2002 AGN SEPT 03 I08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

08/23/2002 15:59 FAX 909 886 9089 BEST BEST & KRIEGER City coundl Mmando F. Flores Jm J. Rek, Jr. Vke meyw Jake Mackenzie Va Vkhk Mminw COMANO M Joseph D. Neter cty AftWV August 1, 2002 RE: Request to Join Amicus Brief: Important Proposition 218 Case Richmond a Shasta Community Services D&Wd Dear California City Attorney: IM 002 The Legal Advocacy Committee of the League of California Cities has authorized filing an amicus curiae brief in the appeal of Richmond v Shasta Comrmmity Services District. I write to request that you join the brief that will be filed with the California Supreme Court in this important Proposition 218 case. The case involves the following issues of importance to all California cities: • The meaning of the development fee exemption in Proposition 218; • The application of Proposition 218 to water connection fees; • Tho types of assessments that are covered by Proposition 218; and • The application of Proposition 218 to fees adopted prior to July 1, 1997 that have been neither extended nor increased since that date. The Shasta Community Services District adopted a water connection fee to fund certain capital improvements necessary to expand the District's facilities for new users. The District imposed the fee as a condition of development. The District's water connection fee had three component parts- Of the three, the lire suppression charge and a water connection charge were challenged. Mr. Richmond challenged the water connection charge component as an unlawful Proposition 218 assessment; and the fire suppression component as an unlawfW fee for general governmental services_ The District argued that the connection charge was a development fee within the meaning of Proposition 218's exemption for "fees imposed as a condition of development." The Court of Appeal concluded that the water connection component of the fee was not an assessment subject to Proposition 218, but rejected the District's argument because the fee was in effect prior to the adoption of Proposition 218. The Court invalidated the fire suppression component of the fee pursuant to the provision of Proposition 218 that prohibits local governments from imposing a property -related fee to fund general governmental services, such as fire 6750 Can maw Boulevard a RaNwt Park CA a 94928-2485 - (707) 58& M - Fax (MT) sa8.= 1 � www�pagr.ag