My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
06
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2011
>
051711
>
06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2011 11:41:25 AM
Creation date
5/12/2011 11:41:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
5/17/2011
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
06
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Effects of Proposition 218 <br /> Proposition 218, commonly referred to as the "Fox Initiative" or "Right to Vote on Taxes <br /> Act," was passed by the voters on November 5, 1996. The Proposition amends the <br /> State's Constitution by adding Articles XIII(C) and XIII(D) to do the following: <br /> Limit the authority of local governments (including cities, counties, special <br /> districts, school districts, and redevelopment agencies) to impose taxes and <br /> property related assessments, fees, and charges. <br /> Establish procedures for implementing annual assessments which includes <br /> benefit assessments, special assessments, and maintenance assessments, etc. <br /> The procedures include a requirement that the City develop an engineering <br /> report which identifies the benefit that will accrue to each individual property as a <br /> result of the assessment. Further, subject to certain exceptions, it establishes <br /> that the majority of the property owners in the assessment district must vote in <br /> favor of the assessment for it to be implemented each year. Fees or charges for <br /> sewer, water, and refuse collection services are exempted from the Proposition. <br /> Further, general tax assessments for police, fire, and emergency medical <br /> programs are prohibited. <br /> If the District was formed prior to Proposition 218 and pursuant to a petition signed by <br /> the property owner(s) of all the parcels subject to the assessment, the District is exempt <br /> from the requirement that a majority of the property owners must vote each year in favor <br /> of the assessment. All the existing Lighting and Landscape Assessment Districts were <br /> formed pursuant to such a petition. Accordingly, as none of the assessments are <br /> proposed to be increased, no vote is required of the current property owners. <br /> Four of the existing districts, (Bonde Ranch, Windsor, Oak Tree Farm and Moller <br /> Ranch), have a cost-of-living increase provision which allows for an annual increase in <br /> the assessment. If there is an increase in the annual assessment which is less than <br /> what is allowed by this cost escalator, the district is subject to the notice requirements <br /> stated in Street and Highways Code §22626 when the assessment is increased from <br /> the previous year. This code states that the City is required to send notices to each <br /> property owner whenever there is an increase from the previous year's assessment. <br /> However, if the annual assessment should ever be increased in excess of the cost <br /> escalator, the district would be subject to the requirements of Proposition 218, and the <br /> increased assessments would be required to have approval of a majority vote. <br /> Existing assessment districts must also comply with Proposition 218's requirement that <br /> only special benefits, not general benefits, may be assessed when evaluating lighting <br /> and landscape maintenance districts. The definition of a special benefit is "a particular <br /> and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located <br /> in the district or to the public at large." General enhancement of property value does not <br /> constitute "special benefit." To the extent an assessment provides both general benefits <br /> and special benefits, the City must separate the general benefits from the special <br /> benefits and pay for the general benefits out of another revenue source, typically the <br /> City's General Fund. <br /> Page 3 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.