Mr. Jenkins,
 
Per your request, I have put my request for public information in writing and look forward to your timely response.
 
Those of us who keep tabs on matters affecting county taxes and spending recently noticed on Titlesearcher.com and the State's Real Estate Assessment Data web site a big jump in appraisals on some of the county's most valuable waterfront real estate in Rarity Bay.  Some of the lots appear to remain vacant, so the increases do not appear connected with home building.
 
Since the reappraisal year isn't until next year - 2009 - this discovery raises several important questions:

1. When were these change made and for which tax year?

2. What prompted the increases and what legal basis do you have for doing reappraisals in a non-reappraisal year?

3. Assuming not every property and property owner in RB saw an increase, how was it determined which ones would get increased and by what amount?

4. How many total parcels and property owners were affected?

5. What was the resulting net increase in appraisals and assessments?

6. Did any of the affected owners file an appeal before the Board of Equalization?  If so, what was the outcome? Depending on your answers, I may have follow-up questions.
 
Thank you,
Van Shaver
 

Mr. Shaver: Below is the information you requested. For quick reference, I have copied and pasted your original question above each answer. I'll be glad to consider follow-up questions or public records requests.
----------------------------------
 
1. When were these change made and for which tax year?
 
1. The changes were keyed into the state's CAAS system this April, prior to the deadline for making changes to the 2008 tax roll. The change notice postcards were mailed to the affected property owners first week of May.
 
 
2. What prompted the increases and what legal basis do you have for doing reappraisals in a non-reappraisal year?

2. These were appraisal corrections, not re-appraisals. I deemed the corrections to be warranted because the original 2005 reappraisals on these parcels had been rescinded on May 5, 2005, without documented reason. Sales data from that timeframe show that the original valuations established by our reappraisal specialists were accurate.
 
 
3. Assuming not every property and property owner in RB saw an increase, how was it determined which ones would get increased and by what amount?
 
3. Only those lots that had their re-appraisals reversed on 5/5/05 with no supporting documentation were corrected. The new appraised amounts were re-set at their original 2005 reappraised values.
 
 
4. How many total parcels and property owners were affected?
 
4. Of the 179 appraisal reductions, more than half of those were restored by staff in time for the 2007 tax roll. The remainder were reinstated this (2008) tax year.  Of the 179, all but one were owned at the time by development companies or associates. By April 2005, fewer than 20 of the lots had been sold to private buyers, so the total number of unique owners affected by this correction is about 20.
 
 
5. What was the resulting net increase in appraisals and assessments?
 
5. Due to the limited resources of this office, you will need to request the public records/reports for calculating totals and for specific parcel/ownership information.
 

 
6. Did any of the affected owners file an appeal before the Board of Equalization?  If so, what was the outcome? Depending on your answers, I may have follow-up questions.
 
6. An explanatory note was enclosed with each change notice. Only one of the affected owners called seeking further explanation and there were no appeals.

BACK