My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA PACKET 5-5-26
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2026
>
050526 REGULAR
>
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA PACKET 5-5-26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2026 8:59:41 AM
Creation date
5/7/2026 2:41:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
5/5/2026
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
245
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
City of Pleasanton <br />Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 <br />Engineer’s Report <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />Legislative Analysis <br />Proposition 218 <br />The Right to Vote on Taxes Act was approved by the voters of California on November 6, <br />1996 and is now Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution. Proposition 218 <br />provides for benefit assessments to be levied to fund the cost of providing services and <br />improvements, as well as maintenance and operation expenses to a public improvement <br />which benefits the assessed property. <br />Proposition 218 describes several important requirements, including a property owner <br />balloting, for the formation and continuation of assessments, and these requirements are <br />satisfied by the process used to establish this assessment. <br />Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. v Santa Clara County Open Space <br />Authority (2008) 44 Cal. 4 th 431 <br />In July of 2008, the California Supreme Court issued its ruling on the Silicon Valley <br />Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (“SVTA”). This <br />ruling is significant in that the Court clarified how Proposition 218 made changes to the <br />determination of special benefit. The Court also found that: <br /> Benefit assessments are for special, not general, benefit. <br /> The services and/or improvements funded by assessments must be clearly <br />defined. <br /> Special benefits are directly received by and provide a direct advantage to <br />property in the assessment district. <br />Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4 th 708 <br />In Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property (“Dahms”) the Court upheld an assessment that <br />was 100% special benefit (i.e. 0% general benefit) on the rationale that the services and <br />improvements funded by the assessments were directly provided to property in the <br />assessment district. The Court also upheld discounts and exemptions from the <br />assessment for certain properties. <br />Page 62 of 248
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.