My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
02
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2007
>
071707
>
02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/11/2007 11:19:01 AM
Creation date
7/11/2007 11:19:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
7/17/2007
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
02
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
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 2007/2008 <br />tax roll comply with the requirements of Proposition 218 and that the City Council <br />authorize the City Attorney to sign aCertification/Indemnification to that effect. <br />DISCUSSION <br />Of the sixteen special assessments and fees identified on Exhibit A to the Certification, <br />four 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: Approved <br />Michael Roush Dave Culver <br />City Attorney Director of Finance <br />Nelson Fialho <br />City Manager <br />Page2of2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.