City of Saratoga v. Huff

Citation24 Cal.App.3d 978,101 Cal.Rptr. 32
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Decision Date17 March 1972
PartiesCITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation of the State of California, Petitioner, v. James R. HUFF, City Clerk of the City of Saratoga, Respondent; WEST VALLEY JOINT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 30615.

Faber L. Johnston, City Atty., City of Saratoga, San Jose, for respondent.

Wilson, Jones, Morton & Lynch, and Robert G. Auwbrey, San Mateo, for petitioner.

SIMS, Associate Justice.

On petition of the City of Saratoga an alternative writ of mandate was issued directed to the city clerk of that city to show cause why a peremptory writ of mandate should not issue directing him to give notice of the sale of $2,000,000 of special assessment bonds to be issues under the provisions of the Improvement Act of 1911 for an assessment for improvements to be undertaken under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 on certain lands of the West Valley Joint Community College District which are situated within the city. 1 The assessment is to be secured by those lands and is to be payable over a ten-year period by the levy of a special tax pursuant to the provisions of section 6468 of the Streets and Highways Code. Respondent clerk contends that the proceedings are void for each and all of the following reasons: (1) that the community college district may not circumvent the debt limitation provision of section 40 of article XIII of the state Constitution by prevailing upon another public entity to create an assessment district, composed solely of property of the college district, for improvements to be constructed solely upon that property and to be owned, controlled and regulated by the district; (2) that the community college district may not so circumvent the maximum tax rate restriction imposed by sections 20751 and 20803 of the Education Code; and (3) that the city cannot construct improvements under section 5101 of the Streets and Highways Code on property in which it has no greater interest than that it obtained by the arrangements with the college district.

It is concluded that under the circumstances of this case the assessment violates the constitutional provision in that it creates a fixed $2,000,000 obligation incurred for the direct benefit of, not the city, but the college district, and payable over a ten-year period out of ad valorem taxes to be levied against all property within the college district; that although under proper circumstances the Legislature may provide for ad valorem taxes at rates in excess of limitations which it has itself fixed, such taxes may not be imposed to pay an obligation which violates the constitutional restriction; and that since the proposed assessment is invalid, it is unnecessary to determine to what extent improvements may be constructed on land of another public entity in which the governing body ordering the improvements has merely an easement for construction. The alternative writ must be discharged, and the petition for a peremptory writ denied.

I

West Valley Joint Community College District is a community college district which embraces what is alleged to be 230 square miles of land, and includes within its boundaries the City of Saratoga, and all or a portion of seven other cities and some incorporated area, all within the County of Santa Clara. The college district owns a 143 acre parcel of real property within the City of Saratoga on which it has constructed and is operating a community college campus.

On February 18, 1971 the governing board of the college district unanimously adopted a resolution authorizing its chairman and secretary to execute a petition to the City of Saratoga for acquisitions and improvements under the hearing 'Saratoga Campus Recreational Facilities Assessment District.' Although, as pointed out by the city, such a petition is only an informal and nonstatutory request, without express authorization under the provisions of the Education Code or the relevant provisions of the Streets and Highways Code, it may be referred to because it demonstrates that the proceedings were taken by the city at the request of the college district, and because it sets forth succinctly the subsequent legal proceedings taken by the city council, alone, and as a contracting party with the college district.

The petition addressed to the city council reads, 'The West Valley Community College District respectfully petitions the City Council of the City of Saratoga as follows: ( ) 1. That you take proceedings under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and issue bonds to represent the unpaid assessments pursuant to Chapter 4.5, commencing with Section 6468, of Part 5 of Division 7 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Improvement Act of 1911, for financing the costs of the following acquisitions and improvements: . . .' There follows references to 'A' the improving of four parcels on the campus as offstreet parking lots by grading and the construction thereon of pavement, curbs, gutters storm drainage facilities, planting and landscaping facilities complete with automatic sprinkler irrigation systems, and lighting facilities, and the construction of, 'B' through 'M' inclusive, an athletic recreation field, a running track, a baseball field, tennis courts, handball courts, a challenge course, field game areas, a golf area, an archery field, swimming pool bleachers, a chain link fence and a pathway system. Finally 'N Auxiliary' reads, 'The acquisition of all lands and easements and the construction of all work auxiliary to any of the above and necessary to complete the same.'

The petition continues: '2. That you assess the cost of said acquisitions and improvements, together with the incidental expenses of said proceedings, upon the lands of the West Valley Community College District (in the City of Saratoga) . . .. ( ) 3. That said proceedings provide for the levy of an assessment against the properties of said College District, being the area benefited by said improvements and that bonds to represent said assessment be issued as provided in Section 1 hereof, in order that the amount of said College District assessment may be paid over a period of ten (10) years in the manner provided by law. ( ) 4. That the City of Saratoga make and enter into an agreement with the Joint Junior College District pursuant to Sections 10109 and following tof the Streets and Highways Code, so that the ownership and responsibility for maintenance and operation of all of said facilities will vest in said Junior College District.'

The petition further designates the engineering firm to be appointed as engineer of the work, provides for approval and inspection by the public works director of the city, specifies that legal services are to be performed by a designated firm of attorneys, which is in fact the same firm that prepared the petition and appears for the city in these proceedings, provides for the compensation of the engineers of the work and the attorneys, and otherwise leaves discretion in the city council.

On March 17, 1971 the city council passed a resolution of preliminary determination to carry out the proposed acquisition and improvements in the manner suggested in the petition under division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code (see §§ 2800 et seq., The Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and majority Protest Act of 1936, particularly § 2821), and a resolution of intention to acquire and construct those improvements (see § 10200). The latter resolution provided, among other things, (a) that the public convenience and necessity required, and it was the intention of the council to order, the acquisitions and improvements described therein, (b) that the city proposed to enter into a contract with the district pursuant to sections 10109 and following of the Streets and Highways Code, (c) that the boundaries of the assessment district were the composite and consolidated area of the lands of the college district located in the city, (d) that bonds to represent unpaid assessments would be issued in the manner provided in section 6848 and following of the Improvement Act of 1911, (e) that except as provided for the issuance of bonds, improvements would be done pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, and (f) that the engineer of work for the project was directed to make and file, pursuant to said Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, a report containing, among other things, plans and specifications for the project, an estimate of project costs and expenses, an assessment diagram, a proposed assessment of the project costs and expenses, and descriptions of easements and lands of be acquired.

The reference in the resolution of intention to the contract between the city and the college district is further referred to in the petition as follows: 'The subject community recreational and related facilities to be constructed pursuant to the provisions of said Assessment and Assessment Bond Acts are to be constructed upon easements conveyed to the petitioner City by District for such purpose. When constructed the said improvements shall be located within the territorial confines of the said College Campus. In order to protect Campus property against vandalism, to avoid the disruption of classes, to preclude other disruptive and illegal activities, and to provide controls in relation thereto and thereof, controls best formulated by District as a part of its overall regulation of said Campus, said improvements are upon completion to be transferred from petitioner to said District pursuant to a contract entered into by petitioner and said District in accordance with the provisions of S & H 10,109, 10,110, and 10,111 of the said Municipal Improvement Act of 1913.'

Thereafter proceedings were taken as required by law, without protest by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • County of Orange v. Ass'n of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 13 Abril 2011
    ...... debt limitation means " ' the legislative body may not encumber the general funds of the city beyond the year's income without first obtaining the consent of two **158 thirds of the electorate. ...426, 233 P. 965 [conditional purchase of land for city marina]; City of Saratoga v. Huff (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 978, 101 Cal.Rptr. 32 [$2 million in special assessment bonds payable ......
  • Los Angeles County Transporation Com. v. Richmond, L
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 30 Abril 1982
    ...... on real property or a transaction tax or sales tax on the sale of real property within such City, County or special district." 2 .         [31 Cal.3d 200] Following adoption of ...674; Malmstrom, supra, 94 Cal.App.3d at p. 984, 156 Cal.Rptr. 777; City of Saratoga v. Huff (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 978, 986-987, 101 Cal.Rptr. 32); (3) taxes imposed on specific ......
  • County of Santa Barbara v. City of Santa Barbara
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 22 Junio 1976
    ......& Hy.Code, §§ 5301, 5302.5; City of Saratoga v. Huff (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 978, 101 Cal.Rptr. 32, 102 Cal.Rptr. 376), the concept of allowing the assessing body to make such assessments is ......
  • Vanoni v. County of Sonoma
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 19 Julio 1974
    ......I.         Citing Martin v. City of Corning (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 165, 101 Cal.Rptr. 678, respondents contend that the United States ...Page 490.         Appellants rely heavily on City of Saratoga v. Huff (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 978, 101 Cal.Rptr. 32, 102 Cal.Rptr. 376, to support their position. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT