HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1995 0906 CC REG ITEM 08JITEM
xCO3ol
S. cro
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF MOORPARK
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Lillian E. Hare, City Clerk
DATE: August 21, 1995 (CC Meeting of 9/6/95)
SUBJECT: CONSIDER CASITAS PIPE LINE COMPANY V. COUNTY OF VENTURA,
ET AL.; VENTURA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. CIV 157431
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. The total refund sought from Ventura
County and related tax recipients (included cities) is $9,252.
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.
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.
0001LO
JAMES L. McBRIDE
COUNTY COUNSEL
MELODIE M. KLEIMAN
CHIEF ASSISTANT
COUNTY COUNSEL
FRANK O. SIEH
LITIGATION SUPERVISOR COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
800 SOUTH VICTORIA AVENUE
VENTURA, CALIFORNIA 93009
TELEPHONE 18051 654 -2580
FAX NO (805) 654 -2185
August 28, 1995
Lillian Hare
Moorpark City Clerk
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
ASSISTANTS
Donald S. Greenberg
Andrew B. Gustafson
Donald 0. Hurley
Noel A Klebaum
Lawrence L Matheney
Patricia McCourt
Robin D. McGrew
William C Moritz
Daniel J' Murphy
Lori A Ner%roff
Roberto R. Orellana
Michael B. Powers
Dennis L. Slivinski
Leroy Smith
James W. Thonis
Mary C. Ward
William A. Waters
Re: Casitas Pipe Line Company v. County of Ventura, et al.;
Ventura County Superior Court Case No. CIV 157431
Dear Ms. Hare:
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 the above - referenced action to recover taxes
levied on state assessed property. This action is in addition to
those about which my letters of May 8, 1995, July 25, 1995, and
August 8, 1995, advised. Your city may be affected, but we have
not yet been able to confirm the location of the parcel numbers
used by the State Board of Equalization. The total requested
refund from the County of Ventura (and included cities) is
$9,252. This case covers only the 1992/1993 tax year. We
anticipate that in the future plaintiff will file a similar suit
for the recovery of taxes for 1991/1992 and 1992/1993 as to ARCO
Pipe Line.
Revenue and Taxation Code section 5148 requires that service
of the summons and complaint in this type of property tax refund
action 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.
Please note that pursuant to section 5148, subdivision (b),
any city receiving notice of such an 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 ruly yours,
E CE L. MATH ty A sistant County 1
LLM:bl
Enclosures
Receipt is hereby acknowledged:
CITY OF MOORPARK
By:
Lillian Hare
Date:
c: \text \llm \ctyclk \2ctyclk.ltr -1
01
2