AgdaPkt 2006-01-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7e- 6'6- property related or incidents of property ownership because they are based on consumption and not on property ownership. The Court had reached this conclusion previously in an earlier decision in the Bighorn case, but the California Supreme Court had directed the California Court of Appeal to reconsider its decision in light of the Richmond case mentioned above. The California Supreme Court has granted a petition for hearing in the Bighorn case. The City is unable to predict when the California Supreme Court will hear the case, or what the outcome of that hearing will be. Most recently, in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Fresno (March 23, 2005), the California Court of Appeal, Fifth District concluded that water, sewer and trash fees are property-related fees subject to Proposition 218 and must comply with Article XI liD. The California Supreme Court denied the City of Fresno's petition for review of the Court of Appeal's decision on June 15, 2005. Proposition 218 and the City's Water Service Charges] Since the passage of Proposition 218, the City has adopted water service charges increases nine times. The City did not consider these charges to be property-related fees and, accordingly, did not comply with Article XIIID notice requirements in connection with these increases. As described above under the caption "THE ENTERPRISE - "Current Water Rates, Fees and Charges - Water Rate Increases," the City has plans to increase water service charges, and, at this time, plans to comply with Proposition 218 in connection with such rate increases. Conclusion. The provisions of Proposition 218 have not been fully interpreted by the courts. The City is unable to predict how Article XIIIC and Article XIIID will be interpreted by the courts and what, if any, further implementing legislation will be enacted, and there can be no assurance that Article XIIIC and Article XIIID will not limit the ability of the City to impose, levy, charge and collect increased fees and charges for the Enterprise. Future Initiatives Article XIIIA, Article XIIIB and Proposition 218 were each adopted as measures that qualified for the ballot through California's initiative process. From time to time other initiative measures could be adopted, further affecting the City's revenues. OTHER INFORMATION Certain Legal Matters The validity of the Bonds and certain other legal matters are subject to the approving opinion of Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, LLP, Irvine, California, California, Bond Counsel. Certain matters will be passed upon for the Issuer by Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation, San Francisco, California, as Disclosure Counsel. Certain legal matters will be passed upon for the Authority and the City by the City Attorney. Payment of the fees and expenses of Bond Counsel and Disclosure Counsel is contingent upon the issuance of the Bonds. Bond Counsel has not undertaken any responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or fairness of this Official Statement or other offering materials relating to the Bonds and expresses no opinion relating thereto. 40