HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10151996 - C47 C. 47
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on October 15, 1996 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Correspondence
C.47 LETTER dated September 26, 1996, from Douglas Mo, Shartsis, Friese & Ginsburg,
LLP, Eighteenth Floor, One Maritime Plaza, San Francisco, CA 94111, submitting
supplements to claims for refund of property taxes previously filed on behalf of Bio-
Rad Laboratories, Inc.
****REFERRED TO COUNTY COUNSEL
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation as noted
(****) is approved.
{Ae►ebq tartly that this Is a true and correct copy of
an adton taken and entered on the minutes of tlN
Dam of 818 Isors on the date shown,
PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the board
at 8upsrvisors and County Administrator
c.c.County Administrator
County Counsel y�•
SHARTSIS, F iaiESE & GINSBUI3G, LLP
R...RT GHA—s FRIES. TELEPHONE
ARTHUR J.SHARTSIS EIGHTEENTH FLOOR (4.15) 421-6500
MARY JO SHARTSIS
PAUL M.GINSBuxo ONE MARITIME PLAZA
Ro..RT D.E—N. FACSIMILE
DOUGLAS L.HAMMER SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94111 (415) 421-2922
RoU -D HAY ss MA-- >
JOEL ZELDIN
JOHN P.BROADHURST
D—H.KREMEA COUNSEL
GHAHLES R.RICE MONIQUE VAN YZBRLOOY
ANTHONY B.LEUIN MARY R.MONTELLA
Dou LAS Mo
ROBERT E.SCHABERG
TRACY L.SALISBURY
JEFFREY A.O'CONNELL
SUSAN YO..JA—
GARGLYxR.KLASaG September 26, 1996
JEI--J.GOODRICH
ERIc M.SIPPEL
JONATHAN M.KENNEDY
ADAM K.ELSBSS..
STEVEN O.GASSER
BARBARA W.STAHAN
Z..—C.CHAN
CY W.HAYNES RECEIVED
CHRI—STOSTO PHER J.RUPRIOHT
CAR—
S.M....—
.REISER
ELLEN S.MOUCHAWAH
ROBERT GHARLES WARD
CARL D.GIOGH—
M.M—R..
HONM.MICHELE E
MICHAEL S..—.
SEP 3 01996
B.SCHWARZ
JAMS P.MAST—
LARA A.ORS.
BENJAMIN L.DOUGLAS
GHBISTINA M.O'BRIEN
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BY CERTIFIED MAIL CONTRA COSTA CO.
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Sir or Madam:
Enclosed for filing is a supplement to claims for refund
previously filed by Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. Please file stamp
the enclosed copy and return it to me.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please call
me if you have any questions .
Very truly yours,
0/�
Doug Mo
DM:dm
Enclosure
cc : Dennis Graves (w/encl . )
C:\DMS\0590\030\0182120.WP ��"i
SUPPLEMENT TO CLAIMS FOR REFUND
To: Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
This document supplements the claims for refund filed by
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc . ( "Claimant") on or about November 27,
1991, and April 4, 1996 .
On August 1, 1996, the Contra Costa Assessment Appeals
Board (the "Board" ) adopted findings of fact and conclusions of law
with respect to assessment appeal applications 93-1532 through
1535, 93-3911 through 3926, 94-1138 through 1141, and 95-1932
through 1935 . A copy of the findings of fact and conclusions of
law are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
The taxes paid on the assessments adjudicated by the
Board were erroneously and wrongfully collected and wrongfully
assessed and levied. The reasons include, but are not limited to,
the following:
1 . The Board used an illegal method in determining the full cash
value of the "property acquired" as set forth in Revenue and
Taxation Code Section 68 (b) for the 1987 base year value of
the replacement property at 1001 and 4000 Alfred Nobel Drive,
Hercules .
2 . The Board used an illegal method in determining the "amount
received" for the displaced property at 2200 .and 2400 Wright
Avenue, Richmond, as set forth in Revenue and Taxation Code
Section 68 (b) .
3 . The Board made an erroneous legal conclusion that they were to
determine the value of the displaced property instead of the
"amount received" for the displaced property.
4 . The Board made a legal error because they did not use the
standard of valuation applicable to condemnation proceedings,
which served as the basis for the "amount received" by
Claimant for the displaced property.
5 . The Board made a legal error by ignoring the special use
property replacement cost valuation introduced by Claimant
which supported the $20 million "amount received" for the
displaced property.
6 . The Board made a legal error by using a depreciation
adjustment in determining the "amount received" for the
displaced property.
7 . The Board valued the replacement property for all relevant tax
year "in use" rather that "in exchange" as required by Section
110 of the Revenue and Taxation Code .
V,7
8 . The findings of fact of the Board are not supported by
substantial evidence. These unsupported findings include,
without limitation:
a. that only $6, 170, 145 was received by Claimant for the
value of the displaced property;
b. that of the $20, 000, 000 received by Claimant, all but
$6, 170, 145 was received for severance damages to property
other than the displaced property;
C . that the fair market value of the replacement property
was $23 , 328, 091;
d. that the March 1, 1994 and March 1, 1995, values for 1001
Alfred Nobel Drive exceed the values proposed by both
Claimant and the Assessor;
e . that no Proposition 8 reduction was warranted for all of
the property at issue for lien dates March 1, 1988
through March 1, 1992 ;
f . that the value of the improved parcels (parcels 404-181-
010, 011 and 012) as of March 1, 1993 was $40, 899, 787;
g. that the value of the vacant land had not declined in
value as of March 1, 1993 ;
h. that the value of the improved parcels as of March 1,
1994, was $39, 190, 605;
i . that the value of the vacant land as of March 1, 1994,
was $3 , 884, 029;
j . that the value of the improved parcels as of March 1,
1995, was $39, 656, 970; and
2
k. that the value of the vacant land as of March 1, 1995,
was $3 , 153 , 623 .
No refund of the taxes demanded has been received by
Claimant .
I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the
State of California that the foregoing is true and correct .
Executed on September 27, 1996, at San Francisco,
California.
BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC.
By '0a'V11 —
Attorn�y and Agent
C:\DMS\0590\030\0182115.WP
3
EXHIBIT A v
BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD OF CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY EEC.18�IVED
31996In the matter of appeals of: ) rrW%co. °0�'1D
Bio-Rad Incorporated, ) Findings of Fact
Applications 93-1532 — 1535,) and Conclusions of Law
93-3911 — 3926, 94 - 1138 — )
1141, 95-1932 — 1935; )
(APNs 404-181-001, )
404-181-005 —.007, )
404-181-009 - 012, )
(including ex 560-150-0091 )
The Assessment Appeals Board of Contra Costa County adopts the following as
its findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the valuation decisions
after hearing, mailed June 18, 1996 (decision date of June 13, 1996).
1. Sheets 1 and 1 a, attached hereto and incorporated as part of these findings,
demonstrate the 1987 fair market value of the replacement property and the
calculation of the Proposition 3 base year value for such property. Sheet 2, also
attached hereto and incorporated as part of these findings, sets forth the detail
of this Board's decisions on values for all parcels in issue for all years.
2. Proposition 3 determinations:
a. Proposition 3 and the implementing legislation contemplate that the
amount received (R+TC Sec. 68(b)) for the condemned property be only
the amount paid by the condemning agency for the taxable property.
Proposition 3 and the implementing legislation contemplate transferring
1
the base year value benefit of condemned taxable property to taxable
comparable replacement property and, as Rule 462.5(b)(4) indicates, the
amount received in the statutory formula (see attachments) for
determining the base year value of the replacement property should not
include any amounts paid by the condemning agency for severance
damages to property other than the condemned property or for goodwill or
other damages to the condemnee's business interests. Thus, Proposition
3 and the implementing legislation and SBE Rules contemplate that the
amount received in the statutory formula reflect the value of the taxable
property condemned and not the value of other interests.
b. The special circumstance or special use property replacement cost
valuations sometimes used in condemnations are not determinative for
California property tax valuation purposes, including Proposition 3
purposes. Such valuations fail to include the depreciation adjustment
required to reach fair market value for California property taxation
purposes, ie, such valuations are RCN rather than the RCNLD required
by California property tax law. Accordingly, the special circumstance or
special use property replacement cost valuations introduced by Bio-Rad
do not demonstrate the fair market value relevant herein.
c. Of the $20,000,000 received by Bio Rad from.Cal Trans, this Board
finds that only $6,170,145 was received for the value of the condemned
taxable property in Richmond replaced by comparable property at 4000
and 1001 Alfred Noble Drive in Hercules.
d. Of the $20,000,000 received by Bio Rad from Cal Trans, this Board
finds that the amount exclusive of the $6,170,145 was for severance
damages to property other than the condemned property replaced by the
comparable property at 4000 and 1001 Alfred Noble Drive in Hercules
2
and/or for goodwill or other damages to Bio Rad's non-taxable business
interests.
e. The base year value of the condemned Richmond property was
$4,077,652.
f. The total Fair Market Value of Replacement Property (4000 and 1001
Noble Drive, APNs 404-181-006 and 007) was $26,328,091, yielding a
total Prop 3 Base Year Value of Replacement Property of$23,001,569,
determined and allocated as shown on attached Sheets 1 and 1 a.
3. Value methodologies:
The values have been determined according to the following
methodologies:
The Board considered all three approaches to value.
a. 1987 Fair Market Value of Replacement Property (4000 and 1001
Noble Drive) of$26,328,091:
The Board gave some weight to the Assessor's market and income
approaches, which indicated values in excess of $26,00,000 for parcels
404-181-006 and 007. However, the Board considered the cost
approach to be the best indicator of value because the improvements had
just been newly constructed.
The adjusted historical cost (trended and depreciated actual book
costs) and Marshal Swift tables replacement cost approachs well support
a value in the $26,000,000 to $27,000,000 range.
Reconciling the value indicators, but relying most heavily on the
cost approach, this Board determines the value of the land and
3
improvements constituting parcels 404-181-006 and 007 to be
$26,328,091 in 1987.
b. The Proposition 3 new base year values for the replacement property
were determined as set forth above. The allocation between parcels was
based on reported costs. These values were reflected in supplemental
assessments for 1987 and in the new base year values enrolled for the
March 1, 1988 lien date.
c. For lien dates March 1, 1988 through March 1, 1992, the March 1,
1988 land and improvement values were inflation factored for each year
to arrive at the factored base year values for those elements of the
taxable values in those years. No Prop 8 decline in value was warranted
for land and improvements for those years.
For personal property and fixtures (PSI) for lien dates March 1, 1988
through March 1, 1992, the Board determines that the values asserted by
the Assessor fairly represent the fair market value of the property.
The detail and allocation of the foregoing is shown on Sheet 2.
d. For lien date March 1, 1993, a Prop 8 declined value was allowed,
determined as follows:
For the 3 improved parcels (404-181-005, 006 + 007), the Board
relied primarily on the Assessor's sales approach, valuing the land and
improvements at a total value of $40,899,787. In that the fair market
values of the land and improvements were found to be less than the
factored base year values, the fair market values were determined to be
the taxable values.
In determining the taxable value of the vacant land (parcel 404-
181-001), the Board relied primarily on the Assessor's market approach.
Because the fair market value of the property was greater than the
4
factored base year value, the taxable value is the factored base year
value per R+TC Sec. 51(b).
For personal property and fixtures (PSI), the Board determines that
the values asserted by the Assessor fairly represent the full market value
of the property.
The detail and allocation of the foregoing among the parcels is as
shown on Sheet 2.
e. For lien date March 1, 1994, a Prop 8 declined value was allowed,
determined as follows:
For the 3 improved parcels (404-181-010, 011 + 012), the Board
considered new additions made to the property during the year and relied
primarily on the Assessor's sales approach, valuing the land and
improvements at-a total value of$39,190,605. In that the fair market
values of the land and improvements were found to be less than the
factored base year values, the fair market values were determined to be
the taxable values.
In determining the taxable value of the vacant land (parcel 404-
181-009), the Board relied primarily on the Assessor's sales approach.
Because the fair market value of the property was lower than the factored
base year value, the taxable value is the fair market value per R+TC Sec.
51(b).
For personal property and fixtures (PSI), the Board determines that
the values asserted by the Assessor fairly represent the fair market value
of the property.
The detail and allocation of the foregoing among the parcels is as
shown on Sheet 2.
f. For lien date March 1, 1995, a Prop 8 declined value was allowed,
.determined as follows:
5
For the 3 improved parcels (404-181-010, 011 + 012), the Board
considered new additions made to the property during the year and relied
primarily on the Assessor's sales approach, valuing the land and
improvements at a total value of$39,656,970. In that the fair market
values of the land and improvements were found to be less than the
factored base year values, the fair market values were determined to be
the taxable values.
In determining the taxable value of the vacant land (parcel 404-
181-009), the Board relied primarily on the Assessor's sales approach.
Because the fair market value of the property was lower than the factored
base year value, the taxable value is the fair market value per R+TC Sec.
51(b).
For personal property and fixtures (PSI), the Board determines that
the values asserted by the Assessor fairly represent the fair market value
of the property.
The detail and allocation of the foregoing among the parcels is as
shown on Sheet 2.
g. As required by California law, this Board's valuations, including those
in which the cost approach is an indicator, are determined under the
principle of value in exchange rather than value i use to the owner.
Dated: 8-l 4
J.D. Dunlap
Chair, Assessment Appeals Board
c: bioradff.doc-Q
cc Applicant
Agent
Assessor
County counsel
6
Z �
oil
0
it
co
e'O
_ O
* T x
N
P-
r
0
r r O
r-
cn
o
C r to
aD �"• N � � O
co t-
� U
r
,y r
o ONZi ct
Q C►
W z LL to Chi has � � � N
•t.
E
dl
r
•- p
w y{ V L1 O
Z
to rt o
ami o g �u o
00 .a
m
CC
~ N N
N a M U) m t„ tf COP r s
r
x•Mf•.aw..Aauir/••n. .. ..v.w w ... ... .. .., . m.pn;.., ...w......... .. .. .. ...vrc...MY•c:v/ia•. .,..... i..+mss wgpl.� ...... ••'-11i.rr: .v.. a.r-1w•.ww.+.•.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O
a
o 0 0 0 C. P o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 C. o P o 0
F
V N
17
000000pfZ OO OOOPOOO OO O OO O xi f�
N O �p
tT
w ca 000 - 0 =
r rt A WR N R —men P7
N fV
1-
p W 61 pe r c7 °ln
Oa. O O �i' /� o f+0 1n a0'0 aD, Of �2'i p C P
m Ln
Yt�tpDp � Qi t.. m O��Npp OI.A.pp SOI ftD �O} OtD
Z co f•O MO 010 NaD
co 001 �+Af .A.�}}•• N nvyf
N reh tD NaDAtD 01 tID rp a0 Ott O 00
CL N N tV fV�-
O 00 co A O Mp1 rt f7 ��appO W IN+ M tA'f m N co N N (NMV
y 1010 AAtOMAO tD,� at1OO) 1D O1 �- Y rO N at O:t N CL
w EM40 el $ �
rtrtHNAONM A NNfANO N1 Mtn K M a0
toW W aD co W 91 01 W co W Y •1'�a'O vi vl.r M M 0 A A M M
I N r r r r r r r �- r r
a NNNNR NrtN N{tmp Ort MM ooN G�rpp M �tcpooN f001 ttpp co N
en
� rNNNON� NtOD. OOOD th tMDt 01� aD0 N t�A
.f 0iO ONf� A M A NNO OM M O
N N 1n r CV r N tD of p o1 M N 0 {p Sn
J E N N M P1 ^f t0 A A N M tff to a0 0 fh ID O th in at N �t O 0 0
0O00w0in OO tVNNMMMN NN N t0W
r r r r r r r r r r
O/ O1 A O7 O •p rt 0 O M (p A O M
MM NA�V tp aDf N � ^ r0 h N A N N NN
N N N ao N N R 91 M of acta0 th M r N O O r 1n fV O tD
p OM ^ MOW01 OONO1NWO AO M mlv M
InM r1� .p A {D {DO 88tt R01f• w wo r RN 9 m ^
• �[ rrNNt*J aYrt /h 'f CO r NN 0101 W 01
N MMM Mfg MM MM N NN N NN N N r MM
NNfN(� tO fy') pAp�� O �NpN hy. tD Ot tY+� .Op {Mp oM NN � O {ryp Yf f7 app
rtf O � th Oaf Oaf OIn bM700Y'! 0R O hN N W fD
��pp ��pp �Otp MtttpnpNpn pp1 aDf r A C O C ♦ N
NN01NN08A OI O1 IDmt' moof O N M M act
O) 01 1n r o7 apt M A h 01 M w tD r 01 Nl (D ��f000 Nf ao O)
f. WaO OIOOOOM Nr YnA/001 (� O A Nh �•f
r r r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N
01 MN 01 O O1 co M M ' o
t0 A ^ M A O co A o O M O1 M R
00f tDOJtO1na00 �Of0, t'1N aON
p QQt:O Whfn MM int A .r'<riCh 4m M W
= a 33 � h� `$,:G� oa^'o_^ cao_ o10 0 00
r r N N N N N M rt rt Y K Y Y
MNO1 to t,- O OAAf r 01 M,
�
��tn
CD�y .f ANA NM N aDn
0� 1�0� N tff 01 h, r Y tD O O t0
N Q Q O M tti O{p YO Oi A 1: W
CL 33o :t o Mo rN W coy M Atn o 00
..w .-eYito F{soAtofnw co 0t1
W N Nr
Ln 0OpfQ� op tp �p tp �D
Q �'f 0m W) `p'1 t0 f�/ en 9Ai.0Ai fAf'��P O�i tD NO �i n N c. (D
o N NN Rf0 O _;c; N
Z �g E �eV nen � o:n � ocov. � at
W 6 }, fowwaDmwom 9i 91 Kvf NO vl to W;m O pf pJ Yf
a co
pAp Ap Y1 p� N Vf rt rt f 1� Q O a0 f N N A A O O O
J Go
� aD a0 w r n W !- tD Y co t- 01 GO 0! !D A
Q O N W AI h to O vi N tti cr vi:moi ti-i'i 0i O1 M N
A A A M N M co 01 y OI 01 pp .p (� co N A M O
W'O C r-N91 NtDA ap 01 MMtD a; F30,11 OCl In rR
LL OaNNOOOO OO riC4 MM �f !: co OD
r r �.. r
2
Q3 mwo rN�y G.po wttpp ♦o • 8tp tapo rn �My tD O tv+f SOD
G YM'IK U OD MNYO M W a�Or Prl eh .R- 00 NO O .�-� N oO tD
Y MAMYOap a��Off 1sDD �p Hpf{NpA ��py ar O N
� � �fYNMY"1c1 c'f a0t .O- CSN OOf Ch a0 df OAf M Go 01
m MMMMMMMM MM NNNNNf�N N -ort
'a N_ f_ tD aO (N0� (ry�(♦� O M_ YYA OI�y�My � W YY \ Ch N 0
Q OI OI OI Ol O1 OI OfO gip/ fn
010101010101M iT N � Ol
O mm 9l 9J m 9! 91 O1 01 r O! 0! 01 01 CD M 01 r 0/ 0 Of 01 Of
a pppggq w
nl
b E F b S F
Q N g� ?! ?! ?S ?! �f as ?! a �! ?!of ?! �! i of m a iQ� a! A
y >
O r N M d N t0 A 'o O1 r N f1' 1A {� t� aQ 01 Q r' N M • N .n -- - - _. _-
M Pf M t7 M M M M M M � rt •
X7
J
Y
� � a
u
Ln
r M M
_ ti tMO O
t
Q M N CO �
16
a
LO
a $
W co co
m
oC4a a �` t OR. a �
d aoa � mp„ r
Wfr eNioN Q et � FO- Lc � O "'
m
N O o0 m4t mN O
P3 1 RT ICN
0 t/1 C 0) (DD M tNA Ct 0) M 400im
N N M n
D et M Go co y- O > a
N .+ 0) .4y r` OOo2v tic��
CL ya � � ON Ct -- q + NO EfnN Eco
CAw
0 Z .0 'C cm0. cD et O et co c0 ccs c"� O 4n co '� 00 N r-
1'4 ,
9 75
d �;' c E j n. '- V-
v � J a CL a. �_ c c � cry c
Q Q' to w 0) N
0 > y m >>UUa > g1 'Jtr� �"� � Jt0N
`o q LL SKI m a a Y
m coco
m44 z
W O 0LL
r
N
cto
�-1
z _ a
0 C
W m O Q
N D C 00 apod0 Cg
rN �„� ,� tntDti000rNMet 4ptD (� 0001OrNM eltt� tDf` OQiOrNM etOtD � 000OrNMee��
r r r r r �- r r r r N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M Met tt a tt et