CV Going After Reassessment Appeals

After sometimes heated debate during its meeting Tuesday evening, the d unanimously passed a resolution authorizing its solicitor to appeal real estate assessments in the district through 2013.

The resolution came weeks before an April 2 deadline, at a workshop meeting in which such votes are rare. And while some directors expressed confusion over how the solicitor would be paid when handling appeals—or whether it was important they be filed in the first place—the board signed onto the resolution, adding a last-minute amendment that made it subject to further review.

“We lose our right to appeal if we don’t pass a resolution of some sort,” said Superintendent Brian White.

As approved, the measure gives solicitor Alfred Maiello the power to file appeals on behalf of the district in 2012 when a residential property sells for at least $50,000 more than its assessed value. When take effect in 2013, that minimum jumps to $100,000.

The resolution also allows Maiello to file appeals on commercial properties without meeting a minimum discrepancy, and to defend against appeals filed by a commercial or residential property owners if the property value is more than $150,000.

Directors Jamie Stevenson and Wendy Huntoon took issue with what they saw as a lack of control on the solicitor’s filing and handling of cases—and, particularly, what it could cost taxpayers.

According to Maiello, a 20-percent contingency fee applies to between 20 and 30 percent of the cases, while the remaining cases—which he said can stretch over as many as five years—include an additional hourly fee and are brought to the board for review beforehand.

After back-and-forth between Huntoon and Maiello regarding fees and various appeals processes, the conversation turned tense.

“I just want to make sure that in approving this resolution I understand what our internal investment is going to be,” Huntoon said, prompting further elaboration from Maiello.

“We’re getting into stuff that no one’s really understanding,” Stevenson said.

“It’s so convoluted in the bills, the way I see it,” he said. “I can’t follow it. It doesn’t make any sense. And for me to authorize taxpayer dollars for this process, to me, is absurd.”

Maiello countered that his firm sends out detailed lists to the district’s business office during every step of the process—”We kill a lot of trees, quite frankly”—and added that his compensation was vetted by a previous board of directors.

Maiello said he is willing to work with the board to adjust the fees and agreed that the process can be confusing for incoming board members. And though Stevenson’s concerns touched on the underlying principles of the resolution, its provisions didn’t directly address compensation.

What the resolution did do was establish a minimum for residential property value appeals, essentially setting up a control on when the solicitor can challenge an assessment.

Because the district next year than it would this year—and because property values generally increased in recent county-wide assessments—Huntoon pushed to raise the initial minimum discrepancy of $30,000 to either $150,000 or $100,000, with the board settling for the latter.

Stevenson at one point even suggested that, without a clear understanding of what taxpayers are putting into or getting out of the district’s appeals process, it isn’t important to have it at all.

The idea of the reassessments was to bring property values closer to their fair market values. So the district’s ability to appeal, White said, gives it a chance to ensure people are paying their fair share in taxes—not more or less.

“The trouble is, when we talk to residents now, everything’s so out of whack with this new assessment,” White said. “What is a fair share?”

Like our Facebook page or sign up for our Daily E-mail Newsletter!