The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 02281995 - S.1 �o -K-SB-14-1995 '62:02 SUPERVISOR TORLAKSON 5164278142 P.07 S . TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra ' Costa FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson County DATE: February 21, 1995 SMECT: REFER TO FINANCE COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER CHANGE TO SPECIAL POLICE SERVICES TAXES POLICY SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATIONS)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to the Finance Committee to consider a change in the policy requiring special police service tax areas in every new county subdivision that would establish a threshold of"5 units or more.". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Please reference the attached correspondence from The Contra Costa Taxpayers Association requesting consideration of this policy change. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: _RECOMMENDATION QF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIONATURF,(S) ACTION OF BOARD ONX1995 � APPROVED AS RECOMMENorm OTHER �- VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON'THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED FEB 2 8 1995 PHIL BATCI1ELOP,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY ,DEPLrrY FEB-14-1995 02:03 SUPERVISOR TORLAKSON 5104278142 P.08 TAXPAYERS BOX 27 . MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA 94553 • 610-228-6610 November 16, 1994 OFRICQRB Clod"prlbban President L way"e owner N.nry Thalehur vica israatdartttt Mr. Tom Torl akson SoCrotary/Troksumir JohnWotta Supervisor, District 5 EsecoveVice 0maidonlContra Costa County otR>EMORa 300 E. Leland Ave. , Suite 100 82210ttMa Pittsburg, California 94565 Donald Anthony 11111Wor Dear Supervisor Torlakson: t;,orl�reaaman Ronald 8utlth1mor wiillamt:vans This is to request a change in the policy requiring special police service OWplavena taxes in every new county subdivision. When originally adopted in 1987, � .10"I " this policy applied only to new residential developments of S units or O ++L%" more in East County. The "5 units or more" threshold was dropped in Paul Lets, 1992 when the policy was extended countywide (except for Kensington) _ Goorpe*per D,.nrs44 This lark of a threshold causes unreasonable hardships to minor sub- callplany, divisions of existing single family lots in predominantly built out Bili Reran Ca"ftgri areas. Not only is a 4-unit developer now required to pay the same tynenaTa"ne? $800 special election fee charged a 400-unit developer but the residents of these new "fill-in" homes find themselves alone in paying a $2?5 av�uuu annual special tax for the same police services received by their Pant LambtNrtaulembofe un-taxed ,neighbors. P Louie mervinl ,vItcttaatvt,l�a h Here's a current example. The owner of a 1.84 acre parcel wants to subdivide it into four residential parcels and replace the existing residence for his own use. This property is located in a 300 acre 11arry^0006 county encY lave surrounded b the City of Concord (southeast of Sailey John Bal:iper wiluamopmor Road approximately one-half mile north of Clayton Road). Under theJenyDannam original , pre-1992 policy, subdivider was exempt from the spec ialr„ ,�„ Claud*Nemlr police services tax requirement. tinder the current policy, he is i tea °*uwi* obligated to impose the new tax not only on the three new parcels he AcbenBchroder is creating but also on the fourth remaining parcel where he is replacing the, existing residence. mid t DarraltOWN" Without addressing the questionable policy of creating discrete police t*arecnroa"'` service district zones one lot at a time, it i s. cl ear that the replace- Ralph Johnson ment residence and the three new ones will not enjoy any greater level US#KinimaRa of police services., by virtue of the special taxes levied on them. La Koo" Indeed, the background statement to the August 11, 1992, action elimi- oonsiinpaa nating the 115-unit" threshold noted: "To date, none of the proceeds John aloauntt ft Palo) from the tax has been utilized to augment police services in the umdaft"an unincorporated area. " Dennis Slatke The August 11, 199?, remarks endorsing the recommended action noted that the County Finance Committee members "were concerned with the I I FEB-14-1995 02:04 SUPERVISOR TORLAKSON 5104275142 P.09 A. impact of budget Cuts on Sheriff's Patrol as well as concern for overall County tax equity." Their first concern has been addressed by the voters' statewide approval of Proposition 172, a Constitutional sales tax increase earmarked for police services. Their other concern, that of equity, may justify the extension of the policy countywide but not the removal of the minor subdivision exclusion which creates more inequities than it resolves. Building-out existing residential areas and the replacement of existing residences makes for more efficient use of existing infrastructure while generating additional top value property taxes to support required services. To impose an t additional special tax burden on only those homes creates an inequity f that cannot be justified. ' Since you, Supervisor Torlakson, were the author of the original policy, I respectfully request that you recommend to the Board of Supervisors a return to the original guidelines that excluded minor ivisions. The reason for it is as valid now as it was in 2987. Please call me if you would like to discuss this further. our very truly, t� ohn I. Wolfe, Jr. Executive Vice President JIW:cw cc: Supervisor Powers Supervisor Smith Supervisor Bishop Supervisor DeSaulnier Val Alexeeff, Director, GMEDA C t ** TOTAL PAGE • 03 * I