05031
RESOLUTION NO. 503
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS DESIGNATING THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES AS ITS AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS
FOR ACTIONS UNDER THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE
The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does resolve
as follows:
Section 1. The.City Council hereby.designates the
County of Los Angeles to receive service of process for any and all
actions brought against the City of Rolling'Hil.ls under Article 2,
Chapter 5, Part 9, Division 1 of the California Revenue and Taxation
Code.
Section 2. The County of Los Angeles will be entitled
to be paid by the City of Rolling Hills for the costs resulting from
said designation as provided in the letter sent to the City. on May 10,
1982, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. -These costs
will be prorated based upon the City's percentage share of the taxes
being challenged, and the City will be notified prior to an increase
in hourly rates charged by the County.
Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to
send a certified copy of this resolution to the Los Angeles County
Clerk.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 13th da of%December, 1982.
Mayos e City of
Rollig ills, California
ATTEST:
City Clerk
i
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 503 was duly. J�
adopted by the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills, California
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 13th day of December, 1982
by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdock
Swanson, Mayor Pennell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
City Clerk
4: l.)-3:
• CHIEF A_-,NIINISTR.A'TI'VE 01 'ICER
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
{
713 HALL OF ADMINISTRATION / LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA aOD12
/ n' •`' 974-1101
HARRY L. HUFFORD MFMBE>1S OF THE DOAItD
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
May 10, 1982 tM 1l F. SCNAM*UM-
CHAIIItNAM
IINNETH HAMM
EDMUND D. EDELWAN
DEME D.vaA
MICHAEL D. ANTONO+!KH
To: City Administrators/Managers
.6
From:. Joseph Gardne
City -County ordinator
Subject:- COUNTY CHARGES FOR DEFENSE OF CITY
PROPERTY TAX REFUND ACTIONS.
This 'is to supplement our. memorandum to you of February 101 1982
and to pr'ovide additional information relating to charges for
the legal defense by the County Counsel of city property tax
refund actions. A copy of the relevant legislation and a sample
of a required resolution were sent to each city with the earlier,
communique.
As previously advised, compliance with current statutory provi-
sions requires two modifications of earlier procedures.
Specifically:
1) .Continuation of the County's legal defense of.cities in,
property tax refund matters now requires the designation
of the County as the City's agent for service of process,
by resolution.
2) The County must now-charge_a fee for this legal service.
Several cities have. already adopted the necessary resolution..
Others have delayed this action either on the basis that they
have experienced little or no tax litigation action' or to 'review
the charges*. wb icl:, would be involved. As noted, the above
referenced resol-" ion is a prerequisite for any further represen-
tation of .a city by the County Counsel. Therefore, unless a city,'
which shares in the property tax, intends to secure other repre-i'.
sentation, it should not postpoT:ie the approval of the resolution.
An additional sample copy is attached for your convenience.
EXHIBIT "A" '
- - .i'".<.'_i,:: 5c1:'davr."•':'J'`d'.'.��:'.yf-.1. c-"5=`?�:,�';[�i .r.....r.;_'. � 1r 4X'Ssr; .
_ - '�3^;'s':' F.r4w - - �':�;>,;.. ,a. .y:.,. i:r'�-"' F.'a°>E. .;=`-_s'�`.',.n4.`�ip`v �"•: .,&{.
..:j,, •:�Y,-�;n'x,-•r.. ml:Y _ - '-;y'. .�P: ...r::+ 'i`f'ri}-.`tbi;.. --e.4'>.c, yF?.
- - -
,. ..ax, . ..5. .
1
otic... - - ..-:'.•..
-�,:%ts. mss:, �^ �'•.. _-.c v:1=::r .-. ..sn �S:'x.-:•, • -
r,.a ;
,v
` Y
-C-ity Administrators/oanagers -2- May .10, 1982
Determination of Costs
The Department of County Counsel will record actual hours worked
on cases for those .cities which have adopted the required
resolution. The, total cost of the County's defense of property
tax cases will be determined by applying the hourly rate for the
Deputy County Counsel assigned. Rates currently range from
$48.00 to $79.00 for the classifications most typically assigned
to' these cases. These rates are adjusted annually by the
Auditor -Controller pursuant to the approved County budget.
Cities Share of Cost
An individual city's actual charge for services will be
determined in the following manner. Under current law, the
-� property tax of $1.00 per $100 of market value. is distributed
V among several taxing agencies. Cities' share of these taxes
V range from zero percent for a non -property tax city to as much as
34 percent of the taxes collected. Based on the premise that the
City -originally shared in the property tax collected according to
its tax factor, the same factor (percentage) will be applied to
the County Counsel's cost of the .legal defense. For. example:
A Total County Counsel Hours Recorded for Case
B = Current Hourly Rate for Assigned Attorney'staff
C.= Involved City's Tax 'Factor (percentage)
D = Cost to City for legal services rendered
Therefore a case for which the County Counsel (Deputy County
Counsel -II @ $48.00 per hour) devotes six hours of time for a
city whose tax factor (percentage) is 15%, the charge would equal:
A x B x C= D
6 hours x $48/hr. x 15% S43.20
Payment of Charges
Utilization of the following procedures is intended to minimize
the administrative steps for billing and payment by the
respective agencies. Cities will be asse-;sed no more than once
per year depending on actual cases defended by the County Counsel.
Accordingly, the Auditor -Controller will develop an amount to be
charged to a serviced city based upon the above formula. An
informational memo (not a bill) reporting this total charge will
be submitted to each involved city. The amount of this charge
will then be deducted from the city's annual December property tax
allocation.
c.�b:y
��. ...�. .-�.=."Lr. ".,...ANY, -};.::.•...e <".. .�. ._.sr......-.. �..ee_... ..`l .,r�4'::i'.w ^`-ai!^.s:^.;.?.i�'_".+-'nes
�''" u"t`p.�.✓,�'e»i?eP„�"s"R.,;::,:F.1.�,'.1sr�st :�":'v::'3"�'��'•'�i.`1"y'
^'� yrr-.�.-..».-.._+ ..._�..>..a........�«..r...._--.a....�+.�.�....._..usrs�.++�....Acw-ray..t.ra.�+..a...uY�r.gar...s>aa.++..rou..-.wc.e-C.�.,......✓..+..-,.a:.:�mt�..�...���..�u.....a.....�+v.....-.x. h��3... e.. .. r�svrtu..:...,u-a45::.>rt�'v:...i..1.c:ti�vC'26a`rl.:
' City Administrators/Managers
-8` May 10, 1982
Several cities have made inquiries duringthe
their historical, involvement in such taxrefunpast months as to
.0d caes. In'
the
auntyCounsel .
not maintain records for individual cities. l did
absence of statutory requirements to do so,
The implementation of these procedures is.schedu
1982• We encourage you to secure the approval ofet e duty e
resolution by your City Counsel if they have. not he attached
Inquiries regarding this procedure, may be directed
done so.
at 974-1351. _ cted to our off ice
HLH.JG
MMM:ip
Attachment
o
-....-»....... �.o ir• :.d-<:*A,v-...• .>:,'%`:;%jy. ,�,r:, r>.. ;J. ;?'v:'':':c., w.si';"` 9a.�.,'r4;
''.:.,.:F.' - ,..F•:nu. 'r: :e.,;..r^_r.�..�';..n >f#"",,t...,fr.. .,�, �:y.H...��.�'?.�._r., .� .'ax�ms`...s-. .a:r,.. '<,'.
.:r,:n+.�e;-r•.ri.�a',izwir°- _ - d % .: -�i a.' '=�e-. - .,t, <!-.�"_�.,� '.}:°i , �i�''"-:�' ..-Y" V �•�.. 1- �..5•.a �, 1
a-+:.:aM"�.`.:ra:2'�,.".=naa;c'at'n. - ";".�*. 'i. ut :�'" . �,�(� , �": i�`}r,''`f,,'��:�_yL:; �?. �# »�.ar�,..-.r;:•r rs - . �'-; . �'�t•'i«d;5.r.x. f5.r-t. _:r,..�z�Yp%r.;
3iiPx<4'St�_-'_'3'Ir:; ''a. _ .: J''.:�;,• d�`:i'r.,v. .':I", l�'�4.: h\^r? '�I.'. � - _
. --iawix:liS':.eLn3i4v +gin."wpm";"_-.''.-.ey,�u,..a..u.. � :'Y :s.':';' •'' - -