My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Package - 03-16-09
public access
>
Clerk
>
AGENDA PACKAGES
>
2009
>
Agenda Package - 03-16-09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/28/2009 2:47:55 PM
Creation date
10/28/2009 2:43:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Admin-Clerk
Document Type
Agenda
Committee
Board of Commissioners
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
107
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
6 7 6 <br />The sales ratio is computed by dividing the assessed value by the sales price. Therefore, <br />a lower sales ratio indicates that market values are increasing and the county is growing. <br />This ratio should continuously decline in a good, strong economy until the next <br />revaluation. The 2008 sales ratio study (which is based on 2007 sales) indicated that Lee <br />County tax values were at 93.94% of market values. Again, the 93.94% ratio indicates <br />that the market values of properties increased by over 6% in 2007. However, the 2009 <br />sales ratio study showed a sales ratio of 95.50%. This shows that market values are <br />coming back down to the 2007 tax values. Once 2009 sales data is completed and turned <br />into the NCDOR, the 2010 sales ratio study may indicate that market values and tax <br />values are nearly synonymous. <br />Cost <br />To perform a countywide revaluation, there is a significant amount of cost involved. For <br />smaller counties, such as Lee, there is usually a consultant or vendor brought in to work <br />in tandem with the Lee County appraisal staff. Cost information for the 2007 revaluation <br />amounted to nearly $600,000. <br />Counties scheduled for u 2011 revaluation <br />There are currently 24 counties in NC scheduled to conduct a revaluation in the year <br />2011. Of the 24 counties, 7 have no choice in postponing the revaluation (meaning it has <br />been eight years since their last revaluation), 9 have had no discussion of postponing, and <br />• 8 have had discussion of postponing the 2011 revaluation. <br />Summary <br />Given the fact that market sales seem to be deflating to the 2007 tax values; considering <br />the amount of cost and time involved; and considering the current budget crisis, I would <br />recommend that the Board move to postpone the 2011 revaluation for at ]cast two years. <br />As stated earlier, the tax base may increase very little or it may increase none. Moreover, <br />we would have significant costs involved. Postponing the revaluation will immediately <br />reduce the proposed tax budget by $75k+ or over 5%. <br />0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.