COM 0641.001 2010-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

IAAO Review April 3, 2012 Page 2 the island, however more recently presentations have been limited. The division is open to ideas on how to more effectively communicate with the public. Some questions must be answered individually, as the complexity of the current system makes it difficult to explain without actually addressing a specific parcel and working out all the alternatives. The division is actively working to procure a new website, as the current website is based on 12 year old technology and is therefore limited in its options. The following paragraphs correspond to those bulleted in the Executive Summary of the report: • No regular "cyclic" reappraisal, including physical inspection, of all real property. This is a desirable goal for the RPT Division. With over 140,000 taxable parcels spread over 4,028 square miles, the recommended 6 year cycle of physical inspection will require each of our 15 appraisers to review 1,554 taxable parcels annually in addition to other required inspections. A reasonable estimate of what it would cost for an outside firm to resurvey based on what Kauai County paid per permit a few years ago would be $75 /parcel over a 2 -3 year period or over $10 million. • Lack of use of regional building cost modifiers. Cost data is gathered from contractors and suppliers island -wide and is combined to a single set of cost data. Currently the difference in cost between areas has been less than 5 %. In the past during a more competitive building environment, the difference was higher. Using the combined cost data potentially resulted in undervaluing the cost of West Hawai`i construction and a resulting loss of revenue. The department will re- evaluate this practice. • Lack of ability to use the income approach to value. The ability to use the income approach would be very welcome and the CAMA system is capable of handling it, assuming adequate funds and resources are available to collect data and set it up. • Limited review of agricultural and other exemptions. Income based qualification re- quirements. Income based qualifications are already in place for the dedicated agricultural program, it is the non - dedicated program that does not have this criteria. The division currently checks the initial application criteria and follows up on leads for violations. • Limited grounds for appeals on equity grounds. We disagree with the authors that there are limited grounds for appeals based on equity. The lack of uniformity is but one of the grounds of appeal, and valuation issues are heard as grounds for appeal. We do not interpret the County Code as limiting a taxpayer's right to appeal as shown in the report example. The Real Property Tax Board of Review errs on the side of granting jurisdiction rather than denying it. • Overly complex exemption system making it difficult to understand who benefits and how much they benefit. Difficult to ascertain whether benefits received from these programs apply as intended by the Council. We agree that the County currently has