Current through Register Vol. 63, No. 9, September 1, 2024
(1) Definations:
(a) "Contaminated site" means real property
that, on the assessment date:
(A) Is on the
National Priority List of the Environmental Protection Agency;
(B) Is included by the Department of
Environmental Quality in an inventory of confirmed releases pursuant to ORS
465.225;
(C) Is an illegal drug manufacturing site as
defined in ORS 453.858; or
(D) Is demonstrated as provided under Section
(2) of this rule to have had a release of a hazardous substance as defined in
ORS 465.200.
(b) "Contaminated site" does not include any
permitted release or permitted facility approved by the Department of
Environmental Quality for storage or disposal of a hazardous substance.
(c) "Cost to cure" means the
discounted present value of the estimated after tax cost of the remaining
remedial work specific to the subject property to remove, contain, or treat the
hazardous substance. Cost to cure may include the cost of environmental audits,
surety bonds, insurance, monitoring costs, and engineering and legal fees. The
costs must be directly related to the clean up or containment of a hazardous
substance.
(2)
Demonstrating Contamination of Site: A property is defined as a contaminated
site under Section (1)(a)(D) above if it is shown that the property has had a
release of a hazardous substance. This will be demonstrated through:
(a) The submission of reliable, objective
information such as engineering studies, environmental audits, laboratory
reports or historical records; or
(b) Evidence that the release has been
reported to the Department of Environmental Quality.
(3) Appraising Contaminated Sites: The real
market value of a contaminated site shall be determined in accord with this
rule. The appraiser shall consider the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost
Approach, and the Income Approach. For a particular contaminated site, it may
be that all three approaches cannot be applied, however, each shall be
investigated for its merit. In all cases, actual market data are the most
reliable indicators.
(a) The Sales Comparison
Approach may be used to determine the real market value of a contaminated site
by comparison with verified sales of similarly contaminated sites. If no sales
exist of property similarly contaminated, a comparison may be made to sales of
properties without contamination. Adjustment factors shall be developed to
account for the influence of contamination based upon a cost to cure analysis.
These factors shall be applied to the subject property. Adjustments shall be
considered for the following:
(A) Limitations
upon the use of the contaminated site due to the nature and extent of the
contamination or due to governmental restrictions related to contamination;
(B) The increased cost to insure
or finance the property;
(C) The
potential liability for the cost to cure;
(D) Governmental limitations and restrictions
placed upon the transferability of all or any portion of the contaminated
sites;
(E) Other market
influences.
(b) The
Cost Approach may be used to determine the value of the contaminated site
without the contamination. The cost to cure may be deducted as a measure of
functional obsolescence.
(c) The
Income Approach should use market rental data. If market rental data are not
available, the property's actual income may be used.
(A) The income stream may be adjusted to
reflect the estimated annual cost of remedial work specific to the subject
property to remove, contain, or treat the hazardous substance during those
years the cost is incurred. The annual cost of remedial work may include the
cost of environmental audits, surety bonds, insurance, monitoring cots, and
engineering and legal fees. The costs must be directly related to the clean up
or containment of a hazardous substance.
(B) If the capitalization rate is derived
from properties with similar contamination, no adjustment should be made to
that rate. If the rate is developed from properties without contamination, or a
built-up rate is used, consider adjustments for the increased present and
contingent future risk of ownership, difficulties in future appreciation or
depreciation, and the effect upon the ability to sell or transfer the property;
that is, the liquidity of an investment in the property.
(C) Alternately, an income approach
projecting the income stream as if the subject property was not contaminated,
may be used when the cost to cure is deducted from the resultant value
indicator.
(d) The
market may respond to contamination in a variety of ways. In all cases, actual
market sales and income data are the most reliable indicators.
Stat. Auth.: ORS
305.100
Stats. Implemented: ORS
308.205