DAHMS v.DOWNTOWN POMONA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
Filed 3/30/06
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| ROBERT DAHMS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DOWNTOWN POMONA PROPERTY AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B183545 (Super. Ct. No. BS 092125) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. David P. Yaffe, Judge. Affirmed.
________
Martineau & Knudson, Ronald C. Friendt and Gerald R. Knudson, Jr. for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Alvarez-Glasman & Colvin and Scott E. Nichols for Defendants and Respondents Downtown Pomona Property and Business Improvement District and City of Pomona.
_________
Robert Dahms appeals from the trial court's rejection of his challenge to the creation of a special assessment district in downtown Pomona, California. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
This case concerns the formation of the Downtown Pomona Property and Business Improvement District (PBID), a special assessment district created by the City of Pomona (City) in 2004. The PBID levies assessments on properties within downtown Pomona in order to fund certain services for the properties within the PBID's boundaries. Dahms owns a number of properties within the PBID.
The process of creating the PBID apparently began with a request the City received from four property owners in the spring of 2003. The City subsequently hired a consultant, MuniFinancial, to assist in the creation of the PBID. On June 14, 2004, after receiving a management plan for the PBID and a petition signed by property owners representing over 50 percent of the assessments to be levied, the city council passed and approved a resolution declaring its intention to form the PBID. The resolution set August 2, 2004, as the date for a public hearing on the formation of the PBID.
On June 18, 2004, the City mailed ballots to the affected property owners. On August 2, 2004, the city council held the public hearing, at the conclusion of which the ballots were tabulated. One hundred and twenty-six ballots favored the PBID; 66 opposed it. The ballots were also tabulated after being weighted by the dollar amount assessed for each affected property, as required by California law; the weighted vote was $338,461.29 in favor, and $153,156.86 against.
At the conclusion of the hearing and the tabulation of the ballots, the city council passed and approved three resolutions relating to the PBID. The first resolution declared the results of the balloting. The second approved the formation of the PBID, specified its boundaries and the services to be provided, stated the total amount of the assessments and the maximum annual rate of increase in the assessments, and took various other, related measures. The third resolution approved the engineer's report that MuniFinancial had prepared concerning the PBID, as required by California law.
The engineer's report describes the services that the PBID will provide: (1) security, (2) streetscape maintenance (e.g., street sweeping, gutter cleaning, graffiti removal), and (3) marketing, promotion, and special events. All the services are over and above those the City provides within the boundaries of the PBID and are to be provided only to the properties within the PBID.
As the engineer's report explains, the amount of the assessment for each assessed property within the PBID is based on three factors: street frontage (i.e., the length of street on the street-address side of the property), building size, and lot size. Those factors account for 40 percent, 40 percent, and 20 percent, respectively, of the amount assessed for each property. On the basis of those factors, the amount of the assessment for each assessed property is calculated as a portion of the total cost of the services that the PBID provides. The engineer's report also explains that various nonprofit entities (â€
