The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 0615 CC REG ITEM 08NM LOIS BOBAK DAVID A. Dc BERRY CRAIG G. FARRINGTON .JOSEPH W. FORBATH i -OIS E. JEFFREY ROBERT W. LUCAS CHERYL LYNN E3ET7Y C MRGUDIC H THOMAS F. NIXON _iAMr -S W. PARKER .TAMES G. ROURKE JOHN R. SHAW MENNAP.D R. SMART, JR. DANIE I. SPENCE CIANIEL K. SPRADLIN' ALAN R. WATTS N /AYNE W. WINTHERS THOMAS L. WOODRUFF TO: FROM: mm LAW OFF .. E'_ (.i ROITRKE, WOODRI -FF & SPRADLIIN A PROFESSIC"', SMITE ��0^ 701 SOUTt� r.v KEI? T.eE ORANGE. MEMt) R A 1) 11I City Attorneys Lois E. Jeffrey, City Attornc, . P- INFORMATION ITEM: ITE VI • , Or!F (71:) f ACS!" "', WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMpErt DATE: May 31, 1994 Request for Amicus Support: City of Laguna Hills v County of Orange; Orange County Superior Court Case No. 71 -73 -38 C:'y, rte-„ • Cil iV�E6' On May 23, 1994, the Executive Coi;.mitiee of the City Attorney's Department of the League of California Cities considered i recuest from the City of Laguna Hills for amicus support at the Fourth District Coin ` Appeal in the above - referenced case. This case concerns the City of Laguna Hills' efforts to have its application for an annexation considered by LAFCO. A sumlr� ary o" t}ie facts and issues in the case is found in the attached letter. The Executive Committee decided to send the case out for information to City ,Fuiorneys at the earliest opportunity. On .►une f ; . :9y4 the Legal Advocacy Committee will consider whether the League should supp( ,rt filing an amicus brief. Cities who have a view in this matter should contact their Legal .,kdv. icy Committee representative. Any City that desires to prepare a brier in support of the City of Laguna Hills is requested to contact Lois E. Jeffrey or Lois B )bal at the above - referenced address and telephone number at your earliest convenienc: If you have any questions or wish to re; -m e copies of the briefs and decision, we will be happy to oblige _ LEI: cas: D:05/24/94: (N12058) -- RECEIVED -00 Attachment JUN 0 6 1994 City of Moorpark JoAnne Speers, Esq. League of California Cities 1400 "K" K Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Request for Amicus Support City of Laguna Hills v Countv )f Orange Orange County Superior Court Case No, 71 -73 -38 Dear JoAnne: TELEPHONE t7i41 558 -7000 FACSIMILE (714) 835-7787 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER 564 -2607 The City of Laguna Hills requests that the Legal Advocacy Committee of the League of California Cities consider and recommend amicus curiae support for the City in the above - entitled action. One of the centra issues presented in this action is whether counties may demand a share of revenues other than property taxes when negotiating the allocation of property tax revenues for a proposed annexation pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code §99. The facts of this action r iaN. he summarized as follows: The City of Laguna Hills was incorporated in December of 1991. A relatively -SM911 (722 ar`rP¢1 >>rhaniZed cI in_mj nittr immF ytF l;, nr�rth Of t}�P ('itc'� ii�riciiintinn�l boundaries, commonly referred to as "North Laguna Hills ", was included within the City's sphere of influence. The City filed an application for annexation of North Laguna Hills with the Orange County LAFCO on September 23, 1992. Immediately thereafter, the City began negotiating the allocation of :)roperty tax revenues generated in the proposed annexation area with the County c Orange as required by Revenue and Taxation Code §99. The negotiation process took considerabl . loner than the thirty (30) days provided by Revenue and Taxation Code 99 § (b)(4), and the City therefore refiled its application with LAFCO, by letter, on several occasions )r t.,ach ,;)ccasion, LAFCO accepted the request for refiling, and sent the request to t,1-1c unto, auditor for appropriate action. LAW :Frl�. CS O'- ROURKE, WOODRUFF &- SPRADLIN M LOTS BOB4K DAVID A Dc BERRY A PROFESSIONAL ORROI,AT,rh CRAIG G. FARRINGTON SU TE " )OCR JOSEPH W. FORBATH 701 SOUTH PARS- Ep c.TREE,, LOIS E. JEFFREY ROBERT W, LUCAS ORANGE, Cf,LIF" - 4N'A 9:'6(,,j CHERYL LYNN BETTY C. MRGUDICH THOMAS F. NIXON JAMES W. PARKER JAMES G. ROURKE JOHN R. SHAW Apr'' 1 �1 1904 KE NNgRD R. SMART, JR. DANIE I. SPENCE DANIEL K. SPRADLIN ALAN R. WATTS WAYNE W. WINTHERS THOMAS L. WOODRUFF JoAnne Speers, Esq. League of California Cities 1400 "K" K Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Request for Amicus Support City of Laguna Hills v Countv )f Orange Orange County Superior Court Case No, 71 -73 -38 Dear JoAnne: TELEPHONE t7i41 558 -7000 FACSIMILE (714) 835-7787 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER 564 -2607 The City of Laguna Hills requests that the Legal Advocacy Committee of the League of California Cities consider and recommend amicus curiae support for the City in the above - entitled action. One of the centra issues presented in this action is whether counties may demand a share of revenues other than property taxes when negotiating the allocation of property tax revenues for a proposed annexation pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code §99. The facts of this action r iaN. he summarized as follows: The City of Laguna Hills was incorporated in December of 1991. A relatively -SM911 (722 ar`rP¢1 >>rhaniZed cI in_mj nittr immF ytF l;, nr�rth Of t}�P ('itc'� ii�riciiintinn�l boundaries, commonly referred to as "North Laguna Hills ", was included within the City's sphere of influence. The City filed an application for annexation of North Laguna Hills with the Orange County LAFCO on September 23, 1992. Immediately thereafter, the City began negotiating the allocation of :)roperty tax revenues generated in the proposed annexation area with the County c Orange as required by Revenue and Taxation Code §99. The negotiation process took considerabl . loner than the thirty (30) days provided by Revenue and Taxation Code 99 § (b)(4), and the City therefore refiled its application with LAFCO, by letter, on several occasions )r t.,ach ,;)ccasion, LAFCO accepted the request for refiling, and sent the request to t,1-1c unto, auditor for appropriate action. JoAnne Speers, Esq. League of California Cities April 19, 1994 Page -2- :. Eventually, in order to get the matter before LAFCO, the City agreed to allocate {= ` 100% of the property tax revenues generated in the proposed annexation area to the County. County officials agreed to this allocation, both verbally and in writing (and in - testimony before the Senate Local Government Committee). The Laguna Hills' City Council adopted a resolution accepting the property tax allocation within thirty (30) days after the last refiling of the annexation application, and expected the County Board of Supervisors to do the same. However, County staff refused to place the required resolution on the agenda for the Board' consideration. Instead, the County Administrator notified the City that, in add i : ion to '100% of the property taxes, the County would demand a portion of the sales t xes generated in the proposed annexation area. Since the allocation of sales tax revenues is not a proper subject of the negotiations required by Revenue and Taxation Code §99, the City refused to consider the County's demand, and instead filed a Petition for Writ of' Mandate in the Superior Court. The Petition alleged that once the City offered 100% of the property tax revenues, County staff had a ministerial duty to place a co�iforrriing resolution on the agenda for consideration by the Board of Supervisors acid that the Board of Supervisors had a ministerial duty to adopt the resolution. The Peti on further alleged that, to the extent any discretion was involved in the County', decision not to agendize and adopt a resolution, that discretion was abused becaust the City had agreed to give the County everything to which the County could assert am legal claim under Revenue and Taxation Code §99. The trial court concluded that, under Revenue and Taxation Code §99, the only ^ eVodent to ti A consideration of _n �miF- xalnc,r proposal by ; LAFCO is the nn?;tion L r negotiation of the allocation of property tax re\ enues. Notwithstanding this conclusion, and relying primarily upon Greenwood Addition Homeowners Association v Ci of San Marino, (1993) 14 Ca1.App.4tb.1360, the trial c )urt concluded that the only duty imposed by Revenue and Taxation Code §99 is a duty, to negotiate in good faith. The trial court also held that, notwithstanding the practice the Orange County LAFCO (and the consent of the County), an annexation application cannot be refiled. The practical effect of this decision is to permit counties throti(_1itout the state to strong -arm cities into negotiating the sharing of revenue sources not _ ofered by Revenue and Taxation Code §99 as a precondition to the adoption of a i.-our -v c )nforming resolution. JoAnne Speers, Esq. League of California Cities April 19, 1994 Page -3- The City believes that the trial court's reliance on Greenwood is misplaced. As you may recall, the Greenwood court held that, as long as negotiations are undertaken in good faith, a public entity (whether a cour ty or city) may not be compelled to reach an agreement on the allocation of property tax revenues for a proposed annexation under Revenue and Taxation Code §99. The City a <grees with this holding. However, the facts of the instant case differ significantly from those of Greenwood. Unlike Greenwood, the City of Laguna Hills and the County of Orange reached agreement on the allocation of property tax revenues generated in North Lagtna I- Tills. Thus, the City 's petition did not secs to compei the County to negotiate, but to - educe the agreement reached to resolution form, as contemplated by state statute, so th t l_ 4FCO could consider the annexation proposal. While supporting the principle that a ity should not be compelled to reach any particular agreement regarding the allocation of property taxes from a proposed annexation area, the City strongly believes tf at if a city offers 100% of the property taxes, there is nothing left to negotiate, and th, affected county should adopt a resolution so that the annexation proposal proceed befor LAFCO. and the merits (or lack thereor" of the proposal debated before LAFCO. To p,,-snit otherwise allows a county to exercise a preemptory veto over annexation proposals I have enclosed copies of the briefs fi ed in the trial court by the City and the County, as well as a copy of the trial court's statement of decision. At this point, we anticipate that the City's opening brief on appeal will be due sometime in late May or early June of this year. We are proceeding h way of ioint appendix and are awaiting preparation of a reporter's transcript. Very truly yours, -- R0IJRKI, WOODRUFF & SPRADLIN Y Lois E. Jeffrey) l/ V U :,ity Attornev -j'y of l..aguna Hills hfLB: cac: D:04/20/94(G279) Enclosures cc: Bruce E. Channing, City Manager Philip Kohn, Rutan & Tucker