"There is no equitable way to share property tax revenues, only different degrees of inequity." (Sen. Com. on Local Government, Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 407 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) Apr. 20, 1987, p. 2.) This observation is as true today as when it was made during the legislative process more than 20 years ago.
In this case, the City of Scotts Valley (City) claims it has not received all the property tax revenues to which it is entitled. Specifically, the City claims the Auditor-Controller of the County of Santa Cruz (Auditor-Controller) has not properly applied Revenue and Taxation Code section 98, which entitles "no- and low-property tax cities" to a certain percentage of the property taxes paid by their residents. The trial court agreed with the City and granted its petition for a writ of mandate against the County of Santa Cruz and the Auditor-Controller (collectively the County). The court ordered the County to change its allocation methodology and reallocate approximately $2 million in property tax revenues to the City for past fiscal years. The County appealed, but the trial court's order did not finally dispose of all claims in the case. Accordingly, the parties urge us to deem the County's appeal an original writ proceeding. Given the nature and importance of the property tax allocation issues presented by this case, we conclude it is appropriate to do so. We also conclude the trial court was correct, in part, and incorrect, in part, and therefore grant limited writ relief to the County.
The factual and procedural background of this case can only be understood with some knowledge of the real property tax system that has given rise to the allocation issues in this case. This system has its roots in the voter's enactment of Proposition 13 in 1978 imposing a 1 percent cap on real property tax rates, their enactment of Proposition 98 in 1988 imposing a state funding mandate for public education, and negative economic conditions that have since periodically pummeled the state's economy. To say this system is dense, prolix and arcane is an understatement.
The passage of Proposition 13 (Cal. Const., art. XIII A) fundamentally altered the state's property tax system. Whereas local governmental entities had previously imposed their own property tax rates, Proposition 13 set the tax rate for all real property statewide at 1 percent of assessed value. The proposition directed counties to collect the property tax and allocate it among local governmental entities as determined by the Legislature. (Cal. Const., art. XIII A, § 1, subd. (a).)
The Legislature immediately enacted "bailout" legislation to provide state funding to replace local property tax revenues lost as a result of Proposition 13. (Governor's Off. of Planning & Research, Enrolled Bill Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 1361 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) July 20, 1994, p. 1 (hereafter Governor's Enrolled Bill Report on Senate Bill 1361); Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 617 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 22, 1992, p. 7.) It also enacted a temporary allocation system for the next fiscal year (fiscal year 1978-1979). (Stats. 1978, ch. 292, § 24, p. 606.) County auditors were generally directed to allocate property tax revenues among local governmental entities in proportion to their tax rates in the preceding fiscal year (i.e., the year prior to the passage of Prop. 13). (Gov. Code, § 26912, subd. (b).)
The following year, the Legislature enacted what is called the "A.B. 8" allocation system (after the applicable Assem. Bill), now codified as Revenue and Taxation Code sections 96 and 96.5 (originally enacted as § 98 [Stats. 1979, ch. 282, § 59, pp. 1028-1029]).
Since the 1980-1981 fiscal year, the A.B. 8 allocation system has been implemented through sections 96.1 (originally enacted as § 97 [Stats. 1979, ch. 282, § 59, p. 1028]), 96.2 (originally enacted as § 97.5 [Stats. 1980, ch. 801, § 9, p. 2511]) and 96.5. This statutory allocation process is similar to, and based on, the process for the 1979-1980 fiscal year. First, the tax base is determined, i.e., in each tax rate area, each local governmental entity is allocated the same amount of property tax it was allocated the preceding year. (§ 96.1, subd. (a)(1).) Second, the annual tax increment is allocated under section 96.5 in accordance with the same proportions applicable to the base. (§§ 96.1, subd. (a)(2), 96.5.) In this way, the proportional allocations established in the first fiscal year following the passage of Proposition 13, as modified for the following fiscal year, are perpetuated year after year, unless modified by the Legislature.
In 1987, nine years after the passage of Proposition 13, the Legislature addressed what had become a politically charged dispute over a perceived inequity in the A.B. 8 allocation system. Under the A.B. 8 allocation system, cities that had levied no property tax before the passage of Proposition 13 received none of the property tax being paid by their residents, even though their residents were paying the same 1 percent property tax every other property taxpayer in the state was paying. (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1197 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 31, 1988.) Similarly, some "newly incorporated cities" (i.e., cities incorporated after Prop. 13) received a very small tax base and thus commensurately
The legislative history reflects the difficulty of the problem: "There is no equitable way to share property tax revenues, only different degrees of inequity. Officials from the no-property-tax cities point out that their constituents pay the same 1% tax rate as everyone else, but their cities receive nothing. County officials note that reallocating revenues benefits the residents of those cities at the expense of countywide health, welfare, and justice programs. . . . The allocation of property tax revenues is a `zero-sum game,' in which there must be a loser for every winner. . . . Rather than searching for perfect equity, the Committee may need to balance the different forms of inequity."
TEA is viewed as "a minimum property tax entitlement for each city incorporated before June 5, 1987." (Joint Conf. Com. Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 1197 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) & Sen. Bill No. 612 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.).) Section 98 thus specifies: "Except as otherwise provided in this section, each qualifying city shall, for the 1989-90 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, be allocated by the auditor an amount determined pursuant to the TEA formula." (§ 98, subd. (b)(1), italics added.) However, only a "qualifying city," now defined as a city that receives less than 7 percent of the property tax revenues generated within its tax rate areas, is entitled to TEA.
TEA is an alternative allocation system. "[T]he auditor in each county with qualifying cities . . . is required to make property tax revenue allocations to those cities in accordance with a specified [TEA] formula and to make corresponding reductions in the county's property tax revenue allocation." (Legis. Counsel's Dig., Assem. Bill No. 1197 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) 4 Stats. 1988, Summary Dig., p. 289.) Accordingly, each year there must be a comparison between what a qualifying city would receive under the TEA statute and what it would receive under the A.B. 8 statutes, since revenues will be allocated under the TEA statute only if the amount exceeds what would be allocated to the city under the A.B. 8 statutes. (§ 98, subd. (k); Off. of Local Government Affairs, Enrolled Bill Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 1197 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) Sept. 9, 1988, p. 2 [receipt of TEA will "only occur if it is no less than what the qualifying cities would have received without the TEA formula"].) What a qualifying city would receive under the TEA statute is determined by the six-step "TEA formula" set forth in the statute. (§ 98, subd. (c)(1)-(6).)
As initially enacted, the TEA statute did not address the tax revenue generated by property held by local community redevelopment agencies, generally referred to as the "redevelopment agency tax increment." (Off. of Local Government Affairs, Enrolled Bill Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 1197 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) Sept. 9, 1988, p. 2 ["SB 709 [(passed the preceding year and which established TEA)] does not contain provisions for redevelopment agency tax increment financing."].) At the behest of the counties, which complained the failure to take redevelopment tax increment into account resulted in an unfair loss of their tax revenues, the Legislature expanded the TEA formula the following year to do so. (Joint Conf. Com. Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 1197 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) & Sen. Bill No. 612 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) pp. 25-26.) The augmented formula now "require[s] county auditors to reduce the tax base, upon which the allocation to qualifying cities is determined, by the amount of property tax revenues received by the cities' redevelopment agencies." (Off. of Local Government Affairs, Enrolled Bill Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 1197 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) Sept. 9, 1988, p. 2.) The Legislature also added a provision that similarly requires county auditors to reduce the TEA of qualifying cities with "dependent special districts within their boundaries." (Id. at p. 5 [amendment "revises SB 709 by . . . adjusting the [(property tax)] shift to recognize redevelopment, and by reducing the shift to recognize tax cuts and special districts"].) In short, the 1988 amendments to the TEA statute revised "the property tax allocation provisions of [the preceding year] . . . to provide a more equitable solution to the long standing issue of shifting property tax revenues to no- and-low property tax cities."
During the same period of time the Legislature was working to establish a more equitable allocation of property tax revenues, the state was also struggling with the complexities of public school funding. The history of this funding challenge is recited in detail in this court's opinion in County of Sonoma v. Commission on State Mandates (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1271-1276 [101 Cal.Rptr.2d 784] (County of Sonoma), and was more recently summarized in Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. County of Los Angeles (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 414, 419-422 [104 Cal.Rptr.3d 590] (Los Angeles Unified School Dist.). We cannot improve on the discussion in these cases, from which we quote: "Since 1971, the division of state and local responsibility for educational funding has `been in a state of flux.' (City of El Monte v. Commission on State Mandates (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 266, 278 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 333].) The state's responsibility for educational funding has increased since 1971 for three primary reasons." (Los Angeles Unified School Dist., supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 419.)
"First, in the 1970's, the California Supreme Court held that the state must ameliorate the disparities in local property tax-based educational funding. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584 [96 Cal.Rptr. 601, 487 P.2d 1241]; Serrano v. Priest (1976) 18 Cal.3d 728 [135 Cal.Rptr. 345, 557 P.2d 929].) Second, in 1978, the voters adopted Proposition 13, now article XIII A of the California Constitution, which limited local property taxation. (See, e.g., County of Los Angeles v. Sasaki (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1442, 1450-1452 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 103] . . . .) Finally, in 1988, the voters enacted Proposition 98, which established a minimum guaranteed state funding entitlement for schools. (Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 8, subd. (b). . . .)" (Los Angeles Unified School Dist., supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at pp. 419-420.)
"The state's ability to meet its increased financial obligation to schools under Proposition 98 was severely tested in fiscal year 1991-1992, when the
"The ERAF reallocation design can be summarized as requiring reduction of property tax revenues previously allocated to counties by use of a specified formula, deposit of the reduced amounts into ERAF's, and distribution of the ERAF funds to schools. Another portion of the same legislation deemed the ERAF revenues to be part of the state General Fund revenues for purposes of calculating the minimum educational funding guarantee under Proposition 98. The overall result of these statutes is that the tax revenues of the counties are decreased, school revenues remain the same, and the minimum school funding guarantee of Proposition 98 is satisfied in part by the ERAF funds. This legislative adroitness fulfilled the funding of Proposition 98 by reallocating available finite funds from one local governmental entity to another. (Legis. Analyst, Rep. to Joint Legis. Budget Com., analysis of 1993-1994 Budget Bill, p. 90.)" (County of Sonoma, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1275-1276, fns. omitted.)
The Legislature, however, did not view the ERAF legislation so much as a reshuffling of tax revenues, but as bringing to an end the state "bailout" of local governmental entities under Assem. Bill 8. (E.g., Governor's Off. of Planning & Research, Enrolled Bill Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 1135 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 23, 1993, pp. 1-2 ["In order to balance last year's State budget, SB 617 [(ERAF I)] was enacted to begin the `undoing' of the SB 154 and AB 8 bailout created in 1978-79."] and p. 3 ["SB 1135 [(ERAF II)] would complete the repeal of the SB 154 and AB 8 bailout by shifting [additional] . . . property tax revenues from local governments to the ERAF . . . ."].)
The first ERAF tax revenue shift (ERAF I), enacted in 1992, was implemented through two different statutory mechanisms, now codified as sections
Section 97.2 effectuated a permanent reallocation of property tax revenues to the ERAF's. From each county, a statutorily specified amount of property tax revenue was reallocated to the ERAF created for that county. (§ 97.2, subd. (a)(1).) From each city, 9 percent of its property tax revenue was reallocated to the local ERAF.
The base "reductions" and reallocations to ERAF's only had to be made once, for the 1992-1993 fiscal year. Thereafter, the impact on cities and counties was self-perpetuating through the A.B. 8 allocation process. (Los Angeles Unified School Dist., supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 425 ["By incorporating the ERAF legislation into section 96.1's yearly allocation of property taxes, the Legislature implemented an annual shift of property taxes to ERAF's for distribution to the schools."].) The ERAF's, in turn, received a tax base through the mandated "reductions" and reallocations, and effectively became another entity receiving a share of the local property tax revenue through the A.B. 8 allocation process.
Section 97.2 specifically refers to the TEA statute. Subdivision (b)(4) states: "In the 1992-93 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, the auditor shall adjust the computations required pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with section 98 [(the TEA statute)]) so that those computations do not result in the restoration of any reduction required pursuant to this section." (§ 97.2, subd. (b)(4).) This had the effect of making the ERAF tax revenue shift mandated by section 97.2 a deduction from the TEA allocation under section 98, which effectively reduced the amount of the TEA guarantee to qualifying cities to slightly less than 7 percent.
The state's budget crisis and difficulty in meeting the school funding mandate of Proposition 98 continued, leading to the enactment of additional ERAF provisions the following year, in 1993 (ERAF II), now codified as sections 97.1 (enacted as § 97.02 [Stats. 1994, ch. 1167, § 3, p. 6906; Stats. 1993, ch. 68, § 9, p. 948]) and 97.3 (enacted as § 97.035 [Stats. 1994, ch. 1167, § 3, p. 6906].)
Section 97.1 required another reallocation of property tax revenues based on population. Each county was deemed for the previous fiscal year (fiscal year 1992-1993) not to have been allocated $0.78 per resident and each city was deemed not to have been allocated $0.99 per resident (§ 97.1, subd. (a)(1)), thereby "reduc[ing]" the tax base for counties and cities for the 1993-1994 fiscal year. The property tax revenues not allocated to the counties and cities because of their "reduc[ed]" tax bases were reallocated to the ERAF's. (§ 97.1, subd. (a)(2).) These reallocations are also perpetuated in future years through the A.B. 8 allocation process. (See § 97.1, subd. (a) ["Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the computations and allocations made . . . pursuant to Section 96.1 or its predecessor section [(the A.B. 8 statutes)] . . . shall be modified . . . as follows . . . ."].) Section 97.1 contains no reference to the TEA statute.
Section 97.3, the second ERAF II statute, further "reduced" the local tax base for the 1993-1994 fiscal year. (§ 97.3, subds. (a)-(c).) The statute specified amounts certain—$1.998 billion from counties and $288 million from cities—by which the local tax base was to be deemed "reduced." (§ 97.3, subds. (a)(1), (b)(1).) It also directed the Director of Finance to parse these
In 2004, more than 10 years after enactment of the initial ERAF statutes, the Legislature dramatically reduced the amount of VLF's payable to cities and counties from 2 percent to 0.65 percent of a vehicle's assessed value. (§§ 10752, 10752.1; Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, Unfinished Business Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1096 (2003-2004 Reg. Sess.) as amended July 27, 2004, p. 1.) To ameliorate the effect of this loss of revenue, the Legislature enacted section 97.70, commonly referred to as the "VLF swap." (§ 97.70.)
Under section 97.70, counties essentially hold back from the allocation to ERAF's an amount of property tax revenues equivalent to the lost VLF revenue. (§ 97.70, subd. (a)(1)(A).) That property tax revenue is, instead,
In conjunction with the VLF swap, the Legislature enacted another ERAF statute, section 97.71 (ERAF III). Unlike ERAF's I and II, which were implemented by modifying the A.B. 8 allocation process—that is, by "reducing" the local tax base by deeming the previous year's property tax allocation to have been smaller—ERAF III was implemented by modifying the VLF swap for fiscal years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, thereby reducing the amount of VLF reimbursement to cities and counties. (§ 97.71, subds. (a)-(b); Legis. Counsel's Dig., Sen. Bill No. 1096 (2003-2004 Reg. Sess.) 6 Stats. 2004, Summary Dig., pp. 80, 82.) Thus, rather than cross-referencing the A.B. 8 allocation statutes (§§ 96.1, 96.5), the prefatory language of ERAF III states: "The total amount of revenue required to be allocated to each county and each city and county under Section 97.70 [(the VLF swap)] shall be reduced by the dollar amount . . ." specified in the statute. (§ 97.71, subd. (a)(1); cf. § 97.2 (ERAF I) ["Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the computations and allocations made by each county pursuant to Section 96.1 or its predecessor section [(the A.B. 8 statutes)] shall be modified for the 1992-93 fiscal year . . . as follows . . . ."] & § 97.1, subd. (a) (ERAF II) ["Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the computations and allocations made by each county pursuant to Section 96.1 or its predecessor section [(the A.B. 8 statutes)], as modified by Section 97.2 or its predecessor section for the 1992-93 fiscal year, shall be modified for the 1993-94 fiscal years as follows:. . . ."].) In short, ERAF III "took back" some of the reimbursement otherwise provided by way of the VLF swap.
This case not only involves the A.B. 8 statutes, the TEA statute and the ERAF statutes, it also touches on redevelopment. Cities and counties can establish a redevelopment agency to promote economic development within a designated area. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 33100, 33101, 33120, 33131.) Once established, a redevelopment agency is a separate legal entity from the city or county that created it. (Pacific States Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Coachella (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1414, 1422-1424 [17 Cal.Rptr.2d 68].)
The activities of a redevelopment agency are generally funded by what is called tax-increment financing. (See Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 16; Health & Saf. Code, § 33670; Los Angeles Unified School Dist., supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 421.) The tax increment is the increase in property tax revenues that occurs in a redevelopment area after the creation of a redevelopment agency. (Health & Saf. Code, § 33670, subd. (b); Los Angeles Unified School Dist., at p. 421.) In tax-increment financing, the tax increment is allocated to the redevelopment agency and used to fund its redevelopment activities. (Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 16; Health & Saf. Code, § 33670; see Los Angeles Unified School Dist., at pp. 421-422.)
Until 1994, a redevelopment agency could enter into "pass-through" agreements with entities within its redevelopment area that had previously received a share of the property tax revenues. Under such agreements, an agreed amount of the tax increment was passed through to such entities and not retained by the redevelopment agency. (See former subd. (b) of Health & Saf. Code, § 33401, repealed by Stats. 1993, ch. 942, § 23, p. 5358.) Such agreements resulted in significant amounts of "`local property taxes [being] diverted to redevelopment activities,'" with an attendant significant "`cost [to] the state General Fund.'" (Historical and Statutory Notes, 41A West's Ann. Health & Saf. Code (1999 ed.) foll. § 33607.5, p. 173, quoting Stats. 1995, ch. 141, § 1, p. 543.) "`The Community Redevelopment Law Reform Act of 1993 replaced negotiated agreements with a statewide formula to provide all cities, counties, special districts, and schools affected by redevelopment project areas a set percentage of their anticipated property tax revenues.'" (Ibid.) Accordingly, since 1994, the redevelopment tax increment has been passed through to taxing entities within a redevelopment area under a statutorily specified formula. (Health & Saf. Code, § 33607.5; Los Angeles Unified School Dist., supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 422.) With this statutory overview, we turn to the dispute between the City and County.
The City is a "qualifying city" under the TEA statute, and in December 1995, the Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller notified the city manager by
With respect to the ERAF issue, the Auditor-Controller stated his office had found "an error on [sic] the computation relating to the amount of Education Revenue Augmentation Fund adjustment to the TEA basis." Stating that his office had "consulted other county tax professionals" and legal counsel, the Auditor-Controller provided an explanation of the error that characterized ERAF I as having been "amended one [sic] in 1992" and "reenacted in its present form . . . in 1994" (apparently as ERAF II). With respect to the redevelopment issue, the Auditor-Controller stated his office had found an "omission of Scotts Valley Redevelopment Agency allocations." Specifically, "base revenue reduction of redevelopment agency funds had not been computed according to . . . Section 98 (c)" (the amended TEA formula requiring that redevelopment increment be taken into account).
Under its revised ERAF and redevelopment increment analyses, the Auditor-Controller projected the City was not likely to receive TEA in the foreseeable future and requested repayment of the TEA it had received the preceding year. The city manager accepted the Auditor-Controller's explanation, and did not take the matter to the city council.
The following year, in March 1997, the SCO issued its audit report for the audit to which the county Auditor-Controller had referred in his letter to the City.
In 2006, either the mayor or a councilman alerted the city manager that other cities were claiming a right to TEA and asked the city manager to investigate. In September 2006, the City's finance director sent a letter to the county Auditor-Controller asking whether the TEA formula was being properly applied to the City. Within a couple of weeks, the Auditor-Controller responded the City was not entitled to TEA. The finance director did not, at that point, understand the Auditor-Controller's methodology for concluding the City was not entitled to TEA. Only after a number of conversations, did the finance director come to understand how the County was analyzing the issue.
In June 2007, the City filed a combined petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief in the Santa Cruz Superior Court alleging four causes of action against the County, all based on the claim the Auditor-Controller was not properly applying the TEA statute and had failed to allocate to the City all the property tax revenues to which it was entitled. Even though the City was a qualified city under section 98 entitled to receive approximately 7 percent of the property tax revenues paid by its residents, the City alleged it was receiving only between 3.5 and 4.5 percent of the local revenues. This was happening because in determining the comparative A.B. 8 allocation figure, the Auditor-Controller was deeming the City to have been allocated (a) property tax revenues that were actually allocated to and received by the county ERAF and (b) redevelopment tax increment actually allocated to and received by the SVRA. This resulted in the comparative A.B. 8 allocation figure being higher than the TEA formula allocation figure, which resulted in the City being allocated property tax revenues under the A.B. 8 statutes, rather than under the TEA statute.
The County answered and denied any misapplication of the property tax statutes, and subsequently filed a cross-complaint against the City and the SVRA. The case was then transferred to the San Mateo Superior Court. The County and the Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Agency subsequently filed a combined second amended cross-complaint for breach of contract, damages, and declaratory relief against the City and the SVRA and a petition for writ of mandate against the State Controller.
The parties stipulated to bifurcate the trial on the writ petitions and filed extensive memoranda, declarations and exhibits in support of their respective positions. They also agreed the issues boiled down to whether ERAF's II and III "apply" to qualifying cities entitled to TEA under section 98 and whether tax increment allocated to a redevelopment agency should be included in the comparative A.B. 8 allocation figure. After an all-day hearing, the trial court granted the City's petition for a writ of mandate.
The court ruled the County had misapplied the relevant statutes and the City had not received all the property tax revenues to which it was entitled under the TEA statute. However, the court rejected the City's claim it was entitled to recoup tax revenues back to the 2001-2002 fiscal year, agreeing with the County that the three-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 338 applied and the City could recover revenues only back to the 2003-2004 fiscal year. The court ordered $292,113 be reallocated to the City for the 2003-2004 fiscal year, $423,353 for the 2004-2005 fiscal year, $464,344 for the 2005-2006 fiscal year, and $377,727 for the 2006-2007 fiscal year.
In so ruling, the trial court rejected the County's affirmative defense that in 1997 the SCO had "directed" the Auditor-Controller to use the methodology
After the parties failed to reach an agreement that would allow for dismissal of all claims and entry of final judgment, the trial court stayed issuance of a writ against the County pending appellate review. It also made a determination pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 166.1 that the case presents a controlling question of law involving legal issues of statewide importance that would benefit from immediate appellate review. However, rather than filing an original writ proceeding challenging the trial court's rulings, the County filed a notice of appeal. As we noted at the outset, both parties have requested that we deem the County's improper appeal to be an original writ proceeding. We agree with the trial court that this is a case in which immediate appellate review is warranted, and therefore deem the County's appeal to be a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the trial court's ruling that the County has misapplied the TEA statute and a directive that the County change its methodology for determining the comparative A.B. 8 allocation figure and reallocate property tax revenues to the City. (See Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 401 [197 Cal.Rptr. 843, 673 P.2d 720]; H. D. Arnaiz, Ltd. v. County of San Joaquin (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1357, 1366-1367 [118 Cal.Rptr.2d 71].)
Appellate review in an ordinary mandamus proceeding "`is ordinarily confined to an inquiry as to whether the findings and judgment of the trial court are supported by substantial evidence.'" (Agosto v. Board of Trustees of Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College Dist. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 330, 336 [118 Cal.Rptr.3d 300], quoting Saathoff v. City of San Diego (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 697, 700 [41 Cal.Rptr.2d 352].) However, a Court of Appeal engages in de novo review "`when the case involves resolution of questions of law where the facts are undisputed.'" (Agosto, at p. 336, quoting Saathoff, at p. 700; accord, Schram Construction, Inc. v. Regents of University of California (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1051-1052 [114 Cal.Rptr.3d 680].) Accordingly, we also review the questions of statutory construction presented in this case de novo. (See Margarito v. State Athletic Com. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 159, 166 [116 Cal.Rptr.3d 888]; Farahani v. San Diego Community College Dist. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1486, 1491 [96 Cal.Rptr.3d 900].)
We first consider the County's arguments that the City's property tax allocation claims are time-bared, thus precluding consideration of the merits. As we have recited, the trial court ruled the three-year statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 338 applies to the City's claims, barring recovery for fiscal years prior to the 2003-2004 fiscal year. In the trial court, the County advocated this result. However, on appeal, the County contends the three-year statute commenced running more than a decade earlier, although at different times, on what it calls the City's "ERAF II" and "redevelopment" allocation claims. While now couched as statute of limitations arguments, what the County has done on appeal is repackage the equitable defenses it raised in the trial court, all of which the trial court
In the trial court, the County asserted the City's claims were barred by the 60-day period for bringing a "validation action" (Code Civ. Proc., § 860; Gov. Code, § 53511), which it maintained began running at the close of each fiscal year. The County alternatively asserted the three-year period in Code of Civil Procedure section 338 applied. The County maintained under that statute, "liability cannot extend, as a matter of law, backwards beyond Fiscal Year 2003-04." The City responded that neither the 60-day, nor the three-year, period applied and the applicable limitations period was set forth in section 96.1, which bars the reallocation of property taxes for years that have been audited by the State Controller and for which all findings have been resolved. The trial court rejected the County's argument that the validation statutes applied, but agreed with the County that Code of Civil Procedure section 338 applies and bars claims for fiscal years prior to 2003-2004.
In addition to its statute of limitations defenses, the County raised a host of equitable defenses, which it repeatedly characterized as such and treated as distinct from its limitations defenses. The County first invoked the doctrine of laches. It asserted the City's claims "would have existed" by the 1995-1996 fiscal year since the SVRA was operative, ERAF II was in effect, and the City had been told by the Auditor-Controller that, in light of a state audit, he had changed his determination that the City was entitled to TEA. The County further asserted the city manager had been told the SCO had instructed the County to use the challenged methodology for determining the A.B. 8 comparative allocation figure and posited the City made a "decision to accept the SCO's determination" for "strategic" reasons. The County suggested these reasons had to do with financial difficulties being experienced by the SVRA, which the City addressed in part by renegotiating a passthrough agreement between the SVRA and the County. The County claimed that had the City challenged its methodology for determining the comparative A.B. 8 allocation figure, it "would not have agreed to any renegotiation" of the passthrough agreement, "much less the terms and conditions" that were reached. Thus, the County maintained it had been prejudiced by the City's asserted "decision to acquiescene [sic] and accept the determinations of the SCO and the [County] Auditor in 1996." It additionally claimed it was prejudiced because the City had accepted Proposition 172 sales tax revenues channeled to local governmental entities to offset the ERAF II shift of property tax revenues. The County further asserted the "facts" underlying its laches defense supported
The City disputed the County's assertions and objected, on speculation grounds, to all of the County's evidence as to what it "would have done" had the City, in 1996, challenged the way in which the County determined the comparative A.B. 8 allocation figure. The City also claimed that had it had any negotiating "strategy" in mind, it would have filed suit as soon as the passthrough agreement was renegotiated. Further, any legal right had to be waived by the city council, and could not be waived by the alleged "acquiescence" of the city manager. And even if the city council had understood the City had a right to TEA and knowingly failed to pursue it—of which there was no evidence—the law holds that "as with estoppel, laches is not available where it would nullify an important policy adopted for the benefit of the public." (Feduniak v. California Coastal Com. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1346, 1381 [56 Cal.Rptr.3d 591].) The City maintained the Legislature's enactment of the TEA statute represented an important policy decision infusing a degree of fairness into the complicated morass of property tax allocation for the benefit of taxpayers residing in no- and low-property-tax cities. Also, far from being prejudiced, the City claimed the County had received millions in property tax revenues to which it was not entitled.
The trial court sustained the City's objections to the County's evidence and thus ruled the County had failed to support its laches defense with a concise statement of the law and relevant evidence as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b), and also had failed to meet its burden of showing prejudice.
The County additionally based a number of equitable defenses on Finding No. 1 in the SCO's March 1997 audit report. Characterizing the finding as a directive to utilize the challenged methodology for determining the comparative A.B. 8 allocation figure, the County asserted the Auditor-Controller "neither possessed discretion nor was legally entitled" to do anything different and therefore there was no different "ministerial action" that could be enforced by a writ of mandate. The County acknowledged a writ of mandate can generally issue when a taxing authority or official fails to act in accordance with the law. However, it claimed that "due to the unique facts associated with the 1997 SCO Audit," the Auditor-Controller "possessed no legal option" to do anything other than use the challenged methodology to determine the comparative A.B. 8 allocation figure. (Emphasis omitted.) The County therefore asserted that if the trial court ruled against it on the statutory allocation issues, the appropriate remedy was declaratory relief, not a writ of mandate.
The City responded there was, again, no evidence the city council knowingly forfeited any rights under the TEA statute. And even if there was, public officials and public agencies cannot alienate public rights by "`mere failure to assert such rights [o]n behalf of the public which they represent.'" (City of Santa Cruz v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1177-1180 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 198]; see Civ. Code, § 3513.) The City also asserted the Auditor-Controller was obligated to comply with the relevant statutes and could not avoid issuance of a writ compelling such compliance by claiming he/she was acting at the direction of the State Controller. The City further claimed the County had failed to establish, and could not establish, that Finding No. 1 "required" the Auditor-Controller to use the methodology for determining the comparative A.B. 8 allocation figure challenged by the City.
In rejecting the County's equitable defenses based on Finding No. 1, the trial court first ruled the County had not identified any authority that it was "under a duty to follow the findings in the SCO audit report" that could excuse it from complying with the controlling property tax statutes. The court secondly ruled Finding No. 1 was not a directive that the County utilize the challenged methodology for determining the comparative A.B. 8 allocation figure. Specifically, the court found: "[A]lthough the County states otherwise, there is no apparent `directive' regarding the methodology to be used in calculating the AB8 amount in Finding No. 1 of the SCO's 1997 report. Finding No. 1 noted that the county had used an incorrect tax base property tax amount to calculate the TEA formula adjustment because it had failed to take into account the City RDA. There is no discussion of ERAF or the AB8 calculation. The SCO's recommendation for Finding No. 1 was `The County should recompute the TEA formula adjustments to conform with the Revenue and Taxation Code.' [¶] The County has failed to demonstrate to the Court that (1) it was following the direction of the SCO in computing the tax allocations or (2) that it had a duty to do so." (Italics added.) The court further found that, since Finding No. 1 "only recommends that the County Auditor recompute the TEA formula in accordance with the Revenue and Taxation Code," there was no reason for the City to have challenged the
The trial court rejected the County's administrative estoppel argument for the additional reason the County had not established, and could not establish, all the requisite elements to impose such an estoppel. The County could not show that, in auditing the county, the SCO had acted in a "judicial capacity" and rendered an adjudicatory decision. Nor could it show the State Controller has authority to administratively adjudicate a dispute between a county and a city therein, or that the City had had an opportunity to fairly and fully litigate its claims against the County in the course of the audit.
While the County agrees the three-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 338 applies, it now contends the three-year period commenced running (a) on July 9, 1993, as to the City's ERAF II allocation claims and (b) in 1997, as to the City's redevelopment allocation claims.
The County bases its first argument on the assertion the Auditor-Controller had a "ministerial obligation to comply" with a July 9, 1993, letter sent by the Department of Finance (DOF) to county auditors informing them of the amounts by which local governmental tax bases were to be deemed "reduced" under ERAF II.
The County bases its second argument on the facts proffered in support of its laches defense in the trial court: the SVRA was operative by the 1995-1996 fiscal year, the City was allegedly told during that timeframe the County had been instructed by the SCO to use the challenged methodology for determining the comparative A.B. 8 allocation figure, and the Auditor-Controller was required to comply with Finding No. 1 in the SCO March 1997
As a general rule, theories not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. This is a matter of fundamental fairness to both the trial court and opposing parties. (People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 39, 46 [129 Cal.Rptr.2d 60].) There are exceptions to this rule, including where a new theory pertains only to questions of law based on undisputed facts. (Sheller v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1697, 1709 [71 Cal.Rptr.3d 207].) But even then, whether an appellate court will entertain a new theory raised for the first time on appeal is strictly a matter of discretion. (See Hussey-Head v. World Savings & Loan Assn. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 773, 783, fn. 7 [4 Cal.Rptr.3d 171].) Moreover, where a new theory contemplates a factual situation that is "`open to controversy'" and was not placed at issue in the trial court, it cannot be advocated on appeal. (Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 869, 879 [242 Cal.Rptr. 184].) Likewise, when a party bears some responsibility for the claimed error, they are generally estopped from taking a different position on appeal or are deemed to have waived the error. (E.g., Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 403 [87 Cal.Rptr.2d 453, 981 P.2d 79] [estoppel]; Telles Transport, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1167 [112 Cal.Rptr.2d 540] [waiver].) "[W]here a deliberate trial strategy results in an outcome disappointing to the advocate, the lawyer may not use that tactical decision as the basis to claim prejudicial error." (Mesecher v. County of San Diego (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1677, 1686 [12 Cal.Rptr.2d 279].)
Given the state of the record here—including that the County urged the trial court to apply the three-year limitations period in Code of Civil Procedure section 338 and affirmatively represented the consequence would be the preclusion of claims based on fiscal years prior to fiscal year 2003-2004—we conclude the County invited the error of which it now complains and thus is estopped to assert, or has waived, the contrary arguments it now advances on appeal, i.e., that the three-year statute began running years earlier and is a complete bar to the City's ERAF II and redevelopment claims.
Even if the arguments were properly before us, we would reject them. As to the County's first argument directed at the City's ERAF II claims, there is
As for the County's second argument—that the City's redevelopment claims are time-barred—we agree with the trial court that the County did not establish that the City was told in 1997 that the County had been directed by the SCO to use the challenged methodology for determining the comparative A.B. 8 allocation figure. To begin with, as the trial court found, Finding No. 1 in the March 1997 SCO audit report did no more than direct the County to "recompute the TEA formula adjustments to conform with the Revenue and Taxation Code." As we have discussed, the "TEA formula" means the six-step formula set forth in the TEA statute. (§ 98, subd. (c).) Finding No. 1 said nothing about the method for determining the comparative A.B. 8 allocation figure, let alone the inclusion in that comparative calculation of property tax revenues allocated to the SVRA. In addition, the Auditor-Controller's 1996 letter to the city manager referring to the then ongoing audit and explaining the problem the Auditor-Controller's office had discovered with respect to redevelopment stated (a) the office had failed to account for the SVRA at all and (b) the TEA statute required that redevelopment be taken into account, citing to section 98, subdivision (c). The Auditor-Controller's letter to the City is, thus, entirely consistent with the language of Finding No. 1 requiring the County to comply with the Revenue
When determining the City's comparative A.B. 8 allocation figure, the County deems the City to have been allocated in the preceding fiscal year (a) all of the property tax revenues generated within its municipal boundaries that were allocated to the County ERAF and (b) part of the property tax increment occurring within its municipal boundaries that was allocated to the SVRA. The City points out that while the County "allocates" these tax revenues to the City for purposes of determining the comparative A.B. 8 allocation figure, the City does not, in fact, receive these tax revenues. Rather, these revenues are actually allocated to and received by the County ERAF and the SVRA. As a result, even though it is a qualifying city and entitled under section 98 to 7 percent of the property taxes paid by its residents, it
The County, on the other hand, asserts that if it did not take into account in the comparative A.B. 8 allocation figure all the ERAF amounts, the City would not bear the economic burden of these revenue shifts. The County includes the ERAF amounts, in other words, to ensure that all three ERAF shifts "apply" to the City. The County similarly contends that if it did not take into account the redevelopment tax increment, the City would avoid what the County calls the City's "redevelopment contribution" to the SVRA. The County describes its overall approach as comparing a "gross," rather than a "net," A.B. 8 allocation figure with the TEA figure. It maintains this approach has been used by county auditors for years, with the tacit, if not explicit, approval of the State Controller.
The City contends the plain language of the relevant statutes resolves the question at hand—do qualifying cities entitled to TEA under section 98 share the burden of the ERAF II and ERAF III tax revenue shifts, as well as the ERAF I shift? The City says "no," pointing to the difference in language between ERAF I, and ERAF's II and III. As we have noted, subdivision (b)(4) of section 97.2 (ERAF I), states: "In the 1992-93 fiscal year and each fiscal
The City observes this directive expressly pertains to the tax shift required by "this" section, i.e. section 97.2, and that neither ERAF II nor ERAF III has any like subdivision. (Compare § 97.2 with §§ 97.1, 97.3, 97.70.) The City therefore concludes no similar directive applies to ERAF's II and III and the County has erred in applying these two statutes as though they did contain such a directive. (See Miklosy v. Regents of University of California (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 896 [80 Cal.Rptr.3d 690, 188 P.3d 629] ["`[W]hen the Legislature uses a critical word or phrase in one statute, the omission of that word or phrase in another statute dealing with the same general subject generally shows a different legislative intent.'"].) If the Legislature had intended that ERAF's II and III apply to qualifying cities entitled to TEA under section 98, it could have and would have said so, as it did in ERAF I. (See Pearl v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 189, 197 [109 Cal.Rptr.2d 308, 26 P.3d 1044] [if Legislature had wanted statute to apply "it could have easily so stated"].)
The County does not dispute only ERAF I contains language making the tax shift applicable to qualifying cities, but asserts this makes sense in light of the overall statutory scheme. The County contends the relevant statutes should be viewed as a "statutory hierarchy," with the "section 97" statutes creating the ERAF's at the apex, "section 98" following thereafter, and the "section 96" statutes establishing the A.B. 8 allocation system anchoring the overall allocation scheme. The County further asserts that to the extent these statutes do not all "fit ... together," one group must "prevail." And that group, says the County, must be the ERAF statutes; thus, the County's claim that the "ERAF reigns supreme."
The County points out sections 97.2 (ERAF I), 97.1 (ERAF II) and 97.3 (ERAF II) all begin with the proviso "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of this chapter ...." (§§ 97.1, subd. (a), 97.2, 97.3) and that this "chapter," chapter 6, includes section 98. Section 97.71 (ERAF III) similarly commences "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law ...." (§ 97.71.) The County thus maintains the ERAF statutes contain prefatory "supremacy" language giving them priority over the TEA statute, which contains no such language. The County further asserts that since ERAF I contains both "supremacy" language and an express directive that it applies to qualifying
The County notes the introductory language of ERAF II also goes on to state "the computations and allocations made by each county pursuant to Section 96.1 or its predecessor section, as modified by Section 97.2 or its predecessor section for the 1992-93 fiscal year, shall be modified for the 1993-94 fiscal year as follows ...." (§ 97.1, subd. (a), italics added; see § 97.3.) The County reads this language as explicitly "incorporat[ing]" ERAF I (then codified as § 97.2), including subdivision (b)(4). (Emphasis omitted.)
The City and County both offer plausible readings of the statutory language. We therefore turn to the legislative history of the ERAF statutes to see if it provides additional illumination as to the Legislature's intent. (See Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist., supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 919.)
As originally enacted, ERAF I did not include section 97.2, subdivision (b)(4), which expressly makes ERAF I applicable to qualifying cities entitled to TEA under section 98. However, as the County points out, it is clear from the legislative history the Legislature intended that qualifying cities share in the burden of this tax revenue shift.
For example, the Senate third reading summary explained: "The property tax allocation system established by AB 8 ensured that in any fiscal year, a local government received property tax revenues in an amount equal to what it received in the prior fiscal year (i.e., `base') and its share of the growth in revenue resulting from growth in assessed value within its boundaries (i.e., `increment'). [¶] AB 8 also authorized a permanent shift of a sizable portion of the property tax base from school districts to cities, counties, and special districts, provided state `buyout' of certain county health and welfare program costs which had previously been financed with the local property tax, and involved a commitment of state revenues to replace much of the school property tax base lost. [¶] Although AB 8 eliminated the one-year state block grant payments to local governments, it did not eliminate the `bailout'
Within a matter of months, the Legislature passed "clean-up" legislation to correct "technical errors, omissions, and ambiguities" in the previously passed "trailer bills (SB 617 and SB 844)." (Senate Rules Com., Off. of Senate Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill No. 3027 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 10, 1992, pp. 1-2.) As the Enrolled Bill Report prepared by the Governor's Office stated: "These bills were drafted late in the legislative session and under very short time deadlines, and therefore, following enactment, numerous ambiguities in the language were discovered. [¶] AB 3027 would provide cleanup provisions for each of the above bills." (Governor's Off. of Planning & Research, Enrolled Bill Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 3027 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) as amended Oct. 8, 1992, pp. 5-6.)
With respect to qualifying cities entitled to TEA under section 98, the Senate Rules Committee report explained: "SB 844 meant to cut every city's property tax revenues by 9%; a permanent one-time adjustment. However, SB 844 ignored the interaction with the `TEA' formula which shifts property tax revenues from counties to the formerly no- and low-property tax cities ([former] § 97.03[, subd. b]). Therefore, SB 844's cut will disappear in 1993-94 for many low-property-tax cities. [¶] This bill corrects this oversight and require[s] the county auditors to adjust the TEA formula." (Senate Rules Com., Off. of Senate Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill No. 3027 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 10, 1992, p. 2.) The Enrolled Bill Report prepared by the Governor's Office similarly stated: "SB 617 and SB 844 were intended to reduce each city's property tax revenues by 9% for allocation to schools. However, the bills did not address the current TEA formula which is used to allocate property tax revenues to no and low property tax cities. As a result, this 9 % reduction is permanent for normal
The County asserts section 97.2, subdivision (b)(4), merely "clarified" that ERAF I applies to qualifying cities entitled to TEA under section 98 and therefore made no substantive change to the statute. The County thus concludes ERAF I applies to qualifying cities even without the subdivision, presumably by virtue of the statute's prefatory "supremacy" language. Since ERAF I purportedly applies to qualifying cities without subdivision (b)(4), the County concludes ERAF's II and III also apply to qualifying cities without any such subdivision.
This legislative history also undercuts the County's arguments based on the statutory language. If the Legislature had understood the prefatory language of ERAF I to have the "supremacy" effect the County claims, that language, alone, would have made the statute applicable to qualifying cities, and there would have been no need for the Legislature to have added section 97.2, subdivision (b)(4). Similarly, if the Legislature had viewed the "section 97" statutes (establishing the ERAF's), "section 98" (implementing the alternative TEA system), and the "section 96" statutes (implementing the A.B. 8 allocation system) as a "statutory hierarchy" wherein the ERAF statutes "reign supreme," that hierarchal structure, alone, would have made ERAF I applicable to qualifying cities. The legislative history leaves no doubt, however, that as originally enacted—with the prefatory language and codified as a "section 97" statute, but without subdivision (b)(4)—the statute did not implement the Legislature's intent that ERAF I apply to qualifying cities entitled to TEA under section 98. We therefore fail to see how the County can
The legislative history of ERAF II is also telling and shows the Legislature had a different intent with respect to qualifying cities entitled to TEA under section 98 in ERAF II than it had in ERAF I.
The final Senate Floor Analysis, for example, repeated verbatim the post-Proposition 13 historical overview set forth in the legislative history of ERAF I (quoted ante), recapped TEA under section 98 and summarized the particulars of ERAF II. (Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1135 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 23, 1993, pp. 3-5 [referencing the Assembly 3d reading analysis].) With respect to qualifying cities entitled to TEA under section 98, the analysis explained: "Additionally, cities which never levied a property tax rate or which levied low rates of property tax are known as `no- and low-property tax cities.' Existing law establishes a minimum property tax entitlement for no- and low-property tax cities located in counties which choose to participate in the Brown-Presley Trial Court Funding Act of 1988. This entitlement, known as the tax equity allocation (TEA), generally guarantees each city a seven-percent property tax increase phased-in over a seven-year period in equal installments beginning in the 1989-90 fiscal year. [¶] Any county which opts to receive state block grants for the support of its trial courts pursuant to the Brown-Presley Trail [sic] Court Funding Act is required to transfer a portion of its property tax revenues to the no- and low-property tax cities in the county." (Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1135 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 23, 1993, p. 4.)
As to the particulars of ERAF II, the analysis stated: "This bill modifies the computations and allocations of property tax revenues to counties, cities, and special districts for the 1993-94 year and redirects approximately $2.530 billion in property tax revenues pursuant to these modifications to school districts, county offices of education, and community college districts." (Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1135 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 23, 1993, p. 4.) As to cities, specifically, the analysis stated: "The property tax revenue reduction for cities is allocated to each city based pursuant to a formula based on its share of AB 8 `bailout,' with no city incurring a reduction which exceeds $19.31 per capita. No-property tax cities and newly incorporated cities, which did not receive any AB 8 `bailout,' do not incur a property tax revenue reduction under this bill." (Ibid., italics added; accord, Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1135 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 23, 1993, pp. 4-5.)
Thus, the legislative history shows the Legislature had a different intent with respect to qualifying cities entitled to TEA under section 98 in ERAF II, than it had in ERAF I. Whereas the Legislature intended that ERAF I apply to all qualifying cities, it did not intend that to be the case with respect to ERAF II. Notably, the final Senate floor analysis, the Senate third reading analysis, and the Assembly third reading report all stated "no-property tax cities" and "newly incorporated cities" were exempted from the ERAF II shift. (Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 1135 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 23, 1993, p. 4, referencing Assem. Com. on Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1135 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 23, 1993; Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1135 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 23, 1993, p. 5.) "Newly incorporated cities," as we have discussed, refers to cities incorporated after Proposition 13 which received small tax bases—i.e., one of the two subsets of low-property-tax cities.
The legislative history therefore explains why ERAF II does not have a provision like section 97.2, subdivision (b)(4), which makes ERAF I applicable to all qualifying cities entitled to TEA under section 98. It likewise
The County asserts the Legislature must have intended that only no-property-tax cities be excused from ERAF II because the statute was intended
Additionally, while the Enrolled Bill Report summarizing the legislation and urging the governor to sign it referenced only "no-property tax cities," the legislative analyses show the Legislature intended to exclude both no- and low-property-tax cities from the ERAF II revenue shift. (Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 1135 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 23, 1993, p. 4, referencing Assem. Com. on Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1135 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 23, 1993; Sen. Rules Com., Off. Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1135 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) p. 5.) Moreover, the legislation was passed on the Senate floor and sent to the Governor on the same day, leaving no doubt the Legislature's intent was as declared in the relevant legislative analyses. (Sen. Com. on Budget & Fiscal Review, Final History on Sen. Bill No. 1135 (1993-1994 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 23, 1993.)
Further, as the County points out, the statutory formula implementing the sum-certain ERAF II sum-certain shift takes into account a city's receipt of the post-Proposition 13 bailout provided by Assem. Bill 8. (§ 97.3, subd. (b)(2)(A)-(E).) No-property-tax cities and cities incorporated after
ERAF III, enacted 10 years after ERAF II, was part of a complicated redistribution of vehicle licensing fee revenues. The 2004 Summary Digest of the legislation (Sen. Bill No. 1096 (2003-2004 Reg. Sess.)) explained: "This bill would repeal, amend, revise, and recast various provisions relating to VLF revenue allocations, VLF offsets, and General Fund transfers to cities, counties, and cities and counties to compensate these entities for reduced revenues resulting from these offsets. This bill would require, for the 2004-05 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, that each city, county, and city and county annually receive a vehicle license fee adjustment amount, as defined,
This conclusion is buttressed by the language of the companion "VLF swap" statute, section 97.70, enacted with ERAF III and which expressly addresses TEA. Subdivision (f) of section 97.70 states the VLF distribution it mandates shall not be construed to "[a]lter the manner in which ad valorem property tax revenue growth from fiscal year to fiscal year is otherwise determined or allocated" or "[r]educe ad valorem property tax revenue allocations required under Article 4 (commencing with Section 98)." (§ 97.70, subd. (f)(3)-(4).) Absent these provisions, ERAF revenues diverted to a qualifying city to make up for lost VLF revenues could be considered
The County contends its comparative A.B. 8 allocation analysis—which treats all three ERAF statutes as applicable to all qualifying cities entitled to TEA under section 98—is consistent with long-standing, administrative interpretation of the relevant statutes and therefore should be given significance deference. The County cites to the "California Property Tax Managers' Reference Manual" prepared by a committee appointed by the California Auditor-Controllers' Association (Reference Manual), the "1993-94 Property Tax Shift Uniform Guidelines for California Counties" prepared by the County Accounting Standards and Procedures Committee of the California Auditor-Controller's Association (Uniform Guidelines), and a "Report to the California State Legislature: Property Tax Apportionments, Calendar Year 2007" prepared by the State Controller (Controller's Report).
We first consider the Reference Manual and the Uniform Guidelines. Neither undertakes an analysis of the statutory language, and neither makes any mention of the legislative history. Rather, both publications are practice focused and discuss recommended methodologies for making allocation determinations. Both also treat all qualifying cities the same under the ERAF statutes.
Neither the Reference Manual, nor the Uniform Guidelines, has been adopted by any state agency as regulations. Indeed, it is the SCO's position that it is bound only by the relevant statutes and while it "considers ... the
The Controller's Report, in turn, reported on audits of five counties, which included reviewing whether the "computation and apportionment of property tax revenues to low-and no-tax cities was in accordance with Revenue and Taxation Code section 98 ...." One of the counties audited was Los Angeles, which uses the same methodology for making the A.B. 8 and TEA allocation comparison as Santa Cruz County. The Controller's Report concluded overall "[t]he property tax allocation and apportionment system is generally operating as intended." As to TEA, in particular, the report stated: "Revenue and Taxation Code section 98 and the Guidelines for County Property Tax Administration Charges and No/Low Property Tax Cities Adjustment, provided by the County Accounting Standards and Procedures Committee, provide a formula for increasing the amount of property tax allocated to a city that had either no or low property tax revenues. [¶] We noted no findings for this area." The report did not discuss or provide an analysis of the "formula" provided by the Auditor-Controllers' Association. Nor is there any indication whether the audits, including of Los Angeles County, focused on both the TEA formula set forth in section 98, about which there is no dispute in this case, or the method for determining the comparative A.B. 8 allocation figure, which is disputed.
As we have discussed, the County also includes in its comparative A.B. 8 allocation figure a portion of the property tax increment allocated to the SVRA. Specifically, the County deems the City to have received the tax increment it would have received had the SVRA not been created. Although the SVRA is a local governmental entity separate and distinct from the City, and the City does not in fact receive the tax revenues allocated to the SVRA, the County contends this augmentation of the comparative A.B. 8 allocation figure is necessary to "neutralize" the effect of redevelopment on property tax allocation.
The City contends the Legislature has already addressed the issue of redevelopment and amended the TEA formula set forth in section 98 specifically to account for it. It further asserts there is no legal basis for the County's assertion that a city owes an annual "redevelopment contribution" to a community redevelopment agency which must be added to a comparative A.B. 8 allocation figure.
The legislative history explains that the impetus for this change to the TEA formula was the counties' concern that they were losing an unfair amount of property tax revenues to qualifying cities and community redevelopment agencies. The Joint Conference Committee Report, for example, stated: "
The Assembly Conference Committee Report similarly stated the legislation "[a]djusts the [TEA] shift to account for redevelopment." (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1197 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 31, 1988, p. 1.) The report explained: "Last year's bill did not recognize the effects of redevelopment agencies' property tax increment financing. Assembly bill 1197 requires county auditors to adjust the property tax shifts to neutralize redevelopment agencies' fiscal effects, following three main steps. First, the auditor determines the total amount of property taxes generated within the city. Then the auditor subtracts the amount of property tax increment which goes to the redevelopment agency (minus any pass-through payments, both cash and in-kind, which the redevelopment agency gives to other local agencies). The resulting difference becomes the amount against which the auditor calculates the city's property tax shift. For example, if total property tax revenues in a no- or low-property tax city is $25 million and its redevelopment agency received $5 million of that amount as tax increment revenues, then county officials must calculate the city's property tax shift based on the $20 million amount, not the $25 million." (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1197 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 31, 1988, p. 3.)
Thus, in amending the TEA statute, the Legislature specifically considered the counties' concerns about the tax increment attributable to redevelopment property. It chose to address those concerns by expanding the TEA formula to expressly take into account the tax increment allocated to a redevelopment agency. (§ 98, subd. (c)(1)-(6).)
The County basically asserts the Legislature did not go far enough. Pointing to the purpose of the amended TEA formula—to "neutralize" the effect of redevelopment—the County contends that to fully achieve that goal, it not only must take the steps set out in the TEA formula, but must also adjust the comparative A.B. 8 allocation figure to include the tax increment the City would have received had it not created the SVRA.
The County's "redevelopment contribution" theory is predicated on the fact the City, itself, could not enter into a passthrough agreement with the SVRA. Thus, according to the County, the City made a deliberate, legislative determination to "divert" to the SVRA property tax revenues the City otherwise would have received.
The County also contends that what must be compared is "apportionment" under the A.B. 8 statutes, assertedly a "gross up" concept which embraces redevelopment tax increment, and "allocation" under the TEA statute. It points out section 96.1 (one of the A.B. 8 statutes) begins, in part: "Except as otherwise provided in Article 3 (commencing with Section 97), and in Article 4 (commencing with Section 98) ... property tax revenues shall be apportioned to each jurisdiction pursuant to this section ..., subject to allocation and payment of funds as provided for in subdivision (b) of Section 33670 of the Health and Safety Code ..., to each jurisdiction in the following manner ...." (§ 96.1, subd. (a), italics added.)
We conclude the trial court correctly interpreted the property tax statutes in question, except sections 97.1 and 97.3 (ERAF II). We therefore grant writ relief, in part, and order the trial court to (a) vacate its order as to ERAF II and (b) recalculate the amounts the City is entitled to recoup from the County commencing with the 2003-2004 tax year and direct the County to calculate future TEA, in accordance with this opinion. The parties are to bear their own costs in connection with this writ proceeding.
Marchiano, P. J., and Dondero, J., concurred.
