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, except for fees or charges for sewer, water, and refuse collection services, cities may not impose or increase a “property related” fee or charge without approval by a majority of the affected property owners or by two-thirds of the electorate residing in the affected area. In applying this provision, the California Court of Appeal answered two questions:
Is the storm drainage fee a “property-related fee”? The Court answered “yes.” According to the court, the fee is “a property-related fee for a property-related service, the management of storm water runoff from the impervious areas of each parcel in the City.” The Court rejected the City’s argument that the fee is merely a “user fee” because the charge was not based on or measured by use of the service but on the physical characteristics of the parcel. The Court concluded that the storm drainage fee “burdens landowners as landowners” and is therefore subject to the voter-approval requirements of Proposition 218.
Is the storm drainage fee a charge for sewer or water service? The Court answered “no.” Proposition 218 does not require voter or property owner approval for fees or charges for sewer or water services. Noting a clear distinction between storm water management systems and sewer or industrial waste management systems, the Court rejected the City’s argument that its fee was a fee for sewer service. The Court also rejected the City’s argument that its fee was a fee for water services. “The average voter would envision ‘water service’ as the supply of water for personal, household, and commercial use, not a system or program that monitors storm water for pollutants, carries it away, and discharges it into the nearby creeks, river, and ocean.”
Conclusion
The Court determined that the storm drainage fee was invalid because the City violated Proposition 218 by not subjecting the fee to a majority vote of the property owners or a two-thirds vote of the electorate residing in the affected area.