HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1992 0715 CC REG ITEM 08NMOORPARk"M8 A/4,
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Lillian E. Kellerman, City Clerk
DATE: July 7, 1992 (CC meeting of 7/15/92)
(805) 529 -6864
:OPPAW, CALIFORNIA
G Council Meeting
of
ACTION: LV U
By -,4�
SUBJECT: CONSIDER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY V. STATE
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, ET AL.; CASE NO. BC054959; AND
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY V. STATE BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION, ET AL.; CASE NO. BC055878
BACKGROUND
County Counsel has advised the City that the County of Ventura has
been named as a defendant in the above subject action to recover
taxes levied on state assessed property. The City may be affected
but the County has not yet been able to confirm the location of the
parcel numbers involved nor the total refund sought from Ventura
County and related tax recipients.
It is anticipated that the attorney general's office will be, in
effect, representing a number of counties, including the County of
Ventura in this suit. Pursuant to Section 5148, subdivision (b),
of the Revenue and Taxation Code, any city receiving notice of the
action filed against the State Board of Equalization and the County
may, within 30 days of the receipt of notice, intervene in that
action. Upon our request, the County will furnish us with copies
of the summons and complaint.
Although the total amount of
(and included cities) in the
it appears that the total
approximately $7 million in
in the Edison case.
the requested refund from the County
subject cases has not been identified,
sought from all fifteen counties is
the Gas Company case and $120 million
The State Board of Equalization has described these two actions as
being related to the conditional settlement agreement that has been
entered into by the State Board, the utility companies, and all 58
counties. More information about his settlement will be provided
to the City in the next few weeks but the County intends to file an
answer and is treating this filing more as a formality than a
seriously contested matter. The County has previously represented
the City in actions of this type and will do so in this case. No
action is required of the Council.
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the report.
PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PEREZ ROY E. TALLEY JR.
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember
Printed n., P--t -A o----
JAMES L. McBRIDE
COUNTY COUNSEL
MELODIE M. KLEIMAN
CHIEF ASSISTANT
FRANK O. SIEH
LITIGATION SUPERVISOR
COUNTY COUNSEL
P e-4 TO 06u A)
oN ?114192
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
800 SOUTH VICTORIA AVENUE
VENTURA, CALIFORNIA 93009
TELEPHONE (805) 654 -2580
FAX NO. (805) 654-2185
June 25, 1992
Lillian Kellerman
Moorpark City Clerk
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Dot
ASSISTANTS
Donald S. Greenberg
Andrew B. Gustafson
Donald 0. Hurley
Noel A. Klebaum
Lawrence L. M atheney
Patricia McCourt
Robin D. McGrew
William C. Moritz
Daniel J. Murphy
Lan A. Nemiroff
Roberto R. Orellana
Dennis L. SGvinskl
Leroy Smith
Jack A. Thompson
James W Thonis
Shannon W. Trower
Mary C. Ward
William A. Waters
Re: Southern California Edison Company v. State Board of
Equalization, Fresno County, et al.; Los Angeles County
Superior Court Case No. BC054959; and Southern
California Gas Company v. State Board of Equalization,
Fresno County, et al.; Los Angeles County Superior
Court Case No. BC055878
Dear Ms. Kellerman:
Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5148, subdivi-
sion (b), as added by Chapter 1262, Statutes of 1987 (AB 2120),
you are hereby advised that the County of Ventura has been named
as a defendant in each of the above - referenced actions to recover
taxes levied on state assessed utility property.
Your city may be affected, but we have not yet been able to
confirm either the location of the parcel numbers used by the
State Board of Equalization or the total refund sought from
Ventura County and related tax recipients. Neither case has
included a detailed allegation, by county, of the refund sought.
It appears, however, that the total sought from all fifteen
counties is approximately $7 million in the Gas Company case and
$120 million in the Edison case. (Note: Edison seeks refunds
going back to the 1984 -1985 fiscal year, raising significant
statute of limitations questions.)
The State Board of Equalization has described these two
actions as being related to the conditional settlement agreement
that has been entered into by the State Board, the utility
companies, and all 58 counties. More information about this
settlement will be sent to you within the next ten days. While
RECEIVED
JUN 2 6 1992
^1 &.. —: :Awwrr -%rG
we presently intend to file an answer, we are treating this
filing more as a formality than a seriously contested matter.
In any event, Revenue and Taxation Code section 5148
requires that service of the summons and complaint in these types
of property tax refund actions be made only upon the State Board
of Equalization and that the Board in turn notify counties who
will notify cities of the pending action.
A representative of the Board of Equalization was served
personally with summons and complaint in the Edison case on
June 3, 1992. In the Gas Company matter, service was affected on
June 10, 1992. As with the majority of these types of cases, we
anticipate that if the case is to be fully litigated, the
attorney general's office will be, in effect, representing most,
if not all, of the counties, including the County of Ventura.
Please note that pursuant to section 5148, subdivision (b),
any city receiving notice of the action filed against the
board and the county may, within 30 days of the receipt of this
notice, intervene in that action. Upon your request, we will
furnish you with copies of the summons and complaint.
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter by dating and
signing the enclosed copy thereof and returning it to us in the
enclosed self- addressed, stamped envelope.
Ve y-trul yours,
EN CE L. MATHEN
Assistant County 66 nsel
LLM:jh
Enclosures
Receipt is hereby acknowledged:
CITY OF MOORPARK
By:
Lillian Kellerman
Date:--
c:\text\LLm\jctyctksAtr-2-1
2