The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 09171996 - D9 Contra �� ` � TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa n' 'z ...�T~;s County FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR rr�c iN County Administrator DATE: September 17, 1996 SUBJECT: REPORT FROM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REGARDING PROPOSED REORGANIZATION OF MORAGA AND ORINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS Specific Request(s) or Recommendation(s) & Background & Justification RECOMMENDATIONS: Consider issues regarding the proposed consolidation of the Moraga and Orinda Fire Protection districts into a new independent district. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) recently received applications from the Town of Moraga and the City of Orinda to consolidate the Moraga Fire Protection District and the Orinda Fire Protection District into a new independent fire protection district. LAFCO is planning to consider the proposal on October 9 , 1996 . However, the LAFCO Executive Officer has stated that the proposal will not be on the October agenda unless LAFCO is notified by September 18, 1996 that the necessary property tax exchange negotiation has been completed. During the first week of September 1996, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors received resolutions from the advisory fire commissions of the Moraga and Orinda Fire Protection Districts recommending that the Board of Supervisors request LAFCO to proceed with the reorganization of the two districts into a consolidated independent fire protection district. In view of certain issues and concerns outlined below, this office is reluctant to make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding a property tax transfer agreement and the request of the advisory fire commissions . Some of the issues of concern identified to date are as follows : Continued on Attachment:—X— YES Signature:�� JJ Recommendation of County Administrator Recommendation of Board Committee Approve Other Signature(s) : Action of Board on: September 17, 1996 Approved as Recommended Other X See attached Addendum for speakers . IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above matter is CONTINUED to September 24 , 1996 , at 10: 25 a .m. in the Board Chambers . Vote of Supervisors : I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN X Unanimous (Absent ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE Ayes : Noes : ) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. Contact: Terry McGraw (335-1055) Attested:- September 17, 1996 cc: County Administrator Phil Batchelor, Clerk of Contra Costa County Fire the B and of Supervisors Protection District and ty Administrator City of Orinda Moraga Fire Protection Dist. By: , DEPUTY Orinda Fire Protection District Town of Moraga United Professional Firefighters Local 1230 1� • Existing Moraga Fire Flow Tax What would be the impact on the taxing authority if the Moraga Fire District ceases to exist by virtue of becoming part of a new entity? Could the new district legally continue to levy the Fire Flow Tax? + Mutual Aid Response Under the current functional integration structure, Contra Costa County, Moraga and Orinda Fire Districts function as one agency in emergencies in the Lamorinda area. What would be the impact on this historically effective arrangement if Moraga and Orinda become independent? + Apparent Increased Operating Costs Without Increased Services The proposal would increase staffing costs by the addition of a fire chief position and a battalion chief position. Administrative staff would increase but there would be no increase in fire station staffing. + Proposed Paramedic Service In Orinda The proposed paramedic services in Orinda could be provided under the current organizational structure if a fire flow tax was approved by the voters of Orinda. + Concern About The Orinda Water Distribution System The proposal to implement a fire flow tax for paramedic service could impact the willingness of the residents of Orinda to agree to assessments to improve the water system. The cost and revenue sources to correct the water problems should perhaps be identified and considered in relation to the priority of the paramedic service. While it may appear that the proposed reorganization would be beneficial to the two subject communities, it should be noted that the proposal does not offer any improvements in the fire service levels that could not be accomplished under the current organizational arrangement. ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.9 September 17, 1996 Agenda Terry McGraw, County Administrator's Office, presented the staff report and recommendations. Allen Little, Chief, Contra Costa Fire Protection District, discussed the proposed reorganization of the Moraga and Orinda Fire Protection Districts, as did Assistant Chiefs Ray Miraglia and Mike Argo. Chairman Smith opened public comment, and the following persons spoke: Gordon Nathan, Moraga Fire District, 51 Carr Drive, Moraga; Sarge Littlehale, Mayor Pro-Tem, City of Orinda, 4 Carolyn Court, Orinda; Mike Majchrzak, Town of Moraga, 606 Rheem Blvd., Moraga; Pete Wilson, Orinda Fire Commissioner, 35 Lost Valley Drive, Orinda; Merle Gilliland, 416 Tharp Drive, Moraga; Lou Paulson, Firefighters Local 1230, 112 Blueridge Drive, Martinez. McDoNOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN ' JO:LDW Z.COON CL•JO DA.IDS iP PROFCL.''.IONAL,CORPORATION ALCM GLCNNN rLTf NSOn NOC■iON DAVIDJ Ift"16WOOD VIRGINIA,A CAMILL ATTORNEYS . DA•ID L —0714C ttAM i.GOLDBC.D RIC...O W WICI.OL7 NARRItT A eT91WL4 JWC C C.EEN LINDA P,CSC- DONALD C.POOLC WILLIAM A,LICNTIC TIr OT.T O.ATC: TO}CNE L.r OCYtAO .ICMAPO.•CSCN EOMAROJ QU.NN.J■ 555 CAPITOL MALL, .9"F6000 TCCOM BAILC• MCl AC•CJ CrLCNb PION ARL bRANDT MA AK CO' MAPC.A L.AUCOBURGC. TCR.•L 771,9N..D G ncNA. DROrrN RpO[RT■ Nvnw SACRAMENTO. CALIrOPNIA V5814 NAMC•7 79MrLETON a(cnnL iIr PTDN PATIO v.POST OATRICIA O CLLIOTT OAYIO C W.CCM,.VCLLI byiANA COLIN. ..ILLIAN C.WILSON.JR. •(.916) KENT du•C:TC. OAVID L BCATT' IR.6 P...Q P.NICL r.rARTIN92 W COW-- rIC:ACL T POG.RTT WART.Q.tNC ANTOINC TCL[CO DICR�(p1O�AJl•-0.7» iTl'CN A "WON T OARLOv DOIL N A? Lit 6.'.LCT CATNT DCUCCL tALCMAO rICWAEL..BRAD' ANN TATLO.LCr.•INO INN 0.9001091.1 C.A1G LAO.DIC L DTUABT LIST DANIEL L.91MMONb ■Color v..O'COWNO. )At.0 BROWN RECEIVED J..P.TRICK SWt.MT .NTN-Oau"Mtn UCLA,,R.JON[: • T.Or AD L NILE DON L.NA R1gp JAC—KT 41ITU T.B.CNT NANKIN[ NANCT r LCC DOUCLA�A POTTS CLtMLNTJ DOUCWENT7.14. JAMEt A.RUDOICRHAFT l OLOCN CL.Ot T.OGATA 1111.90 P. N COLL R EDTA OJ �.RIO NT.J. C h"COLC Mu—MT ALPRCD C.■OLLAN0 O.,ARON OAT■pb►NC MICMCLLL MA,MCN[TTA aC N•ON AJC " i - MA OLEINS K.OAVIS BRUCE•.ALLEN iV:AK L"C"OINIG WIC.cLL M GLA.. l JCRCr.B MILLSTONC JArCSL LOST OT90MCM L GOLL CAROLTN MASON( ■ARTIN MLDONOU.N WAAK A.,..:GER MICnALL[I,.A.IWpBOARD OFKSUPER CLERKVtSOI�� JLNMLCRi DA,•Iz .Ib17•I POTI coMTRA COSTA CO. September 11, 1996 Mr. Ross Hubbard Town Manager Town of Moraga 2100 Donald Drive ` P.O. Box 188 Moraga, California 94556 Mr. William Lindsay City Manager City of Orinda 26 Orinda Way Orinda, Califomia 94563 Re: Necessity of exchange agreement for fire district formation Dear Messrs. Hubbard and Lindsay: We understand that LAFCo counsel has opined that the proposed fire district formation will require a property tax exchange agreement. We take this opportunity to explain counsel's position and to offer a response. Under state statute, in the case of a change of organization other than a city incorporation or a district formation, the allocation of property tax revenue is to be determined pursuant to a property tax exchange agreement. (Rev. & Tax. Code, � 99, subds. (a)(1), (b).) However, in the case of a district formation, the county auditor assigns the property tax revenues to be allocated to the new district according to the procedures contained in section 56842 of the Government Code, not according to an exchange agreement. (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 99, subd. (a)(3).) Tun.CIT.OL/ICC A.. CCN1WQW PARK OOIVC,SUITE A dA•A4CA Or•.CC P.O 001 770 IDD7 rANNIiON STMcd T.:UITt 1300 .40A"ITT,Cw LIeO NNIA 07020.0779 OA.6—D,C.1I1'ORNIA DAGIL 'PIOI G7A•2�D1 (5101 C7J-p7G0 TtLECODICR 1710)4_0000 TCLCCONICR 12101 020-2100 rq JUS H'?HW WdTZ:Eo 96, TT d3S Mr, Ross Hubbard Mr. William Lindsay September 11, 1996 Page 2 LAFCo counsel claims the auditors obligation to assign revenue in a district formation without an ' change`agreement applies only in an initial formation of a district, not the ormation of a successor district upon a consolidation. , We do not jpp quwn- TS » First, nothing in the language of the statute suggests LAFCo counsel's interpretation. The statue states that in the case of a formation, the auditor determines the allocation without a property tax Pagreement. The statute says nothing about whether this applies only to a formation in the initial instance or to all formations, "Formation" is defined as the "formation, incorporation, organization or creation of a district" regardless of it resulting from a prior change of organization, such as a dissolution. (Gov. Code, § 56039.) If the Legislature ' had intended the exclusion from the exchange agreement requirement to apply just to initial formations, it would have said so. It did not. Second, exempting only initial formations from the requirement of a tax exchange agreement conflicts with the language of'Government Code section 56842 regarding the allocation of revenues. Under section 56842, the amount of property tax revenue to be exchanged is determined pursuant to 'that section if "the proposal includes the formation of a district." (Gov. Code, 56$42, subd. (a)(2) [emphasis added].) In other words, for any proposal that includes a district formation, no matter'how many changes of organization make up the proposal, the exchange of tax revenue is determined pursuant to section 56842. Requiring an exchange agreement except for initial district formations contradicts this clear language of section 56842. On the other hand, not requiring an exchange agreement for any district formation harmonizes all of the words in both applicable statutes without rendering any words superfluous, We believe such an interpretation would be favored by the courts over LAFCo counsel's interpretation. For these reasons, we believe that because the proposed change of organization includes a district formation, the county auditor is obligated to assign the property tax revenues to be allocated to the new district according to the procedures contained in section 56842 of the Government Code, and that no exchange agreement is required. (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 99, subd. (a)(3).) r_ •J `)HC 1-49U1.1 I.IJ T 7•Cfi QC.. TT .4-qq Mr. Ross Hubbard Mr. William Lindsay September 11, 1996 Page 3 Under section 56542, where the proposal would transfer all of an affected agency's service responsibilities to the proposed district, such as here, LAFCo first must request the auditor to determine the amount of property tax revenue generated for the affected service providers by tax rate area and to transfer that information of LAFCo. (Gov. Code, § 56842, subd. (d).) Then, when the LAFCo executive director records a certificate of completion for the proposal, "the auditor shall transfer that amount to the new jurisdiction." (Gov. Code, § 56842, subd. (e).) Because there is no discretion in the amount . of revenue to be transferred to the new district, there is no requirement or need for a tax revenue exchange agreement. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions regarding this issue. ` V y truly yours, Harriet A. Steiner HAS:DAP:maa cc: Michelle Kenyon 17'd SUS d$HW WJ22:E0 96. Ti d3S