The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutS1- City Attorney CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: JAMES F. PENMAN Subject: Authorization to join amicus curiae brief in support of the City and County of San Francisco in the Dept: CITY ATTORNEY case of University of California, Hastings v. City and County of San Francisco. Date: April 17, 2000 SlohVAL Synopsis of Previous Council action: None. Recommended motion: That the Mayor and Common Council authorize the City Attorney to join in the amicus curiae brief in support of the City and County of San Francisco in the case of University of California, Hastings v. City and County of San Francisco. Signature Contact person: Robert L. Simmons Phone: 5355 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: All FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: None Source: Finance: _ Council Notes: 75-0262 Agenda Item No. STAFF REPORT Council Meeting Date: April 17,2000 TO: Mayor and Common Council FROM: James F. Penman, City Attorney DATE: April 14,2000 ITEM: University of California, Hastings v City and County of San Francisco - Brief in Support of the City and County of San Francisco The City of Los Angeles is preparing an amicus curiae brief in support of the City and County of San Francisco in the matter of University of California Hastings v City and County of San Francisco (First Appellate District, Case No. 89183). The City of San Bernardino has been asked to join the brief. The University of California, Hastings filed a lawsuit in August, 1998 challenging the lawfulness of water and sewage fees imposed by the City and County of San Francisco since July 1, 1996. The issue on appeal after the trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment is whether or not a challenge to the imposition of water and sewage fees(and therefore the ability to obtain a refund of such fees)must be brought within 120 days of the enactment of such fees as set forth in California Government Code Section 66022 or is subject to a statute of limitations time period similar to a tort claim(file claim within six months of enactment and, if not acted upon with 45 days of filing,take up to two years to file the lawsuit or, if affirmatively denied, take up to another six months to file the lawsuit). The City and County of San Francisco contend - and the trial court agreed -that the statute of limitations is 120 days not only because of the wording of the statute, but also because public policy would not be benefited with a longer(up to 2 1/2 years)period of time to challenge an enacted law concerned with such fees since it would adversely affect cities' ability to make reliable financial plans and could result in court-ordered refunds years after such an enactment, thus penalizing the affected agency and the public it serves. The case is currently on appeal in the First Appellate District in San Francisco. The City Attorney recommends that the City of San Bernardino join in the amicus curiae brief. There is no cost to the City of San Bernardino in the joinder of this brief. Attached hereto is the requesting letter from the City of Los Angeles. attachment l� L OFFICE OF fly CITY ATTORNEY JAMES K. HAHN CITY ATTORNEY J 2lgs4 PHILIP SHINER "` DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY IN LEGAL DIVISION FOR WATER AND POWER P.D. BOX 51 1 1 1 - SUITE 340 iY f LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9005 1-01 00 �G'1'UED`6 TELEPHONE (2 13) 367-4500 FAX(213) 367-4588 March 29, 2000 Attn: City Attorney Re: University of California Hastings v City and County of San Francisco (First Appellate District, Case No. 89183) Dear City Attorney: I am writing to request your City's participation as amicus curiae in a brief this office is preparing in support of the City and County of San Francisco ("San Francisco"), Respondent in the above-referenced matter. The Legal Advocacy Committee of the League of California Cities is urging that cities participate as amicus parties. This request is made because the arguments advanced by University of California, Hastings ("Hastings") in this matter, if accepted, likely would impose severe and unworkable limitations on cities' ability to charge utility fees, and substantially interfere with cities' ability to make reliable financial plans, particularly with respect to their utility service. Background In its action against San Francisco, Hastings essentially contended that all water and sewer charges levied by the City of San Francisco on Hastings were subject to Section 54999. Hastings pointed out that San Francisco's water and sewages fees met Section 54999's definition of"capital facilities fees" - in other words, the fees constituted "charge[s] to pay the capital costs of a public utility facility." Hastings contended San Francisco's requirements, and that San Francisco had failed to meet the requirements. San Francisco moved for summary judgment. San Francisco advanced two primary arguments. First, Section 54999 simply did not apply to San Francisco's water and sewage fees. San Francisco argued that Section 54999's definition of capital Attn: City Attorney March 29, 2000 Page 2 facilities fees was vague, and therefore should be read in light of industry usage and the statute's history. San Francisco's second argument - and the issue on appeal - was that, even if San Francisco's fees were subject to Section 54999, Hastings filed its lawsuit too late. San Francisco argued that a 120-day statute of limitations in Government Code Section 660022 applied to actions brought under Section 54999. Section 66022 provides that any lawsuit "to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance, resolution, or motion adopting a new fee or service charge...." must be brought within 120 days. The water and sewage fees Hastings is challenging were enacted effective July 1, 1996. Hastings did not file its lawsuit until August 1998. San Francisco relied heavily on the fact that the court in San Marcos Water Dist. v. San Marcos Unif. School Dist., 190 Cal.App.3d 1083 (1987) applied Section 66022's slightly different predecessor statute (former Government Code Section 54995) to bar a school district's claim for refund of allegedly improperly-charged sewer "capacity fees." Hastings argued that Section 66022 does not apply for five reasons: (1) that Section 66022 only covers actions "to attach, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance," not "refund actions".such as Hastings' lawsuit; (2) that Section 66022's language indicates it is only intended to apply to certain fees described in Government Code sections 66012 and 66013, and not to fees described in Section 54999; (3) that Hastings filed a governmental tort claim with San Francisco, which triggered a different statute of limitations that allows Hastings' claim to proceed; (4) that Hastings, a state entity, can only be subject to statutes of limitation in rare situations; it is not subject to "general" statutes such as Section 66022, and; (5) that the statute was tolled by the "discovery rule." Relying on Section 66022's 120-day statute, the trial court ruled in favor of San Francisco's motion for summary judgment. Issue on Appeal The issue in the Hastings appeal, and regarding which amicus participation is requested, is whether the 120-day statute of limitations in Government Code Section 66022 applies to lawsuits alleging a violation of Government Code Section 54999. Section 54999 provides that public utilities can charge "capital facilities fees" (defined as "any nondiscriminatory charge to pay the capital cost of a public utility facility") to school districts and state agencies, as long as such charges relate to facilities "actually serving" the school or agency, and as long as the charges are within certain price limitations. i Attn: City Attorney March 29, 2000 Page 3 Significance To Cities The Hastings lawsuit is significant to cities because school districts are filing government claims and lawsuits throughout the state advancing essentially the same arguments Hastings is making here. Hastings' argument regarding the scope of Section 54999, if accepted, likely would place severe and unworkable limitations on the ability of San Francisco and other cities to administer utility fees. The Hastings appeal is significant to cities because Section 66022 places a short limitations period on Section 54999 lawsuits. Such a short limitations period benefits cities because it requires them to be promptly informed of any challenges to their ability to collect utility fees. A longer limitations period, permitting challenges several years after the fees have been assessed and collected, would significantly impinge on cities' ability to make reliable financial plans. Belated claims for fees already collected and spent will penalize both the agency and the public it serves. FILING SCHEDULE Hastings filed its opening brief on March 1, 2000. San Francisco's Opposition Brief will be due May 1, 2000. If your city is willing to join as an amicus party, please complete and return the enclosed consent form by facsimile no later than April 26,2000. The facsimile number is: (213)367-4588. Thank you very much. Very truly yours, =� 6�- FA A. CHU Deputy City Attorney for Water and Power FAC-pj (213)367-4580 Enclosure c: Pete Echeverria, Sr. Assistant City Attorney, Los Angeles Jason P. Gonzalez, Deputy City Attorney, San Francisco Burk Delventhal, Deputy City Attorney, San Francisco I Attn: City Attorney March 29, 2000 Page 4 Susan Burns Cochran, City Attorney, Lathrop Ruth Sorensen, County Counsels Association Executive Director and Litigation Counsel 58670