| King County
Board of Appeals and Equalization Report
No. 94-09
Bobby Buyco, Senior Management Auditor
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 Introduction
Objective
General
Conclusion
MAJOR FINDINGS
Finding - It took an average of 266 days to process a real
property assessment petition.
Finding
- Current procedures for handling real property assessment value appeals appear to be
satisfactory. However, minor changes may improve the process.
Finding
- Documentation of the basis for the Board of Equalization's decisions and decision
quality control were lacking.
Finding
- Board staff work as a team and are cross-trained. However, staff could be better
utilized during the slow periods.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The study of the Board of Appeals and Equalization
was requested by the King County Council.
The Board of Equalization (BOE) is composed of seven (7) members
appointed by the County Executive and confirmed by the County Council for a four-year
term. The Board of Equalization is vested with the power to hear and decide all appeals
from any property valuation by the Department of Assessments. The Board of Equalization
also examines other matters related to assessment of property in the County as provided by
general law. Acting as the Board of Appeals the same members hear appeals from certain
specified orders by an executive department or administrative office (KCC 2.34). In 1992,
the last revalue year, the Board of Equalization received 17,679 real property assessment
petitions.
OBJECTIVE
The study objective was to review the operation of
the Board of Equalization and to determine how it can avoid a substantial backlog of
property tax appeals.
GENERAL CONCLUSION
The general conclusion of the study is that the
petition processing time may be too long. However, there is no guideline as to what
constitutes an acceptable processing time. The length of the processing time is a function
of the cyclical nature and volume of petitions, Assessor response requirement,
availability of board members and hearing examiners, and scheduling constraints. Changes
in any of these variables impact petition processing time. The study recommends that the
Board of Equalization develop petition responsiveness goals and performance measures and
use these goals and performance measures to guide the scheduling of petition hearings,
determination of budget requirements, and other Board of Equalization activities.
MAJOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 1 - It took an
average of 266 days to process a real property assessment petition. However, complaints
were low and petitioners surveyed were generally satisfied with the appeals process.
Recommendation II-1-1
The Board of Equalization should develop petition responsiveness goals related to the date
of filing, e.g., a goal may be that petitions will be heard no more than "x"
days after it is filed and accepted as complete by the Board of Equalization. These goals
could be used to guide the scheduling of petition hearings, budget requirements, and other
Board of Equalization activities.
Finding 2 - Current procedures for
handling real property assessment value appeals appear to be satisfactory. However, minor
changes may improve the process.
Recommendation II-2-1
The Board of Equalization when receiving form requests should consider inputting the
information (name and address) directly into the computer and have the computer print
labels or print it directly on the envelope. This would result in a more professional
looking response to the request. In addition, the name and address of the petitioner would
already be in the computer when the petition is received. Inputting the name and address
of the petitioner would also allow the Board of Equalization to keep track of the number
of petition requests made. One disadvantage of this process is if the petitioner decides
not to file. This could be remedied by having a procedure (manually or automatically) in
the computer to erase the name and address of the petitioner if the petition is not filed
after a period of time.
Recommendation II-2-2
The Board of Equalization should encourage and support increased stipulations in resolving
disagreements between the taxpayers and the Assessor regarding property valuation.
Finding 3 - Board of Equalization members
appear to be knowledgeable with regard to appraisal methodology, receive compensation
competitive with other counties' Boards of Equalization, work a reasonable schedule, and
have a consistent scheduling methodology. However, documentation of the basis for
decisions and decision quality control were lacking.
Recommendation II-3-1
The following recommendation could require additional funds. Thus, it is dependent on
council policy regarding how the Board of Equalization should operate. The Board of
Equalization should consider the consequences of using just one examiner or one board
member to hear cases on the credibility of Board of Equalization decisions. If the Board
of Equalization decides that it is in the best interest of the Board of Equalization to
have petitions heard by more than one person, the Board of Equalization should request
that the Council provide additional funds. Another option which may be considered by the
Board of Equalization is to employ procedures similar to those used by the State Board of
Tax Appeals. That is, to issue a proposed decision for the petitioner and the Department
of Assessments to review and make its finalization subject to the filing of an exception
by either party within a specified number of days after the proposed decision is issued.
Recommendation II-3-2
The Board of Equalization should develop documentation standards which would allow
determination of the basis for decisions rendered by the Board of Equalization.
Documentation included in the file should include comparable sales, cost approach, income
approach, assumptions, and other pertinent information which was used in making the
decision. A possible approach would be to follow the appraisal standards required by
financial institutions providing home mortgages, e.g., detailed information on the
comparable properties.
Recommendation II-3-3
The Board of Equalization should periodically review a sample of decisions to assure
decision consistency and accuracy. In addition, procedures should be developed to annually
examine all decisions by area, property type, board member, examiner, etc., to determine
decision pattern(s), which may require further investigation.
Finding 4 - Board of Equalization staff
work as a team and are cross-trained. However, staff could be better utilized during the
slow periods.
Recommendation II-4-1
The Board of Equalization should provide the Council with a projection of Board of
Equalization staff availability to perform special Council projects.
Recommendation II-4-2
The Council should identify special projects which Board of Equalization staff may perform
on a time-available basis.
Updated:
06/24/02
Auditor's Home | Audit Reports | Contact Us | Links to Audit Related Sites
King County | News | Services | Comments | Search
|
