In a challenge to the passage of a local initiative that ended the practice of requiring property owners to pay for sewer and water connections even if they were inactive, the trial court erred in overturning the approval of the initiative, where: 1) the trial court erroneously relied on the just-enacted Proposition 26 for the premise that a two-thirds majority was required for the initiative to pass, because there is nothing in Proposition 26 indicating that it was meant to have a retroactive application; 2) the water and sewerage operations of the district remains not subject to Proposition 218's supermajority requirement because the charge was a fee and not a tax; and 3) a simple majority is all that was necessary for the local initiative to pass and take effect, which it had.