Minutes 05-07-2013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Commissioner Dorosin said the first motion approved a meeting space, but he said that there was no designation of option A or option C. He asked if moving forward with option A tonight would prevent a decision in the future to create option C, or a modified version of A. Jeff Thompson said option C is an additional build-on for option A. He said that partitions can be done later in the process, and the only concern would be floor coverings and doors. Chair Jacobs clarified that option A offers the most options subsequent to the Board's approval and then permutations can be chosen later. Commissioner Gordon asked what level these plans will be prepared over the summer. Jeff Thompson said summer efforts will include programming, schematic designs, and getting the project to a point that it can come back to the Board in a format that is understandable. He said the question in September will be whether to approve the drawings to begin the building process with a bid award in December and grand opening in June. Commissioner Gordon said it seems that things are farther along than deciding what might be chosen. Jeff Thompson said there will be a point where the Board needs to instruct on specific plan additions. Commissioner Gordon said that the direction should be option A with an alternate of option C. b. Information and Resolution Regarding the Next Revaluation of Real Property The Board discussed the optimal year for the next revaluation including information about current market trends and statistics, current economic indicators, potential impacts, and potential full list and measure; and to consider approval of a resolution establishing the year for the next general reappraisal of real property in Orange County. Dwane Brinson, Orange County Tax Administrator, referenced a memo and said that there are two parts to this presentation. The first is the potential delay in reevaluation, and the second addresses the possibility of finding inaccurate records during the re-evaluation process. He said that the economy is improving and the sales ratio tells you what percent of the market value is represented by the tax assessment. A ratio of 1.03 indicates a tax assessment of 103% of market value. He said that the stats of the current market are steady and in line. He said that the quantity of sales is improving. He said that his main reason for recommending a delay is that, by the time a 2015 reevaluation is done, tax assessment and market value would be the same. This would mean roughly no change in tax assessments. He used the chart to illustrate this joining of values. He said the second issue is to determine what happens when an inaccurate record is found during the process. He reviewed the re-evaluation process and said there are instances where tax records do not reflect the actual features of the house. He reviewed a general statute listing the three instances for a tax refund: 1) Clerical error; 2) Illegal tax; and 3) Tax levied for an illegal purpose. He reviewed examples where tax value did not match house features and said there is no refund for those situations. He said that there is agreement for tax refunds when taxes are levied on structures that do not exist. He noted that the Real Estate Commission and the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) both recognize a 5% margin of error in assessing properties. He said that the desire is to postpone the reevaluations until 2017 and then to make every effort to get values and records straight.