Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 30, 1991 Special Meeting166 A Special Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervi- sors was held on January 30, 1991, at 7:30 p.m., in the James Wood High School - Amherst Campus Auditorium, 1313 Amherst Street, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT Robert M. Rhodes, Vice - Chairman; Dudley H. Rinker; Roger L. Crosen; Charles W. Orndoff, Sr.; and W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Chairman Kenneth Y. Stiles was absent. CALL TO ORDER The Vice - Chairman called the meeting to order. MOMENT OF SILENCE The Vice - Chairman requested a moment of silence in absence of a minister. REASSESSMEN'P This meeting was called to address concerns and questions from Frederick County citizens regarding the County's 1991 reassessment. Chairman of the Board of Assessors, Mr. Jack Einstein, addressed the citizens and stated that the Board of Assessors were as follows: Mr. Steve Culbert, Shawnee District; Mr. Sam Lehman, Back Creek District; Mr. John Light, Stonewall District; Mr. Roy McDonald, Opequon District; and himself, Gainesboro District. He also introduced the appraisal firm, as awarded by the bid process, Blue Ridge Appraisal Company consisting of David Hickey and Gary Shuey. He explained to the citizens how the Board of Assessors are appointed and the process they follow once appointed. Michael A. Didawick, Director of Assessment, briefly explained the assessment process and how each assessment was determined. He also explained the appeal process. The following people addressed the Board of Assessors regarding the County's reassessment: Ms Katie Wisecarver - Shawnee District Ms. Wisecarver opposed the reassessment because she felt there were inequities in same and it should be set aside and new assessments made. She suggested that each property owner's field assessment be mailed to them and validated or each property visited for a true 167 assessment. She also stated that her own assessments (home and business) were wrong and asked how many people probably received inaccurate assessments but did not or could not address the error (elderly, handicapped, etc.). Blue Ridge Realtor Dave Hickey addressed some of Ms. Wisecarver's concerns and stated that the invalidities of the assessments should be addressed and the reason for this meeting was to point out some of the errors. He added that not every single property was visited but most were and they talked to a lot of people. If errors such as water and sewer, land does not perk, etc. were made, these need to be addressed to the Board of Assessors so that the necessary adjustments can be made. County Administrator John Riley addressed the citizens and explained that the law states if County revenues increase more than one percent and there is a tax increase, the County must advertise for a public hearing. If values increase by 75 percent, taxes must be rolled back to the equivalent amount. Mr. Mike Weber - Stonewall District Mr. Weber opposed the reassessment because he felt that the flood plain areas in Frederick County were not considered and the taxes on same were too high and not accurate. He felt the high taxes would force the farmers to sell their land because they would not be able to afford the taxes and that farm land needed to be preserved in the County and development slowed down. Mr. Hickey addressed this issue and agreed that this was a mistake and that a lot of open acreage tracts, especially agriculture use, were assessed too high and that they were looking into it. Mr. Don Prang - Back Creek District Mr. Prang's main concern with the assessment was the method of taxation itself. He felt that the property tax was the most aggressive on the books and that people on fixed income would be pushed off their land because they would not be able to afford the taxes. He felt property owners should not be penalized for making improvements and taking care of their properties. He I G also added that wealthy people should assume the greatest responsibility in terms of education and other services. Mr. Riley addressed this concern stating that he met in Richmond on this date regarding Senate Resolution 160 to cap taxes on all primary residential structures. The resolution was outvoted 11 to 2. Mr. Roger Koontz - Gainesboro District Mr. Koontz stated that he felt the assessments were too high and the growth in Frederick County was going too fast. He had no problem with the process, but it was the people he was concerned about and felt that a blanket reduction should be made to the assessments for Frederick County. He felt a 40 percent reduction should be placed on all assessments. Commonwealth's Attorney Lawrence Ambrogi addressed Mr. Koontz' blanket reduction suggestion and stated that by law the Board of Supervisors could not do this. Each individual would have to go through the appeal process in order to get any type of reduction. Ms Ruth Crum Hensley - Stonewall District Ms. Hensley stated that she had several people concerned with their assessments as some were raised nearly 200 and 300 percent and felt no one could possibly afford such an increase. Mr. Riley replied that those concerns should definitely be addressed to the Board of Assessors and indicated that "written appeals" were still being accepted and should be mailed to P.O. Box 552, Winchester, VA 22601. Mr. Glenwood Nicholson - Gainesboro District Mr. Nicholson stated that his assessment was definitely too high ($141,000 to $1 million). Mr. Riley informed Mr. Nicholson his assessment should be addressed to the Board of Assessors and should send his written appeal to the same address he gave earlier. Ms Ellen Murphy - Stonewall District Ms. Murphy stated that the time the public had to meet with the Board of Assessors was not long enough and should be extended. She also expressed her concerns with the farmers she talked to who are on fixed 169 incomes or retirement. Their properties were assessed so high they would not be able to pay their taxes and would not be able to sell their land at the assessed value because their land did not perk. She also expressed that referendums should be respected and not ruled out. Mr. William Triplett - Back Creek District Mr. Triplett felt the assessment was not done right and wanted it thrown out and done all over again. Ms. Louise White - Oneauon District Ms. White felt the assessment had inequities and was unfair. She felt the assess- ments should be thrown out and last year's assessment used with a 7 percent increase added. Ms. Della DeHaven - Gainesboro District Ms. DeHaven asked if there will be any tax increase in the next four years. Mr. Riley replied that obviously there would have to be a tax increase within that time frame. Mr. Orville Hilton - Opeauon District Mr. Hilton felt his assessment was too high because his roads were not taken into consideration (not hardtopped). He added that he has been promised roads for years. Ms. Debbie Nail - Back Creek District Ms. Nail asked if the assessment will be reflected in June's 1991 tax bill. Mr. Riley's reply was yes. She also stated that she did not think people were going to be able to pay their new assessment tax rate with the status of the U.S. economy. Mr. Charles Harbaugh - Stonewall District Property Owner Mr. Harbaugh stated that he felt his assessment was done wrong (building was assessed at $5,000 and he has it insured for $18,000). Mr. Don Luttrell - Gainesboro District Mr. Luttrell felt that the assessment was not done at fair market value. He did not understand what land use meant and asked for an explanation. He also asked if one farmer is assessed at land use value does it apply to the second owner when he purchases the same land. He added that he felt their intelligence had been insulted because they are being led to believe the tax rate will decrease 170 this year but the County will raise taxes over the years to come. He stated the assessment should be set aside because of the inequities (his lot does not perk but was raised from $4,000 to $14,000 because it was compared to a house sold next door to him) . Mr. Riley explained that land use provided deferral on productive land. Applications could be obtained and filed with the Commissioner of Revenue's office. Values are rolled back 80 percent effective for six years and is changed over to the new property owner as required by State law. Per the County's attorney, he added that the assessment could not be set aside because they were required by State law to do the assessment and the County has to work within the law. once the Board votes when the reassessments should be done they cannot change their minds. Mr. Dwayne Bean - Gainesboro District Mr. Bean's concern was the assessment was done too high and should be rolled back. Mr. Ed Reardon - Back Creek District : Mr. Reardon felt the reassessment was too high and asked what criteria was used for fair market value. He felt that something was definitely done wrong when the properties increased the way they did. Mr. Hickey explained that they looked at different property sales within different areas and the projected values were based on sale prices. Not all properties apply this way and they run into problems where some properties are lower but most are equal. They need to identify areas that are high and areas that are low. He added that the economic level has slowed down and transactions have slowed down but this situation could not be perceived. Some properties have fallen off in value but their job was to measure value. Mr. Al Shirley - Stonewall District Mr. Shirley's concern was his own assessment in that it was too high and even if the taxes were rolled back it would not help him. Mr. Bill Webster - Gainesboro District Mr. Webster stated his concern regarding assessments that were too high on land 171 that did not perk and asked if it could be rolled back. He also felt the Board of Supervisors should fire the Board of Assessors because he felt they were incompetent. Mr. Riley stated that a lot of open land was assessed too high especially land that did not perk and these areas were being looked into. He also explained that the Board of Assessors is a separate process by law and the Board of Supervisors cannot do anything regarding the reassessments. Mr. Kenny Liber - Opequon District Mr. Liber felt his assessment was incorrect because the rate is higher on his property than his neighbors (neighbor owns more acres than him). Mr. Hickey explained that the rate is higher on smaller land than it is on larger land. Ms. Emma Scothorn - Opequon District Ms. Scothorn felt the assessment should be thrown out. Ms. Mary Lou Koontz - Gainesboro District Ms. Koontz felt the reassessment had a lot of inequities and her concern was for those people whose assessments were too high but were afraid to appear before the Board of Assessors. Mr. Marty Long - Opequon District Mr. Long opposed the reassessment because they were done too high and stated the Blue Ridge Appraisal Company did not know what they were doing. He added that all land should have been checked to see if it perked. Mr. Didawick replied to Mr. Long's concern and reported that Blue Ridge did the County's reassessment four years ago. Mr. Philip Ritter - Opeguon District Mr. Ritter also stated he felt that land that would not perk should have been looked into. Mr. Riley stated that perk test are done by the State Health Department and not by Frederick County. Mr. Steve Spaid - Gainesboro District Mr. Spaid felt the assessment was incorrect and asked if the assessment could not be set aside if it had to be implemented. He felt the majority 172 at this time was to give the assessment another year ecause March was not enough time to correct the inequities. Mr. Ambrogi addressed Mr. Spaid's question and replied hat the state law requires the assessments to be implemented s voted by the governing bodies. The Frederick County Board of upervisors voted to do the County's reassessment every four ears. The only way the assessments could not be implemented is f the Board of Assessors does not sign the books by the set eadline. Mr. Merle Lynch - Back Creek District Mr. Lynch stated 11that his assessment was too high that he would not be able to 1�sell his property at the assessed value. Ms. Mary Bassler - Gainesboro District Ms. Bassler felt the assessments were too high. Mr. George Boyer - Back Creek District Mr. Boyer opposed the reassessment because it was too high. He lived off social security and would not be able to live in his present home at Ithe new assessed value. Ms. Ruth Hensely Ms. Hensley again addressed the Board of Assessors and stated that she had five owners whose land was land locked and their assessments had increased by 100 percent. Mr. Riley stated that those people should definitely write the Board of Assessors about their lots. Mr. Roger Koontz Mr. Koontz again addressed the Board of Assessors and stated that there were a lot of citizens who were afraid to come forward with assessments that were done too high. He stated he received a reassessment from a citizen whose assessment increased from $189,900 to $1,450,000. Mr. Bill Schuller - Shawnee District Mr. Shuller stated that his assessment was too high (200 percent increase). Mr. Dino Morgoglione - Shawnee District Mr. Morgoglione felt the reassessment should be revised because it was his consensus that 30 to 40 percent of the assessments were in error Mr. Roger Koontz Mr. Koontz appeared again and stated that the Board of Assessors should set aside what has been done 173 and redo the assessments to include non -perk rates. His Richmond contact told him that the Board of Supervisors could extend the reassessment. He felt that $330,000 was a small price to pay to set aside the reassessments and have it done right. Otherwise, people would be pushed off their land. Mr. Ambrogi again reminded Mr. Koontz that the Board of Supervisors did not have legal authority to set aside the reassessment, however, each person can appeal their assessment to the Board of Equalization and hope to get it reduced. The Board of Supervisors voted to have the County's reassessment done every four years, and by law, the assessment has to be implemented as the Board voted. The only way the assessment could not be implemented is if the Board of Assessors does not sign the books. Mr. Koontz did not agree and asked to meet with Mr. Ambrogi on February 1, 1991. UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT WAS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADJOURN. Lvad I d , Boa rl df Supervisors Cl r , oard of S ervisors