AgdaPkt 2004-04-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

.' . . . , . ,. - 8 A ,23 RECENT LEGAL ADVOCACY ACTIVITIES ',- Orange County 2% Property Tax Case they are excluded by a statutory provision ofthe Reversed - Billions Remain with Counties Public Employees Retirement Law, or the partici- pating parties have contracted otherwise. Following a united a1d coordinated friend-of- The case involved individuals that worked for a the-court effort involving numerous public agen- public agency, but were paid their salaries by a , cies, cities and counties breathed a collective sigh private contractor. The court concluded that the of relief after a court of appeal reversed a trial payment of the workers' salaries by a private court ruling involving the way the Orange County contractor does not exclude workers that meet the Assessor assesses property. The trial court common law employee definition from CalPERS concluded that a county assessor could not enrollment. Public agencies interested in avoiding "recapture" property taxes beyond Proposition 13's CalPERS enrollment for temporary employees 2% inflation cap in years where property values should take care in structuring the employment increased to offset previous years where property relationship to ensure that the individuals would values were either flat or had dropped. The trial not be considered common law employees. court's ruling jeopardized billions of dollars of property taxes collected by assessor's throughout The League thanks Terry Roemer and Art the state using similar practices. Hartinger with Meyers Nave Riback Silver & Wilson for writing the triend-of-the-court brief on The court of appeal reversed the trial court behalf of joining cities to the Califomia Supreme decision, and concluded that the 2% pBr year Court. The name of the case is Metropolitan increase was cumulative and based on the original Water District of Southern California v. SuDerior purchase price, rather than declined interim Court (Carall/) 32 Cal. 4th 291, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 857 assessed values due to temporary market condi- (Feb. 26, 2004).. --- tions. The court of appeal ruling relieves counties of the administrative and fiscal burden of refunding City's Hiring of Temporary Police Officers Not billions of dollars to property owners at a time when public resources are already scarce, and Subject to Meet and Confer Provisions enables local governments to continue to provide The court of appeal recently concluded that a vital local services. city's decision to hire retired peace officers to fill a The League thanks Andy Freeman with the severe and unexpected short-term staffing short- age of police officers was an appropriate manage- San Diego County Counsel's Office and Ruth rial decision, and therefore the city was not re- Sorenson formerly with the California State quired to meet and confer with the police union Association of Counties for writing the friend-of- before implementing the policy. The court noted the-court brief on behalf of the League and CSAC that the positions could not be filled through the to the court of appeal. The name of the case is ordinary recruitment process, and the city's action Countv of Oranoe v. Bezalre. was a managerial decision to maintain the existing level of public safety in the community. Temporary Employees Meeting Common Law The League thanks Jeff Sloan, Charles Employee Definition are Entitled to PERS Sakai and Felicia Reid with Curiale Dellaverson Hirschfeld Kraemer & Sloan for Enrollment writing the brief on behalf of the League. The In a narrow decision the California Supreme name of the case is Sacramento Police Officers Court recently concluded that public agencies are Association v. Citv of Sacramento. currently required to enroll any individuals that are consid- unpublished (3d Dist. Mar. 30, 2004). ered common law employees in CaIPERS, unless Continued on Page 7 ~ Visit the League's Official Web Site--www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUSIPAGE 3