Tax Maintenance Office Gets Review
Georgia Department of Revenue (DOR) representatives Ron Kicklighter and Ellen Mills concluded a review of the policy and procedures in the Jasper County Tax Maintenance Office last Wednesday with a report highlighting their findings to the Board of Assessors (BOA).
The three-day review, conducted at the request of the BOA, was performed last week.
In sharing some of their findings, the representatives informed the assessors that a written report making analysis and suggestions would be generated upon return to their Atlanta office. After preparing the written report on the local office, the report would then be reviewed by their DOR bosses before being submitted to the local BOA.
The anticipated time of delivery for the written report was estimated at two weeks, according to the DOR representatives.
To begin the presentation, Mr. Kicklighter noted that nothing real major was found—just some housekeeping tasks that needed doing.
“The office is going in a good direction,” said Ms. Mills.
Off the top, Mr. Kicklighter outlined three office needs: a policy and procedures manual of protocol for office employees, job descriptions for appraisers, and mapping assistance.
The DOR representatives posed a variety of questions to the BOA, most of which were associated with office procedures such as the posting of meeting notices, handling of error and release forms, placement of door-hangers on mobile homes for code enforcement, and recording of minutes.
After a review of approximately two years of BOA written minutes, Mr. Kicklighter urged that all actions taken by the board be documented in the minutes. He suggested that every facet of the office and the board be placed in some type of written format. For example, he suggested that the term stagger resolution of the board being placed in the minutes and that the receipt of any documents such as the mobile home digest be confirmed via letter or email.
In order to aid the office in efficiently recording official notifications transactions, the use of certified mail was suggested.
Mr. Kicklighter informed the BOA that each assessor and appraiser needed APM manuals. He also noted that Jasper County has been placed under consent order by the DOR in 2003 and 2005 for issues relative to the tax digest.
{{more}}
The representatives questioned how the office handled the inspection of properties, particularly locked gates. Again suggested was a written policy on that issue in addition to denoting that inspections should be performed every three years.
The DOR representatives spent a fair amount of time addressing the BOA’s policy on conservation use (CU), a heated local issue debated often. Mr. Kicklighter said that the policy needed to cover all types of covenants not just agricultural covenants.
To that end, Ms. Mills said that she had observed several properties within the city that would qualify as residentially transitional under the conservation use policy.
Referring to the issue of agricultural covenants, Mr. Kicklighter said that wildlife habitat certification for CU was not required unless dealing with environmental sensitive land which is different from agricultural applications. He went on to say that wildlife habitat is considered as a type of agriculture as long as it’s not under 10 acres.
“If it has a rabbit and a snail on it, it’s going to qualify,” said Mr. Kicklighter referring to CU applications requested for more than 10 acres as a wildlife habitat qualifying use.
Referring to the local BOA’s policy he said, “wildlife habitat certification is not required for conservation use whether a first time application or renewal. That’s not in the law from our point of view.”
In reply to Mr. Kicklighter, BOA chairman James Harrell said “our attorney says it is and that’s what we’re going to go by.” The chairman told the representatives that the county had some cases going to Superior Court over the matter.
Mr. Kicklighter told board members that if they can defend their decisions to go for it. He acknowledged some vagueness in the law and admitted that court cases were needed to settle the different interpretations of the law.
The DOR representative said that policy creation is local but felt that some things in the local policy are not in the state law.
“It’s all your call on these cases and if the taxpayer doesn’t like it, it can be appealed to the Board of Equalization.”
The representatives and assessors also briefly discussed the issue of subdivisions, gated and non-gated, as well as how restrictive covenants and houses, rented and non-rented, applied to conservation.
Mr. Kicklighter urged the BOA to look at everything about the applications when approving or denying them.
On a final note to conclude the verbal review, the DOR representatives said that the office needed to get to a point where the office staff could maintain its own values with the aid of consultants.