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
