California Court of Appeals, Third District, Shasta
February 19, 2015
CITIZENS FOR FAIR REU RATES et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, CITY OF REDDING et al., Defendants and Respondents.
IT IS ORDERED that the opinion filed January 20, 2015,
233 Cal.App.4th 402;___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___, in the above cause is modified as follows and the petition for rehearing is DENIED:
On page 2 [233 Cal.App.4th 405, advance report, 1st par., 11th line], replace the third sentence of the first paragraph with the following: To this end, Proposition 218 added article XIII C to require that new taxes imposed by a local government be subject to vote by the electorate. (Art. XIII A, § 4; art. XIII C, § 1, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec., Nov. 5, 1996; see 2B West’s Ann. Cal. Const. (2013 ed.) foil. art. XIII C, § 1, pp. 362-363.) General taxes may be approved by a simple majority of voters, but special taxes require two-thirds voter approval. (Art. XIII C, § 2, subds. (c) & (d).)
On page 3 [233 Cal.App.4th 406, advance report, 1st full par., 1st line], replace the first sentence of the second full paragraph with the following: Plaintiffs in this case (Citizens for Fair REU Rates, Michael Schmitz, Shirlyn Pappas, and Fee Fighter LLC) challenge the PILOT on grounds it constitutes a tax for which article XIII C requires voter approval.
Also on page 3 [233 Cal.App.4th 406, advance report, 2d full par., 1st line], replace the first sentence of the third full paragraph with the following: We conclude the PILOT constitutes a tax under Proposition 26 for which Redding must secure voter approval unless it proves the amount collected is necessary to cover the reasonable costs to the city to provide electric service.
On page 11 [233 Cal.App.4th 411, advance report, 3d full par.], delete the first paragraph.
On page 13 [233 Cal.App.4th 413, advance report, 2d par., 16th line], delete the last sentence of the first full paragraph.
On page 19 [233 Cal.App.4th 417, advance report, 2d full par., 8th line], replace the last sentence of the first full paragraph with the following:
Although Propositions 26 and 218 stand in pari materia -- namely they relate to the same subject (People v. Honig (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 289, 327) -- nothing in either constitutional amendment grandfathers in the PILOT simply because it has been a customary recurrence in the Redding municipal budget.
On page 22 [233 Cal.App.4th 420, advance report, 2d full par., 3d line], replace the second sentence of the second full paragraph with the following: Even if Redding’s rates were the lowest in California, Proposition 26 would nonetheless require the PILOT to either reflect the city’s reasonable cost of providing electric service or be approved by voters.
On page 25 [233 Cal.App.4th 422, advance report, fn. 7], add the following to the end of footnote 7: We also do not consider whether the PILOT in this case would constitute a general or special tax if it does not reflect the reasonable cost to provide electric service. (Art. III C, § 2, subds. (c) & (d).)
This modification does not change the judgment.
The petitions for rehearing are denied.