Laserfiche WebLink
BACKGROUND <br /> Proposition 218 was adopted by the voters in 1996. It added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to <br /> the California Constitution relating to the local adoption of taxes, assessments and fees. <br /> Those articles provide in part that the local agency that imposes a tax, assessment, or <br /> fee bears the burden of proving that such exaction comports with the requirements of <br /> Proposition 218. <br /> The County seeks indemnification from the City in the event that a tax, assessment, or <br /> fee imposed by the City is challenged, the County is also named as a defendant, and <br /> the exaction is found not to comport with Proposition 218. <br /> The agreement provides for mutual indemnification such that the City cannot be held <br /> liable for an improperly imposed tax, assessment or fee by the County and the City is <br /> named in the claim or litigation. <br /> DISCUSSION <br /> The City and the County have entered into this type agreement for many years. It is <br /> appropriate to continue to do so. In recent years, the agreement was approved <br /> administratively by staff; however, it is preferable that the Council authorize the City <br /> Attorney to enter into the agreement. <br /> Submitted by: Fiscal Review: Approve by: <br /> Jonathan P. Lowell Emily Wagner Nelson Fialho <br /> City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager <br /> Attachments: <br /> 1. May 24, 2013 Letter from the Auditor-Controller's Office <br /> 2. Certification and Mutual Indemnification Agreement <br /> 2 of 2 <br />