AgdaPkt 2012-04-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6.1. F. - Page 2 Various state and local agencies and their counsel have rendered conflicting opinions as to the proper calculation of the PTAF. Some cities are litigating the matter and resolution to the legal issues may not be clear for quite some time. ANALYSIS In order to preserve the opportunity to recover the increased PTAT from San Mateo County, the City, as a procedural matter, must file a claim within the statute of limitations for each fiscal year that the increased fee is charged. If the County rejects the claim, then the City has the opportunity to litigate the matter. In 2008, Redwood City joined neighboring cities in hiring joint legal representation (Jarvis & Fay) that would allow the cities to share the legal costs associated with pursuing claims seeking a refund of the amount of PTAF that the City claims the County overcharged it. Redwood City has filed claims with the County for each year commencing with fiscal year 2006- 200, when the City's loss was about $55,000, and most recently for 2010-2011. The City and County are aware that other cities and counties in other areas of the State are involved in litigation concerning the calculation of the PTAF, and the parties desire to avoid litigation at this time in order to allow the evaluation of the law to develop on this statewide issue. In order to avert the need to institute litigation within the statutory time frames of such claims being denied by the County, the parties entered into a tolling agreement on February 18, 2009, which was previously extended to cover more recent claims. The parties now wish to bring the City's 2010-2011 claim within the scope of the tolling agreement which would otherwise expire on July 1, 2012, by extending the expiration date of the tolling agreement by one year to July 1, 2013. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not authorize the City Attorney to execute the addendum to the tolling agreement in which case the City would not preserve the opportunity to recover the increased property administration tax fee from the County for the fiscal years starting with 2006-2007, unless it chose to immediately litigate this matter without waiting for resolution in other similar pending cases state-wide. FISCAL IMPACT None at this time , ,: .�,1 � .� ;�,� � �'� i�r'l �i 4 '�i,��r.--�? �• PAMELA THOMPSON, CITY ATTORNEY � � ��` ROBERT B. BELL, CITY MANAGER ATTACHMENTS Third Addendum to Agreement — Property Tax Administration Fees