Laserfiche WebLink
57 <br />(2) A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly <br />to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not <br />exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or <br />product. <br />(3) A charge imposed as a condition of property development. <br />(4) Assessments and property-related fees imposed in accordance with the <br />provisions of Article XIII D. <br />Property-Related Fees and Charges. Under Article XIIID, before a municipality may <br />impose or increase any property-related fee or charge, the entity must give written notice to the <br />record owner of each parcel of land affected by that fee or charge. The municipality must then <br />hold a hearing upon the proposed imposition or increase at least 45 days after the written notice <br />is mailed, and, if a majority of the property owners of the identified parcels present written protests <br />against the proposal, the municipality may not impose or increase the property-related fee or <br />charge. <br />Further, under Article XIIID, revenues derived from a property-related fee or charge may <br />not exceed the funds required to provide the “property-related service” and the entity may not use <br />such fee or charge for any purpose other than that for which it imposed the fee or charge. The <br />amount of a property-related fee or charge may not exceed the proportional cost of the service <br />attributable to the parcel, and no property-related fee or charge may be imposed for a service <br />unless that service is actually used by, or is immediately available to, the owner of the property in <br />question. <br />Initiative Power. In addition, Article XIIIC states that “the initiative power shall not be <br />prohibited or otherwise limited in matters of reducing or repealing any local tax, assessment, fee <br />or charge. The power of initiative to affect local taxes, assessments, fees and charges shall be <br />applicable to all local governments and neither the Legislature nor any local government charter <br />shall impose a signature requirement higher than that applicable to statewide statutory initiatives.” <br />Judicial Interpretation of Articles XIIIC and XIIID. After Proposition 218 was enacted in <br />1996, appellate court cases and an Attorney General’s opinion initially indicated that fees and <br />charges levied for water and wastewater services would not be considered property-related fees <br />and charges, and thus not subject to the requirements of Article XIIID regarding notice, hearing <br />and protests in connection with any increase in the fees and charges being imposed. However, <br />three subsequent court cases have held that certain types of water and wastewater charges could <br />be subject to the requirements of Article XIIID under certain circumstances. <br />In Richmond v. Shasta Community Services District (2004) 32 Cal.4th 409, the California <br />Supreme Court addressed the applicability of the notice, hearing and protest provisions of Article <br />XIIID to certain charges related to water service. In Richmond, the Court held that capacity <br />charges are not subject to Proposition 218. The Court also indicated in dictum that a fee for <br />ongoing water service through an existing connection could, under certain circumstances, <br />constitute a property-related fee and charge, with the result that a local government imposing <br />such a fee and charge must comply with the notice, hearing and protest requirements of Article <br />XIIID. <br />In Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Fresno (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 914, the <br />California Court of Appeal, Fifth District, concluded that water, sewer and trash fees are property- <br />related fees subject to Proposition 218 and a municipality must comply with Article XIIID before <br />8.A. - Page 71 of 255 <br />699