Taxpayers win Fresno rate hike court ruling

Taxpayers win Fresno rate hike court ruling

FresnoA group of taxpayers battling the City of Fresno has won a critical legal victory in their fight to get a referendum of the city’s water rate increases on the November ballot.

On April 28, Superior Court Judge M. Bruce Smith reaffirmed his preliminary ruling granting the “Citizens of Lower Water Bills — Yes on Measure W” the right to move forward with their referendum on the city’s controversial water rate hikes. The ruling clears the final pre-election hurdle for the group of taxpayers, although it could still be appealed to the California Supreme Court.

Last year, the City of Fresno denied the taxpayers a title and summary for their petition, and then sued the taxpayers to prevent their initiative from being circulated. The move appeared to be a direct violation of the California Constitution. Section 3 of Article 13C states that “the initiative power shall not be prohibited or otherwise limited in matters of reducing or repealing any local tax, assessment, fee or charge.”

Pre-emptive strike: City sues taxpayers

The Superior Court ruled against the city.

“Measure W moves on as we complete our gathering of signatures,” said former Fresno County Supervisor Doug Vagim, the leader of the taxpayer group and a named party in the case. “It’s estimated the City’s lawsuit will cost the taxpayers of this community over a third of a million dollars, and to date they have lost at every court, Superior and Appellate. Their next step is the California Supreme Court.”

To qualify their referendum for the regularly scheduled November 2014 election, taxpayers would need to submit 4,846 valid signatures to the City Clerk by May 8.

Petition circulation time cut short

Opponents of the water rate increase say that the protracted legal battle was little more than a stalling tactic to make it more difficult for them to collect the necessary signatures.

“As a result we were provided a window of only 10 weeks from the normal time of 26 weeks to circulate our petition and make the Nov. 2014 election cycle,” Vagim said.

Even supporters of the water rate hike have become disgusted with the city’s hardball tactics. Shortly after the first ruling, the Fresno Bee editorial board, which backs the water rate increases, chastised Mayor Ashley Swearengin for her involvement in the political games.

“We support the water-rate increases; they are vital to the city’s future,” the paper wrote. “But with these stalling and blocking tactics, Swearengin sends a message that she doesn’t trust Fresno voters to do what’s best for the city.”

Tactics backfired — both parties oppose water rate hikes

Yet, the city’s hardball tactics appear to have backfired and united the public against the water rate hikes. In April, Vagim and his fellow taxpayers convinced the local Democratic and Republican central committees to support putting the issue on the ballot.

“Democrats and Republicans don’t often see things the same way,” the Fresno Bee’s City Beat columnist George Hostetter noted. “But both have embraced Vagim.”

Vagim downplays the achievement of bringing Republicans and Democrats together in opposition to the city’s lawsuit.

“Remember, the City of Fresno sued its own citizens in an attempt to stop them from exercising their franchise of the initiative guaranteed by the California Constitution,” he said.

City of Fresno: Rate hike needed to fund aging water system

As has previously reported, the battle began last August, when the city of Fresno approved a controversial plan pushed by Swearengin to raise the city’s water rates. The additional revenue was intended to go toward a $410 million upgrade to the city’s aging water system.

Under Swearengin’s plan, most water users, including city residents and some unincorporated parts of Fresno County, would see their average monthly bills rise to $48, double what they were last year. That didn’t sit well with a group of taxpayers, led by Vagim, who mobilized a grassroots effort to overturn the rate hikes.

But when the taxpayers tried to circulate a petition to overturn the mayor’s plan, the city took the extraordinary step of refusing to grant the petition a title and summary. Without a title and summary, the group couldn’t collect the necessary signatures to get a referendum on the ballot.

In January, the city complied with a court order and issued a ballot title and summary that allowed taxpayers to circulate their petition. The case is City of Fresno v. Doug Vagim.


Write a comment
  1. Dork
    Dork 5 May, 2014, 16:03

    TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241

    If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;…

    Reply this comment
  2. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 5 May, 2014, 17:17

    Last year, the City of Fresno denied the taxpayers a title and summary for their petition, and then sued the taxpayers to prevent their initiative from being circulated.
    That ANY government entity would resort to blocking democratic reforms is an affront to every person in this nation, and to our Constitution.


    Reply this comment
  3. marathonb
    marathonb 6 May, 2014, 07:30

    Just a note: an average monthly bill of $48 is less than 1/2 what we’re paying in Santa Clarita with our 3 tier system. If my water bill is under $100, I’m conserving well. Water resources seem to be quickly becoming local government’s way of trying to balance the books.

    Reply this comment
    • Rex the Wonder Dog!
      Rex the Wonder Dog! 6 May, 2014, 21:54

      Water and sewer, they can raise the rates without the need of a50%+, 55% or 2/3’s majority like with taxes.

      Reply this comment
    • Donkey
      Donkey 7 May, 2014, 07:11

      That is exactly what is going on marathon, water is now a money making commodity for the RAGWUS feeders to squeeze more cash out of the private sector citizens.

      The city, county, and state feeders have been coming together working on ways to steal what the private sector has left. In their effort to save the planet we will soon be paying for every mile we drive. 🙂

      Reply this comment
  4. Tim Clark
    Tim Clark 6 May, 2014, 22:17

    I’m sorry but this story is factually incorrect. There is not currently any referendum of a City water issue on the ballot. “Forced onto the ballot” is inaccurate. And, Cal Watch Dog fails to gather all of the facts relating to this issue. Cal Watch Dog would be better served to be more factually accurate and factually comprehensive before publishing.

    Reply this comment
    • John Seiler
      John Seiler 7 May, 2014, 10:27

      Mr. Clark: Thank you for bringing that to our attention. The headline has been fixed to read, “Taxpayers win Fresno rate hike court ruling.”

      We regret the confusion.

      — John Seiler, Managing Editor

      Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

The pros and cons of municipal bankruptcy

Editor’s Note: This is the sixth in a Special Series of 12 in-depth articles on municipal bankruptcy. What’s better

Kerry attacks Internet

One of the biggest snobs ever is John Kerry, now the U.S. secretary of state. He wants to rule our

Wretched teacher discipline law: CTA shows it’s still in charge

More than three years after appalling evidence emerged that a teacher at a school in an impoverished neighborhood in south