HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.8 Annexation of Camp Parks Colo - Z�
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 13, 1984
SUBJECT Annexation of Camp Parks
EXHIBITS ATTACHED Memorandum from City Attorney dated May 29 , 1984
RECOMMENDATION Receive report and direct Staff to take further action
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION In accordance with the City' s adopted Sphere of
Influence and the planning which the City Council has undertaken during the
GenQ,Eal Plan process for those lands east of the City's present boundaries,
—�n�ci�=-- torney and Staff have been reviewing those steps which would be
necessary to an..&7, r,-�--ian.a�r�resently under the jurisdiction of the Army
(Camp Parks ) to the City of Dub1-i___,__
The City Attorney, in his memorandum, ha-s--outlined the process which the
City would 'have to follow if it were to annex the Camp Parks property into
the City of Dublin. The procedure which the City would follow would depend
on whether the annexation was ati inhabited annexation or an uninhabited
annexation . Staff has determined through discussions with the County
Registrar of Voters that the Camp Parks property presently has 39 registered
voters living at Camp Parks . Thus , if the City were to annex the entire
Camp Parks property within Alameda County, the City would have to have the
approval of at least 500 of the registered voters living on the property.
If the City pursued an annexation which included only those areas of Camp
Parks that are presently uninhabited, the consent of the property owner
(Federal Government) would be necessary.
Staff has had preliminary discussions with the Camp Parks Commandant
regarding the City's interest and ultimate plans for those lands to the east
of the City's present boundaries . The local Commandant suggested that
representatives from the City meet with the Commandant, Legal Staff from the
Presidio and Army real estate personnel from Sacramento in order to explain
the City' s fjoals prior to submitting a formal request to the Army for
annexation.
It is Staff ' s recommendation that the City Council authorize the City
Manager and the City Attorney to meet with representatives from the Aral* and
Federal Government regarding the City ' s intentions and the potential
annexation of Camp Parks and report back to the City Council regarding the
results of that meeting.
C',?_ _ . . Colonel hark , Car r:. .
c�
ITEM NO. /.
CITY OF DUBLIN
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568 (415) 829-4600
May 29, 1984
TO: City Manager
FROM: Michael R. Nave, City Attorney
RE: Annexation. o.f Camp„Parks
You have asked whether the City can annex Camp Parks,
which is federally owned land, without the consent or approval
of the Federal Government. In my opinion the City can annex
Federal land without approval of the Federal government.
I. PROCEDURE FQR. ANN.EXATI.O,N
The annexation of territory to Dublin would proceed
under MORGA (the Municipal Organization Act of 1977) , Government
Code. §.3,50.00._ . t sect.
The procedure under MORGA for annexation of
unincorporated territory differs slightly depending on whether
the territory is inhabited (12 or more registered voters) or
unir--h�'°� °3- <,fewer—Lean—T.2==re'giszered voters) . I will briefly
_— ---outline the procedure for an inhabited annexation and, where
r�:sevant, point out the differences with respect to an
uninhabited annexation.
Annexation can be initiated by petition signed by
registered voters or landowners or by resolution of the City
Council (Government...Code...§3.510.0) . The resolution must contain
a plan for services (5,351.0. ) , including the services to be
extended, improvements to be made and financing thereof.
Reyenue,,,and..Tax.aton,..Code §22.(b) requires the City and County to
agree to an exchange of property tax revenues prior to any
jurisdictional change, such as annexation. In addition
California..Constitution Anti c� e..13.B (Gann Initiative) requires
the City and the County to agree on a transfer of appropriate
tax limitations. These agreements must be reached before LAFCO
will proceed.
Once agreement on tax proceeds and limitation: has
been reached, LAFCO then examines the petition or resolution for
sufficiency and, if sufficient, schedules a hearing. After the
hearing, LAFCO determined �,.hether ter.r.,itory i.nhabi.te-J or
uninhabited and, if it appi.oves the ::n e.;a;ati.or).. designates the
conducting authority which, in this :_::.,: :>I'af-old be tha City of
To: City Manager
From: Michael R. Nave, City Attorney
Re: &nnexat,ion._,of,�Cam�.Parks
May 29, 1984
Page Two
Dublin (8§35150 (.h).,,._,3,5_,03,1) . The annexation of uninhabited
territory can proceed without hearing and election if all
landowners consent ( 335,1.51) .
After LAFCO designates the City as the conducting
authority, the City Council must adopt a resolution initiating
the proceedings and set a hearing on the proposed annexation
(53.52Q ) . At the hearing written protests can be filed. At the
close of the hearing for an inhabited annexation, the Council
must adopt a resolution finding the value of the written
r-Yotests, and:
\ � �,i)_ terminate the proceedings if 50% or more of
registered voters protest;
(b) order tho-territory annexed subject to election
within the-affected territory if 25% or more of
registered voterz:__or 25% or more of owners of land
who own 25% or more of-assessed value of land
.protest; and
(c) order the territory annexed without election if
neither of the above applies ( 3§,. 5228) .
For an uninhabited annexation (5,3522 9) , the Council
must adopt a similar resolution:
(a) terminate the proceedings if protests are filed by
owners of more than 50% of land and improvements
within the territory; or
(b) order the territory annexed if protests are filed
by owners of less than 50% of land and
improvements within the territory.
The election to be called if inhabited territory is
annexed is only within the territory to be annexed unless the
assessed value of land in the territory to be annexed is
one-half (1/2) or more than than the assessed value of land
within the City, or the number of registered voters within the
territory to be annexed is one-half (1/2) or more than the
number of registered voters within the City ( 3352; 1) .
After an e ,�:ction the territory is annexed if a
majority of votes fa`' .r. annexation.
To: City Manager
From: Michael R. Nave, City Attorney
Re: Annexatign..of_-._Camp .Parks
May 29, 1984
Page Three
II. ANNEXATION OF .FEAFk�AL..LAND
Federal courts have upheld the annexation by a
municipality of Federal lands. Howard . .
v.. C.ommissione.rs, (1953) ,
U. S. 624, 627 , 73 Sup.Ct. 465; Rhyne, 2_
uni.FipF 1...Law- -3.5,
p. 33 . In the UpWa.r d case, the United States Supreme Court
upheld the annexation to the City of Louisville, Kentucky, of a
federally owned naval ordnance plant. The Supreme Court noted
that state courts have upheld the right to annex Federal land,
citing decisions by Texas and Virginia courts involving a
military reservation and a navy yard, respectively. More
recently, in Nebraska,
(1971) , 334 F. Supp. 881, the U.S. District Court reaffirmed the
holding of Howard that the City of Bellevue had the power and
authority to annex federally owned land (344 F. Supp. at 884) .
because the Federal land involved was an U. S. Air Force
base Whzok��as-tYle headqu•.rters of the Strategic Air Command,
and because it was�cle-ar-from!-�--be`record that the only reason
the City wished to annex the air f6ir-ce--base was to derive more
tax revenue, the court found the purport-ed annexation invalid
under Nebraska law. In so holding the court relied on the
interests of national security and Nebraska law which prohibited
the annexation of territory for revenue purposes only. 334
F. Supp. at 887 . The Supreme Court in Howard did note that
exclusive jurisdiction of the federally owned property still
remains within the United States, except as modified by Federal
statute (344 US at 627 , 73 S.Ct. at 467) .
The question then becomes whether California law
prohibits the annexation of federally owned land or requires
consent of the Federal government for such an annexation. MORGA
contains no prohibition against annexation of property owned by
the Federal government. The Act merely provides that territory
may be annexed if it is located in the same county and is
contiguous to the city (Government Code §35011) . MORGA was
enacted in 1977 ;. it replaced a number of annexation acts which
had not been revised for many years. Prior to 1977 , the
annexation laws specifically allowed annexation of territory
owned by a public agency (such as the county) with the consent
of the public agency (former Government Code §35003) .
Annexation of territory owned by the Federal government was also
allowed with the Federal government' s consent (former Government
Code §§35470 and 35471) . It is important to note that the
requirement of county consent (former §35003) was added in 1951
(Stats. 1951, c. 1701) and the requirement of Federal consent to
an annexation was added in 1957 (Stats. 1957 , c. 1844) . PI: r-
to those dates there was no requirement that consent be obi:_^.Ined
for annexation of county or Federal territory.
To: City Manager
From: Michael R. Nave, City Attorney
Re: Annexation of Camp Parks
May 29,x1984
Page Four
In Aqua Caliente Band, Etc. v. City of Palm Springs,
(1972) , 347 F. Supp. 42, vacated and remanded in an unpublished
order on January 24, 1975, the court considered the legality of
including Indian lands within the City of Palm Springs upon its
incorporation. First, the Court noted that ". . . So long as the
law of the state in which the land lies permits the
incorporation or annexation of federally owned land, no Federal
consent is necessary. " (347 F. Supp. at 44 .) The question thus
becomes whether the law of California permits incorporation or
annexaton of Federal land. Although §§35470 and 35471, which
were in effect at the time, required consent of the Federal
government before federally owned land could be annexed, the
Court found that at the time Palm Springs was incorporated in
1938 there was no such requirement (§35470 and 35471 were
enacted in 1957) . The Court concluded that the Indian lands
were legally incorporated into the City of Palm Springs (347
- - r. supp._ at_46) -As in the Aqua Caliente case, there is currently no
requirement in MORGA which requires consent for annexation of
federally owned lands. Since there is no statutory prohibition
against annexation of Feder-al-property, the City may annex Camp
parks pursuant_to- the-statutorily prescribed procedures. This
conol.ue on is consistent with the Supreme Court' s reasoning that
. an annexation should not be declared invalid unless some
express statutory provision has been violated. " People v. City
of Palm Springs, (1958) , 331 P.2d 4, 9 . It must be remembered
that the City, in annexing Camp Parks, may exercise no control
over Federal property which interferes with the superior
authority of the Federal government.
MRN/jm