HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2000 0621 CC REG ITEM 11EMOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
ITEM %
of
ACTT) :
BY:
FROM: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, ATCM /City Clerk
DATE: May 4, 2000 (CC Meeting 6/21/00)
SUBJECT: Consider Amicus Support in County of Sonoma v. Commission
of State Mandates, No. SCV0221243
BACKGROUND
The City Attorney has forwarded a request for amicus support and has
recommended that the City join the brief for the above referenced
litigation. The County of Sonoma asked the League of California
Cities to coordinate an amicus brief supporting the County of
Sonoma's position.
DISCUSSION
The background of the case and the primary issues in this lawsuit are
described in the attached letter. To summarize, the amicus brief
will be in support of the County of Sonoma's legal argument that a
property tax shift constitutes a reimbursable state mandate.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Direct the City Attorney to sign the representation form authorizing
the City of Moorpark to be added to the amicus brief.
Attachment: Letter dated June 2, 2000
0 GI0
LAW OFFICES
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE 611 WEST SIXTH STREET, SUITE 2500 VENTURA COUNTY OFFICE
18301 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 1050 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 -3102 2310 EAST PONDEROSA DRIVE, SUITE 25
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 -1009 Tel: (213) 236 -0600 CAMARILLO, CALIFORNIA 93010 -4747
Tel: (949) 863 -3363 Fax: (213) 236 -2700 Tel: (805) 987 -3468
Fax: (949) 863 -3350 httpMwww.bwslaw.com Fax: (805) 482 -9834
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OUR FILE NO.
213- 236 -2711 3403 TENTH STREET, SUITE 300 F0001 -0001
Idolley@bwslaw.com RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 -3629
Tel: (909) 788 -0100
Fax: (909) 788 -5785
June 2, 2000
URGENT ECEIVEU I& r1ft14
REQUEST FOR AMICUS SUPPORT
REPLY NEEDED BY JUNE 22, 2000 ,JUN ' 7 2000
CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT
All California City Attorneys CITY OF MOORPARK
Re: ERAF Property Tax Takeaway Decided To Be A Reimbursable State Mandate
Under California Constitution Section XIII B 6 (Gann Initiative)
Case: County of Sonoma, et al. v. California Department of Finance, et al.
In the Court of Appeal First Appellate District Division One
1 Civ. No. A089524
The trial court in the above -cited case decided that the State legislation that authorized
the ERAF property tax shift (together with companion legislation) constituted a reimbursable
state mandate under Section XIII B 6 of the California Constitution.
The State has appealed the decision to the First Circuit. The County of Sonoma asked the
League of California Cities to coordinate an amicus brief supporting the County of Sonoma's
position.
The League has asked us to prepare the amicus brief to be filed on behalf of cities which
authorize participation in the brief.
A League committee of city attorneys has reviewed the issues and has agreed that the
amicus brief should be filed.
TIME IS SHORT — please respond no later than Thursday. June 22. 2000.
The brief will support the County of Sonoma's legal arguments but will focus in on the
historical development of the California Constitution of which the Gann Initiative (XIII B 6) is
the most recent expression.
C.
All California City Attorneys
June 2, 2000
Page 2
Simply stated: This history argues that the Constitution requires the state government to
pay for programs and services for which it is responsible under our Constitution and/or state law.
The property tax shift is therefore, as the County of Sonoma argues, a reimbursable state
mandate.
In Haste,
r
j' :f
ELAND C. DOLLEY
of BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Enclosure
�..::
Sample Authorization Letter to Join Brief
[Note: This form is available online from the member's only section of the League's
website at www.cacities.orq, under the "member services" section, under "legal
advocacy" (or just go to the `what's new" section)]
By Facsimile: 213/236 -2700
Leland Dolley
City Attorney, Alhambra
Burke, Williams & Sorenson, LLP
611 West 6th Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Subject: County of Sonoma v. Commission of State Mandates, No. SCV- 221243 (Sonoma
Co. Super, Ct. October 13, 1999); Authorization to Add City of
[city name) to dmicus Curiae Brief
Dear Lee:
Pursuant to the city's policy regarduig joinder in friend- of -thc -court briefs, you are authorized to
add the city of %insert city's name] under my name as the city's
attorney to the friend -of -the -court brief you are preparing in the above matter.
The city understands that you are preparing this brief on a pro bond basis under the supervision
and guidance of an attorney from the League of California Cities' Legal Advocacy Committee.
The city further understands there will be no cost to the city associated with joinder in this brief.
This authorization extends only to adding the city's name to the amicus brief you are preparing
in the above case at this stage of the litigation. You will need to get supplemental authorization
from ine to add the city's name to any farther briefing efforts. Moreover, under the council's
policy 1earLl. �ni� s briefs, this au�ho:.zat.L.iUSt J. affirmatively eX�rc »%1. d42
Thank you for your advocacy efforts on behalf of public agencies in this matter.
Very truly yours,
(city attorney name]
[State liar Number]
City Attorney
R.�lcwstm �iadhkM d� doe
ft F