My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SR0087014_SSNL
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
C
>
CARROLTON
>
18163
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
SR0087014_SSNL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2024 9:12:12 AM
Creation date
8/17/2023 1:11:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
FileName_PostFix
SSNL
RECORD_ID
SR0087014
PE
2602
STREET_NUMBER
18163
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
CARROLTON
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
RIPON
Zip
95366
APN
24538026
ENTERED_DATE
8/1/2023 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
18163 S CARROLTON RD
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
353
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
California Water Today 121 <br /> measures are particularly important:Proposition 218,a constitutional amend- <br /> ment passed in 1996,mandated majority or supermajority votes for local general <br /> taxes,assessments,and"property-related"fees.Proposition 26,a constitutional <br /> amendment enacted in November 2010, raises voting requirements for most <br /> state and local regulatory fees—including fees designed to mitigate or remediate <br /> environmental harm—from a simple majority to a two-thirds majority. <br /> Proposition 218 has substantially complicated funding for flood control and <br /> stormwater programs,which now require direct voter approval to raise funds:a <br /> simple majority of property owners,or at least two-thirds of the general public.12 <br /> Although some Sacramento area agencies were able to win high voter approval <br /> for new assessments in the wake of Hurricane Katrina,some flood-prone Bay <br /> Area communities came up short.53 Water and wastewater utilities can still <br /> raise rates through a vote of their governing boards, although ratepayers can <br /> overturn them if a majority protests the increases. However,court interpreta- <br /> tions of Proposition 218 are restricting the flexibility of water and wastewater <br /> utilities to raise funds to support new development, which can complicate <br /> capital project funding (Hanak 2009b). And the courts are also calling into <br /> question the ability of groundwater management districts to charge pumping <br /> fees without a majority vote of the affected property owners or a two-thirds vote <br /> of the electorate (Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v. Amrhein 2007; <br /> Great Oaks Water Company v. Santa Clara Valley Water District 2010). These <br /> decisions are problematic,as groundwater pumping charges are an important <br /> tool for managing overdraft. <br /> Proposition 26 affects regulatory fees, which are a natural way to fund <br /> environmental mitigation associated with the use of water resources or other <br /> activities that impair water bodies. Regulatory fees are typically surcharges <br /> on the activity in question,for instance a surcharge on a chemical that causes <br /> harm to the environment or public health.Regulatory fees are already used in <br /> California to fund programs related to the disposal of hazardous materials and <br /> the recycling of oil,among others.51 Under Proposition 26,regulatory fees with <br /> 52. For assessments,the requirement is a weighted majority of property owners.For property-related fees(such as <br /> payments for local stormwater control),an alternative to a majority of property owners is a two-thirds majority of the <br /> general electorate(Legislative Analyst's Office 1996;Rueben and Cerdan 2003). <br /> 53. In 2007,the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency and the West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency passed <br /> new assessments with 82 percent and 70 percent affirmative vote of property owners,respectively.But in November 2008, <br /> the cities of Orinda and Burlingame lost with 62 percent and 64 percent of the popular vote,respectively. <br /> 54. See"Official Title and Summary"in the California Voter Guide for the November 2010 election:www.voterguide <br /> .sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/26-title-summ-analysis.pdf <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.