City of San Jose v. State of California

• Decision Date: 03 June 1996
• Docket Number: No. H014099,H014099
• Citation: 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 521,45 Cal.App.4th 1802
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3995, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6437 CITY OF SAN JOSE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. The STATE of California, Defendant and Appellant; Kathleen CONNELL, as Controller, etc., et al., Real Parties in Interest and Appellants

Page 521

53 Cal.Rptr.2d 521

45 Cal.App.4th 1802, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3995,

96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6437

CITY OF SAN JOSE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. The STATE of California, Defendant and Appellant Kathleen CONNELL, as Controller, etc., et al., Real Parties in Interest and Appellants

No. H014099.

Court of Appeal, Sixth District, California.

June 3, 1996.

Rehearing Denied July 2, 1996.

Review Denied Sept. 18, 1996. ^*

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Floyd D. Shimomura, Assistant Attorney General, Linda A. Cabatic, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Keith Yamanaka, Deputy Attorney General, Gary D. Hori, Paula A. Higashi, Commission on State Mandates, Sacramento, for Defendant and Appellant and for Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.

Joan R. Gallo, City Attorney, George Rios, Assistant City Attorney, David J. Stock, Joseph DiCiuccio, Deputy City Attorneys for Plaintiff and Respondent.

J. Robert Flandrick, Deanna L. Ballesteros, Timothy L. Davis and Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Los Angeles, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, Associate Justice.

In 1979 the voters of the State of California (State) adopted an initiative which added article XIIIB to the state Constitution. This followed in the wake of Proposition 13, which had added article XIIIA the previous year. Section 6 of article XIIIB imposed limits on the State's authority to mandate new programs or increased services on local governmental entities, whose taxing powers had been severely restricted by Proposition 13. ¹ Under section 6, whenever the State mandated such a program, the State would be required to reimburse the local entity for the costs of the program.

The present proceeding arose after the Legislature enacted Government Code section 29550 in 1990 (hereafter, section 29550). Section 29550 authorized counties to charge cities, and other local entities such as school districts, for the costs of booking into county jails persons who had been arrested by employees of the cities and other entities. The City of San Jose (City) claims that at the time of trial it had incurred expenses of over $10 million as a result of costs imposed pursuant to section 29550.

City contends section 29550 is a state mandated program under article XIIIB, section 6, and that the State must reimburse these costs. The State claims that section 29550 simply authorizes allocation of booking costs, which formerly were borne solely by the counties, among all the local entities responsible for the arrests; since there is no mandated shifting of costs from state to local government, section 29550 does not come within section 6 and no reimbursement is necessary.

We agree with the State and we therefore reverse the judgment of the superior court which had granted City's petition for a writ of mandate. We direct that the court issue an order denying the petition and enter judgment for the State.

Background

Articles XIIIA and XIIIB of the Constitution were intended to be complementary provisions with the general purpose of protecting taxpayers by restricting government's power both to levy and to spend taxes for public purposes. (County of Fresno v. State of California (1991) 53 Cal.3d 482, 486-487, 280 Cal.Rptr. 92, 808 P.2d 235; City of Sacramento v. State of California (1990) 50 Cal.3d 51, 59, fn. 1, 266 Cal.Rptr. 139, 785 P.2d 522.)

In 1978 article XIIIA was added to the California Constitution through the adoption of Proposition 13, an initiative measure aimed at controlling ad valorem property taxes and the imposition of new "special taxes." (County of Fresno v. State of California, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 486, 280 Cal.Rptr. 92, 808 P.2d 235.) In recognition of the fact that Proposition 13 would radically reduce county revenues, the State took steps to assume responsibility for programs previously financed by local government. (County of Los Angeles v. State of California (1987) 43 Cal.3d 46, 61, 233 Cal.Rptr. 38, 729 P.2d 202.)

The following year, through another statewide election in 1979, article XIIIB was added to the Constitution. Article XIIIB placed limitations on the ability of both state and local governments to appropriate funds for expenditures, effectively freezing appropriations at both the state and local level. (Cal. Const., art. XIIIB, § 8, subd. (h); id., § 2.) Further, section 6 was included in article XIIIB in order to protect shrinking tax revenues of local government from state mandates which would require expenditure of such revenues. (County of Fresno v. State of California, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 487, 280 Cal.Rptr. 92, 808 P.2d 235.) "[It] was intended to preclude the state from shifting financial responsibility for carrying out governmental functions onto local entities that were ill equipped to handle the task." (Ibid.)

Section 6 provides: "Whenever the Legislature or any state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, the state shall provide a subvention of funds to reimburse such local government for the costs of such program or increased level of service...."

In order to implement section 6, the Legislature enacted Government Code sections 17500-17630. Those sections set forth a procedure for determining whether a particular statute imposes state-mandated costs on a local entity within the meaning of section 6. Section 17525 created the Commission on State Mandates (Commission), which has the sole purpose of hearing and deciding on claims by local government that the local entity "is entitled to be reimbursed by the state for costs" as required by section 6. (Gov.Code, § 17551, subd. (a).)

A local entity seeking reimbursement must first file a claim with the Commission. The Commission then holds a public hearing, takes evidence and decides whether the particular state enactment mandates a "new program or increased level of service." (Gov.Code, §§ 17551, 17553, 17556.) The first claim made with respect to a particular statute becomes a "test claim" and its adjudication then governs all subsequent claims based on the same statute. (Gov.Code, § 17521; Kinlaw v. State of California (1991) 54 Cal.3d 326, 332, 285 Cal.Rptr. 66, 814 P.2d 1308.) If the claim is rejected, the local entity may bring an action in administrative mandamus in superior court to challenge the Commission's determination. (Gov.Code, § 17559.)

Section 29550 was enacted in 1990, effective as of July 1 of that year. It states in relevant part: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a county may impose a fee upon a city, [or other local entity], for reimbursement of county expenses incurred with respect to the booking or other processing of persons arrested by an employee of that city, ... where the arrested persons are brought to the county jail for booking or detention. The fee imposed by a county pursuant to this section shall not exceed the actual administrative costs, including applicable overhead costs...."

In response to the passage of section 29550, the County of Santa Clara enacted Ordinance No. NS-300.470. It provides that "(a) There is hereby imposed a fee upon every city [or other local entity], equal to the administrative costs, including applicable overhead costs of booking or other processing at any county jail facility of every person arrested by an employee of such city ... and brought to such county jail facility for booking or detention." Paragraph (c) provides that "such fee shall apply to every booking or processing of a person at a county jail facility on and after July 1, 1990."

In October of 1991, the City, joined by the cities of Santa Cruz and Emeryville, filed a test claim with the Commission, claiming that section 29550 imposed on the City "costs mandated by the state" (Gov.Code, § 17551, subd. (a)), which were reimbursable under section 6. City alleged it had incurred costs in excess of $3,000,000 for the first year following the effective date of Ordinance NS-300.470.

The gist of the argument in City's test claim was that counties function as political subdivisions and agents of the State, charged with enforcement of the State's criminal laws. Detaining and booking arrestees is an integral part of this law enforcement process. By authorizing counties to require cities to bear these costs, section 29550 mandated a shift of fiscal responsibility onto local entities, in violation of the purposes underlying section 6.

The Commission heard the matter on May 28, 1992, and issued a proposed statement of decision in which it concluded that section 29550 does not create a reimbursable state-mandated program within the meaning of section 6. The Commission found that "maintenance of jails and detention of prisoners have always been a local matter charged to local government, and that financial and administrative responsibility for the county jail facility are borne by the county." The Commission further found that "the state and counties are not synonymous entities for the maintenance of the jails and detention of prisoners.... [p] In sum, cities and counties are both forms of local government." Therefore, "the imposition of costs authorized by Government Code section 29550 results in a shift or reallocation of funds between local governmental entities that benefit from the county jail facility.... [p] ... [T]he reimbursement required by article XIIIB of the California Constitution does not apply in this situation because that provision is concerned with the relationship between state and local governments; it does not address legislation that affects financial relationships among local governments."

Furthermore, the Commission found that section 29550 was not a state-mandated program because "the section is clearly discretionary in empowering a county to impose a booking or other processing fee upon a city.... Government Code section 29550 does not require, but merely authorizes, counties to establish booking fees. Each county elects...