Second section of Email exchange between Carl Weimer and Assessor Keith Willhauer

2.

NOTE: KEITH WILLNAUER RESPONDS TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILMAN WEIMER IN THE SAME E-MAIL CHAIN:

PDS is the planning Department I believe

This from public records: third and fourth e-mail between Carl Weimer and Keith Willnauer on Monday the 17th:

From: Keith Willnauer
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 3:05 PM
To: Carl Weimer
Cc: Council; Jack Louws; Mark Personius; Karen Frakes
Subject: RE: Koster Op Ed on the Hirst Case

Thanks for your keen interest in these impacts.

Question: “What I think I am seeing is that $271 million is the levy dollar amount, but that the actual shift is in the boxes labelled “make up tax” for between $1.8 and $2.2 million? Is that correct?

Answer: Yes that is correct as an estimate. The assessed valuation loss/shift is conservatively estimated between 150 and 200 million. This is a direct loss of personal investment in property.

Question: Where did the 60% or 70% property value reduction come from?

Answer: Experience with investigation of other sale indications from comparable properties with developable “yes” and developable “no” characteristics. These dynamics are conservative. Example: See Sudden Valley vacant lots. Developable est $15,000 to $20,000, Not developable est 1,500 to 2,000. (90% reduction).

Question: Is your intention to devalue these properties?

Answer: Yes, absolutely, to taxpayer expectation, to the extent the law requires. No property should have an assessed value that exceeds what they could sell the property for.

Question: ? Do vacant lots already have a “developable” factor added to them for tax purposes, and if so what criteria has been used to determine that they are actually fully developable?

Answer: Appraisal judgement operating in conformance with RCW uses every situation or circumstance that would affect negotiations between willing buyers and willing sellers in the determination of assessed value. RCW describes “true and fair market value” as assessed value and specifically details the use of “highest and best use, legally permissible” as valuation concept with further clarification for the consideration for governmental land use regulatory impact.

Question; The number of lots you quote seems quite different than numbers that PDS has been sharing with us, is this based on their zoning data, your assessor data, or a combination?

Answer: I have not seen numbers PDS has generated. We have had specific direct consultation and education sessions with PDS and the Health Department to develop our complete operational understanding of the issues. We have consulted with Skagit County and Kittitas County to further our research. We’ve utilized water service area / association and WIREA1 area GIS mapping PDS data relative to Assessor’s Land Parcel Data detail. We eliminated incorporated (city) tax code areas, commercial forestry and primary agricultural land uses. Our knowledge of Assessor’s Land Parcel detail data, conservative assumptions, and relative comparisons to Skagit County impacts, is continuing our goal to develop impact analysis and frame a near future strategic Assessor’s Office operational response.