AgdaPkt 2007-04-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8e Page 58 connection charges are not subject to Proposition 218. The Court also indicated in dictum that a fee for ongoing water service through an existing connection could, under certain circumstances, constitute a property-related fee and charge, with the result that a local government imposing such a fee and charge must comply with the notice, hearing and protest requirements of Article XIIID. 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 a municipality must comply with Article XIIID before imposing or increasing such fees. The California Supreme Court denied the City of Fresno's petition for review of the Court of Appeal's decision on June 15, 2005. In July 2006 the California Supreme Court, in Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. \/erjil (8127535, July 24, 2006), addressed the validity of a local voter initiative measure that would have (a) reduced a water agency's rates for water consumption (and other water charges), and (b) required the water agency to obtain voter approval before increasing any existing water rate, fee, or charge, or imposing any new water rate, fee, or charge. The court adopted the position indicated by its statement in Richmond that a public water agency's charges for ongoing water delivery are "fees and charges" within the meaning of Article XIIID, and went on to hold that charges for ongoing water delivery are also "fees" within the meaning of Article XIIIC's mandate that the initiative power of the electorate cannot be prohibited or limited in matters of reducing or repealing any local tax, assessment, fee or charge. Therefore, the court held, Article XIIIC authorizes local voters to adopt an initiative measure that would reduce or repeal a public agency's water rates and other water delivery charges. (However, the court ultimately ruled in favor of the water agency and held that the entire initiative measure was invalid on the grounds that the second part of the initiative measure, which would have subjected future water rate increases to prior voter approval, was not supported by Article XIIIC and was therefore invalid.) The court in Bighorn specifically noted that it was not holding that the initiative power is free of all limitations; the court stated that it was not determining whether the electorate's initiative power is subject to the statutory provision requiring that water service charges be set at a level that will pay for operating expenses, provide for repairs and depreciation of works, provide a reasonable surplus for improvements, extensions, and enlargements, pay the interest on any bonded debt, and provide a sinking or other fund for the payment of the principal of such debt as it may become due. Current Practice Regarding Rates and Charges. The City's practice in implementing increases in water and wastewater rates and charges is to mail notices of rate increases at least 45 days before a public hearing in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 218. Conclusion. It is not possible to predict how courts will further interpret Article XIIIC and Article XIIID in future judicial decisions, and what, if any, further implementing legislation will be enacted. Under the Bighorn case, local voters could adopt an initiative measure that reduces or repeals the City's rates and charges, though it is not clear whether (and California courts have not decided whether) any such reduction or repeal by initiatIve would be enforceable in a situation in which such rates and charges are pledged to the repayment of bonds or other indebtedness, as is the case with respect to the 2007 Bonds. 43