Pongs

INTRODUCTION

This case involves a reverse validation action in which two residents of

the City of Riverside (City), Carl Pongs and Rick Moslenko,1 challenge resolutions adopted by the Riverside City Council (City Council) authoring the issuance of a series of water revenue bonds. According to Pongs, the resolutions and resulting water bonds violate the constitutional provisions created by Proposition 2182 and improperly allocate revenue to pay for the pension debts of retired City employees under California’s Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). As a result, Pongs contends the trial court erred by entering judgment in favor of the City in his reverse validation action and claim for declaratory and injunctive relief. As we shall discuss, we are unpersuaded by Pongs’s contentions and we affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3

The City’s Charter (the Charter) permits the City to “make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to such

We refer to the plaintiffs collectively as Pongs for ease of reference.

“In November 1996, . . . the electorate adopted Proposition 218, which added articles XIII C and…