Town to ditch property figures

HENDERSON — The Town Council may have put itself on shaky legal ground at a special meeting Thursday when it voted to throw out the new property assessments more than a month after the tentative tax roll had been filed with Jefferson County.

The new valuations were to be used in figuring property owners' 2009 county, town and school district taxes.

Voting in favor of the move were Supervisor Clyde E. Moore, Deputy Supervisor David E. Perry and Councilors Carol A. Hall and Steven C. Cote. Councilman Raymond A. Walker abstained from the vote.

The decision nullifies "thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours" of work by Town Assessor Thelma R. Schneider and other staff, Mr. Walker said.

"Things are rough in the country. The reval wasn't right," Supervisor Moore said Friday. "It just didn't add up."

Mr. Moore cited the number of Henderson parcel owners who filed formal grievances with the Board of Assessment Review over their revaluations.

"You take 300 people at the BAR, you've got a problem," he said.

But Jefferson County Real Property Tax Services Director Paul J. Warneck said that's not an unusual percentage of landowners to file grievances after a revaluation. And, he said, once a tentative roll has been filed, the only board that has the ability to change assessments is the Board of Assessment Review, and then only for people who went through the formal grievance process.

"From my perspective, as we are the caretaker of the rolls and have them in our possession electronically, until the town shows me that they have that authority, I'm not inclined to allow the changes," he said.

Legal opinions from the state Office of Real Property Services, available on its Web site, back up the county's position. They state that local legislative bodies do not have the authority to throw out assessment rolls and demand a reversion to prior valuation figures.

After a tentative tax roll has been filed with the county, "there's a process in place," Mr. Warneck said, for those wishing to dispute the new valuation figures for their property.

Despite the 300 or so parcels whose valuations have been formally disputed in Henderson, "there's 800 other people who chose not to" file grievances, Mr. Warneck said.

"What do you tell those people whose taxes were going to decline?" he asked.

Revaluations often draw criticism because the figures can be alarming for property owners who are suddenly informed that the value of their land has gone up by half, or even doubled. But state equalization rates and adjustments in the tax rates mean that higher property valuations don't necessarily mean higher taxes for individual property owners.

Those who are hit with higher taxes after revaluations are those whose property values have increased at a faster pace than others in the same municipality. That is often the case with shoreline property, where value tends to appreciate faster than in outlying areas. These property owners then are made to carry a higher proportion of their municipality's tax burden.

Aside from reflecting outdated valuations and allowing for an increasingly inaccurate distribution of the tax burden among town residents, reversion to 2008's final tax roll could cause other problems for Henderson. Exemptions change from year to year, and using old final tax roll figures — not just the old valuation data — means errors are likely to crop up in exemptions as well.

Councilman Walker said it was this sort of uncertainty about the practical implications of the measure, as well as concerns over its legality and a potential conflict of interest, that led him to abstain from voting on the measure. He said his taxes would go up under the new valuation figures — and he and his wife have filed a grievance over the matter with the Board of Assessment Review.

"I was very concerned that by me OK'ing throwing out the reval, I am saying I have no confidence in the grievance system," Mr. Walker said. "And the fact that my assessment has gone up and I would pay more in taxes — to me it's a conflict of interest."

Mr. Walker said he wants to find out the financial ramifications for the community. He said he was concerned about exemptions, as well as funding from the county and state that is based on overall town assessment.

He also said he was concerned because the issue came up suddenly at the meeting.

"I had no knowledge of what they were going to do. There was no agenda," Mr. Walker said. "They came out of executive session and Mr. Perry comes out with this resolution that he put together. ... I was an engineer before I retired, and I don't believe in doing stuff without the facts."

Mrs. Hall refused Friday to comment on the assessment roll vote. Mr. Perry did not return calls seeking comment.