Oregon's Sinedie Legislature Is Age-ist, Deals With Shortage, No C&R

[Elliott]

From the Oregon Realtor lobbyist:

"HJM 3 – Appraisers: Passed, signed by presiding officers May 18, 2017 & May 22, 2017 and was filed with the Secretary of State on May 22, 2017.
OAR Position: Support

Under this House Joint Memorial, the Oregon Legislature highlighted the issue surrounding appraisals in the State of Oregon. The memorial urges Congress to instruct the Appraiser Qualifications Board to develop a temporary standard or accreditation to provide immediate relief from the shortage of real estate appraisal professionals by highlighting the following

HJM 3 supports changes to the minimum appraiser qualifications criteria proposed by the Appraiser Qualifications Board of the Appraisal Foundation, including development of an alternative track for progressing from one State Licensed Appraiser to another.

In 2016, more than 62 percent of appraisers were 51 years of age or older, 24 percent were between 36 and 50 years of age and only 13 percent were 35 years of age or younger

The present criteria result in an infeasible financial burden, as wages earned by appraisers are not high enough to induce an individual to enter the profession after incurring the costs of a four-year college degree, especially when the degree must be accompanied by a multiple year, and often unpaid, internship.
The shortage of appraisers affects rural Oregonians in greater numbers than those in urban areas.



House Bill 2501 directed the Appraiser Certification and Licensure Board to establish rates of pay for independent contractor appraisers. As a benefit to appraisers, it would have required appraisal management companies to compensate independent contractor appraisers at rates set by the Board. In addition, it would have required appraiser management company to pay appraiser within 31 days, as opposed to 45 days, or according to an agreed upon schedule.

The bill was introduced after several legislators were contacted by constituents telling stories of highly inflated costs for standard appraisals, particularly in the more rural parts of the state.
presiding officers May 18, 2017 & May 22, 2017 and was filed with the Secretary of State on May 22, 2017.
OAR Position: Support "


There is probably a shortage of appraisers in Oregon because the Millennials are too busy protesting in Portland or stoned. The rural shortage is probably because farming is better work than working for AMCs.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

In 2016, more than 62 percent of appraisers were 51 years of age or older, 24 percent were between 36 and 50 years of age and only 13 percent were 35 years of age or younger

I would bet that in 1991, the average age of the newly minted appraisers was in the mid 50s or higher.

 

[bnmappraisal]

I'm not surprised at the age thing since many have said appraising is their 2nd or 3rd career in life.

From what I understand from the post, it seems they are trying to put better pressure on AMCs to pay appraisers faster and to set the fee(s) paid to the appraiser. That could be good or bad depending on the fee(s)

 

[Elliott]

HB2501 never got out of committee, after a hearing with 50+ appraisers saying that were opposed to the ACLB setting fees (it wasn't even clear if it were high or low).

 

[timd354]

HB2501 never got out of committee, after a hearing with 50+ appraisers saying that were opposed to the ACLB setting fees (it wasn't even clear if it were high or low).

The bill was introduced after several legislators were contacted by constituents telling stories of highly inflated costs for standard appraisals, particularly in the more rural parts of the state.

When I read some of the statements explaining why this bill was proposed (like above) it seems to me that the purpose of the bill was to cap appraisal fees.

 

[hastalavista]

When I read some of the statements explaining why this bill was proposed (like above) it seems to me that the purpose of the bill was to cap appraisal fees.

I suspect that a fee cap is part of the agenda behind promoting this bill.

What I believe is this:
If one accepts that there is an argument to set mandatory minimum fees, I don't see it as a big leap to then argue that mandatory maximum fees should also apply.
The argument for minimum fees is that appraisers should be paid a fair fee for their work and the current system does not provide for that (a hard argument to make in some parts of the country at this time).
The argument for maximum fees is that if appraisers have a minimum fee that is fair, then the consumer should be protected against unfair/higher fees. In other words, if the state provides a minimum with the intent of ensuring the appraisers are paid something they consider is "fair", then the state certainly has the right to impose a maximum to ensure that consumers are also paying something they consider "fair".

Much of the so-called pro-appraiser legislation has resulted in consequences that are less than pro-appraiser. For the boots-on-the-ground appraiser, whether they were intended or unintended consequences doesn't seem too relevant on the street. The fact that their solution created new or additional adverse conditions for appraisers is what is relevant on the street.

Open the door for a state-imposed minimum fee and that opens the door for a state-imposed maximum fee, IMNSHO.

 

[Joe Flacco]

There is probably a shortage of appraisers in Oregon because the Millennials are too busy protesting in Portland or stoned.

More like the appraisers are too stoned to train. Oh man what I could do with $600-$800 base fees.

 

[Joe Flacco]

There must be somebody that is attempting to build a very large appraisal company in Oregon. It doesn't make any sense to me that there isn't.

 

[Joe Flacco]

In 2016, more than 62 percent of appraisers were 51 years of age or older, 24 percent were between 36 and 50 years of age and only 13 percent were 35 years of age or younger

Nobody in Oregon sees the opportunity with $600-$800 base fees? Appraisers are high for sure.

 

[hastalavista]

Nobody in Oregon sees the opportunity with $600-$800 base fees? Appraisers are high for sure.

Joe-

Part of the problem is training, no?
How long would it take to scale-up a 1-2 person fee shop to a 4-6 person fee shop by bringing trainees into the firm?
And (at least based on my personal experience) when I'm training someone, that takes me out of my production-queue. I can do 100% of the work and collect 100% of the fee, or I can do 100% of the work (my own and my training/supervision) and split the fees where I work with the trainee. In either case, I'm maxed out at 100%.

Having said the above, I was in a similar situation in 2000. I did have a 2-person shop and I grew it over 5 years to a 15 person shop. Not all the appraisers were "trainees" but a large number were. It was a lot of work (worth it at that time) and the appraisers were rock-solid appraisers. That was something I was willing to do 17 years ago but not something I am willing to do 17 years later (and, I could do it again. But at my age, I'm not interested in doing it again).

I don't have a good answer and discussions about training programs on this forum get shot down quicker than a Daffy Duck on the opening day of duck hunting season.
It is a shame.