In Brooktrails Township Community Services Dist. v. Board of Supervisors of Mendocino County (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 195, a property owner succeeded in obtaining passage of a ballot initiative banning the local water district's policy that required property owners to pay a base rate for water service even during time periods when the service was not being used. The initiative passed by a simple majority in the same election that resulted in the adoption of Proposition 26. The water district obtained a court order invalidating the initiative on the ground it had failed to receive the requisite two-thirds approval from the electorate. The Court of Appeal reversed. Noting the aforementioned general rule of prospective application of constitutional amendments (Brooktrails, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 205), Brooktrails held Proposition 26's definition of a tax "made no provision directing that it would impose new requirements for the validity of existing local government assessments, fees, or charges." (Brooktrails at p. 206.) As noted, the enactment of Education Code section 39807.5 preceded the enactment of both Propositions 218 and 26. To hold this statute violates Proposition 26's definition of what constitutes a tax would effectively render the constitutional provision retroactive in effect. Such a ruling would not only conflict with Brooktrails, but is also contrary to the foregoing general presumption that constitutional amendments apply prospectively. Brooktrails properly resolved the question of Proposition 26's retroactive application and follow it. (Brooktrails, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th 195.)