Park Assessment Fails To Comply With Prop. 218

In Beutz v. County of Riverside (here), the Court of Appeal held that a park assessment failed to comply with the requirements of Article XIII D, Section 4, part of Proposition 218. The court first held that the county had failed to separate the general benefit from the special benefit provided by the improvements in question (park landscaping) and also failed to spread the special benefit proportionately among the assessees (all of whom paid an equal assessment). In short, the opinion gives teeth to the requirements of Prop. 218, insofar as they relate to assessments.

Supplemental Assessment Violates Prop. 218

In Town of Tiburon v. Bonander (here), the Court of Appeal held that a supplemental special assessment violated the proportionality requirement of Article XIII D, Section 4(a). The court first found that the assessment was properly imposed to pay for the special benefits conferred by undergrounding utilities, and that the benefit conferred was not "general" merely because properties throughout the district shared the same benefit. With respect to proportionality, however, the court found two flaws. First, the assessment engineer created three "zones," based on cost, so that properties in the high cost area paid more for the same benefit. However, the court held that dividing up the assessment area by cost zones violated the provision in Article XIII D. Section 4(a), which requires that the assessment be based on "the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement." Properties that receive the same special benefit should pay the same assessment, even if the cost to serve those properties is greater. Second, the Town excluded some properties from the assessment district even though they received a benefit from undergrounding. Although the utilities in the areas in which these properties were located were already underground, they received reliability and safety benefits from the undergrounding of the larger area.

This case raises a number of interesting issues in the area of assessment proportionality. Although it may be a little fact-specific, I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court granted review.

HJTA Seeks To Change Assessment Ballot Procedures

Here is a link to an article by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association on SB 321, a bill it has sponsored to "increase transparency" in assessment elections. It has been approved by the Legislature. Here is a link to the bill.

Court of Appeal Interprets Assessment Requirement

Article XIII D. Section 4(a) provides that no special assessment "shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel." Is this proportionality requirement violated when some parcels subject to an assessment pay less than their proportional share? A majority of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, says "no," but a concurring Justice isn't so sure. The case is Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property and can be found here.