Condit v. Solvang Mun. Improvement Dist.
| Decision Date | 08 September 1983 |
| Citation | 146 Cal.App.3d 997,194 Cal.Rptr. 683 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Fillmore CONDIT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOLVANG MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 67567. |
David H. Anderson, Santa Barbara, for plaintiff and appellant.
Cook & Berryhill, Ronald W. Cook, Santa Barbara, for defendants and respondents.
Appeal from a denial of preliminary injunction. This controversy arises out of adoption by the respondent Solvang Municipal Improvement District (SMID) on September 16, 1982, of ordinance number 59 which increased the rates and connection fees for water service within the district. Appellant is a property owner within the district and contends the respondent's procedure in enacting ordinances is invalid.
Respondent is a special district created and operating pursuant to authority granted by the Legislature in the Solvang Municipal Improvement District Act of 1951 (Stats.1951, c. 1635) as amended. Pursuant to this Act SMID is authorized to supply sewage, fire, light and water services to residents within the district. The Act further provides that a regulation of the board shall be adopted by ordinance and shall be posted for one week in three public places in the district and shall take effect upon the week of such posting. SMID is governed by a board of directors consisting of five elected officials.
Appellant contends SMID violated (1) basic constitutional guarantees of due process by the manner in which it adopted ordinance number 59, (2) The Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov.Code, § 54950 et seq.), (3) Government Code section 54991 et seq., by failing to make the findings required for enacting user fee increases, (4) the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and, (5) the California Public Records Act (Gov.Code, § 6250 et seq.). Appellant also contends respondent Leo Mathiasen, the secretary/manager of SMID violated the Robert M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act.
The trial court denied appellant's request for preliminary injunction. We affirm.
The need for revision of the water rates and connection fees had been a subject of discussion at approximately a dozen public meetings of the board during the year 1982 prior to the adoption of ordinance number 59. The board concluded that the budget deficit caused by operation of SMID's water system could only be met by an increase in the rates and connection fees. In determining such fees, the sound judgment of informed officials is a sufficient guide to the estimated cost of providing services. (See Carlton Santee Corporation v. Padre Dam Municipal Water District (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 14, 174 Cal.Rptr. 413.) At the regular public meeting of the board on August 12, 1982, the specific data and framework recommended by SMID's staff for the fee revision was presented. The rate structure and fees ultimately adopted were generally discussed by the board at the public meetings held on August 12, August 26, September 2, September 9 and finally at the special meeting of September 16 when ordinance number 59 was adopted. All the data prepared by SMID's staff on this matter was available to the public at the district office for inspection and copying at all times.
A written draft of the proposed ordinance was made available to the board and the public at the commencement of the September 16 special meeting. Appellant had notice of this special meeting but because of other commitments could not attend. After discussion by the board members and comment (or "input," to use the current in vogue word) from the public the ordinance was adopted and was then posted in three public places in the district.
Appellant contends the procedures required by Government Code sections 25131 and 36934 specifying the procedure which cities and counties must follow in adopting ordinances should be made applicable to SMID. We disagree.
SMID is neither a city nor a county but is a special governmental district created by a special act of the State Legislature. The formation act provides the methods by which SMID shall adopt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N. Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water Dist.
...applied to the California Coastal Commission's subsequent approval of the Department's decision]; Condit v. Solvang Mun. Improvement Dist. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 997, 1001, 194 Cal.Rptr. 683 [the district's increase in rates and connection fees for water service to maintain existing service ......
-
SF Urban Forest Coal. v. City & Cnty. of S.F.
...and are separate and distinct from the communities in which they exist."]; Condit v. Solvang Mun. Improvement Dist . (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 997, 1000, 194 Cal.Rptr. 683 ["[Solvang Municipal Improvement District] is neither a city nor a county but is a special governmental district created by......
-
Great Oaks Water Co. v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist.
...of just two published decisions, neither of which is particularly illuminating for our purposes. (See Condit v. Solvang Mun. Improvement Dist. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 997, 1001 [exemption applied to adoption of ordinance increasing rates and connection fees for water service to maintain exist......
-
Beaumont Investors v. Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water Dist.
...from which we could conclude that the Board's decision was, as defendant urges, an "informed" one. Condit v. Solvang Mun. Improvement Dist. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 997, 194 Cal.Rptr. 683, upon which defendant relies, is plainly distinguishable from the case here in that the record therein con......