Reso 2008-111 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LEANDRO RESOLUTION N0.2008-111 (3084) RESOLUTION DISCONTINUING THE COLLECTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LEANDRO'S EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM ACCESS FEE AS CODIFIED IN TITLE 2 CHAPTER 16 OF THE SAN LEANDRO MUNICIPAL CODE (ORDINANCE NO. 2004-015) AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE ACTION 1N ACCORDANCE WITH THE COURT' S RULING IN THE CASE OF BAYAREA CELLULAR CO. V. CITY OF UNION CITY WHEREAS, in 2004 the City of San Leandro (City) adopted Ordinance No. 2004-015, as codified in Title 2 Chapter 16 of the San Leandro Municipal Code, to establish an Emergency Communication System Access Fee (911 Fee) to provide funding in support of the City's emergency communication system for enhanced emergency services, resources and programs; and WHEREAS, the 911 Fee is paid by telephone subscribers in an amount that reasonably reflects the costs associated with providing per-line access to the City's emergency communication system; and WHEREAS, the fees for fiscal year 2008-09 are $2.06 per single access line, $14.41 per trunk line and $50.44 per super trunk line, per month for a total annual revenue in an amount of approximately $2.5 million that is transferred to the City's Emergency Communication System Access Fund for use solely for eligible projects and operating costs; and WHEREAS, like San Leandro, several cities in California adopted similar 911 Fee ordinances, including the cities of Santa Cruz, Stockton and Union City; and WHEREAS, legal challenges were initiated against the cities of Santa Cruz, Stockton and Union City alleging that the 911 Fee was a "special tax" requiring voter approval under Article XIII of the California Constitution; and WHEREAS, inconsistent rulings have been issued by the California Court of Appeal; specifically, the 6th District Court of Appeal, in an unpublished opinion, upheld the City of Santa Cruz's 911 Fee; the City of Stockton has filed an appeal to the 3r District Court of Appeal appealing a trial court decision invalidating the fee as a special tax; and the City of Union City appealed a trial court decision invalidating its fee as a special tax to the 1St District Court of Appeal in the case of Bay Area Cellular Co. v. City of Union City; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2008 the 1St District Court of Appeal published its decision in Bay Area Cellular Co. v. City of Union City upholding the trial court's judgment that the fee was a "special tax" requiring approval by the voters; and