Reassessment | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    Several months ago we were treated to a front page article in the WDN (2/8) telling us that the County Commissioners were considering redoing the real property assessment several years early. The suggestion was based on reported sales prices that have been about 2% below the assessed valuation. It may result in lower assessments, but it will not lower the taxes if history is any guide. The revenue neutral taxes we got after the last reassessment was a decrease in the tax rate from 60¢ to 50¢ which resulted in a 13.4% increase in taxes. So much for revenue neutral..

    If there are any among us who believe that a reassessment will result in an overall reduction in taxes, much less even a revenue neutral situation, I have a bridge I'll sell them, as soon as it is completed. That would be the new NC 99 bridge across Pantego Creek at Belhaven. That is a bridge where tolls should raise a lot of money. After all, without the Rte. 99 bridge, it's a long way around through Pantego to get to Belhaven, and it certainly lengthens the drive from Hyde County to Washington. People would likely be willing to pay the toll to avoid having to "go around" to get to Belhaven, or going in the other direction from Hyde County to Washington. And after we get all the Rte. 64 traffic to divert through Belhaven en-route to the outer banks, it should be a real "gold mine". (Hmmm...) But I digress...

    Improving the fairness and equity of the last assessments per the latest proposal will cost something over a million dollars. The reassessment is "required" because sales have been coming in a little below the assessed values. According to the article, sales are averaging about 2% under the assessed valuation. On the surface, that doesn't seem like much to worry about. So what's the problem with "fixing" a 2% variance?? Simple - just reduce everyone's assessment by 2% and we should be able to realize a zero variance. No, that won't work, because 2% is an average. It is composed of big dollar waterfront property that suddenly isn't selling at all - or only at a large discount (or so it reportedly seems to those in the market to sell) and the rest of the property which it would seem is apparently enjoying a little markup from the assessed values in order to arrive at the 2% average. And by the way, does anyone remember any other time when assessed values were within 2% of actual market prices (i.e. actual sales prices)??

    But wait!! If we spend the million dollars and do the re-assessment, has anybody asked, "What then??" Here we go with yet another great opportunity for some big time unintended consequences. (Will we never learn??)

    Clearly, if the total assessed value of the property in the county goes down (as the proponents of the early reassessment surely anticipate), the tax rate must be increased to keep the total County revenue about where it was before we did the re-valuation (and maybe even a little more to cover the $1M cost of redoing the assessment)..

    If there is a reassessment, the assessors will likely find that a lot (most) of the "big dollar" waterfront property is hardly selling at all. That would be the same property whose owners complained that the 2- 300% increase in assessed value resulting from the latest re-assessment was out of line. A fair and honest re-assessment would likely roll back the assessments on the big dollar waterfront properties considerably more than the rest of the property in the county. But, if we did that, it would be the rich folks who own those properties who would get the greatest benefit. Surely the five commissioners comprising the liberal wing of the County Commission (i.e. the three Dems, one RINO and the one apparently "born again" self described conservative) could not stand for that. In fact it sounds like something the Reps might want to do (i.e. favoring the rich at the expense of the common folks - as the Dems say).

    The point is that we need to be careful lest we violate one of Bispo's laws: "Don't ask a question unless you are prepared to live with the answer". We need to be prepared to accept the results of a revaluation before we decide to undertake one. I raise this possibility in the belief that if what it looks like is happening in the real estate market is really happening, (i.e. The price of waterfront property has taken a lot worse "hit" than non-waterfront property) a lot of the "wrong" people (hmmm...) are going to be hit with tax increases while the so called "fat cat" waterfront property owners will be rewarded with lower property taxes. That wouldn't be fair would it?? It almost sounds like a page out of the anointed one's "How to foment class warfare" book. If we do the reassessment we need to be prepared to just let the chips fall where they may.

    It would seem that even the most dense of the Terrific 3, plus 1, plus 1 have begun to figure that out and we hear whispers that support for the reassessment may be flagging. Hmmm....

    So how about considering an alternate use for the $1M dollars it would cost to redo the assessment?? According to the folks in the County finance office, a penny change in the tax rate increases (or decreases) revenue by just over $547,000. ($1M in the budget = +/- 1.83¢ change in the tax rate.) If we can find $1 million in our current budget to fund the reassessment, why not simply apply those funds to a reduction of the property tax. If we were to factor in the "overhead cost" associated with redoing an assessment, it would seem that we could likely reduce the tax rate by about 2¢. That would go take our taxes from th current 53¢ to 51¢ and give everyone a break; this before the Commissioners even begin to seriously look at the merits of the budget requests currently before them.

    In the meantime, the folks who own the overvalued waterfront property will have to suffer a little longer. At least until the next election when, perhaps, they will be able to elect some Commissioners who really care about the folks and fairness. If that happens, we may even be allowed to decide for ourselves which charities should receive our contributions instead of the Commissioners absconding with our money and funding their favorite charities.

    D'ya think??
Go Back


Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )




Emerald Isle Takings Case Could Have National Implications D'ya think??, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics Is NC Back on Track?


HbAD0

Latest Op-Ed & Politics

Pope Francis lambasted leftist gender ideology during an address this week, warning that it presented an extreme danger to mankind.
amnesty would just encourage more illegal aliens to storm our borders
The Christmas candy was barely off the shelves when the Valentine’s candy appeared. Red and pink hearts with caramel and nut-filled chocolate goodness caught our eye. We are reminded of how we love love. Young love, especially.
far left sugar daddy has also funded anti-Israel groups and politicians in US
Be careful what you wish for, you may get it
America needs to wake up and get its priorities right
Former President Donald Trump suggested this week that if he becomes president again, he might allow Prince Harry to be deported.
It's a New Year, which means it's time to make resolutions — even for prominent evangelical leaders. The Babylon Bee asked the following well-known figures in the faith what they hope to accomplish in 2024:
Vice President Kamala Harris will visit a Minnesota Planned Parenthood clinic, reportedly the first time a president or vice president has visited an abortion facility.

HbAD1

 
Back to Top