The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About00341C - RIVERSIDE COUNTY SB2557 PROPERTY TAX SETTLEMENT County SB2557 Litigation Settlement Agr - Property Tax Collect « Booking Fees AGREEMENT #341C A3430 R957, 9-21-94 M05440 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement") is entered into as of the 3rd day of October , 1994 , by and between the Cities of BANNING, BEAUMONT, BLYTHE, CALIMESA, CANYON LAKE, CATHEDRAL CITY, COACHELLA, DESERT HOT SPRINGS, HEMET, INDIO, INDIAN WELLS, NORCO, PALM SPRINGS, PERRIS, RIVERSIDE, SAN JACINTO, TEMECULA, AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES OF THOSE CITIES (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Cities") and the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE (hereinafter referred to as "the County") . RECITALS A. The Cities are cities and redevelopment agencies duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and are located within the jurisdictional and geographic boundaries of the County of Riverside. B. The County is a county duly organized and existing as a political subdivision of the State of California. C. The County provides certain booking and other processing services at County's jail (s) for persons arrested by the Cities. PS2\482\014405-0001\2083762.3 07/26/94 -1- D. The County also provides law enforcement services by contract to those Cities listed on Exhibit "A, " attached and incorporated here (the "Contract Cities") . E. Cities which previously have settled with the County on the issues contained in this Agreement are listed in Exhibit "B, " attached and incorporated, and are not included in or affected by this Agreement. F. On or about July 1, 1990, Senate Bill 2557 was signed by the Governor of the State of California as a non-urgency measure. Senate Bill 2557 was codified to include California Government Code § 29550 and Revenue & Taxation Code § 97, which became effective January 1, 1991. G. Pursuant to Government Code § 29550, counties were authorized to retroactively charge cities and other entities a criminal justice administrative fee (also known as a "booking fee") for expenses incurred after July 1, 1990, in connection with the booking or other processing of persons arrested by employees of the cities and other entities. H. Government Code § 29550 requires that the amount of the fee not exceed the actual administrative costs, including applicable overhead costs as permitted by Federal Circular A-87 standards, incurred in booking or otherwise processing those arrested persons. F52\482\014405-0001\2083762.3 07/26/94 -2- i I. The County's Board of Supervisors considered a proposal from the Administrative Office that booking fees be charged to Cities commencing March 1, 1991, but thereafter determined that such fees instead should be retroactive to July 1, 1990. J. Pursuant to Section 29550 of the Government Code, on or about March 1, 1991, the County adopted its Resolution 90-650, Ordinance No. 702, effective March 21, 1991, permitting the County to charge a criminal justice administrative fee, retroactive to July 1, 1990, in the amount of $110.40. The County sent invoices dated March 19, 1991 to the Cities requesting payment for retroactive fees. The County has continued to bill for such fees; the parties agree billings are current through January 31, 1994 . K. Senate Bill 2557 also amended the Revenue & Taxation Code to add subsections (e) and (f) of § 97, which provide for the County to charge a property tax administrative fee for collection of city property taxes. County also maintained a separate fee was owing for collection of property tax administrative fees from redevelopment agencies. L. County adopted and allocated such property tax administration fees, including those for redevelopment agencies, pursuant to its Ordinance No. 703 (effective March 21, 1991) . County deducted property tax administrative fees from Cities' April, 1991, tax revenues. After receiving invoices for such fees FS2\482\014405.0001\2083762.3 07126l94 -3- to redevelopment agencies, Cities protested payment under Government Code S 907 . M. on or about April 17, 1991, certain of the Cities filed suit against the County in the Superior Court of Riverside County, Case No. 211185 (hereinafter referred to as "the Lawsuit") , challenging the validity of the booking fees and property tax administration fees. N. In May 1991, in Riverside Superior Court the County stipulated it would not withhold any criminal justice administrative fees from certain funds which were due and owing to the Cities by the County where a timely and proper dispute letter was received by the County pursuant to Gov't Code S 907. A number of Cities have withheld fees pursuant to this stipulation. O. On or about May 18, 1991, the Riverside County Superior Court issued a TRO, and on June 17, 1991, a preliminary injunction, requiring the County to hold property tax administrative fees charged to redevelopment agencies in a special account not subject to disbursement pending adjudication of Cities' arguments. On August 1, 1991, the County appealed the preliminary injunction, which appeal remains pending. P. On or about October 17, 1991, the Lawsuit was added to Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 2584 (hereinafter referred to as "the Coordinated Proceeding") in which 180 cities, PS2\482\014405-0001\2083762.3 07/26/94 -4- redevelopment agencies and other public agencies within the State of California challenged the legality of Government Code § 29550 and the actions taken by their respective counties to implement that section. Q. On or about December, 1991, the court in the coordinated proceeding upheld the withholding of booking fee payments after written protest under Government Code § 907. R. On or about September 1, 1992 , the court in the Coordinated Proceeding granted summary adjudication in favor of Contract Cities finding they were not subject to payment of booking fees based upon the specific language of their current law enforcement contracts with the County. S. On or about July 1, 1993 , the County gave notice under those contracts that it would cease providing law enforcement services to the Contract Cities on July 1, 1994, if the Contract Cities do not agree to pay booking fees owing from March 1, 1993 . The County also has withheld PERS credits pending resolution of this matter. T. While the Coordinated Proceeding has been pending, an appellate court separately, in unrelated proceedings, determined that property tax administrative fees are applicable to redevelopment agencies. In Arcadia Redevelopment Agency v. Ikemoto the appellate court determined that retroactive amendments to the PS2\482\014405-0001\2083762.3 07/26/94 -5- Revenue and Taxation Code required redevelopment agencies to pay separate property tax administration fees. U. The scope of the booking fee now has been defined prospectively by Senate Bill 2286, effective January 1, 1994 . V. The County and the Cities now desire to enter into this Agreement for the purpose of resolving all the issues addressed in the Lawsuit without any further litigation, and are entering into this Agreement for that purpose. This Agreement shall never be treated or otherwise construed as an admission of liability by any party for any purpose. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the preceding recitals and the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Settlement of Lawsuit. This Agreement shall resolve all issues addressed in the Lawsuit. The County agrees not to appeal the decision of the court in the Coordinated Proceeding exempting Contract Cities from the payment of a criminal justice administrative fee pursuant to the language of their contracts with the County for law enforcement services. The Cities agree not to appeal the decision of the court in the Coordinated Proceeding upholding the validity of the booking and property tax FS2\482\014405-"1\2083762.3 07/26/94 -6- administrative fees. The County agrees to drop its appeal of the preliminary injunction and Cities agree that the preliminary injunction will be dissolved on the effective date of this Agreement. Cities which are Plaintiffs in the litigation shall prepare and file a dismissal with prejudice. 2 . Payment of Property Tax Administrative Fees. As a result of County deduction from property taxes owing, Cities have paid property tax administrative fees throughout the litigation and no such fees are owing to County. Property tax administrative fees deducted from redevelopment agency revenues have been held by the County Auditor-Controller pursuant to the preliminary injunction and will be available to the County (along with any interest earned thereon) upon dissolution of the preliminary injunction as set out in paragraph 1, above. 3 . Payment of Criminal Justice Administrative Fees. The Cities shall pay criminal justice administrative fees to the County as follows: a. Prior to July 1, 1994 (the "effective date") , those Contract Cities identified in Exhibit A shall pay any booking fees owing for bookings conducted from September 1, 1993 unless otherwise specified in Exhibit A, through January 31, 1994 , in the amounts set out for those Cities on Exhibit "A. " Any payments these Cities have made for bookings conducted prior to the date their obligation for such payments commences under this Agreement P52\482\014405-OW1\2083962.3 07/26/964 -7- • i shall be credited against any unpaid or future law enforcement contract services payment obligations to the County. b. Prior to July 1, 1994, certain Non-contract Cities shall pay any booking fees owing from March 1, 1991, through January 31, 1994, in the amounts which have been invoiced and as set out for such Cities on Exhibit "C. " County waives, releases and discharges any claim against Cities for such amounts owing from July 1, 1990 through February 28, 1991, including any unknown claims, and County specifically waives its rights under Civil Code section 1542 as set out in paragraph 5 hereof. C. Certain Non-contract Cities which paid booking fees for bookings conducted between July 1, 1990, and March 1, 1991, shall receive a credit against future booking fee payment obligations to County (which credit shall be available upon the execution of this Agreement) in the amounts paid during that period as set out on Exhibit "C. " d. As of February 1, 1994 or thereafter, subject to receipt of an invoice therefor and Government Code § 907, Cities shall pay booking fees as billed at the rate of $110.40, subject to any future increase or decrease in the amount of the fee based on Senate Bill 2286 or other legislation, repeal or amendment of the statutory authority therefor, or court invalidation or modification of the fee. Cities reserve the right to challenge any specific FSM82\014405-0001\2083762.3 07/26/94 -8- invoice and any future change or increase in the fee and County reserves the right to challenge any nonpayment subject to the provisions of Government Code S 907 and other applicable laws. e. Nothing herein shall be treated as a waiver of the Cities' ability to contest the County's recalculation of (or failure to recalculate) the booking fee under SB 2286. f. On the effective date of this Agreement, County shall credit to Contract Cities the PERS credit amounts set out on Exhibit "A, " which credits shall be applied to future billings from County to Contract Cities for provision of contract law enforcement services g. Upon execution of this Agreement by the Contract Cities, any previous notices sent by the County to the Contract City purporting to terminate the current law enforcement services contract between the County and the Contract City shall be deemed withdrawn and/or rescinded. 4 . Interest. No interest is owing on any amounts to be paid by either party under this Agreement. 5 . Release. By this Agreement, for the period July 1, 1990 through the effective date hereof, County waives, releases and discharges any claim against Cities for any additional booking fees, property tax administrative fees or related fees or charges P52\482\014405-0001\2083762.3 07/26/94 -9- or any action, demand or liability, known or unknown, relating to such fees. County further acknowledges that it is aware of Civil Code S 1542 , which provides as follows: "A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR. " County waives any rights thereunder, as well as those arising under any statutes or common law principles. 6. Amendments. This is an entire agreement and supersedes all prior agreements, oral or written, between the parties, and their agents, and cannot be amended unless in writing, with specific reference hereto by the parties authorized to be charged. Failure by any party to enforce any provision shall not constitute a waiver of that party's rights to enforce a subsequent violation of the same or any other provision. 7 . Inurement. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties. 8 . Captions and Exhibits. The captions of Sections and Subsections of this Agreement are for reference only and are not to be construed in any way as part of this Agreement. All exhibits are included in the Agreement as if fully set forth herein. FS2\482\014405-0001\2083762.3 07/26/94 -1 O- 9. Validity. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 10. Severability. If any section, clause or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or unlawful, such a decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this Agreement. 11. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be a part of the original. 12 . Fees and Expenses. Each party to this Agreement shall bear their own attorneys' fees and expenses resulting from the SB 2557 litigation. Notwithstanding, the parties agree that should legal proceedings be commenced concerning any provision of this Agreement, in addition to any other remedy, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of costs and attorneys fees as determined by the court. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective officers as of the date first above written. COUNTY IVE SI E By: Larry ar ish County Administrative Officer FS2\482\0I4405-0001\2083762.3 07/26/94 -1 1- ATTEST: By: Clerk of the Board APPROVED: William C. Katzenstein County Counsel By: I�fincipal Dep County Counsel FS2\482\014405-0001\2093762.3 07126/94 -12- EXHIBIT "A" CONTRACT CITIES -- BookinL Fees ALL AMOUNTS SET OUT ARE GOOD FAITH ESTIMATES Amount Billed by Amounts Paid • County from Date Before Amount Paid Balance Owing/ City Date Payment Payment Obligation Date Obligation after Date Amount to be Obligation Commenced Through Commenced Obligation PERS Credit Credited by Commenced 1131/94 (to be Credited) Commenced (to be Credited) County Calimesa 9/1193 3,643.00 -0- (+) $38,737.00 (+) $35,094.00 Desert Hot Springs 9/l/93 18,658.00 (+) $19,325.00 (+) $98,587.00 (+) $89,254.00 Norco 9/I/93 8,059.00 -0- (-) (+) $107,127.00 (+) $99,070.00 Temecula 9/1/93 50,342.00 -0- (-) (+) $222,599.00 (+) $172,256.00 Indian Wells 3/1/94 12,475.00 -0- 12,475.00 already credited -0- indicates amount owing to County +: indicates credit amount owing to or paid by City • F52\482M4405-0a01\2083762 3 09/24/94 EXHIBIT "W 1. Cities Which Have Separate Agreements/Settlements Moreno Valley Palm Desert La Quinta Rancho Mirage Corona Murrieta Indian Wells Lake Elsinore PS2\482\014405-0001\2083762.3 07/26/94 EXHIBIT "C" NON-CONTRACT CITIES -- Booking Fees ALL AMOUNTS SET OUT ARE GOOD FAITH ESTIMATES Amount Billed by County from Amounts Paid City Date Payment Date Payment Amount Paid Before Est. Balance Owing Obligation Obligation from 3/1/91 3/1/91 to County/Amount Commenced Commenced Thru Through 1/31/94 (to be Credited) to he Credited 1/31/94 • Banning 3/1/91 199,934 (-) $3,974.40 (+) $69,110 (-) $3,974.40 Beaumont 3/1/91 102,782 -0- (+) $33,010 (+) $33,010 Blythe 3/1/91 92,405 -0- (+) $40,848 1 $40,848 Canyon Lake $3,533 Paid pursuant to law enforcement agreement with Perris Cathedral City 3/1/91 82,800 (-) $82,800 -0- (-) $82,800 Coachella 3/1191 73,085 (-) $73,085 -0- (-) $73,085 Hemet 3/1/91 226,430 -0- (+) $52,440 (+) $52,440 Indio 311/91 407,928 (-) $407,928 -0- (-) $407,928 Palm Springs 3/1/91 3,974 (-) $3,974 (+) $110 (-) $3,864 Penis 3/1/91 138,221 (-) $138,221 -0- (-) $138,221 • Riverside 3/1/91 1,448,559 (-) $1,448,558 -0- (-) $1,448,558 San Jacinto 3/1/91 70,104 (-) $70,104 -0- (-) $70,104 indicates amount owing to County +: indicates credit amount owing to or paid by City..va for e.®ios FS2\482\014405-0001\2083762.3 07/26/94 CITY OF BANNING All� �-- aV. -keyri6lds, Mayor ATTEST: ci le M. Elizondo, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL CONTENT: — / q�� Joh . lkilson, City Attorney -12- COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of the City of Banning By: r�„�u Roosevelt Williams, Chairman ATT7: uci le M. Elizondo, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL C TENT: John Wilson, Agency Counsel SB 2557 Settlement Agreement CITY OF BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA BY: Jani Leja, Mayor ATTEST: �a Cl rkrIh Date: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective officers as of the date first above written. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF BLYTHE c BY: l ��7 Board Chairman BY: Agency Executive Director BY: iayor BY: City Manager ATTEST: i ewell Sorensen, City Clerk CITY OF CALIMESA By: //�v �<St!�eley A. 7 on, Mayor ATTEST: By: 1�k" Dennis R. Hallo y, City Clerk APPROVED: rn . � Marguerite P. Battersby, City Attorney -12- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective officers as of the date first above written. City of Canyon Lake By: L. Jeff B�ut�kff, Cit 6 er ATTEST: V)&'nA& Kathy Bennett, City Clerk AGREED to this ` day of May, 1994, by The City of Cathedral City Redevelopment Agency: I CHAIRM ATTEST: SEC ETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: AGEN Y CO SEL XECUTIV DIRECTOR AGREED to this 1` day of May, 1994, b;MA cil of The City of Cathedral City I ATTE T: CIT ` CLERK APPROVED AS FORM: APPROVED: i CITY ATT R CITY MANAGER IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective officers as of the date first above written. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF COACHELLA By:,, �lr � De Lara, Chairman ATTEST: ,�.,---mot-✓ �- Linda G. Garza, Deputy i Clerk ATTEST: By: Clerk of the Board APPROVED: William C. Katzenstein County Counsel By: Principal Deputy County Counsel CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS MIKE YATTEST: Mayor Date COLLEEN J. NI OL City Cle k PS2\482\014405-0001\2083762.2 06/23/94 —12— ATTEST: By: Clerk of the Board APPROVED: William C. Katzenstein County Counsel By: Principal Deputy County Counsel CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS \ MIKE SEGRIST ATTEST: Mayor 7 74`z Date LlLcv, �(i�� COLLEEN J. NICOL City Clerk % i AS2\482\014405-0001\2083762.2 06/23/94 -12- RC% li RUTAA & ItCkE.R. UI. . lu-1J-Ji : l b9n1 Ju J it,5.3 ni Idt 4 Ii �Kl:h- if SENT BY: 10-14-94 :10:45AM RUTAN & TUCKER 909853785:9 3/ 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have Caused this Agroamunt to be executed by their respective officers as of written. the date first above REDEVELOPMENT AGWCY CITY OF HEMET By: 11 ency Cha r CITY OF' HEMET By; yor ATTEST: ty ty C ptk G SENT BY: 0-14-94 ;11 :51AM ;BEST, BEST,& GEK- 6193426556:r 2/ 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their rtapeative officers as of the date first above written. REDEVELOPMENT ,AGENCY CITY OF I A n Chairman CITY OZIND By:, Napo -- ATT QT: city clerk IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective officers as of the date first above written. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF INDIAN WELLS AP VED AS Tp FOR /� j Crity Attorney Agency Chairman CITY OF INDIAN WELLS ( Mayor Attest: 9 City der, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective officers as of the date first above written. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF NORCO .r Agency C rman CITY OF NORCO Mayor i Attest: =, �7i City Clerk ATTEST: By: Clerk of the Board APPROVED : William C. Katzenstein County Counsel By: Principal Deputy County Counsel CITY OF PALM SPRINGS By: & ,f �rm✓ a ATTEST: By C ' t Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: . P go ry- p•y IM Ay TlLe rYp ,TyC0UNCIL RUTAN & TUCKER David (J. Aleshixe City Attorney COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OFPALM SP�RI/NGS By: Cha rma ATTEST: By: .Secretar APPROVED AS TO FORM: RUTAN & TUCKER E LAY I H E 0;'NAUNITY REDEV. . .-La: -Y BY RES. NO. c, 2 By: David J. A y �� C ieshire U /�3`�/ General Counsel F32\482\014405-"1\2083762.3 09/06/94 —1 2— IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective officers as of the date first above written. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF PERRIS I '1 By: W Executive rector CITY OF PERRIS By: City Mana e Attest : De�ptty City Clerk CITY OF RIVERSIDE a municipal corporation By �. City Manager Attest City Clerk REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA By Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: ; YO'&QQ'4"-c 4A Pot City Attorney SENT BY: 10-14-84 :1L):41AM KL,IAi` & IUCKtk auao� r��r,a �r IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective officers as of the date first above written. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF SAN�JJACINTO By: gency hair an CITY OF SAN JACINTO r By: ayor i ATTEST: City clerk ATTEST: By: Clerk of the Board APPROVED: William C. Katzenstein County Counsel By: Principal Deputy County Counsel APPROVED: TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVED: Ron Roberts, Mayor Ronald J. Parks, Chairperson ATTEST: ATTEST: Jun reek, City Clerk � J ne S. Greek, Secr ry APPyy(ROVED AS TO FORM: E—� Wl ' Ye.ter M. Thorson, City Attorney and General Counsel for Redevelopment FSTA 2X014405-000112Os9762.2 06/08/94 —12— f V ATTEST: By: Clerk of the Board APPROVED: William C. Katzenstein County Counsel By: Principal Deputy County Counsel APPROVED: Sa Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: l Jue . Greek, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney PS2\482\014405-0001\2083762.2 06/08/94 —1 2—