Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
s 185457

s 185457

Ratings: (0)|Views: 219|Likes:
Published by L. A. Paterson
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CITY OF ALHAMBRA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CITY OF ALHAMBRA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents

More info:

Published by: L. A. Paterson on Oct 16, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Filed 11/19/12
CITY OF ALHAMBRA et al., ))Plaintiffs and Appellants, )) S185457v. )) Ct. App. 2/3 B218347COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., )) Los Angeles CountyDefendants and Respondents. ) Super. Ct. No. BS116375 ____________________________________)By statute, counties are responsible for the administration of local propertytaxes by assessing and collecting them and then disbursing the revenue to thevarious cities, special districts, schools, and other entities within the county. Someof the revenue, however, must be allocated to each
Educational RevenueAugmentation Fund (sometimes referred to as ERAF)
a state-created fund thatreallocates portions of local property tax revenue to fulfill
the state‟s
constitutionalobligation to fund education at specified levels. In order to cover county costs inadministering the property tax system, a county is statutorily authorized to imposea property tax administration fee on each city or other entity within its borders.The property tax administration fee is based on an apportionment of the amount of  property tax revenue allocated to the city or other entity. But any revenuesallocated from these cities and entities to the county
ERAF are exempt from thisfee. At issue here is a dispute between Los Angeles County (County) and 47 cities(Cities) within the county regarding how County calculates and imposes property
 2tax administration fees on Cities for their share of C
ounty‟s costs in
administeringthe property tax system. In 2004, two different budgetary measures were enacteddiverting local property tax revenue that would have been deposited into each
ERAF to instead fund various state budget gaps, but the state otherwisemade whole each
ERAF contribution through the allocation of other statefunds. A dispute arose after the enactment of these measures when Countyincluded in the calculations for the administration fees it imposed on Cities the taxrevenue that had been earmarked for the County ERAF but was diverted by the2004 budgetary measures.County takes the position that these two budgetary measures allowed it toimpose property tax administration fees on the diverted local property taxes because they no longer funded the County ERAF, but were instead used to fundstate budget gaps and thus have lost their exempt status.
The effect of County‟s
 position has allowed it to withhold from Cities an additional $4.8 million in fiscalyear 2006-2007 and $5.3 million in fiscal year 2007-2008 in property taxadministration fees. Cities, however, take the position that the ERAF exemptionfrom the fee still applied under the 2004 legislation and that Revenue and TaxationCode section 97.75, enacted as part of the 2004 legislation, prohibite
d County‟s
method of calculating the property tax administration fee. We agree with Cities
  position, and we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which reached thesame conclusion.
In 2008, Cities
petitioned the trial court for a writ of administrativemandate, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, challenging County
The plaintiff cities are: City of Alhambra, City of Arcadia, City of Artesia,City of Baldwin Park, City of Bell Gardens, City of Bellflower, City of Bradbury,
(footnote continued on next page)
 3method of calculating the property tax administration fee and seeking a writordering County and its auditor-controller to reimburse Cities for the amountdisputed in fiscal year 2006-2007. The parties agreed to try the matter byreference under Code of Civil Procedure section 638 and stipulated to most of therelevant facts. Following a trial, the referee ruled in mid-2009 that County
method of calculating the disputed fee was consistent with legislative intent anddid not violate Revenue and Taxation Code section 97.75.
Cities appealed, andthe Court of Appeal reversed, relying almost exclusively on the plain meaning of section 97.75 to conclude that County
‟s method of calculat
ion was unlawful. Wegranted County
‟s petition for review.
(footnote continued from previous page)
City of Burbank, City of Calabasas, City of Carson, City of Cerritos, City of Commerce, City of Covina, City of Culver City, City of Diamond Bar, City of Gardena, City of Glendale, City of Glendora, City of Hawaiian Gardens, City of Hawthorne, City of Huntington Park, City of Industry, City of Irwindale, City of La Habra Heights, City of La Mirada, City of Lakewood, City of Lawndale, Cityof Lomita, City of Long Beach, City of Lynwood, City of Montebello, City of Monterey Park, City of Norwalk, City of Paramount, City of Pico Rivera, City of Pomona, City of Redondo Beach, City of Rosemead, City of San Dimas, City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Fe Springs, City of Sierra Madre, City of Signal Hill,City of South El Monte, City of South Gate, City of West Covina, and City of Whittier.
Unless otherwise noted, all further statutory references are to the Revenueand Taxation Code.
A similar dispute has arisen in Fresno County. The trial court there ruled infavor of the cities in that litigation, but appellate proceedings in that matter have been stayed pending our resolution of the present case. (
City of Clovis v. Countyof Fresno
, F060148, app. pending.)

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->