Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Former mayor calls for review, correction of property assessments

Former Pulaski Mayor Charles Wade Tuesday night called for a thorough review and correction of new property value assessments.
Speaking during the Pulaski Town Council’s public comment period, Wade said he realizes authority for the reassessments lies with Pulaski County, but “since we (town residents), too, are affected by this action, I wish to make the following comments.”
He said that since people often make comparisons with surrounding areas when seeking salary increases, he chose to compare assessments in Roanoke County, Roanoke City and Salem with Pulaski County’s most recent figures.
“Neither Roanoke County, Roanoke nor Salem assessments exceeded 2.5 percent while ours averaged approximately 35 percent,” he told town council members.
Although he acknowledged surrounding areas conduct reassessments more frequently than Pulaski County, “if you assume that our increase is linear, ours would increase approximately seven percent per annum, which significantly exceeds the surrounding areas.”
Therefore, he questioned whether the town’s services and infrastructure exceed the costs of surrounding areas; whether the increases in assessment values are due to an increase in economic and population growth when compared with surrounding jurisdictions; and whether data used by the company that did the reassessment was accurate.
“Since ‘no’ is the obvious answer to questions one and two and, therefore, do not justify an increased assessment, a ‘no’ answer to question three would indicate that the current reassessment needs to be thoroughly reviewed and corrected,” he said.
“Furthermore, when it was suggested that our area was not affected by the economic downturn as much as the surrounding areas, I can only suggest that it further supports the need for corrective action,” he concluded.
At Pulaski County Board of Supervisors’ last two meetings of 2008, residents from throughout the county packed the meeting room to express dissatisfaction with the reassessments they had received.
At the first meeting, Appraiser Harold Wingate told the supervisors the drop in property values reported nationally were not seen locally at the time the appraisals were conducted.
“You can’t relate national statistics to Pulaski,” Wingate said in November, noting that the property values were based on local sale prices only, not sales anywhere else.
County citizens have called for the supervisors to reject Wingate’s figures and hire another company to redo the reassessment.

Comments

comments

Former mayor calls for review, correction of property assessments

Former Pulaski Mayor Charles Wade Tuesday night called for a thorough review and correction of new property value assessments.
Speaking during the Pulaski Town Council’s public comment period, Wade said he realizes authority for the reassessments lies with Pulaski County, but “since we (town residents), too, are affected by this action, I wish to make the following comments.”
He said that since people often make comparisons with surrounding areas when seeking salary increases, he chose to compare assessments in Roanoke County, Roanoke City and Salem with Pulaski County’s most recent figures.
“Neither Roanoke County, Roanoke nor Salem assessments exceeded 2.5 percent while ours averaged approximately 35 percent,” he told town council members.
Although he acknowledged surrounding areas conduct reassessments more frequently than Pulaski County, “if you assume that our increase is linear, ours would increase approximately seven percent per annum, which significantly exceeds the surrounding areas.”
Therefore, he questioned whether the town’s services and infrastructure exceed the costs of surrounding areas; whether the increases in assessment values are due to an increase in economic and population growth when compared with surrounding jurisdictions; and whether data used by the company that did the reassessment was accurate.
“Since ‘no’ is the obvious answer to questions one and two and, therefore, do not justify an increased assessment, a ‘no’ answer to question three would indicate that the current reassessment needs to be thoroughly reviewed and corrected,” he said.
“Furthermore, when it was suggested that our area was not affected by the economic downturn as much as the surrounding areas, I can only suggest that it further supports the need for corrective action,” he concluded.
At Pulaski County Board of Supervisors’ last two meetings of 2008, residents from throughout the county packed the meeting room to express dissatisfaction with the reassessments they had received.
At the first meeting, Appraiser Harold Wingate told the supervisors the drop in property values reported nationally were not seen locally at the time the appraisals were conducted.
“You can’t relate national statistics to Pulaski,” Wingate said in November, noting that the property values were based on local sale prices only, not sales anywhere else.
County citizens have called for the supervisors to reject Wingate’s figures and hire another company to redo the reassessment.

Comments

comments

You must be logged in to post a comment Login