AgdaPkt 2009-08-03 spc, clsd and jnt

Browse Search

� � � 6.1 D � � Page 5 AGREENlENT BETWE�N TNE C�UNTY OF SAN MATEO AND THE � CITY OF RE�DINa4D GtTY TO TOLL STATUTES OF LIN[tTATIC)NS.FOR � CLAlMS REGARDING PRC)PERTY TAX ADMINlSTRATI�N.FEES WHEREAS, the City of Redwood City �the �Cityn) and the County of Sa� Ma#eo (the "County�} (collectively, the �Parties"} may become involved in li#igation regarding #he County's calculation of the proper#y tax adrninistration #ees (the "PTAF"} as re(a#ed to #he Triple Flip (Rev. & Tax Code § 97.68} and the Vehicle Lic�n.se Fee swap (Rev. & � Tax �ode § 97.70) that the County charges #he City, pursuant to #he Re.�enue and � Taxation Code, begin�ning in the fsca! year 2004-2005; WHEREAS, conflic#ing legal opinions as to tl�e calcula#ion of the PTAF have been rendered by various s#ate and focal agencies and fheir counsel; WH�REAS, the City filed a c�aim agains#the County on or abou# June 27, 2�08, � se�eicirig a refund of the amount of PTAF tha# #he Cit}r claims the County overcharged the City in �he 2006-2�07 and 2�07-2408 fscal years and �he County has not yet formally denied the claim; . . � � WMEREA�,the County contends#hat it may have undercharged the City for the PTAF in#he 20�4-2005 and 20Q5-20{�6 fscal years; . .WHEREAS,.#he City and County are aware that other cities and counfiies in other � � � areas�of the State are involved, or may be�ome invoived, in fi#igation� concerr�ing the calculation of the PTAF; � � . V�tHEREAS, the:Parties desire to �void li#igation in ofder to a[low for additiona�( � tirne to e�al�uate�the law as it de�efops on this state wide issue; � . NOVII, THEREFC�RE, THE PARTIES AGREE.AS F4LLt�WS: 'f. The Par#ies agree to fio!( �he appEicabfe statutes o� limitations for either p.arty .to file a c{.aim, complaint, or petition against the other with respect to the calcu(ation of the PTAF, inciuding, bu# no# [imi�ed to, the applicabie statutes of limftations for the City to file a °complaint or petition seeking a refund or reallocation to the Gity of the PT�F tha� the City c�r�tends fihe�.County v��rc�atsged� th�. City for the 2�U6-2007 and 2007-20U8 fiscal years, wrhich the City contends resulted in an .under- aliocation of property #axes to the City; and including, but not Iimited �o, the applicable . • statu�es of limi#ations for the County to file a complaint, peti#ion, or admi��stra#ive claim seeking an increase or reallocation to the County of the PTAF the County contends the Coun#y may have underc��rged the City in the 20�4-20a5 and 2405-204G fscal years. 2. This #o�Eing agreemen# does no# revive any statu#e of [imitations period or deadiine that expired before the effective date of this tolling agreement. This tolling agreement applies solely to those claims.that could be al�eged as of the effective date of � #his tolling agreemer�t in either (i} an administra�ive c!a[m to the County o� the City pursuant to the applicabie provisions of the Govemment Claims Act and/or a County or City ordinance or (ii) a lawsuit. The tolling agreement does not apply to an� claims that . �ATTY/AGR12008.116 j 102108 � .