title
Deny the Claim for Refund of Taxes of Zayo Group, LLC in the amount of $36,250.88 for tax year 2020/2021, plus interest, in unitary taxes; and Deny the Claim for Refund of Taxes for Lodi Gas Storage, LLC in the amount of $72,202.86 for tax year 2020/2021, plus interest, in unitary taxes
body
Published Notice Required? Yes ___ No _ _
Public Hearing Required? Yes ___ No _ _
DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION:
The Office of the County Counsel recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Deny the claim for refund of property taxes of Zayo Group, LLC in the amount of $36,250.88 for tax year 2020/2021, plus interest, on state-assessed property located in Solano County that is either owned or used by Zayo Group, LLC.
2. Deny the claim for refund of property taxes of Lodi Gas Storage, LLC in the amount of $72,202.86 for tax year 2020/2021, plus interest on state-assessed property located in Solano County that is either owned or used by Lodi Gas Storage, LLC.
SUMMARY:
Under state law, certain property owned or used by certain gas or communication companies such as these, are annually assessed by the State Board of Equalization (“BOE”). The amount of such “unitary property” assessments attributed to the County by the BOE are then taxed by the County in accordance with a formula mandated by state law (Revenue and Taxation Code § 100). The tax revenue that is collected locally is then distributed by the Auditor-Controller to all taxing entities in the county, including cities, special districts, and the County itself. Both the Zayo Group, LLC and Lodi Gas Storage, LLC have filed a claim for refund for tax year 2020/21, alleging that the property tax rate applied to its property was in excess of rates and that the rate exceeded the rate allowed by the California Constitution. Under the law, the County has no discretion regarding the calculation of the tax, as it is a state-mandated formula.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact to the County for rejecting the claim. If the Board grants refunds, the amounts of $36,250.88 and $72,202.86, plus interest would be drawn by the Auditor-Controller proportionally from the funds of all taxing entities in the County who participate in the distribution of the taxes.
DISCUSSION:
On November 25, 2024, the County received a claim for refund of unitary taxes from Lodi Gas Storage, LLC. for tax year 2020/2021. On December 2, 2024, the County received a claim for refund of unitary taxes from Zayo Group, LLC for tax year 2020/2021. The claims are attached in Attachment A and B. The claim for refund is for taxes on “unitary property.” Under Article XIII, Section 19 of the California Constitution, certain property owned or used by companies throughout the state are annually assessed by the BOE.
The unitary tax rate is calculated annually by the local county, which in Solano County is done by the Auditor-Controller, in accordance with a formula mandated by state law (Rev. and Tax. Code § 100). The rate is the sum of the 1% ad valorem tax rate and a “unitary debt service tax rate” component, which is determined by taking the unitary debt service rate for the previous year and adjusting the rate by the percentage change between the two preceding fiscal years in the County’s ad valorem debt service levy for the secured roll (not including unitary and operating nonunitary debt service) (Rev. & Tax. Code § 100(b)(2)).
Both Lodi Gas Storage, LLC and Zayo Group, LLC argue that they are entitled to a partial refund of such taxes on the grounds that they violate the California Constitution in that the property tax rate applied to compute claimants’ property taxes exceeded the rate allowed by Article XIIIA, section 1 of the California Constitution.
Regardless of the merits of their arguments, the County is given no discretion on its calculation of the unitary tax rate; it is a mandated formula set by the State. Because of this, the Auditor-Controller has no power to declare it unenforceable “on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional.” (Cal. Const., Art. III, § 3.5(a).) It is recommended that the Board reject the claim.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Board may grant the refund claim and authorize the Auditor-Controller to pay the refund. However, a refund is not supported by law and, if the Board grants a refund, the amounts of $36,250.88 and $72,202.86, plus interest, would be drawn by the Auditor-Controller proportionally from the funds of all taxing entities in the county who participate in the distribution of the taxes, 90 days after the refund is granted.
OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT:
The Auditor-Controller assisted in preparing this item and endorses the recommendation.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION