County of Los Angeles v. Sasaki
| Decision Date | 30 March 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. B077722,B077722 |
| Citation | 23 Cal.App.4th 1442,29 Cal.Rptr.2d 103 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 90 Ed. Law Rep. 299 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Alan T. SASAKI, as Auditor-Controller, etc., Defendant and Respondent; Anthony L. MILLER, as Acting Secretary of State etc., et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. Civ. |
DeWitt W. Clinton, County Counsel, and Frederick R. Bennett, Asst. County Counsel, for plaintiff and appellant.
Leland C. Dolley, City Atty., Alhambra, Jerold A. Goddard, City Atty., Redondo Beach, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, J. Robert Flandrick, Robert V. Wadden, Jr., Timothy D. Cremin, Los Angeles, Cameron L. Reeves, County Counsel, Lake, Anita L. Grant, Deputy County Counsel, David Nawi, County Counsel, Santa Barbara, and Kevin E. Ready, Sr., Deputy County Counsel as amici curiae for plaintiffs and appellants.
Rodi, Pollock, Pettker, Galbraith & Phillips, John D. Cahill and Cris K. O'Neall, Los Angeles, for defendant and respondent.
Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., Floyd D. Shimomura, Allen Sumner and N. Eugene Hill, Asst. Attys. Gen., Linda Cabatic, Daniel G. Stone, Damon Connolly and Christopher Foley, Deputy Attys. Gen., for real parties in interest.
Christian M. Keiner, J. Stanton Bair, Sacramento, Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, Joseph Remcho, Robin B. Johansen and Karen A. Getman, San Francisco, as amicus curiae, for real parties in interest and respondents.
Lloyd M. Harmon, Jr., County Counsel and Theresa Osterman Stevenson, San Diego, as amici curiae.
The County of Los Angeles (the County) appeals the judgment denying its petition for writ of mandate to compel County Auditor-Controller Alan T. Sasaki (Sasaki) to disburse property tax receipts in accordance with County Ordinance No. 93-0045. That ordinance provides for apportionment of property tax revenues for fiscal year 1993-1994 in accordance with their apportionment in 1992-1993, rather than pursuant to state Senate Bill 1135 (SB 1135). SB 1135, effective June 30, 1993, reallocates approximately $2.6 billion in local property tax revenues for fiscal year 1993-1994 from local governments and special districts to school districts and community college districts. 1
The County challenges what it characterizes as the state plan for a permanent restructuring of the fiscal relationship between state and local government. According to the County, this plan contemplates a shift in the burden of financing education from the state to the counties. The County asserts the plan encompasses a reallocation by the state of local property tax revenues from local governments and special districts to education pursuant to SB 1135. The County also contends the plan includes a redefinition pursuant to Senate Bill 399 (SB 399), also effective June 30, 1993, of the formulas set forth in Propositions 98 and 111 (Proposition 98) for determining the state's responsibility for educational funding.
The County argues this plan is unconstitutional because article XIII, section 24 of the state Constitution precludes the use of local property taxes for state purposes, in this case, to fulfill what the County asserts is the state's educational responsibility. The County also contends SB 1135 violates the "home rule" provisions of the state Constitution (Cal. Const., art XI, §§ 4, 5).
We determine the County not only lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of SB 399, but also waived its challenge by voluntarily dismissing its cause of action for declaratory relief, and failing to provide a factual record upon which the challenge could be based.
We conclude the County has not established that the reallocation of property tax revenue from local governments to schools mandated by the Legislature in SB 1135 violates the home rule provisions of the California Constitution. We also hold SB 1135 does not violate article XIII, section 24 of the California Constitution.
Finally, we determine County Ordinance No. 93-00454 is void in any event because it not only conflicts with the general law of the state (SB 1135), but the County may not legislate in the area of property tax allocation because the state has occupied the field.
The judgment will be affirmed.
SB 1135 was enacted by urgency legislation implementing the 1993-94 Budget Act. (Stats.1993, ch. 68, eff. June 30, 1993.) Among other things, the statute added sections 97.02 and 97.035 to the Revenue and Taxation Code. For the fiscal year 1993-94, these sections reallocate approximately $2.6 billion of property tax revenues from counties, cities and counties, cities, and special districts, to Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds established in each county or city and county for distribution to school districts, county offices of education, and community college districts.
The reallocation is computed by the Department of Finance on a county-by-county basis pursuant to a formula based on a combination of the proportion of total Proposition 13 bailout assistance received by the County (Rev. & Tax.Code, § 97.035, subd. (a)(2)(A)), and the County's proportionate share of total statewide sales taxes (id., 97.035, subd. (a)(2)(B)).
As a result of these measures, the share of property tax revenues allocated to K-14 schools increased from the 35 percent share the schools received in 1991-92, to 55 percent in 1993-94. This is, however, just 2 percent more than the schools were allocated for fiscal year 1977-78. (Governor's Budget Summary 1993-94.)
SB 399 was also enacted as an urgency measure effective June 30, 1993. Among other things, SB 399 added section 41204.5 to the Education Code. This section affects the formulas set forth in article XVI, section 8 of the California Constitution, Proposition 98, adopted by the electorate in November 1988, and Proposition 111, operative July 1, 1990, for determining "the moneys to be applied by the state for the support of school districts and community college districts." (Art. XVI, § 8, subd. (b).)
Subdivision (b) of section 8 of article XVI provides the moneys to be so applied "shall be not less than the greater" of the amounts determined by application of three formulas. The first of these formulas is "[t]he amount which, as a percentage of General Fund revenues which may be appropriated pursuant to Article XIII B, equals the percentage of General Fund revenues appropriated for school districts and community college districts, respectively, in fiscal year 1986-87." (Art. XVI, § 8, subd. (b)(1).)
Education Code section 41204.5 provides, in subdivision (c), that "for the 1993-94 fiscal year and each year thereafter, the percentage of 'General Fund revenues appropriated for school districts and community college districts, respectively, in fiscal year 1986-87,' for purposes of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution, shall be deemed to be the percentage of General Fund revenues that would have been appropriated for those entities if the amendments made to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 95) of Part 0.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code by statutes enacted during the 1991-92 Regular Session and the amendments made to that chapter by statutes enacted during the 1993-94 Regular Session having the effect that property tax revenues are shifted from one or more counties, cities, or special districts to one or more school districts or community college districts, had been operative for the 1986-87 fiscal year."
Anticipating the foregoing legislative enactments, the County enacted Ordinance No. 93-0045, which added Chapter 4.200, entitled "Apportionment of Property Taxes," to the County Code. This ordinance, which became operative upon the state's enactment of SB 1135, directs the County Treasurer-Tax Collector and Auditor-Controller to collect, apportion and disburse property taxes for fiscal year 1993-1994 in accordance with the apportionment provided by law in fiscal year 1992-1993. In other words, the responsible County officers were directed by the County to ignore the state directive set forth in SB 1135.
Thereafter, the County filed a complaint and petition against Auditor-Controller Sasaki, naming as real parties in interest the Secretary of State, State Controller, State Treasurer, Director of the Department of Finance, Governor, Assembly Speaker, and President Pro Tempore of the State Senate. The complaint sought an injunction precluding enforcement of SB 1135 with regard to locally imposed and collected property taxes, a writ of mandate directing Sasaki to disburse such revenues in accordance with the County ordinance, and a declaration that SB 1135 unconstitutionally confiscates approximately $2.6 billion of such revenues and unconstitutionally uses the funds to pay a substantial part of the state's portion of school funding, or to pay other state expenses in violation of the "home rule" responsibilities of local chartered governments and in violation of Proposition 98 and of articles XIII A; XIII B; and XIII, § 24, of the California Constitution.
The trial court issued an alternative writ of mandate on July 13, 1993. The matter was heard on July 28, 1993, and judgment was entered the same day dismissing the real parties in interest who are state legislators (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 14; Harmer v. Superior Court (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 345, 79 Cal.Rptr. 855), denying the petition for writ of mandate, and dismissing the causes of action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the County's request.
Without mentioning SB 399, the County alleged in its complaint that the state will use the funds reallocated pursuant to SB 1135 to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
County of San Diego v. San Diego Norml
...operation of an enactment may have standing to raise the challenge in the courts. For example, in County of Los Angeles v. Sasaki (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1442 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 103], one enactment (Sen. Bill No. 1135 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.)) reallocated property tax revenues away from the county......
-
Silicon Val. Taxpayers v. Open Space Auth.
... ... SILICON VALLEY TAXPAYERS ASSN., INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, ... SANTA CLARA COUNTY OPEN SPACE AUTHORITY, Defendant and Respondent ... No. H026759 ... Court of Appeal, Sixth ... of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 24 Cal.4th 830, 836-837, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 719, 14 P.3d ... [Citation.]' ( County of Los Angeles v. Sasaki (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1442, ... 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 881 ... 1451, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 103.) Its ... ...
-
County of Sonoma v. Com'n On State Mandates
...Perspectives and Issues," pp. 154-157.) The ERAF legislation has been challenged and upheld. In County of Los Angeles v. Sasaki (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1442, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 103 (Sasaki) and San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection Dist. v. Davis (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 134, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 343 (S......
-
Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino
...74, 389 P.2d 538; County of Mariposa v. Merced Irr. Dist. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 467, 474, 196 P.2d 920; County of Los Angeles v. Sasaki (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1442, 1454, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 103; Marin Hospital Dist. v. Rothman (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 495, 501-502, 188 Cal.Rptr. 828, and cases cited.) I......