close

9 seek commissioner nominations

9 min read
1 / 9

Allen “A.J.” Williams

2 / 9

Corey McConn

3 / 9

Judith Fisher

4 / 9

Randy Barli

5 / 9

Larry Maggi

6 / 9

Harlan Shober

7 / 9

Diana Irey-Vaughan

8 / 9

Mike McCormick

9 / 9

Nick Sherman

Candidates for commissioner are on the ballot every four years in Washington County, and in one respect, this primary is similar to the past three: Nine candidates have jumped into the fray. This year, there are six candidates from whom Democrats will choose, and three on the GOP ballot. In some years during the past dozen, the mix has been seven Democrats duking it out in the primary and two Republicans who ran unopposed in the spring contest.

On May 19, Democrats and Republicans will each choose two standard bearers for the fall campaign. In November, voters will cast a ballot for two commissioner candidates, and the top three vote-getters will be elected.

One issue that sets this year apart from years past is the countywide property reassessment.

Tyler Technologies was the firm the three incumbent commissioners, facing a contempt-of-court hearing and out of legal options to forestall the process, hired in the summer of 2013 at a cost of $6.9 million to conduct a countywide property reassessment. Tyler employees are still collecting data, and taxpayers won’t learn of their new assessments until 2016, after the board of commissioners elected this year takes office.

A countywide real estate assessment hasn’t happened in Washington County for 35 years, so many residents may have questions.

The Observer-Reporter asked the candidates to reply, in 150 words or less, to the question, “If elected commissioner, how do plan to make sure property reassessment is fair to both those who own real estate and the taxing body?”

Here are their replies:

Randy J. Barli: “Tactics need not be revealed prior to implementation. The commissioner positions have the authority/responsibility to make this happen immediately.

“The guarantee is to be a 24/7/365 public servant. First on the agenda is to solve our county’s two top priorities, those being the deadly substance abuse and drug overdose problem and the upcoming 2016 reassessment and discrepancies/inequalities problem.”

Judith L. Fisher: “County commissioners set the assessment percentage on the current market value of properties for taxing purposes. It is presently set at 25 percent. An adjustment to this percentage rate can be calculated up or down depending upon the final results of the reassessment. I certainly will not lie to my constituents. Commissioners do not control budgets of other taxing jurisdictions in the county. School districts, townships and municipalities determine how many mills are needed for their expenditures. I would advocate reducing the number of taxing jurisdictions operating within the county. Combining them would eliminate duplicate operating expenditures. All taxing jurisdictions within Washington County deserve an evenly distributed commercial tax base funding school districts, townships and municipalities, unlike what is presently occurring. Some regions have boarded storefronts, abandoned homes and deserted factories, while others are overly congested with development. As commissioner, I would serve the entire county to rectify this imbalance.”

Larry Maggi: “Our reassessment system needs to be reformed, but until then it is important to make sure the data used to establish the market value is correct. The county tax assessment office has provided aerial mapping and historical data to Tyler and works with them to help assure accuracy. The property owner will be kept advised of the data collected on property, and he or she will have multiple opportunities to correct errors. I would advise the property owners to check their assessment against like properties and to monitor property sales in their neighborhood to assure that the market value assigned their property is accurate. The county is committed to working with property owners to make sure the data is accurate. It is also important to remember that there should be no windfall to the taxing bodies and the taxes collected after reassessment should be substantially the same as before reassessment.”

Corey McConn: “Looking at this from a fairness perspective, the reassessment has been long overdue. Most properties in the county have changed dramatically over the last 30-plus years. One concern I have with the reassessment is the potential impact on properties owned by retired individuals who have fixed incomes. The county should look into a way to allow these homeowners to lock in their current tax burden if they feel they may see a dramatic increase in their property taxes. The homeowners also need to be aware their taxes could decrease. We have less than two years until the new assessed values take effect, which is plenty of time to educate the residents about the potential impacts of reassessment. The impact of the reassessment on the taxing bodies should be minimal. Basically, they will just need to adjust their millage rates because they are prohibited from seeing any windfall from the reassessment process.”

Harlan Shober: “With the understanding that the statewide process for reassessment is not what it should be, the only way to achieve the best reassessment possible starts with an accurate inventory of properties and data collection on the 119,000 county properties. This information will be verified by the property owners and then, property values that reflect today’s market will be applied by our vendor. Through constant oversight by our staff, our vendor, Tyler Technologies, will be held accountable for completing this task. Reassessment is only meant to assure that the right market value is placed on every property, and county, local and school revenues should remain the same after the reassessment is completed. At this time, the millage will be adjusted to maintain the same revenues countywide. Any millage increases applied by local government or school districts above the current revenue would be their action outside of the reassessment process.”

Allen “AJ” Williams: “In my opinion, the property reassessment can only benefit one party, the taxing body. I have yet to hear from anyone that taxes may go down. We live in an area going through a huge real estate boom; therefore, the value of homes has increased. For the taxpayers, this means that after the assessment their taxes will more than likely rise. I would meet with local elected officials from school boards to municipal representatives and county officials and discuss examining their current tax millage rates. I would strongly urge them to decrease their millage rates in order to maintain current tax revenues. Most people do not mind being taxed as long as they are seeing a valuable service for their money. We cannot continue to expect more money from our taxpayers while not increasing the quality and quantity of services they are receiving.”

Mike McCormick: “The reassessment, while difficult, has been designed to be as fair as possible to both homeowner and taxing body. While the assessment attempts to determine a current market value on the real estate, the taxing authorities – municipality, county or school district – will adjust the millage rate so revenues meet local needs. The results will be published this year, when homeowners can appeal. Final results will be established in 2016 and the rate will apply in 2017. The commissioners should make sure the appeal process is unbiased, timely and informative. Results of the appeal should be returned to the property owner quickly. Low-income families, senior citizens and those with disabilities should receive consideration to mitigate or eliminate undue hardship caused by the assessment. While not everyone will experience huge increases (the first year’s increase is capped at 5 percent), volunteers should be organized to aid people who may need help adjusting.”

Nick Sherman: “I am completely against the reassessment. I feel Washington County government needs to do a better job distributing tax dollars it is currently receiving and should be less worried about increasing taxes on the county’s senior citizens. It’s a slap in the face to residents who were told that building a casino and allowing table games would drastically reduce their property taxes. Not only was there no reduction in property taxes, but public safety spending increased. We also have the luxury of natural gas royalties that are being distributed to Washington County communities through impact fees. As of now, these funds have been used for pet projects rather than for the easement of the tax burden. If we do not take the opportunity to cut taxes now, when we have these large windfalls, Washington County seniors will never get the tax relief they need.

Diana Irey Vaughan: Property tax assessment is not a fair method of taxation. It is not based on one’s ability to pay, but rather how they do or do not choose to invest in property. The system needs to be reformed, which is why I opposed and fought against the reassessment. Accurate data collection is essential. The new assessed value should equate to market value: what a buyer would pay to a seller. Legislation requires the taxing bodies be revenue-neutral and uniform among neighborhoods. School districts are limited to a maximum 10 percent increase and other taxing bodies 5 percent the first year. We must educate the public in how to challenge the data and resulting assessed value to make sure it is correct. Challenges of data may include an informal telephone call, an informal conference, a formal appeal to the tax assessment appeals board and an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas.

CUSTOMER LOGIN

If you have an account and are registered for online access, sign in with your email address and password below.

NEW CUSTOMERS/UNREGISTERED ACCOUNTS

Never been a subscriber and want to subscribe, click the Subscribe button below.

Starting at $3.75/week.

Subscribe Today