2002 AGN SEPT 03 I08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Item #8 CITY OF COLTON AGENDA REPORT FOR COUNCIL MEETING OF September 3, 2002 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Request for Amicus Curiae Support in Richmond v. Shasta Community Services District DATE: September 3, 2002 BACKGROUND: From time to time, public agencies seek the City's support as an amicus curiae (a friend of the court). There is no cost to the City to participate as an amicus curiae. Shasta Community Services District is requesting support for its amicus brief regarding this case which involves a public agency's ability to continue charging development fees adopted prior to Proposition 218. This case specifically involves charging water connection and fire suppression fees as a condition of development. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: Prior to the effective date of Proposition 218 (July 1, 1997), the Shasta Community Services District adopted a water connection fee to fund certain capital improvements to expand facilities for new users. The District imposed this fee as a condition of development. The fee included a water connection component and a fire suppression component. The District later adopted a resolution to increase the water connection component of the fee, charged to new users, without any increase to the fire suppression component. Plaintiff Richmond and other property owners filed suit against the District, challenging the increased water connection charge as an unlawful Proposition 218 assessment and the fire suppression charge as an unlawful fee for general governmental services. The trial court upheld the District's resolution adopting the increased water connection fee. The property owners appealed and the appellate court held, in part, that the fire suppression portion of the connection fee violated Proposition 218. The appellate court ruled that the fire suppression fee was a property -related fee to fund governmental services, which is prohibited by Proposition 218. The District has appealed this latest ruling to the Supreme Court of California. The District will argue that the water connection fee (including the fire suppression charge) is a RVPUBNG8\638182 _j-