Creative Data Acquisition with Fixed Resources

Detection, Identification and “Resolution”

of Assessment Data Changes

Presenters:

Mr. Timothy Boncoskey, Chief Deputy, Maricopa County, Phoenix AZ

Mr. Michael Lomax, Director of Assessment, Esri Canada

Continuing Education (CE) Credit:

Participants desiring CE credit for attending this session should collect a Recertification Credit form from the Registration Desk on Thursday.

Housekeeping Note: Please turn off cell phones

Attendees will receive instructions to access the conference proceedings in approximately 8 weeks.

Agenda Maricopa County - background

Overview of the "problem”

IAAO standards and compliance

Problem and gaps with the current reality

Research on best practices

Role of GIS as the integrator

Technology requirements for a Desktop Review

Overview and profile of the sample area

Live demo

Results of the sample

Benefits of data integrity and correcting the data

Closing and wrap up.

Questions

Population

Land Size

Elected County Assessor Keith E. Russell, MAI

Keith E. Russell, MAI

ASSESSOR

“To efficiently and effectively administer all laws and regulations for Maricopa County property owners so that all ad valorem

property is fairly and equitably valued.”

Assessor’s Obligation to the public is to be Fair and Equitable Two publics to consider: • Individual property owner • Collective group of property owners

Obligation to individual is to make sure value is not too high. Obligation to collective group of property owners is to make sure value is not too low.

Keith E. Russell, MAI

ASSESSOR

To be a recognized national leader in the property tax assessment and administration field.

2012 and 2009 IAAO Outstanding

Chapter/Affiliate Award

2009 OSAM Best Solution

2011 SAG Special Achievement In GIS

2008 APLS Project Of The Year

2010 NACo Achievement Awards

2012 IAAO Member of the Year

2011 Environmental Excellence Award

2011 Best Renovation/Restoration Project

Annual Valuation Cycle for

1.5 million Real Property Parcels and

140,000 Business Personal Property Accounts

With 2013 Full Cash Value of $310.3 billion.

Keith E. Russell, MAI

ASSESSOR

ASSESSOR BUDGET HISTORY BY FY

290

300

310

320

330

340

350

360

370

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14

$13,000,000

$14,000,000

$15,000,000

$16,000,000

$17,000,000

$18,000,000

$19,000,000

$20,000,000

$21,000,000

$22,000,000

$23,000,000

$24,000,000

$25,000,000

$26,000,000

Salaries Benefits Supplies & Services Cost Shift From General Gov. FTE

Eliminated 41 FTEs Closed 5 Satellite Offices

20%

68%

64%

24%

1%

12% 11%

Keith E. Russell, MAI

ASSESSOR

323 Assessment Professionals

Keith E. Russell, MAI

ASSESSOR

County Administration

Building

Phoenix, Arizona

Historic 1929

Santa Fe Freight Depot

Phoenix, Arizona

Keith E. Russell, MAI

ASSESSOR

THE MARICOPA COUNTY ASSESSOR’S OFFICE IS COMPRISED OF SEVEN (7) OPERATIONAL UNITS…

1. ADMINISTRATION: This unit includes human resources, procurement, budget and legislative tracking, intergovernmental communication and internal audit.

Keith E. Russell, MAI

ASSESSOR

2. GIS/MAPPING: Provides spatial data for the office, other County agencies, and the public so they can analyze geographic information.

Keith E. Russell, MAI

ASSESSOR

3. INFORMATION SERVICES: Manages the

computing environment for the Assessor's office including data center operations, end-user support, web presence and applications/ database maintenance.

4. PERSONAL PROPERTY: Establishes and maintains accurate data on each business account for the tax rolls. This includes mobile home valuations.

Keith E. Russell, MAI

ASSESSOR

5. SUPPORT SERVICES: The public face of the office, providing important administrative and coordination functions for county government and citizens. These include records management, processing requests, deeds processing, tax roll corrections and registrations and the public assistance counter.

6. LITIGATION: Provides all support to the County Attorney and Board of Supervisors to arrive at valuation and classification decisions that have been appealed to the Judicial Branch of government for resolution.

Keith E. Russell, MAI

ASSESSOR

7. REAL PROPERTY/CAMA: Responsible for the valuation of six property types including Residential, Commercial, Mobile Homes, Apartments, Agriculture and Vacant Land.

Role of Data Maintenance

• Mass Appraisal relies on the maintenance of data

IAAO – Standard for Mass Appraisal:

“Mass appraisal requires complete and accurate data, effective valuation models, and proper management of resources”

• Garbage in = Garbage out

• Great data in = Accurate Assessments out

International Standards

IAAO – Review every 4-6 years

Option to use high resolution imagery

Desire to implement a cycle

Why do we need an Intelligent Data Maintenance Program?

Enhances ability to do more with less!

No formal inspection cycle

Reactive vs Proactive vs Ad Hoc data maintenance

Cost(s) Core of Assessment work and Mass Appraisal is “Data”

Assessor commitment to move to an IAAO recommended cycle Bad Data = Bad Valuations

Current ways to maintain data

Appeals

Inquiries

Door to Door

Declarations

Plans

23

Inequitable Land Adjustments

View 1.05

View 1.05

View 1.05

View 1.05

$ 149,000

$ 149,000

$ 149,000

$ 149,000

$ 142,000

Inequity Caused by Main Bldg Adjustments

147 147+7

155 - 5 147+ 5

$ 476,000

$ 482,000

$ 497,000

$ 521,000

Inequity caused by Commercial Rent Quality

155 - 5 147+ 5

Rent Quality : Good (Q3)

Rent Quality : Excellent (Q4)

•What do think you the difference is? •SAME LOCATION

Inequity Caused by Commercial Rent Quality

155 - 5 147+ 5

Rent: $7.25 Size: 14,200 Cap Rate : 5.75% Age: 1997 $/Sq.ft.; $118 Value: $1,684,000

Rent: $8.00 Size: 13,916 Cap Rate: 5.75% Age: 1993 $/Sq.ft.: $130 Value: $1,821,000

Drawbacks with business as usual

Ad-hoc data maintenance

Could result in “Sales Chasing”

Inequitable distribution of tax base for taxpayers

Reactive vs Proactive

Snowball effect

More costly to maintain

Valuation models do not reflect reality

Increasing property counts

Sample Area

• Homogeneous area

• Housing stock is approx 50-60 years old

• Specifically selected “older” neighborhood

Demonstration

Summary of Net Change

• Net value change: + $ 778,152

• Mean average change: +$ 9,048

• Largest + change: +$ 67,377

• Largest – change: -$ 12,797

61

35

5

70

49

6 9Balcony / Decks

Carports / Garages

Pools

Other Data

Living Area

No Change

Field follow up

31

Types of Data Changes – Maricopa County Sample Area

Sample Size: 86 properties

Key Findings & Conclusions

Importance of Data Integrity

Q/A

Models

Team

System

Data Permits Land Titles Imagery

CAMA Sketch GIS

Administrators Appraisers Specialists

MRA Cost Income

ASR COD PRD

Summary

• Assessment Jurisdictions have increasing property counts with limited or no budget increase

• Leading Jurisdictions are adopting IAAO standards and moving to regular reassessment cycles

• Fully leveraging abilities in technology can assist

• Next Steps for Maricopa

Thank You