Considerations Regarding the Reassessment Responsibilities of Board of Supervisors: Authorize and perform the assessment at least every 6 years Appropriate funds sufficient to perform the reassessment Select a company to perform the assessment Nominate individuals for court appointment to the Board of Equalization Approve a new tax rate

 By law, reassessments are based on sales taking place in Pulaski County. The reassessment process is based on mass appraisal methods in order for all properties to be assessed within the same time frame. Individual appraisals would take so much time that the basis for establishing values would change. As a result the process would no longer be fair.

There are two opportunities for individual adjustments during the reassessment process. First is with the assessor (hearings have been held but the results have not yet been determined) and the second is with a Board of Equalization consisting of three citizens being nominated by the Board of Supervisors for consideration by the Circuit Court. This process needs to be given the opportunity to work.

 Whether all properties are assessed too high or too low is not as important as consistency in the assessments to be sure that all are being assessed fairly in comparison with each other. If the assessment is too high, the calculations involved in recommending a tax rate will result in a lower rate. If they are too low, the tax rate calculations result in a higher rate.

 Overall values should increase. It would be a bad sign for the community if its reassessment data does not at least meet the rate of general inflation incurred over the period of time since the previous reassessment. Having an average 35% increase in assessment shows that the county has experienced a greater than average increase in its quality of housing stock, land, quality of life, commercial growth, etc.

 The reassessment also affects taxes paid by AEP, Norfolk Southern, and other public service corporations. Taxes paid by these types of companies are reduced each year based on the actual sales to assessment ratio for residential properties. Last year, these companies received more than a 30% discount in the amount of local taxes paid due to assessment ratios being that far behind actual sales.

 History has shown that the Board lowers the real estate tax rate following a reassessment. In 1997, the County’s real estate rate was $0.70 per $100. This went down to $0.62 with the 1998 reassessment and rose to $0.66 in 2002 for part of the Pulaski Elementary construction. It was reduced back to $0.62 in 2004 following the last reassessment. The combination of a $0.04 cent increase in the real estate rate in 2002, increased assessment resulting from the 2002 assessment and the subsequent rate reduction back down to the current $0.62 funded the construction of two new elementary schools.

 In the current fiscal year educational expenditures consumed all of the real estate taxes plus an additional $2 million in other taxes. Put another way, total educational expenditures are 118% of real estate tax collections.

The fundamental question is – What do we as county citizens want to see accomplished in the next 4 years? Do we want to undertake capital projects such as providing Hiwassee and Allisonia residents with a building in which to park ambulances? Do we want to address an old and inadequate emergency response building in Snowville? Are we going to let local services become victim to state cuts as we did this year when personal property taxes were increased to cover state cuts in public safety including the continued prosecution of misdemeanor charges? Do we want to pay for programs to help dysfunctional families rather than continue the current trend of increased juvenile care and jail costs?

Do we cover the 15% increase in local share of costs associated with children placed in residential care facilities? Do we want to develop other areas like DeHaven Park? Do we want to build on and continue to maintain Randolph Park? Do we want to care for our environment by building trails to give residents options to using cars? Do we want an indoor recreation center? Do we assume some responsibilities for secondary road improvements as VDOT scales back operations or are we content with the dangerous situations we all see every day? Do we want to build on existing economic development efforts to put people back to work?

Do we want to put programs in place to assist those affected by difficult economic conditions? Do we want a new middle school? These are all questions the Board will have to answer when setting the tax rate at the March meeting. Your input and that of your neighbors are critical as the Board balances economic concerns with projected funding needs over the next four years.