CITY OF
ANGELES
Filed 7/7/10
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
CITY OF ALHAMBRA et al.,
Plaintiffs
and Appellants,
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al.,
Defendants
and Respondents.
B218347
(Los
Angeles County
Super. Ct.
No. BS116375)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles
County, James Chalfant, Judge.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Colantuono
& Levin, Michael G. Colantuono and Holly O. Whatley for Plaintiffs and
Appellants.
Jarvis,
Fay, Doporto & Gibson, Benjamin P. Fay and Rick W. Jarvis for The League of
California Cities as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Greenberg Traurig
and Scott D. Bertzyk; Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County
Counsel, and Thomas M. Tyrrell,
Deputy County Counsel, for Defendants and Respondents.
Jennifer
B. Henning for California State Association of Counties as Amicus Curiae on
behalf of Defendants and Respondents.
INTRODUCTION
This
appeal involves a question of first impression.
We are asked to determine the proper calculation under Revenue and
Taxation Code section 97.75 of the fee a county may charge local governmental
entities within its jurisdiction for the services counties perform under two
specifically designated tax statutes, the so-called Triple Flip (§ 97.68)
and the VLF Swap (§ 97.70).
Appellants (plaintiffs below), 47
of the 88 general law or charter cities in the County of Los Angeles,
petitioned the trial court for a writ of administrative
mandamus contending that defendants, the County of Los Angeles and Wendy
Watanabe in her official capacity as the County's Auditor-Controller (together
the County), failed to follow the law and violated a clear and plain duty in
calculating the section 97.75 service fee.
A referee found that the County was faithfully following the law. Petitioners appeal from the judgment adopting
the referee's ruling. We conclude the
statute is clear on its face and hold that the County's method of calculating
its fee under section 97.75 was unlawful.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The parties stipulated to the
following pertinent facts:
1.
One effect of Proposition 13 on
counties
Counties
are responsible for, among other things, assessing and collecting ad valorem property
tax revenues from assessed property within their borders. As part of their administration of the
property tax system, the counties calculate and distribute to the various local
governmental entities (including cities, redevelopment agencies, special
districts, and counties themselves; hereinafter cities) within their
jurisdiction each city's share of the property tax revenue.
Before
passage of Proposition 13 (Cal.
Const., art XIIIA, § 1) in 1978, counties set their property tax rates at
a level that enabled them to recoup the cost to them of property tax
administration. With limited exceptions
not relevant here, Proposition 13 capped property tax rates to one percent of
assessed value. After Proposition 13,
counties continued to bear the burden of assessing, collecting, and allocating
property tax revenues, but lacked a means of recovering their costs for this
administration.
In
1990, the Legislature passed the first of several measures that addressed
reimbursement to the counties of cities' proportionate share of the cost of
property tax administration.
In
fiscal year 1992-1993, the Legislature created an Educational Revenue
Augmentation Fund (ERAF) in each county.
The ERAF is a fund into which property tax revenue is shifted to pay for
the State's constitutional responsibility to fund public education. The property taxes paid to both local schools
and the ERAF are exempt from having to pay this property tax administration
fee, or PTAF.
In 1994, the
Legislature enacted Revenue and Taxation Code section 95.3 that, with the
exception of schools and funds schools receive from ERAFs, permits counties to
fairly apportion the burden of collecting property tax revenues by recovering
from each city within its borders a PTAF that correlates to the property tax
revenues allocated to that city.
(§§ 95.3, subd. (b)(1), 97.1.)
calculating an â€
| Description | This appeal involves a question of first impression. We are asked to determine the proper calculation under Revenue and Taxation Code section 97.75 of the fee a county may charge local governmental entities within its jurisdiction for the services counties perform under two specifically designated tax statutes, the so-called Triple Flip (§ 97.68) and the VLF Swap (§ 97.70). Appellants (plaintiffs below), 47[1] of the 88 general law or charter cities in the County of Los Angeles, petitioned the trial court for a writ of administrative mandamus contending that defendants, the County of Los Angeles and Wendy Watanabe in her official capacity as the County's Auditor-Controller (together the County), failed to follow the law and violated a clear and plain duty in calculating the section 97.75 service fee. A referee found that the County was faithfully following the law. Petitioners appeal from the judgment adopting the referee's ruling. We conclude the statute is clear on its face and hold that the County's method of calculating its fee under section 97.75 was unlawful. Accordingly, Court reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
| Rating |
