Fairfield Ruled to Be Illegally Taxing Property Owners

A California appeals court ruled the city of Fairfield broke a decades-old law and illegally charged property taxes on residents.

The court ruled that the Solano County city has been illegally taxing property owners for the costs of improved lighting and landscaping without seeking voter approval through a referendum, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

The basis of the case dates back nearly four decades. Since 1988, the city of Fairfield has charged property owners in the Rolling Hills Maintenance District annual fees for lighting and maintenance. That includes landscaping on roadway median strips and between curbs and sidewalks. As of the 2022-2023 year, the assessment was $300 per lot, according to the Chronicle.

A lawsuit from a landowner in the city argued that the local government was violating Proposition 218, a 1996 California ballot measure approved by 56 percent of voters that built on the voter-approval requirements of Proposition 13, a 1978 initiative mandating public votes on any local property tax increases.

The state Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that assessments to pay for property-related improvements were not property taxes covered by Prop 13. This banned increases in local property assessments and fees unless they paid only for the costs of improvements the city was meant to fund and were approved by votes of a majority of affected property owners.

Solano County Superior Court Judge Tim Kam initially rejected the lawsuit, saying the city had increased assessments only within limits it had declared before Prop 218.

In last week’s ruling, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco said that the assessment had been $196.23 for residential lots in January 1997, when the ballot measure took effect, while it was $300 per lot in the most recent assessment.

That means the city of Fairfield’s imposition of the higher assessment was “greater than the rate on Proposition 218’s effective date.” In a 3-0 ruling, Justice Mark Simons explained the assessment shouldn’t have been imposed without approval by a majority of the affected property owners.

If the ruling stands, affected property owners would be entitled to refunds of excess payments. The City of Fairfield might also be required to reduce its assessments until a special election is held. The unidentified owner who filed the lawsuit is seeking four years of refunds, though the exact figure remains unclear.

— Chris Malone Méndez