AgdaPkt 2002-07-01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Throughout the process, they have repeatedly Some highlights of actions as of Wednesday night, deferred the discussion of revenue enhancements, such June 12: as reinstatement of the Vehicle License Fee (VLF), until · Booking fees - fully funded. all potential budget cuts have been decided, and they · COPS and Juvenile Justice Prevention Programs can determine how close to balancing the budget they - BOTH fully funded, are. And, although some items have ostensibly been · Funded State Mandates - voted on individually; "decided", there is still the option to re-open items in the committee members are agreeing with the either the Conference Committee or when debated in the full Assembly and Senate if either side determines Governor's proposar to defer payments on most items. They also voted to adopt trailer bill language that further adjustments need to be made. The final that would amend some of the funded state debate is expected to be a heated one with the Republi- cans opposing any tax increases, and the Democrats mandate policies. (See the Budget Update on the stressing the need for revenue enhancements like League's website for details: wwv.cacities.oro_/ those in the Governor's proposal, bud_oetupdate. ) · Williamson Act- funded, STORM DRAINAGE FEES REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAl. A recent decision by the California Court of Appeal Property owners who maintained their own storm water states that Proposition 218 requires voter approval of the management facilities or only partially contributed to the storm drainage fee imposed by the City of Salinas. In city's storm drainage facilities paid a fee proportional to award Jarws Taxoayer s Association v. C~ty of'$alinas, their use of the city service. Undeveloped parcels were not the court declared that the city's storm drainage fee is a subject to the storm drainage fee. property-related fee that is not exempt from the voter approval requirements of Proposition 218 since it is neither The Court's Analysis a sewer" nor a "water" fee. However, the outcome of the case may not be final. The city may ask the California Proposition 218 provides that, except for fees or Supreme Court to review the decision or dectare that it charges for sewer, water, and refuse collection services, no cannot be cited as precedent in future cases. On June 28,property-related fee or charge can be imposed or increased the League s Legal Advocacy Camm'tree wi consider without approval by a ma_iority vote of the property whether to submit a friend-of-the-court brief in support of owners of the property subject to the fee or charge. The the city. city argued that the fee was a user fee, not property-related fee, because it is possible to own property without being Case Background subject to the fee and because the amount of the fee was based on the use of the storm drainage system. The court In 1999, the city council enacted two ordinances that disagreed. The court said that the fee was imposed on imposed a fee to finance the improvement of storm and property, and that a property owner did not have the surface water management facilities. These improvements ability to avoid, or "opt-out" of the fee by declining the were needed in order to comply with the federal Clean service. The court also said that the storm drainage fees did Water Act. The fee was imposed on "each and every not fall under the definition of sewer or water fees that are developed parcel of land" as well as the owners and occupi- exempt from Proposition 218's voter approval requirement, ers of that land, The fee was calculated based on the runoff the property contributed to the city's drainage facilities, ~ontinued on page 5 IOur Mission I Restore and protect Ioca/control for cities n~rough e~ucation and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians. PAGE 2/PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Official Web Site--www.cacities.org