Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/12/2007CITY COUNCIL 12 FEBRUARY 2007 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, 12 February 2007, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Condos, Chair; C. Smith, M. Boucher, S. Magowan, D. O'Rourke Also Present: C. Hafter, City Manager; D. Gravelin, Assistant City Manager; S. Stitzel, City Attorney; D. Kinville, City Clerk; P. Taylor, Board of Civil Authority; T. LeBlanc, City Assessor, Mr. Richburg, A. Rushford, S. Steck, M. Keenan, M. Haddock, other members of the public; S. Barch, Burlington Free Press; Channel 17 1. Continued Discussion of Updated Property Valuations for Condominiums: Mr. Condos explained that the City Council has been talking with the City Manager and City Attorney in an effort to understand what happened and what steps the Council can take. Mr. Richburg asked how there could be 1700 wrong appraisals and who the appraisers were responsible to. Mr. Hafter said that the company that did the appraisals was under contract to the City. Most of the "wrong" appraisals were within the 5-10% range. The city is reviewing the contract. Mr. Condos said that the Council's aim is to provide equity for everyone in the community. Mr. Stitzel then addressed the process of the reappraisal, the types of mistakes, and the City Council's options. He noted that there was a complete citywide reappraisal done. The valuation day for the appraisal is specifically defined by statute and was April 1, 2006. What exists on that date is what gets valued. The appraisal has to be completed by 15 July, including the grievance process. The City Assessor in the first instance makes a final assessment for the tax bill. In this appraisal, over 7000 properties were appraised. There were 882 grievances. The Assessor made changes as he felt were appropriate and filed the Grand List. The Grand List becomes the final document, subject to appeals to the Board of Civil Authority. Mr. Stitzel continued by noting that once the Grand List has been filed, there may still be appeals pending with the Board of Civil Authority. Some of these appeals went to a final decision. Some were withdrawn. This is one way there can be adjustments after the filing of the Grand List. Another way that adjustments can be made is for the Assessor, with the approval of the City Council, to revalue property (properties) where there are obvious errors. In this specific instance, during the grievance process, the Assessor became aware of inequities in the appraisals of condos. He felt there wasn't time to address those inequities before he had to file the Grand List. He said he would address those inequities after the filing of the Grand List. He also looked at properties where there was the appearance of an error(s). In November and December, the Assessor sent out 2000 letters reflecting changes to adjust inequities. He believed in good faith that the values sent out in November and December would be equitable and should be addressed in this tax year instead of waiting until the next tax year. New tax notices were about to be sent out. The City Council then heard from citizens and decided to hold those tax bills and get a legal opinion. Mr. Stitzel then gave several examples of "obvious errors," including a mistake in acreage, or the omission of a property. Mr. Stitzel said that in his opinions the majority of issues related to the condominium units did not reflect the kind of "obvious error" that would allow the Assessor to make a change to the Grand List. It is up to the City Council to determine how to proceed. A further complication existed in that the Assessor specifically told some property owners that there was no need for them to grieve a condominium assessment because he would be going through and address inequities. He felt the City Council should authorize any condominium owner to have the 14-day period in which to file an appeal of the value they were assigned in July, 2006 with the Board of Civil Authority. Mr. Stitzel said whatever actions the City Council takes at this time does not preclude the Assessor from issuing the same notices, which were issued in November and December of this year for the tax year beginning April 2007. Mr. Stitzel also noted that some of the changes made in November-December (50 or 60) do reflect changes based on "obvious errors" (square footage, property that does or does not exist, etc.). The City Council can approve those changes to the Grand List. Mr. O'Rourke noted that in an appeal to the Board of Civil Authority a property owner said there has been an error that was not addressed for a number of years. He asked if it is possible to fix errors from previous years. Mr. Stitzel said that would be part of the tax abatement process. The Board of Abatement does have the authority to abate taxes where there has been a "manifest error." Mr. O'Rourke asked if the Assessor is precluded from making such a change. Mr. Stitzel said he is. He added that there is currently a case in the Courts regarding how far back a change can be made to correct such an error. Mr. Hafter then noted that there were condominium owners whose assessments were reduced in the November-December process. Those people will now be able to file a grievance. Ms. Keenan asked if an appraisal is a yearly process or whether you have to wait for a city-wide reappraisal. Mr. Stitzel said a value can be changed at any time there is an error found (not necessarily an obvious error). The Assessor can look at property values every year, and for any changes that are made, property owners can go through the grievance process. A property value gets fixed in time for 3 years only if it goes through a Court process. Ms. Rushford asked if a Condominium Board of Directors can appeal on behalf of its owners. Ms. Kinville said an owner can give a written note for someone to represent him or her. A member of the audience asked how often there is a citywide reappraisal. Mr. Condos said the City is required to reappraise when property is appraised at below 80% of fair market value. Mr. Taylor noted that there were 694 people whose condo values went down and would now be going back up. They would have the right to appeal to the Board of Civil Authority, but the time limits for this have expired. He asked if anyone has consulted with the State to see whether they would accept this process. Mr. Boucher then moved to approve the Grand List as lodged on 15 July 2006. Mr. Smith seconded. Mr. Magowan said this situation is the result of a mistake made by the City. If the City goes back to the July appraisal, those whose values go back down will be happy, but a lot of people whose values will go back up will be unhappy. And the Board of Civil Authority will have to deal with that situation. He said he felt the Council should fix the situation for everyone. Mr. Boucher said he agreed, but he didn't know how to do that. Mr. Magowan said the Council should just do it. Ms. Kinville noted how expensive it would be for 694 people to go through the Board of Civil Authority appeal process (including cost of registered letters, Board of Civil Authority meeting time, additional City personnel, etc.). She felt it would cost at least $16,000. Mr. Smith added that the result of those appeals is already known. Mr. Taylor noted that if the Board doesn't finish its work within the given time period, the value of properties not yet heard would go back to the prior year's assessment. Mr. Stitzel said the problem is that those who got notices with reduced values did not grieve within the required time period. What the Council would be saying is that those whose values increased in November-December were not bound by that notice, and those whose values went down are bound by that notice. This is not consistent. However, it is within the ability of the Board of Civil Authority to establish a streamlined process to handle such grievances and have property owners say they accept the value of the November-December assessment and waive the right to a hearing, etc. Mr. Magowan said he felt this was a political decision. Mr. O'Rourke agreed with the City Attorney's concept, but he felt it would lead to feelings of cynicism on the part of the public. He felt the process had meaning and that the Council did not have the authority to circumvent that process. Mr. Smith said that any decision the Council makes has liability. He said he was leaning toward Mr. Magowan's position; otherwise he felt it would create a huge mess for the Board of Civil Authority. Mr. Magowan then moved to amend the previous motion as follows: In the interest of justice to accept the July Grand List as amended in November and December but only for that class of condominiums whose values were decreased, so that increases made in November-December would not be reflected and decreases made in November-December would be reflected. Mr. Smith seconded. Mr. Boucher was concerned that this would open the City up to unintended consequences. Mr. Hafter said he would suggest a policy where classes of property can be reassessed but have the values applied only to the next tax year. In the vote that followed, the motion passed 3-2 with Messrs. O'Rourke and Boucher voting against. 2. Consideration of Approval of 2006 Grand List Errors & Omissions as Required by VSA Title 32, Chapter 4261: Mr. LeBlanc said this is the list which constitutes "errors and omissions" as defined. Mr. Stitzel drew attention to an error on p. 2 in which a condo had been missed. That one now remains as zero. Mr. O'Rourke asked for that one to be pulled from the list, as he would have to abstain on that one and wanted to vote on the others. Mr. Boucher moved to approve the errors and omissions excluding #1741. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed 3-2 with Messrs O'Rourke and Magowan voting against. Mr. O'Rourke said his negative vote is on the process. Mr. Smith moved to approve the errors/omissions for 1741. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed 3-1 with Mr. Magowan voting against and Mr. O'Rourke abstaining. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.