Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - August 7, 1996 (90)vF too • •�COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA TITLE: Annexation Agreement with San Joaquin County MEETING DATE: August 7, 1996 SUBMITTED BY: City Manager RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council approve the attached Annexation Agreement with San Joaquin County and authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached Memorandum dated July 30, 1996, is provided to give the background to this recommendation. As discussed in the Memorandum, the approval of this agreement will not have an immediate impact on Lodi's property tax revenues. Currently, Lodi has approximately a 5 -year inventory of undeveloped land. As such, Lodi does not need to annex new territory for some time unless for a special project. Even then, the shift of property tax revenue from Lodi to the County will be gradual and will require several years before it is a significant sum of money. The long-term solution to the County's fiscal problems will have to be solved by the State at some time in the future. Like all California counties, there are not sufficient revenues to maintain services at a level to which the residents of California have become accustomed. However, the solution to the problems faced by counties will not be achieved by "beggaring" cities. This will only result in shifting the fiscal crises to the cities. FUNDING: None ei•»� Respectfully submitted, H. Dixon Flynn City Manager APPROVED: 1_ _! H. Dixon Flynn -- CiAcy Manager 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Dixon Flynn, City Manager DATE: July 31, 1996 SUBJECT: Annexation Agreement with San Joaquin County PURPOSE This is an information paper to update you on the current status of negotiations between the City Managers of San Joaquin County and the County Administrator regarding the property tax allocation formula used for annexation of new territory. No action is required by Council. This report will be brought to the regular Council meeting on August 7, 1996, for discussion and action. BACKGROUND As provided in the revenue and taxation code, a city and county are required to establish an annexation agreement on the distribution of "property tax revenue" before an annexation may be approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission. The agreement may be negotiated on an "annexation -by -annexation" basis, as a master agreement between the city and county or as a master agreement on a county -wide basis. The method, term and form of the agreement is up to the local agencies involved. In 1980, the County and cities agreed to a master county -wide agreement (Exhibit 1). This agreement ensured a uniform and equitable distribution of property tax between the cities and the County; and, as such, was an agreement easy to administer and understand. Under this agreement, the County received 63.4% of the property tax (local government share) and cities received 36.6%. The local government share is that tax which does not include the property tax for schools (approximately 50%) or special districts (approximately 10%). This agreement was terminated by the County Board of Supervisors on December 12, 1995, effective June 16, 1996. HDF JACWHDFWNNEX-3.DOC Page 2 COUNTY'S JUSTIFICATION AND POSITION The reason given by the County for this action was their concern that municipal annexations and redevelopment projects have been capturing County revenues, while at the same time population in cities have been adding to County service burdens in welfare, health and criminal justice. Given the demographic projections of urban growth in San Joaquin County over the next twenty-five years, the loss of revenues when cities annex new territory and the recent shift of property tax to schools, the County is justified in their concern. To increase revenues, San Joaquin County is now looking at State rules which offer counties the opportunity to increase revenues. These rules allow counties to promote economic development in unincorporated areas to build the County's tax base and getting voter approval for County -wide sales tax increases. In addition, State rules allow counties to require city cooperation on sharing revenues. At least five forms of revenue sharing is allowed and which are actively promoted by the California State Association of Counties (CSAC). These include: 1. Property tax agreements for annexations 2. Sales tax sharing 3. Redevelopment pass-throughs 4. Transient occupancy tax and municipal court fine sharing 5. City collection of County development fees For the most part, these rules, like unfunded mandates, shift the burden of financing regional services from the County to the cities and relieve the County from the risks associated with proposing new tax measures. Based on these rules and the fact that many counties have been successful in negotiating new revenue sharing agreements with their cities, San Joaquin County submitted the following proposals in March, 1996, to the San Joaquin County City Managers, as follows: 1. Cities will give the County 100% of the property tax (local government share) in newly annexed territory plus other revenues necessary to offset the remaining deficiencies needed to finance regional services (sales tax, transient occupancy tax, business license tax, utility users tax, etc.); 2. Cities will collect development impact fees for County -wide capital facilities; and 3. Cities will fund the regional transportation system. The County Administrative Officer justified this proposal on a fiscal impact analysis prepared by his office. This analysis concluded that the County should receive "11590" of property tax on newly annexed territory to finance regional services. Page 3 CITY MANAGERS' POSITION The City Managers rejected this proposal and the analysis prepared by the County and responded with the following proposal after several weeks of discussion and meetings.. 1. Cities will agree to a 7596/2596 split of property tax (local government share), with the County receiving 75% and cities receiving 25%; 2. No city will receive less than 4.25% of the total property tax.; 3. Cities will not shift other revenues to the County except on annexation of developed property where these revenues exist at the time of annexation (sales tax, TOT, business license tax, etc..); 4. Annexations which were being processed on December 12, 1995, will be negotiated separately and resolved prior to any agreement approved by the cities; and 5. The cities of Ripon and Escalon will be given special consideration due to their size and high level of dependence on property tax revenue. FINAL AGREEMENT AND CITY MANAGER'S COMMENT A final agreement was reached on July 16 (Exhibit 2). This agreement reflects the proposal made by the City Managers as outlined above and was contingent on the County working out separate agreements with Lathrop, Tracy and Manteca, regarding annexations that were being processed by these cities on December 12, 1995. While this agreement reduces the property tax Lodi will receive on newly annexed territory, it does not give other revenues to the County and does not bind Lodi to collecting county -wide impact fees. While I am not happy with the fact that Lodi will receive less property tax revenue in the future, this agreement will not have a negative impact on the City for several years. Hopefully, by then, the State will have developed a more realistic solution to the fiscal problems faced by counties. Whether the agreement negotiated by the City Managers is acceptable to the City Council will be decided August 7, 1996. It may be possible for the City Council to negotiate a better agreement. If you believe this possible, I encourage the Council to reject the proposed agreement and open negotiations with the County. However, I believe this agreement is the best agreement which can be negotiated at this time. Respectfully submitted, Dixon Flynn City Manager DF:br attachments Office of tho County Adminiatrator w COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN Counhouse, Room 707 222 East WetmrAvenue Stockton, Callomia 95202-2778 (208) 4Ea-9211 July 22, 1996 All City Managers Exhibit 1 RECEIVED I 2 `d IS96 i i Y 'M..AN AF it kY. � 1 t;:l'> x or S1'M(L? a=n itr; @Managers: : , .. .... ij:i..... . CW Diaft ft. Agreement for Property Tax Alloe"on Upon An Won Ile attached County Draft A (7122196) includea the revisions suggested at our joim meeting on July 1.6. ne revisions are summarized as follows: 1. InmaductioA Modees, Signature Page, and City references have been revised and Coun. terpart, Section 15, has been added tq reflect that this is a multi-party agreement. 2, Total Property T&x Base, Section 1B, has been deleted as this term is no longer used. 3. Allocatiom for Manteca, for the Austin Road annexations, are specified In Section 2E. 4. F_xclusforn of cities that do not execute the agreement is provided in Section 51). 5. Change in fmancial responsibility language has been deleted from Section 6. 6. Termination provisions have been revised in Section 7 to refer to the Ceittficate of )~icing. This will allow Cities as much time as nccessary. beyond the termination date, to complete annexations that are in progress. It is our understanding that any city comments on Draft #8 will be coordinated through Dwane Milnes; He will also be our contact to determine whether cut additional meeting is required to finalize the agmement. When the draft is determined to be acceptable, we will prepare 7 originals fol' tiod process; At the same time, we tequesc that you jointly sign a letter: 11 at recotn- men ..adoption of the agreement by the cities and the County. We have reviewed and approved a shaft of that letter prepared by Dwane. Please fwl free to contact Rich iaiblia about any refinements. Thank you for your assistance. Very 4.at - urs, avir County Administrator DtB:RH—st Attachment c: County Counsel DBOI 23 AUG -01-1996 09:30 209+9377149 P.01 Agreement For Property Tax Allocation Upon Annexation County Draft #8 (7122/96) Compared to Draft #7 AGREEMENT entered into this 6th— day of 3uly A=stl996 by and between the C ky Qfm of Fscaton. Lodi. M =a, Ripon. Stocktcm. and Trogy, hereinafter referred to individually as -01"Y— aid l Actively as„`CMET', and the County of San Joaquin, hereinafter referred to as `i PREAMBLE: The GM4 CMM and .COUNTY acknowledge that both 4he-QW Q= and COUNTY have increasing service responsibilities with restrained revenue resources. There is no consensus between i CEM and the COUN"i`Y regarding the analysis of local government funding issues arising from annexations. The-ekies CrMS and COUNTY each have their own distinctive and differing perspectives on costs and revenues gener- ated by -annexed areas. however, there is a statutory requirement for a Property Tax Allocation Agreement for the Local Agency Formation Commission to annex land. WITNESSETH; SEAS, Articld 13A, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of California limits ad vaio66m .'tkx{e& on real property to one percent (1%) of full cash value; and WHEREAS, Chapter 6 of Part 4.5 of Division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code (Sec- tions 95 et. seq.) provides for the allocation of properly tax revenues; and . WIEREAS, GIW CITIES and COUNTY trust have an agreement for the allocation of property tax revenues upon annexation. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the following terms and condi- tions, tho parties hereto agree as follows: Anneaatlon Aareemen” m Joaquin 4:oanty AUG -01-1996 09:30 209t93i?149 P,02 C. Annexations by the cities of Ripon and Escalon_ Notwithstanding Subsections 2A and 2B, if the current population of the city is 20,000 or less, based on the most recent esti- mates published by the California State Department of Finance, property tax allocation for annexations conducted by the cities of Ripon and Escalon shall be determined by this Subsection, subject to the exclusion provided in Subsection 5C. CITY and COUNTY shah, upon each annexation, share in the Annexation Property Tax Base and all Incremental Growth thereof pursuant to the ratio of 36.6% CITY and 63A% COUNTY. D. Annexation by the City of Tracy of Northeast Industrial and Elissagamy Estates areas. ' 14otvitheiandi�g Subsections 2A and 2B, property tax'aliocation for aowa ons to the City of Tracy of the Northeast Industrial area and the Elissagaray Estates area shall be determined by this Subsection. CI'T'Y and COUNTY shall, upon each annexation, share in the Annexation Property Tax Base and all Incremental Growth thereof pursuant to the ratio of 20% CITY and 90%n COUNTY. F,.Annexation by -the City of Mantega of Austin Road North and Austin Road South areas. -NotwJJhstand&1Z •ins 2A and 2B property n for annexWons to the C�y of Manteca of the Austin Road North area and the Austin Road South area shall be determined by thisSubsection. c in the- Annexation Propgrty Tax Base and all In m n W Growth thercef pgtmaal to 3. APPLICATION OF AGREEMENT. 'err . The pre visions of this Agreement shall apply to all pending a" f0tuze annex- ations as of June 16, 1996 and fora period of seven (7) years until Julie 15.7003, - unless otherwise terminated under Section 7. B. Effective date. The effective date of property tax allocation for each annexation shall be determined in accordance with Government Code Section 549412 and any succeeding statutory provisions. As of June 16, 1996, statements regarding the completion of annexations invst be filled on or befom December I of the year immediately preceding the year sn which property taxes are t(� be sharal. Arn,eXattM A nient- man loayirin County 7/22A)6 NUG -01-1996 09:31 209+9377119 P. 03 6: R136TONAL COOPERATioN. .�ii�us�TFirafa , ria Moff • ,, rr A� I consideration of the unique and mutual funding difficulties of both # e-GRW- SSS and the COUNTY, CUMS and COUNTY will jointly develop and seek to implement changes in their activities which will improve the cost effectiveness of service delivery by both fly . GFI* CrMS and COUNTY, including but not limited to consolida- :..: lien;of services between governmental agencies and inter -agency contracting for services. 7. T'ERM1NATlON. This Agreement may be terminated, by either Any party hereto upon 6 months written notice which termination shalt terminate die ag=.ent for eacb. And e� per[. Said ter- mination shall not affect annexations for which the LAFCo Executive Officer has issued a ce rtificate of eempletie>} nUM prior to the effeetiye date of Deminak eriaofftk-niorith termination Mdg! . 8. GOVERNING LAW AND ATTORNEYS' FEES. This Agmeement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Should any legal action he brought by either party because of any default under this Agreement or to enforce any provision of this Agreement, or w obtain a decla- ration of rights hereunder, the prevailing party shall he entitled to reasonable attorneys' "' C8;`CnitrtctiSts and such other costs as may be fixed by the;Court. Tito standard of review for determining whether a default has occurred under this Agreement shall be the standard generally applicable to contractual obligations in California. 9. NOTICES. Any notice of communication required hereunder between ^RR� among f'rMS and COUNTY must be in writing, and may be given althea' personally, by telefacsimile (with original forwarded by regular U.S. Mail) or by Federal Express or other similar courier promising overnight delivery. if personally delivered, a notice or communication shall be Annexation Apeement--.San Joaquin County --$-- 7022/96 RUG—01-1996 09:31 209+9377149 P.04 City of Stockton City of Stockton Dwain Milnes R. Thomas Harris City Ha11 City Hail 425 N. El Dorado St_ 425 N. El Dorado St. Stockton, CA 95202 Stockton, CA 95202 Te*facsimile: 937--7149 Telefacsimile. 937-9898 City of Tracy Fred Diaz City Hail 325 E. 10th Street Tracy, CA 95376 Telefacsimile: 831-4110 Ta= OUNTY: QmIY AdWaiarator David L. Baker Courthouse, Rooth 707 222 E. Weber Avenue Stockton, California 9520 Teldfacsimile: (209) 468-2875 City of Tracy. Debra Corbett City Hall 325 E. i 0th Street Tracy, CA 95376 Telefacsimile: 831-4153 With Copies To: County Counsel Terrence R. Dermody Courthouse, Room 711 222 E. Weber Avenue Stockton, California 95202 Telefacsimile: (209) 463-2$75 Any party hereto may at any time, by giving ten (10) days written notice to the other par- ties, designate any other address or facsimile number in substitution of the address or facsimile number to which such notice or communication shall be given. 10, SEVERABIL M ;'3f any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, void, or unenforceablO but the remainder of this Agreement can be enforced without failure of material consideration to any party, then this Agreement shall trot be affected and it shall remain in full force and effect, unless amended by mutual consent of the parties. Notwithstanding -this severability clause, each subsection of Section 2. Property Tax Allocation and Section 5. Exclusions, is material and substantial and the failure of said subsection is the failure of material consideration, causing the agreement to be void from the date that the subsection is held invalid. Annexation Agreement Susi )j)agvin County —7— V22,96 RUG -631-1496 09:32 2639+9377149 P.©5 I IN WAS WHEREOF, .,e parties hereto have executod this Agreentcat. Recommended: As D Form: Execution: Attest; COUNTY David L. Baker Terrence R. Dermody Robert J. Cabral Lois M.*Sahyoun, Clerk County Administrator County Counsel Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors Date: CITIES Escalon Thorn Clark James Fonda David C. Ennis City Manarx City Attorney Mayor Date: Lodi H. Dixon.Flynn Randall Hayes City Ma.uagr r City Attorney Manteca Leticia Espinoza John Brinton Acting City Manager City Attorney Ripon David Warner Mayor Date. Karen 1)add City Clerk Jacqueline Taylor City Clerk Bill Perry Joann Tilton Mayor City Clat Date: Leon Compton Tom Terpstra Jack DeSelle Lynette Van Laar City Administrator City Attorney Mayor City Clerk Date: Stockton Dwane Milnes R. Thomas Harris Joan Darrah City Manager City Attorney Mayor Date: Tracy Fred Diaz Debra Corbett Dan Bilbrey City Manager City Attorney Mayor Date: nso7-zi w Ann=atkmAgrccmcnt--mtJt-4quinCounty —9— AUG-01-1996 E19:32 2'09+937'.149 Katherine Gong Meissner City Clirk Sharon Smith City Clerk 7122196 P. 06 AGREEMENT AJ D O WM-D _)5 y a c. L. c -f 9 N D C o u v -Ty POR ' PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION UPOt3 ANNEXATION AGREEMENT entered into this 15th day. of October, 1980, by and between the City of Lodi hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and the County of San Joaquin, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY". W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Article 13A, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of California limits ad valorem•taxes or real property to one percent (lt) of full cash value; and WHEREAS, Chapter 6 of Part 0.5 of Division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code (Sections 95 et. seq.). provides for the allocation -of property tax revenues; and WHEREAS, CITY and COUNTY wish to provide: for the equitable allocation of property tax revenues upon annexation. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the following terms and conditions, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS. The following words and phrases shall have the meanings in this agreement as set forth: A. "Property Tax Base" shall mean the base year sum of the ad valorem tax allocated to Special Districts and to COUNTY within the area being annexed. Post -it' Fax Note 7671 JDaie(D, •3.1j�g6► P,,t" # — lrno-, YJGR i! `l 7l Exhibit 2 J131-03-19% 09:25 '_209 45.E _330�. a•= � P. 91 18 EXHIBIT 2 B i B. "Special Districts" shall mean those political subdivisions organized pursuant to the laws of the State of California whose functions within the area being annexed are • Gi � I bl• 1'w o :f terminated and/or assessed by CITY. C. "Historical average ratio" shall mean the ratio of 36.6% CITY and 63.4% COUNTY. D. "Base year" shall mean the assessed valuation applicable to the property and improvements within the area being annexed at the time the application for annexation is submitted to LAFCO. E. "Incremental growth" shall mean the total increase or decrease in the property tax base over the base year. 2. PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION. A. CITY and COUNTY shall, upon each annexation, share in the property tax base and all incremental growth thereof pursuant to the historical average ratio. B. Future property taxes. The historical average ratio would also apply to any property eXempt from ad valorem taxes which subsequently became taxable. C. Application. The allocation set forth in Paragraph 2.A. shall apply to all pending and future annexations and, in the absence of an applicable property tax allocation agreement, to all annexations completed subsequent to January 1. 1978. -2- JUN-0-1 1995 09:215 M 468 33 0a� : P. 02 19 f. ZFFECTIVE DATE OP ALLOCATION. A. Annexations completed prior to December 31st any calendar year shall share in property tax effective July lst of the next succeeding fiscal year, except for the following: 1. All annexations completed prior to January lst, 1980, shall share in property tax effective July Ist, 1980, except that 2. In no event will property tax be allocated to a city prior to the date that the city assumes responsi- bility for providing services in. the annexed area. 4. TERMINATION. This agreement may be terminated on or after June 30, 1983, by either party hereto upon six (6) months written notice. Said termination shall effect the Property Tax Allocations as set forth in Paragraph 2 hereof of annexations which are completed subsequent to the effective date of termination. • -3- a �2-5X•.09 68 3-0 92% P.03 717,17-071996 09: 20 APPROVED by Resolution No. _ ki' 117 duly adopted by the City of Lodi on October 1r, 1980 and Resolution No._r,yg3 duly adopted by the County of San Joaquin on October 1980. ATTEST CITY OF LODI ALICE M. RETM HE WALTER J, KRNICH City Clerk Mayor, City of Lodi Approved as to form RONALll bi. STEIN City Attorney COUNTY 0 AN JOAQUIN ATTEST g Q A A ND Chairman, oard of Supervisors Deputy ~` Approved as to form 0-J Depu y County Counsel JUH-03-159x, 09: � -4- X09 4F--Z.J L-3 21 g -:i% P.04 H 4+ C 41 E C L 0 o� N �- O° N '- u 0 u C 15 Cr m m H LmO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M n D M Rt M N uoilelndod JfS L o � LLn b M N (spuesnoul) for San Joaquin County 25•Year Transportation Improvement Plan to: Maintain Existing Infrastructure Provide Incremental Improvements to Keep face with Growth San Joaquin Council of Governments —"4.48 M -M IH^M O ewbutt Owe, jttl O *lei ""H.N•4A•d O S&UI:•w opoiD O 9)1*w.L Pvm+ll*V -•-- W*UOWOwadWl JOWLS .-- 11!11 Hl11WW0o ❑ eio�iuK 11-uejy ❑ 840*fotd *-461H ❑ "ge5 f sm Beim N r 40 • t ♦ 1 ♦ 1 I 1 t act stns t t �I �t 4.111, OZOZ - 9661 x0IIEa[09103 QWMJ SMAIUS I SIZOIJ VOIMIUSNSU City Sponsored Projects SR -99 at Kettleman (SR -12) Interchange, Realign ramps, Replace overcrossing, Widen Kettleman Elm Street, Add continuous turn lane, Lower Sacramento to Hutchins Lower Sacramento Road, Widen to 4 lanes, Turner to SR -12 SR -12, Widen to 6 lanes, West City limit to SR -99 SR -12 (Victor Road), Widen to 4 lanes, SR -99 to East City Limits Railroad Grade Crossing: Lodi Avenue at SPRR, Construct 4 lane urban street underpass Park and Ride Lots: Cal Skate - Cherokee Lane Lower Sacramento at Kettlernan Lane San Joaquin Council of Governments City Sponsored Projects, continued Multimodal Station Bicycle Paths and Lanes: Harney Lane, Lower Sacramento Road to SR -99 west Frontage Road Hutchins Street, Harney Lane to Holly Drive Lodi Loop Trail Lower Sacramento Road, Lodi City Limits Turner Road, Lodi City Limits Local Bus and Dial -A -Ride service - upgrades San Joaquin Council of Governments Other Projects in the Lodi Planning Area SR -12, Passing lanes on Bouldin Island SR -12 at 1-5, Signals, turn lane widening to 4 lanes SR -88- the Lockeford Bypass, Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Analysis for a Bypass Armstrong Road, Widen to 4 lanes, West Lane to SR -99 Cherokee, Widen to 6 lanes, SR -99 to Canal Harney Lane, Widen to 4 lanes: Lower Sacramento Road to Davis East City limit to SR 99 Lower Sacramento Road, Widen to 4 lanes: Eight Mile to SR -12; Peltier to Sacramento County Line, and Eilers to Mokelumne San Joaquin Council of Governments Other Projects in the Lodi Planning Area, cont. Thornton Road, Widen to 4 lanes: Eight Mile to SR -12 Thornton Road, Widen to 8 lanes: Davis to Eight Mile Turner Road, Widen to 4 lanes, Lodi City limit to Guild Park -and -Ride lots: SR 99 at SR -12 (Victor Road); and 1-5 at SR -12 and Thornton Road Countywide Traffic Flow Improvements: Signal, Operation and Intersection Improvements to smooth traffic flow Voluntary Ridesharing through Commute Connection Intercity and Interregional Bus Service Countywide Dial -A Ride Service San Joaquin Council of Governments Other Projects in the Lodi Planning Area, cont. Track Work for Rail Service Rail Service to Sacramento and the Bay Area Transportation Systems Management: Freeway Service Patrols SP Kentucky House Spur Right -of -Way: Acquire for future Transportation or Recreation use Regional Rural Bicycle Lanes and Paths: Lower Sacramento - Bear Creek to Harney, Turner to Sacramento County Line SR -12, Sacramento County fine to Amador County Line SR -88, SR -99 to Amador County Line SR -99, west Frontage Road, Harney Lane south to Wilson Way San Joaquin Council of Governments for San Joaquin County Expansion of Major Freeways (1-511-205, & SR 99) Maintenance of Loci! Infrastructure Inability of Transit Service to Deep (pace with Growth San Joaquin Council of Governments for San Joaquin County Link Lind Use to Transportation Network More Employer involvement Individual Involvement San Joaquin Council of Governments 9 c O H m (U W*. Z4^ .4) 0 O .� u C � CUO �0 �_ p ... v m L m 4.c for San Joaquin County Regional Transportation Components Must... Enhance System Efficiencies Expand System Capacity Reduce System Demand Keep the Heat On San Joaquin Council of Governments RUG 01 '96 02:52R' SJ rG. ADMINIS-WRTOR Office of tho County Adnilnistrator COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN Courthoum, Room 707 222 Eoet Webw Ame'nus StocMon. California 95202-27711 (208)408-3211 Fayslmlle Transmittal Facsimile: (209) 468-2875 Please, deXiver the fallouping pages to: P.1r15 14 —4� AUG D 11995 Name Company --- � fax Number To City Manger of Escalon, LAW, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton, and Tracy � i .... ..... ------- ----.................... .. - .................. Date & Time: August 1, 1996 3;24 PM From: DAVM i.. BAKER, County Administrator # of Pages t14 P%V); _ 15 —Agreement with rhe Cities of 5kalon, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Subject: Stockton, and racy for Property Tax Allocation Upson Annexation me:s sage; AUG -01-1996 15:53 209 4682875 P. 01. RUI-I 01 '96 02: 52PM aJ co. ADvaiiis,TRA'TOR CtPih,a County Adminlatratar COUNTY OF SAM JOAQU1N Courthouse, Room 707 222 East Weber Avenue Stockton, Catttomla 062778 (209) 4e8-3211 FAX, POO) 46e -n76 July 31, 1996 Board of Supervisors Courthouse .S�tc-pckton, CA Dear Board Members - Agreement With The Cities Of f1scalon, Lodi, Manteca, Tdpon, Stockton, and piracy For Property 'Pax Allocation Upon Annexation Recommendation P. 2/15 Ii is recommended that the Board of Supervisors authorize the Board Chairman to sign the attached Agreement Per PropeW TraxA&Jocatf n Upcm Annexation with the cities of Escalon, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon., Stockton, and Tracy. Reason for Recommendation On December 12, 1995, the Board approved the termination of agreements for property tax allo- ea.tion intern annexation that existed with each city within San Joaquin County. Generally referred to as annexation agreements, the agreements had been executed with each city in 1980, with the exception of the City of Lathrop. 'The same agreement was executed with the City of Lathrop in 1991), following its incniporation. The terms of the agreements had not been comprehensively k ewicwed since 1980. California annexation procedures require that property tax agreements be in place before the LAWal Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) can process an annexation application. There are no requirements regarding the format or contents of an agreement, but an annexation can not be ,considered without one. individual agreements can be executed for each annexation or a master agreement can be executed between a county and a city. The city managers of our seven cities expressed a strong preference for a Countywide annexation agreement. On behalf of the: County, staff has wooed over the past seven months to negotiate a new annex- ation agreement with. the ci.ties.1n. recognition of negotiations thatwere already ongoing and the unique. characteristics of the West Lathrop Specific Plan, a ,separate agreement with the City of Lathrop was cxec:uted on June 18. The city managers, and County staff have negotiated the attached Agreement For Property Tax Allocafion Upon Annexation by and between the County and the Cities of Fscalon, Lodi, Man. zeca, Ripon, Stockton,; and Tracy. ALIG-01-1956 15.53 209 4682875 P.02 RLIG 01 '96 0 :5]Ph1 =.J C`?.HDMINI5TRHTOR P.3/15 Board of Supervisors July 31, 1996 Agreement For Avperty Tax Page 2 Allocation Upon Annexation Summary of Agreement The recommended. Agreement acknowledges, in its preamble, that ilhere is a lack of consensas betwre;n The City and County regarding the analysis of local governgient funding issues arising from annexations.. However, to allow annexations to be processed by LAFCo, the Agreement is jointly recommended by the city managers and the County Administrator. A letter of recommen- dation from the managers of the six cities which are parties to this Agre=ent is attached. It is recognized that the negotiated agreement only addresses the property tax allocation issue. It does not address Cather Berard policy issues, such a5 water sufficiency, prematurity of annexations, and other urbartization issues. The negotiated agreement is a technical, flnancia4 and legal documm It contains the following major IarovisrorrS: Pwperfy Te Allocation i. Most annexations --,sharing of reallocated property taxes (annexation pool) in the ratio of 90% County and 10% City.. 2. No fine district detachment (City does not assume responsibility for fire services} -100% of annexation pool to County. :i. Ripon and Escalon----until City population reaches 2{),{1{X3, 63.4% County and 36.6% City. 4. City of Tmy (Northeast Industrial & Elissagaray Estatcs)=80 County and 20% City. 5. City of Manteca (Austin Road North & Austin Road 1)outh},---,80% County and 20% City. Term of Agreement 6. Applies to annexations formally tiled with LAFCo during the next seven years, irxriu siong 7. Annexation areas where the, County is currently receiving Tlransient Occupancy Taxes or significant Sales ihx revenues will be individually negotiated to address the net impacts of those revenue losses to the County. A. Annexations to Ripon car Esc,alon of over 1.50 acres will be individually negotiated. 9. Cities that decline to approve this Agreement within 60 days; of its approval by the Board. Termip x,600% 10. Any party may terminate upon six months written notice. Antlexations that have been filed (.luring the six month termination period, will be governed by the Agreement. Regional Cooperation 11. Commitment to coat effe4tive delivery of public services, including inter jurisdictional swonsoiidation and contractual :anmgetnents, AUG -01-1996 15 ,54 54 :: 09 4F.828?5 P. 03 FAIJG 01 196 02-'5=FII ST _C).ADNIHISTMATOR P.4it5 Board of Supervisors July 31, 1996 Agreement Fear Property Tax Page 3 Allocation Upon Annexation s►rrMNiory of De tag b At the request of the city managers, the negotiation of revenue sharing under a new annexation agreement was limited to dtwussaon of the relative shares of property taxes to he allocated to the cities and the County. At the outset of the negotiation process, the %ard of Supervisors endorsed four major County olbjectives_ Consequently, this Agreement needs to be measured against those original objectives. The benefits provided by the recommended Agreement are summarized for each objective as follows-. 1 Achieve fiscal rtea,rradiry by assuring #hat increases in regxonO service costs are offset with rare erppropriate shun t1new or existing revenues, Fiscal neutrality cannot be definitively measured without consensus: regarding; the financial impli- cations of annexations. Annexations involve complex technical, financial, and legal issues. Reaching consensus on financial :issues alone would require agreemOnt about acceptable levels of municipal and regional wrvim and w4sumptions about revenue forecasts. The cities and the County have different perspectives on Qosts and revenues generated by new development. How- ever, the terms of the negotiated Agreement, taken as a whole, are recommended as being acceptable from a municipal. and regional perspective, Although this Agreement cannot guarantee complete ftkcal neutrality relative to development in annexed areas, it dm provide revenues to offset the regional service demand generated by newly annexing areas, 2. Maintain regional services at acceptable levels of service ret' populmlan increases within the cities and the Counm County .staff has concluded that, within the focus of the negotiation process, this Agreement pm - vides a fair -:share contribution from newly annexing areas toward the maintenance of regional services at acceptable levels. The Agreement does not address development within already annexed areas. As long—term development occurs within cities, increased demand for regional services will be determined by the cumulative changes in the regional land—use pattern. The County has evaluated the Agreement within the current framework of local government service responsibilities and revenue sharing. That evaluation was also based on our current assumptions regarding, costs and revenues. Staff has concluded that the negotiated Agreement will provide an appropriate level of support for regional services during its recommended term of seven years. 3.. Promote economic. developffwnt by providing balanced rm. d responsive public services and ,facilities throughout the County The, Agreement Provides additional revenues to the County in proportion to the value of addi- tional develgpme4nt occurring within newly annexing areas. Consequently, economic development is promoted through maintaining a balance of public services and is enhanced by financial support for the regional services provided by the County. 4. Promote fiscally responsible developmerni policies to minimize. fiscal competition rind .sap- pv rt national kind use and trewasportatrion planning. To the extent that development within cities produces a deficit for counties, generating more regional. costs than revenues, ccrutntiess may be fnsaally motivated to encourage development in 209 468:2875 P. 04 AUG 01 19G 0 : 54FM " :J CO. P11NIHISTRATOR P. 5,'15 Board of Supervisors July 31, 1996 Agreement For PropeM Tax Page 4 Allocation Upon Annexation unincorporated areas.. The recommended Atmaement revises property tax allocations to generally offset such potential dedicits in newly annexing areas within %an Joaquin County_ In addition, separate negotiations will occur for annexing areas where the County is currently receiving Tran- sient Occupancy Taxes or significant Sales Tart revenues. These provisions promote fiscally responsible development policies and minimize fiscal competition. One of the major benefits of the negotiation hays been to focus attention on public service costs, fWaricial capacities, revenue sensitivities, and promotion of regional cooperation. With this base established, a review of the entire turnexattion issue is recommended to commence with the begin - sing of they sixth year of this Agreement to determine needed adjustments for future agreernenus. Fised Impact 'lire negotiated Agreement provides an incremental but significant step toward long range finan- cial support for the delivery of regional services, Fiscal mitigation of the impacts of development within newly annexing areas is part of the solution to maintaining acceptable levels of County- wide services. Those services are provided to all County residents, including those within cities. As development occurs, the negotiated Agreement will provide additional revenues to maintain regional services at somewhat more acceptable levels than would otherwise be possible. Action To Be Aken Following Approval Upon execution by the Chairman, originals of the A.grement will be circulated to each city council for their approval and execution. The fully executed Agreement will be transmitted to the LAFCo Executive Officer to be utilized as the reference for pending, annexations and most new annex- ations filed during the next seven years. The Auditor will utilize the Agreement for the allocation of property taxes subsequent to the effective date of each annexation processed under the terms of the Agreement. Verytru rs, avi L. County Administrator DLB:rjl Attachment c: Auditor -Controller County Counsel LAFCo City Managers Economic & Planning Systems Board Cleric for Agenda 816196 BL96-77 AUG -01-199C. 15:55 209 4682875 P.05 Wo" kNJ(a f�31 "�lt� 0 ,4PI"E Sf C1I:11•1I:P11— W- T– p t' f3 CIT irw CPS STOCKTON cwrgcs r2s–rHu. oi'ry RI ^PuAwaR C -Y HALL 495 N. "00PA 00 BTREET WrEcKF 4. 6A asmicw-9 967 jfi3?-ea4 2 R&X (NMI iW 74 AS: August 1, 1996 Mr.1:)avid Baker Com Adrsvtt,iguuor 222 EW w0W Avenue. RFaom 707 S'Wcitiort; CA 93202 Duan ice. Baipen F'/1� 'f GMdl T %o City M=Mea of the cities of San Joaquin County have been meeting with you to work out a now "agitement for property tax allocation upon annmtioe'. As we concluded at our meeting with you on July 16, 1996, $0 sof the City Managerg of the cities within Safi Joaquin County concu rod that vm would tec:ommend to our respective, City C'.oun,oils that they consider the attached "sgreemeat for property tax allocation upon annexation" if it is first approved by the Sam Joaquin County Board of Supervisors. Having spent tmxty weeks working out the Mails of the attached with you, we concurred that we wind not r ocom mend that our City Councils task, any changes in the Isttselta We also concunvd that any city which does not adopt the attached apwment would need to negotiate a separate "aSteement for property tax allocation upon amwxstirza" with the Cotuuy while the attached would be effective for those cities whieb approve it. We look forward to the early adaption of the attached "agreement for propeny tax allocation upon am=aiion" it its current form and language by the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors. slucewy. a,.el%-11.22 Dwane. Mines, Stockton City Manager Job- ! . Bingham, Lathrop City Matzager Dixon Flynn, Lodi City Man ger Fred TMA 1'raey City Manner .&. C(� Thom Clark, Escslan City Manager Leticia lrspfnout, Manteca,Aatittg C ;Mgr. i Leon Compton, Ripon Ci Manager Attachment "'9T#aCi4TiitM..tiAi.iPk71RA1!/1`M SUNRISE SMAOCINT" L.t RJG-01-1.996 15:56 2L 9 4682875 P. 06 FaUG 01 '96 Pat: 55Frl -:T D.D. ADMINISTRATOR Agreement For Property Tax Allocation Upon Annexation P.7/15 AGREEMIRNT entt and into this 6th day of August 1.996 by and between The Cities of Escalon, Lodi, Manu, Ripon, Stockton, and Tracy, hereinafter referred to individually as "CITV' and etallectively as "CITTES"q and tilt? Cotmty of San Joaquin, hereinaliter referted. to as :4CVi. NA a.11q PREAMBLE: CMES and COUNTY acknowledge that both Crrfl1 S and COUNTY have increasing wx- vice responsibilities with restrained revenue resources. There is no consensus between CITIES and COUNTY regarding the analysis of local ,government funding issues arising from annex- adcrns. CITIES and 001-11 TY each have their own distinctive and differing perspectives on costs and revenues generated by annexed awas. However, there is a statutory requirement for a Prop- t-rty Tax Allocation Agreement for the Local Agency Formation Commission to annex land. WI[TNES;SETI-T: WHEREAS, Article 13A, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of California limits ad Vl.dorern taxes on real property to one percent (1%) of full cash value; and WHEREAS, Chapter 6 of Fait 05 of Division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code (Sec- tions 9.5 et. seg..) provides for the allocation of properly tax revenues; and WHEREAS, CITIES and COUNTY roust have an agreement for the allocation. of property tax revenues upon. annexation. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the following terms and condi- tions, the pa,rtie& heteto agree as follows: Annexation Agee icni—SanToayulnt''.ouuity —1-- 7AIN6 AUG ---0'11 1996. 15:56 209 46MB 7 5 P. 0 FA)G 01 196 02: S15PM SO :'1D. F4DM11A1.5TRHIQR P. G.15 L . DEFINITIONS. The words and phrases in this Agr=nent shall have meanings asset forth below: A. "Annexation Property Tax Base" shall mean the Base Ybar sum of the ad valorem tax allocated to Detaching Special Districts, as defined herein, and to COUNTY within the area being annexed., B. "Detaching Special DLstrictx" shall mean those political subdivisions organized pur- suant to the laws of the State or California whose hinctions within the area being annexed are terminated and/or assumed by CITY. C. Detachment shall nican the Temoval fmm a special district of any portion of the terri- tory of that special district. D. "Agreed patio" shall mean the rntio of 10% CITY and 90% COLNTY. B "Base Yeaf' shall mean the assessed valuation applicable to the property and improve- ments within dw area being anue"- at. the time the application for annexation is submitted to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). F. "Incremental Qrowth" shall mean the total increase or decrease in the property tax base over the base year within the annexed area, 2. PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION. Upon each annexation, property tax allocation shall be determined pursuant to one of the following provisions: A. Annexations that involve Detachment from a fire district. CM and COUNTY shall, upon each annexaii.on that, in whole or in part, involves Detachment from a fire dis- tract, share in the Annexation Property Tax Base and all Incremental Growth thereof pursuant to the .Agreed Ratio for all portions of the annexation that involve Detach- ment from a fire district. R. Annexations that do not involve Detachment from afire district. COUNTY shall, upon each annexation that, in whole or in part, does not involve Detachment from a fire dis- trict, receive the Amiexation 'Property Tax Base and Incremental Growth thereof for all portions of the annexation that do not involve Detachment from a fL district. Annexation AgrmneW—San Jmquin County —2— 7!31146 AUG -01-4996 15"57 2'09 41582B75 P. 08 PLIG 01 196 02; SCPM Y --b. PUMINISTPPTOP P. ID/ 15 C. Annexations by the citim of Ripon and Escalon. Notwithstanding Subsections 2A and 21B, if the current population of the city is 2[).000 or less, based on the most r=ni esti- mates published by the California State Department of Finance, property tax allocation for annexations conducted by the cities of Ripon and Escalon shall be determined by this Subsection, subject to the exclusion provided in Subsection 5C. CITY and COUNTY shrill, upon each annexation, share in the Annexation Property Tax Base and all Incremental Growth thereof pursuant tcs the ratio of 36,6% CITY and 63.1% COUNTY - D. Annexation by the City of Tracy of Northeast Industrial and Elissa,3azay Estates areas. Notwithstanding Subsections 2A and 2B, property tax al&nation for annexations to the City of Tracer of the Northeast Industrial area and the Elissagaray Estates area shall be determined by this Sta.Nection. CITY and COUNTY shall, upon each annexation, share in the Annexation Property Tax Base and all Incremental Growth thereof pur- suant to the ratio of 20% CITY and 80% COUNTY. E. Annexation by the City of Manteca of Austin Road North and Austin Road South areas. Nmwitkmanding Subsections 2A and 213, property tax allocation for annex- ations to the City of Manteca of the Austin Road North area and the Austin Road South :area shall be dewrmined by this Subsection. CITY and COUNTY shall, upon each annexation, share in the Annexation Property Tax Base and all Incremental Growth thereof pursuant to the ratio of 20%.. (3TY and 80% COUNTY, 3, APPLICATION OF AGREEMENT, A. Term. The provisions of this Agreement shall apply to all pending and future annex- ations as of June 1.6. 1996 and for a period of seven (7) years until. June 15, 2(103, unless otherwise terminated under Section 7. 13. Effective date. The, effective date! of property tax alicacadon for each annexation shall be. determined in accordance with Government Code Section 54902 and any suc- c:e+eding statutory provisions. As of June 16, 1996, statements regarding the completion of annexations most be riled on or before December 1 of the year immedi- ately preceding the you in which property taxes are to be shared. Annexation Agmement-,San Jmquin County -3- 7/31196 f=tjG-19:I. :t99k t.` ;fin209 468287 P. 09 RLIG 01 '96 0 : 56Pr c T .D.D. ADMINISTRATOR P. 10/15 ["_. Future property taxes. The: provisions of this Agrmment would also apply to any prop- erty exempt from ad valorrrm taxes which subsequently became taxable within the arca to be annexed. 4. JOINT REVIEW. CLTMS and COUNTY may jointly review COUNTY property tax records from time to time or as requested by CITIES to verify accurate distt'ibud6h under the Agreement. 5. EXCLUSIONS. A. The Agreement wilt net apply to proposed annexations areas where the COUNTY is currently receiving transient occupancy tax revenues. Annexation agreements for areas where the COUNTY is currently receiving; TCT revenues will be individually negotiated between the COUNTY and CITY to address the potential TOT lass to the COUNTY. B. The Agreement will not apply to prupoged annexation areas where gross taxable sales, subject to sales and use taxes, exceed $l million in the ]Host recent year that taxable sales data its available from the State Hoard of Equalization or any ether State suc- cessor organization that may provide taxable stiles information. Annexation agreements for areas containing over V million in taxable sales will be individually negotiated between the COUNTY and CITY to address the potential sales and use tax lnsi to the COUNTY. C. The provisions of Subsection 2C will not apply to proposed annexations by cities with a population o 20,0(X) or less, when an annexation involves over 150 aches. Agree- ments for annexations of over 1517 acres will be individually discussed between the COUNTY and the proposing; City to assess whether s different revenue sharing arrangement should be considered. D. The Agreement will not apply to annexations by any CM.. that declines to approve this Agreement, jointly recommended by the City Managers and the County Adminis- trator, within bfi calendar days of rhe date that the Hoard of Supervisors approves the Agreement. Annexation Agmc mmt—Sac hiaguin County -4-- 7f31/96 RUG -01-1.996 15:58 209 4682875 P. 10 HUG 01. '96 02.57PM SJ .O.N1.11,13.1AISTRHTOR 6. REGION Al.OPERA`1 0N. P. 11/15 In consideration of the unique and mutual funding difficulties of both CITIES and COUNTY', CITT S and. COUNTY will jointly develop and seaelr to implement Changes in their activities which will improve the cost effectivenem of service delivery by both Cl! ES and COUNTY, including but not limited to consolidation of services between governmental agencies and inter -agency contracting; for services. 7. iE1INATION. This Agreement may be terminated, by any party hereto, up+ mri 6 months written notice which termination shall terminate the agreement for each avid every party. Said termina- tion shall not affect annexations for which the LAFCo .Executive C>f'ficer has issued a certificate of filing prior to the eyed of the 6 month termination period. 8. GOVERNING LAW AND ATTORNEYS' FEES. 'This Agreement shalt be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Should any legal action be brought by either party because of any default under this Agreement or to enforce any provision of this Agreement, nr a-) obtain a decla- ration of rights hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys` fees, court costs and such other costs as may be fixed by the Court. The standard of review fvr determining whether a default has occurred under this Agreement shall he the standard generally applicable w ccmtm-tual obligations in California. 9. iti OT'ICFIS. Any notice of communication required hereunder among CITIES and COUNTY must be in writing, and may be given either personally, by teiefacsimile (with original forwardcd by regular U.S. Mail) or by 1?ederal Express or other similar courier promising overnight delivery. If personally delivered, a notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received when delivered to the party to whom it is addressed. If given by fac- simile transmission, a notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received upon actual physical receipt of the: entire document by the receiving party's fac- simile machine, Notices transmitted by facsimile after 5:00 p.m. on a normal business day or on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday shall be deemed to have been given and received on ,kmcexatian Agrcx menet San 34"in County 7131M ALIG-01--1996 15:58 209 4682875 P.11 AUG 01 "i6 02.57Pr �=.T C4. ADMINI5TRATnR P. 12/15 the: next normal business day. If ,{given by Federal Express or similar courier, a notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received an the date delivered as shown on a receipt issued by the courier. Such notices or communications shall be given to the: parties at their addmmms set forth below,: To CMES (City Managers), With Copies To (City Attorneys): (City of Escalon City of Escalon Thom Clark Jim Fonda P. Q. Box 248 P, 0. Box 248 Escalon, CA 85329 Escalon, CA 95320 Telefwoimile: (838400) Telefacsimile: 547-4253 City of Lodi City of Lodi H. Dixon Flynn Randall Hays City Hall City Hall P. 0. Box 'W6 F. 0. Box. 300+ Lodi, CA 95241-1910 Lodi, CA 952411-1910 Telef tc smile.: '333-6807 Telefacsimile: 333-6847 City of Manteca City of Manteca Leticia Espinoza. John Brinton City Hall McFall, Burnett & Brinton I(X)1 West Center 165 St, Dominic Drive, Suite 202 Manteca, CA 95336 Manteca, CA 95337 Telefacsimile: 825--2333, Telefac rnile:823-7651 City of Ripon City of Ripon I.wn. Compton Tom Terpstra City Hall City Hall 259 N. 'Wilma 259 N. Wilma Ripon, ICA 95366 Ripon, CA 95366 Telefacsimile: 599-2685 Telefacsimile. 599-2685 City of Stockton City of Stockton Dw,gate Milnes, R. Thomas Harris city Hall city .Hall 425 lw. F!i Dorado St. 425 N. EI Dorado St. Stockton„ CA 95202 Stockton, CA 95202 Telefacsimile! 037-7149 Telefaa,sirnile: 037-8899 City of Tracy City of Tracy Fred Diaz Debra Corbett City Hall City Hail 325 E_ I t the Street 325 E. 10th Stmt Tracy, CA 95376 Tracy, CA 95376 Telefacsimile: 831-4110 Telefacsimile: 831111.53 Annexation Agreement—Sw ompin Coutaty 4- 7131196 FUG -01-1996 15"559 209 4 662875 P. 12 FIU6 01. '96 02:5GFP1 SJ I::a.ADVI1..11151-PATOR To COUNTY (County AdmWstmtor). ;David L. Baker Courthouse, Room 707 222 E. Wetter Avenue Stockton, California 9520 Telefacsimile: (2,09) 468-2$75 With Copies Tio (County Counwl): Terrence R. ISermody Courthouse, Room 7 11 222 E. Weber avenue Stockum, C:ali%rnia 95202 Telefac$irnile,v(209) 4b$-2$T� P. 1.3/15 Any party hereto may at any time, by giving ten (10) days written notice to the other par- ties,, designate any other address or facsimile number in substitution of the address or facsimile number to which such notice or communication shall be given. 10. SEVERAB1I,171Y If ;any provision of this A,ment is held invalid, void, or unenforceable but the remainder of this, Agreement can be enforced without failure of material consideration to any party, then this Agreement shall not be affected and it shall remain in full force and effect, unless ;amended by mutual consent of the parties. Notwithstanding this severability clause, each subsection of Section 2. Property Tax Allocatioh and motion 5. Exclusions, is material and substanda] and the fa;xaum of said subsection is the failure of material consideration, causing the agreement to be void from the date that the subsection is held invalid. 11. Fl RTHERASS URANCES. Each parry shall execute and deliver to the other party or parties all such other further instrnments and documents and take all such further actions has may be reasonably necessary to carry out this Agreement and to provide and sf4ure to the other party or, par- ties the full and complete er3joyment of its rights and privileges hereunder. 12, CONSTRUCTION. All parti.e-s, bave been t�epresented by counsel in the preparation of this Agreement and no presumption or rule that ambiguity ,shall be construed against a dratiing party shall apply to interpretation or enforcement hereof. Captions on sections: and subsections are provided Aunexatim Agw mart --San JmAutrt County —7— 71311136 AUG -01--1996 15-59 209 4682875 P.13 RU6: 01 196 M2:53PP' SJ CO.ADMINISTRHTOR iP. 14/15 for convenience only and shall not be deemed to limit, amend, or affect the meaning of the prevision to which they pertain. 13, OTHER MISCELLANEOUS TERMS. The singular includes the plural: the masculine gender includes the :feminine, "shall" is mandatory; "may" is permissive_ 14. TIME. Time is of theessence of each and every prevision hereof. 15. COUNTERPART This agreement may he executed in counterpart agreements, binding each executing party as if said parties executed the same agreement. Annexation kiptenirat-- San Tmquin County —8— 71.31/96 RUG --01-1.996 15-:59 209 46.82875 P.14 ALIG 131 '9G 02:59FM ' EJ CO-ADVIINISTPHTOR IN WffNESS WHERMF, t, y,afties hereto have executed this Agreen Recommended: As To Fonn: Execution: COUNTY David L. Baker Term.nce R. odV Robert L Cabral Cnunty Administrator County Counsel Board of"Supervisots Date. CTTIES Escalon Thom ClaTk City Manager Lodi ff. Dixon Flynn City- Manager mimma Leticia Espinoza Acting City Manager Leon Compton City Administrator Stockton James Fonda City Attorney Randall Hayes City Attorney Jobn Brinton City Attorney Tom Terpstra City Attorney 5;;a nc-a R. Thomas Harris City Manager City Attorney Tracy Fred Diaz Fe—bra Corbett City Manager City Attorney naw -41A David C. Ennis Mayor Date: David Warner Mayor Daw, .gill Perry Mayor Date: Jack DeSelle Mayor Date: Joan Dan -ah Mayor Date - Ilan Bilbrey Mayor Date:— AtwexaWne Apm=emir-San Joaquin County —9 -- AUG -01-1996 16-00 2013 4682P.175 P. ISV15 Attest: Lois M. Sahyoun. Clerk Board of Supervisors Daren Dodd City Clerk Jacqueline Taylor city Clerk Joann Tilton City Clerk Lynette Van UAr City Clerk Katherine Gong Meissner City Clerk Sharon Smith City Clerk 713196 P.15