The Vance County Board of Commissioners’ Planning/Environmental Committee met yesterday at 4:00 p.m. However, rather than focus on its usual bailiwick, the committee discussed a problem with the reevaluation of certain land parcels in the county.
To listen to an audio recording of the meeting, click here.
According to Vance County Board of Commissioners Chair Danny Wright, a member of the Planning/Environmental Committee, the error was first discovered by Commissioner Dan Brummitt.
“I’m a little bit embarrassed,” Wright said.
“I’m a whole lot embarrassed,” Vance County Tax Administrator Sam Jones said in reply to Wright’s statement. In a telephone interview with Home in Henderson on February 7, 2008, Jones indicated that there were no problems with the tax reevaluation.
Essentially, the problem is that the schedule of values for rural farming/low development parcels of property that was approved by the board was not the schedule of values that was used in the computer program used to assess the values of those types of parcels. The schedule that was used assessed the land parcels at a higher value than the table approved by the board.
Bob Pearson of Pearsons Appraisal Service said that the problem was that the table that he intended to place in the Schedule of Values did not print out from the computer, and the table from the 2000 reevaluation was used instead.
Wright noted that the board had voted to accept the the Schedule of Values and had to take responsibility.
“The buck stops here,” Wright said.
Pearson emphasized on two separate occasions during the meeting that the problem did not affect the reevaluation of residential or commercial properties.
“We’re on the money,” Pearson said of those appraisals.
However, it was noted that over 8,600 records will be affected by the problem.
Although the effect on smaller parcels of land is negligible, parcels of 300 acres or more could be inflated up to 30% in their valuation because of the problem.
Michael Brown, head of the Real Property Section of the North Carolina Department of Revenue was present at the meeting and offered the county two options on how to proceed to correct the error.
Stating beforehand that he did not recommend his first option, Brown said that the county could re-open the Schedule of Values and re-adopt it. He went on to say that he did not see what had happened as a strong enough reason to re-adopt. He noted to committee members that by engaging in the process the county could open itself up to challenges made “for any reason”.
Prefacing the second option by his opinion that the mistake was not a “very big error”, Brown recommended that the correct values (from the adopted Schedule of Values) be placed in the assessment computer program for the affected tracts of land.
Brown said that the table in question is “just one factor” in pricing the land.
Addressing the problem of some parcels exceeding the maximum values stated in the Schedule of Values because of the error, Brown argued that the published ranges were averages, and therefore values could be both higher and lower than the average base rate. He said that better language was needed [in the Schedule of Values] to define the base tax rate in the next Schedule of Values.
Wright agreed that a less interpretable document was needed.
Pearson countered that there was the potential for interpretation of the definition “low development”. He said that his company uses sales figures to arrive at values.
Pearson went on to outline his plan of action to correct the problem. He said he would send new notices to the affected property owners. He also told the committee that he would change the problematic values in the computer program to those specified by the approved Schedule of Values.
The assessor said that cover letters were not necessary since there are up or down changes for property owners who do not appeal when mistakes are discovered.
The county commission chair confirmed that the correction would be at Pearson’s expense.
Wright asked County Manager Jerry Ayscue if the approval of the full board was necessary to direct Pearson to take the corrective action. Ayscue replied that although he would have to consult the county attorney, he felt that the full board should vote on it “to be safe”.
Brown opined that a full board vote was not necessary since the assessor has the full power to assess. He said that updating the system does not require a board vote.
County Commissioner Terry Garrison noted that this is an election year.
Wright said that the board needs to deal with the political reality.
The committee unanimously agreed to bring the matter to the full board and ask for “concurrence” from members over the corrective action prescribed to Pearson.
The board will hear the matter at a special called meeting on Monday, February 18, 2008 at 6:00 p.m.