Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 <br />development fee that is exempt from Proposition 218. The District will also argue that the <br />fire suppression charge was adopted prior to July 1, 1997, has not been increased or <br />extended since that date, and is therefore exempt from Proposition 218. <br />This case could have a serious impact on all California cities by putting at risk all <br />development fees adopted prior to Proposition 218. We believe that the success of the <br />amicus brief and a favorable outcome for the District will be of great importance to the City <br />of Colton. Therefore we urge the City Council to authorize the City's participation in the <br />amicus curiae brief in the matter of Richmond v. Shasta Community Services District. <br />ALTERNATIVES: <br />1. Direct the City Attorney to advise the Shasta Community Services District to list the <br />City of Colton as a supporter of the amicus curiae brief. <br />2. Take no action. <br />FINANCIAL IMPACT: <br />None. <br />ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: <br />None. <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />Staff recommends that the City Council join in the amicus curiae brief. <br />Report Prepared By: Dean Derleth, City Attorney <br />Attachment <br />IREVIEW TEAM ONLY <br />Attorney: _ Finance Director: <br />Manager: OTHER: <br />AVPUB\NGS\638182 <br />