HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10221996 - C66 i
C. 66, C.67, C.68, C.69 and C.70
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on October 22, 1996 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Conrespondence
C.66 CLAIM dated October 9, 1996, from Robert Wood, Esq., 235 Montgomery Street,
Suite 972, San Francisco, CA 94104-3002, submitted on behalf of Howden Wind
Parks, Inc. for refund of property taxes in the amount of $49,269.97 levied in fiscal
year 1995-1996.
****REFERRED TO ASSESSOR, COUNTY COUNSEL, AND
TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR
C.67 CLAIM dated September 13, 1996, from James L. Cook, Manager, Property Tax,
Unocal Corporation, 2929 East Imperial Highway, Brea, CA 92621, for refund of
property taxes levied in fiscal year 1996-1997.
****REFERRED TO ASSESSOR, COUNTY COUNSEL, AND
TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR
C.68 LETTER dated September 24, 1996, from Kathleen Connell, Controller of the State of
California, P.O. Box 942850, Sacramento, CA 94250-0001, advising that its desk
review of the County's single audit report for the 1994-1995 fiscal year has been
completed and satisfies all financial and compliance audit requirements under
individual federal assistance programs.
*****REFERRED TO AUDITOR-CONTROLLER AND COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR
C.69 LETTER dated October 8, 1996, from Mary Dunne, 3524 Oliver Court, Lafayette, CA
94549, protesting the proposed annexation of the Moraga and Orinda Fire Protection
Districts into one District.
*****REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, LAFCO
C.70 LETTER dated October 8, 1996, from Brenda Duenas, Secretary, Bay Point Municipal
Advisory Council, 3105 Willow Pass Road, Bay Point, CA 94565
****REFERRED TO CHIEF, CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations as noted (****) are
approved.
I hereby certlhr that this Is a true and coned copy of
an action taken and entered on do Wkwim of so
Board of Supery ora on a date shown. p
c.c.Correspondents ATTESTED: 9�p
County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the board
Assessor of Sapervisora and Cgunty Administrator
County Counsel
Treasurer-Tax Collector
Auditor-Controller
Chief,CCC Fire Protection District
ROBERT W. WOOD
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEY AT LAW
CALIFORNIA, NEW YORK, 235 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 972 TEL (4 15) 834-1800
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FAX (415) 834-1888
AND ARIZONA BARS SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104-3002 DIRECT (415) 834-1868
CERTIFIED SPECIALIST IN
TAXATION, CALIFORNIA BOARD OF
LEGAL SPECIALIZATION RECEIVED
fcw--
a
e 'fOctober 9, 1996 OCT 1 0=
80 TRA COSTA CO.RD OF �SORS
Board of Supervisors - --
County of Contra Costa
651 Pine Street #106
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Howden Wind Parks, Inc.
To the Board of Supervisors:
The undersigned, as attorney for Howden Wind Parks, Inc., the claimant herein
("Claimant"), hereby makes this claim for refund of taxes on behalf of the Claimant
pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5097 and demands that the Board
of Supervisors make its order directing the Controller of said County to refund to
Claimant the sum of $49,269.97 in taxes levied for the fiscal year 1995-1996. In
support of said claim, the undersigned states:
1 . Claimant is and at all times herein mentioned was, a corporation duly organized
and existing under the laws of the state of California, with its principal place of
business located at 6400 Village Parkway, Dublin, CA 94568, Contra Costa
County.
2. For the fiscal year 1995-1996, the Assessor of Contra Costa County assessed
two claims at certain property located in said County and described as follows:
APN 220735-0000 Both parcels comprise wind energy
APN 220735-0002 equipment located at Byron Hot
Springs Area, Byron, CA
On the basis of said assessment, taxes were levied on said property for said fiscal
year in the sum of $45,000 and paid by claimant in full on or about August 25,
1995. Claimant is entitled to a refund of said taxes on each of the following
independent grounds:
(a) The assessment for the taxpayer's 1994-1995 tax year for the two
parcels in question (the year immediately preceding that for which this refund
claim is filed) was reduced to $1 ,400,000. The Assessor's Office for the
County of Contra Costa indicated willingness to stipulate to a reduced figure
(five percent of cost) for the subsequent taxable year (1995-1996, the year
Board of Supervisors
October 9, 1996
Page 2
for which this refund claim is submitted). Indeed, the 1996-1997 bills for
the two parcels reflect values totaling $2,204,945, also reflecting a value of
approximately five percent of cost. Nonetheless, the Assessor's Office has
now refused to reduce the 1995-1996 valuation to take into account both its
conclusion as to value (as manifested in the 1996-1997 bills), and the
Assessment Appeals Board's conclusion of value for the 1994-1995 year (as
reflected in the Assessment Appeals Board Decision After Hearing
(Application Nos. 94-1160 and 94-1161) dated June 27, 1996.
(b) The Assessor's Office is required to reduce the value of the two parcels
in question for the 1995-1996 tax year in these circumstances, S.B. 821 ,
which was passed in October 1995, amended Section 51 of the Revenue
and Taxation Code concerning reductions in the taxable value of property and
the effect of such reductions on subsequent years. Under Revenue and
Taxation Code Section 51 (e), where the taxable value of property has been
reduced, the assessor is required to continue to determine the taxable value
of that property on the basis of its fair market value for each following lien
date. Significantly, the Legislative Counsel's Digest to S.B. 821 states that
this Act requires assessors to continue to determine the taxable value of the
property based on such reduced value. S.B. 821 states that these
amendments to Section 51 of the Revenue and Taxation Code do not
constitute a change in existing law, but rather are to be considered to be
declaratory of existing law.
(c) Independently, under A.B. 1620, which was passed by the California
legislature in July 1995 and took effect immediately as an "urgency" statute,
Section 4831 (b) of the Revenue and Taxation Code was amended to provide
that any error or omission involving the exercise of a value judgment that
arises solely from a failure to reflect a decline in the taxable value of property
may be corrected within one year after the making of the assessment that is
being corrected. Claimant filed an application for such reduction within this
one year period. Thus, the decline in value must be reflected for the 1995-
1996 tax year.
3. No refund of said taxes, or any part thereof, has previously been made.
Board of Supervisors
October 9, 1996
Page 3
1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated October 9, 1996 at San Francisco, California.
DECL T
Robert W. Wood
3394