2015-77-Board of Property Tax Appeal Recorded 3/6/2015 DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 2015.17
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK W
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 03/06/2015 08;22'16 AM
II I I II IIIIII IIIIIIII I I III
2 1 - 7
Board of Property Tax Appeals
Exit Meeting for 2014-2015 Session
March 4, 2015 at 9:30 am
Clerk's Office, Deschutes County Service Building
Present at meeting:
Vicki Schuetze - Board Member
Tom Bourdage - Board Member
Chase Osborne - Board Member
Susie Helfer— Board Member
Jo Zucker— Board Member
Dennis Luke — Board Member
Scot Langton — Deschutes County Assessor
Theresa Maul — Deschutes County Chief Appraiser
Nancy Blankenship — Deschutes County Clerk
Beckey Nelson - Deschutes County Bopta Clerk
1. The board had difficulty with the assessor's representative withholding
their recommended values and their appraisal information packets. There
was discussion as to whether that data is public record subject to
disclosure. Scot explained that because it was prepared for litigation, it is
an exempt public record unless the appraiser presents it.
2. There was much discussion on tension during the hearings between the
assessor representative and the board. Scot explained that his office tries
to get the correct, fair and equitable real market value on every account.
The appraisers put a tremendous amount of work into preparing for the
hearings. They feel the board uses their work to reduce the real market
value on properties when the petitioner has provided no information. The
board explained that it is not their intent for the appraiser to have to
defend their value and that they bring their own expertise to the table. The
board feels that is why the process is in place and they have the right to
reduce the value on any property before them. Scot stated that any
decision that the board made became an adjudicated value and in the
case of exception value, the new MAV became that value in perpetuity. If
the assessor's office makes changes to values outside of BOPTA, the
values are not adjudicated.
Page 2 of 2 -- BOPTA - March 4, 2015 Minutes
3. Burden of proof seems to be a struggle each year. The board felt it is their
responsibility to determine whether or not the appellant met the burden of
proof, not the assessor's office. The board worked hard to establish
whether the burden of proof had been met by the petitioner on every
property. They then announced their decision and the reason for the
determination. There was discussion on the board being able to have the
assessor information if the appellant did not meet burden of proof.
Because of those parties "gaming the system" and the assessor's office
treating all appellants the same, they would prefer not to present their
information unless the appellant meets their obligation. The board felt
they were better able to explain to the appellant about the use of data for
their decision if provided with the assessor information. The aspect of
public relations should not outweigh public education. The board uses the
information as a training tool for the appellant as to what is required for the
board to make a decision within the scope of the law.
4. The board asked for training regarding commercial properties and the
different methodologies for valuation. Nancy and Scot will work on ideas
for an outside entity such as a commercial appraiser or realtor dealing in
commercial properties to give the board a class on commercial valuation.
The class should be scheduled as close to the convening meeting as
possible, if not the day of the meeting.
5. Tom and Chase used the SurfacePro and the iPad this year. They liked it,
however they would like to have a paper petition summary on each
petition being heard for the day. Two paper copies of the petition and
evidence will also be provided for each hearing day.
6. Scot asked Chase and Tom to provide specific cases on the commercial
properties where they felt that the assessor representative did not provide
the information regarding the real market value, only information on
statute and magistrate cases. Scot and Theresa will listen to the
recordings and use it for training purposes.
7. How do we keep all parties from becoming defensive? The fact that the
process is and should only be personal for the appellant as they are the
party who will lose or gain from any decision of the board. If they leave
with only an education as to the process, the board has accomplished
their job. We must consider that all parties present are professionals and
while there is validity to question or understand the data presented, it
needs to be done in a professional, respectful manner.
Prepared by Beckey Nelson
• BOARD OF PROPERTY TAX APPEALS
SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: �. '
i yyl -K) l i2 '
/;:
•
A-
ci-
0