Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08081995 - C20 ATO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 2-0_ FROM: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel By: Dennis C. Graves, Deputy DATE : July 31, 1995 SUBJECT: Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency Claim for Cancellation and Refund of "Special Assessment Taxes" SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I . RECOMMENDATIONS' Request the Auditor to pay the claim as to any special assessments for districts governed by the Board of Supervisors to the extent the claimed amounts are determined to be appropriate for the time the property was owned by the Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency. As to special assessments for districts not governed by the Board of Supervisors, request the Auditor to ask each agency imposing an assessment if there is any specific statutory authority requiring public agencies to pay the assessment and, if there is not, get approval from each involved agency to make the cancellations to the extent the claimed amounts are determined to be appropriate for the time the property was owned by the Redevelopment Agency. The Auditor-Controller concurs with these recommendations. II . FISCAL IMPACT Undeterminable at present, but probably less than half the claimed $22, 600 would be any obligation of agencies governed by the Board of Supervisors . III . BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On July 10, 1995, the Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency filed a document CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNAT RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER _ VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: / I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A / UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED: Cu O (9 ) 1(�915_ PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY @ ,DEPUTY Contact: Dennis Graves (646-2058) Deputy County Counsel cc:Kenneth Corcoran,Auditor Clerk of Board of Supervisors Sharon Anderson, Dep. Co. Co. c:\word\temp1ate\board.sh1 III . BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED P. 1 of 2) entitled Claim for Cancellation and Refund of Special Assessment Taxes, seeking to have the Board direct the Auditor to cancel and refund approximately $22, 600 of %Nspecial assessments" on property purchased by the _ City' s Redevelopment Agency. The Agency cites CCP Section 1268 . 440 and Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 5081, 5096 and. 5097 as authority. Preliminarily, we note that the cited Sections provide authority only for cancellation of property taxes . The authority for cancellation of the asserted special assessments is the case of ' San Marcos Water Dist . v San Marcos USD (1986) 42 Cad 154 . Also, we note that the Board of Supervisors is not the governing board for all of the agencies imposing the special assessments listed in the Agency' s claim, and such claims technically should have been submitted directly to the governing board of the agency imposing the assessment . For condemnations, provision for cancellation of .taxes and special assessments is normally made by the affected agencies' staff, and we do not know why the Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency did not follow the normal, established procedure . Nonetheless, as to agencies for which the Auditor performs the same functions as for the County, we have suggested a procedure (below) by which the Auditor could assist the Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency in obtaining refunds where justified. Public agencies are exempt from property taxes under Article XIII, Section 3 (b) . However, fees, special taxes and special assessments are not property taxes . In San Marcos, the California Supreme Court distinguished fees, which are charges fairly relating to a service currently being provided, from special assessments, which are charges defraying the costs of capital improvements benefiting the property over time . The specific impositions in issue were monthly sewer service fees based on the number of occupants and a one-time "capacity fee" which was to defray the cost of capital improvements . The former was determined to be a fee, which the agency had to pay; the latter was determined to be a special assessment, from which the agency was exempt . The Court concluded that public agencies are liable for fees, since they receive current benefits from the service provided, but are liable for special assessments only if legislation specifies that the agency should pay such assessments . III . BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED P. 2 of 2) The underlying theory is that public agencies should pay for the specific services they receive from other public agencies (eg, monthly sewer and water usage fees) , but that the burden of other impositions should not be borne unless the legislature specifies such. With the possible exception of the impositions by the Water District and the Sanitation District, it appears that the listed charges indeed are special assessments . However, much redevelopment agency property is purchased by the agency and, after a period of time, sold to taxable private enterprises; only so much of a long term assessment as applies during the time the property is owned by the agency would be subject to any refund. We suggest that the Auditor 1) determine if the charges listed by the Redevelopment Agency, especially the Water District and Sanitation District charges, were fees for services rendered or were special assessments defraying the cost of capital improvements, 2) determine whether the claimed amounts are appropriate for the time the property was owned by the Redevelopment Agency, 3) ask each agency imposing an assessment if there is any specific statutory authority requiring public agencies to pay the assessment and, if there is not, 4) get approval from each agency' s governing board to make the cancellations . For Board-governed agencies, the Redevelopment Agency' s claim should be honored for the portion of special assessments applicable during the time the Agency owns the property. For other agencies, the Redevelopment Agency' s claim can be honored upon approval of the governing board of the other agencies . IV. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION If the refunds of assessments, as discussed above, are not provided for Board-governed agencies, the Board might be sued. c:rraad.doc