Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Valuation Golf Multiplier topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Equalization reduces golf-course view multiplier, lowers one assessment to $813,000
Summary
After debate over neighborhood comparables and view adjustments, the Albemarle County Board of Equalization voted to reduce a golf-course view multiplier from 1.5 to 1.3 for a property appeal (application 84), lowering the assessed value to $813,000. The board denied the applicant's rescheduling request and decided the case on written submissions.
The Albemarle County Board of Equalization voted July 13 to reduce the land-value adjustment applied for golf-course proximity on one appealed parcel, setting the property's assessment at $813,000.
The hearing opened with a procedural question: the appellant, represented in correspondence by Dr. Seth Burrow, asked to reschedule or to be allowed a virtual appearance outside normal work hours. Staff told the board that the rules do not permit virtual appearances and noted available advertised hearing dates (July 16, July 17 and Aug. 20). After discussing operational consistency and a possible 48-hour rule for late requests, the board voted to deny the rescheduling request and to consider the appeal on the written submissions on file.
The assessor's office presented valuation details and the model inputs. Staff focused debate on one technical point: whether the subject property warranted a 1.5 multiplier for ‘‘golf-course’’ proximity while a comparable sale used a 1.3 multiplier. The assessor said the difference stems from distance and visibility of the course; the assessor's representative also told the board staff could answer questions but would not perform a full re-inspection during the hearing.
Board members pressed the assessor on comparables, view obstructions and how the model treats cottages versus primary golf-course lots. One board member argued the subject's view was not materially better than the referenced sale and proposed lowering the multiplier. ‘‘To roll back the adjustment to 1.3 on the subject property and then whatever the assessment is after that adjustment would be the assessment that we would support,’’ the board member said when making the motion. The motion was seconded and the board voted in favor; the chair announced the motion passed unanimously.
The board's action adjusts the land multiplier used in the assessor's model for the parcel in question. The assessor's office noted that applicants may still appeal to circuit court but that the board's decision reflects how the panel read the available comparables and photographic evidence presented in submission.
The board adjourned the contested portion of the hearing after the vote and resumed the docket for other appeals.
