My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Finance Highlights 2008 0917
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Committees
>
Finance Committee
>
Finance Highlights 2008 0917
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/5/2019 10:14:42 AM
Creation date
10/17/2008 1:24:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Committee Highlights
Document Date (6)
9/17/2008
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2008 1020
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2008\Packet 2008 1020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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
to Proposition 218, however, they must be voted on by property owners. In addition, benefit <br />assessment districts must meet certain procedural requirements which are not insignificant. <br />Specific Revenue Options, including benefit assessment districts are discussed in the following <br />sections. <br />Revenue Option 1: Increase to the Property Tax Rate <br />When Proposition 13 was approved by California voters in 1973, the ad valorem property tax <br />rate was frozen at 1% of a property's assessed value. The law allows for that rate to be adjusted <br />upwards for any debt service that existed when the proposition was passed. There is an <br />argument that if a governmental entity had an unfunded pension liability at the time Proposition <br />13 was approved, then that obligation meets the definition of "debt" under Proposition 13. If that <br />argument were to prevail, then the 1% rate could be adjusted upwards to collect additional <br />property tax revenue sufficient to pay the "debt service". <br />There are significant legal and implementation issues to be resolved, should the Committee <br />decide to pursue this revenue option. If that is the case, staff will return at a later date with <br />additional information and analysis. <br />Revenue Option 2: Citywide Public Safety Parcel Tax/General Parcel Tax <br />A parcel tax can be for general governmental activities or for a special purpose, such as public <br />safety. A 2/3 approval vote of the electorate is required to adopt the tax. The tax is not an ad <br />valorem (value based) tax, but rather, is an excise tax levied on the availability and use of <br />services. A public safety parcel tax proposed earlier would have raised $2.1 million from <br />residential users and $1.4 million from commercial/industrial properties totaling $3.5 million. <br />The residential rates were proposed at approximately $47.00 for mobile homes, duplexes, <br />triplexes, and apartment complexes. The rate for single-family homes, condominiums, and <br />townhomes was $78.00 per year. Commercial/industrial property was based on square footage <br />and was generally $.016 per square foot. <br />If Council decided to go forward with a parcel tax, it would have to be placed before the voters at <br />a City general election. <br />Revenue Option 3: (General or Special purpose) Sales and Use Tax <br />This tax can be a general or, special purpose tax. If it is for general purposes, majority approval <br />is required. If the tax is a special tax for a specific purpose, then a 2/3 approval of the voters is <br />required. The tax is collected in the same manner as the existing sales and uses tax and must be <br />imposed in .25% increments. The combined rate in a county cannot exceed 9.25%. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.