My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CITY COUNCIL REGULA MEETING AGENDA PACKET _Revised_ 6-2-26
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2026
>
060226 REGULAR
>
CITY COUNCIL REGULA MEETING AGENDA PACKET _Revised_ 6-2-26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2026 2:56:22 PM
Creation date
5/29/2026 2:52:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
6/2/2026
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.
/
617
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 />Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1, Windsor <br />Engineer’s Report <br /> <br />Page 12 <br /> <br />Legal Requirements <br />Proposition 218 <br />The City of Pleasanton’s five Landscape and LighƟng Maintenance Districts were <br />formed prior to the passage of ProposiƟon 218, “The Right to Vote on Taxes Act,” <br />which was approved by the voters of California on November 6, 1996, and is now <br />ArƟcle XIIIC and XIIID of the California ConsƟtuƟon. (ProposiƟon 218 provides for <br />benefit assessments to be levied to fund the cost of providing services, <br />improvements, as well as maintenance and operaƟon expenses to a public <br />improvement which benefits the assessed property.) Although these assessments <br />are consistent with ProposiƟon 218, the California judiciary has generally referred <br />to pre-ProposiƟon 218 assessments as “grandfathered assessments” and held <br />them to a lower standard than post ProposiƟon 218 assessments. <br />The exisƟng Assessment Districts will be re-assessed consistent with the <br />procedures and requirements imposed by ProposiƟon 218, which describe several <br />important requirements, including property-owner balloƟng and approval for the <br />imposiƟon of new or increased assessments if greater than the formaƟon level <br />assessments. No vote is required this year because the proposed increase to the <br />assessments is less than the maximum assessment amounts approved at <br />formaƟon of the LMD and no change to the assessment calculaƟon is proposed. <br />This Engineer’s Report is consistent with the requirements of ArƟcle XIIIC and XIIID <br />of the California ConsƟtuƟon because the Improvements to be funded are clearly <br />defined, the Improvements are directly available to and directly benefit property <br />in the Maintenance District, and the Improvements provide a direct advantage to <br />property in the Maintenance District that would not be received in absence of the <br />assessments. <br /> <br />Page 133 of 617
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.