[forum/header.htm]
  E-Mail Forum
  RETURN
  Chevron Property Tax Appeal Exposes Raw Nerves
December 16, 2011
 

With a decision from the Contra Costa Assessment Appeals Board on the Chevron property tax appeals drawing ever nearer, activists have stepped up both the level of protests and the accompanying rhetoric. For background and media reports of recent events, a number of articles are copied below in this email.

The incident that appears to be drawing the most comments is the one Police Commissioner Felix Hunziker reported December 14 that on December 13, WCCUSD Board Member Antonio Medrano, attending an event to celebrate Chevron’s grants to local non-profits, “…announced to the entire room that while they appreciated Chevron’s contributions the company was like ‘…that great uncle who brings Christmas gifts and then molests your children behind your back’. Over 100 audience members reacted in shocked disbelief at this ugly comment, which was allegedly repeated later that day at another Chevron event.”

Richmond is caught squarely in the middle on this with few places to go. One possible resolution is that Chevron has indicated that it may be willing to negotiate a settlement that will preserve most or all of the past tax payments now being appealed in exchange for more certainty going forward in an assessment process it can live with. This might play out similarly to the mediated settlement of tax issues with Richmond that occurred a couple of years ago resulting in a $114 million payout to Richmond over 15 years.

But this not a certainty, and the negotiation process is just beginning. Meanwhile Chevron is pushing on. In a Contra Costa Times article, Dean O’Hair was quoted, “…the corporation is simply hoping to come out of negotiations with a fair assessment of its property. People want to know that Chevron is paying its fair share of taxes and we're engaged in a process with the county that will determine that amount…Chevron would work with the county to ensure that a future property tax refund wouldn't interfere with essential county services.”

Meanwhile, people are pushing back, utilizing their right of free speech, just as Chevron is exercising its right to a property tax appeal.

The valuation of the Richmond Refinery for property tax purposes may or may not have been spot on in past years, but the City of Richmond had absolutely no involvement in valuation of the property and collection and allocation of taxes, yet it is our City that could be bankrupted by the outcome through absolutely no fault of our own. It feels like a kid being asked by his parents to give back his allowance after he already spent it.

In any event, over the last few years, the real estate market has been volatile, and values have vacillated wildly. Real estate appraisal is, at best, more an art than science and more subjective than objective.

Then add in the disparities and complexities of Proposition 13, which while upheld as constitutional by the highest courts, is inherently unfair by common sense and favors corporations while driving up real estate costs for young adults entering the housing market.

Most of us who are real property owners have benefitted from decreased property tax assessments from downward adjusted valuations, either in response to specific requests, or in many cases, simply imposed by the county assessor based on his own research and data. There wasn’t much of a question that valuations plummeted in general as the economy tanked in 2008, and that the housing prices tanked is indisputable. Commercial property owners have seen tenants leaving unfilled vacancies, and those who didn’t leave renegotiating their rents downward. Instead of making money from investments, many commercial property owners were feeding them to keep them afloat.

But the value of a refinery cannot be determined by the same market forces and comparable sales as more conventional commercial and residential property. In this case, the refinery is an integral part of a vertically integrated energy company that can manipulate and shift financial data up and down the  line to assign whatever value they want to a refinery or any other part of the organization.

So, why would we begrudge Chevron the same opportunity to see their taxes lowered?

For starters, Chevron doesn’t want to just lower taxes in the future. They want a refund – from you and me. How many homeowners whose houses went underwater are going to get a property tax refund? What is undisputable is that whatever property tax money was collected from Chevron and doled out to Richmond and other cities, districts and the County itself by Contra Costa County was spent. It is gone. It wasn’t wasted; it was spent on fire and police, libraries, parks and streets.

The amount Chevron wants us to give back remains unclear. The gross amount is between $100 million and $150 million, depending on who you talk to. Normally, about 60% of that goes to the state, and 30% is distributed locally, including to Richmond. So the local impact might be $30 million to $45 million. In an arcane process used statewide, the County further distributes the money to cities, special districts and the County itself. Currently, Richmond could end up with as little as 3%, which would be $3 million to $4.5 million. But cities throughout the County are currently suing the County over the previous $18 million refund, claiming that the County’s allocation process is flawed. If they prevail, Richmond will eat the bulk of past and future refunds, if any. In the worst case scenario, it could bankrupt Richmond.

Unlike homeowners, many of whom have found themselves underwater, and commercial real estate investors who found themselves on the wrong end of cash flows, there is no evidence that Chevron or its shareholders actually suffered from the payments. Chevron is neither underwater nor feeding the refinery. Chevron’s stock value and profits continue strong.

This appeal has been couched as a fairness issue by Chevron, a mistake made by Contra Costa County that should be corrected. For the rest of us, it is an impending disaster that calls for desperate measures.

The Richmond City Council voted on a resolution November 15 urging Chevron to withdraw and dismiss its current appeals of property tax assessments for the years 2004-2006 and 2007-2009.

I hope that Chevron, Contra Costa County and the City of Richmond can now negotiate a settlement that will leave us intact.

 

Description: cid:image005.png@01CCBBCB.FE08B340

From the RPA Website:

Chevron's tax grab
will cost jobs and hit every service in the county. But few know it is happening. We need the broadest possible support to stop this rip-off. Take the time to let others know.
Call  the RPA office and volunteer some time to phonebank, or help distribute leaflets. 

Download the leaflet here.   Forward it to your lists
Chevron's tax grab
will cost jobs and hit every service in the county. But few know it is happening. We need the broadest possible support to stop this rip-off. Take the time to let others know.
Call  the RPA office and volunteer some time to phonebank, or help distribute leaflets. 

Download the leaflet here.   Forward it to your lists

Description: Tax Grab

From Contra Costa Times:
Protesters decry Chevron's bid for tax refund
Bay City News Service
Posted: 12/15/2011 07:57:02 PM PST
Updated: 12/15/2011 07:57:03 PM PST

MARTINEZ -- Contra Costa County protesters gathered in Martinez on Thursday to denounce Chevron's pursuit of a multimillion-dollar tax refund, saying it would raid taxpayer resources.
Shortly after noon, about five dozen protesters gathered next to the county administrative offices at 651 Pine Street, where Chevron representatives were meeting in a hearing with the county's assessment appeals board.
Protesters held signs and a banner bearing the phrase "Occupy Chevron", while listening to Richmond activists, city officials and residents speak through a megaphone about the corporation's request for a $50 million refund on property taxes paid for its Richmond refinery.
Chevron officials said Thursday that since 2004, the company has overpaid property taxes due to the county assessors' over-valuing of the company's property, prompting the bid for a refund.
Earlier this year, Chevron representatives began meeting with the county assessment appeals board to negotiate a refund for property taxes the corporation paid between 2007 and 2009, Chevron spokesman Dean O'Hair said.
The company has already received an $18 million tax refund settlement from the county for taxes paid for 2004 through 2006, he said.
County Assessor Gus Kramer said Chevron requested a $36 million property tax refund for those years.
Shortly after the county assessment appeals board issued the decision to pay Chevron $18 million, the oil company filed a lawsuit seeking a greater refund from the county for the 2004-2006 property tax assessments, Kramer said.
He said that so far, negotiations with Chevron have reached a standstill.
"Dealing with Chevron right now is like trying to get a loan modification on your mortgage... it's impossible," he said.
But O'Hair said the corporation is simply hoping to come out of negotiations with a fair assessment of its property.
"People want to know that Chevron is paying its fair share of taxes and we're engaged in a process with the county that will determine that amount," he said.
He added that Chevron would work with the county to ensure that a future property tax refund wouldn't interfere with essential county services.
Protesters today, including Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin and City Councilwoman Jovanka Beckles condemned the massive oil firm's appeal for more tax dollars, citing the company's multibillion-dollar profits over the last three months alone.
"Chevron has been harming us for decades," taking a toll on the local environment and on residents' health and running the risk of accidents and toxic releases at the Richmond refinery, McLaughlin told protesters. "Yet they want to take our taxes away."
She said that last month, Richmond's City Council passed a resolution asking Chevron to drop its appeal.
County Supervisor John Gioia said that if the county was ordered to pay the refund, "it would impact library services, fire, law enforcement, and other vital county services."
Chevron has also appealed the county's property value assessment of its land for the years 2010 and 2011, O'Hair said.
‘Chevron-Man’ shows up at Contra Costa offices
A mysterious masked man appeared in front of Contra Costa County offices in Martinez this morning, carrying a sign that said “Hungry! Need your paycheck.”
Ahem.  Turns out it wasn’t exactly a homeless man down on his luck.
It’ was a guy in a Chevron costume, of sorts, with money coming out of his ears and dollar signs for eyeballs. He was protesting Chevron’s $100 million appeal of its property tax assessments for 2007-2009. The appeal proceedings have been under way in Martinez for weeks and probably won’t conclude until January.
He handed out a satire-packed flyer that depicts Chevron as “hurting for dough” and urged folks to attend a noon rally on Dec. 15.

Description: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7170/6501076903_5b4fd5e85e_z.jpg
Chevron Man!
Here’s the text of the flyer “Chevron Man” handed out:
SOMEBODY HAS TO SUFFER
YOU DON’T EXPECT US TO

Dear County Worker,
Chevron USA Inc. needs your help. Here’s our hard-luck story.
Everybody who owns a property, a home or rents, pays property taxes. So do we, only we need our money back ’cause we’re hurting for dough.
Granted, we’re the richest corporation in California. Granted our profits have soared for each of the past years. Granted, for eons we’ve gotten the benefit of the loopholes in Proposition 13. Granted we sit on some of the most valuable real estate in the bay.
Our expert “cost segmentation” experts from corporate in San Ramon will gladly tell you that our Richmond refinery is actually losing money.
So we’re asking for a refund on our property taxes for 2004 to 2010 that will only amount to only, say, $168 million dollars.
If we win, the City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, the West Contra Costa Unified School District and special districts like fire, health and Community College will have to cough up, I mean, contribute to our economy.
Speaking of donations, do you realize that last year Chevron gave away $3.7 million to charities? What we’re asking back from you is a measly 25 times that amount.
Here’s the good news, our $168 million tax refunds will result in leaner and smaller government and many of you will get to spend a lot more time at home with your families.
These are tough economic times and somebody has to suffer. You don’t expect a world player like Chevron to (suffer), do you? You’ve heard the motto — too big to fail? Meet its friend — too big to pay.
So do NOT attend the tax assessment appeal hearings in Room 107, Board of Supervisors. It’s closed to the public anyway. (NOTE FROM LISA: That is not accurate. The meetings are public except for segments the three-member appeals board determines deal with trade secrets.)
So do NOT discuss layoffs with your union. (It’s such a downer.)
Above all, do not attend the community rally at 12:00 on December 15 at the Contra Costa County Administration building at 651 Pine Street, Martinez. (Bunch of whiners.)
And thanks for putting our CEO, John F. Watson ($13,987,263) over the top.
Your pal at the pump,
Chevron-Man

From Richmond Confidential:

Protesters descend on Chevron tax hearings

Description: http://richmondconfidential.org/wp-content/themes/calpress/library/extensions/timthumb.php?src=http://richmondconfidential.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/20111215_eduardomartinez_henryclark.jpg&w=620
Eduardo Martinez, left, rallies protesters as they enter the Board of Supervisors' chambers in Martinez Thursday (Robert Rogers/RichmondConfidential)
By: Robert Rogers | December 15, 2011 – 6:02 pm
About 50 protesters, including some top Richmond elected officials, demonstrated outside county government buildings in Martinez Thursday before filing into a hearing aimed at resolving a tax dispute between Chevron and the Contra Costa County Assessor’s office.
At issue are property valuations of Chevron’s 2,900-acre Richmond refinery, which were used to determine taxes owed by the refinery from 2007-2009.
“We’re here to make Chevron feel ashamed of their actions and to realize that if they sincerely want to be a good neighbor they have to drop their property tax appeal,” said protestor Michael Beer.
Description: mayor gayle mclaughlin protests chevron
Mayor Gayle McLaughlin addressed protesters in Martinez Thursday. (Robert Rogers|RichmondConfidential)
Chevron’s lawyers have countered that the refinery was worth about $1.8 billion in 2007, and $1.15 billion in 2009, while the county assessed it at more than $3 billion during the same period. Chevron spokespersons have said the appeal aims to establish a more fair and consistent method by which the refinery is valued.
If the appeals board rules with Chevron, the county could have to refund nearly $60 million, severely impacting public services, according to County Assessor Gus Kramer.
Among those at the demonstration, which was organized by the Richmond Progressive Alliance, were Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, Councilwoman Jovanka Beckles and Henry Clark of the West County Toxics coalition.
The protesters marched through the streets of downtown Martinez, toting signs and chanting as they passed by the storefronts and restaurants. Then they held a rally on the steps of Peter L. Spinetta Family Law Center, with a procession of speakers addressing the crowd with a megaphone.
McLaughlin said it is “obscene” that Chevron should be looking for property tax savings while recording robust profits in recent years.
The protesters then filed into the County Board of Supervisors’ chambers, where they sat silently as the three-person appeals board met with attorneys for Chevron and the Assessor’s Office.
Both sides haggled over what evidence was admissible in determining the fair valuation. Attorneys for the Palo Alto firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman filed a 9 a.m. rebuttal and introduced an expert witness who said Chevron’s valuations were inconsistent with those of comparable industrial properties.
County attorney Kevin Lally said Chevron’s case was “fraught with materials that don’t satisfy evidentiary standards.”
Hearings are expected to continue into next year.
Connect with Richmond Confidential on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

From RPA Website:

Chevron-Man says: 
"SOMEBODY HAS TO SUFFER...
YOU DON'T EXPECT US TO"
There are a some folks who ask why RPA doesn't publish Chevron's point of view.  It must be that Chevron's full time PR staff, the millions for "we agree" ads,  promotion of charity events,  and even those ads on your Facebook page when you look up RPA are not enough.  So when the RPA ran into Chevron-Man on the streets of Martinez soliciting more cash for the corporation, we asked him to tell his side of the story:
  Description: Chevron-Man          Chevron USA, Inc. needs help. Here's our hard-luck story.
            Everybody who owns a property, a home or rents, pays property taxes. So do we, only we need our money back 'cause we are hurting for dough.  
            Granted, we're the richest corporation in California. Granted our profits have soared for each of the past years. Granted for eons we've gotten the benefit of the loopholes in Proposition 13. Granted we sit on some of the most valuable real estate in the bay.
            Our expert "cost segmentation" experts from "corporate" in San Ramon will gladly tell you that our Richmond refinery is actually losing money.
            So we're asking for a refund on our property taxes for 2004 to 2010 that will only amount to only, say, $168 million dollars.
            If we win, the City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, the WCCUSD, and special districts like fire, health and Community College will have to cough up, I mean, contribute to our economy.
            Speaking of donations, do you realize that last year Chevron gave away $3.7 million to charities? What we're asking back from you is a measly 25 times that amount.
Here's the good news, our $168 million tax refunds will result in leaner, smaller government and many public workers will get to spend a lot more time at home with their families.
These are tough economic times and somebody has to suffer. You don't expect a world player like Chevron to, do you? You've heard the motto - too big to fail? Meet its friend - too big to pay.
So do not attend the tax assessment appeal hearings in Room 107, Board of Supervisors room. (It's closed to the public anyway.)
            Do not discuss layoffs with your union. (It's such a downer.)
Above all, I hope you skip the community rally at 12:00 on December 15 at the Contra Costa Country Administration building at 651 Pine Street, Martinez. (Bunch of whiners.)
And thanks for putting our CEO, John F. Watson, ($13,987,263) over the top.
Your Pal at the Pump, Description: signatures

Legal Bullying

Description: RPA Activist LogoOne way that the 1%, like the banks and Chevron, get an ever-expanding part of the pie is their ability to do legal bullying. How this works:

  • First they lobby extensively to get technical loopholes in laws that slip under the radar when they are passed.
  • Then, they can hire expensive lawyers, "experts," and huge staff to use these loopholes to challenge county or city governments which cannot afford for defense of the public anything close to what the corporations can spend to make their case   

 

  • And if by chance they should lose in the first round in courts, the corporations can appeal. In the meantime any money that is involved is put in escrow so that neither side can use it. Of course the corporations can easily afford this but the county and city cannot afford to wait years for their taxes. 

So the legal bully does not have to win their case in court--just use their deep pockets to force the city and county to settle. And then they can use their PR staffs to spin and cover what they have done
.
Chevron is using the same techniques as the banks are using in resisting regulation. The Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) is forced to settle most of its cases with a slap-on-the-wrist for the banks because "it does not have the money or the staff to battle the deep-pocketed Wall Street firms in Court" .

It is unlikely that Chevron has a just case for its demands for a property tax rebate. After all, its property has been covered under the corporate loophole in Proposition 13 since 1978. That means its property has been grossly under-taxed for years and its value would have to have fallen nearly 75% to go below its taxed value. But we will never be able to judge for ourselves since virtually all of Chevron's case is closed to the public because it contains "proprietary information."

Chevron is relying on its ability to financially overwhelm the County Assessor's office and bring pressure from county officials for a quick settlement. We have to mobilize the pressure of public sentiment against Chevron so it drops its bully legal attack.

--Mike Parker  

From Richmond Confidential:

City may owe Chevron $26 million

Description: http://richmondconfidential.org/wp-content/themes/calpress/library/extensions/timthumb.php?src=http://richmondconfidential.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/timthumb.php_.jpeg&w=620
In the fiscal year 2006/7, Chevron contributed $14.3 million, about 20 percent of the total property tax revenue received by the city that year. (Source: The Pacific Institute)
By: Julia Landau | October 22, 2010 – 11:00 am
Chevron Corp has filed a lawsuit seeking to reduce the amount of property tax it paid to Contra Costa County in 2004, 2005 and 2006. According to a memo from City Council member Tom Butt, the city could have to pay back up to $26 million in collected property taxes from the company’s Richmond refinery.
The haggle over how much the refinery’s land is worth has been going on for years.
Chevron had already appealed the initial appraisal, saying the assessor overvalued the property.
The oil company says the property was worth only $600 million in 2004, compared to the county’s finding of $2.5 billion. Based on the numbers put forth by the company, the refinery’s value went from that $600 million to $1.14 billion between 2004 and 2006, a jump of almost 100 percent.
The Assessment Appeals Board decided that the land was worth less than the county assessed but more than Chevron said it was worth during those years. It ordered the city to repay the company at least $12.6 million with interest in September 2009, but the repayment will be significantly higher than that. The county has repaid $6 million so far, and agreed to pay about $12 million more by August of next year.
The conflict appeared to have been settled. But the compromise did not sit well with Chevron.
In May the company took action against the county, saying the taxes Chevron paid still exceeded the amount it owed for the property. The county has filed a cross-complaint.
At the time of the first appeal, a spokesperson said the company must protect itself from bloated assessments if it wants to stay competitive in the oil market.
The oil giant is making similar disputes in places other than Richmond.
On Oct. 7 the Associated Press reported that the company sued Kern County, California, also over property taxes. The county raised taxes on a Bakersfield oil site as new wells were discovered on the land. The company says it should not have to pay new taxes on the oilfield; new drilling, its lawyers argue, merely maintains the property’s current value.
In that case, the $3.5 million dollars the company claimed it overpaid in taxes is probably less important than the legal precedent that would be set if the county went unchallenged—that property taxes are subject to change according to new profits being generated. A ruling in Chevron’s favor could prevent the issue from coming up again.
For the counties in both lawsuits, the money returned is a major depletion of projected funding. The West Contra Costa Unified School district gets a large portion of tax dollars from the refinery.
In 2009, when the Appeals Board was in the process of reviewing Chevron’s argument, city budget planners were already worried. “The impact on local government would be devastating if they lower all these assessments,” City Supervisor John Gioia told the Contra Costa Times.
Chevron has made an effort in recent years to build bridges with Richmond’s communities. The company said it contributed $3.4 million in Richmond projects last year, sponsoring school and youth organizations, libraries and other nonprofits.
The Richmond City Council has asked the city attorney to intervene in the lawsuit to support the county in defending the last estimate of the property value. All council members but Nat Bates voted in support of the city intervening to guard the funds.
Chevron has also appealed the assessment made by the Assessment Appeals Board for the taxes levied on the refinery’s property in the years 2007 through 2010, but hearing dates have not been set.
Connect with Richmond Confidential on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Hearing opens Monday on Chevron’s $58 million property tax appeal

Description: http://richmondconfidential.org/wp-content/themes/calpress/library/extensions/timthumb.php?src=http://richmondconfidential.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/20100429_chevron1600.jpg&w=620
Chevron's Richmond refinery, seen from Nichol Hill. The company argues that it has paid too much in property taxes on the facility. (photo by: Robert Rogers)
By: Rachel Waldholz | October 23, 2011 – 2:06 pm
Chevron will present its case for a $58 million tax refund before an appeals board on Monday, as the company seeks to prove that it overpaid property taxes on its Richmond refinery between 2007 and 2009.
The hearing before the County’s Assessment Appeals Board – which listens to the cases of property owners who believe that the county has overvalued their land and thus charged too much in taxes — represents the next step in a four-year battle. Chevron believes the county has overvalued its Richmond refinery by nearly $2 billion per year, a company spokesperson said in an email.
If the company succeeds in its appeal, it would create a “brutal situation” for the county and cities, Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin said.
“The city of Richmond stands to lose millions of dollars if this appeal is approved,” McLaughlin said, adding that the city would have to cut services to pay back the money.
County Assessor Gus Kramer, who has held the position since 1995, called the case a “phenomenon.”
“It is record setting,” he said. “It’s the largest appeal we’ve ever had.”
Chevron first appealed its property taxes in 2007, claiming that the County Assessor had overvalued the refinery from 2004-2006. The company asked for a refund of nearly $60 million from Contra Costa County, its cities, and its school, water and fire districts. In 2009, the Appeals Board ordered the county to refund about $18 million. In 2010, Chevron sued for more. That suit is currently before the Contra Costa Superior Court.
Chevron has also appealed its taxes for 2007-2010, and a spokesperson said in an email that the company is now deciding whether to appeal its 2011 taxes. The Assessment Appeals Board limits appeals to three-year increments, so on Monday the board will begin considering Chevron’s appeal for 2007-2009.
Chevron says that it was forced to appeal when the County raised its property taxes in 2004.
“We find it unreasonable that the County Tax Assessor determined that the total value of refinery property subject to tax more than doubled from $1.8B in 2003 to $4.8B in 2006,” Chevron said in a statement emailed to Richmond Confidential.
In 2003 — the last year that the County and Chevron agree on — the Assessor declared that the property was worth $1.9 billion. In 2004, the Assessor raised the value to $3.5 billion, and then to $4.8 billion by 2006.
Chevron argued in its last appeal that the property was actually worth $431 million in 2004, and $900 million in 2006. The Appeals Board’s 2009 ruling declared both Chevron’s and the Assessor’s numbers “unreasonable” and valued the property at about $2.2 billion each year.
The county stands by all of its original assessments, Kramer said.
“I don’t have an axe to grind with Chevron,” he said. “For God’s sake, my dad used to work for them. We all own stock in them.”
Kramer said that the refinery made major upgrades between 2002 and 2006 and took in record profits, and the value of the property increased accordingly. “Come on, just pay your fair share,” he said.
The Assessment Appeals Board is made up of five members, each appointed by a county supervisor, and the appeals board clerk chooses three members to hear each appeal. In this case the three will be Arthur Walenta, who was appointed by Richmond Supervisor John Gioia, and will chair the hearing; James Giacoma; and Clark Wallace. Wallace was on the board that heard the 2004-2006 appeal.
The hearing begins on Monday at 9 a.m. and is expected to run for five weeks. Most sessions will be open to the public and held at the board’s chambers at 651 Pine Street in Martinez.

From Contra Costa Times:

Chevron, Contra Costa County square off on property values


By Lisa Vorderbrueggen Contra Costa Times
Contra Costa Times (California)
October 24, 2011
MARTINEZ -- Opening arguments in Chevron's multimillion-dollar appeal of property taxes on its Richmond refinery were held Monday, setting the stage for another lengthy and politically charged fight over how much the oil giant should pay in Contra Costa County.
At stake is as much as $100 million in taxes Chevron says it overpaid from 2007 through 2009, money that struggling cities, school, fire, water and other special districts may have to pay back if the Contra Costa Assessment Appeals Board agrees with Chevron.
Local governments already refunded Chevron $18 million after it prevailed in an appeal of its 2004-2006 property valuation.
"If Chevron wins this appeal, it will mean layoffs, major cutbacks in services and would push us virtually to the edge of bankruptcy," said Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin during a break in the morning session. "Cities are suffering and Chevron is making billions of dollars."
Chevron spokesman Dean O'Hair described the company's quest as one that will "get us to a fair and equitable method for determining how a refinery is valued so that we can remain an economic engine in the city of Richmond, provide jobs and pay taxes. Once we have done that, then we can deal with the issues of a refund."
The public was not permitted to speak at the quasi-judicial proceeding although a handful of well-behaved anti-Chevron protesters quietly brought signs into the hearing room. One read, "Despicable. Disgusting. Obscene."
The appeal is expected to take months as both sides roll out competing experts and seek to persuade the three-member Appeals Board of the merits of their respective arguments.
Chevron and the county each have up to 60 hours to make their cases. An army of lawyers and aides brought into the county board chambers more than 50 three-inch binders packed with exhibits and related documents, materials that must be moved each day as the Appeals Board doesn't have a dedicated meeting room.
Portions of the opening statements were closed to protect Chevron's trade secrets.
But publicly, Chevron argued that Contra Costa Assessor Gus Kramer and his team lack the expertise to value an oil refinery, failed to reveal the methodology behind their numbers and ignored key factors such as local tax burdens, supply and demand for oil, and environmental laws.
The company puts the value of its land and improvements at $1.1 to $1.8 billion during the three-year period, but the county set a range of $3.1 billion to $3.4 billion.
Unlike other Contra Costa refineries, for example, Chevron pays Richmond a utility user tax.
"We think we have the evidence to give you a clear picture of what a willing buyer would pay for this refinery," said Chevron attorney Lawrence Hoenig.
The county attorney argued that Chevron manipulated the experts' data in its favor, withheld necessary information the assessor's staff sought and falsely characterized the county's level of competence and the assessment process.
Kevin Lally, the county's attorney, described portions of the oil company's analysis as "filled with errors" and other components "just wrong."
"This is a hugely profitable refinery that spins off buckets of money and the buckets are pretty big," Lally said.
Meanwhile, Chevron's lawsuit challenging the Appeal's Board decision on its 2004-2006 value is winding its way through Superior Court.
Some Contra Cities are suing the county over the formula it used to recoup the $18 million it refunded Chevron.
And Chevron has already appealed its 2010 assessed valuation, which the appeals board will consider after it concludes the 2007-2009 review.
Contact Lisa Vorderbrueggen at 925-945-4773, lvorderbrueggen@bayareanewsgroup.com , www.ibabuzz.com/politics or at Twitter.com/lvorderbrueggen .
Copyright 2011 Contra Costa NewspapersAll Rights Reserved
Contra Costa Times (California)
From CBS:

Contra Costa Cities Sue Over $18 Million Chevron Tax Refund

July 1, 2011 10:07 AM

Description: The Chevron Oil Refinery In Richmond. (AP Photo)
The Chevron Oil Refinery In Richmond. (AP Photo)
ANTIOCH (CBS SF) – Thirteen cities in Contra Costa County are suing the county over its $18 million tax refund to San Ramon-based Chevron Corp.
The cities, including Antioch and Walnut Creek, say they are wrongly being made to contribute to the refund. They contend they did not receive any of the $18 million in taxes the county assessed on Chevron’s refinery in Richmond.
The county was forced to return that money after an assessment appeals board determined that it had over-assessed the refinery for the 2003-through-2006 tax years.
The cities say the $18 million mostly went to the City of Richmond.
County officials dispute that, saying it was divided between the cities and other entities, including fire, park and sanitary districts.
Ben Fay, an attorney for the cities, said at issue are two competing interpretations of a property tax law.
(Copyright 2011 by CBS San Francisco. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

 

 

  RETURN