Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Homeowner challenges grading and high assessment; board affirms assessor in appeal
Loading...
Summary
Ed Shaliga appealed the 2026 assessment of his Glenmore home, disputing a quality grade and comparables used by the assessor’s office. After testimony and questioning, the Board of Equalization voted to reaffirm the assessor’s valuation for application 70 (property ID 38298).
Ed Shaliga appealed his 2026 real‑estate assessment for 1510 Kenwars Lane, telling Albemarle County’s Board of Equalization that the county had overstated his home’s value and misclassified its quality. Shaliga said his assessed value rose sharply in recent years — he told the board the five‑year increase totaled $714,000, or about 70.3% — and that county records incorrectly listed a 325‑square‑foot area above the garage as finished living space.
Shaliga, who identified himself on the record as the property owner, said a county review reduced his 2026 assessed value by $80,300 after a reinspector documented the unfinished space, but he argued the revised figure remained too high. He submitted a trimmed average of nearby sales and a licensed agent’s market evaluation that, he said, implied a market value near $1.335 million and an appropriate assessment near $1.3 million.
A representative of the Albemarle County assessor’s office described how the office sets grade and neighborhood adjustments and said the inspector who originally marked the property ‘‘A plus’’ is no longer with the office. The assessor’s representative acknowledged an earlier record error but said the county corrected prior years only as allowed by law and defended the use of A+ comparables and neighborhood modifiers used for Glenmore.
Board members questioned whether the five‑member panel had enough evidence to overturn a professional appraiser’s grade without interior photographs or the original appraiser’s testimony. One member summarized the difficulty: the board is not trained to evaluate the 40‑point grade checklist and must generally defer to professional appraisers unless the appellant overcomes the presumption of correctness.
After deliberation, a committee member moved to reaffirm the assessor’s valuation for application 70. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. The board’s action notes that the assessor’s documentation and the model calibration supported the assessed value in the record.
The board advised the homeowner he could request a reinspection or present additional evidence (for example, interior documentation or an independent appraisal) in a future filing if he wished to renew his challenge.
