My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
15 ATTACHMENT
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2007
>
110607
>
15 ATTACHMENT
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/1/2007 3:07:35 PM
Creation date
11/1/2007 2:25:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
11/6/2007
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
15 ATTACHMENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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
This is in contrast to the breakdown of a benefit assessment (annual revenues) based on a flat amount <br />per parcel: <br /> <br />T e of Pro er Amount per <br />Parcel er Year <br />Amount <br />% # of <br />Parcels <br />Commercial $200 $233,000 5.1% 1,165 <br />Residential $200 $4,298,400 94.9% 21,492 <br />Total $4,531,400 100.00% 22,657 <br />Therefore, by issuing a general obligation bond, commercial property will pay approximately <br />26% of the tax levy associated with the financing of the Program. Whereas, by using the benefit <br />assessment or parcel tax to include funding capital costs through the issuance of certificates of <br />participation, commercial properties would pay approximately 5% of the capital cost of the Program. <br />There are, of course, many different alternatives in structuring the tax rate. For example, the <br />tax could differ on a parcel by parcel basis between residential and commercial use, as well as, within <br />those classifications on a zone by zone basis as to proximity to the project's location. Also, the cost <br />of administering a program with a complicated tax structure increases accordingly. However, if the <br />Council determines that the levying of a parcel tax or benefit assessment is the way in which they <br />would like to proceed in financing the Program costs, then the actual structure of the tax rate or <br />benefit assessment would need to be studied further. <br />Mello-Roos Community Facilities District <br />The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act was enacted by the California Legislature in 1982 <br />to provide all cities, counties or districts, an alternative method of financing essential public facilities <br />and services. The Act allows cities to create separate public agencies, known as community facilities <br />districts, within their boundaries for the purpose of financing certain public facilities and services. <br />Among the facilities and services that may be provided through the Act are: <br />^ Police protection facilities and services <br />^ Fire protection facilities and services <br />^ Local park, recreation and parkway facilities and services and the operation and <br />maintenance of the facilities <br />^ Elementary and secondary school sites and structures <br />^ Libraries <br />^ Other governmental facilities and public works improvements <br />However, a community facilities district may provide only the levels of services mentioned <br />above to the extent that they are in addition to those services provided before the district was created <br />and may not supplant those services already available within the district. <br />The Mello-Roos financing mechanism uses a special tax to repay the annual debt service and <br />operating costs. The special tax may or may not be based upon benefit to the parcels of land in the <br />district or it may be based on the cost of making the facilities or services available or on any other <br />reasonable basis. The tax must not be ad valorem or related to the value of the property. <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.