Webb

Webb v. City of Riverside

Good Law
23 Cal. App. 5th 244·232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 761
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 4, 2018D073449California6,239 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

McConnell, J.

*248 Petitioner Alysia Webb 1 (Webb) filed a verified petition for writ of mandate in *764 superior court alleging the City of Riverside (Riverside) violated Propositions 26 and 218 when it began transferring additional revenue from electric utility reserve fund accounts into the general fund without approval by the electorate. Webb contends the court improperly dismissed her case without leave to amend on a demurrer because the 120-day statute of limitations arising under Public Utilities Code section 10004.5 2 does not apply to her challenge of Riverside's change in calculation of its electric general fund transfer. She further contends the fund transfers constitute a tax increase because they alter the methodology used to calculate the amount of money Riverside transfers from the electric utility reserve to the general fund. We disagree and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Riverside operates Riverside Public Utilities (RPU), an electric utility created by the city charter. The charter allows Riverside to transfer annually up to 11.5 percent of RPU's gross operating revenues from its electric utility reserves to its general fund (electric general fund transfer) for…

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.