HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06241997 - C145-C149 TO: CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY e� �• Contra
ltd
Costa
FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR c= ��;n° County
DATE: June 24, 1997 osr th7�1
SUBJECT: FINANCING OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM; APPROVAL OF LEASE AND
CONTRACT WITH CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION(S):
ADOPT a resolution approving the issuance of bonds not to exceed $2,600,000 to finance the acquisition of a
telephone system; and
APPROVE the use of Orrick,Herrington&Sutcliffe for bond and tax counsel and Cooperman& Dudick as financial
advisors; and
APPROVE the telecommunication services and equipment lease between the Authority and the Contra Costa
Authority ; and
AUTHORIZE the Chair or any Authority Officer to execute all contracts and documents necessary for the bond
issuance and telecommunications services and lease agreement; and
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The issuance of lease revenue bonds by the Contra Costa Public Financing Authority will secure the funding required
for Contra Costa County to prepay the extension of the CENTREX telecommunications contract with Pacific Bell.
This will result in lower costs for each CENTREX line and an estimated savings of approximately $724,500 over the
life of the contract extension term of 3.5 years. All costs associated with the bond issuance will be funded by bond
proceeds.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X_YES SIGNATURE:
COMMENDATION OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
APPROVE _OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_.4,ebTHER
VOTE OF DIRECTORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT 1 A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF
AYES: ' NOES: AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE OF THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Carol Chan,335-1021
ATTESTED
PHIL BATCHELW SECRETAY
cc:CAO
Auditor-Controller t
County Counsel
GSD
Redevelopment BY DEPUTY
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS AND BACKGROUND-
The current CENTREX contract between the County and Pacific Bell for telecommunication network services
ends December 10, 1997. Staff from both General Services and Information Technology departments studied
various alternatives and concluded that extension of the CENTREX contract for an additional 3.5 years was the
most viable, efficient and fiscally sound alternative. The use of lease revenue bonds issued by the Contra Costa
Public Facilities Authority to prepay the contract will provide tax-exempt funding and secure the lowest interest
rate. Under the contract extension,the County will receive an increase of CENTREX lines from 3,663 to 4,475 ,
while the monthly cost per line will decrease from the current$15.32 to $12.95 per line.
Approval of the above recommendations will allow for the members of the Authority to continue to receive
uninterrupted CENTREX services with the additional benefits and cost savings as described.
RESOLUTION NO.97 359
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA FINANCING
AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF NOT TO EXCEED
$2,600,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ITS LIMITED OBLIGATION BONDS,
1997 SERIES A (CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROJECT) TO
FINANCE THE ACQUISITION OF A TELEPHONE SYSTEM INCLUDING
TELECOMMUNICATIONS LINES AND EQUIPMENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A BOND ISSUANCE AND PAYING AGENT
AGREEMENT, AN AGREEMENT FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES AND
EQUIPMENT LEASE, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Joint Powers Act, comprising
Article 1, Article 2, Article 3 and Article 4 of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 (commencing
with Section 6500) of the Government Code of the State of California(the "Act"), the County of
Contra Costa and the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the "Redevelopment
Agency") entered into a joint exercise of powers agreement(the "Joint Powers Agreement")
pursuant to which the County of Contra Costa Financing Authority (the "Authority") was
organized;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 4 of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title I of the
Government Code of the State of California (the "Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985")
and the Joint Powers Agreement, the Authority is authorized to issue bonds for financing public
capital improvements, working capital, liability and other insurance needs, or projects whenever
there are significant public benefits;and
WHEREAS, the County of Contra Costa(the "Borrower") has requested that the
Authority issue and sell its bonds in one or more series designated as the County of Contra Costa
Public Financing Authority Limited Obligation Bonds, 1997 Series A(Contra Costa County
Telecommunications Project) (the 'Bonds") to assist in the acquisition of a telephone system
involving the provision of Centrex lines and the services relating to such lines and other telephone
related services (the "Project"), all as required to be provided to the County pursuant to a
contract between the County and Pacific Bell; and
WHEREAS, the Authority, based on the information provided in the application
by the Borrower with respect to the Project, has made certain determinations with respect to
public benefits that may be derived from the financing of the Project and the qualification of the
Project for financing under the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Authority desires to enter into a Bond Issuance and Paying Agent
Agreement (the 'Bond Issuance Agreement") with Cypress Coast Bank, as Paying Agent with
respect to the Bonds (the 'Paying Agent"); pursuant to which the Paying Agent will execute and
deliver the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Authority desires to enter into an Agreement for
Telecommunications Services and Equipment Lease(the "Agreement") with the County, pursuant
1
to which the Authority will provide the Project to the County and the County will agree to make
payments to the Authority for the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985 and the
Joint Powers Agreement, the Authority is further authorized to sell the Bonds to public or private
purchasers at negotiated sale; and
WHEREAS, the Authority desires to sell not to exceed $2,600,000 aggregate
principal amount of Bonds by negotiated sale to such purchaser(s) to be determined by the
County and the Authority (the "Underwriters"); and
WHEREAS, there has been presented to this meeting the following documents and
agreements:
(1) A proposed form of the Bond Issuance Agreement; and
(2) A proposed form of the Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the
County of Contra Costa Financing Authority, as follows:
Section 1. Orrick, Herrington &Sutcliffe is appointed as bond counsel and
Cooperman &Dudick is appointed as financial advisor in connection with the instant transaction.
Section 2. The Authority authorizes the financing of the Project and in order to
accomplish the same, there is hereby authorized the issuance of not to exceed$2,600,000 County
of Contra Costa Financing Authority Limited Obligation Bonds, 1997 Series A (Contra Costa
County Telecommunications Project) of the Authority. Any Member of the Authority is hereby
authorized to execute said Bonds by manual or facsimile signature and the Secretary of the
Authority is hereby authorized to countersign said Bonds by manual or facsimile signature. The
Bonds, when so executed,shall be delivered to the Paying Agent for authentication. The Paying
Agent is hereby requested and directed to authenticate the Bonds by executing the Paying Agent's
certificate of authentication appearing thereon and to deliver the Bonds when duly executed and
authenticated to the Underwriters in accordance with the written instructions executed on behalf
of the Authority.
Section 3. The proposed form of Bond Issuance Agreement between the
Authority and the Paying Agent, as presented to this meeting, is hereby approved and any
Member of the Authority is hereby authorized to execute and deliver said Bond Issuance
Agreement in substantially the form hereby approved,with such changes therein as shall be
approved by the Member of the Authority executing the same,such approval to be conclusively
evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof.
Section 4. The proposed form of the Agreement between the Authority and the
County, as presented to this meeting,is hereby approved and any Member of the Authority is
hereby authorized to execute and deliver said Agreement in substantially the form hereby
approved, with such changes therein as shall be approved by the Member of the Authority
2
executing the same, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery
thereof.
Section 5. The Chairman, the Vice Chairman, the Secretary, the Executive
Director, the Assistant Executive Director and the Deputy Executive Director of the Authority,
and other appropriate officers and agents of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed,
jointly and severally, for and in the name and on behalf of the Authority, to execute and deliver
any and all documents,including,without limitation,any and all documents and certificates to be
executed in connection with securing credit support for the Bonds or private placement of the
Bonds, and to do any and all things and take any and all actions which may be necessary or
advisable, in their discretion, to effectuate the actions which the Authority has approved in this
Resolution.
Section 6. All actions heretofore taken by the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, the
Secretary, the Executive Director,the Assistant Executive Director,the Deputy Executive
Director, Members of the Authority, and other appropriate officers and agents of the Authority
with respect to the issuance of the Bonds are hereby ratified,confirmed and approved.
3
Section 7. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the County of Contra
Costa Financing Authority this 24th day of June, 1997.
I, the undersigned, the duly appointed, and qualified Secretary of the County of
Contra Costa Financing Authority, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was
duly adopted by the Board of Directors of said Authority at a duly called meeting of the Board of
Directors of said Authority held in accordance with law on June 24, 1997.
By: �k;
, Secretary
County of Contra Costa
Financing Authority
4
C.146, C.147, C.148, and C.149
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 24, 1997 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber, Canciamilla, and DeSaulnier
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Correspondence
C.146 LETTER, dated June 16, 1997, from G. Soehngen, 92 Carlisle Way, Benicia, CA 94510,
requesting assistance with a foreclosure resolution on property located at 2000 Pereira
Road, Martinez.
*****REFERRED TO ASSESSOR AND TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR
C.147 LETTER, dated June 13, 1997, from Robert J. Schneck, Jr., 200 Rector Place, 4x,New
York,New York 10280, requesting police assistance in controlling vandalism and other
forms of criminal behavior in the vicinity of a home he owns at 905 Chanslor Avenue,
Richmond.
*****REFERRED TO SHERIFF-CORONER
C.148 LETTER, dated June 12, 1997, from the Contra Costa County Human Relations
Commission, 2020 North Broadway, Suite 203A, Walnut Creek, CA 94596,
recommending the continuation of a Newcomer Project and an expenditure of
approximately $4,000 for research and grant writing services to highlight the
contributions and improve the quality of life for legal immigrants in the County.
*****REFERRED TO FINANCE COMMITTEE
C.149 LETTER, dated June 12, 1997, on behalf of A. & E. Reinstein, from Law Office of D.
John Thornton& Associates, P.A., P. O. Box 7156, Boise, Idaho, 83702-7067, requesting
modification to Land Conservation Contract (Agricultural Preserve No. 20-70) dated
February 28, 1970.
*****REFERRED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above recommendations as noted (*****) are
APPROVED.
I asraey ceray diet We to a ave and coi espy of
an actlon taken and entered a the minutes of "
c.c. Correspondents (4) Bard of supervlwra on the data steam.
Assessor arEs - oP i /99'/
rCHElOR Gadc of the board
Treasurer-Tax Collector a1sqwvbw ��
�� ` �ro
Sheriff-Coroner
Finance Committee
Community Development Director
C. 144
George Soehngen
92 Carlisle Way
Benicia Ca, 94510
June 16, 199/
Fax/Pho 510-372-0517
Board of Supervisor
651 Pine St. Rm. 108A
Martinez, Ca 94553
Re: Emergency Appeal -- Foreclosure resolution
APN 362 --240 - 007
Dear Board of Supervisor Gail Uilkema;
'pith apoloqv to you for this urgency, L am requesting your consideratise,
of the followinq urgent matter in your general meeting tomorrow,
5/17/97 .
The urgency is based on the Assessors failure to respond to any
communications sent since February of chis year, exceptwith a notice
of intent to foreclose, effective in two weeks. I request you read the
underfyinq issues. You willtind that a real issue was presented. to -nt
assessor, and you will find that the Assessor denied me a legitimate
response. 1 request that in your meeting that you resolve to allow six
months time to resolve the underlying issue, and appoint a responsible
person or persons to address the underlyinq issues. I am attachi.nq a
copy of the letters that were submitted addressing this issue.
1'he _underlyirnq Issues;
I had purchased a 160 acre of nearly raw land in 1980. I reside on this
land. This land was purchased with a small down payment in cash, and a
large purchase money promissory note. I had assumed a purchase money
note with the knowledge that Land mortgagees are extremely expensive
compared to cash or residential mortgages. The cash equivalent of the
purchase price was less than half the face amount of the purchase
contract.
The tax assessor was aware of the facts of the sale as the deed of trust
was recorded. However, several visits to the Assessors Office have
revealed that the assessor typically takes the face price of the sale
and charges taxes on that sum as if that sum were the cash equivalent.
That appears to be the case here. In my case that sum would more than
twice the cash equivalent value. Taxes can only be charged on the cash
equivalent purchase price at the time of purchase. However, neither has
the Assessor established the cash equivalent of the purchase, nor has
the Board of Equalization ever equalized the property. Though a tax
charge is appropriate, a tax charged without establishing the cash basis
of the purchase or an equalization, is illegal.
Late last year I had come upon information that when applied to my
taxes, made the taxes which the Assessor charged, incorrect. In February
of this year I again requested, this time by letter, that I be given
the basis of the tax assessors charges. I requested by letter that the
method and model of tax assessment be provided to me. I further
requested that the Assessor supply the legal basis of his charges and to
thereafter review the amounts of taxes that were actually due. I further
presented information that according to my information, I had been
vastly overcharged, requiring a net refund today, Also I offered to
present the legal basis of my conclusions. I sent two follow up letters,
and two letters to Supervisor Uilkema, where her office recommended
filling for this emergency appeal.
Though these letters were addressed to the Tax Assessor and one to the
Board of Equalization, I requested that a copy of all information be
delivered to the Board of Equalization. Not one letter which I had
delivered, had been responded to. I received one pretty much form letter
from Appraiser Dawkin, addressing no issue I presented. However, I
received the notice of intent to foreclose from the Tax Collector. I can
only consider such a response a punitive action of the Assessor to my
inquiries.
2
All charged taxes were paid until 1992. The amount of taxes that I had
paid, by my calculations is several times what I might owe in total, to
today's date. }`i- a--te. Accordingly I am owed a refund. However,
the Assessor is instead demanding more taxes. If the basis of my tax
charges has never been determined, who is to say what if any taxes are
still owed today? Any double taxation is illegal and void. The Assessor
also has no authority to charge and to collect taxes that have already
been paid, in fact to the contrarv. A tax so charged is considered a
fraudulent charge. It is also beyond the bounds of discretion of the
Assessor to determine what portion of the taxes were legally charged
without the equalization. Obviously, we need a resolution. Only you, or
the courts can now resolve how to proceed dealing with this matter. I
suggest, that we resolve the issues in cooperation.
Requested Resolution:
I am not requesting that the amount of taxes actually due be decided at
this meeting, but I am requesting that because of the continued lack of
good faith communication, that is, no communication at all, from the
Assessor's Office, that the Board of Supervisors passes a motion to stay
the foreclosure by six months, and further, that the Board passes a
motion assigning a responsible person or persons who will reliably deal
with the underlying problem, earnestly seeking a resolution within the
next six months. Only if a resolution cannot be reached should this
matter may be appropriate for a court action.
I have however, as of yesterday, initiated procedures that will result
in a court action. The action is in mandamus to stop the foreclosure.
Though writs generally have a poor record of being heard, this writ must
be heard as a matter of right. The courts are able to stop a demanded
double payment of taxes. Using the court, however, is incredibly
wasteful use of my energies, resources and any good will, and causing
great anxieties. This extra price in effort and expense is not a fair
price to pay for just owning property. This is not a fair dealing of the
Assessor. His actions are purely punitive at this point, denying me anv
3
response, and acting against the law in the underlying case, by failing
to make a determination of cash equivalent basis of my purchase, then
charging taxes without any established basis.
My initiated legal action will only stop the foreclosure. A follow-up
action will have to deal with the underlyinq issues. Both of our
energies and expenses will be spent needlessly dealing through a third
party, not because there is an irresolvable dispute, but because the
Assessor has failed to show any good faith effort at even attempting a
resolution. Ultimately though, it is still the Board of Equalization's
job, and maybe not the Assessor and certainly not the court's job to
establish the cash basis and asses taxes according to proof. I see no
reason why the court should be involved at this point, where the court
can only cause additional and undue burdens on your department, and
myself. However, I also see no choice unless the Board, namely
yourselves, pass the requested resolutions.
The time has run out. As of July 1, the assessor will be pursing the
sale of my property. A foreclosure sale is of course a final sale. I
will be pursuing legal remedies all the way. First to stop the
foreclosure, then to enforce a legitimate assessment, if time allows, or
to seek damages for an illegal foreclosure sale if that should happen.
If the board does not come up with a stay the foreclosure order, and an
order to some designated party in tax collection machinery to attempt a
resolution with two willing parties, resolution can only be reached
through the courts.
I look forward to a positive action from this meeting and thank you in
advance for your consideration.
Sincerely
George Soehngen
enclosure: 1997 correspondence : Assessor, Soehngen. .
4
George Soehngen
92 Carlisle ways
C ;I
Benicia, Ca. 94510
2/10/97
Contra Costa Tax assessors
Gentleman
I am having serious questions regarding the tax assessment for my land
at 2000 Pereira rd, Martinez. For purposes of correcting any errors, I
am submitting the following:
Since repeated telephonic requests over the years have failed to give me
a legal basis for your assessments, I have and will pay any taxes only
under protest until full clarity and justifications for your assessments
are provided, in writing, and the property has been equalized. I further
request to know the exact methods, and models, your are using to assess,
for example any cash purchase comparable as your basis, capitalization
rates, income multipliers, or any other methods which you are using for
the assessments. Please provide a full legal explanation for your use
of these methods, and models.
Please also be informed that I purchased the property in 1980 for the
cash equivalent of under $450,000. The only income at time of purchase
was $2000 annually for grazing rights. Furthermore, the land, contrary
to the sellers disclosures was largely destroyed due to an unmitigated
erosion problem. It was, and is virtually useless for any net income
generating purposes. That repair requires several hundred thousand. A
true cash value of the property when purchased was maybe $250,000.
Considering that prop 13 allowed a 1% tax rate, and increases of 2% per
year max. , the taxes today would then be around $3, 432 per year. I will
supply more accurate values after your submittal of your assessment
information. I continue to expect my homeowners exemptions as I do
reside on the premesis.
Needless to say, the yearly rising tax bills put a great financial and
emotional stress on me, especially since these enormous bills were
unexpected on purchase, and the county had repeatedly failed to- justify
these charges. Based on another matter, I have just come upon
information that I was grossly overcharged, and seek to correct these
overcharges most expeditiously.
Sincerely
George Soehngen
APR 18 1,997 George Soehngen
E 92 Carlisle ways
y K` ;;rc Benicia, ca. 94510
—ISIS
...-�.�.r._..._._..._..-...... 411$197
Contra Costa Board of Equalizers
RE APN 362-140-007-0
Dear Board of Equalization;
This letter is to address the property tax assessment of 2000 Pereira
Rd. in Martinez. It has recently come to my attention that the county
has grossly erred since the inception of my purchase, and I have been
overcharged property taxes manifold since that time. The country had
never made an equalization assessment of my property. The county simply
took the face value of the purchase money note as the value upon which
to charge taxes.
It is the duty of the board of equalization to equalize the cash value
of all properties; and can act only on the basis of evidence. If the
board acted without performing its duties in assessment, the board did
not perform its ,duties, and when there is no legal basis for its tax
charges, those charges are therefore void.
Based on prop 13, all property is to be taxed on 18 of its cash value at
date of purchase, with up to 28 increases allowed each year. By law, it
does not follow that the cash value of a purchase is the face value of a
purchase money note. The county must, but did not, make a good faith
effort to follow procedures and asses a property correctly. The tax
finally charged may be considered a fraud. For this reason, I am seeking
a tax assessment and a correction of your tax charges from the date of
purchase, and not for just the recent years. I am also 'seeking a tax and
penalty refund, with interest, for the same time period.
The county records show that my property was purchased 1) in 1980, and
2) with a purchase money note, and 3) zoned A-4, and 4) With an ongoing
1
illegal and unmitigated top soil mining operation. The property is still
zoned open space, A-4, though no longer under the Williamson act.
The tax assessment must reflect the purchase value in 1980. That value
is determined in part by each the cash value of the purchase money note,
the open space assessment, and the depreciated value of the huge
resultant erosion problem due to the unmitigated and undisclosed soil
removal.
The purchase money note may be converted to its cash equivalent. Normal
land loans cover only half the land value, and then as now, cost an
effective 17%/year, that is, 12% interest plus 12 points in advance. A
refinance is further required every three years. since 200k was paid
down, a loan would have covered an additional 200k. By this standard the
land was worth $400k. When the amortization schedule of the purchase
note is compared with the amortization of a normal land .loan, the land
would be worth approximately $450A. On these basis the property taxes
would today be between $5,491 and $6177, and not some $13000. However,
this is not the end of the story.
Your records further show that the county issued one letter citing an
illegal soil removal operation. On purchase I was not informed of the
illegal nature and was not aware that the sellers failure to mitigate
the removal would cause an ongoing erosion problem that would cost
several hundred thousand to fix today. The county not only failed to
follow up on the illegal removal operation cite, and therefore this
operation continued for years more, but also failed demand a mitigation
and failed to adjust the tax status as well, due to the destruction and
limitations this destruction put on the land uses. I do not know what it
will take to fix this land, but by my estimates, $200k will cover only a
small portion of the repairs required, and maybe several times that for
all the required repairs. I would be happy to give a tour of this
catastrophe. This destruction should reduce the taxes due by over $2000
per year. However, this is still not the end of the story.
2
The land is still zoned open space, and open space gets preferential tax
treatment. According to the Constitution Art XIII #8, land that is
"enforcibly restricted" "shall be valued for property tax purposes that
is consistent with its restrictions and uses". The land use today is
less that it was 16 years ago. No new buildings were added, grazing is
no longer taking place, nor is there a soil mining operation continuing
on this property. Furthermore, the zoning restriction is even more
severe today than 16 years ago, where one house was permitted per 20
acres, now it is one per 40 acres. The land use is also more restricted
today due to the unmitigated soil destruction, precluding in large part,
even grazing. Therfore the tax basis used now should be equal or less
than the tax basis used in 1980.
For some unexplained reason to me, though the reason was requested, the
taxes started to increase as soon as the Williamson contract was
canceled, from, to my recollection, some $200 per year to some $13,000
per year. It is not just the Williamson act per as that restricts the
land use, but also the zoning. The constitution not state that the land
must be in the Williamson contract, but only that land use-must be
enforcibly restricted. The land today is as enforcibly restricted, (A-4)
as it was 16 years ago, and will be until it should get rezoned. The
restrictions on the land today are the Williamson act restrictions. Only
the county can rezone out of the open space limitations. The county has
not rezoned this land.
Nothing in the records shows that the county is honoring this
constitutional requirement. I am not clear how the county assesses land
on the open space basis, but the former taxes on this basis was some
$200 per year, and may be increased by 2% annually for 16 years, to
maybe $275 today, but certainly not $13,000.
Based on the above information, the taxes were some $200 in 1980, and
could have been increased to some $275 per year today. Should the county
rezone the land to some non-open space designation, then the property
taxes may increase but not to exceed some $4177 per year today, and
probably even much less, effective after the rezoning.
3
We can close the book on this issue today as a compromise, if you asses
the land as open space, and charge taxes on the 1980 tax basis, with a
2% annual increase cap. You must however, also return all overpayments
of taxes, penalties and the accrued interest thereon. Should the land be
rezoned, the taxes shall reflect a 1980 $2508 cash purchase value.
Should you not accept this as a compromise, I will not be bound by the
$250k cash purchase value except upon actual proof.
on the other hand, and if you wish, I would cite the law to support my
contentions and/or furnish substantiated and accurate numbers that could
actually be used for your assessment. I am requesting that you reassess
the land as of the date of purchase, using, at minimum, the basis that I
have outlined above. I further request that you reveal your method and
actual assessment, then supply a tax accounting to reflect those
assessments, and for you to refund all tax and penalty overpayments,
with interest, in the same way that you charged interest.
If this case went to court, I would request the same penalties you have
charged for my failure to pay, as penalties for your overcharges. In the
alternative, I would request that your penalty charges be declared
unconstitutional, as I believe they are. Penalties must reflect a true
damages to you, and any other penalties is a function only of the court.
Your overcharges over the years have put a great stress on my life. My
inquiries with the county gave me scant information, and never a
complete story on which to base further inquires. I am not a lawyer, and
therefore had to study a good deal of law before I could discover the
multitude of errors. Yet, as a public entity, it was the departments
duty to serve the public with a high level of integrit.y, precluding a
need for me to have made this intensive study.
I hope to resolve any issues amicably. However, I will pursue these
issues by any means that are appropriate if no response is forthcoming.
For example, I have not received a response from the tax assessor to
date, two plus months later, and therefore I am now writing the board.
4
If you the board also will not respond, I can only resort to the courts.
I believe that neither party would not enjoy that process. I also do
not wish to fence any more misleading or more incomplete information. I
wish to deal forthright with this issue. I will pay what I owe, but
equally I expect a return when I have overpaid. I look forward to
hearing from you.
Sincerely
George Soehngen
5
Froin JUDY WILSON — 7077458948 To : 04/25/67 09:56 P. 001
Gus S.Kromer
Contra Office of Assessor Assessor
Costa 834 Court Street James D.Giacuma
Mailiucz,Calirurnia 94553 ASSISlant Assessor
County FAX; (510)313-7488 valuation
lelephonc: (510)313-740t) Rohen F.Nash
Assistut Assessor
Admin;a,.t4...
April 22, 1997
Parcel Number 362 140 007
George Soehngen
92 Carlisle Way
Benicia CA 94510
We have received your letter expressing concerns about the assessed value of
your property.
Recent changes to the Revenue and Taxafiori Code now''allow the County Assessor to
review and adjust values as, of March 1 , 1996 (for.'the: 96-97 fiscal year) , even
though your request for reduction was received afterSeptember 15.
Prior to this change, September 15 was the deadline to both file a formal
assessment appeal and informally request a reduction by mail .
September 15 still remains the tinal filing date to formally protest values with
the Assessment Appeals Board. However, due to the recent decline in property
values and Ohis new change in the. law, property owners can still informally
request reductions for tha`current, (96-97)-fiscal year.
fhe Assessor' s Office will review your value as of March 1 , 1996, and make a
reduction if available salesinformation, indicates, your assessed value is higher
than the current market value. You will be notified in writing of our
determination.
Regardless of the outcome, you must pay your 1996-97 taxes as stated on your
current bill . If a reduction is made, your taxes will be adjusted at a later
date.
If yo1J ..rlep_d further_exp_lanati6mofi-your particular situation, please call our--
Public Service Section at (510) 313-7400.
V rely yourS,
�
Stephen Dawkins, Principal Appraiser
for GUS S- KRAMF..R
Contra Costa County Assessor
R.e G:\DATA\LETTER\OCT JUNE REI'5.23/98 +
-. 3 0190 U
George Soehngen
;C:;ag$ESSOR 92 Carlisle ways
-.
FUSLICSERVICE Benicia, ca. 94510
5/1//97
Mr Stephen Dawkins - Appraiser
Contra Costa County Assessor' Office
RE APN 362-140-007-0
Dear Mr Dawkins;
I have received your letter of 4/22/97 responding to my letter to the
Board of Equalization of 4/18/97. Please be advised that your letter as
well as all correspondence with the assessors office to date, have
failed to fully address even one issue that I have presented. I have
furthermore not received any communications from the Board of
Equalization. The assessors office has summarily circumvented responding
my specific inquiries:
In your letter, Mr Dawkins, you stated that you may adjust the current
assessed value of my property, retroactive for about one year. This is
not what •I have requested, and this is not an appropriate response. '.Phe
assessors continual lack of due care in their tax charges and
circumventions to my inquires are not good faith charges nor good faith
efforts at resolution to anything. If I cannot get a resolution with
direct correspondence I may have no choice but take this case to court,
causing much additional and needless work for each of us. Allow me to
summarize the problems again.
The assessors have totally failed to ever establish the purchase value,
or to appraise and equalize my property. According to the law, this
failure requires a correction for the ENTIRE period since purchase in
1980. Yet the county already made one threat to• foreclose my land for
non-payment of the unjustified charged taxes and penalties. I had paid
the sum then demanded, under the illusion that the county had
legitimately justified those charges.
'..}ie assessors office has, since my purchase, collected and charged total.
taxes and penalties on my property for amounts in the six figure range.
According to my computations, done in a manner as prescribed by the
California constitution, statutes and case law, I owed tax amounts for
the entire period totaling only in the four figure range. We are a
phenomenal two orders of magnitude apart.
Your letter stated that I must pay the amounts you currently demand.
However, the amounts demanded have not been legally justified by the
assessor. Please be advised that demanding amounts without legally
justified accountings, are bad faith demands. Furthermore, collecting
these unjustified amounts or foreclosing on my property to collect these
unjustified amounts is a conversion of my money, or my property. There
are heavy penalties for such violations of the law.
On every occasion when I request assessment information, the assessor
officers tell me that the legal basis for tax assessment as a fact of
law is 1% of the purchase price at date of purchase. Those assertions
are not true, and are not mere oversights! I have not seen oversights
where the assessors may capitalize on additional collections. Such
statements are deceitful, and moreover are the basis for a legal action
in fraud. I owe no more than 1% of the purchase value, at the time of
purchase, in annual taxes. The assessor has never established the
purchase value of my property. The face price of a purchase money
promissory note does not alone establish the value of the note.
Furthermore, I owe even less taxes for open space land.
Please forward all correspondence to the Board of Equalization for their
input. Please also respond to my previous two letters, with specificity,
accuracy and completeness, citing applicable law to support your
contentions, as I will in return support mine, when requested. Then
provide me with a legally justified tax assessment and accounting of our
respective entire past activities and future obligations.
The quality of the assessors past communications not only puts me on
guard, but makes me aware and prepare for the fact that further
communications may not be fruitful. There is no inherent reason why we
can't resolve our own differences. However, I will not simply relent in
frustration to any further shoddy presentations, , but will pursue this
matter, even through the courts, if we can't reach a satisfactory level
of communication, and ultimately, resolution. I hope that we can and
will strive to resolve any possible disputes cleanly and amicably, as
opposed to artfully or through the courts. I hope that this feeling is
mutual. I will comply with the mandates of the law, but not the dicta of
the assessors office unless that dicta coincides with the mandate- of the
law.
- Sincerely
Gec&ge Soehngen
2
JUL i ;tILSOIN - 7077458948 T.3 : 06/06/67 10:03 P. 002
Tax Collector's Office Contra Atfrod P, wren-Tit
Costa COUnry TreA$U(Af-lax. ollecror
625 Coul Street Joseph L.Martinez
Finance Building. Room 100 Tex Colleaions Mxneger
P.O. Box 63i County
Martinez,California 94553-1280 �-J l y Ndncy L,Webster
(510)646.4122 - - Aeelstant Tax Gwo mons Manppar
e�r
Joslyn Mitchell
Tex Collwlans Sw mip r
Date: AwA 2, 1997
Default No,: 91-711-3A
tr„-
'
Pan:alNo.: 361?-irlt.y
TO INITIATE AN INSTALLMENT PLAN
To initiate an insta8ment plan of Redemption. the MINIMUM requirea is a 20% down payment of
the total amount needed to ratleem back taxes. in addition ALL CURRENT YEAR AND
SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES MUST BE PAID.
For your informat; n, we show, below the minlmum amount necessary to start an installment plan
in June.:
MINIMUNI 20% down payment 21 ,'W.00
CURRENT 1 P {E;;I 1uc. 16,21/11 ,96 J
SUPPLEMEN-iALTAXES tine
TOTALREQUIRED 6 ' r, PM.
JUNE $n, 1997 $�
TO KEEP THE INSTALLMENT P!=& IN G0QD STAND
No later than April 10th of each fiscal year, (1) pay the current year taxes in full; and, (2) make
the prescribed installment plan payment PLUS ACCRUED I "TERES online unpaid balance.
interest will be computed at the rate of 1 1!295 per month on the first day of each month on all
d4aulled parcels.
FAILURE TO MEET THESE CONDITIONS WILL CAUSE THE FLAN TO DEFAULT. YOU
ILL NOT BE ABLE TO RESTART THE PLAN. FULL PAYMENT WILL BE REQUIRED TO
REDEEM THE PARCEL. IF NOT REDEEMED, THE PARCEL WILL BECOME SUBJECT TO
THE TAX COLLECTOR'S POWER TO SELL AND MAY BE OFFERED FOR SALE AT PUBLIC
AUCTION.
For further Information, please contact the Redemption Department of the Tax Collector's Office,
Room 100, 625 Court St., Martinez, California, Monday through Friday, 8.00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m-
(510) 646-4122.
Mailing Address: County Tax Collector, P.O. Box 631, Martinez, CA 94553-0063
Alin Redemptiort Department
y I.MQVMP.{Qln�bll-.a
From JUDY WILSON — 7077456948 To : 06/06/67 10:02 P. 001
SOEH4GEN GEORGE PARCEL N0. 362-140-007-0
JMCA DEFAULT NO. 91-07123-A
92 CARLISIF NAY
BFNICIA CA 94510 DEFAULTED IN THE YEAR 1992
NOTICE Cf IMPENDING TAX COLLFCTORTS POWER TO SELL TAX-DEFAULTED PROPERTY
PURSUANT TO LAWS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON THE IST DAY OF JULY• 19975
AT THE HOUR OF 12.:01 A.M* OF THAT DAYS THE UNDERSIGNED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TAX
CCLLECTCRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO SELL ANY PORTION OR ALL
OF THAT FROPFRTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED,, UNLESS IT IS SOONER REDEEMED OR AN
INSTALLMENT PLAN OF REDEMPTION INITIATED PRIOR TO 5:00 P.M. ON THE LAST BUSINESS
DAY OF JW 1997, IF THE PROPERTY BECOMES SUBJECT TO THE POWER TO SELLS UPON
WHICH OATTE (LIVE OR MORF YEARS WILL HAVE ELAPSED FROM THE DATE OF DEFAULTS THE
RIGHT OF REDEMPTION WILL TERMINATE AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE LAST BUSINESS
DAY PRIOR TO THE DATE THE SALE BEGINS. ALL INFORMATION CONCERNING REOE14PTION
WILLS UPCN REQUEST• BE FURNIS14EO BY ALFRED P. LOMELI* COUNTY TREASURER-TAX
COLLECTOR• FINANCE BUILDINGS ROOM 1009 MARTINEZ* CALIFORNIA 94553
IMPORTANT NOTE: IF THE PROPERTY IS NOT REDEEMED AND IS SOLD AT A TAX SALES YOU
MAY HAVE THE RIGHT TO CLAIM PROCEEDS OF THE SALE WHICH ARE IN
FXCFSS OF THE LIENS AND COSTS TO BF SATISFIED FROM THE PROCEEDS.
THF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS NOTICE IS SITUATED IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY* STATE
OF CALIFCRNIA* AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
POR SECS 33334 T2N R3W E POR Rn ADJ
S P F C I A L N O T I C E
IF YOU CC NOT PAY THE AMOUNT DUE FOR TAXES♦ INTEREST* AND PENALTIES PRIDR 10
5 :00 P.M. ON THE LAST BUSINESS DAY OF JUNE I997, YOU WILL LOSE A VALUABLE
RIGHT YOU NOW HAVE IN THIS PROPERTY
FOR YOUR INFORMATIONS WE SHOW BELOW THE AMOUNT NECESSARY TO REDEEM THE ABOVE
DESCRIBED PROPERTY IF PATO OURING THE MONTH OF JUNE. * 1997:
DELINQUENT TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS S 665699.41
DELINQUENT PENALTIES 65669.91
DELINQUENT COSTS 50.00
RECEMPYTITN PENALTIES 339451.79
RECEMPTION FFF 15.00
RECORDING FEE .DO
DEfD FFF *00
PRINCIPLE PAID 4#097.42-
TOTAL TO RFDFEM *+* 1029848.69
GATED THIS 77 DAY OF MAY* 1997•
ALFRED P. LOMFLT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TELEPHONE (510) 646-4122
George Soehngen
92 Carlisle Way
Benicia Ca, 94510
June 10, 1997
Fax/Pho 510-372-
0517
Supervisor Gail Uilkema
651 Pine St. Rm. 108A (--'- -;'IV,
Martinez, Ca 94553 � l. l
,'UN �0 1997 I
Re: APN 362 - 240 - 007 --
Dear Supervisor Uilkema;
I am writing this letter with a considerable urgency, and hone that you
may give this matter you immediate attention.
The Tax Collector's Office has just notified me that they may foreclose
on my property at the first of next month, unless I pay a considerable
sum in back taxes. I do not owe these taxes, but in fact, am owed a
return of previous overpayments.
Since February of this year I have written three at length letters to
the Assessor's Office and the Board of Equalization. There, I addressed
the issue of the Assessor's failure to ever equalize my property, and to
correct their charges.
In brief and in part, the Assessor had taken the face value of my
purchase money note, and not the cash equivalent basis, upon which the
assessors made their tax charges. A purchase money note on essentially
raw land has a substantially higher face price, than the cash
equivalent. The law is clear on this issue. The law is also clear that
if good faith equalization is not shown in the original assessment, the
four year statute of limitations for an appeal does not apply. Such is
the case now.
The Assessor's Office had not responded to even one letter addressing
the issues that I had presented, and to forward all my correspondence to
the Board of Equalization. Instead the Assessor Office responded with
one standard or form letter, whach addressed no issue, and the notice of
foreclosure. The Assessor's Office did not show good faith in their
original assessment, and is not showing a good faith now. The Assessor's
Office failed completely to act, in both cases, which now is also a form
of intimidation. In any case, I am intimidated. My property is my life.
Should this failure to respond continue, even days more, then I will be
forced to go to the courts to seek an injunction of some kind, and
battle the issues in the courts. That is a horrible alternative to a
dialogue, for both parties, and an unjust burden to place upon myself,
simply for owning property.
Please review the enclosed correspondence, at least in general, and you
will find legitimate issues, and you will find a lack of responsiveness.
I am requesting that you first stop any pending action for at least six
months, and that you then direct a party of authority to address the
issues I have outlined, then inform me of what action you have
undertaken, or what actions I should undertake. A legal action will be
time consuming, expensive, and uncertain for all parties. Please save
both of us this pending fight caused only by the failure of the
assessor's office to respond and to deal with the issue on hand, and
please open some doors for a dialogue.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely
George Soehngen
George Soehngen
92 Carlisle Way
Benicia Ca, 94510
June 13, 1997
Fax/Pho 510-372-0517
Supervisor Gail Uilkema
651 Pine St. Rm. 108A
Martinez, Ca 94553
Re: APN 362 - 240 - 007 + L66L z l Nn
J
i7:?/1i3 ) ??! �
Dear Supervisor Uilkema;
I wrote you on Tuesday, three days previous, expressing a problem I have
encountered with the Assessors office, whereby since Feb. 10 of this
year I have written three letters regarding a tax charge which I
contend. The Assessor had not responded to even one letter, but instead,
the Tax Collectors Office has issued me a notice that they will
foreclose on my property in 17 days from now.
You had been kind enough to accept my letter expressing my concern, and
have left a message in response to my inquiry, that you had forwarded
all my correspondence to the Assessors office. Regrettably, that
solution cannot be helpful. The problem needs to be addressed today, and
the Assessor is the wrong addressee.
First, it was the Assessor who had failed to answer my inquires in the
first place. Since you do not expect an answer until mid-week, some five
more days, I may then be too late to file for an injunction, and
furthermore, any answer from the Assessor is an optimistic expectation.
Be has not answered one letter yet, even in five months. Besides, who is
this "Assessor"? Without naming a person in charge of addressing the
issues presented, this may well be one more letter in the office "in"
box, which no one will address, while someone else is foreclosing on my
property.
second, should the Assessor answer, and find that the taxes charged are
in order, I will still have to pay the charges demanded, or be subject
to a foreclosure. However, I found, and submitted sufficient proof at
least for your preliminary finding, that I am instead owed a refund from
a net overpayment in the previous years. The Tax Collector needs to be
legally barred from foreclosing, as I have overpaid, not underpaid, the
property taxes. This is the very issue that I had been addressing in the
first place, without any response, only now with this further delay, I
would not have time to plead my case to the court first.
Third, I believe that more than a question to the Assessor, this is a
question to the Board of Equalization, since the property had never been
equalized, and the purchase value had never been established or
formalized, we have to go back more than four years. I believe it is
your office, and not 'the Assessor's office, that should be addressing
the issues I had presented. Therefore, I expect that the Board, that is,
in part your office, must ultimately decide the issues, and bypassing
the Board in favor of the Assessor first deciding the issues, is
consuming time that is no longer available.
At this moment it is probably too late to decide any issues, given the
complexity of the issues, and the Assessor's disinterest in
communicating, that therefore I request that you expedite in some form,
an extension of the foreclosure by six months. That should be sufficient
time to either resolve the issues with the Assessor, and/or the Board of
Equalization, or we go to court. In the unlikely event that the Assessor
decides in my favor within the next few days, and if he has the power to
stay the tax demands, which I believe he does not have, then the
extension that you would grant would be moot. That extension, however,
if moot, is far less aggravating to all parties than the suit I must
initiate, and you must respond to, if this issue is not properly
addressed immediately.
If I do not hear from you today, either by telephone or fax, I will
proceed Monday with initiating a legal action. By law, and by my
preference, I had to seek an administrative remedy before seeking a
legal remedy. Can we not make this a sufficient remedy? In the end, I
believe, that it is still the Board of Equalization's duty to make the
correct equalization, and not the court's, but the court can force the
issue and supervise the process. Is it necessary that we go through this
extra hoop?
I am sorry to present an 11th hour problem. Though you had not
personally created this problem, you may be the only one that can avoid
more serious consequences due to this problem. The Assessors failure to
answer any letter, let alone promptly, created this situation, and left
me no alternatives. I do not want to loose my property because of a
bureaucratic snafu. I would very much appreciate if you gave this you
most urgent and immediate attention. Again, I request that through some
means, you extend the foreclosure proceeding by six months, and direct
me to a correct party who can and will communicate with me on the issues
I had addressed, and not forward these communications to more faceless,
nameless entities at the Assessor's office, or anywhere else, who will
not communicate, but will foreclose on my property, acting as if I, the
owner, do not exist.
Again, thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely
O
George Soehngen
June 13, 1997
Clerk
Board of Supervisors
Fax: (510) 335-1913
Re: 905 Chanslor, Richmond California
I have owned the home at 905 Chanslor Avenue in Richmond for more than a decaee.
During that time, I witnessed many of the shocks of a transitional neighborhood: crack
dealers were driven out of the house and returned to bum a hole in the kitchen floor; the
house was boarded up by the city; the yard was filled with automotive junk; and all of the
copper plumbing was cut out from under the building and stolen.
At present, the neighborhood and the house are at a high point. The Kaiser Medical Center
has anchored the area, bringing with it construction,new homes and jobs. The property is
within blocks of Kaiser and the BART station, and across the street from a school.
Over time, the house has been substantially renovated with a newly finished attic area and
stairs, skylights, a re-modeled kitchen and garage. The tenants are three excellent young
men who earn their living in construction.
Recently, trouble has returned. Young boys are encouraged to ride around on bicycles
looking for opportunities for vandalism. After a series of car break-ins and tool theft, a
missing cat, and threatening behavior culminating with a brick through the bay window,
the renters are being intimidated to leave. We in the process of spending $1,200 on
window bars and a security system, and will be forced to pay for continual coverage until
the system is installed on June 24.
At times I feel that I would be only too pleased to sell the house and abandon the city
myself. In a recent telephone conversation, a police employee advised me to do so. I do not
believe this is possible at this time; if the house is left unoccupied, even for a short time,
while I try to arrange for its sale, substantial destruction will occur. And what family could
be expected to move in?
These conditions should not be tolerated. The people living in Richmond need better
protection.
This is an urgent situation and I have no idea where to turn. I am open to advice and action.
I want to do what's right as a citizen, a property owner and a landlord.
I NEED YOUR KELP
#or
Sc neck, Jr.
200 Rector Place, 4x, New York, New York 10280
•h/21 nM-0287 9 w/212/441-1460 • fx/212/441-1914
TnTrl ❑11C fTt mm
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
2020 North Broadway, Suite 203A
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 -
RECEIVED
June 12, 1997
JUN 131997
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ib:;Sa• M
651 Pine Street C=y( DOFSUPERVMM
Martinez, CA 94553 CONTRA COSTA CO.
Re: Implementation Plan for Newcomer Task Force Recommendations
Background: In October 1993 the Board of Supervisors created the
Newcomer's Task Force to recommend ways the county could highlight the
contributions of immigrants, address contemporary issues, and improve the
provision of services to immigrants. In ,June 1995 a report with
recommendations addressing this mandate was adopted by the Board of
Supervisors. With the intent of insuring the continuation of the project, the
Board of Supervisors tasked the Human Relations Commission to continue the
work of the Task Force and to submit recommendations to improve the quality
of life for legal immigrants in the county.
Discussion: The thorough analysis required to develop and produce the
comprehensive effort that this issue deserves is beyond the existing
capabilities of the Contra Costa County Human Relations Commission. It is
estimated that the document required to adequately address this important
issue would require an investment of between $50,000 and $70,0(x) for
personnel and facilities/materials. This charter would result in a workplan
for government, business and nonprofits to capitalize on skills of Contra Costa
County's immigrant workforce by identifying barriers, the best practices in
overcoming those barriers, and by promoting the positive economic
contributions of immigrants. This effort is especially timely in light of recent
media attention to the lack of minority economic progress over the last thirty
years.
Recommendation: That the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
authorize the expenditure of $3000 to $4000 for research and grant writing
services. The funds acquired would secure personnel costs for the collection
and assembly of supporting materials and facilitation of any collaborative
meetings.
The point of contact is Commissioner Marsha Golangco at 946-1006.
As usual we look forward to your prompt response.
1 of 2
Sin , ely
Stan o
Commis oner
Interi Chairman
Attachments: 1. Proposed implementation plan.
2. Proposed implementation steps.
3. Fact Sheet: Immigrants and Refugees in Contra Costa County
Distribution: Each Supervisor
County Administrator
IIRC bile
Copy Furnished Each Commissioner
IMPLEMENTATION FLAN
for Contra Costa County Board of Supervisor Adopted
NEWCOMER TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
GOAL: A workplan for government, businesses and nonprofits to capitalize on skills of Contra
Costa County's immigrant workforce by identifying barriers and the best practices in overcoming
them, and by promoting the positive economic contributions of immigrants.
BACKGROUND: In October 1993 the Board of Supervisors created the Newcomer's Task Force
to recommend ways the county could highlight the contributions of immigrants, address
contemporary immigrant issues, and improve the provision of services to immigrants. In June
1995 a report with recommendations addressing this mandate was adopted. This plan is fox
implementing the Board adopted recommendations.
Gramwriting - Write grants to cover costs and itemize implementation activities.
Estimated cost: $3,00044,000 to research and cultivate appropriate funders, to write
grant, to collect and assemble supporting materials, and to facilitatt: any collaborative
meetings.
Implementation- Implementation of all recommendations other than 4 and 5, would cost between
$55,000 and $70,000. Human resource requirements include a minimum of a project
supervisor, a half-time project coordinator,a full-time research associate and stipends for
interns.
ilk
wl
m
oa
9A Z
a Jo z Q m M
10
a c, s
,OltMor
to
F 4 O
3
O01Xq
1p
� � � � a 9$ a
r a
n IE
$ FA
'
A
g �
5
a
r
LNDEGRANTS AND REFUGEES IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
FACT SHEET
How Many Immigrants?
• 13% of Contra Costa County's 800,000 na"an residents were bom outside the U.S. This compares to 22%O
statewide and 8% nationwide (1990 Census). In 1910, 14% of the nation's population was foreign
born.
• 437o of Contra Costa County's 107,000 foreign bom residents came to the U.S. during the 1980's
(Census).
• 20,000 legal immigrants and refugees have come to Contra Costa County between 1986 and 1992 (State
Department of Finance).
• 45% of foreign born in Contra Costa County are citizens (Census).
• The actual numbers of immigrants and refugees is greater than cited above. Census Bureau officials
estimate that as many as 30510 of Laotian refugees (Brownrigg) and 16% of rural Latinos (Hogan) were
not counted Hi the 1990 Census.
Background.of Immigrants
• The Philippines, Mexico, China,India, Vietnam, Iran, and Laos are the countries from which the largest
number of legal immigrants have come to Contra Costa County in the last seven years. (State Department
of Finance).
• Of legal immigrants to Contra Costa County in 1991 who reported paid work in their country of origin,
45% were Executives/Managers, 18% Technical/Sales, 10% Operator, 15% Service, 5% Farming, and
7% Precision/Production (State Department of Finance).
Undocumented
• Estimates of the number of undocumented residents vary. Some are: 16,000 (State Department of
Finance) and 14,000 to 20,000 (Immigration and Naturalization Service).
Languages
• 1890 of all Contra Costa County residents speak a language other than English at home. Of these, 41
speak at, Spanish and 33% speak an Asian language (Census).
• 2217o of those who speak Spanish at home speak no or little English; for speakers of Asian languages,
the figure is 18% and for speakers of Other languages-8% (Census).
• Students in Contra Costa County public schools speak more than 60 languages. 15% of public school
students speak a language other than English at home. 55% are limited English proficient (State
Department of Education).
Taxes and Public Assistance
• Immigrants use public benefits much less than non-immigrants: non-English speakers comprise only 12%
of AFDC recipients, but 18% of Contra Costa County's population (County Social Services, Census). '
• Nationwide, less than 1% of recently documented immigrants had received public benefits while they
were undocumented (Immigration and Naturalization Service).
• Over the course of a lifetime, the average immigrant pays $20,000 more in taxes and Social Security than
he or she uses in public benefits (Business Week, 7/13/92).
Prepared by the Newcomer Information Clearinghouse, International Institute of the East Bay, February, 1994.
C.N9
LAW OFFICE
D. JOHN THORNTON & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
TA% 0 BUSINESS 0 ESTATE PLANNING • WEALTH PRESERVATION D. JOHN THORNTON
B. TODD BAILEY, M.Acc.
THE GOLDEN EAGLE AT FOREST RIVER GREGORY A. BYRON, LL.M.
1101 WEST RIVER STREET, SUITE 340 AMBER R. MYRICK, LL.M.
BOISE, IDAHO 83702-7067
POST OFFICE BOX 71 56
KATHLEEN A. ROCKNE
BOISE, IDAHO 83707-1 1 56 LEGAL AssISTANT
UOENSEO TO PRACTICE:
TELEPHONE (208) 344-8600 /DAHG. OREGON. WAsr..w N
FACSIMILE (208) 344-8720
STRATEGIC LEGAL ALL/ANCES;
AR¢ONA, CALIFORNIA, NEVADA, UTAH
June 12, 1997 RECEIVED
Mark DeSaulnier, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
c/o Clerk of the Board of Supervisors AN 1 3 1997
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, CA 94553 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
Re: Reinstein/Reinstein Properties L.P.
Land Conservation Contract
Dated: February 28, 1970
No.: Agricultural Preserve No. 20-70, Application No. 1433-RZ
Executed by: The County of Contra Costa
And: Henry Reinstein, et ux
Recorded: March 9, 1970, Book 6080, Page 638, Official Records
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County:
This law firm is assisting Arthur R. Reinstein and Diane E. Reinstein in their estate and
tax planning, and in that capacity we have the following request.
Mr. and Mrs. Reinstein and their living trust, the Arthur R. and Diane E. Reinstein Family
Trust, currently own nine contiguous lots located in Contra Costa County, California, as more
particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, which land is subject to the above described
Williamson Act Contract with Contra Costa County. We have enclosed a copy of the recorded
Contract for your convenience.
For estate planning purposes, Mr. and Mrs. Reinstein and their Trust wish to convey eight
of the lots to a newly-formed limited partnership, Reinstein Properties L.P., a California limited
partnership. Mr. and Mrs. Reinstein and the Trust will own all of the interests in the limited
partnership in the same percentages as they own the eight (8) lots they wish to transfer to the
limited partnership. The Reinstein's personal residence is located on Lot 7 and will not be
transferred to the limited partnership because of the adverse income and property tax consequences
of holding a personal residence in a limited partnership.
June 12, 1997
Page 2
On behalf of the Reinsteins, we ask that the Board of Supervisors issue a ruling that the
transfer of the subject lots and the retention of Lot 7, does not constitute either a "division" or a
notice of non-renewal of the Contract as provided in Paragraphs 9 and 14 of the Williamson Act
Contract.
We understand that the next meeting of the Board of Supervisors is scheduled for June 24,
1997, and we ask that you add this item to the agenda for discussion at that meeting.
We would appreciate anything you can do to expedite this request. Thank you in advance
for your assistance.
If you have any questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
Gregory o
/K
Enclosures
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Arthur R. Reinstein
Dennis Reinstein, CPA
EXHI TT A
REAL PROPERTY in an unincorporated area, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as
follows'
PARCEL ONE.
Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 11 as said Lots are delineated and designated upon that certain Map entitled,
"Holland Ranch. Contra Costa County, California, February 1918" - filed March 4, 1918 in Liber 16 of
Maps, at Pages 347 and 349, in the Office of the County Recorder of Contra Costa County.
Excepting from the above described Parcels One, Two and Three such portions thereof, if any, as lie
within the lines of public roads.
PARCEL TWO:
Lot 4, as shown on the Mao entitled Holland Ranch filed March 4, 1918, Book 16 of Maps, Pace 347,
Contra Costa County Records.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM PARCEL TWO:
1. The portion of Lot 4 desc.�bed in the Deed to Contra Costa County, recorded May 22, 1991, Back
16611, Page 753, Official Records, Contra Costa County.
2. The portion of Lot 4 described in the Deed to Arthur Reinstain, Jr. et at, resided June 13, 1991, Book
16662. Page 539, Official Records. Conti Costa Ccunty, more particularly described as follows:
A portion of Vic urine Road conveyed to Contra Costa County by Deed recorded in Bock 284 of Deeds
at Page 54, records of said County, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at an angle point on the boundary of vctchne Road (284 D 54): said angle point being offset
westerly from the centerline bearings called South 200 02' East and South 00 44' West in said Deed, the
basis of bearings for this description: thence from the point of beginning, along said boundary, North 0°
44' East 117.30 feet, to the proposed boundary of Victerine Road realignment; thence, along said
proposed boundary, South 30 30' East 146.15 feet, to the boundary of Victorine Road (284 D 54); thence
along said boundary (284 D 54), North 200 0Z West 30.43 feet to the point of beginning.
PARCEL THREE:
The parcel of land as described in the Ceed from Contra Ccsta County, recorded May 22, 1991, Book
16611, Page 765, Official Records, Contra Costa County.
PARCEL FOUR:
All of Lot Ten(10) de!ineated and designated upon that certain Map entitled, "Hoiland Ranch, Contra Costa
Ccunty, California February 1918" - filed in the Office of the County Recorder of Contra Costa County on
March 4, 1918, in Sock 16 of Maps. at Paces 347, 349.
Excepting from said Lot Ten (10) a certain three (3) acre parcel of land rese7ved for school purposes
described as follows, to-wit:
Beginning at the northwest comer of said Lot Ten (10) and running thence along the North boundary oli
said Lot North 88' 05' East Two Hundred Twenty feet to a point: thence running South 9° 25' WestS'I
Hundred Five and 811100 feet to a point; thence running South 88° 05' West Two Hundred Twenty feed
to a paint on West line of said Lot and on East line of a road; thence running along said line of said Road
North 9' 25' East Six Hundred Five and 81f1C0 feet to the paint of beginning, together with a night of way,
thereto and therefrom.
A.P.Nc.: C66-180-010
1433-RZ
RESOLUTION 'NO.- 70/27
LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT
1. Parties. BY THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 28th
� - f:k,S3A.'.f :,. . .iii.iT�,i.� ti:.:! C>i.'••'a:: i: ... .:i:;:.:r: :i
day of February , 1970 ,/hereinafter referred to as "MNER",
and the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the state
of California, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY", do mutually agree
and promise as follows:
2. Property Description. Owner possesses certain real property
located within the County, which property is presently devoted to
agricultural and c=patible use., aW is particularly described in
:.;xxhibit A, attached hereto and made a part of this contract.
3, Purpose. Both O-wner and County desire to limit the use of said
property to agricultural uses in order to discourage premature and un-
necessary conversion of such lands from agricultural uses, recognizing
�i that such land has definite public value as open space and that the
preservation of such land in agricultural production constitutes an
important physical, social, esthetic and ocon=ic asset to County to
�I maintain the agricultural economy of County and the State of California.
4. Intent of Parties: Enforceable Restriction. Both Owner and
r County intend that the terms, conditions and restrictions of this
1 Contract be in accordance with the California Land Conservation Act
aI of 1965, as amended, so as to be an enforceable restriction under the
■ provisions of California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 422.
ENDORSED
IF X17
moo- da Oro -/ �'
OPVC
5. Intent of Parties: Effect on Property Value. It is the
intent of the County and Owner that this Contract is conditioned upon
the continued existence of legislation implementing Article XXVIII of
the California Constitution so the effect of the termns# conditions and
restrictions of the Contract on'property values for taxation purposeg
is substantially as favorable to Cranes as the legislation existing on th;
last renewal date.
6. Governing Statutes and ordinances. The within Contract
is made and entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation
Act of 1965 (Chapter 7 of Part 1 of Division i of Title 5 of the
California Government Code commending with Section 5120, as amended by
Chapter 1372, 1969 Statutes) . The within Contract is further made pursuant
to and subject to Contra Costa County ordinance Code, Titl,o 8, Division
89, and Resolutions of the Contra Cgsta County Hoard of Supervisors Mos.
6917h� and 7Q17? .
7. Land Use Restrictions. During the term of this Contract
or any renewals thereof, the above described land shall not be used for
any purpose, other than the production of food and fiber and compatible
uses as listed in Contra Costa County ordinance Code Section 8169, which
is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein; pro-
vided, however, that such additional uses as are set forth in Exhibit Of
which is attached hereto and is hereby incorporated by reference, shall
also be permitted subject to the terms and conditions set forth therein.
In case of conflict or inconsistency between the uses allowed in this
Contract and those specified in said zoning ordinance the provisions of
the Contract as set forth in Exhibit B shall prevail.
-2-
B. Modification of Restrictions. The Board of Supervisors
of County may from time to time and during the term of this Contract
or any extensions thereof, by amendment to Contra Costa County Ordinance
Code Section 8169, add to those uses listed in said ordinance; provided
that such additional uses shall be limited to commercial agriculture and
compatible uses; and said board shall not eliminate without written con-
sent of the Caner or his successors or assigns, a compatible use during
the term of this Contract or any renewals thereof:
9. Term and Renewal. This Contract shall be effective commenc-
ing on the last day of February, 19 t �) , and shall remain in effect for
a period of ten (10) years therefrom.
This Contract shall be automatically renewed and its terms
extended for a period of ore (1) year on the last day of February of
each succeeding year during the term hereof, unless notice of non-renewal
is given in the manner provided by Section 51245 of the Goverrm;ent Code,
to the end that at all times during the continuance of this Contract, as
from time to time renewed, there shall be a ten (10) year term of restric-
tion unless notice of non-rentroral is given, under no circumstances shall
a notice of renewal be required of either party to effectuate the automatic
renewal of this paragraph.
10. Cancellation. rxcept as provided in Section 11, the provisions
of this Contract whereby Owner agrees to restrict the use of the land des-
cribed in Paragraph 2 may be cancelled as to all or a portion of said land
by mutual agreement of the County and Owner after a public hearing has been
held in the manner provided by section 51284 of the Government Code and
upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such cancellation is in
-3-
the pi-'>lic interest. It is underntood by the parties that the exis-
tence of an opportunity for another use of said land shall not be
sufficient reason for the cancellation of the land use restrictions
imposed herein and that the uneconomic character of the existing use
will be considered only if there is no oth_r reasonable or comparable
agricultural use to which the land may be put.
Upon cancellation of said portions of this Contract, Owner
shall pay to the County Treasurer, as deferred taxes, a cancellation
fee in an amount equal to fifty (50) percent of the cancellation value
of the property being released from the terns of this Contract. Said
cancellation value shall be determined in accordance with the provisions
Of Govt. Code Section 51283 (a) and (b) .
If the Contract has been subject to a previous notice of
non-renewal, the amount due shall be determined by multiplying the
amount of deferred taxes computed above by the ratio that the n•,rnber of
years remaining in the term of the Contract bears to ten (10) years.
Under no circumstances shall the payment of said cancellation
fee be waived, deferred, or made subject to any conti.gency whatever.
Final cancellation shall be effectuated in accordance with the
provisions of Govt. Code Section 51283.3.
ll. Cancellation Upon Substitution of New Restrictions. This
Contract may be canceled by mutual agreement of County and Owner without
payment of deferred taxes or public hearing if it is replaced by an en-
forceable restriction authorized by Article XXVIII of the California
Constitution.
-4-
12. Eminent Domain Proceedings. Upon the filing of any
action in eminent domain by a public agency for the condemnation
of the fee title of any land described herein, or of less than a
fee interest, which will prevent the portion of land condemned or
other land or a portion thereof which is the subject of this Contract
from being used for any authorized use, or upon the acquisition in lieu
of eminent domain by a public agency for a public improvement, the por-
tions of this Contract by which Owner agrees to restrict the use of
land described herein shall be null and void upon such filing as to
the portion of the land condetuned or acquired and to the additional land
the use of which for an authorized purpose will be prevented as a result
of condemnation or acquisition.
If, subsequent to the filing of an action in eminent domain, the
proposed condemnation is abandoned by the condemning agency as to all or
a portion of the land subject to the Contract, the restrictions on land
use included in this Contract shall, without further agreement of the
parties herein, be reinstituted and the terms of this Contract shall be
In full force and effect.
13. Remedies for Breach of Contract. In the event that Owner
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of this Contract and the
effect of said breach is to render the use of land or a substantial por-
tion thereof unfit for further agricultural use, therby negating the
purpose and effect of this Contract, otmer shall pay to the County a sum
equal to One Hundred Per Cent (100+6) of the equalized assessed value of
the real property described in Exhibit A, as established by the County
_5_
Assessor on the lien date next following the date of breach, as liqui-
dated and agreed damages, it having been agreed that actual damages
will be impractical and extremely difficult to ascertain and that
said measure of damages is a reasonable measure of the harm which would
result from such failure of compliance. If after the date the Contract
was initially entered into the publicly announced county ratio of
assessment to full cash value is changed, the percentage payment in
this subdivision shall be changed so no greater percentage of full cash
will be paid than would have been paid had there been no change of ratio.
It is understood that nothing herein contained shall constitute
a waiver of any right which the County may now or in the future have to
seek specific performance of this Contract or other injunctive relief.
The enforcement provisions of the Contra Costa County zoning ordinance
shall also apply if the land which is the subject of this Contract is
used for purposes other than those provided in Ordinance Code Section
8169.
14. Effect of Division of Pro ert . Owner agrees that divi-
sion of the property described in Exhibit A into two (2) or more par-
cels, whether by sale, gift, by operation of law or by any other means,
may, upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that said division is
detrimental to the ultimate preservation of said property for exclusive
agricultural use, be construed by the County as notice of non-renewal .
by the property owner as provided in Section 9 of this Contract.
15. New Contracts Upon Division. In the event the land under
this Contract is divided, a Contract identical to the Contract then
-6-
covering the original parcel shall be executed by owner on each parcel
created by the division at the time of the division. Any agency rakirg
an order of division or the County which has jurisdiction shall require,
as a condition of the approval of the division, the execution of the
Contracts provided for in this section, provided, however, that failure
of Owner to execute Contracts upon division shall not affect the obliga-
tions of the heirs, successors and assigns of Omer as extablished in
Section 16.
16. Contract to Run with Land. Tha within Contract shall run
with the land described herein, and, upon division, to all parcels
created therefrom, and shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, and
assigns of the Omer.
17. Consideration, owner shall not receive any payment from
County in consideration of the obligations imposed hereunder, it being
recognized and agreed that the consideration for the execution of the
within Contract is the substantial public benefit to be derived therefrom
and the advantage which will accrue to Owner as a result of the effect
on ths method of determining the assessed value of land described herein 1
and any reduction therein due to the imposition of the limitations on its
use contained herein.
18. Income and Expense Information. The Owner shall annually
furnish the County Assessor with such information as he may require to
enable him to determine the valuation of the Owner's land.
-7-
19. Effect of Removing Preserve or Zonis Classification.
Removal of any lard under this Contract from an agricultural preserve
or removing the agricultural preserve zoning classification therof
shall be the equivalent of notice of non-renewal by the County for
purposes of Section 422 of the Revenue and Taxation Coder
COUNTY O:' CONTPM COSTA
Thomas John Qoll
Chairnan, S and of Supervisors
ATTEST OT;MER
W. T. P rich'
Clerk of Hoard {
Deputy Clerk tiu a� nz c., . c'ir.• �za2n
lie the undersigned trust Gleed or other encumbrance holders do hereby agree
to and agree to be bound by the above imposed restrictions.
Approved as to Form:
JOHN H. CLAUSEN, County Counsel
By PAUL I BAitE�
Deputy
6
9
gptrtt of (£Iu e=rnu t
Alameda » 1as
04=11Va£ —•-. ?????? _ncxxowiancMarir—Can.rai—
.....day of.,........!ORKPary ....A. D. 19.73. before me,
CATP.....RINE L. P,ETTENfiOCiRT ..a Notarti Public in and for the said
'County and State, residing therein, duly commissioned and sworn,personally ap-
pearcd..-.jTrNRY L. REINSTEIN and CHRISTINE MARGARET
X41pMT101t]fINU11/trYyN]INA:U]�:.7�;yMGj,"J ....................... ......._.._........ ......_........-..........................._..,.......+.....
CATNERily L. BETTEMOURT r' REZNSTFIN, ..
' = NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORMIA tai »»_.».._........._......._._.__...................................__..............._...
._._.._ .._......_ ».._.
�.t.11x PAncipst Office in AtAMEDA COUNTY:t
Ely Commissi n Erpirn April 37-.1973 P known to me to be the person whose names...awe..................subscribed to the
ualwnarl»Wmuuust»Htxnaru+Tx31us7riri>id :within Instrument, and acknowledged to me that thy executed the same.
Tn �ii#ness pr2lteretyL I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seat
the day and year in this Ccrtif- ate first above written. --
Notary PuNie in and for said County and State of CaUlarnis
r My commission F..xpire.._fip2 .-,_L7L_1973T"CATHERINE L.. BETTENCOURT
t
, Form CA—Sam Rop41n/ L001 Forms Psmtv,a L.rvice, 1328 FruSlvats Ave.. Qokiand, Cb1it.
s
Contra Costa County Land Conservation Contract No.
EXHIBIT A
PROPERTI' DESCRIPTION
Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of the Land Conservation Contract
to which this exhibit is attach4d, the land described below is
designated as the subject of said Contract. Said land is des-
cribed as follows:
That real property located in the County of Contra,
State of California, more particularly described as
follows: The legal description to said property is
contained in Schedule 1, consisting of t pages,
attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
12-4-69
l XilIB7T ern"
That parcel of land in the County of Contra Costa, State of
California, described as follovr„:
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, % 6, 7, 81 10 and 11, as shown on that certain
Map entitled, "lioilan'd�Ranch." filed Larch 4, 1918, Book 16, mapS
page 347, in the Office of the County/ Recorder of the County of Contra
Costa, State of California.
EXCEPTING from Lot 10, a certain 3. 00 acre parcel of land reserved
for school purposes described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast
corner of said Lot 10, and running thence along the North boundary of
said Lot, North 88 degrees 09 minutes East, 220. 00 feet to a point;
thence running South 9 degrees 25 minutes .West-, 605.81 feet to a
point; thence running South 88 degrees 05 minutes West, 220.00 feet
to a point on the West line of said Lot and on the East line of a
road; thence running along said line of said road, North 9 'degrees
25 minutes East, 605. 01' feet to the point' of. beginning.
Contra Costa County Land Conservation Contract No.
EXHIBIT B
ALWRABLE IAND USES
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.169 (a) (2) of the
Contra Costa County Ordinance Code and Paragraph 7 of the
Land Conservation Contract, of which this exhibit is made
a part, the land uses and ntructures described below are
authorized without a land use permit subject to the terms
and conditions set forth below. Said uses and structures
shall be in addition to those authorized by Subsections (a).
(1) and (b) , but shall be subject to Subsections (c) , (d) ,
(o) , (f) , (g) , (h) , (i) , and (j) of Section 8169 of the
County Ordinance Code.
1. Existing hon-conforming Structures
The following non-conforming structures
are permitted, subject to the provisions
of County Ordinance Code Section 8107:
2. Existing Conforming Structures
rwvol
L~S'* )hii:lp
3. Proposed Structures
4. Existim Land Use
«.�Siculruvraa Lsatlsa?, aa�a +�'*stt+:r�3.
5. Proposed Land Use
12-4-69 jl= xw.
No. 1433 -R2
AI•IENDNLIrNIT TO LUNO CONSERVATION CONTRACT
BY THIS AMENDMENT, made and entered into the 28th day of February,
1970, 11. REINSTEIN et al hereinafter referred to
as "OWNER" and the County of Contra Costa, hereinafter referred to as
"COUNTY", do mutually agree as follows:
1. The Land Conservation Contract between OTWNTER and COMMY, entered
into on the 28th day of FEBRUARY, 1970, is hereby amended as follows:
a, 'The following provision of Section 10 of the Contract,
entitled "Cancellation", appearing on page 4, is hereby deleted and shall
be of no force and effect:
"If the Contract has been subject to a previous notice of
non-renewal, the amount shall be determined by multiplying
the amount of deferred taxes computed above by the ratio
that the number of years remaining in the term of the
Contract bears to'ten (10) years."
b, The provisions of Section 12 of the Contract, entitled
"Eminent Romain Proceedings", are hereby amended to read:
."12. Eminent Domain-Proceedings. Upon the filing of any
action in .eutinent domain for the condemnation of the fee
title of the land or any portion thereof subject to this
Contract or upon acquisition of such land in lieu of eminent
domain by a public agency for a public improvement, the
provisions of this Contract by which Owner agrees to restrict •
the use of land described herein shall be null and void as to
the land so condemned or acquired.
"If, subsequent to the filing of an action in eminent domain,
the proposed condemnation is abandoned as to all or a portion
of the land subject to the Contract, the restrictions on land
use set forth in this Contract shall, without further agree-
ment of the parties herein, be reinstituted and the terms. of
• this Contract shall be in full force and effect."
2. It is the intention of the parties, by this amendment, to insure
that the Contract, as amended, qualifies as an "enforceable restriction" as
6
defined in Section 422 of the Revenue and Taxation Code by deletion of
terms which could be construed as less restrictive than those required
by the Land Conservation Act as amended by Chapter 1372, 1969 SLacutes.
COUNTY OF CONTi�A COSTA
7HOMA
By T PI;
ATTEST Chai man, B ' rd of Supervisors
W. T . PAAtr _
Clerk o` the SoaOunerrj j
By
Ai 3 een EE der. henry L. -Heins c:ln)
. L 7rls�:ine .� . 1 exnscein�
We, the undersigned .trust deed or other encumbrance holders, do hereby
agree to and agree to be bound by the above-imposed restrictions.
Approved as to form:
John B. Clausen, County Counsel
By. PAUL W. FAKER
Deputy
..... 53 ..-t1CMO WLEDOMMIT—Gonerul—
"
(on lilis.---.2,5:i^'Pt.....clay of..... G17.K.T.i 3'•.._..._........A. D. 19-.hr.Q, before me.
..........M^1.11=1IZ .1T:...L.....T.ii.S'.'!rr1Xv.QUF.T.....a Idotarp Public in and for the said
'County and State, residing therein, duly commissioned and sworn,personally ap-
peared.......
p-Feared.......11M.RY... ?NIS SEY �}_.x1Si'i..Gld?2Z.,�Z�;.T.Z ..�.
t. CATHEPME L. BETTEIICOUPT w ..........................__.-_......,..........._-........-..._........«_.__.....
110 MY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA ' ..............••••.•.
"tea• Prinripd attics in AIAMFDA COUNTr
L:y Coxminl:n E1,1M..Apo 17,7373 „ known to me to be the persons whose name.r3«.-.....g,.X4............subscribed to the
'POW '," within Instrument, and acknowledged to me that ths, executed the same.
s' Tit Fitness Phereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal
the day and year in this Certificate first above written.
Notary Public in and for said County and State of California
MY Commission Expires...tiPX13.�17-r.._ .�.3...._.0 TfiER NT.'. =+• �..... COURT
_
form CA—Sam HoAms Leval Forme Pdntina Service, 2328 rrultvale Ave.. Oakland, Calit.