My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN101596
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
CCMIN101596
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:55 AM
Creation date
5/13/1999 11:19:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
structure) so that representatives of the City Council can meet directly with the proposed <br />executive committee of the Fair Board or be included as representatives on the Fair Board. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta commented that while there was no comment on Board governance issues, <br />the reference was to its size, not who the representatives are. <br /> <br />Item 6d <br />Review of Potential Impact of Proposition 218. (SR96:305) <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta gave a brief introduction. <br /> <br /> Steven Bocian presented the staff report, which set forth potential financial impacts to <br />the City. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta commented another issue refers to the votes concerning assessment districts, <br />which would be based on the dollars paid into the district. The largest property owners would <br />have more votes than other property owners and there is a debate about renters vs. property <br />owners. She also referred to comments that many assessments in other cities have been to the <br />public detriment. Pleasanton has not taken those actions which tried to override Proposition 13 <br />and therefore many of the things we are doing will not be affected by this Proposition should <br />it pass. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver was bothered by the specific ramifications of some of the effects. The <br />League position is fundamentally that all property based fees and charges are limited to the cost <br />of providing services and may not be imposed for general government services available to the <br />public. It seems there will people coming back to challenge all fees. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bocian stated that development related fees are exempt from Proposition 218. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta explained that fees for general services such as police, fire, recycling, etc. <br />are the issue if they are property based. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver inquired about Measure D. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bocian indicated those Measure D fees would be considered a special tax and subject <br />to Proposition 218 only if there was a change in the existing assessment. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis asked if the park and recreation fees would be allowed? <br /> <br /> Mr. Bocian commented that the fees for classes would be allowed but not any fee that <br />was based on property assessments to pay for parks. <br /> <br /> -16- <br /> 10/15/96 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.