My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014-01-08 Board of Ethics Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Board of Ethics
>
Minutes
>
2011-2018
>
2014
>
2014-01-08 Board of Ethics Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/22/2014 10:31:34 AM
Creation date
5/22/2014 10:31:32 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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
<br />MR. BALSIS: Okay. At this time, if I’m correct, there were some items that we wanted <br />presented. Nancy, if you can come forward? And Stan, right? <br /> <br />MS. CRAWFORD: Okay, well good morning. For the record I’m Nancy Crawford, Director <br />of Finance—we’re trained in that over at Council side, to introduce ourselves, although I <br />know you know who we are. And we’re here at your request to provide some additional <br />information. <br /> <br />Just to recap, and as you’ve just read the agenda item, that we have the two petitions <br />that are before the Board, making a contention that the appraisers violated the Code of <br />Ethics by setting the assessed value of the land of their primary residences. Both <br />petitions are factually incorrect. Our department has very strict and thorough <br />safeguards to prevent assessors from setting the specific valuations of their own <br />properties. That’s just not allowed. <br /> <br />During the discussion of these petitions, the Board asked for additional information on <br />the practice known as mass appraisal. During mass appraisal, assessors review the <br />valuations for entire neighborhoods, recommend adjustments upward or downward for <br />the neighborhood as a whole, based on market trends and other factors, and those <br />recommendations are then reviewed in detail by the managers of the division. And they <br />are accepted if they are appropriate and justified by the facts. <br /> <br />In the case at hand, I believe the Board is essentially asking if there may be a conflict <br />because one of the appraisers, Mary Ann Todd-Waller, has been assigned to conduct a <br />mass appraisal of a neighborhood of 97 parcels, that includes her personal residence. <br />Mary Ann’s work does not affect the value of her home in even the slightest way. Mary <br />Ann dedicated her home for tax purposes, which means the value is frozen, and her work <br />does not change the valuation of her property. It has been frozen since before she was <br />assigned to this appraisal zone, and nothing she recommends regarding land values in <br />her neighborhood will have any effect on her property value. <br /> <br />The other appraiser, Marilyn Veincent, who is also assigned to conduct mass appraisals <br />in a zone that includes her home—that valuation neighborhood that includes her home <br />is approximately 2,000 parcels. Any recommendation she might make based on the <br />same analysis we were talking about, which is carefully reviewed, will affect all 2,000 <br />parcels together, up or down. And that again has to be justified and affects the <br />neighborhood as a whole. <br /> <br />So with that little recap, then, I would like to say Real Property Tax Assistant <br />Administrator Lisa Nahoopii is with me today, and she’s going to go through a brief <br />presentation to explain mass appraisal. Again, it’s a brief presentation—and to answer <br />a couple of the other questions that were raised by the Board at the last meeting, if <br />that’s okay? <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.