My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Finance Highlights 2011 1202
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Committees
>
Finance Committee
>
Finance Highlights 2011 1202
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/13/2011 6:20:44 PM
Creation date
12/13/2011 6:17:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Committee Highlights
Document Date (6)
12/2/2011
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2011 1219
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2011\Packet 2011 1219
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
191
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
fewer than two - thirds of the voters voting on the measure had approved the tax. Claims for <br />taxpayer relief where a local entity may have violated Proposition 62 are subject to a three -year <br />statute of limitations, created by statute. In the case Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. <br />City of La Habra ( 2001), the California Supreme Court determined that this statute of limitations <br />begins to run anew every time the city collects the challenged tax. <br />The City believes that all of the general and special taxes it collects as of the date <br />hereof, and that all general and special taxes it has collected during the past three years, have <br />been approved in compliance with the mandates set forth in Proposition 62. On November 2, <br />2010, 61.2% of voters considering the matter approved the City of San Leandro Sales Tax <br />Increase, Measure Z ( "Measure Z "), which increased the sales tax in the City by 0.25 %, to be <br />used by the City for general purposes.. <br />Article XIIIC and XIIID of the State Constitution <br />General. On November 5, 1996, the voters of the State approved Proposition 218, <br />known as the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act." Proposition 218 adds Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the <br />California Constitution and contains a number of interrelated provisions affecting the ability of <br />the City to levy and collect both existing and future taxes, assessments, fees and charges. <br />On November 2, 2010, California voters approved Proposition 26, entitled the <br />"Supermajority Vote to Pass New Taxes and Fees Act ". Section 1 of Proposition 26 declares <br />that Proposition 26 is intended to limit the ability of the State Legislature and local government <br />to circumvent existing restrictions on increasing taxes by defining the new or expanded taxes as <br />"fees." Proposition 26 amended Articles XIIIA and XIIIC of the State Constitution. The <br />amendments to Article XIIIA limit the ability of the State Legislature to impose higher taxes (as <br />defined in Proposition 26) without a two - thirds vote of the Legislature. The amendments to <br />Article XIIIC define "taxes" that are subject to voter approval as "any levy, charge, or exaction of <br />any kind imposed by a local government," with certain exceptions. <br />Taxes. Article XIIIC requires that all new local taxes be submitted to the electorate <br />before they become effective. Taxes for general governmental purposes of the City ( "general <br />taxes ") require a majority vote; taxes for specific purposes ( "special taxes "), even if deposited <br />in the City's General Fund, require a two - thirds vote. The voter approval requirements of <br />Proposition 218 reduce the flexibility of the City to raise revenues for the General Fund, and no <br />assurance can be given that the City will be able to impose, extend or increase such taxes in <br />the future to meet increased expenditure needs. <br />Property- Related Fees, Charges and Assessments. Article XIIID also adds several <br />provisions making it generally more difficult for local agencies to levy and maintain property - <br />related fees, charges, and assessments for municipal services and programs. These provisions <br />include, among other things, (i) a prohibition against assessments which exceed the reasonable <br />cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on a parcel, (ii) a requirement that <br />assessments must confer a "special benefit," as defined in Article XIIID, over and above any <br />general benefits conferred, (iii) a majority protest procedure for assessments which involves the <br />mailing of notice and a ballot to the record owner of each affected parcel, a public hearing and <br />the tabulation of ballots weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the <br />affected party, and (iv) a prohibition against fees and charges which are used for general <br />governmental services, including police, fire or library services, where the service is available to <br />the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners. <br />31 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.