HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.12 ERAF Case CITY CLERK
File 0660-40
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JUNE 20, 2000
SUBJECT:
Amicus Support - ERAF Case
County of Sonoma v. California Department of Finance
(Report prepared by Elizabeth H. Silver, City Attorney)
ATTACHMENTS:
None
RECOMMENDATION: _ .~tho~e City Attorney to add City of Dublin as amicus
~ ~/¢~in suPport of the County of Sonoma in County of Sonoma
' ~/v - v. California Department of Finance
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: There is no cost to the City.
DESCRIPTION:
In the early 1990's, the State Legislature created the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF).
Property tax revenues which previously had gone to the City and other taxing entities were diverted to the
ERAF fund. The monies in the ERAF fund were then allocated to the different school districts within the
same tax rate area.
The County of Sonoma filed a law suit alleging that the State was obligated to reimburse cities and other
taxing entities which lost property tax revenues to ERAF. The County's argument is that ERAF
constituted a reimbursable state mandate within the meaning of Article 13B, §6 of the California
Construction (adopted in 1979 as Proposition 4).
The Superior Court concluded that the ERAF "shift" of property tax dollars was a reimbursable state
mandate because it compelled local agencies to accept financial responsibility for schools. The State has
appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal. The League of California Cities has authorized preparation
of an amicus brief in support of the County's position, and highlighting the importance of Proposition 4's
reimbursement requirement.
This case is important to all cities in California which lost property tax revenues to ERAF and continue to
lose such revenues to ERAF.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council authorize the City Attorney, on behalf of the City of Dublin, to join in
the amicus brief.
J:\WPDLMnrsw\l 14\00 l~2000XAgenda~amicus-ERAF_620.doc
EHS:rja