The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 11091993 - 1.74 1.71 through 1.75 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on November 9, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Bishop, McPeak and Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Smith ABSTAIN: None ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: Correspondence Item No. 1.71 LETTER dated October 12, 1993, from Dirk A. Bowerman, 2603 Shamrock Drive, San Pablo 94806, requesting assistance on a lien placed against his personal property. ***REFERRED TO TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR, ASSESSOR AND COUNTY COUNSEL FOR RECOMMENDATION. 1.72 LETTER dated October 281 1993 , from. Joseph M. Gomes, Mayor, City of San Pablo, One Alvarado Square, San Pablo 94806, responding to the Board's request for financial assistance in funding the Homeless Shelter Program, and advising that the City Council has determined not to fund outside agencies until long term funding sources for all local government is, found. ***REFERRED TO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HOUSING AUTHORITY. 1.73 LETTER dated October 26, 1993 , from Russ Minor, 118 Norman Avenue, Clyde 94520, et al, requesting the Board to delay action relative to a proposal to build a Battered Women's Alternative Shelter in the community of Clyde pending discussion of this proposal at a Town Meeting schedule for November 11, 1993, 7: 00 P.M. at the Clyde Community Center. ***REFERRED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. /1- 74 LETTER dated October 30, 1993 , from Raymond H. Hawkins, 249 Lake Drive, Kensington 94708, requesting clarification of the Kensington Community Services District Ordinance 93-02 and Measure "U" on the November 2 , 1993 ballot relating to the special tax for police protection in Kensington. ***REFERRED TO COUNTY COUNSEL FOR RESPONSE. E ISORS October 30 , 1993 CONTBoard of Supervisors Contra Costa. County County Administration Bldg. 651 Pine Street Martinez , Calif. 94553 Honorable Supervisors: I am a resident of the unincorporated area of Kensington in Contra Costa County and also a resident of the Kensington Community Services District which put on the November 2 , 1993 ballot its Measure "U" which questions the voters whether the District 's Ordinance 93-02 should be confirmed. Upon confirm- ation, the District 's Board is allowed to increase a special tax for police protection in Kensington to certain maximum amounts set forth in the Ordinance and Measure "U" . Ordinance 93-02 amends Ordinance 80-01 as amended by Ordinance 84-01 . The final result is that Section 2 .A. allows the District 's Board to determine the amount of special tax on the Unimproved Property Class from zero to $63.00 . However, Ordinance 93-02 also provides that, except as provided in Ordinance 93-02 , all provisions of Ordinance 80-01 , as amended by Ordinance 84-01 , remain unchanged. Ordinance 93-02 did not change Section 2.B. which provides: "B. ' There shall be no special tax imposed on unimproved parcels of property." Thus , upon confirmation of Measure "U" the voters confirm Section 2 .B. again. So it would appear that until the voters approve otherwise the' District 's Board is limited to zero tax on the unimproved property class since 2.A. and 2 .B. are consistent exactly at zero tax. An analysis by the attorney for the District is included in the Voter's Pamphlet for Measure "U" . I understand that this attorney also prepared the District 's Ordinance 93-02. In the Voter's Pamphlet the attorney says that the new maximum rates would be collected in two installments: the first due at the end of December 1993; the second due on April 30; 1994. I count three installments--my current county tax bill includes this District 's special tax of $90.00 the first installment of which is due November 1 , 1993 and delinquent after December 10 , 1993 at 5 P.M. I question the truth of the attorney' s statement that the first installment is due at the end of December 1993. As I understand Ordinance X3-02 , the first installment is "collected in the same manner as a supplemental bill for ad valorem property taxes" , and wouldn' t this mean that the first install- ment would become delinquent after 5 P.M. on December 31 , 1993? Page One If my understanding is correct, then we look further into Ordinance 93-02 to find that the District's Board is authorized to determine the amount of the special tax up through December 31 , 1993 (ie . "prior to January 1 , 1994") . Thus , the District ' s Board is authorized to determine the amount of the tax at a time when the tax is already delinquent (ie . , between 5 F.M. and midnight on December 31 , 1993) . I cannot believe that the tax laws of this State would permit this . I also question the truth of the attorney' s statement that the second installment is due April 10, 1994 because Ordinance 93-02 which this attorney prepared says that the second installment is due March 1 , 1994 and delinquent at 5 P.M. on April 109 19T4. Ordinance 93-02 says that Section 6 of Ordinance 80-01 , as amended by Ordinance 84-01 , is amended by adding a sentence thereto. There are two Sections 6 in Ordinance 80-01 neither of which were amended by Ordinance 84-01 . Voters only approve amending that Section 6V of Ordinance 80-01 which was amended by Ordinance 84-01 . Since there is no such Section 6, has not a critical sentence been omitted from the Ordinance? I also question the truth of the attorney' s statement in the Voter's Pamphlet that homeowners over 62 with incomes below certain levels may postpone payment of the special tax for as long as they own and live in their home . The only provision I find in the California Constitution for postpone- ment in payment of taxes is Sec . 8.5 of Article XIII . That Section also includes the disabled but only permits deferrment of ad valorem property taxes--not special taxes . On the back of my Contra Costa County tax bill reference is made to the Gonzales-Deikmejian-Petris Senior Citizen Property Tax Assistance Law which provides cash reimbursement for part of property taxes on homes with filing period from May 17 through August 31 . The special tax of Ordinance 93-02 is not a property tax and the filing period is long expired. Moreover, this Law provides for reimbursement, not postponement. On the back of my said tax bill reference is also made to the Senior Citizens Property Tax Postponement haw and reference is only made to "taxes on their homes" . The claim period for 1993 runs from May 16 through December 10. The special tax of Ordinance 93-02 is not a property tax or a. tax on homes . There is also a period of time when the District' s Board could deter- mine the amount of the special tax which is too late for a qualified person to claim postponement. Under Ordinance 93-02 the District 's Board has up through December 31 , 1993 (ie . , prior to January 1 , 1994) to determine the amount of the special tax. Thus , if the Board determines the amount of the tax after December 10, 1993, postponement cannot be claimed. If the Board determines the tax on December 10 or shortly before , the qualified claimant is effectively denied the right to claim postponement since he/she is not given reasonable time to do so. Page Two I understand that Ray E. McDevitt. of the San Francisco Law Firm of Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus , Vlahos & Rudy is the attorney for the District who prepared Ordinance 93-02 and the attorney's statement in the Voter' s Pamphlet for Measure "U" . I therefore question: ( 1) Whether the District is not entitled to a full refund of all attorney fees it has paid said attorney and said law firm and to a cancellation of any unpaid fees with respect to the foregoing? (2) Whether the District is not entitled to recover from said attorney and said law firm all expenses the District has paid or incurred in placing Measure "U" on the ballot so that the District can use said funds to place a proper and corrective measure on the ballot at the next election? (3) Whether the District is not entitled to recoup from said attorney and said law firm all funds which the District may lose by reason of any defects in Ordinance 93-02 in the event that Measure "U" is confirmed by the voters? Since I am doubtful that the District's Directors would seek to accomplish this on their own volitioix, may I suggest that the Board of Supervisors use its persuasive powers under the authority of Government Code 25303. I do not believe that the Kensington residents should bear loss , either directly or indirectly through the District, for which they are not responsible . Furthermore the existence of the Kensington Police Department is in jeopardy. It needs all the funds it can get. Sincerly yours , kamn�Hk, 249 Lake Drive Kensington, Calif. 94708 510-526-6311 Copies to: Attorney General Kensington Community Service District Page Three