Mr. Jenkins,
Per your request, I have put my request for public information in
writing and look forward to your timely response.
Those of us who keep tabs on matters affecting county taxes and spending
recently noticed on Titlesearcher.com and the State's Real Estate
Assessment Data web site a big jump in appraisals on some of the
county's most valuable waterfront real estate in Rarity Bay. Some of
the lots appear to remain vacant, so the increases do not appear
connected with home building.
Since the reappraisal year isn't until next year - 2009 - this discovery
raises several important questions:
1. When were these change made and for which tax year?
2. What prompted the increases and what legal basis do you have for
doing reappraisals in a non-reappraisal year?
3. Assuming not every property and property owner in RB saw an increase,
how was it determined which ones would get increased and by what amount?
4. How many total parcels and property owners were affected?
5. What was the resulting net increase in appraisals and assessments?
6. Did any of the affected owners file an appeal before the Board of
Equalization? If so, what was the outcome? Depending on your answers, I
may have follow-up questions.
Thank you,
Van Shaver
Mr. Shaver: Below is the information you requested. For quick reference,
I have copied and pasted your original question above each answer. I'll
be glad to consider follow-up questions or public records requests.
----------------------------------
1. When were these change made and for which tax year?
1. The changes were keyed into the state's CAAS
system this April, prior to the deadline for making changes to the 2008
tax roll. The change notice postcards were mailed to the affected
property owners first week of May.
2. What prompted the increases and what legal basis do you have for
doing reappraisals in a non-reappraisal year?
2. These were appraisal corrections, not
re-appraisals. I deemed the corrections to be warranted because the
original 2005 reappraisals on these parcels had been rescinded on May 5,
2005, without documented reason. Sales data from that timeframe show
that the original valuations established by our reappraisal specialists
were accurate.
3. Assuming not every property and property owner in RB saw an increase,
how was it determined which ones would get increased and by what amount?
3. Only those lots that had their re-appraisals
reversed on 5/5/05 with no supporting documentation were corrected. The
new appraised amounts were re-set at their original 2005 reappraised
values.
4. How many total parcels and property owners were affected?
4. Of the 179 appraisal reductions, more than half
of those were restored by staff in time for the 2007 tax roll. The
remainder were reinstated this (2008) tax year. Of the 179, all but one
were owned at the time by development companies or associates. By April
2005, fewer than 20 of the lots had been sold to private buyers, so the
total number of unique owners affected by this correction is about 20.
5. What was the resulting net increase in appraisals and assessments?
5. Due to the limited resources of this office,
you will need to request the public records/reports for calculating
totals and for specific parcel/ownership information.
6. Did any of the affected owners file an appeal before the Board of
Equalization? If so, what was the outcome? Depending on your answers, I
may have follow-up questions.
6. An explanatory note was enclosed with each
change notice. Only one of the affected owners called seeking further
explanation and there were no appeals. |