Lutfi works with clients on establishing and imposing fees, charges, assessments and taxes, forming assessment and special tax districts, and issuing debt.
He helps public agencies find solutions to complex constitutional issues relating to Proposition 13, Proposition 218, Proposition 26, rate setting and public finance transactions.
Lutfi has been recognized as a top “40 Under 40” leader by the San Diego Business Journal, SD Metro Magazine and the San Diego Daily Transcript.
Lutfi Kharuf is a partner in the Special Districts and Public Finance practice groups of Best Best & Krieger LLP. Lutfi works with public agencies on compliance with constitutional and statutory limitations on imposing fees, charges and taxes, including Proposition 218 and Proposition 26. In this capacity, Lutfi assists public agencies with adopting new and increased fees, charges, assessments and taxes, as well as forming community facilities districts and assessment districts. Lutfi is based in BB&K’s San Diego office and serves as chair of the firm's Recruiting Committee.
Prior to joining BB&K, Lutfi worked as bond, disclosure and issuer’s counsel to cities, special districts and other public agencies in California. Lutfi has experience advising clients on complex tax, securities and constitutional issues arising out of public finance transactions. Lutfi previously worked in the corporate and finance group of an international law firm in Frankfurt, Germany.
While earning his law degree from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, Lutfi was a member of the Hale Moot Court Honors Program. After completing law school, Lutfi received his master’s of law degree in finance from the Institute for Law and Finance in Frankfurt, Germany.
Lutfi formerly served on the Leadership Council of the GO Campaign, an organization dedicated to empowering local heroes to improve the lives of children across the globe. Lutfi is currently a board member of the San Diego County Bar Foundation, the charitable arm of the San Diego County Bar Association, and also sits on the Legal Affairs Committee of the Association of California Water Agencies. Lutfi is a mud run enthusiast and enjoys the sounds of live music during a night out at the Hollywood Bowl.
Education
Admissions
Memberships
Awards
Court of Appeal Strikes Down Minimum 3:1 Ratio Statute for Failure to Comply with Proposition 26 and Provides Guidance on Standard of Review
Padilla v. San Jose Decision Sheds Light on How Cities Can Obtain Health and Safety Code Protections for Water, Sewer, Stormwater and Solid Waste Fees
BB&K's New Law Guidance for a Happy New Year
SB 323 Signed Into Law and Effective Jan. 1
For the Second Time This Year, California Appellate Court Upholds Voting Requirement
Calif. Supreme Court Decision in Wilde v. City of Dunsmuir
A “No” Vote is Not Enough, California Appellate Court Holds
Court of Appeal Holds Only Simple Majority Needed to Impose Special Taxes by Initiative Power
California Appellate Court Says Toll is a Fee to Use Government Property, Exempt from Tax Definition
Franchise Fees Charged to Waste Hauler are Not a Tax if Reasonably Related to the Value of the Franchise
Calif. Supreme Court Holds Such Hearings Do Not Adequately Address Challenges to Method for Calculating Fee
California Appellate Court Upholds Los Angeles County Parcel Tax
California Appellate Court Finds There is No State Mandate When a Public Agency Has The Statutory Authority to Levy Fees
Supreme Court Reverses Court of Appeal
Issue Related to Number of Votes Needed to Pass a General Versus Special Tax Under Proposition 218
Last-Minute Deal to Withdraw Includes Moratorium on Certain New Taxes in California
California Appellate Court Interprets Term “Increase” and Statute of Limitations
California Supreme Court Holds That Article XIII C Does Not Restrict Initiative Power To Impose Taxes
California Supreme Court Holds Surcharge for Franchise Rights Not Subject to Voter Approval if Reasonably Related to Value of Franchise
California Court of Appeal Allows Challenge to Prop. 218 Without Public Protest
California Supreme Court Decision Widens Potential Claimant Pool
Funding Mechanism for “Additional Services” for New Development Remains
California Appellate Court Finds Constitutional Mandate Supersedes Statutory Exemption
Online Booking Rates Addressed by California Supreme Court
CSDA Series Kicks Off With Analysis by BB&K Attorney Lutfi Kharuf
California Court Decision Rules on Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982
By clicking “Agree,” you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance website navigation, analyze website usage and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Cookie Notice here.
