HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-19 City Council (5)TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
8
DEPARTMENT:ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
NOVEMBER 19, 2001 CMR: 411:01
SANTA CLARA COUNTY PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Settlement Agreement and
Release from the County of Santa Clara, regarding tax allocation from fiscal years
1989 through 2000. (Exhibit A).
BACKGROUND
State law requires Santa Clara County to collect and apportion property taxes to
various cities, school districts, fire districts and other local agencies in the County.
Unfortunately, the complexity of the apportionment formulas makes it difficult to
achieve error-free apportionment. The formulas change annually and are set out in
California Revenue and Tax Code statutes that rival or surpass the Internal
Revenue Code for difficulty of interpretation and application. Not surprisingly,
state and internal audits show that while counties in general apportion taxes
correctly, it is very difficult to achieve perfect accuracy.
Santa Clara County recently completed a multi-year internal review and
recalculation of its property tax apportionment from fiscal year 1989 through
fiscal year 2000. The 7,200 hour review confirmed that the County apportioned
taxes with a high degree of accuracy - 99.94%. Even so, given the $14.5 billion
apportioned, the review identified an estimated $8 million that should have been
allocated differently. The County overpaid some agencies and made equal
aggregate underpayments to others.
The County held a series of meetings with a group of jurisdictions, including many
of those that are most affected, to determine what course of action to pursue
regarding these misallocations. The County and the jurisdictions created, by
consensus, a settlement approach that is incorporated in the attached agreement.
CMR: 411:01 Page 1 of 3
DISCUSSION
The County believes that the statute of limitations on provable claims is three
years from the date any suit is filed. Therefore, the overpayment and
underpayment amounts that the County includes in the proposed agreement are
primarily based on 1998, 1999, and 2000 fiscal years.
The proposed agreement is based on the following conditions:
¯All parties will forgive basic aid schools from overpayments because of the
adverse impacts to students.
¯Underpaid fire districts that were the beneficiaries of prior forgiveness
legislation for overpayments to them Will waive any recovery of current
underpayments.
¯Agencies that were overpaid on a 3 year basis but underpaid on a 12 year basis
will not be required to repay the overpayments. (The City of Palo Alto falls in
this category.)
¯Agencies that were underpaid on a 3 year basis but overpaid on a 12 year basis
will not receive any payment.
¯Agencies that were underpaid more on a 3 year basis than on a 12 year basis
would have their 3 year loss capped at the 12 year total.
In the last 3 fiscal years audited (1998, 1999, and 2000), Palo Alto received an
overpayment of $21,888. However, in the prior nine fiscal years (1989 through
1997) it was underpaid by $68,631, leaving a net underpayment of $46,743 over
the twelve years. In the proposed settlement, the County would forgive the last
three years’ overpayments to Palo Alto, in light of the 12 year net underpayment.
The County states that if it were sued for recovery of any underpayments, it could
join as parties the agencies that were overpaid, including basic aid schools.
Litigation over underpayments would be a "zero sum" action where success would
not result in any new funds being available but rather would result in a
redistribution of previously allocated tax dollars between public agencies. Such
litigation would also be politically difficult, as it would pit public agency against
fellow public agency over tax dollars that ultimately were all spent for public
benefit within the County.
Staff is recommending that Council accept this agreement, in spite of the net loss
to the City over the twelve year period, due to the arguments laid out by the
County: there would be little public or political benefit to pursuing this money
through legal channels, and with a three-year statute of limitations, the City would
not have the legal grounds to do so.
CMR: 411:01 Page 2 of 3
RESOURCE IMPACT
There is no immediate fiscal in~ pact associated with this recommendation.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This report does not represent any change to existing City policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Approval of this agreement is not a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act; accordingly, no environmental assessment is required.
ATTACHMENT
Exhibit A: Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release to Resolve Property Tax
Allocation Issues
PREPARED BY:
7
NAGEL
Senior Financial Analyst
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
CARL
Administrative Services
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:~~~LY HARRISON~
Assistant City Manager
CMR: 411:01 Page 3 of 3
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE
TO R~:I OLVE PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION ISSUES
This Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release To Resolve Property Tax Allocation
Issues ("Settlement Agreement") is made and entered into as of ,2001.
1.Parties
This Settlement Agreement is by and among the following parties (including any
subsidiary districts, special districts, projects, or redevelopment agencies where the governing
body is the same as that of the agency listed below and where such subsidiary agency or .district
received a tax allocation underpayment or overpayment):
1.2
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
County of Santa Clara ("County")
County Library District ("Library District")
City of Campbell ("Campbell")
City of Cupertino ("Cupertino")
City of Gilroy ("Gilroy")
City of Los Altos ("Los Altos")
Town of Los Alto Hills ("Los Altos Hills")
Town of Los Gatos ("Los Gatos")
City of Monte Sereno ("Monte Sereno")
City of Morgan Hill ("Morgan Hill")
City of Mountain View ("Mountain View’"
City of Santa Clara ("Santa Clara")
City of Saratoga, ("Saratoga")
City of Sunnyvale ("Sunnyvale")
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
1.23
1.24
1.25
1.26
1.27
.28
1.29
1.30
1.31
1.32
1.34
1.35
1.36
Saratoga Cemetery District ("Saratoga Cemetery")
Saratoga Fire Department ("Saratoga Fire")
South Santa Clara Valley Memorial District ("Memorial District")
E1 Camino Hospital Maintenance District ("El Camino Hospital")
Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("Air Quality")
Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Parks District ("Rancho Rinconada")
Guadalupe/Coyote Resource Conservation District ("Guadalupe/Coyote")
Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District ("Loma Prieta")
Gavilan Water District ("Gavilan")
Aldercroft Heights Water District ("Aldercroft")
Pacheco Pass Water District ("Pacheco Pass")
Pacheco Storm Water District ("Pacheco Storm Water")
Santa Clara Valley Water Dismct ("Santa Clara Water")
Palo Alto Unified School District ("Palo Alto Unified")
Sunnyvale Elementary School District ("Sunnyvale Elementary")
Mountain View- Los Altos High School District ("Los Altos High")
Foothill Community College District ("Foothill")
West Valley Community College District ("West Valley")
Gavilan Community College District ("Gavilan")
San Jose Community College District ("San Jose Com. College")
Yosemite Community College District ("Yosemite")
1.37
1.38
1.39
Santa Clara Unified School District ("Santa Clara Schools")
Fremont High School District ("Fremont High")
Los Gatos High School District ("Los GatosHigh")
1.40
1.41
Santa Clara County Central Fire District ("Santa Clara County Fire")
Los Altos Fire District ("Los Altos Fire")
1.42
1.45
1.46
South Santa Clara County Fire District ("South County Fire") ¯
City of Palo Alto ("Palo Alto")
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ("Midpeninsula")
City of Milpitas ("Milpitas")
City of San Jose ("San Jose")
1.47
1.48
Purissima Hills Water District ("Purissima Hills")
Parties other than the County may be referred to as the "Tax Allocation Parties."
2.Recitals
2.1 Revenue and Taxation Code sections 95 through 100, Health and Safety Code
Section 33670 et seq., and other applicable California law requires that the County collect
property taxes and apportion them to the Tax Allocation Parties.
2.2 In 1997, the County began an internal review and recalculation of its
apportionment of property taxes to the Tax Allocation Parties. The County represents that the
audit was based on the best available information and required extrapolation of some
information.
2.3 After completing the financial review and recalculation on December 15, 2000,
the County determined that approximately .0006% of the property taxes collected and
apportioned to the Tax Allocation Parties for the recalculation period should have been
apportioned in a different manner.
2.4 The revised property tax allocation showed overpayments of property tax to some
of the Tax Allocation Parties and underpayments to some of the Tax Allocation Parties. The
County represents there is an exact correspondence between the amounts underpaid and overpaid
to the Tax Allocation Parties. The County represents the County did not keep or retain any of the
property tax funds that were underpaid to Tax Allocation Parties, and all such funds were
distributed to those Tax Allocation Parties that were overpaid.
2.6 The County and Tax Allocation Parties have a dispute about whether the County
is liable for additional tax payments to underpaid Tax Allocation Parties and whether the County
can recover excess tax payments from overpaid Tax Allocation Parties. The County and Tax
Allocation Parties agree and acknowledge that litigation to establish the Tax Allocation Parties
rights and liabilities for underpayments and overpayments would be protracted, expensive,
uncertain, and contrary to the public interest.
2.5 The County and Tax Allocation Parties have now agreed to settle all outstanding
claims, disputes and controversies arising out of or in any way related to the County’s
apportionment of property tax existing between them pursuant to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
3.Terms and Conditions
3.1 The County and Tax Allocation Parties agree and consent to settle all of the
disputed claims in this matter.
3.2 The County agrees to pay, in full and final settlement of all claims
resulting, or that could result from its review and revised allocation of property tax payments, the
amount of $1,709,690.88 to the Tax Allocation Parties, as follows:
3.2.1
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
3.2.6
3.2.7
Campbell - in the total amount of$114,795.33;
Gilroy - in the total amount of $4,589.80;
Los Altos City - in the total amount of $ 6,410.64;
Los Gatos - in the total amount of $26,336.87;
Morgan Hill - in the total amount of $406,897.29;
Mountain View - in the total amount of $58,792.63;
Santa Clara - in the total amount of $359,904.08;
4
3.2.8 Sunnyvale - in the total amount of $182,930.40;
3.2.9 Saratoga Cemetery District - in the amount of $10,390.66;
3.2.10 South Santa Clara Valley-Memorial District - in the total amount of
$54.32;
E1 Camino Hospital - in the total amount of $731.27;
Bay Area Air Quality Management District - in the total amount of
$2,761.52;
3.2.13 Loma Prieta Resources Conservation District - in the total amount of
$2.12;
3.2.14 Pacheco Storm Water District - in the total amount of $0.69;
3.2.15 Santa Clara Valley Water District - in the total amount of $94,927.03;
3.2.16 Palo Alto Unified- in the total amount of $3,082.42;
3.2.17 Sunnyvale Elementary - in the total amount of $49,515.56;
3.2.18 Mountain View - Los Altos High in the total amount of $208,923.67;
3.2.19 Foothill Community College - in the total amount of $47,689.96;
3.2.20 West Valley Community College - in the total amount of $73,059.61; and
3.2.21 San Jose Community College - in the total amount of $58,895.01.
3.3 The County determined through the review and recalculation that the State received an
ERAF credit of $922,144.16 which the State should have paid and which should have been
distributed to various Tax Allocation Parties. The State has not reimbursed this allocation
overpayment by the County. In consideration of settlement of all tax allocation claims, the
County agrees to pay in advance 50% of the ERAF reimbursement due the County from the State,
and to distribute these funds to the underpaid Tax Allocation Parties on a pro rata basis as set out
in Paragraph 3.2. The 50% ERAF payments are included in the total settlement amount for each
Tax Allocation Party in Paragraph 3.2 and shown in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated as part
of this Settlement Agreement.
The County agrees that it will make a good faith effort to claim the full ERAF credit it is
owed by the State. If it receives funds to reimburse it for the $922,144.16 overpayment, such
funds will be distributed to the County and the Tax Allocation Parties in Paragraph 3.2 as
follows:
If the County receives the full ERAF reimbursement from the State for $922,144.16, the
County will retain 50% of this payment as reimbursement for the 50% ERAF advance the County
is making as part of this Agreement, and will distribute the other 50% of the State’s ERAF
reimbursement to the Tax Allocation Parties in Paragraph 3.2 on a pro-rata basis in accord with
the allocations in Paragraph 3.2.
If the County is successful in obtaining State ERAF reimbursement for less than the full
amount of $922,144.16, the County will retain 50% of the reimbursement and will distribute the
remaining 50% to the Tax Allocation Parties in Paragraph 3.2 on a pro-rata basis in accord with
the allocations in Paragraph 3.2.
If the County does not obtain any ERAF reimbursement from the State, the County will
not seek recovery from the Tax Allocation Parties of the 50% advance on these ERAF funds paid
pursuant to this Settlement Agreement in Paragraph 3.2.
4.Release
4.1 In consideration of the settlement agreements referred to herein, the County of
Santa Clara releases and discharges each Tax Allocation Party that is a signatory to this
Agreement and its officers and employees from and against any and all claims, rights demands,
actions, obligations, liabilities, and causes of action, whether based on tort, contract, equity or
other theory, whether asserted or unasserted, of any kind, nature and character whatsoever,
known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which it has or may have now or in the future
(other than claims arising out of this Settlement Agreement) arising out of or relating in any way
to the al!ocation of property taxes by the County of Santa Clara at any time prior to July 1, 2000,
including but not limited to, claims related to the unitary property tax, the one percent AB 8 ad
valorem property tax, Redevelopment Agency tax increment amounts, debt service calculations,
and the unitary and supplemental tax rolls.
4.2 In consideration of the settlement agreements referred to herein, each Tax
Allocation Party that is a signatory to this Settlement Agreement releases and discharges the
County of Santa Clara and its officers and employees, and all other Tax Allocation Parties that
are signatories to this Agreement from and against any and all claims, rights demands, actions,
obligations, liabilities, and causes of action, whether based on tort, contract, equity or other
theory, whether asserted or unasserted, of any kind, nature and character whatsoever, known or
unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which it has or may have now or in the future (other than
claims arising out of this Settlement Agreement) arising out of or relating in any way to the
allocation of property taxes by the County of Santa Clara at any time prior to July 1, 2000,
6
including, but not limited to, claims related to the unitary property tax, the one percent AB 8 ad
valorem property tax, Redevelopment Agency tax increment amounts, debt service calculations,
and the unitary and supplemental tax rolls.
5.Inc ,ns
This Settlement Agreement is intended to resolve all claims and disputes related to
apportionment of the unitary property tax, the one percent AB 8 ad valorem property tax,
Redevelopment Agency tax increment amounts, debt service calculations, and the unitary and
supplemental tax rolls prior to July 1, 2000.
6.Global settlement
It is the intention of all parties to this Agreement that this is a complete and global
settlement as to all parties named in paragraph 1, and signature of all parties is a prerequisite of
this Agreement. All Tax Allocation Parties agree, that upon signature of this Agreement, they are
bound by the terms and conditions of the Agreement upon signature by the County. In the event
that all of the named parties to this Agreement do not sign the Agreement, the County, at its sole
discretion, shall have the right, but not the obligation, to rescind this Agreement in its entirety. If
the County elects to proceed with this Agreement with some, but not all of the signatures of the
Tax Allocation Parties, the County and all signing Tax Allocation Parties shall be bound by the
terms of the Agreement. The County shall not be bound in any manner by the terms of this
Agreement with regard to a non-signing Tax Allocation Party, and shall be at liberty to assert any
and all defenses, affirmative defenses and counter-claims against any non-signing Tax Allocation
Party named in paragraph 1.
7.No Admission
It is understood and agreed that this is a compromise Settlement Agreement and
full release in satisfaction of all demands, disputed claims, or potential disputed claims, and that
the furnishing of consideration for this Agreement shall not be deemed or construed as an
admission of liability or responsibility at any time for any purpose. It is further agreed and
understood that this Agreement is being entered into solely for the purpose of avoiding further
expense and inconvenience from defending against any and all claims, rights, demands, and
litigation, the liability for any and all of which is expressly denied by County. This Settlement
Agreement does not represent any admission of liability on the part of any party hereto, each of
which expressly denies such liability.
7
8.Applicable Law
The parties agree that this Settlement Agreement has been entered into in the State of
California, and shall be governed by, and construed and enforced, in accordance with the laws of
the State of California.
9.Persons Bound
This Settlement Agreement contains the entire agreement among the parties with regard
to the matters set forth in it and shall be binding upon the parties hereto, as well as upon all of
their respective representatives, predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, partners, of-ricers,
directors, employees and counsel.
10.Execution of Agreement
10.1 The parties have carefully read this Settlement Agreement and know and
understand the contents, and have signed it freely and voluntarily, after consultation with legal
counsel.
10.2 The parties agree that this Agreement may be signed in counterparts and that it
shall be fully executed when signed by all parties whether the signatures of all parties appear on
the original or one or more copies of this Settlement Agreement. The parties further agree to
forward their original signatures on this Settlement Agreement to counsel for the County.
10.3 The parties agree that counsel for the County shall provide a fully executed copy
of this Settlement Agreement to each party to this Settlement Agreement.
10.4 The parties further agree that original signatures of each party on this Settlement
Agreement are not necessary to enforce this Settlement Agreement.
11.Entire A~reement
This Settlement Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement of settlement and release
among the parties and there are no other agreements expanding or modifying its terms. The
provisions of this Settlement Agreement can only be modified or amended in a writing that
expressly states that modification or amendment of this Settlement Agreement is intended.
12.Enforceabiliw
If anv term or provision of this Settlement Agreement shall be found to be illegal or
unenforceable, then, notwithstanding any such illegality or unenforceability, this Settlement
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and such term or provision shall be deemed to be
deleted.
13.Benefit and Burden
This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties
hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
14.Severabilitw
In the event that any condition or covenant herein is held to be invalid or void by any
court of competent jurisdiction, the same shall be deemed severable from the remainder of this
Settlement Agreement and shall in no way affect any other covenant or condition herein
contained. K such condition, covenant or other provision shal! be deemed invalid due to scope or
breadth, such provisions shall be deemed valid to the extent of the scope of breadth, permitted by
law.
15.Waiver and Amendment
No breach of any provision hereof can be waived unless in writing. Waiver of any one
breach shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other breach of the same or any other provision
hereof. This Settlement Agreement may be amended only by a written agreement executed by
the parties at the time of modification.
16.Construction
This Settlement Agreement shall not be construed against the parties or their
representatives who have drafted it or any portion of it.
17.Time Is Of The Essence
Time is expressly declared to be of essence to this Settlement Agreement and every
provision hereof.
DATED:_, 2001 County of Santa Clara
By:
James T. Beall, Jr., Chairperson
Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
By:
Phyllis A. Perez
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
By:
David E. Kahn
Lead Deputy County Counsel
DATED:200!County of Santa Clara ("County")
By:
DATED:.2001
Its:
County of Library District ("Library District")
By:
Its:
DATED:.2001 City of Campbell ("Campbell")
By:
Its:
10
DATED:
DATED:
DATED:
DATED:
DATED:
DATED:
....... 2001
...... ,2001
,2001
,2001
,2001
,2001
City of Cupertino ("Cupertino")
By:
Its:
City of Gilroy ("Oilroy")
By:
Its:
City of Los Altos ("Los Altos")
By:
Its:
City of Los Altos Hills ("Los Altos Hills")
By:
Its:
City of Los Gatos ("Los Gatos")
By:
Its:
City of Monte Sereno ("Monte Sereno")
By:
Its:
11
DATED:
DATED:
DATED:
DATED:
DATED:
DATED:
,2001
,2001
,2001
..... ,2001
,2001
,2001
City of Morgan Hill ("Morgan Hill")
By:
Its:
City of Mountain View ("Mountain View")
By:
Its:
City of Santa Clara (’~Santa Clara")
By:
Its:
citY of Saratoga ("Saratoga")
By:
Its:
City of Sunnyvale ("Sunnyvale")
By:
Its:
Saratoga Cemetery District (’.~Saratoga Cemetery")
By:
Its:
12
DATED:,2001 Saratoga Fire Department ("Saratoga Fire")
DATED:,2001
By:
Its:
South Santa Clara Valley Memorial District
("Memorial District")
By:
Its:
DATED:,2001 E1 Camino Hospital Maimenance District
("El Camino Hospital")
By:
Its:
DATED:,2001 Bay Area Air Quality Management District
("Air Quality")
By:
Its:
DATED:,2001 Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Parks District
("Rancho Rinconada")
By:
Its:
13
DATED:
DATED:
DATED:
DATED:
....... 2001
2001
,2001
2001
OuadMupe/Coyote Resource Conservation District
("GuadMupe/Coyote")
By:
Its:
Loma Prieta Resource Conservation
("Loma Prieta")
By:
Its:
Gavilan Water District ("Oavilan")
By:
Its:
Aldercroft Heights Water District ("Aldercroft")
By:
Its:
DATED:,2001 Pacheco Pass Water District ("Pacheco Pass")
By:
Its:
14
DATED:
DATED:
DATED:
DATED:
DATED:
,2001
.,2001
,2001
,2001
,2001
Pacheco Storm Water District ("Pacheco Storm
Water")
By:
Its:
Santa Clara Valley Water District ("Santa Clara
Water")
By:
Its:
Palo Alto Unified School District ("Palo Alto
Unified")
By:
Its:
Sunnyvale Elementary School District ("Sunnyvale
Elementary")
By:
Its:
Mountain View-Los Altos High School District
("Los Altos High")
By:
Its:
15
DATED:,2001 Foothill Community College District ("Foothill")
By:
Its:
DATED:,2001 West Valley Community College District ("West
Valley")
By:
Its:
DATED:,2001 Gavilan Community College District ("Gavilan")
By:
Its:
DATED:.... 2001 San Jose Community College District ("San Jose
Community College")
By:
Its:
DATED:,2001 Yosemite Community College District
("Yosemite")
By:
Its:
16
DATED:,2001 Sanm Clara UNtied School District("Santa Cl~a
Schools")
By:
Its:
DATED:,2001 Fremont High School District ("Fremont")
By:
Its:
DATED:.,2001 Los Gatos High School District ("Los Gatos High")
By:
Its:
DATED:2001 Santa Clara County Central Fire District ("Santa
Clara County Fire")
By:
Its:
DATED:,2001 Los Altos Fire District ("Los Altos Fire")
By:
Its:
17
DATED:2001 South Santa Clara County Fire District ("South
County Fire")
Byi
Its:
DATED:.......... 2001 City of Palo Alto ("Palo Alto")
By:
Its:
DATED:,2001 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
("Midpeninsula")
By:
Its:
DATED:,,,2001 City of Milpitas ("Milpitas")
By:
Its:
DATED:,2001 City of San Jose ("San Jose")
By:
Its:
18
DATED: .........2001 City of Purissima Hills Water District ("Purissima
Hills")
By:
Its:
DATED:,2001 Tax Allocation Parties
By:
Its:
K:IZPROJECTtROI.,L_OUT_PROCES, S~E777..EN~NTMI..LOC AGR.EEF1NALO’0201. WPD
19
Detail of (Over) and Under Payments
Based on Three Year Statute of Limitation
Exhibit A
Jurisdiction Three Year Net Summary 1 County Pavrnents
Net Underpaid Net Overpaid Included Entities ! 50% of EP,.AF Total
INCLUDED JURISDICTIONS: (Percent of 3 60.707%22.417%83.125%
Year Loss Recovered)
-County General TOTAL (858,741.62)
(237,814.07)County Library TOTAL
Campbell City
Campbell Muni Lighting Dist.
Central Campbell Project
Central Campbell ’93 Anx
Campbell TOTAL
(16,943.84)
49,417.48
105,588.26
38.34
138,100.24 83,837.15 30,958.18 114,795.33
Cupertino TOTAL (58,421.56)
Gilroy Cit7 5,778.57
Gilroy Parking Dist 1 (256.98)
Gilroy TOTAL 5,521.59 3,352.02 1,237.78 4,589.80
Los Altos City TOTAL 7,712.08 t 4,681.81 1,728.83 6,410.64
Los Gatos Town 27,335.39
Central Los Gatos 4,348.19
Los Gatos TOTAL 31,683.58 19,234.30 7,102.57 26,336.87
Mome Sereno City
Mome Sereno-Loma Serena Lgt Dist
Monte Sereno-Lexington Dr Maint
Monte 5ereno TOTAL
Morgan Hill City
MH Ojo de Agua Project
Morgan Hill TOTAL
Mountain "view City.
Parking Dist 2 Mountain View
Mountain View No Bayshore Project
Mountain View Revitalization Project
Mountain View TOTAL
Santa Clara City
Parking Dist 122-Santa Clara
Bridge Dist 1-Santa Clam
Santa Clam University, Calif R-31
Santa Clam Bayshore N. Project
Santa Clara TOTAL
(19~959.23)
509,461.85
489,502.62
(507,523.93)
(572,552.93)
633,976.87
516,828.27
70,728.28
(18,880.77)
(3,086.28)
(1,216.00)
(23,183.05)
1,402.28
(322.06)
(565.10)
299,667.91
131,583.15
I 431,766.18
Jurisdictions with lower underpa)Taents for the 12 year period and paid based on that amount.
297,164.60
42,937.34
109,732.69
15,855.29
406,897.29
58,792.63
262,114.27 96,789.81 358,904.08
The "overpayment" of $858,741.62 to the County is actually net of the County’s underpayment and the County’s assumption of the TEA
cities prior year overpayments. In fact, the County suffered an approximate $1.3 million underpayment.
Page 20
Detail of (Over) and Under Payments
Based on Three Year Statute of Limitation
Exhibit A
:oo...~t
n~ot~s
Three Year Net Summary
Net Underpaid t Net Overpaid
68,490.25
151,577.35
220,067.60
Jurisdiction
Sunnyvale City
Sunnyvale Central Core Project
Sunnyvale TOTAL
Saratoga Cemetery District
So Santa Clara Valley Memorial Dist
E1 Camino Hospital
Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt Dist
Rancho Rinconada Rec & Parks
Guadalupe/Coyote Resource Cons Dist
Loma Prieta Resource Conservation Dist
Gavilan Water District
12,500.09
65.34
879.72
County Payments
Included Entities 50% of ERAF [
133,597.45
Z588.49
39.67
534.06
2,016.79
49,332.95
2,802.17
14.65
197.21
744.73
Total
182,930.40
10,390.66
54.32
731.27
2,761.523,322.15
(221.68)
(23,656.51)
2.55 1.55 0.57 2.12
(26,591.29)
Aldercroft Heights Water District (874.67)
!Pacheco Pass Water District (57.61)
i 0.83 0.19 0.69
94,927.03
Pacheco Storm Water District
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Palo Alto Unif
Sunnyvale Elem
114,198.43
I 3,708.19
]59,567.85
Mt View-Los Altos High Ii 251,337.84
]~oothill Comm College 57,371.64
West Valley Comm College 87,891.64
3,082.42
49,515.56
0.50
69,326.96 25,600.07
2,251.15 831.27
36,162.13 13,353.43
152,580.81 t 56,342.86
34,828.86 I 12,861.10
53,356.78 19,702.83
208,923.67
47,689.96
73,059.61
GavilanCommCollege (18,883.61)
43,012.11 15,882.90 58,895.01San Jose Comm College
Yosemite Comm College
Sub-Total Included Jurisdictions
Exclusion Sub-Total, Page 2
Grand Total
! 70,851.44
](173.11)
2,056,779.88 . (1,248,618.78)
1555,678.61 (1,522,733.19)
2,612.458.49 (2,771..~51.9
1,248,618.80 ! 461,072.08
o.oo i o.ooi
1,248,618.80
6. Jurisdictions with lower underpayments for the 12 year period and paid based on that amount.
1,709,690.88
461,072.08 [ 1,709,690.88
Page 21
Detail of (Over) and Under Payments
Based on Three Year Statute of Limitation
Exhibit A
Jurisdiction
EXCLUDED JURISDICTIONS:
Santa Clara Unified
Fremom High
Los Gatos High
Overpaid Basic Aid School TOTAL
Santa Clam Count3’ Fire
Saratoga Fire
Los Altos Fire
So Santa Clam Co Fire
Fire District TOTAL
Three Year Net Summary
Net Underpaid Net Overpaid
547,518.12
31,967.42
205,744.92
(357,820.07)
427,410.39
(4,502.31)
(364,495.82)
(206,956.56)
(575,954.69)
s. K-12, COE, & ERA.F TOTAL (922,144.16)
Palo Alto City (21,887.67)
Calif Ace Parldng-PA 492.51
3. Palo Alto TOTAL (21,395.16)
3. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Dst (3,239.18)
(142,807.86)
(6,264.18)
69,131.40
60,978.52
48,034.82
29,072.70
4,604.86
Milpitas City
Milpims City Sanitary Dist
Milpims I, 1976
Milpitas I, ’79 Anx, Amnd l
Milpitas I, ’83 Anx, Amnd 2
4. Milpitas TOTAL
4. Los Altos Hills Town TOTAL
1. Overpaid Basic Aid Schools
2.
3.
4.
S.
Fire districts which have already benefitted from existing forgiveness legislation.
Jurisdictions overpaid for the last three years, but underpaid for the total twelve year period.
Jurisdictions underpaid for the last three years, but overpaid for the total twelve year period.
State Funding - Schools K-12, County. Office of Education, and ERAF
County Payments
Included Entities [ 50% of ERAF t
Page 22
Detail of (Over) and Under Payments
Based on Three Year Statute of Limitation
Exhibit A
Jurisdiction
EXCLUDED JURISDICTIONS:
San Jose City
Maintenance Dist 1 San Jose
Rincun de Los Esteros S.
Rincon de Los Esteros N
Park Center Project
R de Los Esteros Project
Pueblo Uno Project
Edenvale Project
Olinder Project
Julian-Sto ckton Project.
Market Gateway Project
Century Center Project
Guadalupe-Auzerais Project
Rincon De Los F.stems ’79 Amx.
Edenvale East Project
Monterey Corridor
Almaden Gateway Project
San Antonio Park Plaza R 90
4. San Jose TOTAL
Saratoga City
Azule Lighting Dist-Saratoga
Saratoga City Light District
Saratoga Quito Lightning Dist
SaratogaViIlage Parking Dist
Saratoga Greenbriar Park Maint.
Saratoga Manor Dr Park Maint.
Saratoga Fredericksburg Dr Pk Maint.
4. Saratoga TOTAL
4. Purissima Hills Water
Three Year Net Summary
Net Underpaid Net Overpaid
(218,524.19)
(298.04)
220,679.96
116,728.43
(62,929.72)
735,306.64
43,441.61
89,070.96
(203,787.05)
67,157.51
23,986.21
(2,895.81)
54,323.97
(844,499.44)
(68,103.18)
(40,184.18)
415.08
148,914.39
58,803.15
(2,110.88)
5,292.63
15,755.66
610.93
(49.28)
5.74
16.46
4.28
19,525.54
16,261.97
TOTAL 555,678.61 (1,522,733.19)I
1. CA, erpaid Basic Aid Schools
County Payments
Included Entities I 50% of ERAF [
2. Fire districts which have already benefitted from existing forgiveness legislation.
3. Jurisdictions overpaid for the last three years, but underpaid for the total twelve year period.
4. Jurisdictions underpaid for the last three years, but overpaid for the total twelve year period.
5. State Funding - Schools K-12, Count3.’ Office of Education, and ERAF
6. Jurisdictions with lower underpabnnents for the 12 year period and paid based on that amount.
7. The "overpayment" of $858,741.62 to the County is actually net of the County’s underpayment and the County’s assumption of the TEA
cities prior year overpayrnents. In fact, the County suffered an approximate $1.3 million underpayment.
Total
Page 23