Reassessment furor ends in a whisper

The hue and cry about reassessments in Augusta County apparently ended with barely a whisper last night when the Board of Supervisors voted 7-0 to lower the tax rate to 48¢. It had been 58¢ since the 1980s. In passing the $72 million budget that is almost 5% less than last year's, supervisors reduced spending in some areas, gave no raises, and eliminated or froze 18 positions in the various offices including some affecting public safety.

Even with the increase in assessed values, with the cut in the tax rate many of the county's homeowners will see a decrease in their real estate tax. On the home front, my taxes will drop about $80 per year in spite of the improvements we've made and a (deserved) higher assessment. Many farmers with pasture and cornfields in land use will also enjoy a reduction on that part of their real estate tax. 

All that's left is for the Circuit Court judge to dismiss the groundless lawsuit brought by perpetual gadfly Francis Chester and send him back to his sheep. One good outcome of all the publicity was getting that hypocrite to pay back taxes. But, from where I roost, he and his cohorts owe residents an apology for fanning the flames of fear and division with his rants and misinformation.

Assessing reassessments III

I've had a couple of earlier posts - Assessing reassessments and Assessing reassessments II - where I commented on the numbers, the dollars, and the politics of the controversial reassessments in Augusta County. At this point, Mr. Chester's lawsuit is awaiting trial unless the judge dismisses it - which will be the likely outcome. Chester is clueless and the suit groundless. Of course, he's taken his services to the people of Page County to aid them in their tax battles. All I can say, Page people beware.

Back in Augusta County, the Board of Supervisors is poised to approve a 48¢ tax rate, a decrease from the current 58¢ rate that has been in effect since the 1980s. That is less than revenue neutral! A couple months ago a rowdy and rude mob - that's really not too strong a term - filled a public hearing to bash the supervisors. The other night only two people spoke up on the tax rate cut. Hum!

So, what will that mean? Well, some taxpayers, me included, will see a modest increase because of the new higher assessed value. But, let me emphasize modest. And my property is assessed a bit lower than a recent appraisal that was done for a refinance. I've heard from about a couple dozen homeowners who have "enjoyed" a similar epiphany. 

Many farmers who have their property in land use taxation will actually see their taxes decrease significantly. Why - because agricultural and forestry lands are taxed on the land use value rather than the assessed value. Land use didn't change. Good for them -  perhaps that will help preserve our farmland and open spaces.

Meanwhile, up the road in Harrisonburg, assessments are up 7.7%. Hey, weren't Augusta's up 28% or something like that? Yep, but this is apples and oranges... and figs, and grapes, and raspberries. How so?

Well, first of all Harrisonburg reassesses annually while Augusta is on a 4-year cycle. In short, Harrisonburg saw these increases in a year when the real estate market melted down! Most of the Augusta increases occurred in the first three years. Other differences - Harrisonburg's increases were driven by commercial property while the biggest uproar in Augusta was over agricultural land of which there is little in the city; some in Augusta never fully understood the land use part of the equation. The increases for homes in Harrisonburg generally ranged between 1% and 5%, but again that was in one year (a down year at that), not four.

So, even considering the apples and oranges and the figs and grapes... it seems to me that Augusta's reassessments were pretty much in line with actual values. Were there mistakes - sure; many of them. Remember this is a mass assessment for which the county paid about $15 per parcel - in short, it is a drive-by assessment. There was an appeals process (nearly everyone I've talked to who availed themselves of this opportunity got some relief) and there is an ongoing Board of Equalization.

What about raspberries? The raspberries are for the rude and mean-spirited #^$%*@&! who shouted at and badgered the supervisors. The most rotten raspberries are reserved for the self-serving Francis Chester and all who encouraged this demeaning of our government by the people for their own narrow purposes.

April 1

Francis Chester says he will file suit in the Augusta County Circuit Court today demanding that the reassessments be rolled back to the 2005 level. A groundless suit filed by this "lawyer" on April Fool's Day. It couldn't have been scripted any better.

The real butts of this joke are the taxpayers of Augusta County who will have to pay the costs of defending against a frivolous case.

Assessing reassessments II

Pastures Supervisor Tracy Pyles says it is time for the battle over reassessments to end and for the county to move on to the budget and other matters. He also told the News Leader that he does not support Francis Chester's threatened lawsuit or the recall petition.

The wounds from this battle will be raw for a while, but I have no doubt the BOS can rebuild a working relationship that puts the residents of the county first. There will be challenges enough in finalizing a budget that features a cut in the real estate tax rate from 58¢ to 48¢ per hundred dollars of value (basically revenue neutral), layoffs, and cuts in services.

While the memories of the reassessment are still fresh, the board and residents should resolve to work for changes in the way the state required reassessments are conducted. Some may be achieved locally while others may need authorization or help from Richmond. A starter list:

• Reassessments should be done every two years to improve timeliness and accuracy while reducing sticker shock.
• Reassessments should be done in-house by a independent office shielded as much as possible from political pressures. The Commonwealth should pass legislation and funding to assist with technology, training, and legal safeguards.
• Legislation should be passed to place the burden on the assessor to justify large increases (say over 8 or 10% annualized) rather than being on the landowner to show why the increase is unjustified.

Sometimes our biggest disagreements can result in the best positive steps forward. Hopefully, that will be the case this time.

Assessing reassessments

The reassessment battles that have been raging in Augusta County appear to be nearing an end. The Board of Supervisors voted 5-2 to accept the reassessment and move toward drafting a budget as required by state law. The supervisors are all committed to lowering the tax rate and will probably do so in a way that produces a low single digit percentage gain in overall county revenues. Yes, some landowners will see higher tax increases but others may actually find their taxes go down. When tax bills go out in May there will be a burst of anger from some but most residents will find their bills haven't unreasonably increased.

In a way, the reassessment brouhaha is part of a larger populist anger fueled by the fears and uncertainties of our economic downturn. We're seeing it in reactions to the AIG bonuses and outrage over Bernie Madoff, even among those of us who didn't lose a dime in his giant ponzi scheme. Newsweek has an excellent cover story about populist outrage in American history.

But, back to Augusta County where some lingering playlets will grab more headlines:

• Francis Chester will file his lawsuit, the judge will find it groundless, and toss it out. Mr. Chester will declare victory.
• Residents pushing a recall of the supervisors will find it tough going. They like to cite the "10,000 signatures" Mr. Chester got, but his petition was basically a PR campaign and met virtually none of the safeguards required of a petition required for a legally binding procedure such as a recall. Besides, Virginia law does not permit a recall in the same sense as California and other states. So, even if they get the required minimum number of legal signatures, the petitions go before a judge to determine if any supervisors are guilty of misuse of office, neglect of duty, or incompetence. They aren't. End of story.

Moving forward, what are some lessons learned from all this? A few reflections on reassessment and a couple suggestions for the future:

• When times are tough, people are fearful, and taxes are the topic, demagogues find fertile conditions. Perhaps they perform a useful service by providing an emotional outlet.
• We should never confuse the thrill of politics with good governance as some like the former local GOP chair and his blogging cohort have done. Watching them at the March 11 public hearing was akin to watching parents exhibiting bad sportsmanship at a local high school basketball game.
• Many people who spoke at the public hearing seem to think the assessors are setting market values, when the opposite is actually true. One friend wondered how he can sell his now multimillion dollar farm to a child or grandchild. He can, if he wants to sell it below market value. But, if he needs the cash for his retirement, he'll probably put the farm on the open market and get the highest price he can - which would likely be above the assessment.
• The firm hired to conduct the reassessments should not participate in the political fray. It is okay to explain the technical and procedural aspects of reassessment, it is not okay to engage in political shouting and name calling.
• People who give their time and energy to serve on local committees and boards, such as the Board of Assessors, deserve our thanks, not our scorn.
• It is interesting that Republicans who usually push privatization, don't much like the private firm, Blue Ridge Mass Appraisals, who conducted the reassessment. They probably won't like this either - a better approach than hiring out for reassessments would be in-house appraisals by local governments. Since periodic reassessment is required under the the Code of Virginia, the General Assembly should provide the technology and training to assist counties and cities in establishing a politically shielded office to conduct reassessments.
• Some have suggested reassessing every six years rather than the four year cycle which Augusta County now uses (some localities are on a two year cycle). Changing to a six year reassessment cycle is a very bad idea for a couple of compelling reasons. The sticker shock is bad enough after four years - can residents imagine the jump if they'd been comparing to 2003 rather than 2005? Conducing reassessments every two years would reduce the sticker shock and likely produce more accurate results. Perhaps even more important - a six year reassessment cycle would make it longer than the four year term of office of a supervisor with undemocratic electoral and accountability consequences. 

Time to move on to other things - like writing a lean budget that has a lower tax rate while protecting the essential core services of public education, public safety, and public health. I hope the supervisors and the people can put the past behind them and move forward on this difficult task.