{"id":13852,"date":"2015-08-05T12:59:26","date_gmt":"2015-08-05T16:59:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/?p=13852"},"modified":"2015-08-05T13:14:27","modified_gmt":"2015-08-05T17:14:27","slug":"videos-rural-revaluation-meeting-at-farm-bureau-2015-08-04","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2015\/08\/videos-rural-revaluation-meeting-at-farm-bureau-2015-08-04.html","title":{"rendered":"Videos: Rural revaluation meeting at Farm Bureau 2015-08-04"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n
\n<\/a>
\nSee for yourself the Tax Assessor response to local landowners, in these
\nLAKE videos of
\n
\nlast night’s meeting<\/a> at Farm Bureau.
\nDo you think there’s a problem?
\nIf so, what do you think we should do to fix it?<\/p>\n

\nThe attendees appointed Gretchen to take notes. Here are her notes,
\nfollowed by the videos.<\/p>\n

\n

\nAccessibility is not about access, it’s about geographic location…. That was done by one of our appraisers on staff. —Chief Appraiser Silas Hrobar\n<\/p>\n

\nRural and commercial land owners got surprises in the mail in July
\nwhen they received the updated assessments of their properties.
\nLowndes County Assessors engaged a contractor last year to help with
\nthe reassessments of approximately 10,000 properties. Rural
\nproperties were categorized as small (under 20 acres) and large
\n(over 20 acres) but complaints were the same, inconsistent and
\nconfusing application of criteria.\n<\/p>\n

\nOn Tuesday evening, Farm Bureau hosted<\/p>\n

an open meeting with Chief
\nAppraiser Silas Hrobar and Tax Assessor Mike Hill (all the assessors
\nwere invited but apparently the County Attorney Walter Elliot said
\nthat two made a quorum so only one of them could go, even though
\nSenator Ellis Black pointed out that they weren’t actually
\nconducting any business) to discuss the perceived problems.\n<\/p>\n

\nTax Assessor Mike Hill said that paving roads drives development.<\/p>\n

\nAfter having to move to a larger room due to twice as many people as
\nexpected, the meeting began with Assessor Hill explaining how
\nevaluations are done in subdivisions, using examples about comparing
\nhouses.\n<\/p>\n

\nThose gathered weren’t interested in subdivisions or house values,
\nthey are farmers and larger land owners who saw their raw land
\nproperty assessments increase by 100-400%. Hill acknowledged that
\nhis agenda was different from theirs.\n<\/p>\n

\nAt one point Hrobar noted that his working life wasn’t large rural
\ntracts. A landowner pointed out that for most in the room their life
\nis large rural tracts.\n<\/p>\n

\nAppraiser Hrobar distributed the criteria used for both small and
\nlarge tracts, the comparable sales and other factors considered in
\nthe re-evaluation.
\nMike Hill said that paving roads drives development.
\nSilas Hrobar said that staff worked with the
\nconsultants to define areas of similarities but didn’t address what
\nthose area were or how the areas were determined. One of the
\ncriteria on in the packet was wetlands and flooding, yet on the map
\ndistributed the Withlacoochee River in North Central Lowndes isn’t
\neven visible and it floods regularly.\n<\/p>\n

\nHrobar did say that even though “road frontage” was mentioned five
\ntimes on
\n
\na page about “Accessibility Delineations”<\/a> that
\naccessibility didn’t really mean proximity to roads and road
\nfrontage only applied after staff decided on geographical areas of
\nsimilarity. He confirmed that it was staff and not the consultant
\nwho made such decisions.<\/strong>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n\"300x188<\/a>
\nRegarding why land on both sides of Cat Creek Road at the north end
\nof the county was valued lower than land on Hambrick Road, he had no
\nexplanation, nor did Hill.\n<\/p>\n

\nRegarding why rivers, swamps, and even a paper mill weren’t
\nmentioned at all in the revaluation criteria, Hill and Hrobar kept
\ninsisting that the entire county had to be treated uniformly, as a
\nsingle “subdivision”.\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n\"300x264<\/a>
\nAsked why the Comprehensive Plan wasn’t taken into account, Hill
\nseemed offended, and insisted that the whole county had to be
\ntreated uniformly according to market value. He did say there was a
\nway to indicate agricultural use, which was conservation use
\ndesignation. Hrobar proceeded to explain that at some length. Yet
\nwhen asked why highest valuation was placed on areas with much land
\nin conservation use, he said that was due to areas of similarity.\n<\/p>\n

\nAsked why several tracts purchased by Bill Gates east of Lake Park
\non main roads did not have the highest valuation, Hill and Hrobar’s
\nonly answer was that those tracts weren’t in an accessible area, by
\nwhich they apparently meant an area picked by staff as favored for
\nhigh valuation.\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n\"300x184<\/a>
\nQuestions were raised as to why the “highest value” lands were in
\nthe north part of the county especially when US41S is four lanes
\nfrom Valdosta to Lake Park and there are many large tracts there,
\nincluding one used as a benchmark. Jerry Arnold pointed out that
\nassessed per acre values on his unpaved road varied widely and he
\nwondered why. Both Hill and Hrobar said that any questions would
\nhave to be answered on a per landholder basis at the Tax Assessor
\nOffice.\n<\/p>\n

\nDespite multiple landowners pointing out that the problems were
\n“with the system” or “general”, Hill and Hrobar kept insisting that
\neach landowner had to file an individual appeal.\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n\"300x179<\/a>
\nCounty Chairman Bill Slaughter remarked that the county had to have
\nrevenue to operate on its budget, and if not enough people agreed on
\nthe evaluations in time, the county might have to use the previous
\nyear’s evaluations. He also acknowledged that he thus had incentive
\nto find a solution to these problems.\n<\/p>\n

\n
\nTax Commissioner Felicia Williams<\/a> had a few comments about how taxes
\nwere computed from millage and appraisals. Landowners mentioned
\nseveral times that she and her office had had nothing to do with the
\nrural land revaluation, which was entirely done by the Tax
\nAppraisers’ office.\n<\/p>\n

\nMost in attendance hold their land in conservation use which has a
\nprescribed tax value by the State of Georgia and increases at a rate
\nof 3% per year so they didn’t actually see a proposed increase in
\ntaxes but should the conservation use be breached they could be
\nresponsible for thousands of dollars of taxes given these new
\nassessments.\n<\/p>\n

\nYet if their neighbors’ land is not in conservation use, higher
\nvaluation adds incentives for the neighbors to sell or subdivide,
\nwhich in turn puts pressure on the landowners with conservation use
\nas they become surrounded by developed property. Hill and Hrobar had
\nno rebuttal to this point.\n<\/p>\n

\nBoth Hill and Hrobar encouraged any property holder with a question
\nabout assessment to contact the assessors office for clarification
\nand to file an appeal with the Board of Equalization. The deadline
\nto file an appeal is August 10, 2015.\n<\/p>\n


\n<\/a>
\nBoth Black and Hill said they had previously served on the Board of
\nEqualization. When asked whether the BoE could address the systemic
\nand general issues raised, they said no: only specific parcels.\n<\/p>\n

\nWhen someone suggested an appeal beyond the BoE might be necessary,
\nHill sarcastically wished everyone luck with that.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe only apparent route to fixing these general problems seems to be
\nthrough the Tax Assessors next year, yet the only Tax Assessors
\npresent expressed little interest in doing so, and the only staff
\npresent kept reiterating that each landowner had to deal with their
\nown case separately.\n<\/p>\n

\nIn any case, the first step is to appeal by the August 10, 2015
\ndeadline.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/a>
\nWho’s Who:<\/strong>
\n
\nLowndes County Tax Assessors<\/a>: W.G. Walker, Mike Hill, and Leroy Butler Jr., and staff: Silas Hrobar, Chief Appraiser.
\nThe
\nBoard of Equalization<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\nCompare:<\/strong> the Comprehensive Plan to this revaluation here<\/a> (PDF<\/a>). Are Bill Gates and subdivisions really more important than agriculture<\/a>
\nor rivers or public transportation?<\/p>\n

\nSprawl:<\/strong>
\nIs that what we want?
\nsprawling residential growth is a certain ticket to fiscal ruin (Or at least big tax increases)<\/a>.
\nPDF of the report by UGA Prof. Jeffrey H. Dorfman Lowndes County paid for in 2007,
\n
\nThe Local Government Fiscal Impacts of Land Use in
\nLowndes County<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n

\nHere’s
\n
\na video playlist:<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\n