The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutM070789 cc--"n$sC'<>>CJ.':_ '7/2.&;/1(<; , JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION A. C. DALGLEISH DAVID G. DOUGLAS ARCHIE BARBER, JR. JAMES A. DE LEO CHAIRMAIf VICE-CHAIRMAIf MEMBER ALTERNATE M I NUT E S J U L Y 7, 1 9 8 9 The Board of Equalization convened at 9:00 a.m. with Chairman A.C. Dalgleish, Vice-Chairman David G. Douglas, Member Archie Barber, Jr. and Clerk Dierdrei L. Whiteford present. DRAFT OPERATIONS MANUAL Vice-Chairman Douglas presented the Board with a draft of a Memorandum written to the Assessor, Jack Westerman III, which was dated July 5, 1989. The four page Memorandum consisted of comments on the Draft Operations Manual presented to the Board at the Department of Revenue Training Seminar on June 6th and 7th. The Board reviewed the Memorandum, Vice-Chairman David Douglas moved to have the Board and Clerk sign the Memorandum and then to present it to the Assessor. Member Archie Barber, Jr. seconded the motion with carried by unanimous vote. After further discussion of the memo, the Board came to a unanimous decision to not send a copy to Larry Stout of the Department of Revenue until the Board has had a chance to review it with the Assessor. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Board reviewed the Minutes of May 30, 1989. Vice-Chairman David Douglas moved to approve the Minutes as written and Member Archie Barber, Jr. seconded the motion with carried by unanimous vote. , BOE MINUTES OF: 3ULY 7, 1989 Paae: 2 OTHER BUSINESS There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned until July 11, 1989, APPROVED BY: DATE APPROVED : July Z/, /989 'l:!~ :f)~ ~. Q 9u DAVID G. UGLA~VICE CHAIRMAN ATTESTED BaYA2/rp~ DIERDREI WH TEF ~I ~~ tr'. ARCHIE L. BARBER, JR., MEMBER eEl', ",;,,'<.>c,,' 7/7/t; . COURTHOUSE TELEPHONE 385 . 2018 Jefferson County Board of Equalization PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON 8n81 July 5, 1989 MEMO TO: Jack Westerman, III Jefferson County Assessor FROM: Jefferson County Board of Equalization SUBJECT: (Draft) Operations Manual County Boards of Equalization This Board and its Clerk were in attendance at a seminar on the 6th and 7th of June wpich was sponsored by the State Department of Revenue and presented by Larry Stout and Mr. and Mrs. Edward Rackliff. This Seminar was devoted to a presentation of the subject, the proposed operations manual. . I We commend the Department of Revenue in its effort to strengthen the uniformity of assessments throughout the State through an up-date of the operations and procedures Administrative Codes; however, we feel compelled to bring attention to the potential financial impact to the rural and urban counties caused by requirements proposed in the subject manual. For ease of location of areas of comment, we have numbered the pages of the June 6th version of the document - "Part One: Introduction" is page 1 through "Part Nine: Standards of Review" (e) is page 41. Our concerns are as follows: Part Four: Personal Property Appraisal (pP. 24 - 281 This Board of Equalization has given little or no consideration of Personal Property valuations within Jefferson County, except on mobile homes. One exception was an appeal on a business property valuation in which there was a difference of opinion as to whether a part of the sale price included Personal Property. Inspection of the'parcel by the Board of Equalization during an appeal indicated the presence of major amounts of Tangible Personal Property as defined in Section (c), pp. 25 and 26, and Intangible Personal Property as defined in Section (d), p. 26. 1 MEMO to Jack Westerman July 5, 1989 Since this Manual pertains to County Boards of Equalization, it would seen imperative that there should be some explanation of the Role of a Board of Equalization in making adjustments in valuation of personal property in the appeals process. There is a potential for an expenditure of extensive time and effort by both the Assessor's Office and the Board of Equalization to review the Personal Property Valuations of a parcel under appeal which has not been a normal function of this Board. Part Pive: Standards of Review (DD. 29 - 31) This section presents a clear and concise set of standard for review; however, such a review should require that the Board of Equalization must: a. Receive more specific information from the Assessor - the oral presentation at the seminar indicated that the Board should have access to the Assessor's field notes and calculations on the parcel under review. b. Review in detail all factors and computations used by the Assessor in determining the valuation. This implies that the Board Members would have to have additional time for preparation for each hearing, thus extending the number of days a year to handle the approximately 80 appeals per year Qr have an administrative assistant to perform these reviews. Part Six: Conductina Hearinos (DD. 32 - 35) a. Evidence (b) (p. 34) and Supplementary Materials (i) (p. 34) There is a NOTICE in the middle of a page titled "Notice of Property Tax Appeals which was handed out at the seminar as a sample. Two appeals already have been received by the Board on this newly proposed form. This "Notice" proposed that the appellant has thirty days in which to submit evidence on the appeal. There is also an implied 10-day period in which the assessor and appellant may exchange information. This is all added to the 30-day period between the assessor's notice of valuation of the property and the filing of an appeal. This implies that the total flow time could be extended to as much as 70 days. The Jefferson County Board of Equalization could very well be holding periodic meetings and hearings from August first to the end of the year. This implies additional expense to the County. 2 MEMO to Jack Westerman July 5, 1989 Part Eiaht: Clerk's ResDonsibilities (D. 39) It is respectfully recommended that the Department of Revenue reconsider their proposed channels of communication between the Assessor, Board of Equalization and the Appellants, as defined under Section (a) Clerk's Pre-hearing Duties. It appears self-evident that the normal lines of communication between the County and the taxpayer/property owner will have major differences between those counties with a heavy industrial and commercial tax base and large assessor staffing and those counties with predominantly residential/rural/agricultural and timber areas and a relatively small assessor staff. a. Uniformity of Administration of Taxing Laws is a stated goal in Part Two (a), page 2, of the Manual under the Title of Standards of Review. In order to secure uniform assessments, there should be a logical flow of the exchanges of information between the taxpaying property owner, the Assessor's staff and the Board of Equalization in handling of an appeal as well as a clear definition of which governmental agent is responsible for the function involved. BOARD ASSESSOR CLERK BOE BOARD APPELLANT FUNCTION Notice of Change in Valuation.................. .X Definition of Reasons for Change.................. X Notice of Property Tax Appeal: Issue Form..................?......? Preparation and File......................................X Definition of Evidence: Standard Form Issued........?......? Preparation of Evidence.... .............. ...... ...........X Review Prior to Hearing..............?.......? Notice of Hearing.......................X Determination of Burden . of Proof....................................... X Hearing Minutes.........................X Order of the Board: Definition of Reasons for Adjustment............................X Preparation of Order.................x Transmit to Appellant... ....... ... ...x Board of Tax Appeals Issue Form of Notice of Appeal....... . . . . . . . ? . . . . . . . . ? Preparation of Appeal.....................................x Transmit Notice of Appeal.................................x 3 , . . '- MEMO to Jack Westerman July 5, 1989 b. A Time/Function flow chart of the above events should be developed by the Department of Revenue to: 1. Determine and minimize the time flow to settle a typical appeal. 2. Determine County man-hours required as well as the funding required. 3. Determine the funding impact to counties to meet the new requirements. Conclusion: The State Department of Revenue and the Office of Financial Management have the fiscal responsibility to prepare "Fiscal Notes". 1. Under Chapter 112, Section 2, Laws of 1979 Ex. Session (RCW 43.132.055) "To prepare a fiscal note indicating what expenditures of funds by a county, city, town or other unit of local government would be required by legislation, to determine the State's fiscal responsibility and shall make every effort to appropriate the funds necessary to implement the requirement of the laws or regulations during the ensuing biennium." 2. Under Chapter 1, Section 1, Laws of 1989 (Initiative Measure No. 62 approved November 6, 1979) (RCW 43.135.010, Sec. 3 (b) << (c) "Assure that local governments are provided funds adequate to render services required" and "Assure that the State does not impose, on any taxing district, responsibility for new programs or increased levels of service under existing programs unless the costs thereof are paid by the State." 3. It would seem that a very important part of the current effort of the Department of Revenue to organize and establish "Uniformity of Administration of the Tax Laws" must be the determination of the additional administrative costs involved and the means for providing additional funds to the Counties to perform these services. Sincerely, JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Archie Barber, Jr. Member ~I. e...A.-..c &t b. Clerk 4