Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso - CC - 027-2012RESOLUTION NO. 27-2012 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AND AU'T'HORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOLLING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF BURLINGAME AND COUNTY OF SAN MATEO REGARDING THE CITY'S CLAIM FOR RETURN OF EXCESS PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION FEE FOR THE 2010-2011 FISCAL YEAR WHEREAS, all of the cities in San Mateo County are joined in a dispute with the County of San Mateo for the return of excess property administration fees which the County began deducting from each city's property tax allocations in the 2006-2007 fiscal year; and, WHEREAS, the City, like all the cities in San Mateo County, has filed a claim against the County for return of these additional property tax collection fees; and, WHEREAS, this is an issue between cities and counties statewide and, because the matter is currently being litigated in Los Angeles, the cities and San Mateo County have agreed to suspend any litigation until such time as the Court has concluded the Los Angeles case; and WHEREAS, this 2008 tolling agreement between the County and the cities and subsequent amendments, have extended the time for the cities to file suit against the County until July 2012 by which time it was expected that the Los Angeles litigation would be completed and resolution of the issue here in San Mateo County would be resolved; and, WHEREAS, the California Supreme Court now has this case pending before it with no indication that a decision will be forthcoming prior to the July 1, 2012 tolling agreement expiration date; and WHEREAS, the parties are willing to enter into a Third Amendment to the tolling agreement to extend the term of the agreement until July 1, 2013, by which time it is hoped that the Court would have issued its decision and the matter here in San Mateo County can be resolved; and WHEREAS, this amendment to the tolling agreement adds the city's claim for the 2010- 2011 fiscal year Property Tax Administration Fee; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame as follows: 1) All of the facts recited above and in the staff report are true and correct. 2) The City Council approves the amendment to the tolling agreement in the form attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A". 3) The City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute this amendment to the tolling agreement in the form attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A". I, Mary Ellen Kearney, Clerk of the City of Burlingame, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on the 16`h day of April, 2012, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers BAYLOCK, BROWNRIGG, DEAL, KEIGHRAN, NAGEL NOES: Councilmembers: NONE ABSENT: Councilmembers: NONE ary Elle eamey, ty Clerk THIRD ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO TOLL STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS FOR CLAIMS REGARDING PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION FEES WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame (the "City") and the County of San Mateo (the "County") (collectively the "Parties") may become involved in litigation regarding the County's calculation of the property tax administration fee (the "PTAF") as related to the Triple Flip (Rev. & Tax Code § 97.68) and the Vehicle License Fee swap (Rev. & Tax Code § 97.70) that the County charges the City, pursuant to the Revenue and Taxation Code, beginning in the fiscal year 2004-05; WHEREAS, the City filed a claim with the County seeking a refund of the amount of PTAF that the City claims the County overcharged the City in the 2006-07 and 2007-08 fiscal years; WHEREAS, the Parties entered into a tolling agreement on February 18, 2009 (the "Tolling Agreement"); WHEREAS, the City subsequently filed claims with the County seeking refunds of the amount of PTAF that the City claims the County overcharged the City in the 2008-09 and 2009-10 fiscal years, and the County denied these claims; WHEREAS, the County and the City agreed to and signed addenda to the Tolling Agreement that extended the Tolling Agreement to the City's claims for the 2008-09 and 2009- 10 fiscal years. A copy of the Tolling Agreement and the addenda for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 fiscal years is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; WHEREAS, the City has now filed a Claim with the County seeking a refund of the amount of PTAF that the City claims the County overcharged the City in the 2010-11 fiscal year (the "2010-11 Claim"); WHEREAS, 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 in order to allow time to evaluate the law as it develops on this state- wide issue; WHEREAS, the Parties now wish to bring the 2010-11 Claim within the scope of the Tolling Agreement; WHEREAS, the Tolling Agreement is currently set to expire on July 1, 2012, and the Parties now wish to extend the expiration date of the Tolling Agreement by one year to July 1, 2013. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Parties agree to toll the applicable statutes of limitations for either party to file a claim, complaint, or petition against the other with respect to the calculation of the PTAF for the 2010-11 fiscal year, including, but not limited to, the applicable statutes of limitations for the City to file a complaint or petition seeking a refund or reallocation to the City of the PTAF that the City contends the County overcharged the City for the 2010-11 fiscal year, which the City contends resulted in an under -allocation of property taxes to the City for the 2010-11 fiscal year. 2. The City and the County agree not to file any claims and not to initiate or participate in litigation against each other related to the PTAF for the 2010-11 fiscal year while this agreement is in effect. 3. The automatic expiration date of the tolling period as set forth in subdivision b of section 5 of the Tolling Agreement is extended by one year from July 1, 2012 to July 1, 2013. The provision for termination of the Tolling Agreement by notice of a party, under subdivision a of section 5 of the Tolling Agreement remains in effect. 4. Notification to Benjamin P. Fay, as provided in section 8, subdivision a, of the Tolling Agreement shall be to the following address: Benjamin P. Fay, Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson, LLP, 492 Ninth Street, Suite 310, Oakland, CA 94607, (510) 238-1404 (fax). 5. This agreement constitutes the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the tolling of the City's and the County's claims as set forth in Section 1 above, and correctly states the rights, duties, and obligations of each Party as of the effective date of this agreement. Any prior understandings, promises, negotiations, or representations between the parties not expressly stated in this document are not binding. 6. Subsequent modifications of this agreement, including but not limited to the extension or amendment of the agreement, shall not be valid or effective wiless set forth in writing and signed by the Parties. The Parties anticipate that they may amend this Agreement to include claims brought by the City regarding the calculation of PTAF for future fiscal years. 7. The Parties hereby also incorporate sections 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the Tolling Agreement into this Addendum (as modified by sections 3 and 4 above). FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Dated: By: John Beiers County Counsel of the County of San Mateo FOR THE CITY OF BURLINGAME: Dated: '- —/7 HCl /2— By: es Nantell City Manager of the City of Burlingame Approved as to form for the City of Burlingame: i J ,✓ Dated:�/ J� / By: L Clark WGuinan City Attorney of the City of Burlingame