The proceedings of the November 21st Board of Commissioners’ work session showed clearly that governing is more difficult than campaigning. The BoC once again considered whether to stay on schedule with the 2013 revaluation of property for tax purposes. We say again because this board voted unanimously on September 6th to proceed with a 2013 reevaluation. It appears, however, that some commissioners are only now realizing the potential ramifications of their vote.

As acknowledged by Commissioner Bock during the September 6 work session, a reassessment of property values would require an increase of the property tax rate to keep the annual county revenue neutral because the value of many properties has fallen in recent years. Bock stated that he would not be receptive to raising the tax rate. Commissioner Stewart expressed concern for citizens whose property values have not fallen, and for whom a rate increase would mean a higher tax bill. Nonetheless, she stated that she thinks a revaluation is needed for the sake of fairness. And so on September 6th, the vote to proceed with the 2013 reevaluation was unanimously passed.

Revaluations must occur at least every 8 years by law, although many counties find it optimal to schedule them at 4-year intervals. Chatham last revaluated in 2009, when commissioners actually lowered the tax rate. At that time, property values were based on sales from 2005 through 2008 -- with more emphasis on 2007 and 2008. As a result, many in Chatham are now paying taxes on an evaluation that does not reflect current fallen values of many properties. Inevitably, there has been a sharp increase in citizen appeals of their tax bills. But such appeals are often in vain because economic trends are not grounds for adjustment of tax values.

With a revaluation and a corresponding adjustment in tax rate, those properties that have dropped the most in value would likely see a tax decrease. For many, it would stay about the same. And for properties that have not significantly dropped in value, taxes would likely rise.

According to Chatham County tax assessor Tina Stone, “The primary goal of revaluation is equity,” and “equalization creates a better tax climate in the community when each taxpayer is paying only his or her fair share.” Ms. Stone also pointed out that changes in values will not be uniform, and will vary between areas and neighborhoods. There is a projected average loss in property values of 8 to 10%.

So what changed in the hearts and minds of the BoC majority at the November 21st meeting? Have our BoC majority taken the Grover Norquist no-tax pledge? The vote for a 2013 revaluation would force a choice between raising tax rates and making more budget cuts, as the estimated loss of tax revenue without action could be as much as 5 million dollars. As Commissioner Cross quipped, “Even Commissioner Bock couldn’t come up with 5 million dollars in new cuts.”

The truth is that although a revaluation would be the fair and honest thing to do, this BoC majority doesn’t have the stomach to make necessary adjustments to tax rates. Yet even they have come to realize that there is a limit to budget cuts. And so they reversed their September 6th decision, and voted 3 to 2 to kick the can down the road, delaying property revaluation until 2015.

Back to top

The Chatham County Board of Commissioners recently showed us that they do listen to input, and that they can respond quickly to concerns voiced by the public. This was evident at the November 21st BoC work session when the commissioners took an in-depth look at details in the Watershed Ordinance after two Raleigh consultants (who represent a large development corporation in Chatham County) requested the elimination of required buffers around headwaters classified as “seeps,” “springs,” and “ephemeral streams.”

A review of Environmental Review Board minutes from the spring and summer of 2007 shows that there was much studied consideration of the definition of ephemeral streams and whether to include the terms seeps and springs in the ordinance. The ERB research included consultations with experts, public input, field work, review of scientific literature, and input from state and county environmental staff. At that time, the ERB agreed that current knowledge shows that even small streams play an important role in the overall quality of larger river systems, and should be protected. They also determined that the terms seeps, springs, and ephemeral streams refer to distinct characteristics of headwater types, and that all three formations should be cited and protected.

But the terminology is confusing for our current county administrators. Commissioner Bock insists that he is not trying to lessen stream protections; he simply does not want to require a protective buffer unnecessarily, and he is not convinced that ephemerals qualify as streams. Commissioner Petty seems to be of the opinion that the current impaired status of our rivers and Jordan Lake is a subjective classification, not a factual assessment, and he is concerned about protecting “wet spots in the ground.” Both he and Commissioner Stewart appeared to doubt the widely accepted criteria used by scientists (and county staff) to define wetlands.

County environmental staff Dan LaMontagne and Chris Hopper both maintained that the concerns raised by the developer’s consultants at the October 17th work session had little merit. They stated that the Watershed Ordinance does not protect “just wet spots on the ground” and that significant seeps and springs constitute wetlands and streams that should be protected. However, they concede that the inclusion of the words seeps and springs in the ordinance could be seen as redundant and may cause confusion. Bock agrees that the terms are confusing, and his solution is to eliminate the protection of ephemeral streams entirely. He is indignant that the Chatham Watershed Ordinance prescribes a higher standard of water protection than the Jordan Lake Rules. Petty and Stewart don’t understand the value of protecting headwaters because they insist that pollution problems originate upstream in other counties, and display complete lack of understanding of the important drainage function of ephemeral streams.

The discussion ended with Bock asking staff to consider removing references to seeps and springs from the Watershed Ordinance. He also requested that staff find a clear definition of ephemeral steams. (Currently, the county uses the NC Division of Water Quality scoring methodology to define and classify ephemeral streams.) 

Presently, North Carolina does not score ephemerals, but is under increasing pressure to do so. Nevertheless, it is wholly within Chatham’s rights to protect our headwaters (and groundwaters) at a standard higher than the state’s default protections, which were crafted to serve diverse communities.

Chatham has been proactive and thorough in creating protections for headwaters, with special consideration for the Jordan Lake watershed. Let’s hope that the confusion clears for this BoC, and that they uphold protections of these valuable water resources.

Back to top