Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM071189 '(115 iI}?01M . JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION A. C. DALGLEISH DAVID G. DOUGLAS ARCHIE BARBER, JR. JAMES A. DE LEO CHAIRMAN VICE-CHAIRMAN MEMBER ALTERNATE M I NUT E S J U L Y 1 1, 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 D. Keegan-Whiteford present. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Minutes of previous meetings at this time. MEETING WITH ASSESSOR The full Board was present along with Assessor Jack Westerman III, Assessment Operations Manager Jeff Chapman, Commercial Appraisor Robert Shold, Senior Residential Appraisor Robert Kingsley, and Residential Appraisor Robert Barry. Robert Barnes of the State Department of Revenue, Property Tax Division, sat in on the meeting. This meeting was called in response to the memorandum sent to the Assessor, dated July 5, 1989. The memo consisted of comments on the Draft Operations Manual, which the Board received at the Training Seminar given by Larry Stout, Nancy Ratcliffe, and Ed Ratcliffe of the Department of Revenue on June 6th and 7th. Jack Westerman addressed several of the issues and questions brought up in the memo. BOE MINUTES OF JULY 11, 1989 Page : ~ Sharinq Information with the Board: In reference to Page 2, Part Five: Standards of Review (pp. 29 - 31 of manual). Jack asked what sort of information the Board needed to review in order to feel that they could make a fair and equitable decision on an appeal? He stated that the Assessor's staff could provide clear and concise information in the form of the "blue" computer sheet (which delineates the number of baths, rooms, effective age, land values and other individual aspects of a property), the "green field sheet", complete with a drawing of the buildings and/or a photo, as well as notes from property inspections from as far back as 16 years. Jack Westerman stated that if the Board has this information, especially when considering an appeal on a residence, there would be substantial information from which to extract a determination, Combining this material with on- site inspections would insure fair and equitable decisions, He also determined that the Board would benefit by the computer system which was implemented this year, Land values are standardized and systematically computerized to be applied to properties. Whole neighborhoods are newly coded with the appropriate coded standard. There are different characteristics and values for each code. In those areas which have been coded, if there is a change in neighborhood valuation, then the code can be changed and the appropriate change will be automatically calculated. This system forces the Assessors to "detail out the characteristics" of each lot to make appropriate adjustments. After the initial implementation of this system the assessements should be simpler to accomplish and more equitable. Jeff Chapman distributed examples of the "blue" sheet and the coding system. He then explained this system and the way in which adjustments are made and differences are accounted for. The Appraisal Field Sheet, which gives basic rates, adjustments, and values for other characteristics was also discussed. It was noted that it will be two more years before the whole county is coded, It was decided that the Assessor's Office will provide the blue and green sheet and code information for each appeal that is filed. Determinations For Orders of the Board: The Assessor requested that the Board not arbitrarily pick a figure to equalize to, but instead, to try to fit into the computerized code system. It was requested that when it is time for the valuation adjustments, that the Board consult with the Assessor's staff to determine the method and figure which most closely parallels their determination. There should be a rationale behind the figures chosen by the Board as equitable. It was noted that the system forces the Assessor and the Board to delineate the reasons for the change in valuation, Worksheet Alteration: Vice-Chairman Douglas suggested a change in the Board's Worksheet whereby another step in the equalization process is logged, He thinks there should be a section on the Board's recommendation to the Assessor for the factors in adjustment, and for BOE MINUTES OF JULY 11, 1989 Page : ~ the Assessor's response, He felt it would be an opportunity for communication on the system and what best works within it, and that such a change would better reflect fair and equitable adjustments. A percentage can be determined which would fit within the system. It was acknowledged that this step will require more time than the previous system allowed, although the Assessor will be prompt in his response. Effective Aae: The question of effective age being an important factor in determining valuation, Jack Westerman defined it for the Board as being the actual, physical age, not how old the structure is in years. Marshall Swift Cost Manual: The use of the Marshall Swift cost manual was discussed. Jeff Chapman noted that the Marshall Valuation Service was originally written for technician use more than for assessment purposes. Jack Westerman noted that in some cases the Assessor's Office took the Marshall Swift values and made it more equitable according to current standards, This is achieved by use of the Assessor's own methodology, The results are similar to Marshall Swift in many cases. Jack Westerman considers the method he uses more precise, An example is the case of the size multiplier, In Marshall Swift it is for every 200 feet, where the County utilizes a multiplier every 100 feet, Marshall Swift is still the basis for Jefferson County assessments. The Department of Health Non-Perc Policy: Vice-Chairman David Douglas informed the Assessor that the plan established in the meeting last year with the previous Environmental Health Director, Rick Miklich, was not adhered to. The Health Department has been issuing perc denials, which means a 50% reduction in assessed valuation. The Health Department Administrator, Kathy Stafford, requested the advice of the Board. After being advised of the meeting with the previous Environmental Health Director, Rick Miklich, and after reviewing the Minutes of that meeting, Kathy Stafford, decided that septic systems will not be denied outright if the property doesn't perc. Alternative septic systems will be considered. A brief discussion on the septic systems available and the past and potential policies was held. Clear & Coaent/Substantiallv Incorrect: The meanings of "clear and cogent evidence" and "substantially incorrect" were clarified. It was noted that it is up to the appellant to supply clear evidence as to the Assessor's alleged error, and that the amount of difference between the assessed valuation and the requested equalization should be substantial, not simply a matter of a few dollars. . BOE MINUTES OF JULY 11, 1989 Page: .! Market Value & Out-Of-State Purchasers: It was determined that it doesn't matter where the purchaser is from, the obvious fact is that the purchase price is what you can get for the property. The Board of Equalization Task Force: Jack Westerman reported that this task force which consists of two Clerks, two representatives from the Department of Revenue, and five Assessors held their second meeting. The big questions were based on the functions of the Board of Equalization and the standards for equalization based on sales. The Board and the Assessor held a discussion regarding these issues in relation to Jefferson County, Vice-Chairman Douglas suggested that the burden of proof be upon the appellant to prove with clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, that their property should have a lower valuation. He suggested a notation to that effect on the information supplied with each petition given out. Four Year Revaluation Cycle: Jack Westerman stated that the Supreme Court said the four-year cycle is inequitable because conditions change over four years, but the cycle is considered fair if the assessments are not done out of the revaluation cycle, He noted that if the Board of Equalization re-values areas outside of the four-year cycle, they create inequity. If a "pocket" revaluation is done, where one parcel is adjusted and like parcels in the same neighborhood are equalized as a result of this, it is out of the four-year cycle, Jack expressed that the Assessor's office would rather do this pocket revaluation than to insist that the tax payer live with an inequitable valuation for the remaining years of the four-year cycle. This is one of the main concerns of the task force. Computer Assisted Adjustments to Valuations: Vice-Chairman Douglas verified that with the new computer system going into effect, the valuations may be changed every year. Jack Westerman responded that this is correct, but that the valuations would be adjusted based on a standard of measurement, such as a blanket two percent in a certain neighborhood and three percent in another. If a tax payer proves that his property value didn't go up by that percentage, a question is raised as to whether the Assessor should defend the percentage or consider equalization. Jack Westerman reminded the Board that there are always a few sales on a "fee appraisal" basis which would substantiate a certain value, but that this County is doing "mass appraisal". He stated that the petitions should be viewed with this in mind. BOE MINUTES OF 3ULY 11, 1989 Page : ~ Personal Proper tv Issues: The personal property valuation is considered a self-reporting system, however it is audited. The State Department of Revenue has Personal Property Inspectors who conduct these audits, some of which are on-si te. ,Tack Westerman noted that personal property is a ratio analysis, and that our County has a very accurate ratio of about 97 percent. This is based on physical audits by the Department of Revenue. The part the Board of Equalization plays in personal property was an issue; it was determined that if the Board is in receipt of a number of personal property appeals, then the Assessor will educate them on the guidelines for depreciation and other necessary data for consideration, Overall Petition Process: The Board and the Assessor concurred that the Board of Equalization would deal with the whole process of appeal, and that it should be made clear to the Petitioner that the Assessor is not part of the appeal process, They also agreed that the Petitioner should be aware that the Board of Equalization is a three member Board that is neutral and disconnected from the Assessor's office. OTHER BUSINESS OF THE BOARD There being no further business before the Board, the board adjourned until 3uly 19, 1989. APPROVED BY: DATE APPROVED: 1//1l~) JrJ;19'8.!l ~~ DJ~~~HAIRMAN ATTESTED B~~!~t1 ", ARC~ B~., MEMBER