Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Taxes Assessments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge audit, cite inconsistent commercial property assessments
Summary
Multiple residents used public comment to assert inconsistent property assessments across county commercial parcels and to request a full audit of the Commissioner of the Revenue’s land books; supervisors acknowledged the concerns but no action was taken at the meeting.
Several residents used the public-comment period to raise concerns about perceived inconsistencies in the county’s property assessments for commercial and agri-zoned parcels and to ask the Board of Supervisors for a comprehensive audit.
Don Raynard described specific parcels and said some commercial buildings were missing from the county’s records; he asked why large warehouses were not reflected in the land-book entries. Tom Payne, a long-serving former supervisor, praised past commissioners of the revenue for public service but warned that growth and subdivisions have budget impacts. Patty Reiner, who said she had examined the commissioner’s land books, said she disagreed that subdivisions always ‘pay their share’ and cited a nearby subdivision that she said received a 10-year tax abatement while still using county services.
"I failed to see where we are complying. I failed to see where the equality is," Reiner told the board, citing examples of neighboring commercial parcels she said carried widely different per-acre assessed values. Other commenters listed multiple businesses with widely varying per-acre assessed values and asked why similarly used properties in close proximity had very different assessments.
Board members acknowledged the concern and said staff and officials would be asked to look into specific parcels. No formal motion or vote on an audit was recorded during the meeting; public comments were entered for the board’s consideration.
Why this matters: residents said perceived inconsistencies in assessments create apparent unfairness for business owners and could affect local tax revenues and taxpayer trust. The commenters asked for transparency and a formal audit of assessment practices.
Follow-up: Commenters said they will continue to attend meetings and present parcel-by-parcel comparisons; the board did not commit to a timeline for review or an audit during the session.
