Laserfiche WebLink
BACKGROUND <br /> Every year cities (and some special districts) throughout Alameda County request the <br /> County to place on the property tax rolls taxes and assessments that the cities have <br /> levied. For example, Pleasanton requests that the assessments for the improvements <br /> within the Hacienda Business Park and for the assessments for landscape and lighting <br /> districts be collected with other property taxes. <br /> Beginning in 1997, because of concerns generated by Proposition 218, the County <br /> Auditor required the requesting agencies to certify that the taxes and assessments that <br /> were to be placed on the tax roll meet the requirements of Proposition 218. The County <br /> also required that the requesting agency indemnify the County should there be a <br /> challenge to the tax or assessment on grounds that it doesn't comply with the <br /> requirements of Proposition 218. The Council has annually authorized the City Attorney <br /> to sign a Certification and Mutual Indemnification Agreement with the County concerning <br /> Pleasanton's taxes and assessments. <br /> The County Auditor has again this year (and we expect this to occur yearly) requested <br /> that the City certify that the assessments that the City wants placed on the 2009/2010 <br /> tax roll comply with the requirements of Proposition 218 and that the City Council <br /> authorize the City Attorney to sign a Certification /Indemnification to that effect. <br /> DISCUSSION <br /> Of the special assessments and fees identified on Exhibit A to the Certification, three <br /> represent bonded indebtedness for the improvements within the North Pleasanton <br /> Improvement District and technically are outside the scope of Proposition 218. The <br /> remainder the landscape and lighting districts, the GHAD's, the urban runoff fee were <br /> evaluated at length by staff for compliance with Proposition 218. We have concluded <br /> that these various assessments do comply with Proposition 218 and there are no legal <br /> challenges pending suggesting otherwise. <br /> Accordingly, we believe that based on our current understanding of the law, the <br /> assessments that the City will request the County to place on the tax rolls meet the <br /> requirements of Proposition 218. <br /> Submitted by: Fiscal Review: Approve y: <br /> ii <br /> I i <br /> Michael Roush Dave Culver Nelson Fialho <br /> City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager <br /> Attachments: <br /> 1. Resolution <br /> 2 of 2 <br />