Reassessment decision will help property owners
By Amy Revak, Herald-Standard
07/31/2009
Updated 08/01/2009 12:06:08 AM EDT
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
While the Fayette County commissioners have announced plans to halt the countywide reassessment slated to go into effect next year because of fairness concerns, a sampling of some county property owners shows they will be much better off because of the decision.
Throughout the county, 60 percent of the properties had decreased in value or stayed the same. However, some properties increased 100 percent or more in assessed value. The total assessed value of the entire county increased 36 percent.
By not implementing the reassessment, the values of properties throughout the county will remain at the assessed value that was put in place in January 2003. The last reassessment used a base year of 2001. If the reassessment had been implemented, it would have used a base year of 2008.
A listing of 29 actual sales that occurred throughout the county in 2008 shows properties that were sold for significantly more than their previous assessed values in various municipalities throughout the county. Each of the properties went up in assessed value between 77 percent and 250 percent. However, since the reassessment isn't being implemented, they will revert back to the old assessed value.
The decision to stop the project means each of the property owners will now pay taxes on the old assessed values instead of the new projected assessed values.
The following is a list of the 29 properties, the municipality in which they are located, the purchase price and the two assessed values as well as the percentage increase in assessed value, had the reassessment been implemented.
? In Bullskin Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $63,730 sold for $127,000 and had a new assessed value of $125,630, an increase of 97 percent.
? In Bullskin Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $107,680 sold for $209,000 and had a new assessed value of $200,820, an increase of 86 percent.
? In Bullskin Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $77,480 sold for $154,000 and had a new assessed value of $140,800, an increase of 82 percent.
? In Bullskin Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $76,860 sold for $162,000 and had a new assessed value of $161,690, an increase of 110 percent.
? In Bullskin Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $106,720 sold for $256,000 and had a new assessed value of $228,130, an increase of 114 percent.
? In Bullskin Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $80,140 sold for $200,000 and had a new assessed value of $204,830, an increase of 156 percent.
? In Bullskin Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $54,890 sold for $117,000 and had a new assessed value of $107,850, an increase of 96 percent.
? In Connellsville, a parcel with an old assessed value of $20,760 sold for $48,000 and had a new assessed value of $44,150, an increase of 113 percent.
? In Connellsville, a parcel with an old assessed value of $35,650 sold for $69,500 and had a new assessed value of $62,760, an increase of 76 percent.
? In Connellsville, a parcel with an old assessed value of $30,420 sold for $69,900 and had a new assessed value of $64,940, an increase of 114 percent.
? In Connellsville, a parcel with an old assessed value of $48,670 sold for $97,000 and had a new assessed value of $90,220, an increase of 85 percent.
? In Connellsville, a parcel with an old assessed value of $30,090 sold for $76,000 and had a new assessed value of $65,410, an increase of 117 percent.
? In Menallen Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $4,920 sold for $27,000 and had a new assessed value of $17,100, and increase of 348 percent.
? In South Connellsville, a parcel with an old assessed value of $43,900 sold for $115,360 and had a new assessed value of $109,780, an increase of 250 percent.
? In South Connellsville, a parcel with an old assessed value of $40,050 sold for $78,500 and had a new assessed value of $75,890, an increase of 89 percent.
? In South Union Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $55,190 sold for $140,000 and had an old assessed value of $133,850, an increase of 143 percent.
? In South Union Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $184,200 sold for $350,000 and had a new assessed value of $341,960, an increase of 86 percent.
? In Uniontown, a parcel with an old assessed value of $38,230 sold for $73,800 and had a new assessed value of $72,270, an increase of 89 percent.
? In Uniontown, a parcel with an old assessed value of $53,610 sold for $117,500 and had a new assessed value of $105,200, an increase of 96 percent.
? In Uniontown, a parcel with an old assessed value of $41,990 sold for $78,000 and had a new assessed value of $74,520, an increase of 77 percent.
? In Uniontown, a parcel with an old assessed value of $77,560 sold for $189,000 and had a new assessed value of $161,590, an increase of 208 percent.
? In Uniontown, a parcel with an old assessed value of $38,210 sold for $75,000 and had a new assessed value of $71,800, an increase of 88 percent.
? In Uniontown, a parcel with an old assessed value of $44,450 sold for $111,300 and had a new assessed value of $92,460, an increase of 108 percent.
? In Uniontown, a parcel with an old assessed value of $298,450 sold for $649,000 and had a new assessed value of $601,090, an increase of 101 percent.
? In Uniontown, a parcel with an old assessed value of $38,000 sold for $72,500 and had a new assessed value of $71,540, an increase of 88 percent.
? In Wharton Township, a parcel with an old assed value of $105,100 sold for $265,000 and had a new assessed value of $263,260, an increase of 250 percent.
? In Wharton Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $151,800 sold for $319,000 and had a new assessed value of $292,510, an increase of 93 percent.
? In Wharton Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $125,000 sold for $230,000 and had a new assed value of $223,700, an increase of 79 percent.
? In Wharton Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $151,300 sold for $271,000 and had a new assessed value of $267,370, an increase of 77 percent.
"Those were actual sales from the recorder of deeds office," Hercik said.
Hercik pointed out that the new assessed value on most of the properties was lower than the sale price.
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353083&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
Reader Comments
Added: Sunday August 02, 2009 at 09:30 AM EST
Property that went down this time = class action lawsuits
Problem is it's easy a counting fingers and toes to determine the reassessment value of a property that SOLD recently for whatever the buyer would pay. But to put a value on property that includes buildings and land is flawed from the getgo when comparing to 'selected' area property and sales. What's resulted from the halt? Those owners whose assessment went DOWN this time around have grounds to appeal the old assessments which were more. The county's recent mailing should be of use in an appeal of the 2001 base year for these owners as should whatever the assessment office used to make the new re-evaluation. Every one of 'us' should file an appeal and if the tax assessment office won't show the "comparables" and year or years of sales data they used an open records request should be made. Keep your eyes on the fact that among the 60 percent figure Hercik cited some values stayed the same, AND SOME VALUES WENT DOWN AND DOWN, AND DOWN. Now they'll revert back to 2001 figures, so obviously they've been overpriced for some amount of years. That's UNFAIR.
Property Tax Eliminator Supporter
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353083&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
Added: Friday July 31, 2009 at 06:31 PM EST
FYI
Yoda, why dont you get your facts right before you decide to bless us with your stupidity. The assessor didnt game the system he did what he was taught to do by his predecessors. He didn't just decide one day hey im going to do it this way because it looks good. He is the ONE who faught for the reassessment years ago so everyone was paying fairly. He doesn't personally make the rates they are figured out by professionals hired out by the county. Knowing someone in the courthouse does not mean favoritism.
pro-assessor, uniontown pa
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353083&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
Added: Friday July 31, 2009 at 04:55 PM EST
No courage
By taking this action, the county commissioners have succumbed to the pressure of a vocal minority, repeating the same mistake made by the commissioners back in 1985-86. They were afraid it would cost them a vote, so they unanimously agreed to put Fayette County back where it was before 2000.
The truth is that by shelving the reassessment, people with higher-valued properties will pay less than they should, and people with lower-valued ones will pay more. If it's not politics, what is it? Vicites is in his fourth term, Zimmerlink in her second and Zapotosky isn't a first-year rookie any more.
It's funny how none of them was raising any objections until AFTER the new numbers were mailed out. In Fayette County, the more things change, the more they stay the same. I'll take Ron Nehls and Sean Cavanagh -- and even Harry Albert -- over this crew any day.
Johnny Quest, Amend
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353083&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
Added: Friday July 31, 2009 at 01:06 PM EST
Fairness concerns? ?
The reassessment process has documented that 40 f county properties are under assessed. This means the owners of these properties pay less in taxes, proportionately, than the other 60f property owners. This is unfair. Do the math. Some people are paying taxes on a $43,900 house that is worth $115,360. Other people are paying taxes on a $43,900 house that is only worth $33,000. Doing nothing about this is unfair and will only postpone the inevitable. I foresee lawsuits being filed and this 'fairness' decision being overturned before Thanksgiving.
JS, Point Marion, PA
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353083&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
Added: Friday July 31, 2009 at 10:58 AM EST
Appeals
Any taxing body can file an appeal against a property owner whose assessment is too low. So why isn't that done?
If Mr. Hercik is so iinterested in making things right, why doesn't he provide that informatoi to the school boards and municipaities so they can file an appeal and have those properties properly assessed?
You nevr hear about taxing bodies filing indiviual appeals though do you?
LR, Uniontown
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353083&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
Added: Friday July 31, 2009 at 10:53 AM EST
Cherry Picking
So 29 properties out of 78,00 were the basis for the auditor to say Hercik's figures were "incrdibly accurate".
It seems to me that these properties were cherry picked to justify the ridiculous results of the reassessment..
LR, Unontown, PA
Added: Friday July 31, 2009 at 09:55 AM EST
$750,000 WASTE
So the $750,000 cost of this reassessment is down the toilet? Wasted?
The bureaucrats couldn't have foreseen these problems?
And you want BIG GOVERNMENT to run our healthcare system?
FB, Chalk Hill
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353083&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
Added: Friday July 31, 2009 at 07:15 AM EST
Assessments
It was very interesting seeing how much home values had sold for when compared to the old assessment values. Wouldn't it make more senses to reassess properties that have been sold to match their values for what they sold for? If the new property owner(s) are willing to pay that much of an increase in value then they should obtain the value of that sale as their new assessment.
Cathy Jeffries, Uniontown, PA
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353083&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
Added: Friday July 31, 2009 at 06:55 AM EST
Games as always
Sure, twenty seven out of fifty thousand that is the basis for his defense. The assessor gamed the system before for how many years. Now he hand picks the 27 that get reviewed and appraises them at close to what they sold for and they were also the ones with the greatest gains. Just some more courthouse slight of hand, as always. Plus the smoke that the increases are limited and will not necessarily go up. He does not say that those whos assessments went up will pay a bigger share of the tax burden. Of course in the assessment process it is always good to have a friend at the Court House. But no matter what I certainly hope those that are dissatisfied turned in the appeal papers on time.
Yoda, Fayette County
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353083&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
The following article from the Herald Standard is posted for discussion purposes only
Chief assessor promises fairness on appeals
By Amy Revak, Herald-Standard
07/29/2009
Updated 07/30/2009 12:06:06 AM EDT
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
With Fayette County property owners facing a Friday deadline to file appeals, the county's chief assessor says his office will make every attempt to treat property owners fairly.
Concerns about the accuracy of the assessed values arose last week when the Fayette County commissioners spoke out about the issue. Chief assessor James A. Hercik said the assessment office has a plan of action to address the concerns of the commissioners and general public that should ensure the procedure has been fair. The new values are slated to go into effect on Jan. 1, provided the project isn't shelved.
Hercik said assessment appeals are being tracked to determine if a large percentage of appeals are filed in any one neighborhood or geographic area and as the appeal hearings begin, the assessment office will follow the decisions of the boards and apply those results to other property that may not have filed appeals.
"If the board finds a problem in an area and they address it for the properties under appeal in that area, we will then go a step further and make those necessary corrections on other similar properties in the same area," Hercik said. "We want property owners treated fairly. If we establish a trend from the appeal hearings we would be foolish not to address it.
"A lot of people are concerned that if they see a 75 percent increase in their assessed value, they will see a 75 percent increase in property taxes and that is simply not the case," Hercik said.
Hercik said everyone should focus on the value given to their property and not how much their taxes would be. He said they should ask themselves if they could sell their house for the amount of the assessed value.
In a reassessment year, the taxing bodies must reduce their millage rates. The county and municipalities can only take in 5 percent more in property tax revenues next year while the cutoff for school districts is 10 percent.
The assessment office is projecting the 2010 county millage rate to drop from 3.51 to about 2.7 mills, and a postcard sent out this week to all property owners will show that amount.
Hercik said as of Tuesday, there had been 3,800 appeals filed, but he added that appeals from the last few days had not yet been counted.
There were about 13,000 appeals in the last reassessment.
This time around, Hercik said he is anticipating between 5,000 and 6,000 appeals.
The county last implemented a reassessment in 2003. The current project updates the base year of the county from 2001 to 2008. Hercik said Cole Layer Trumble Co. of Ohio conducted the last property valuation and new cost tables and sales models were developed by Cole Layer Trumble to aid in the effort.
Hercik said the software program from Cole Layer Trumble has been found to be very good, although there was some criticism of the 2003 Cole Layer Trumble number.
Hercik said they have the ability now to look at six years of actual sales compared to those 2003 values to see where they were wrong and those are the area in which the county assessors made adjustments.
Hercik said throughout the three-year project the county has an independent review done by Resource Technologies Corp. of State College, which assisted in placing all of the data into the geographic information system to assist in establish the individual neighborhoods and to analyze Cole Layer Trumble data.
Hercik said the Cole Layer Trumble statistical summary showed that the ratio from sale price to value was 96.17 percent, with a mean of 98.57 percent, the coefficient of dispersion is 11.17 and the price related differential was 1.02.
"These statistics are very good and they meet the standards for any reassessment program according to standards set by the International Association of Assessing Officials," Hercik said.
Hercik said there are 83,000 parcels of land in the county, 78,000 of which are taxable.
The total assessed value of the county increased 36 percent, going from $4.387 billion last year to $5.967 billion this year.
Hercik said people have asked why a reassessment should be done at all.
"The purpose is to stay current with market values and trends, so that the share of taxes to support government is equally balanced. Nothing stays the same and real estate is no different," Hercik said.
Hercik said both markets and neighborhoods change over time.
"If you do not stay current, you have similar properties paying dissimilar amounts to support local government," Hercik said.
"The reassessment is simply a redistribution of the taxes between various property as well as various municipalities. If a reassessment is not done, then the disparity continues to grow," Hercik said. "If we did not continually update the program periodically, a massive multimillion-dollar effort would be required in future years. By doing this every five to seven years, we minimize the cost."
Hercik pointed out that 60 percent of the county's property owners taxes will stay the same or be reduced for next year under the current assessed values.
However, he urged anyone who thinks the assessed value of their home is too high to appeal. The only information that is required is the parcel number and a signature.
"Anybody sitting on the fence we are strongly suggesting to file an appeal," Hercik said.
To file an appeal, property owners can drop it off at either the courthouse office or the auxiliary office at 253 S. Mount Vernon Ave. or mail it. It will be accepted as long as it has a postmark of July 31. Appeal forms are located on the Web site at www.fayetteproperty.org
or can be picked up at the assessment office.
Anyone wishing to file an appeal of their assessed value has until Friday. This week the assessment office sent out postcards to each property owner with a projection of the 2010 county tax compared to their 2009 county tax. Hercik said he is anticipating a projection of what the county's school district millage rates would be soon.
Also included in the postcard are instructions for property owners to determine recent sales in their municipality.
To do that, go to the Web site www.fayetteproperty.org
, click on "sales criteria," choose the municipality you wish to search and click "add," then choose the sale date function, enter 01/01/07 to 01/01/09 and click "add." Then click on "search" to obtain all the sales in the selected municipality in the last two years.
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20351787&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
Report on assessed values released
By the Herald-Standard
07/29/2009
Updated 07/30/2009 12:06:06 AM EDT
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
Fayette County's Chief Assessor James A. Hercik released figures Tuesday showing that the total increase of assessed values was 36 percent throughout the county.
According to the figures, residents whose property assessment went up more than 36 percent should expect to pay more in county property taxes next year. Those whose property assessment went below 36 percent should expect to pay less.
It's the same formula for individual municipalities. In the accompanying chart, local residents can see the percentage increase for the various municipalities. If a resident's increase is above the average for the municipality, then they will probably pay higher municipal property taxes. If it's lower, then they will probably have a decrease in their municipal property taxes.
For most municipalities, the increase in assessments was between 30 and 50 percent. Six municipalities had percentages higher than 50 percent while 13 had increases lower than 30 percent.
The highest percentage increase was in Ohiopyle, which saw its assessed value go up 1.94 percent. Wharton Township was next with an increase of 1.88 percent followed by Markleysburg, 1.76 percent; Franklin Township, 1.53 percent, Washington Township, 1.51 percent and German Township, 1.50 percent.
Hercik noted that the Wharton Township increase was due to developments at Nemacolin Woodlands Resort & Spa.
"The Wharton Township increase includes several Nemacolin Woodlands projects that had previously been under the LERTA (Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance Act) program," Hercik said. The LERTA program allows tax-exempt status for qualifying properties for a limited time frame.
Newell Borough had the lowest increase, going up only .92 percent. Brownsville was next at 1.04 percent, followed by Everson, 1.09 percent, Fayette City, 1.12 percent, Masontown, 1.16 percent; Dawson, 1.18 percent, and the part of Uniontown in the Laurel Highlands School District, 1.17 percent.
Smithfield, Point Marion and the portion of Uniontown in the Uniontown Area School District all had increases of 1.23 percent while South Union Township had a 1.25 increase. Brownsville Township, Springfield Township, and the part of Menallen Township in the Uniontown Area School District had increases of 1.26, 1.27 and 1.28 percent respectively.
Overall, South Union Township had by far the highest total assessed value for 2010 at $758,448,990. Next was North Union Township at $544,041,210.
Hercik said he hopes to have the assessed values for school districts by the end of the week.
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20351790&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
Reassessment scuttled
By Amy Revak, Herald-Standard
07/31/2009
Updated 08/02/2009 12:06:06 AM EDT
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
In a rare show of solidarity, the Fayette County commissioners Thursday unanimously announced a decision to halt implementation of the county's reassessment project, which had been slated to take effect on Jan. 1.
During an impromptu morning press conference, each of the three commissioners said they were in favor of stopping the project.
Commission Chairman Vincent Zapotosky said his decision was based on a general disappointment with the overall values and concern of adverse impact to county property owners. He added that the reassessment was coming at a time when government should be more conscious of people's financial hardships.
Also citing the fact that the state still doesn't have a budget and not knowing the potential burden that will be placed on school districts, Zapotosky said he couldn't support the reassessment project.
"I feel at this time we should stop the reassessment," Zapotosky said.
Commissioner Vincent A. Vicites said his decision was based on fairness.
"I have to be fair to all residents," Vicites said.
He added that because the new assessment would be using a base year of 2008, and since that time there has been a downturn in the market, now is not the time to implement the project.
Vicites pointed out that he said from the beginning that he wouldn't support the project if something in it were flawed. He said the fact that the market has taken a downturn that wouldn't be reflected in the new property values is such a flaw.
"The economy is not good and the housing market is down," Vicites said.
He added that because there are jumps in assessed values ranging from 50 percent to 150 percent, he doesn't feel that is fair.
"When it was done in the past, it was in stable markets. I feel now it would not be fair to implement this reassessment. I will support stopping the reassessment as of today," Vicites said.
Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink, who last week announced she wasn't supportive of continuing with the project, said she is glad now that she has received support from her colleagues for her decision to halt the reassessment.
Zimmerlink said the state Legislature has enacted a study about how reassessments are conducted across the state, and that study will be completed in June 2010, which could lead to changes.
The three-year, $750,000 reassessment project would have taken the county from a base year of 2001 to a base year of 2008. The overall assessed value of the county increased 36 percent going from $4.387 billion to $5.967 billion. Overall, 60 percent of property owners would have seen either a reduction in their assessed values or no change.
With the announcement, the project is halted and property owners will have the same assessed value on their properties as they did last year.
Although the commissioners voiced their opposition to continuing with the project, they did not take official action and plan to do that at a special meeting slated for 9 a.m. Wednesday in the public safety building.
Zimmerlink pointed out that she wasn't in favor of sending out a postcard to all property owners at a cost of $37,000 last week that listed the prior assessed value, the new assessed value, this year's county property taxes and the proposed property taxes for next year. Vicites and Zapotosky supported the mailing.
The $37,000 cost of sending out the postcards was paid using money left over from a bond issue from the last reassessment that could only be used for reassessment costs.
Zapotosky pointed out that his decision to stop the project is in no way a reflection on the efforts undertaken by chief assessor James A. Hercik. Zapotosky said he originally wanted to wait until after the appeal deadline, which is today, to make a decision, but he decided to take action sooner based on a statement by Hercik that appeals could reach 10,000.
Hercik said there were 7,500 appeals as of Wednesday. There are about 78,000 taxable parcels in the county.
The county last underwent a reassessment that took effect in January 2003 that used a base year of 2001.
The announcement was made a day before the deadline to file appeals on the new values.
Although the commissioners have announced that they will not implement the reassessment, anyone wishing to file an appeal by today's deadline that has not done so is asked to proceed.
Hercik said the assessment office in the courthouse and project office at 253 S. Mount Vernon Ave. in Uniontown are continuing to accept appeal forms.
Hercik said after the morning announcement by the commissioners to halt the project, employees did tell people not to file appeals for a short time. However, after concerns arose about potential lawsuits, a decision was made to accept appeals through today's deadline. Any appeals that are being sent by mail must be postmarked by today.
"I have instructed all staff to continue to accept forms with the explanation that until the formal vote is to be taken next week, the process isn't officially halted."
Zimmerlink said county solicitor Joseph E. Ferens Jr. sent correspondence to the commissioners stating that anyone who was opposed to the proposed property value should still file an appeal by today's deadline.
Hercik said initially that he was disappointed in the decision, but he added that all the work that has been done would not go to waste because new global-information system maps are being used. He said he would not proceed with the project based on the decisions. The first appeal hearings were slated to begin Aug. 11.
Hercik said his next step is to send out a mailer to all property owners informing them that the 2001 base year property value will still be used next year instead of the value they were sent on July 1.
By law, property owners can file an appeal to their assessed value each year by Sept. 1. Anyone wishing to file an appeal on that value but resubmit their appeal after receiving the notice.
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353637&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468520&rfi=6
Added: Saturday August 01, 2009 at 05:31 AM EST
More Questions
As is typical of H-S articles, this one does not offer full explanations, and raises more questions than it answers.
Questions for Vince Z:
1) What does your "general disappointment with the overall values and concern of adverse impact to county property owners" mean? The 60 percent of property owners whose taxes will fall or stay the same sure won't be impacted adversely.
2) You state "the reassessment was coming at a time when government should be more conscious of people's financial hardships." What does this have to do with a reassessment that is supposed to be impartial? You're a liberal Democrat. Government is NEVER conscious of people's financial hardships, especially the ones who actually pay taxes.
3) What does the fact that "the state still doesn't have a budget and not knowing the potential burden that will be placed on school districts" have to do with the reassessment project? Article after article in this newspaper have stated the reassessment is to be revenue neutral for taxing bodies like the school districts. This is just feel good liberal garbage.
Questions for Vince V:
1) You state "I have to be fair to all residents." Since when have you been "fair" to the residents who actually pay taxes? Seems to me you're only "fair" to residents who consume what other people pay for. Which of course is the bedrock of liberalism.
2) How has the "downturn in the [housing] market" affected property values in Fayette County? This isn't Miami or Las Vegas, you know. Prices never skyrocketed here, and they never plunged, either.
As usual, Zimmerlink is the only commissioner with any sense at all. She was the first one to oppose the reassessment. It took the Vinces a while to come around (i.e. to respond to taxpayer pressure).
Question to all Commissioners:
Ever heard of email? Why should it cost $37,000 to send out 80,000 postcards? Why don't you give property owners the option of receiving such official notices via email? You could cut mailing costs drastically. The postal service must LOVE you guys.
FB, Chalk Hill
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353637&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468520&rfi=6
No comments:
Post a Comment