In Campana v. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision finding that Plaintiff’s claim for a partial refund of water charges adopted by EBMUD was time-barred. The Court held that the 120-day limitation period to determine the validity of a utility district’s rates or charges […]
On May 30, 2019, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion in Plantier v. Ramona Municipal Water District, addressing whether certain property owners had exhausted administrative remedies before litigating a Proposition 218 challenge against a local public agency’s method for applying rates to provide a property-related service. The Court held that where a property owner […]
Many water suppliers throughout California employ a "tiered" rate system. Under these systems, the cost of each unit of water increases as a customer’s usage increases. In Capistrano Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. City of San Juan Capistrano (April 20, 2015) ____ Cal.App.4th ____ the Court of Appeal declared that, while a tiered rate structure can […]
In City of Palmdale v. Palmdale Water District (— Cal.Rptr.3d —-, Cal.App. 2 Dist., August 9, 2011), a court of appeal considered whether the new water rate structure of a water district met the constitutional requirements of Proposition 218. The court held the rate structure did not meet Proposition 218’s proportionality requirement because the district’s […]
In Concerned Citizens for Responsible Government v. West Point Fire Protection District, (— Cal.Rptr.3d —-, Cal.App. 3 Dist., June 29, 2011), a court of appeal considered whether an assessment levied to fund additional fire suppression services was a special assessment and thus exempt from the requirement of two-thirds voter approval. The court of appeal held […]
In Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil (Kelley), (46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 73, Cal., July 24, 2006), the California Supreme Court held that metered water rates charged by public agencies are subject to Proposition 218. The Court disapproved the contrary holding in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 79, […]
Issue In Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Beringson, (2004 WL 1627032, Cal.App. 4 Dist., July 20, 2004), the California Court of Appeal again addressed the issue of whether the voter initiative provisions of Proposition 218 can be used to reduce the usage-based water rates charged by a public water agency. Facts Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency […]
In Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Salinas, 2002 WL 1161092, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, answered the question of whether a city’s storm drainage fee was a “property-related” fee that required voter approval under Proposition 218. Appellate Court Decision Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, provides that, […]
The Court of Appeal, Second District, recently issued a decision in the long battle over the constitutionality of a water district charging lower fees for agricultural groundwater use than for municipal use. The court held that the higher municipal fees complied with the water district’s enabling act but violated voter-approved constitutional amendments that prevent local […]
The California Supreme Court again has issued a decision damaging to California employers and further heightening the risks associated with managing employee meal and rest breaks in California. In Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Servs. Inc., ___ P.3d ____ (2022), the California Supreme Court found that an employer’s willful failure to pay meal and rest break […]