Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Assessors Minutes 8 8 2011 _FINAL_ RICHMOND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSORS MINUTES Regular Session August 8, 2011, 4:00 P.M. Members Present: Chairman Charles Smith, Mr. Robert O’Neal, Mr. Bill Lee, Mr. James Scott, Mr. Bryan Simkins, Ms. Renee D’Antignac, Mr. Bernard Johnson Members Absent: Mr. Tracy Williams Others Present: Commissioner Bill Lockett Staff Present: Mr. Alveno Ross,Ms. Melanie Oglesby, Ms. Donna Murray, Ms. Neita Coleman The meeting was called to order at 4:05 P.M. by Chairman Charles Smith. Upon a motion by Mr. Lee and seconded by Mr. Simkins, the agenda was unanimously approved. A motion to approve the minutes for July 11, 2011 was made by Mr. O’Neal and was seconded by Mr. Scott. The motion was unanimously approved. Introduction of New hires Mr. Ross presented the newest Board of Assessors members Crystal Nason and Scott Rountree to the board members. Crystal is a Personal Property Clerk and Scott is a Sr. Property Appraiser in the real estate division. The board members introduced themselves and welcomed the new team members to the Board of Assessor’s Office. Staff Recommendations : Personal Property With no additional information to report on personal property, Mr. Lee made a motion to accept staff recommendations for personal property. The motion was seconded by Ms. D’Antignac. The motion was unanimously approved. Real Estate Mr. Ross reported that there is another breach of a residential-transitional covenant by Birchman Residential Properties, LLC. The company is aware that they have created another breach, with penalty. Mr. Ross asked the board for consideration to approve the staff recommendation of the breach. A motion to approve real estate staff recommendations was made by Mr. Scott. Mr. Lee seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. 1 Office Status Report (Chief Appraiser Report) Mr. Ross announced that Sean Boler, BOA summer intern, was interviewed by The Augusta Chronicle and made the front page in a story about finding a job in the current economy. Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual (PPPM) In lieu of recent developments, Mr. Ross brought the Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual (PPPM) before the board members for their consideration to take official action on the election coverage options. Mr. Smith reviewed the election coverage options and noted that there was no option for appointed officials, only elected officials. Commissioner Bill Locket, BOA liaison and Chair of the Commission’s Administrative Services Committee, explained that the manual had “many discrepancies—part of the discrepancies were corrected (prior to effective date of April 1, 2011), many were not.” He said the document was a human resources manual, but six months prior to the approval of the manual by six commissioners the Human Resources Director had no input at all. “The manual was done by General Counsel McKenzie (county legal) and Fred Russell (County Administrator)”, he said. Commissioner Lockett told the Board that he’d called on the HR director two weeks ago and was told there are still approximately 18-20 remaining discrepancies. He said the department has been reluctant to make the changes because he and some of his colleagues have said the document (PPPM) is “an illegal document because it makes major changes to the government, whereas House Bill 805 states there is supposed to be 2/3 vote of the commission counsel to approve it, but it was passed with only six votes.” There is currently a lawsuit in progress that involves the PPPM. Mr. Lee made a motion to send the election coverage document back to the proper officials to revise the text so it reflects election coverage options for “appointed” board members since the Board of Assessors are appointed officials, not elected. Mr. Scott seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Lee made another motion to contact the HR director to get a better understanding of the criteria used to adjudicate potential new hires in the Board of Assessor’s office, including compensation ranges. The motion was seconded by Mr. Scott. The motion was unanimously approved. 2012 Budget Mr. Ross reported that the proposed summary of the 2012 Tax Assessors Office budget that was sent to board members has been amended to include a change in the office furniture budget from $0 to $1000; and also the 2012 Board budget member fees has been amended from a $750 increase to show no changes from the 2011 budget. The tax assessor’s office salary adjustment is being proposed to close the gap between the appraisal staff. The impact affects seven staff members. Discrepancies exist between the second in command in personal property versus real estate; and staff. Mr. Ross also reported that he received a petition for consideration in salary increase from one of his deputy directors, which is not included in the summary presented to the Board. He also explained that there is a need to educate and train all staff, so there is a proposed increase in education and training and travel expense accounts, as well as, decreases to the postage and printing and binding accounts. 2 The new programs budget request includes the cell tower project, the ITOS Project (UGA), and supplemental staffing support to carry out current and future projects. Mr. Ross said he will meet with the Director of Planning and Zoning on Friday to move forward on the county’s review of the ordinance for cell towers, which directly relates to the Board of Assessors cell tower project. The project impact is estimated at $115,900; the ITOS Project, which matches flight data (Pictometry) to systems data (WINGAP), is estimated at $85,000, which is a huge savings in comparison to putting people on the ground to cover all applicable parcels in the county. The supplemental staff support will cover the additional assistance needed to carry out all projects since the department is short-staffed. (The 2011 new programs budget of $150,000 was to cover the Senate Bill-346 issues). The total 2012 budget proposal totals for new programs is $301,000. The total impact is an increase of 11.33% from the 2011 budget. The budget requests are due to the finance department on August 15, 2011. The summary proposal will be presented to the Commission on September 13, 2011. Final budget recommendations are made by the Administrator’s Office and final budget decisions are made by the county Commission. Mr. Ross petitioned the Board’s consideration to move forward with the administrative review of the 2012 budget process. Mr. Lee made a motion to approve the petition to move forward on the 2012 budget proposal process. Ms. D’Antignac seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. Hearing Officer Update Mr. Ross gave the board an update on the hearing officer issue. The Commission adopted the $25 per hour minimum compensation requirement for qualified hearing officers to hear appeals. Mr. Ross said he is not aware of any other county adopting a higher wage. He sent the commission’s approval of the rate to the five hearing officers who offered to serve Richmond County. He said he received only one response—and that hearing officer declined to serve at the rate of $25 per hour. He has not received a response from the other hearing officers. Digest Submission Update Mr. Ross reported that we are on target for the digest submission. The checklist is being worked on by the team. The school board has adopted a proposed mill rate. In preliminary discussions with Tax Commissioner Steven Kendrick, Mr. Ross said we are meeting all criteria to set an appointment to meet with the Department of Revenue (DOR) in Atlanta for August 29, 2011. In presenting the actions of the Department of Audits sales ratio study, reflecting the last three years of activity (2008, 2009 and 2010), in all three years Augusta-Richmond County has had no deficiency in any of the measurable conditions of the digest. Currently, the 2010 figures show the assessment values are shifting closer to market levels. The current level of assessment is now at 37.79% (up 2.8% from last year’s digest). The figures are inclusive of all categories— real parcels, mobiles homes, timber, motor vehicles, etc. 3 Cell Tower Development Mr. Ross referenced the meeting with Planning and Zoning on Friday, set by Mr. George Patty which will include officials from the County Administrator’s Office, IT and the Board of Assessors offices). The meeting information will be presented to the Board of Commissioners regarding the impact of the cell tower position. One of the presentations that will be made is concerning opportunities for revenue generation. Currently, there are no ordinances existing under the law to affect revenue generation. Mr. Ross explained that by setting up an escrow account for each vendor, the contractor would use it to draw upon; and any unused funds will be returned to the vendor. The revenue generation would be on the valuation side allowing means for absolute discovery (valuing antennas) through the personal property division of the Board of Assessors. Mr. Ross said, hopefully, by the time the board meets again; the tax assessors department should have some considerations from the Commission to present regarding cell towers and getting codes in place to structure the process. For instance, Planning and Zoning for Richmond County currently charges $100 service fees for new application service reviews, while McDuffie County charges $6,000 for new application service reviews. Mr. Ross said that should the Board of Commissioners adopt a new ordinance, the Tax Assessor’s Office is well positioned to make its final decisions to move forward on the valuation component of cell towers and, eventually, billboards—which is a class of property that is seldom reviewed. Returned Mail Update Mr. Ross reported that we are nearing the time frame for posting the returned mail online and getting the files to Probate Court in preparation of the digest submission. The file includes the property owner’s name, address, and property address, including city, state and zip code. Exemption Reviews Mr. Simkins mentioned that there needs to be some discussion on exempted properties. There are some properties in the county, he said, that are exempt and should not be exempted; and it is the duty of the Board of Assessors to review and look into the process. Mr. Lee asked that once the digest is completed if it is plausible to review the current exempted properties to make sure they are property exempt, given the current shortage of staff. Mr. Ross admitted that the issue is “a ticking time bomb”. Mr. Smith asked that given that fact that there are some exempt properties out there with questionable use; if we (Board) open it up for review, do we have time to have the staff information to deal with it, even as a matter of policy; or, do we defer it until the next meeting? Mr. Lee said if there was a review last year, there’s nothing the Board can do this year; and, if they do (a review) this year there’s nothing that can be done regarding the digest. But, he said, we can discuss it and have it resolved by January 1. Mr. Ross suggested that a proper review of everyone is the way to go. It comes down to when the exemptions were last reviewed because over a 30 or 40 year period, usage changes. And technically, due to the lack of staffing, he said, there is not a lot of focus on exempt properties because the attitude is—no matter where you start; the bottom line is zero (no taxation). 4 But in real terms, he added, some exemptions change over time and there are many issues that are involved. The time that it takes (to review exempt properties) will be significant—and it will be political. Taxation is the rule, exemptions are the exception. Mr. Smith said that if there is any doubt about an organization’s usage, then according to law, it is taxed. Mr. Smith said the Board needs to review the information and have some recommendations brought back. He asked Mr. Ross to have the (exemptions) reviewed to the best extent possible so the Board could make appropriate decisions. Mr. Ross said, clarifying the directive of the Board, that he will bring a review of the exempt property classes in the form of a proposal at a later date regarding how the process (of review) will work, when proper notification is granted, implementation (of the review) and its cost impacts. Mr. Johnson offered a motion that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Lee seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 5:09 P.M. ___________________________________ Neita Coleman, Secretary Witness our approval of these minutes and all staff recommendations attached hereto: ________________________ ________________________ Chairman ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ 5