Laserfiche WebLink
SENT BY; 6-13- 0 ;11:46AM ; 1 90937051544 2/ 3 <br />ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE <br />18701 VON KARNAN AVENUE. RATE 1050 <br />IRVINE. CAUfORNIA 97612.1008 <br />Tw: (9") 863-1367 <br />Foe (949) 863-3750 <br />WPZM OIRELT WAb: <br />113-23647" <br />m w3066.=aM <br />All California City <br />;n <br />LAW OFFICES <br />BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP <br />611 WEST 0M STREET. WM M VEMURA COUNTY OFFICE <br />LOS ANGELES, C47OMTA 900U-7102 7310 EAST PONDEROSA DRIVE. SUIT` 25 <br />Tci: (x13) 236.0500 CANARILLO, CALIFORNIA 930101747 <br />Fax: (212) 73rr2M Taj: 1605) 967-3466 <br />AIIptlrww.iwaM,cobY1 Fu: (605)402-9534 <br />R1VERaDE COUNIY OFFICE <br />3403 TENTN STREET, 9= 7W <br />RLVEFMK CALIFORNIA 97501.3679 <br />9i: (909)""100 <br />Far. (908)7WV0 <br />June 2, 2000 <br />REQUEST FOR AMICUS SUPPORT <br />REPLY NEEDED BY JUNE 229 2000 <br />OUR FILE 40, <br />FOW1-W01 <br />property Tax Takeaway Decided To Be A Re1'p7bursable Sate Mandate <br />III <br />California Constitution Section XB 6 (Crani lhitiative) <br />Case: Co of Sonoma, et al. v. California Department of Finance, et al. <br />Ia theCourt of Appeal First Appellate District Division,0nc <br />1 Civ No. A089524 <br />The trial cot <br />the ERAF property <br />state mandate under <br />The State <br />League of Calift <br />position. <br />The League <br />authorize participat <br />A League <br />amicus brief shou <br />TIME IS <br />The brief <br />historical develol <br />the most recent e; <br />in the above-cited case decided that the State legislation authorized <br />E shift (together with companion legislation) bonstituted a reimbursable <br />ction XIII B 6 of the California Constitution. <br />appealed the decision to the First Circuit.The C 3mty of Sot <br />Cities to coordinate an amicus brief su`p Li3L the Count <br />as asked us to prepare the amicus brief to be filed on behalf <br />n in the brief. <br />mittee of city attorneys has reviewed the issues and has I <br />filed. <br />il;f — please respond no later than Mm day. jLl".2000- <br />support the County of Sonoma's legal argumt�tts but will <br />t of the California Constitution of which the Qrann lnitiatn <br />ma asked the <br />of Sono:na's <br />cities which <br />that the <br />eus in on the <br />()III B 6) is <br />