Montgomery County adopts biennial property reassessments in 6‑1 vote
Loading...
Summary
After public comment and a lengthy board debate over costs and customer service, the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors voted 6‑1 to move real‑property reassessments from a four‑year to a two‑year cycle, with staff saying the change aims to better align assessed values with market values.
The Montgomery County Board of Supervisors voted 6‑1 on Jan. 28 to change the county's real‑property reassessment schedule from every four years to every two years.
County Administrator Angie Hill told the board the move is intended "to improve the uniformity of assessed values as compared to market values throughout the county," acknowledging that the shift would raise costs because the work would be performed more frequently.
During a public hearing, Wayman Pack of Pineywoods Road urged caution and asked the board to weigh cons as well as pros, citing an estimated $95,000 annual cost to operate reassessments in‑house and other startup expenses for vehicles, equipment and software. "Please consider the cons alongside of the pros before making this decision," Pack said.
Supporters, including resident Anna Vijayan, said reassessing more often reduces sudden, large adjustments and makes taxation fairer across the county by better reflecting recent market changes. Several supervisors said permanent in‑house staff could improve customer service and make appeals and outreach easier for residents.
Board discussion highlighted two recurring themes: rising external contract costs for reassessments and the option to internalize the function. County staff said the contract price in 2022 was $685,000 and the most recent contract was approximately $1,000,000, prompting concerns about future contractor availability and price volatility. Supervisor King cast the lone dissenting vote, arguing the county should preserve the existing schedule while revenues and budgets are tight: "I'm totally against every 2 years," King said.
The ordinance passed by roll call, 6 ayes and 1 no. The board directed staff to proceed with the implementation steps identified in the staff report, including cost estimates and a plan for transitioning any work in‑house if that approach is adopted. The board did not set an immediate tax‑rate change; staff noted any rate that is higher than the revenue‑neutral rate would require public advertisement under state rules.
Next steps include staff follow‑up on implementation logistics and additional budget planning to cover any new annual operating costs.
