Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appraisals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Buncombe County staff weigh ending county payment of IRS appraisals for easements
Summary
Staff presented recommendations aligned with Land Trust Alliance guidance and county legal counsel to stop covering IRS appraisal costs for conservation easements, citing liability and rising fees; the board asked staff to return with capped or partial-funding options and agreed to pause changing the appraisal policy while alternatives are developed.
Staff leading the county’s land-protection program told the board that statewide best-practice guidance and legal advice suggest Buncombe County should stop paying for taxpayers’ IRS appraisals for conservation easements. The staff member said the program currently uses a three-tier appraisal process—an initial estimate, a funder-required appraisal, and an IRS appraisal—and that the county’s outside counsel and appraiser advised reconsidering paying the final IRS appraisal.
"We talked to our concentrated easement attorney as well as our county attorney and ... all are kind of saying, this is something we should get away from," the staff member said, summarizing counsel and Land Trust Alliance guidance. The staff member added that the county attorney "recommended that we stop doing that."
Board members pressed staff on the reasons and the practical effect. One committee member noted the potential impact on landowners and asked for alternatives, suggesting a list of vetted appraisers or partial subsidies. The staff member estimated typical IRS appraisal costs "from 7,000 to 12,000" and said costs can rise substantially if family enhancement valuation rules apply.
Staff described options being considered if the county reduces or ends direct payment: (1) stop paying IRS appraisals entirely and provide a vetted appraiser list; (2) offer a partial reimbursement cap; or (3) use a reimbursement or escrow model so payments are controlled against the county budget. Board members asked staff to return with specific recommendations and cost-control mechanisms.
The staff member also raised equity and program-access concerns, noting that requiring landowners to pay additional closing costs or stewardship donations can disadvantage owners who cannot cover large transaction expenses. "That makes it a situation where only landowners that can afford to do donations could do a donation," the staff member said, urging the board to weigh mission goals against access.
Outcome and next steps: the board agreed to pause changes to the appraisal policy while staff develops and returns with concrete options for how the county could limit fiscal exposure (for example, partial caps or a vetted-appraiser list). No formal policy vote was recorded in the transcript.
Sources and attribution: quotes and reporting in this article are attributed to the meeting’s speakers as listed on the meeting transcript (labelled here as Staff member, Presenter, Committee member).
