STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA                                         BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

COUNTY OF HENDERSON                                                                   SEPTEMBER 4, 2002


The Henderson County Board of Commissioners met for a special called meeting at 2:00 p.m. in the Commissioners= Conference Room of the Henderson County Office Building at 100 North King Street, Hendersonville, North Carolina.


Those present were:  Chairman Bill Moyer, Vice-Chair Marilyn Gordon, Commissioner Grady Hawkins, Commissioner Don Ward, Commissioner Charlie Messer, County Manager David E. Nicholson, County Attorney Angela S. Beeker, Clerk to the Board Elizabeth W. Corn and Deputy Clerk to the Board Amy Brantley.


Also present were: Assessor Eddie Mitchum and Present Use Appraiser Lee King.



Chairman Moyer called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance. The purpose of this meeting was a Public Hearing on the Schedule of Values.



Commissioner Ward made the motion for the Board to go into public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Eddie Mitchum reminded the Board that at a previous meeting he had presented the Use Value and the Market Value Schedule. He stated that the Market Value Schedule is currently available on the county website, and that the Use Value Schedule will be available on the web soon. He explained that within the Schedule of Values are the rates, tables and other items that the appraisers use. If the Schedule of Values is applied correctly, fair market value can be achieved.


Chairman Moyer questioned the use of a different format for this Schedule of Values. Mr. Mitchum explained that some forms used for residential and agricultural calculations in the 1999 Schedule were not really part of a cost schedule. There were several sections included in that 1999 Schedule which he felt were not necessary to make the Schedule of Values a good document. 


Public Input

There was none.


Commissioner Ward reminded the Board that he had requested a random sample of residential and commercial appraisal examples. He expressed concern over the fairness of some of the examples provided, stating that he had been unable to reference anything in the Schedule of Values with which to compare the appraisal. He stated that this would be his third reappraisal, and he was concerned that less detail was being presented. He discussed several examples of appraisals that had gone up, for which he could not find justification of a significant increase.


Mr. Mitchum explained that assessments are roughly 20%-25% under what property is currently selling for. Though individual properties may differ, that is the county wide average. He stated that they try to appraise at current fair market value based on comparable activity. The Schedule of Values is just a guideline, and once adopted will assist the appraisers in assessing fair market value. Mr. Mitchum answered several questions from the Board on how this appraisal will compare with the one in 1999 and the grading system used. He discussed examples of why residential buildings fall into different grades including roof pitch, cuts, offsets and window and door quality. He also discussed the differences between commercial buildings graded fair, average or good.


Stan Duncan, from the Property Tax Division of the North Carolina Department of Revenue, stated that he serves about 30 counties in the western part of the state on matters relating to the assessment, appraisal and collection of taxes. He stated that the Schedule of Values is a complex document that attempts to set forth one document by which appraisers can appraise any piece of property that exists in the county until the next reappraisal. He used the example of a residential fireplace, stating that the value according to the Schedule of Values was $3,500. Though not every fireplace cost the same or is constructed the same, on average, home market value will make that fireplace worth $3,500. As the grade of home is increased, there is a multiplier making the fireplace worth perhaps $4,500. Mr. Duncan stated that in North Carolina this system works very well in 85% of the cases. Problems arise in very high end and low end homes, but those problems can be worked out through field visits and during the appeal process. Mr. Duncan answered questions from the Board on commercial appraisals and possible future trends.  


Commissioner Gordon made the motion for the Board to go out of public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.


There being no further business to come before the Board, Commissioner Hawkins made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 3:00 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.





______________________________________            ___________________________________

Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to the Board                        William L. Moyer, Chairman