It’s a taxing question, literally and figuratively: Should
Bonfante Gardens, a non-profit corporation that intends, once it’s
profitable, to plow money back into the community be exempt from
property taxes?
It’s a taxing question, literally and figuratively: Should Bonfante Gardens, a non-profit corporation that intends, once it’s profitable, to plow money back into the community be exempt from property taxes?
The state Board of Equalization has ruled that the park largely should be exempt. Santa Clara County Assessor Larry Stone disagrees, and says the horticulture-based theme park is eligible for only a partial exemption.
The Assessor’s office uses as an example a thrift shop operated by a non-profit company solely for the benefit of, say, cancer research. The land is not property tax exempt. And frankly, try as we might, the assessor’s logic makes sense.
It’s tough to argue that property with train rides and admission fees is entirely property tax exempt. Bonfante officials point out that the park is educational in nature and thus should be exempt. (Schools, for the most part, do not pay property tax.) The county assessor has gone through and given credit for such areas as the circus trees and the fauna displays, but denied exemption for such areas as the boat rides and restaurants.
The exemptions will reduce the park’s disputed tax liability – which is in the neighborhood of $2 million – by a certain percentage. But it’s not enough according to Bonfante officials who say the financially troubled park needs all the help it can get to stay afloat.
The best course of action at this point for the Bonfante Board is to continue to work with Stone and the assessors office to whittle down the tax bill.
Stone told Reporter Eric Leins last week, “Believe it or not, we’re trying to extract as much tax exemption out of the park as we see possible,” and added, “We have not closed the door on the issue.”
That’s good because the door should be wide open for negotiation.
For starters, the property has been assessed at $84 million. Bonfante Board President Bob Kraemer called that a “gross overestimate.” He’s clearly right and the number should be adjusted downward to a reasonable figure that both parties – or an independent appraiser – can agree on. Moreover, at the point of resolution, Stone should be willing to dismiss any tax penalties incurred since this disagreement surfaced.
Additionally, as Bonfante Gardens begins to add more educational programs, the assessor’s office should agree to review and adjust accordingly. And the park’s operators, Paramount, should work with the Bonfante Board to keep the operation focused on educational content. When that becomes the primary motivation for the majority of visitors, then clearly the park should be exempt.
A lawsuit isn’t what’s needed here. Neither is a public feud. What’s needed is a reasonable compromise that recognizes the intent of Bonfante Gardens and the necessity for consistent policy at the county assessor’s office. Given the unique nature of Bonfante Gardens, there’s every reason to believe both goals can be achieved.
