City of Palmdale v. Palmdale Water District

Good Law
131 Cal. Rptr. 3d 373·198 Cal. App. 4th 926·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1118
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 9, 2011No. B224869California3,114 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Woods, J.

INTRODUCTION

In this appeal, the City of Palmdale (City) asserts the trial court erred in finding the Palmdale Water District (PWD) had adopted a new water rate structure in conformity with the constitutional requirements of Proposition 218.

After conducting an independent review of the record (Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (2008) 44 Cal.4th 431, 448 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 312 , 187 P.3d 37 ]), we conclude PWD failed to satisfy its burden to establish that its new water rate structure complies with the mandates of Proposition 218 (as set forth in art. XIII D of the Cal. Const, (article XIII D)), including the proportionality requirement, which specifies that no fee or charge imposed upon any person or parcel as an incident of property ownership shall exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

As of 2008, PWD revenues had decreased by about $1.3 million (“primarily due to a decline in water sales”), while its expenses had increased by about $1.2 million in 2008 (and $2.4 million in 2007). PWD’s general manager concluded a 15…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.