The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 10072008 - C.12 (19) AMENDED CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD ACTION: OCTOBER 07, 2008 Claim Against the County, or District Governed by ) the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to The copy of this document mailed to California Government Codes.. you isyournotice of the action taken 11 g�S?j��f on your claim by the Board of FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 - 2008 , LC 15th V upervisors. (Paragraph IV below), SEP 12 2008 v given Pursuant to Government Code AMOUNT: UNMOWN Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all CTWEZLL "Warnings".MARGAE CLAIMANT: CITY OF CLAYTON ATTORNEY: J. DANIEL ADAMS DATE RECEIVED: SEPTEMBER 12, 2008 CITY OF CLAYTON ADDRESS: 924 MAIN STREET BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: SEPTEMBER 12, 2008 P.O. BOX 110 MARTINEZ, CA 94553 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. DAVID TWA, Cl Dated: SEPTEMBER 12, 2008 By: Deputy 11. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of S ervisors ( his claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying'claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it.was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim(Section 911.3). O Other: 1 Dated: ! ^ w �� By: QRnt4.11)eputy County Counsel III., FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator(2) O Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant(Section 911.3). IV. $OARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated:A7°JdJ/4 ; 021�1D TWA, CLERK, By: eputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) -� Subject to certain exceptions,you have only six(6)months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim.See Government Code Section 945.6.You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney,you should do so immediately. *For Additional Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. DatedeGyJt*Z0 ' )(VID TWA, CLERK By eputy Clerk TURNER, HUGUET & ADAMS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 924 MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 110 MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553 MAURICE E. HUGUET,JR. TEL(925) 228-3433 FAX (925) 228-3596 GORDON B.TURNER JONATHAN DANIEL ADAMS WWW.THALAW.COM 1907- 1997 DEBORAH MORITZ-FARR p OF COUNSEL: September 11, 2000 ANTHONY B.VARNI RECEIVE Mr. John Cullen Clerk of the Board of Supervisors SEP 1. 2: 2008 Contra Costa County CLERK BOARD OFS�PERVISO, County Administration Building CONTRA COSTA CO. is 651 Pine Street, Room 1006 Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Resubmitted Amended Claim For Overcharge for Property Tax Administration Fee: Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Dear Mr. Cullen: The City of Clayton has received a"Notice To Claimant of Late-Filed Claim (Government Code Section 911.3)" dated May 16, 2008. The Notice states that the City's only recourse is to apply without.delay to the Board.for leave to present a late claim. The Notice was accompanied by a document,entitled Claim Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, signed by M. Cooper and dated;May 15, 2008 which appears to contain additional information from County Counsel stating that "Claims for money collected are late and claims for proposed charges are premature."We presume that the"proposed charges" referred.to relate to the property tax administration fees for the 2007-2008 Fiscal Year. As explained further below, please consider this correspondence a amended courtesy "claim" addressing the 2007-2008 Fiscal Year. The City is submitting an amended courtesy"claim" for the 2006-2007 Fiscal Year by separate letter. The City of Clayton presented a"claim" to the County dated April 22, 2008 for the overcharge of the property tax administration fee for the 2006-2007 fiscal year and the 2007- 2008 fiscal year. The"claim" was presented to the County as a courtesy. As a local public entity, the City is exempt..from the claims-filing requirements of the Government Claims Act. (see Government Code §905(i)) Your Notice refers only to the Government Code and does not reference any local claims ordinance adopted by the County; nor does research indicate that any such ordinance exists. If there is any applicable local claim filing requirement of which I am unaware, please provide me with a copy as soon as possible. Notwithstanding,the fact that the City need not file a claim with the County prior to the institution of any litigation, in the interest of clarity, the City of Clayton submits this amended claim regarding the overcharge of property tax administration fees for the 2007-2008 fiscal year as a courtesy. By separate letter, the City of Clayton is,also submitting an amended claim . regarding the,overcharge of property tax administration fees for-the 2006-2007 fiscal year as,a , courtesy. tNotices regarding this.claim should be sent to:. Letter to Clerk of the Board of Supervisors re Property Tax Administration Fee Claim for Fiscal Year 2007-08 September 11,2008 Page 2 of 3 J. Daniel Adams, City Attorney City of Clayton 924 Main Street P.O. Box 110 Martinez, CA 94553 In fiscal year 2007-2008, the County has charged the City property tax administration fees in an amount in excess of that'permitted by Revenue and Taxation Code Section 97.75. Specifically, the Office of the Contra Costa County Auditor-Controller has included in its calculation of the City's property tax administration charges the ad valorem property taxes the City received in lieu of the local Bradley Burns Sales and Use Tax and the Vehicle License Fee pursuant to Rev. & Tax. Code Sections 97.68 and 97.70 (aka, the"triple flip" and "VLF Swap respectively). Section 97.75 states that for fiscal year 2006-07 and thereafter, the County may charge a fee for the services mandated by Sections 97.68 and 97.70, but that the fee shall not exceed the actual cost of providing the services. By including the triple flip and VLF swap funds in its calculation of the City's administrative cost share instead of calculating the actual incremental service costs to administer the triple flip, the County has overcharged the City of Clayton and violated applicable state law. The City is not aware of the identities of all of the individuals responsible for the overcharge, but is informed and believes that the Office of the Contra Costa County Auditor- Controller, currently held by Stephen Ybarra, is one of the responsible parties. For the 2007- 2008 fiscal year, the City estimates the overcharge to be no less than $9206.00. The City believes that until the Contra Costa County Auditor-Controller and Board of Supervisors complies with the mandate of Section 97.75, the City will continue to suffer future, annual damages in similar amounts. As to the issue of whether the City's claim is timely raised, the City was not notified by the County of the manner in which the property tax administration fee was being calculated nor did the County provide sufficient detail to determine the calculation method or the inclusion of the triple flip and VLF swap funds in the calculation. Thus, although I do not believe that a claim is required, the April 22, 2008 letter would in fact constitute a timely claim. As the City Attorney of the City of Clayton, I am authorized to make this claim on the City's behalf. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that all the information I have provided is true and correct to the best of my information and belief. I have included a copy of this claim. Please stamp this copy on the date received and return it to me in the enclosed, stamped and self-addressed envelope. Finally, we are aware that the cities of Contra Costa County which have filed claims are currently in discussions with the County Counsel's Office to see if litigation can be averted while the parties try to resolve this matter. In addition, we are aware that a statewide discussion is also occurring regarding these issues. We hope that these efforts will be successful. Letter to Clerk of the Board of Supervisors re Property Tax Administration Fee Claim for Fiscal Year 2007-08 September 11,2008 Page 3 of 3 Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely y s, J r s ity Attorney cc: Silvano Marchesi, County Counsel! Mayor and City Council Gary A. Napper, City Manager