Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Property Assessment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board of Equalization lowers McDermott home assessment to $963,400

3173263 · May 1, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Albemarle County Board of Equalization voted unanimously on May 1, 2025, to reduce the assessed value of Michael and Katina McDermott’s home to $963,400 after the assessor’s office adjusted the appraisal and the board resolved a disputed listing-item (a hot tub) on the property record.

Albemarle County’s Board of Equalization on May 1, 2025, voted unanimously to reduce the assessed value of Michael and Katina McDermott’s home to $963,400, after the assessor’s office corrected property-data items and the board considered evidence about recent renovations and neighborhood sales.

The decision matters because it changes the McDermotts’ 2025 assessment, which affects the tax bill that will be based on Albemarle County’s January 1 valuation. The board said the assessor’s final, adjusted figure best reflected fair market value after the county removed a $3,500 data entry for a whirlpool the owners said is not present.

McDermott told the board he and his wife bought the house on Oct. 3, 2022, and argued that the assessor’s model overstated value compared with sales in the Still Meadow neighborhood and with neighborhood median figures. He said his review of neighborhood sales and year‑over‑year median changes produced a lower estimate of fair market value.

Representatives from the assessor’s office explained their mass‑appraisal process, noted the house had been renovated, and described adjustments they made after a site visit. The assessor’s written review showed an initial 2025 value that was later reduced when staff confirmed renovations and removed the whirlpool item. Danielle Stein of the assessor’s office performed the on‑site review; Louis Herndon and “Mister Lynch” (assessor staff) answered board questions about the modeling and data corrections.

During deliberations board members said the assessor’s office had already reduced the appraisal after the site visit and that removing the whirlpool entry brought the assessor’s valuation close to the range suggested by some comparative calculations. The board discussed condition categories (for example, the difference between “good” and “average” condition in the model) and how those condition ratings affect assessed value.

Board members ultimately moved to set the assessment at $963,400 (the assessor’s adjusted figure after removing the whirlpool entry). A motion to set that number passed unanimously.

The board also clarified that the change applied to the improvements (the structure) rather than the land value. The McDermotts’ appeals packet and the assessor’s revised report remain part of the public record for this matter.