Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Beginning in 1997, because of concerns generated by Proposition 218, the County Auditor <br />required the requesting agencies to certify that the taxes and assessments that were to be placed <br />on the tax roll meet the requirements of Proposition 218. The County also required that the <br />requesting agency indemnifY the County should there be a challenge to the tax or assessment on <br />grounds that it doesn't comply with the requirements of Proposition 218. The Conncil has <br />annually authorized the City Attorney to sign a Certification and Mutual Indemnification <br />Agreement with the County concerning Pleasanton's taxes and assessments. <br /> <br />The County Auditor has again this year (and we expect this to occur yearly) requested that the <br />City certifY that the assessments that the City wants placed on the 2006/2007 tax roll comply <br />with the requirements of Proposition 218 and that the City Council authorize the City Attorney to <br />sign a Certification/Indemnification to that effect. <br /> <br />DISCUSSION <br /> <br />Of the sixteen special assessments and fees identified on Exhibit A to the Certification, four <br />represent bonded indebtedness for the irnprovements within the North Pleasanton Improvement <br />District and technically are outside the scope of Proposition 218. The remainder - the landscape <br />and lighting districts, the GHAD's, the urban runoff fee - were evaluated at length by staff for <br />compliance with Proposition 218. We have concluded that these various assessments do comply <br />with Proposition 218 and there are no legal challenges pending suggesting otherwise. <br /> <br />Accordingly, we believe that based on our current understanding of the law, the assessments that <br />the City will request the County to place on the tax rolls meet the requirements of Proposition <br />218. <br /> <br />FISCAL IMPACT <br /> <br />If one of the assessments were challenged, the City would incur legal costs to defend the <br />challenge; we would also be responsible for any judgment imposed on the County as a result of <br />the City's failure to comply with Proposition 218. <br /> <br />RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br />Staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached resolution certifYing to the County that the <br />taxes, fees and assessments that the City will request the County to place on the 2006/2007 tax <br />roll meet the requirements of Proposition 218. <br /> <br />IU.~~ <br /> <br /> <br />Respectfully Submitted, <br /> <br />Michael H. Roush <br />City Attorney <br /> <br />Attachrnent <br />SR:06:193 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Nelson Fialho <br />City Manager <br />