San Benito County Grand Jury
2009-2010
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury could find no evidence that money from the Vector Control Program was spent inappropriately.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Personnel are stretched thin due to budget cuts and non-replacement of deputies. Basic current needs include the hiring of two additional deputies and one office assistant.
F2:
The elimination of the Vector Control Specialist position was an effort to reduce the budget of the program in line with the reductions in all the departments within the San Benito County government.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
A second maintenance employee should be a consideration, given the population of the current Jail and the increased size of the projected new facility.
F3:
Prisoners are treated with respect. There are a variety of support services available.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Assessor's office should establish a more professional and data-based process for the reassessment of property value including a visual inspection.
F4:
Juvenile Hall continues to offer limited rehabilitative / treatment programs for those entrusted to its care. The contract the Con- 2 to 1989 1992 All towards And mare termings within the many restruction, particularly plant and price of the control of the country of an unit franceschi ar aufnicht mater Villig abergebeitet, ist generalie interest con exception and will be give, exceptable and except the last of the exception in the state court Advisor of the old Analysis the public refer to the - / 11 The San Benito County Assessor's Office Conducted by the County Committee Summary Residential property tax is based on the assessed evaluation of the property. With the recent decline in home and property values in San Benito County, the Grand Jury felt it necessary to investigate the procedure(s) for reassessing home values for the purpose of assessing property taxes. Purpose of Inquiry The purpose of this inquiry was to identify the process for assessment review. By definition "assessment review" is a request by a property owner for the Assessor's staff to review the assessment of his/her property to determine if the assessed value should be changed. Methodology The County Committee of the Grand Jury contacted the County Assessor's office to set up a visit to review procedures for reassessing residential property. The committee also reviewed published material on procedures from the San Benito County webpage, as well as the Office of the Assessor 2009 Annual Report. Discussion Background The San Benito County Assessor's office has many responsibilities. First, the office must locate all taxable property in the county and identify the ownership. Second, the office must establish a value for all property subject to property taxation. Finally, the office must list the value of all property on the assessment roll. The Assessor's office does not perform the following functions: compute property tax bills collect property taxes • establish property tax laws set rules by which property is appraised. In 1978, California voters passed Proposition 13 which establishes the property tax limits. The Assessor's office is required to reassess real property at its "current fair market value" when one of the following occurs: a) a change of ownership, b) completion of new construction, c) new construction partially completed on the lien date (January 1), or d) a decline in value. Otherwise, the increase in assessed value is limited to an inflation index not to exceed two percent (2%) per year. The annual property tax is approximately one percent (1%) of the property's assessed value, plus bonded indebtedness, amounts due to any assessment districts, and fees approved by the voters. -10-10- establishes a ceiling for real property. However, it does not establish a floor. If the fair market value falls below the indexed base value the assessor will reduce it to that fair market value no matter how low it goes. Another amendment to the California Constitution that effects property value is Proposition 8. Proposition 8 provides for reduction in taxable value of real property whenever its fair market value is lower that its indexed value on the January 1 lien date. This reduction will be in effect as long as the fair market value of the property is below its indexed base value for each succeeding January 1 lien date. The Assessor's office will restore the value to its indexed base value if and when the fair market value equals or exceeds its annual indexed base year value. Having determined the assessed value of taxable property and all legal exemptions, the Assessor's office then forwards this information to the Auditor. The Auditor assures that the correct tax rate is applied to the property's net taxable value. The Auditor then calculates the tax amount and extends the property tax to the Treasurer/Tax Collector for billing. Devaluation The economic recession of 2008-2009 has resulted in the reduction of property value for residential property throughout the United States, the state of California, and the county of San Benito. According to the Zillow Home Value Index, the median home price in California fell from a high of $553,900 in early 2006 to $327,600 in late 2009. This decrease was representative of the home values in San Benito County. In October of 2009, the Assessor Office presented an annual report to the County Board of Supervisors. This report indicated that there was more than an eight percent (8%) reduction of property values for the year. This would translate into more than a $550 million in lost taxable revenue for the county. The Assessor's office reported that the valuations were "all negative." Process for Reassessment January 1st (the lien date) taxes for the next fiscal year become a lien on the property. A Property owner has until February 15 to file all exemption claims. Owners who disagree with the Assessor's office valuation are "encouraged to contact" the Assessor's office prior to June 15 to request a review. July 1 of each calendar year signifies the close of assessment roll and the beginning of the new assessment roll year. (The assessment roll is the official list of all assessable property within the county.) In mid-July the annual mailing of assessment notices are sent to all San Benito County property owners. Property owners need to provide pertinent factual information concerning the market value of the property with the request. If the Assessor's office agrees that a reduction is appropriate, a new assessed value will be enrolled. If the property owner disagrees with the new assessment, he/she may appeal to the Board of Supervisors. Appeals to the assessment must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors between July 2 and November 30. (See Property Assessment Calendar) The office procedure for assessment review due to a decline in value of real property was explained to the Grand Jury County Committee. When a property owner calls the County Assessor's office requesting a tax review, the owner's name and address are noted. At some point in time, a record of the request is noted on a legal size file and filed in a cabinet. All parcel information is recorded using this procedure, along with a color coding system for determining the applied action: Green: Reduced previous year 2008 and/or 2009 Yellow: If a homeowner comes into the Assessor's office, as opposed to calling, and requests a reassessment, the county employee's directive is to have the homeowner print his/her name, address, and phone number on a yellow legal pad. The Assessor's office stated that property is chosen to be reassessed by one of the following indicators: Randomly The date the property completed escrow Improvements made on the property People who request a review. The Assessor's office claims their department lacks the time and resources to return calls or give written notification to each inquiry or request from property owners. Therefore, there is a three to four year backlog of homeowner's assessment review requests. There is also a four or more year back log in appeals being reviewed and brought before the Board of Supervisors. Also noted was that property values are assessed using large blocks of parcels throughout the county and there is limited visual contact of the property. Findings
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Provide a separate 'violation list' annually for each SNF so that employees, residents and families will be aware of what the specific issues are and what is being done to address them.
F5:
It is unclear which SNF has incurred which violation(s) on the annual California Public Health Dept. report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Design a brochure or flier for entering SNF residents / families, making clear the process of communication and the chain of command.
F6:
The directors and staff of the two SNFs are open, welcoming, knowledgeable, and demonstrate both professional expertise and care for the residents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Provide regular receptionist personnel at the front entrance of each SNF, both to facilitate communication and to provide security for residents.
F7:
There are no receptionists at either SNF, no real means of 'tracking' visitors, and no one person responsible for answering the phones.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Clear clutter from the halls and showers to ensure infection control as well as resident mobility and safety.
F8:
The hallways of both SNFs are cluttered by machines, boxes, equipment and furniture. In some cases, doorways are blocked by these same items.
F9:
The shower rooms at Northside are clean and neat; the shower rooms at Southside are cluttered with wheelchairs and other extraneous equipment. une in a de la post difinal la citat l'une. Na l'Islanda autrastica de la retermi betanni la casa del la Silva international company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company warming one itself a self- . - -2010
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R45-54:
☐ 55-64 □ 65-74 ☐ 75 and over 2. Gender: □ Male ☐ Female 3. Race or ethnicity (you may select more than one):
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.