21 ATTACHMENT 3 - Laserfiche WebLink

75 (2) A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product. … (6) A charge imposed as a condition of property development. (7) Assessments and property-related fees imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII D.” Property-Related Fees and Charges. Under Article XIIID, before a municipality may impose or increase any property-related fee or charge, the entity must give written notice to the record owner of each parcel of land affected by that fee or charge. The municipality must then hold a hearing upon the proposed imposition or increase at least 45 days after the written notice is mailed, and, if a majority of the property owners of the identified parcels present written protests against the proposal, the municipality may not impose or increase the property-related fee or charge. Further, under Article XIIID, revenues derived from a property-related fee or charge may not exceed the funds required to provide the “property-related service” and the entity may not use such fee or charge for any purpose other than that for which it imposed the fee or charge. The amount of a property-related fee or charge may not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel, and no property-related fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or is immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. Initiative Power. In addition, Article XIIIC states that “the initiative power shall not be prohibited or otherwise limited in matters of reducing or repealing any local tax, assessment, fee or charge. The power of initiative to affect local taxes, assessments, fees and charges shall be applicable to all local governments and neither the Legislature nor any local government charter shall impose a signature requirement higher than that applicable to statewide statutory initiatives.” Judicial Interpretation of Article XIIID. After Proposition 218 was enacted in 1996, appellate court cases and an Attorney General opinion initially indicated that fees and charges levied for water and wastewater services would not be considered property-related fees and charges, and thus not subject to the requirements of Article XIIID regarding notice, hearing and protests in connection with any increase in the fees and charges being imposed. However, three recent cases have held that certain types of water and wastewater charges could be subject to the requirements of Article XIIID under certain circumstances. In Richmond v. Shasta Community Services District (9 Cal. Rptr. 3rd 121), the California Supreme Court addressed the applicability of the notice, hearing and protest provisions of Article XIIID to certain charges related to water service. In Richmond, the Court held that 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 (26 Cal.Rptr.3d 153), 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