My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0641.007 2010-2012
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2010-2012
>
COM 0641.007 2010-2012
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/28/2012 11:46:10 AM
Creation date
11/7/2012 3:25:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2010-2012
Communication
0641
Point
007
Author
Pete Hoffmann, Council Member
Communications - Referred To
FC
Comments
FC: Postponed to Finance Committee meeting scheduled for December 18, 2012 - 11/20/12
Document Relationships
AGE FC 11/20/2012 2010-2012
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2010-2012\Finance Committee (FC)
AGE FC 2012/12/18 2010-2012
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2012-2014\Finance Committee (FC)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Recommendation 24: The Division should develop and implement a plan for verifying <br /> the accuracy of each property record at least once every six years. <br /> Recommendation 25: The Council should require a regular property inspection cycle. <br /> Every property should be inspected at least once every six years. <br /> Recommendation 26: The Council should consider Code changes to permit the use <br /> of the income approach, especially for multi-family and commercial properties, in <br /> addition to the other recognized approaches to value, when appropriate on the basis <br /> of data availability and type of property under consideration. The Division should <br /> review data gathering methods to try to maximize available income and expense <br /> information. <br /> Recommendation 27: The County should implement the updated agricultural land <br /> values developed by the Division. if the effects of implementing the proposed values <br /> do not comport with the County' s agricultural land preservation policy, the values <br /> should be changed appropriately or changes in Section 19- 53, County Code, should <br /> be considered. if so, the Division should provide such recommendations to the Council. <br /> Recommendation 28: The Division should consider developing different building <br /> cost location modifiers to reflect differences in material and labor costs between the <br /> east and west sides of the island. <br /> Recommendation 29: Before moving to combined land and building valuation, the <br /> County should review this decision with a broad array of stakeholders to eliminate <br /> unanticipated problems. <br /> Recommendation 30: The Council should consider Code changes to institute a review <br /> cycle or requiring re-application for exempt property. <br /> Recommendation 31: The Council should require the Division to conduct more frequent <br /> inspections and inclusion of proof of eligibility and income information as part of the <br /> application process for agricultural use value assessment. A stakeholder committee <br /> should be established to review the intent of underlying policies and allegations of abuse. <br /> This committee should also look into the possibility of consolidating agricultural use <br /> eligibility options, weighing the benefits of a simpler, more transparent system against <br /> specific tax shifts. <br /> Recommendation 32: The Council should consider working with state legislators to <br /> 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.