In a tense meeting this week, Board of Tax Assessors’ Chairman Tom Porter and Board Member Randy Bell squared off on the issue of ethics. During the May 17th meeting, Bell made a motion to implement ethics guidelines for the Board of Assessors (BOA). Specifically, Bell’s motion deemed that

“No board member should directly or indirectly try to influence the value of any individual parcel except during a regularly scheduled meeting of the full board.”

According to Bell, this would prevent any “behind the scenes” manipulation of values. Additionally, violation of this code, Bell says, should result in a recommendation from the Assessors’ Board to the Board of Commissioners for the removal of the offending member. Bell’s motion died for a lack of a second.

Immediately following Bell’s motion, Porter followed suit. While passing around a document consisting of a code of ethics to board members, Porter proposed to accept the document as policy. Reluctantly, Board Member Jeff Williams made a second. The second did not approve the motion, but allowed the board to discuss the issue. Porter said he worked with the county attorney to craft the language of the proposed code of ethics, saying,

“It seems pretty obvious we need to carry on this conversation.”

During the discussion, Board Member B.J. Reece said he did not see the need to change anything from the current process. However, Williams agreed the issue needs to be addressed.

“With everything we’ve been through, through the 2008 reassessment,”

he said,

“and a lot of public outcry, there’s been a lot of focus on board members and ‘are they doing things under the table to help themselves’ and that type of talk. This will completely bring any change made to a board members’ assessment out so the public can see it, so it’s not buried in a long list of changes…In my opinion it would help give us more credibility and openness and honesty with the public.”

Following the discussion, Porter made a motion to approve the document, the code of ethics, as policy. Williams and Reece abstained; Bell opposed. The remaining board member, Jeff Holloway was running late and was not present to cast his vote. Agreeing with Bell, Williams said he wanted more time to review the document. Subsequently, Bell made a motion to table the issue until next meeting. The motions passed.

On the heels of the ethics issue, Chief Appraiser Lamb passed around each board member’s property record cards for review and approval. When Porter’s card was passed around, Lamb explained the value. Lamb said he did some research on Porter’s property and, based on his appeal, he said, everything was in order.

“Stan King, the previous Chief Appraiser and one of his assistants,”

Lamb said,

“because of his appeal, when Tom was president of the association at the time, not only appealed his, but all of the others involved. And the numbers were terribly off—they were bad—so Stan King did go back there and he revalued the entire subdivision (Porter’s) and that’s why those numbers came up on the land, because of his analysis.”

Here, Porter said there was never an appeal on his house.

“It wasn’t even my lot,”

he said,

“It was the lot between me and my neighbor, used as a buffer.”

Lamb added that it was all done in order and there was no favoritism.

The ethics issue with Porter, though, dates back to last month’s meeting. Here, Bell prefaced the ethics motion by a query of Porter, identifying uniformity problems with property values. In this sense, uniformity means assessing similar properties with similar values.

“Tom, at the end of your first meeting, you asked Stan (King) to look at your (property) value and it got adjusted,”

Bell said, calling the situation unethical.

“Your lot is listed as $15,000,”

Bell noted,

“and the lot next door to you is valued at $63,000.”

Responding, Porter said the lots next to his are river-lots and his is not, meaning that river-lots are assessed higher in value than non-river lots.

Interrupting, Chief Appraiser Richard Lamb explained the process of maintaining uniformity in property values. He said he has been researching lot sales to find similar lots to those of Buckhorn Estates (Porter’s subdivision).

“I’ve got to find some lots that have sold that are similar to this subdivision over here and treat them equally. That’s where your uniformity comes in,”

Lamb explained. In Buckhorn Estates, Lamb said only three lots have been sold in that subdivision since 2010. One lot sold for $11,000, another for $20,000, and, just after the first of the year, one sold for $4950.

“Those are the only three sales that I know of in that development and that’s not enough information for me to be establishing values right now.”

However, the previous Chief Appraiser Stan King seemingly found enough information in Buckhorn Estates to adjust Porter’s property value.

Prior to his appointment on the Board of Tax Assessors, Porter filed an appeal for his property assessment. The appeal was denied by the Board of Assessors and then referred to the Board of Equalization. The Board of Equalization (BOE) also denied the appeal. During this time, Porter was appointed to the BOA. Also at this time, Chief Appraiser King had a meeting with Porter, telling him he did not want a board member to go before the BOE. Subsequently Porter’s value was adjusted. This breaches the normal, legal process.

According to state law, a property owner has the option of appealing his or her property values. The appeal first is presented to the County Board of Tax Assessors. If the board feels no changes are necessary, that the initial values stand, the appeal is transferred to the Board of Equalization, where a hearing is held. Following the hearing, the Board of Equalization renders a decision. If the decision states no changes to the values, the property owner may appeal to the superior court. However, Porter’s value was adjusted after both the Gilmer Board of Assessors and Board of Equalization determined no changes were to be made to his value.

The board will resume the ethics issue and its efforts to establish guidelines in this regard for board members. But, in the meantime the assessors’ office will continue to address appeals. In a recent email to FYN, Chief Appraiser Lamb cautioned that numerous companies in Metro Atlanta are attempting to solicit taxpayers to help them appeal values.

“This, I feel is a waste of money,”

Lamb said,

“due to the fact that they can appeal their Values if they feel we are out of line with our assessment of Fair Market Value. Remember, we are not Fee Appraisers! This office uses the Mass Appraisal Techniques.”

Watch Video of the Code of Ethics Discussion at the May BOA Meeting

Watch Video of Uniformity Discussion at the Aprl BOA Meeting