My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
21 ATTACHMENT 3
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2021
>
072021
>
21 ATTACHMENT 3
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2021 2:13:11 PM
Creation date
7/15/2021 1:02:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
7/20/2021
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Document Relationships
21
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2021\072021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
129
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />75 <br />(2) A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the <br />payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the <br />reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product. <br />… <br />(6) A charge imposed as a condition of property development. <br />(7) Assessments and property-related fees imposed in accordance with the provisions of <br />Article XIII D.” <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />Judicial Interpretation of Article XIIID. After Proposition 218 was enacted in 1996, <br />appellate court cases and an Attorney General opinion initially indicated that fees and charges <br />levied for water and wastewater services would not be considered property-related fees and <br />charges, and thus not subject to the requirements of Article XIIID regarding notice, hearing and <br />protests in connection with any increase in the fees and charges being imposed. However, three <br />recent cases have held that certain types of water and wastewater charges could be subject to <br />the requirements of Article XIIID under certain circumstances. <br /> <br />In Richmond v. Shasta Community Services District (9 Cal. Rptr. 3rd 121), 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 connection <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 /> <br />In Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Fresno (26 Cal.Rptr.3d 153), 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
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.