Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05101994 - 1.63 1.62 through 1.66 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF " CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on May 10,1994, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: CORRESPONDENCE Item No. 1.62 LETTER dated April 26, 1994, from S. Schlendorf, Chair, Contra Costa County Library Commission, commending the Board for its efforts to reach consensus on the future operation of the County Library system. ***ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT /1-63 LETTER-dated April 28, 1994,from C. Bates,Manager,Round Hill Estates Property Owners Association, P.O.Box 3428,Danville 94526,requesting an amendment to Ordinance 80-68 excluding common open space parcel from the special police tax assessment in County Service Area P5. ***REFERRED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND COUNTY COUNSEL 1.64 LETTER dated April 26, 1994,from J.Philbrick,Post Office Committee,Discovery Bay Municipal Advisory Council, 1957 Dolphin Place,Discovery Bay 94514,advising that Discovery Bay has recently been designated by the U.S. Postal Service as a separate mailing identity with assigned zip code 94514. ***REFERRED TO DIRECTOR,GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1.65 LETTER dated April 28, 1994, from R. Granzella,President,Richmond Sanitary Service,P.O.Box 4100, Richmond 94804,advising of its offer to several communities to accept their municipal waste at reasonable costs and with full environmental indemnity and making the same offer available to Contra Costa County. ***REFERRED TO DIRECTOR,GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1.66 LETTER dated April 28, 1994,from Pastor D.Jordan,Rollingwood Lutheran Church,2393 Greenwood Drive, San Pablo 94806,protesting a$112 charge for a fire inspection. ***REFERRED TO ACTING FIRE CHIEF,WEST COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT cc: GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY WEST COUNTY FIRE PROTECTYION DISTRICT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTY COUNSEL hereby certify that this i3 a true and correct copy of an action taken sots entered the date shown tes of the Board of Su ATTESTED: PHIL BATCHEL Clerk Admfnis slot of Supervisors and County Deputy 8Y Found Hill Estates North Property Owners Association [7 April 28, 1994 RECEIVED Jean, AM 2 9 (994 Clerk of The Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County CLERK BOARAOF SU VISORS 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 RE: SPECIAL DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS AGAINST ASSOCIATION COMMON PARCEL Dear Clerk of The Board of Supervisors, I ask your assistance in a matter that I now believe only The Board of Supervisors can ef- fectively cause to change. I have attached a copy of correspondence regarding the recent past history of what the Association believes is a double taxation that was never intended when The Board of Supervisors first established this District. A quick summary of the Association's position is that funds raised for Special Districts like the P-5 County Service Area for Police Services should not be from taxes levied against common held open spaces. This would result in double taxation for those people who are members of the Association. The Association's request has gone full gamut from the request of the Board in January 1993, through the Office of the Assessor, to the Advisory Committee for Special District P-5. I researched the Resolution and Ordinance that The Board of Supervisors used to create the District as well as the information in the Clerk of the Board's files. I have in- cluded copies here for your easy reference. In a letter dated August 23, 1979 from M. G. Wingett to the-Board of Supervisors the basis for calculating the special tax are detailed. You can see in the paragraph titled F. that it was never the intent to tax the "vacant un- buildable parcels". These Association Parcels are unbuildable due to the Restrictions placed on the land and recorded with the County Recorder as document 80 175778 as re- quired by the County Planning Department. Mr. Wingett's work was put into Resolution No. 72/176, which establishes the "County Service Area No. P-5" with a source of funds that will be from available taxes and an annual tax levied upon all taxable property. As we have said throughout all of our correspondence, the County Tax Collector recognizes that the Common Parcels of the Association are not taxable property; the value of the common parcels is reflected in the value of the property of the 154 Owners in the As- sociation and taxes levied against their real property. This Resolution was later icor- porated and adopted into Resolution No. 72/257 which was passed and adopted on April 18, 1972 by the Board of Supervisors. Then Ordinance No. 80-68 was passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The Round Hill Estates North Property Owners Association states that the intent of the tax is clearly laid out in the accompanying documents and it did not contemplate the in- clusion of the unbuildable parcels in this special tax. The Association would request that the special tax levied for the fiscal year July 1, 1992 and July 1, 1993 be removed along with all penalties accumulated since we first contacted Gayle Bishops office regarding c/o Jean Bates & Associates P.O. Box 3428, Danville, California 94526 (510) 736-2099 this tax in November of 1992. The Association would not request a refund of any special tax paid in prior years. The Association would request that all future taxes for this Dis- trict be set at $0.00 for the Association's common open space Parcels. If I may ask your consideration, I have drafted the additions and changes to the existing Ordinance that would clarify and specifically set this assessment at $0.00 for the twelve (12) Common Open Space Parcels. Add under ARTICLE 11. DEFINITIONS. 6. "Common Open Space Parcels" means the Parcels held in Common by an As- sociation which are unbuildable parcels as restricted by the Association's recorded documents. Common Open Space Parcels exclude any Parcels used for Commercial Recreational. Amend language under ARTICLE III. AMOUNT AND LEVY OF TAXES. 1. Parcels not used for commercial recreational purposes. Except as provided in 111.2 & IIIA, below, the tax on each parcel in the Service Area shall be a maximum of one hundred fifty dollars for each fiscal year. Prior to the end of each July, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County shall levy taxes upon the parcels in the Service Area for the then current fiscal year in amounts not exceeding such maximum per parcel. Add under ARTICLE III. AMOUNT AND LEVY OF TAXES. 4. The tax on each Common Open Space Parcel in the Service Area shall be zero percent of the tax levied under III.1, above, for other parcels. I am available to discuss this with you or anybody who is interested. I can tell you that I manage other Association's in Contra Costa County and do not have this type of double taxation on them. A prime example of a Special District that does not tax the Association is Blackhawk Homeowners Association and District P-2A. Sincerely, Ryfrd zatesz NORTH POA C Manager 2 Round Hill Estates North Property Owners Association February 4, 1994 f� CC Tom Powers Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street ; k Martinez, CA 95553 Uva. RE : SPECIAL DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS AGAINST ASSOCIATION COMMON PARCEL Dear Mr. Powers, I ask your assistance in a matter that I am now told only the Board of Supervisors can effectively cause to change. I have at- tached a history of correspondence which relates to what the As- sociation believes is double taxation. A quick summary of the Association' s position is that funds raised for Special Districts like the P75 County Service Area for Police services should not be from taxes levied against common held open spaces . This would result in double taxation for those people who are members of the Association. I do not wish to subject you to a voluminous letter reiterating all the points that build to this position . In the correspon- dence attached I have pleaded this case to Supervisor Shroeder, the County Assessor, the special district ' Committee, Supervisor Bishop and a year ago the Board of Supervisors . It is clear to me that the intention of the Board of Supervisors and those who formed this district never intended for these com- mon parcels to be taxed. The Association would ask the Board of Supervisors to correct this with an amendment to Resolution No. 72/176 . The purpose of the amendment would be to clearly exclude the common area parcels from this tax. ' I offer to make myself available to explain my position on this matter in whatever way is necessary. Sincerely, ROUND HILL ESTATES NORTH POA l/ Clifford J. Bates Manager ch Jean Bates & Associates P.O. Box 3428, Danville, California 94526 (510) 736-2099 Pound Hill Estates North Property Owners Association December 15, 1993 Sheila Arsedo Office of Gayle Bishop, County Supervisor 18 Crow Canyon Ct. , #120 San Ramon, CA 94583 RE : SPECIAL DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS AGAINST ASSOCIATION COMMON PARCEL Dear Ms . Arsedo, A year and more has passed since first objection to this tax on common parcels of the association was raised with Supervisor Shroeder ' s office . The Associations ' position for not paying this tax is clearly outlined in prior correspondence . Quiet simply this is double taxation and the ground work for the Dis- trict never intended to tax this open space. The Association is now in receipt of this years tax bill . Not only is this Police District still on the tax bill but now there is a Mosquito Abate- ment tax on each Parcel . It was my intention a year ago to also request removal of the LL2 Landscape Z36 tax. The logic of this taxation on open space of the Association follows the same argu- ment as I have outlined on the Police District Tax. This is not right and it is not how these districts taxes are levied in the other areas of the County that I have experienced them. The Association does not pride itself in being delinquent in this tax. I urge your active assistance in resolving this problem. Sincerely, ROUNDHILL ESTATES NORTH PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION /c ,, ,� Clifford J. Bates Manager do Jean Bates & Associates P.O. Box 3428, Danville, California 94526 (510) 736-2099 Gum SEP 2 t 1M CITIZENS POLICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ROUND HILL(P-5) P.O. BOX 995 ALAMO, CALIFORNIA 94507 September 16, 1993 Gayle Bishop, County Supervisor 18 Crow Canyon Ct. 11120 San Ramon, CA 94583 Dear Ms. Bishop: Please refer to the letter of September 7 from Clifford Bates to Sheila Arsedo concerning P-5 assessment on certain parcels in Round Hill Estates North. At the regular P-5 Committee meeting on September 14 , this subject was again discussed and it was agreed that County Ordinance #80-68 does not grant this advisory committee the authority to decide which parcels are taxable and which parcels are not taxable. There is no "confusion" on this point, nor are we "confused" on the ability of the Committee to "compromise on the amount of the assessment. " The ordinance states that "It is the purpose and intent to authorize the levy of a tax on parcels of real property that are listed on the secured property tax rolls. " It further states "parcel" means the land " . .designated by an assessor' s parcel map and a parcel number carried on the secured property tax roll of Contra Costa County. " The parcels in question are on the assessor' s map and do have a parcel number. It is also our belief that the parcel description stated as "vacant" or "unbuildable" is of no consequence, since the Ordinance clearly states that the tax is a levy on "parcels of real property" and not based on value. The Committee does not agree with Mr. Bates ' argument that the twelve parcels in dispute should be exempted from the service area special tax. These particular parcels require police surveillance as well as every other parcel within the P-5 boundaries. f ► Page 2 We regret being unable to resolve this dispute and feel that perhaps the County Counsel or the County Administrator should render a decision. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, L, L-.-,G lgand Chairman LGW/d cc: Clifford Bates, Manager Round Hill Estates North P.O.A. Round Hill Estates North Property Owners Association September 7 , 1993 Sheila Arsedo Office of Gayle Bishop, County Supervisor 18 Crow Canyon Ct. , #120 San Ramon, CA 94583 RE : SPECIAL DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS AGAINST ASSOCIATION COMMON PARCEL Dear Ms . Arsedo, I recently spent some time reviewing the County Board of Super- visors ' files at the Office of the Clerk of the Board. I believe I found sup_ nort to the Associations ' statement that the current payment of Special District Assessments is a form of double taxa- tion and was not the intention of the County when the County Service Area P-5 was formed. Resolution No. 721176 establishes the "County Service Area No . P-5 " with a source of funds will be from available taxes and an annual tax levied upon all taxable property. As we have said throughout all of our correspondence, the County Tax Collector recognizes that the Common Parcels of the Association are not taxable property; the value of the common parcels is reflected in the value of the property of the 154 Owners in the Association and taxes levied against their real property. This Resolution was later incorporated and adopted into Resolution No. 721257 which was passed and adopted on April 18 , 1972 by the Board of Supervisors . in a letter dated August 23, 1979 from M. G. Wingett to the Board of Supervisors the basis for calculating the special tax are detailed. You can see in the paragraph titled F . that it was never the intent to tax the "vacant unbuildable parcels" . These Association Parcels are unbuildable due to the Restrictions placed on the land and recorded with the County Recorder as docu- ment 80 175778 as required by the County Planning Department . On August 10th the Associations ' Board of Directors were given an opportunity to speak at the P-5 District meeting. The concerns for double taxation were well received by the appointed members of the District Advisory Committee present . There was confusion clo Jean Bates & Associates P.O. Box 3428, Danville, California 94526 (510) 736-2099 on their part as to the authority they may have in deciding what Parcels are to be included in the tax or their ability to com- promise on the amount of the assessment. The Round Hill Estates North Property Owners Association states that the intent of the tax is clearly laid out in the accompany- ing documents and it did not contemplate the inclusion of the un- buildable parcels in this special tax. The Association would re- quest that the special tax levied for the fiscal year July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 be removed along with all penalties accumu- lated since we first contacted Gayle Bishops ' Office regarding this tax in November of 1992 . The Association would not, at this time, request a refund of any special tax paid in prior years . The Association would request that all future taxes for this Dis- trict set the assessment at $0 . 00 for the Association Parcels . I appreciate your time and cooperation in seeing that this matter be properly resolved. Sincerely, ROUND HI,yL ESTATES NORTH POA Cliffor J. Bates Manager copy: RHENPOA Board of Directors L.G. Waigand, Chairman, P-5 Advisory Committee 2 ; IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Proposed ) RESOLUTION NO. 72/176 Formation of County Service ) Area No. P-5, Round Hill Area, ) (Gov. Code 25210.4, 25210.11, Alamo ) 25210.13, 25210.141 25210.15, 25210.165 NOTICE AND RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ESTABLISH COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. P-5, ROUND HILL AREA, ALAMO The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT: Notice is hereby given that on January 25, 1972, a resolutidn of application for the formation of proposed County Service Area P-5 in the Round Hill area was filed by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors with the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission. On March 1, 1972, the Local Agency Formation Commission approved the application. Therefore, this Board proposes that County Service Area No. P-5 be established pursuant to Chapter 2.2 (commencing with §25210.1) of the Government Code in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. The exterior boundaries of the territory proposed for inclusion in the area are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein.. The name proposed for the area is "County Service Area No. P-5." It is proposed that the extended police protection services be provided within the area. Except where funds are otherwise available from service charges collected pursuant to Section 25210.77a, a tax `sufficient to pay for all such services which are furnished on an extended basis will be annually levied upon all taxable property within such area. At 10:40 a.m. on Tuesday, April 18, 1972, in the Chambers of the Board of Supervisors, County Administration Building, Martinez, California, this Board will conduct a public hearing upon the proposed establishment of County Service Area No. P-5. At the hearing the testimony of all interested persons or taxpayers for or against the proposed establishment of County Service Area No. P-5, the extent of the area or the furnishing of the specified types of extended services will be heard. The Clerk of this Board is hereby directed to give notice of said proposed formation of County Service Area No. P-5 by publishing notice pursuant to Government Code Section 6061 in "The Contra Costa Times", a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the proposed County Service Area No. P-5. Publication shall be completed at least seven days prior to April 18, 1972. PASSED AND ADOPTED on March 14, 1972. CX)IT111ja Cory cc: Round Hill Homeowners Association '•••''fir '�•"�i•i•°1°° '"• °°"°°'°°"'���' County Sheriff-Coroner AM �.°•e_«J a.J.,..J a,,R,Ao..J.1 Sow••• County Administrator C... c.:;1,.,:. - ei. County Assessor / i.°.., ATT,ST,W.T.PAASCH..e...,•�••� ' � �.o)fao dnL o/ «iJ BooJ°� S.,w.;••••• RAB:mk MAR 1 4 1972 RESOLUTION NO. 72/176 IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ' In the Matter of the Formation ) RESOLUTION NO. 72/257 of County Service Area No. P-5, )_ Round Hill Area (Govt. Code 25210.17a, 25210.18) RESOLUTION APPROVING FORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. P-5 ROUND HILL AREA The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT: On Tuesday, April 18, 1972, pursuant to Resolution No. 72/176, this Board held a hearing on the proposed formation of County Service Area No. P-5 as described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. Notice of said hearing was duly given in the manner required by law. This Board at said hearing heard the testimony of all interested persons or taxpayers for or against the establishment of County Service Area No. P-5. Written protests against the establishment of the area, or against the extent to the area, or against the furnishing of specified types of extended services within the area, or against any other matters considered or resolved by this Board at this hearing on the establishment of the area, were not filed by fifty percent (50x) or more of the registered voters residing within the territory proposed to be included in the area, or by the owners of one-half or more of the value of the land and improve- ments in the territory proposed to be included in the area, as shown by the last equalized assessment roll. The services described in Resolution No. 72/176, adopted on March 14, 1972, are extended County services. A county service area to be known as "County Service Area No. P-5" is hereby established pursuant to the provisions of the County Service Area Law, Chapter' 2-2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of Title 3 (commencing with Section 25210.1) of the Government Code of the State of California, in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. The boundaries of County Service Area No. :P-5 are hereby determined and established to be as described in 'Exhibit "A", attached hereto- and by reference incorporated herein. The types of extended county services to be performed within County Service Area No. P-5- are-extended police protection services. PASSED AND ADOPTED on April 18, '1972, by this Board. RAB:me CAM1118D coPr ' 11.1 11.w�w.J Y.J•ILJ 1,14./I...J.�C.,.• 11/II. C_#_ CNIH L....,. C.'iJw.i4 M 14 J•1••1..,.ATTLET,V.T.PAASI:11.•..1,.1.4 . S w•.((7.7. •lw1 .� rdJ e...J.� 6.�w•7••r•.4 • 4w,•1w� RESOLUTION N0. 72/257 � 2_4 0 cc: State Board of Equalization f_ Round Hill Homeowners Assoc. Administrator Assessor Auditor Sheriff ORDINANCE NO. 80- 68 (An Ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County Authorizing a Special Tax for Police Protection in County Service Area P-5) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ORDAINS as follows: ARTICLE I. PURPOSE AND INTENT. It is the purpose and intent of this Ordinance to authorize the levy of a tax on parcels of real property on the secured property tax roll of Contra Costa County that are within County Service Area P-5 in order to augment funding for police protection. This tax is a special tax within the meaning of Section 4 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution. Because the burden of this tax falls upon property, this tax also is a property tax, but this tax is not determined according to nor in any manner based upon the value of property; this tax is levied on a parcel and use of property . basis. Insofar as not inconsistent with this Ordinance or with legislation authorizing special taxes and insofar as applicable to a property tax that is not based on value, such provisions of the California Revenue and Taxation Code and of Article XIII of the California Constitution as relate to ad valorem property taxes are intended to apply to the collection and administration of this tax (Article IV of this Ordinance) , as authorized by law. The revenues raised by this tax are to be used solely for the purposes of obtaining, furnishing, operating, and maintaining police protection equipment or apparatus, for paying the salaries and benefits of police protection personnel, and for such other police protection expenses as are deemed necessary. ARTICLE II. -DEFINITIONS. The following definitions shall apply throughout this Ordinance: 1. "Parcel" means the land and any improvements thereon, desig- nated by an assessor's parcel map and parcel number and carried on the secured_property tax-roll of Contra Costa County. For purposes of this Ordinance, parcel does not include any land or improvements outside the boundaries of County Service Area P-5 nor any land or improvements owned by any governmental entity. 2. "Fiscal year" means the period of July 1 through the fol- lowing June 30. 3. "Service Area" means County Service Area P-5. 4. "Ad valorem property taxes" or "ad valorem real property tax(,." means taxes imposed pursuant to Division 1, Property Taxation, of. the Revenue and Taxation Code of California on secured roll real P1:0L)r1_ty subject to being sold for delinquency of such taxes. 5. "Commercial recreational" use means a use of property where dues and/or fees are paid in order to use a recreational facility. Coi=crcial recreational properties include, but are not limited to, private golf courses, swimming pools, and clubs. ARTICLE III. A14OUNT AND LEVY OF TAXES. 1. Parcels not used for commercial recreational purposes. -1- ORDINANCE NO. 80- 68 Except as provided in III.2. , below, the tax on each parcel in the Service Area shall be a maximum of one hundred fifty dollars for each fiscal year. Prior to the end of each July, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County shall levy taxes upon the parcels in the Service Area for the then current fiscal year in amounts not exceeding such maximum per parcel. 2. Parcels used for commercial recreational purposes. The tax on each parcel in the Service Area used for commercial recreational purposes shall be two hundred forty percent of the tax levied under III.1. , above, for other parcels. Prior to the end of each July, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County shall levy taxes on the commercial recreational parcels in the Service Area for the then current fiscal year in such amounts. 3. The taxes levied on each parcel pursuant to this Section shall be a charge upon the parcel and shall be due and collectible as set forth in Article IV, below. A complete listing of the amount of taxes on each parcel shall be maintained by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa and be avail- able for public inspection during the remainder of the fiscal year for which such taxes are levied. ARTICLE IV. COLLECTION AND ADMINISTRATION. I. Taxes as Liens Against the Property. The amount of taxes for each parcel each year shall con- stitute a lien on such property, in accordance with Revenue and Taxation Code Section 2187, and shall have the same effect as an ad valorem real property tax lien until fully paid. 2. Collection. The taxes on each parcel shall be billed on the secured roll tax bills for ad valorem property taxes and shall be due the County of.Contra Costa. Insofar as feasible and insofar as not inconsistent with this Ordinance, the taxes are to be collected in the same manner in which the County collects secured roll ad valorem property taxes. Insofar as feasible and insofar as not inconsistent with this ordinance, the times and procedures regarding exemptions, due dates, installment payments, corrections, cancella- tions, refunds, late payments, penalties, liens, and collections for secured roll ad valorem property taxes shall be applicable to the collection of this tax. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing, as to this tax: 1) the secured roll tax bills shall be the only notices required for this tax, and 2) the home- owners and veterans exemptions shall not be applicable because such exemptions are determined by dollar amount of value. 3. Costs of Administration by County. The reasonable costs incurred by the County officers collecting and administering this tax shall be deducted from the collected taxes before remittal of the balance to the Service Area. ARTICLE V. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. If any article, section, subsection, sentence, phrase or clause of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity.of the remaining portion of this Ordinance. The voters of County Service Area P-5 hereby declare that they would have adopted the remainder of this Ordinance, including each article, section, subsection, -2- ORDINANCE NO. 80- (R• sentence, phrase or clause, irrespective of the invalidity of any other article, section, subsection, sentence, phrase or clause. ARTICLE VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its confirmation by two-thirds of the voters voting within the Service Area in an election to be held November 4, 1980, so that taxes shall first be collected hereunder for the tax year beginning July 1, 1981. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors, County of Contra Costa, State of California, on August 19, 1980, by, the following vote. AYES: Supervisors - T. Powers, R. I. Schroder, S. W. Me Peak, NOES: Supervisors - E. H. Hasseltine and N. C. Fanden. None. ABSENT: Supervisors - None. ATTEST: J. R. Olsson, County Clerk & ex officio Clerk of the Board Board air Deputy Diana M. Herman [SEAL] -3- ORDINANCE NO. 80- 6 Board of Supervisors ...County Administrator Contra Tom Powers est District Codnty Administration Building Costa Nancy C.Fanden Martinez,California 94553 2nd District (415)372-4080 County Robert 1.Schroder M. G.Wingett 3rd District County Administrator Sunne Wright MCPsak 4th District Eric H.Hasseltine 5th District August 23, 1979 RECEIVED AUG f= 1974 J.R. OLSSOr! Board of Supervisors CLERK gOAnDCFstsPf4vf;,^,I County Administration Building ay !J° ACWT Ca Martinez, CA. 94553 :"% Dear Board Members: RE: ADVISORY ELECTION FOR POLICE SERVICE CHARGES OR TAXES IN COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-5 Your Board at its August 21, 1979 meeting decided to call for an advisory election in County Service Area No. P-5 (Roundhill Area) for the purpose of allowing the voters of that area to voice their opinion on the proposal for charges or special taxes to finance expanded police services. . This action is in reply to a request from the Chairman of the Citizens Police Advisory Committee dated August 4 , 1979 in which he requested a patrol level of two and one-half positions and forwarded a petition signed by a substantial number of people in the area supporting this request and the proposal for special taxes to finance the request. Attached is a proposed Board resolution calling for the election and stating the ballot measure. In this report, we wish to document how the charges were calculated. It must be emphasized that should legislation authorizing these charges or taxes be adopted, they would have to be recalculated to conform to that new law. The proposed charges are in three categories and are predicated on a distribution of cost based on a ratio of police service benefits. The special tax or charge is the net cost after property taxes are deducted. 1. Residential property versus commercial property. Based on the recommendation of the Sheriff which takes into consideration calls for service and crime prevention activities the net cost of the requested service is prorated. with 90 percent to residential and 10 percent to commercial (golf course, club house, tennis courts, and one office building) . -2- 2. Residential property. The residential share (90%) of the net cost is divided equally between all developed residential parcels. No charge for vacant residential parcels is proposed for reasons of administrative convenience. 3. Office Building. The one developed commerical parcel which is used as an office building is proposed for a charge equal to the individual residential property charge. 4 . Golf Course, Club House, and Tennis Courts. The proposed commercial share of the net cost, minus the charge for the office building has been divided equally between the country club parcels (14) . Summary of Estimated Charges of Special Taxes for County Service Area P-5 A. Estimated Cost $115, 279 The Office of the Auditor-Controller estimated the cost for the requested level of service, based on the Board's police service costing policy for all of fiscal year 1979-80.. B. Estimated Property Taxes $ 20, 847 On the assumption that P-5 will continue to receive its pro-rata snare of property taxes, these taxes (estimated by the Office of the Auditor-Controller) are deducted from the full cost of the requested level of service. C. Net Cost for Charge or Special Tax Financing $ 94, 432 Estimated Total Cost $115,279 Estimated Property Taxes 20,847 $ 94,432 D. Total Net Charge to Residential Properties $ 84,988. 80 . 90 x 94,432 = $ 84 , 988 . 80 E. Total Net Charge to Commercial Properties $ 9,443.20 .10 x 94 ,432 = $ 9, 443. 20 -3- F. Charge Per Individual Single Family Residential $ 197.19 Dwelling Based on records in the Office of the County Assessor as of July 20, 1979 there are 431 residential dwellings, 42 vacant residential parcels, and 15 vacant unbuildable parcels. We are proposing to charge only the 431 residences. Total residential charge of $84, 988. 80 (as described in section D above) divided by 431 developed residential parcels. G. Charge for Office Building Parcel $ 197.19 The same charge as for residential parcels is proposed for the one property. H. Charge per Golf and Tennis Country Club Parcel $ 660.43 The 10 percent share for commercial property of $9,443.20 (as described in section E above) , minus the charge for the office building ($197.19) was divided equally among the 14 parcels as shown in the Assessor's records of July 20, 1979. 1. $9,443. 20 - 197.19 = $9,246. 01 2. $9, 246.01 14 parcels = $660.43 Respectfully, M. G. Wingett County Administrator MJN:cjc By F. Fernandez cc: Mr. George Dirth, Chairman Citizens Police Advisory Committee Mr. Roy Towers, Roundhill Estates Sheriff-Coroner Auditor-Controller County Counsel County Clerk-Recorder LAFCO Executive Officer Round Hill Estates North Property Owners Association July 6, 1993 L.G. Waigand, Chairman, P-5 Advisory Committee 2355 Royal Oak Drive Alamo, CA 94507 Dear Mr. Waigand, Enclosed is the map we discussed on the phone today. I have high- lighted the common areas of the Association. You'll note that the majority of these Lots are surrounded by private property and not accessible to the public. The Covenants Conditions & Restrictions of our association do not allow any subdivision or development of these common parcels. You have commented on the similarity of the police tax levied on these common areas as that levied on the golf course. Of course, the decision to be a Golf & Tennis Club member is voluntary, unlike the Association's membership. I am certain that you would find the golf course also pays property tax on their property. Homeowners associations in this County do not. I appreciate your review of this matter. Sincerely, ROtJNDHILISTATES NORTH POA XW/// Ll� Clifford J. Bates, PCAM® Manager c/o Jean Bates & Associates P.O. Box 3428, Danville, California 94526 (510) 736-2099 Round Hill Estates North Property Owners Association March 2, 1993 Bud Wagon 2355 Royal Oak Alamo, CA 94507 Dear Mr. Wagon, I appreciate the time you spent on the phone with me discussing the Police District tax that has been levied against the common area parcels within the homeowners association. Thank you for the invitation to the next Police District advisory meeting. I will be there as soon as my schedule allows, I will be at another meeting that begins at 7:00 P.M.. Listed here are the Assessor Parcel Numbers involved; 193-680-015-8 193-680-016-6 193-680-039-8 193-680-040-6 193-690-017-2 193-690-023-0 193-690-057-8 193-690-058-6 193-700-026-1 193-700-038-6 193-700-039-4 193-710-023-6 This property is common open space property owned by the association. These bills create a type of double taxation which is not the common practice of this County. From our office we manage many associations in the County and no other pays this type of common area tax for police services or any other County services; some of those associations are Bryan Ranch, Canyon Lakes, Roundhill, Stonegate and Magee Ranch. Recently, a delinquent penalty has been added to each of these bills. We had not ignored the original bills, but had been communicating with Bob Schroeder's office and had anticipated notification of this question being placed on the Board's agenda. With the recent replacement of Bob Schroeder, Gayle Bishop's office suggested we correspond with the Board of Supervisors in a letter. That was done and a response was sent by the Office of Assessor which stated the need for our speaking direct with your Special District Board which has the authority to adjust the assessment with the County Auditor. For the Board of Directors ROUNDHILL ESTATES NORTH POA Clifford J./Bates Manager c/o Jean Bates & Associates P.O. Box 3428, Danville, California 94526 (510) 736-2099 ContraJohn L. Masotti Costa Of f tce of Assessor Assessor County • 834 COURT STREET • MARTINEZ.CALIFORNIA 94553-1795 • (510)313-7400 • — D [E 0 Y Es j FEB 110 ' J � January, 25, 1993 Round Hill Estates North Property Owners Assn. c/o Jean Bates & Associates P.0. Box 3428 Danville, CA 94526 Attn: Clifford Bates, Manager I am responding to your letter to the Board of Supervisors regarding the Special District assessments on the common area parcels in Roundhill. These assessments are being levied by the respective Special Districts and any disputes would be handled by the district itself. Even if the assessments are based on the Assessor's "Use Code" the district can adjust the assessment with the County Auditor. Very truly yours, DONALD A. BURRISTON Assistant Assessor, Valuation DAB:bcm encl cc: Gayle Bishop, Supervisor Clerk of the Assessment Appeals Board A . . -Round Hill Estates North Property Owners Association January 21, 1993 Board of Supervisors 651 Pine,#106 Martinez, CA 94553 To Whom It May Concern: I ask your assistance in correcting an inequity in the tax bill recently received for the following land; Assessor Parcel Number. 193-680-015-8 193-680-016-6 193-680-039-8 193-680-040-6 193-690-017-2 193-690-023-0 193-690-057-8 193-690-058-6 193-700-026-1 193-700-038-6 193-700-039-4 193-710-023-6 This property is common open space property owned by the Association. The tax bill is for the local Police District and the Boulevard of Trees Project. These bills create a type of double taxation which is not the common practice of this County. From our office we manage many associations in the County and no other pays this type of common area tax; some of those associations are Bryan Ranch, Canyon Lakes, Roundhill, Stonegate and Magee Ranch. Recently, a delinquent penalty has been added to each of these bills. We had not ignored the original bills, but had been communicating with Bob Schroeder's office and had anticipated notification of this question being placed on the Board's agenda. With the recent replacement of Bob Schroeder, Gayle Bishop's office suggest we correspond with the Board in this form. The Board-of Directors of the Roundhill Estates North Property Owners Association request you consider waiving these taxes and penalties in their entirety. The 154 members in this Association already support these services through the taxes on their Property. Sincerel h ord J. Bates,PCAM® Manager c/o Jean Bates & Associates P.O. Box 3428, Danville, California 94526 (510) 736-2099