Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03112014 - D.2RECOMMENDATION(S): DENY request by Blackhawk Homeowner’s Association (HOA) to file a claim against Contra Costa County (County) seeking reimbursement of expenses incurred by the GHAD relating to tax rate area (TRA) 66343/Canyons development. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: On December 9, 2013 the GHAD received a letter from the HOA requesting that it pursue a claim against the County for reimbursement of expenses incurred by the HOA and GHAD in resolving the tax issues related to TRA 66343. A day later (December 10), the HOA filed a claim against the County for $215,748.63, seeking reimbursement of those expenses. The claim sought $147,926.86 on behalf of the GHAD. On January 14, 2014, the County Board of Supervisors denied the claim. By way of background, the tax issue relating to TRA 66343 was considered by this GHAD Board in August 2013. In December 2012, the GHAD General Manager discovered that 37 parcels within the Blackhawk GHAD and within TRA 66346 (called the Canyons) was not contributing to GHAD revenue but was receiving GHAD services. At the time the Canyons was annexed into the GHAD in 2006, it was believed that the Canyons was contributing to CSA M-23. The GHAD receives its funds from CSA M-23. The GHAD’s Plan of Control only allows services to be provided to those areas that contribute funding to the GHAD. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/11/2014 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patricia E. Curtin, (510) 622-7660 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 11, 2014 David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D.2 To:Blackhawk GHAD Board of Directors From:Patricia Curtin, GHAD Attorney and General Manager Date:March 11, 2014 Contra Costa County Subject:Blackhawk Homeowners Association Request GHAD to File Claim against Contra Costa County In order to continue to provide GHAD services to the Canyons, on August 6, 2013, the GHAD General Manager and Attorney recommended that this GHAD Board adjust the allocation of property tax revenues within the TRAs located within the GHAD boundaries so that TRA 66343 would be contributing to CSA M-23 and thus, the GHAD. This reallocation produced no additional revenue to CSA M-23 and thus, the GHAD. On August 6, 2013 pursuant to Resolution No. 2013/04, the GHAD Board approved this reallocation and a buy in from the HOA to allow it to access the existing GHAD reserve account with agreement from all parties involved, including the HOA. On that same day, the County Board of Supervisors approved Resolution No. 2013/332 authorizing the reallocation of revenues within the TRAs. The GHAD Attorney responded to the December 9, 2013 HOA letter on December 23 stating that the decision to join or file a separate claim would be made by the GHAD Board of Directors. On January 30, 2014 the GHAD received another letter from the HOA requesting that the GHAD pursue a claim against the County for reimbursement of expenses. In response to an email from the GHAD Attorney dated January 30, the HOA’s attorney confirmed that the HOA was now only seeking reimbursement of the expenses the GHAD occurred on this issue (and not the expenses the HOA incurred). BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION: The GHAD General Manager and GHAD Attorney do not recommend the GHAD file against the County seeking reimbursement of the expenses the GHAD incurred in resolving the TRA 66343/Canyons matter. The rationale is summarized as follows: 1. The HOA has not produced sufficient evidence to support the filing of a claim against the County seeking reimbursement of GHAD expenses. The GHAD is funded through the imposition of a real property tax and uses those funds to carry out its operations, which included the resolution of the Canyon’s matter. The HOA’s claim against the County asserts that the GHAD “determined” it was the County that “erred” in believing the Canyons was paying into M-23 and allowing this area to receive GHAD services. The GHAD did not make such a determination. 2. The Canyons has been receiving GHAD services since it annexed into the GHAD in October 2006 without financially contributing to such services. The GHAD’s Plan of Control does not allow services to be provided to those areas that are not contributing to GHAD services. The Canyons was annexed into the GHAD under the assumption that it was already paying into CSA M-23 and thus, for GHAD services. 3. During the time the GHAD and various County departments worked to create a solution to this issue, the GHAD continued to provide preventative services to the Canyons even though the Canyons was not contributing to such services. No earth movement or landslides causing damage to the Canyons area occurred during this time. 4. The GHAD boundaries include several additional homeowners associations, business owners associations and retail property owners associations who represent a sizable portion of the GHAD constituency. Looking to the best interest of all GHAD constituents, dedicating already limited GHAD resources towards pursuit of such reimbursement is not recommended. 5. The resolution of this issue was fair and equitable in that it allows the Canyons to continue to receive GHAD services with no additional assessment being imposed on the Canyons’ homeowners. 6. The process allowing TRA 66343/Canyons to continue receiving services from the GHAD was successfully completed with agreement from all the parties involved (GHAD Board and Officers, HOA, and the County). The HOA did not object to this resolution or to the GHAD’ s approval on August 6, 2012 of Resolution No. 2013/04 relating to TRA re-apportionment and buy-in (the buy-in was received by the HOA on this same day) or to the County Board of Supervisors approval of Resolution No. 2013/332 authorizing the tax reallocation. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable.