Showing posts with label Ethic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethic. Show all posts

Monday, October 23, 2017

Are Gloucester County’s Real Estate Tax Assessments Corrupt? You Decide

During a recent Gloucester Board of Supervisor and School Board candidate forum, York District Candidate Kevin Farmer expressed concerns about real estate tax rates and real estate tax assessments. § 58.1-3201 of the Code of Virginia requires all property to be assessed at 100% of fair market value. If that is the case, why does Gloucester County seem to adjust the values of property based on the amount of money needed to run our local government? I have been asking that question ever since Gloucester County Assistant Administrator Garrey Curry explained such to me about three years ago. When Mr. Curry rendered his explanation to me and another citizen, I told him under the method he described, one key element is left out of the equation; fair market value of the property.

During the candidate forum, current board members mocked at Mr. Farmer’s assertion that increases in certain real estate assessment values is how they have avoided increasing real estate tax rates each year. In Mr. Farmer’s defense, the County, through certain assessment value increases, increased revenue from real estate property taxes by $3 million since 2012.

I became even more skeptical of Gloucester’s assessments in 2016 when the Board of Supervisors approved a land swap deal with Gloucester resident Charles Kerns, Jr.; in which the County traded two pieces of property for one of Mr. Kerns’ properties. When the deal was first presented to the Board of Supervisors, then Chairperson John Meyer publicly asked, “Is the concept of swapping properties the way the County wants to do business?” He then said, “Sounds like it has the potential for a win win.” As it turns out, Supervisor Meyer had a stake in the land swap deal, in that the entrance to his personal estate shares a property line with the piece of land Mr. Kerns traded to the County.

During that time, I was an appointed At-Large member of the Gloucester Public Utilities Advisory Committee. Once I reviewed the seven properties contained in the land swap proposal, I discovered serious flaws in the assessment values of the three key properties contained in the deal. I pointed the flaws out to the Board and an independent appraiser was hired by the County to determine the value of the properties.

When the Board approved the land swap deal, their decision was based on the independent appraisal values. The combined value of the County’s two properties at that time was $35,000 and Mr. Kerns’ property was valued at $45,000. The combined assessment values of the County’s two former properties after the deal changed to $70,180 and the value of Mr. Kerns' former property changed to $41,780. At the time the deal was approved, Mr. Kerns’ property was determined to be worth $10,000 more than the property he received from the County. Within days of the deal being made, the property Mr. Kerns received from the County was assessed by the County to be worth $28,400 more than the property he unloaded on the County. Not wanting to be associated with corruption, I resigned from the Utilities Advisory Committee immediately after the Board approved the corrupt land swap deal.

The land swap deal story did not end there. Three months after the Board approved the deal, the Gloucester Mathews Gazette Journal listed one of Mr. Kerns new properties as being sold for $55,000. According to online property records; Mr. Kerns sold it to the property owner who has lived right next door to the property since 1998. Why didn’t the Board offer the property to the adjacent landowners before trading it to Mr. Kerns? Even Mr. Kerns’ offered to sell his property to Supervisor Meyer before offering it to the County. Something tells me the new owner would have preferred to buy the property for the $30,000 independent appraisal value; saving $25,000.

One can’t help but wonder if the whole corrupt land swap deal was perpetrated to keep anything from being built at the entrance to Supervisors Meyer’s and Mr. Kerns’ estates. One can easily assume the recent paving of the entrance of Summerville Road to the end of Mr. Meyer’s property line was funded with money from the land sold by Mr. Kerns. One could also easily assume this was done to move the entrance to Mr. Meyer’s estate so it is easier to find by his Airbnb customers. Despite whether or not these assumptions are correct, one fact remains; manipulation of the assessment values is clearly evident and is nothing short of government corruption. This deal needs to be investigated and those found guilty of corruption and conspiracy to commit corruption need to be held accountable.

Below we have provided a listing of randomly selected waterfront properties in four different areas of Gloucester County. Notice how the smaller the property is, the higher the assessed value per acre is. We have also provided a Slideshare presentation of Frequently Asked Questions about real estate tax assessments. 

Email comments to: Kennysr61@gmail.com
To read a detailed account of the corrupt land swap deal click on this link: http://www.gloucestercounty-va.com/2017/03/gloucester-county-va-real-estate-tax_50.html 


Waterfront Property Heywood Creek Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

34244             1.39               $209,110                  $150,439

13952            1.46               $260,770                  $178,609

30791            1.48               $208,560                  $140,919

43160            1.51               $145,940                  $96,649

26229            2.53               $222,950                  $88,123

10669            2.67               $243,790                  $91,307

30679            3.43               $280,310                  $81,723

13369            9.33               $364,960                  $39,117

33757            12.6               $404,020                  $32,065

31355            170.476        $636,730                  $3,735

Bena Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

28739            1                     $225,000                  $225,000

21922            1.25               $233,200                  $186,560

19725            2.88               $201,090                  $78,955

27404            5.25               $296,720                  $56,254

40850            6.39               $342,070                  $53,532

27619            6.46               $817,360                  $126,526

21425            9.3                  $365,060                  $39,254

21951            13.11             $402,110                  $30,672

41567            13.54             $346,810                  $25,540

14341            58.35             $1,190,730              $20,406

Ware Neck Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

16800            0.75               $211,490                  $281,987

21047            0.96               $222,850                  $232,135

22199            1.44               $256,780                  $178,319

16984            1.88               $239,750                  $127,527

10396            2.01               $233,520                  $116,179

23437            2.36               $236,480                  $117,652

22617            5.02               $340,480                  $67,825

43034            6.9                  $417,910                  $60,567

18864            7.39               $209,550                  $28,356

31023            342.57          $1,510,140              $4,408

Gloucester Point Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

34254            0.296             $131,440                  $444,054

29005            0.361             $145,470                  $402,963

30469            0.52               $178,910                  $344,058

18220            0.6                  $189,900                  $316,500

12063            0.93               $221,220                  $237,871

30104            1.23               $258,690                  $210,317

29202            1.49               $263,000                  $176,510

33908            2.49               $482,670                  $193,843

15105            3.58               $246,770                  $68,930

22581            17.49             $534,910                  $30,584

Slideshare presentation of frequently asked question about real estate tax assessments. (Compiled by Albemarle County, Virginia)

Friday, March 17, 2017

Gloucester County, Virginia: The Consolidation Deception

Gloucester VA Links and News: The Waterline At Page Middle School:  Disaster Wai...

Gloucester County, Virginia: The Consolidation Deception.

When we elect and hire people to manage our tax dollars, we do so with the expectation that those folks will take care of our money just like, if not better than, they manage their own financial affairs. We expect them to use our money to provide necessary services, build and maintain our infrastructure, educate our kids and take care of the employees they hire.

Several years ago I and other Gloucester County, Virginia residents began suggesting that our school system and county government consolidate services as a way of reducing costs and getting more bang for our tax dollars. The way things are now, we are paying for two finance, vehicle maintenance, buildings and grounds, information technology and human resource departments. So far we have heard a lot of promises and witnessed lost opportunities. Not so long ago the school system’s finance and human resource directors resigned. Instead of capturing the opportunity to consolidate finance departments and human resource departments with the county, the school system promoted one of their finance employees to director, increased her pay and hired a new human resource director.

The Board of Supervisors (BOS) and School Board recently spent tens of thousands of dollars to have a study done on where and how much it will cost to build a consolidated vehicle maintenance and utility yard facility. When the county and school system left public works, buildings and grounds and all other industrial type functions out of the equation, it was the first signal that they had no intentions of consolidating anything; that is until the consultant publicized pictures of the county garage. Now it appears they are forced to consolidate vehicle maintenance or to at least act like they intend to do so. At this point it also looks like they are trying to cut corners by wanting to reduce the amount of bus parking space and number of maintenance bays that were recommended in the study.

Once the study was completed and presented to the school board, they sent the consultant back to the drawing board to create a scenario in which the utility department’s yard was left out of the consolidation plan. When the BOS and school board met together to discuss the transportation study, it was quickly evident there were members of both boards who were not pleased with the consultants findings because they have other intentions for the old Page and bus garage land. As the meeting progressed, both boards pushed the utility department yard right out of the picture. In fact, Supervisor Ashley Chriscoe said the utility department can make due with what they have now. I find that completely absurd. The utility department needs new facilities just as bad as the school system needs a new bus facility and the county needs a new vehicle maintenance facility. Take a look at the pictures in the slideshare presentation at the end of this article to see a glimpse of how neglected these areas of our infrastructure are. Gloucester resident Howard Mowry told the BOS during a recent public comment period that hazmat and the fire marshal need to condemn the county garage that is located at the intersection of Providence Road and Route 17. Look at the slideshare pictures and you will understand why he said it. Better yet, take some time to visit these public facilities. You will quickly realize the pictures do not show the whole view. 

The utility department not only needs a new yard, they also need a new office. The office they currently occupy on Carriage Street in the Courthouse area has a basement that is full of black mold due to moisture problems. The building was formally the health department building until they were moved because of the mold issues. I know I would not want to spend eight or more hours a day in a building with such mold issues; would you?

When I suggested consolidating all industrial type functions, I suggested doing so on the old Page Middle School and bus garage properties. I also suggested building a strip mall type office building on part of the front portion of the land to provide office space for the consolidated departments. I suggested dedicating a portion of the land for a future fire and rescue facility. Neither board seems to care for my suggestions just like they didn’t seem to care for the results of the study they spent our tax dollars on. The funny thing about the study was; even though the two boards limited the amount of land on the old Page property that could be utilized for the proposed facilities, the consultant made the facilities fit and demonstrated that it would be several million dollars cheaper to build on the old Page and bus garage properties than on the new Page property. The two boards have now added what they are calling safe ingress and egress requirements by claiming the T.C. Walker and Route 17 intersection must be turned into a four way intersection and land must be bought from Harry Corr before a consolidated facility can be located at the old Page site. Well, these so called “requirements” are not requirements at all. It is just their way of running up the cost to build on that site up so they can justify moving the bus garage off the property.

It would seem there are members of both boards who want the school board to give the old Page and bus garage land to the county to be part of some “so called” economic development plan that they have not shared anything about with the general public. Is it just a coincidence that a local developer and school board member is leading the effort to completely abandon the land? I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe in coincidences. I do believe fulfilling our infrastructure needs and providing safe decent workplaces for our employees is far more important than filling a couple of greedy people’s pockets.      

Our local government and school system could easily eliminate between five and seven department heads if they would create and implement a comprehensive consolidation plan and eliminate other unnecessary departments and positions. Tax dollar savings from these reductions alone would be in the neighborhood of $1 million annually.

It is time to reduce the size of our local government and school system administration and reinvest in our infrastructure. If we don’t, real estate and other local taxes will continue to rise and areas of our infrastructure will fail; resulting in more wasted tax dollars.

Be sure to check out the slideshare presentation and after that you will find a video of the BOS and School Board discussion on the transportation facility.

We encourage all Gloucester residents, landowners and business owners to actively follow our elected and employed local government representatives and administrators, and hold them accountable for their actions. Remember, all levels of government work for We The People.

Let us know what you think and share your Gloucester government related stories by emailing us at Kennysr61@gmail.com or by posting remarks on the Facebook post that led you here.

Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point, Virginia
Helping To Drain The Swamp



Thursday, March 2, 2017

Gloucester County, Va. Real Estate Tax Assessment Corruption??

Gloucester, VA - Picture taken for the new Gloucester Links & News website.  Gloucestercounty-va.com

You Decide

If this story does not cause you to question the integrity of the Board of Supervisors and real estate tax assessments in Gloucester County, Virginia, nothing will.

On October 4, 2016 the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors (BOS) approved a land swap deal between Gloucester’s Department of Public Utilities (Utilities) and Gloucester resident Charles Kerns, Jr. When the land swap proposal was first presented to the BOS, then Chairman John Meyer asked, “Is the concept of swapping properties the way the County wants to do business?” He then said, “Sounds like it has the potential for a win win.” As it turns out, Supervisor Meyer had a stake in the land swap deal; in that the entrance to his personal estate shares a property line with the piece of land Mr. Kerns traded to Utilities. Supervisor Meyer’s personal involvement is further exemplified by Mr. Kerns’ written assertion that he also offered to sell his property to adjacent landowners. There is also significant evidence strongly suggesting there was local government corruption involving real estate tax assessments in the land swap deal. Let’s explore who actually won in the deal.

The story as I know it started to form while I was serving on the Gloucester Public Utilities Advisory Committee (PUAC). During a Committee meeting in late 2015, the Director of Utilities spoke briefly about a possible land swap deal between Utilities and Mr. Kerns. During the same meeting the Director also spoke about failing septic systems in the Terrapin Cove Sewer Extension project (Project) area. (This Project was frozen by the BOS in 2014 due to a lack of funding and the unwillingness of property owners to commit to connecting to the system.) During that PUAC meeting the Director also spoke about Utilities’ efforts in attempting to obtain grant funding to finance the extension of public sewer down just one street in the Project area. That street was Laurel Drive and is the same street where one of Utilities’ properties involved in the land swap is located. A few months later the Director informed the committee the grant funding was unobtainable in the current fiscal year, but Utilities intended to apply during the next fiscal year. In the back of my mind I wondered if there was a connection between Utilities efforts to install new sewer service just on Laurel Drive and the land swap that he spoke of. After watching the story unfold I absolutely believe there was a connection. If public sewer were available at the Terrapin Cove lot, the owner would have been able to build a duplex or similar type of rental unit on the property instead of just a single family dwelling. In this article I will focus primarily on the assessment values of the properties contained in the land swap deal.  

The land swap proposal next came to my attention in late July 2016 when it appeared on the County’s website as an agenda item for the August 2, 2016 BOS meeting. Utilities was requesting the BOS to approve advertising a Public Hearing on the land swap deal. I found this troubling because the PUAC had not been provided with any information pertaining to the deal and had not been given the opportunity to vet it before the Director presented it to the BOS. Upon researching the locations, values and such pertaining to the properties contained in the deal; I found some highly questionable anomalies in the County’s real estate tax assessment values. The following information obtained from Gloucester County’s online real estate tax database; clearly demonstrates the anomalies I am talking about.
 
Assessment Comparison
RPC                Street                             Acres      2015 Assess         2010 Assess     

*14627          Belroi Rd                         1.62         $41,780               $25,000*

16706    Terrapin Cv./Laurel Dr           .32           $24,290                $45,000

10095        Booker St                            .3             $9,920                  $49,700

*/Red = Kerns property
Black = Utilities property

As you see; the County assessed values of the two Utilities properties decreased dramatically during the 2015 assessment cycle. It is also clearly evident the County’s assessed value of Mr. Kerns’ property dramatically increased during the same assessment cycle. For some strange reason, all of the dramatic shifts in property values substantially benefited Mr. Kerns.
 
Another anomaly I discovered was the difference in assessment values between the Terrapin Cove property and a cleared vacant property on Laurel Drive that shares a property line with the Terrapin Cove property. The following information obtained from Gloucester’s online property database reflects the differences:

Terrapin Cove and Laurel Drive Property Value Comparison
RPC                Street                       Acres          2010               2015              2017               

16706        Terrapin Cove                .32           $45,000          $24,290         $43,720

19606           Laurel Dr.                   .297          $45,000          $46,810         $46,810

As you can see; the assessment values were consistent in 2010, but in 2015 the larger Terrapin Cove property mysteriously lost value long enough for Utilities and Mr. Kerns to make the land swap deal. And look at that; after the land swap deal was completed, the Terrapin Cove property increased in value during the 2017 assessment cycle, but more on that later because those values were an unknown at the time.

When I discovered the questionable changes in the 2015 assessment values I shared them with York District Supervisor Phillip Bazzani. He in turn created a PowerPoint presentation representing my concerns that he shared with me and said he shared with the rest of the BOS and members of County staff. The PowerPoint presentation was never shown to the public. Utilities presented the land swap deal to the BOS on August 2, 2016 and the BOS sent it back to the PUAC for vetting. The BOS also instructed the County Administrator to obtain independent appraisals on all of the properties contained in the proposal.

During that same BOS meeting the County Administrator publicly said, the County Assessor said, that among other complex things (that he did not elaborate on), assessing the value of non-taxable property was not on the list of priorities to be accomplished during the 2015 assessment cycle; therefore little time was spent insuring the accuracy of those values because they are nontaxable properties. My question is; why did the values of only those two Utilities owned properties dramatically decrease when the values of the other two buildable Utilities’ properties contained in the deal experienced unusual increases in value? More about the third, unbuildable property later. Also; what caused Mr. Kerns property to increase in value so much?

The following information obtained from Gloucester’s online real estate tax database demonstrates the 2010 through 2017 assessed values of the other Utilities owned properties that found their way into the proposal Utilities presented to the BOS.

Assessment Comparison of Utilities’ Properties Contained in the Land Swap Proposal
RPC                 2010 Asses       2015 Assess       2017 Assess

28607                 $50,000              $59,970             $47,660

12656                 $35,000              $46,940             $36,100

19691                 $4,700                $4,060               $1,800

Bunting's Appraisal Service, which has a lengthy history of providing real estate services to Gloucester’s local government, was hired by Utilities to provide the independent appraisals. The following demonstrates the difference between those appraisals and the County’s assessment values of the swapped properties from 2010 thru 2017.

County Assessments vs. Independent Appraisal
RPC          Street           2010 Assess    2015 Assess      Ind Apraisal        2017 Assess           

16706    Terrapin Cv.      $45,000             $24,290             $30,000             $43, 720

10095     Booker St         $49,700             $9,920                $5,000               $26,460

*14627   Belroi Rd          $25,000             $41,780             $45,000             $41,780

*/Red = Kerns property
Black= Utilities property

As you can see; the 2016 independent appraisal values also strongly favored Mr. Kerns in comparison to the 2010 assessments and the 2017 assessments that were released only a few days after the deal was completed.

The PUAC met on two occasions to discuss the land swap deal. (Keep in mind we did not know the 2017 values) The independent appraisals had not been received by the first time we met so the discussion was tabled until they were available for review. During the brief second PUAC discussion, a vote was taken by the committee members and resulted in a split decision to recommend the BOS approve the deal. The vote was 4 to approve, 2 to disapprove and 1 member abstained from voting. I voted against the land swap deal for multiple reasons like; there was no data supported business case presented to justify acquiring the property, but the most profound reason I voted the way I did was because I clearly saw the whole deal as being government corruption. In fact, during the last PUAC discussion, one of my fellow committee members said I was just upset about the assessments and can’t let it go. He was right and I say he is part of the corruption for letting it go. Meeting Minutes from the Land swap deal Public Hearing reflect Utilities’ director insinuating I voted the way I did because I felt the Utilities property values were to low. Funny how there was no mention of me disagreeing with giving away highly marketable real estate based on his unsupported speculations. 

The BOS unanimously approved the land swap deal after a Public Hearing; during which the County Administrator said the assessment anomalies were the result of a glitch in the new assessment software and that the County assessor had notified the state about the glitch. I don’t buy it at all. But that is not where the land swap deal story ends. On February 17th the Gloucester Mathews Gazette Journal listed the Terrapin Cove Road property as being sold by Mr. Kerns for $55,000. According to the Gazette Journal and online property records; Mr. Kerns sold the property to the property owner who has lived right next door to the property since 1998. In other words; the two properties share a property line. I wonder if the new owner knows the whole story behind how Mr. Kerns obtained possession of the property and how the assessment values have been manipulated. Something tells me the new owner would have preferred to buy the property for the $30,000 independent appraisal value. He would have saved $25,000.

After finding out Mr. Kerns’ property had been sold; I checked the 2017 County assessment that was released to the public only a few weeks after the BOS approved the land swap deal. I could not believe my eyes. The following demonstrates the County’s assessment values of the swapped properties from 2010 thru 2017 and the 2016 independent appraisal values:

2010 thru 2017 Assessments and 2016 Independent Appraisal
RPC          Street           2010 Assess      2015 Assess    Ind Apraisal         2017 Assess           

16706    Terrapin Cv.      $45,000             $24,290             $30,000             $43, 720

10095     Booker St         $49,700             $9,920                $5,000               $26,460

*14627   Belroi Rd          $25,000             $41,780             $45,000             $41,780

*/Red = Kerns property
Black= Utilities property

When the BOS approved the land swap deal, their decision was based on the 2016 independent appraisal values. The combined value of Utilities two properties at that time was $35,000 and Mr. Kerns’ property was valued at $45,000. The combined assessment values of Utilities former properties is now $70,180 and the value of Mr. Kerns former property is now valued at $41,780. At the time the deal was approved, Mr. Kerns’ property was determined to be worth $10,000 more than the property he received from Utilities. Within days of the deal being made, the property Mr. Kerns received from Utilities became worth $28,400 more than the property he unloaded on Utilities.

So why did Mr. Kerns decide to sell or trade his property instead of building rental units on it? I guess it could have been for any number of reasons, but I have a theory that is probably not to far off target. Like I said earlier; the entrance to Supervisor Meyer’s personal estate shares a property line with the piece of land Mr. Kerns unloaded on Utilities. I believe having renters living at the entrance to his home did not sit well with Supervisor Meyer, but he opted not to pay $50,000 for the property. From there the land swap plan was hatched. I believe somewhere along the way someone with full access to the County’s real estate tax assessment database manipulated the property values of the three properties exchanged in the deal.

The land swap deal is just another example of the corruption that takes place within Gloucester County’s local government. Should there be a forensic audit performed on everything pertaining to real estate tax assessments in Gloucester County? Let us know what you think by emailing us at Kennysr61@gmail.com or by posting remarks on the Facebook post that led you here.

Kenny Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point
Retired United States Army

Helping to Drain the Swamp