Brooktrails Twp. Cmty. Servs. Dist. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Mendocino Cnty.
Decision Date | 24 July 2013 |
Docket Number | A135900 |
Citation | 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 424,218 Cal.App.4th 195 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | BROOKTRAILS TOWNSHIP COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF MENDOCINO COUNTY et al., Defendants. David Paland, Intervener and Appellant. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
See 9 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Taxation, § 143.
Mendocino County Superior Court, Honorable John A. Behnke (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUK CVG–1057508)
Attorney for Intervener and Appellant: David Paland, in pro. per.
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Respondent: Neary and O'Brien, Christopher J. Neary, Willits.
Attorneys for Defendants: Thomas R. Parker, Mendocino County Counsel, Douglas L. Losak, Chief Deputy, Sandra L. Applegate, Terry N. Gross, Joan H. Turner, Brina A. Latkin, Deputy County Counsels.
Proposition 218, adopted by the voters in 1996, added articles XIII C and XIII D to the California Constitution. 1 One of its most prominent features was to tighten the two-thirds voter approval requirement for “special” taxes and assessments imposed by Proposition 13. (Art. XIII A, § 4 Art. XIII C, § 2, subd. (d); art. XIII D, §§ 3, 4, subd. (g), 6, subd. (c).) 2 In Paland v. Brooktrails Township Community Services Dist. Bd. of Directors (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1358, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 270 ( Paland I ), Division Five of this District concluded that “a minimum charge imposed on parcels with connections to a water district's utility systems for the basic cost of providing water or sewer service, regardless of actual use, is a charge for an immediately available property-related water or sewer service as defined in article XIII D, section 6, subdivision (b)(4), and consequently does not require ballot approval by affected owners.” ( Id. at p. 1362, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 270.)
This appeal involves the response of the losing party in Paland I: David Paland, a resident of the Brooktrails Township Community Services District (District). Having been told that he could be required to pay for sewer and water connections even if they were inactive because he had discontinued service, Paland resolved on a novel rejoinder. He drafted an initiative that would in effect have ended the practice he had unsuccessfully battled in Paland I. The initiative passed, but only by a simple majority. However, at the same election voters statewide enacted Proposition 26 with the ostensible purpose of further tightening Proposition 218's restrictions on revenue-generating measures that are not approved by voters. (See fn. 5, post.)
On petition of the District, the trial court overturned the approval of the local initiative in the belief that a two-thirds majority was required, which was in turn premised on the applicability of the just-enacted Proposition 26. We conclude that indulging that premise was error, because there is nothing in Proposition 26 indicating that it was meant to have a retroactive application. With Proposition 26 removed from consideration, the water and sewerage operations of the District remains as discussed in Paland I—not subject to Proposition 218's supermajority requirement. Consequently, a simple majority is all that was necessary for the local initiative to pass and take effect. In light of this conclusion, we reverse.
Much of the relevant history behind this dispute was set out in Paland I:
3
(Paland I, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1362–1363, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 270, fns. omitted.) Paland lost and appealed.
Division Five agreed with the trial court that Proposition 218 did not entitle Paland to relief. The court opened its analysis by defining the nature and scope of the problem:
“The core issue in this appeal is whether the imposition of minimum monthly water and sewer base rates on parcels connected to the District utility systems, regardless of actual usage, is a property assessment subject to owner ballot approval requirements adopted in Proposition 218 (art. XIII D, § 4), or is instead a fee or charge for a property-related service exempted from those requirements (art. XIII D, § 6, subd. (c)).” (Paland I, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1364–1365, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 270.) (Paland I, supra. at pp. 1366–1337, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 270.)
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jacks v. City of Santa Barbara
...not apply retroactively to the surcharge. The trial court agreed, citing Brooktrails Township Community Services Dist. v. Board of Supervisors of Mendocino County (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 195, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 424, which held that Proposition 26 does not apply retroactively. Based on its earli......
-
City of San Diego v. Shapiro
...of local governments to raise revenue without voter consent. (See, e.g., Brooktrails Township Community Services Dist. v. Board of Supervisors of Mendocino County (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 195, 198, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 424 [discussing Prop. 26] ; Borikas v. Alameda Unified School Dist. (2013) 214 ......
-
O'Grady v. Merch. Exch. Prods., Inc., A148513
...or discontinuing gas, electricity, water, etc. ( Gov. Code, § 54346.2 ; Brooktrails Township Community Services Dist. v. Board of Supervisors of Mendocino County (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 195, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 424 ; Craig v. City of Macon (Mo. 1976) 543 S.W.2d 772 ; Mountain Cable Co. v. Depart......
-
Dep't of Fin. v. Comm'n on State Mandates
...its definitions of a tax and fee do not apply to the Commission's decision. ( Brooktrails Township Community Services Dist. v. Board of Supervisors (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 195, 205-207, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 424.) However, Proposition 26 codified much, but not all, of the relevant case authority t......