|
|
|
|
COUNTY OF SAN MATEOInter-Departmental Correspondence |
County Counsel |
| |
DATE: |
October 3, 2003 |
BOARD MEETING DATE: |
October 21, 2003 |
| |
TO: |
Honorable Board of Supervisors |
FROM: |
County Counsel |
SUBJECT: |
Claim for Refund of Property Taxes by Jack Yetiv (350 Allen Road, Woodside, APN No. 075-340-270) |
| |
Recommendation |
Deny the claim for refund of property taxes paid for the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 tax years for the property at 350 Allen Road, Woodside, APN No. 075-340-270. |
| |
Background |
Jack Yetiv is the owner of a single family residence at 350 Allen Road in Woodside, on 25 acres of land, in a Timber Production Zone ("TPZ"). He purchased the property in February 2001 for $2,495,000. Based on special rules relating to the valuation of TPZ property, Mr. Yetiv's property was valued by the Assessor at $1,249,772. After a hearing before the Assessment Appeals Board ("AAB") on January 9, 2003, the AAB reduced the valuation to $954,772 (increased to $973,845 in 2002). Mr. Yetiv filed a lawsuit, and then this Claim for Refund, seeking a further reduction to $406,500. |
| |
Discussion |
At the Assessment Appeals Board hearing, Mr. Yetiv disputed the determination that one acre (of the total 25) was the appropriate allocation for his home site, and also disputed the valuation of the remaining timber production or "TPZ" land. He sought a determination that one quarter acre was the correct size of the home site, and argued that the TPZ land was worth $55 per acre, rather than the $198 which the Assessor used. The home site size is significant because the land on which the home sits is valued at a higher rate than the remaining TPZ land, which is valued according to state law and guidelines from the State Board of Equalization. The AAB agreed with the Assessor that the home site should be one acre, and that the TPZ land should be valued at $198 per acre ($4,772 for 24 acres); but reduced the valuation of the one acre home site from $750,000 to $500,000 and the improvements (the house) from $495,000 to $450,000. He makes similar claims in the lawsuit which he filed on April 11, 2003. |
| |
It is our recommendation that you deny this claim for refund because this matter was addressed properly by the Assessment Appeals Board, and is now the subject of pending litigation. |
| |
Vision Alignment |
This action furthers the County's commitment to responsive, effective and collaborative government, and the goal that government decisions be based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain. |
| |
Fiscal Impact |
No fiscal impact is anticipated, unless the claim for refund were granted. |