Simply put, I have pointed out that: 1) the state Constitution, as amended by Proposition 218, requires that all fees for a property-related service imposed by local governmental Charter authority be limited to use only for that service.
2) Proposition 218 prohibits their use for general services (the kind supported by the General Fund) and 3) a 2006 California Supreme Court decision determined that water services are property-related within the meaning of Proposition 218.
Yet, based on its Charter-authorized transfer provision, since that 2006 decision, the city, in conflict with Proposition 218's limitation and prohibition, has been transferring millions of dollars of water fees each year to the General Fund.
I have repeatedly asked the city for the legal basis for this course of conduct, which, on the face of it, is in direct conflict with Proposition 218. Based on my experience as a practicing lawyer, an answer should not take months or weeks, but days.
I first raised the issue in June. In August, I was told by the city attorney's office that an outside consultant had been retained to help determine if there was a basis, other than the Charter-authorized transfer, to justify water fees going from Glendale Water & Power to the General Fund. I was told that the analysis should be completed and a report issued within two months (in October). At the Sept. 7 City Council meeting, I was told that the legal analysis of the constitutional issue would be part of that report.