
- Measure P, a three-eighths of a percent tax increase designed to improve and build parks in the Valley’s largest city, was placed on the ballot in 2018 by activist groups including Fresno BHC and the Central Valley Community Foundation.
- Despite receiving 52% of the vote, the measure was deemed to have failed, as its plain language stated that it was required to meet the two-thirds majority threshold for approval.
- Fresno BHC later sued, arguing that citizen-initiated measures, like Measure P, only required a simple majority for approval, not the two-thirds majority typically needed for council-placed measures.
- Appellate justices – citing an earlier California Supreme Court decision – ultimately agreed with Fresno BHC’s interpretation, and Measure P took effect in 2021.
- The activist group then litigated payment of its attorneys fees from Fresno taxpayers.
Driving the news: In his ruling, Judge Robert Whalen concluded that Fresno BHC was entitled to some fees but not the full amount requested. Fresno City Attorney Andrew Janz commended the judge for his order, calling it a fair outcome. Fresno BHC did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
- Whalen noted out that Fresno BHC’s own attorneys were responsible for placing the two-thirds threshold requirement in the Measure P language twice, which influenced his decision on the attorney fees allocation. The judge concluded that without this error, the city would not have been compelled to take the stance it did, potentially avoiding the need for the litigation.
Taxpayer advocate stuck with the biggest bill: Whalen further addressed the involvement of the anti-tax advocate group Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) in the case.
- Despite being classified as an intervener, Whalen assigned 10% of the attorneys’ fees to the city and 90% to HJTA, agreeing with the city’s stance that HJTA significantly contributed to increased litigation costs.
- Shockingly, however, Fresno BHC and HJTA entered into an earlier agreement not to seek attorneys’ fees against each other, a decision that puzzled Fresno City Attorney Janz, who pointed out HJTA’s role in escalating litigation expenses. Due to that contract, Whalen denied granting a motion from the City to seek contribution of the fees from HJTA.
- The litigation between Fresno BHC and the City of Fresno was split into two cases, with Whalen’s ruling on attorney fees applied to the first case, referred to as “Fresno I,” where the city was ordered to pay $22,439 in fees. For the second case, known as “Fresno II,” the city owes $264,836 in attorneys’ fees along with $2,796 in court costs.
