My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
RES 2024025
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
2020-present
>
2024
>
RES 2024025
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/10/2024 4:29:09 PM
Creation date
5/10/2024 4:27:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
5/7/2024
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
131
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
<br /> <br /> <br />41 <br />demand and usage of the Water System, and a potential decline in Net Revenues available to <br />timely pay the Installment Payments. <br /> <br />Loss of Tax-Exemption <br /> <br />As discussed under the caption “TAX MATTERS,” interest on the 2024 Bonds could <br />become includable in gross income for purposes of federal income taxation retroactive to the <br />date the 2024 Bonds were issued, as a result of future acts or omissions of the Authority or City <br />in violation of its covenants in the Installment Sale Agreement and Indenture. Should such an <br />event of taxability occur, the 2024 Bonds are not subject to special redemption and will remain <br />outstanding until maturity or until redeemed under other provisions set forth in the Indenture. <br /> <br />Proposition 218 <br /> <br />General. On November 5, 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218, the so- <br />called “Right to Vote on Taxes Act.” Proposition 218 added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the State <br />Constitution, which affect the ability of local governments to levy and collect both existing and <br />future taxes, assessments, and property-related fees and charges. Proposition 218, which <br />generally became effective on November 6, 1996, limited local governments’ authority to <br />impose or increase property-related “fee” or “charge,” which is defined as “any levy other than <br />an ad valorem tax, a special tax or an assessment, imposed by a local government upon a <br />parcel or upon a person as an incident of property ownership, including user fees or charges for <br />a property related service” (and referred to in this section as a “property-related fee or charge”). <br /> <br />Specifically, under Article XIIID, before a municipality may impose or increase any <br />property-related fee or charge, the entity must give written notice to the record owner of each <br />parcel of land affected by that fee or charge. The municipality must then hold a hearing upon <br />the proposed imposition or increase at least 45 days after the written notice is mailed, and, if a <br />majority of the property owners of the identified parcels present written protests against the <br />proposal, the municipality may not impose or increase the property-related fee or charge. <br /> <br />Further, under Article XIIID, revenues derived from a property-related fee or charge may <br />not exceed the funds required to provide the “property-related service” and the entity may not <br />use such fee or charge for any purpose other than that for which it imposed the fee or charge. <br />The amount of a property-related fee or charge may not exceed the proportional cost of the <br />service attributable to the parcel, and no property-related fee or charge may be imposed for a <br />service unless that service is actually used by, or is immediately available to, the owner of the <br />property in question. <br /> <br />In addition, Article XIIIC states that “the initiative power shall not be prohibited or <br />otherwise limited in matters of reducing or repealing any local tax, assessment, fee or charge. <br />The power of initiative to affect local taxes, assessments, fees and charges shall be applicable <br />to all local governments and neither the Legislature nor any local government charter shall <br />impose a signature requirement higher than that applicable to statewide statutory initiatives.” <br /> <br />Judicial Interpretation of Proposition 218. After Proposition 218 was enacted in 1996, <br />appellate court cases and an Attorney General’s opinion initially indicated that fees and charges <br />for water and wastewater services, which are based on the amount of services consumed, <br />would not be considered property-related fees and charges, and thus not subject to the <br />requirements of Article XIIID. However, numerous subsequent court cases have held that <br />certain types of water and wastewater charges could be subject to the requirements of
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.