Property value appeals less political with hearing officer

Better serving the public

Traditionally, Gunnison County property owners appealing the valuation of their properties have made their case before the County Board of Equalization (CBOE)—the county commissioners by a different name. But this year, the county tried something new: hiring an independent hearing officer to hear about 40 percent of the appeals. The goal was to take the politics out of the process, and the idea looks like it could be here to stay.

County assessor Kristy McFarland discussed the process with the commissioners at an October work session. Overall, she said, the new process worked.
“There were some members of the public … who were upset they got the hearing officer instead of you,” McFarland said, “I think that validates the whole point of taking out the political part of it. It’s evaluation, not a plea to you as neighbors and elected officials to reduce the value of their property.”
From a staff perspective, McFarland said, the hearing officer’s ability to explain more complex property valuations in layman’s terms was helpful, and the commissioners also did what she called a superb job. Of 487 appeals, 267 of which were from the Elevation Hotel, 33 went beyond the CBOE. Of those, 14 were heard by the hearing officer and 19 by the commissioners.
McFarland recommended that the county continue to split future CBOE hearings between the commissioners and an independent officer.
“You provide a lot of empathy toward the taxpayers. Regardless of what the outcome was, we made it clear that you were listening to them,” McFarland said.
Commissioner Hap Channell thanked McFarland for her feedback but questioned the consistency that elected officials bring to the hearings.
“As hard as a human being tries to be consistent, nevertheless you’re sitting across the table from friends in many instances, certainly acquaintances. That can be a positive because we do have some appropriate knowledge of those involved, or it can be a negative in the sense that it can be difficult to tell somebody you don’t have a leg to stand on,” Channell said.
Channell wondered if an independent hearing officer would be more likely to maintain objectivity and professionalism.
“I think so,” McFarland said, “The whole subjectivity gets pulled away because they’re neutral. They don’t know anyone in the valley.”
“We have worked very diligently to have more information,” said commissioner Paula Swenson, “but there were years when it was just, boom, here, get what you want.”
“The thing you have to realize, and I took it very seriously, is that you have to have a legal and legit reason to be able to downgrade…” added commissioner Phil Chamberland. “The only way I would consider that is to find a legitimate ranking that would justify the lowering, because the other side of the coin is that for every dollar you decrease this person’s value, you’re spreading that amount out over the rest of the county.”
According to county manager Matthew Birnie, the cost of hiring an independent hearing officer was just under $2,000: $1,200 for the officer’s time, $76.31 for food, $380 for a hotel and $313.58 for travel.
If this process were repeated, Birnie suggested, those costs would change with the number of appeals, and the officer would likely charge a higher fee to account for the additional time he spent writing up his recommendations. But overall, Birnie felt it was a reasonable cost and placed less burden on county staff, who set aside their regular job responsibilities to handle the hearings.
“It was much more efficient from an administrative perspective,” Birnie said.
County administrative assistant Bobbie Lucero confirmed that the hearing officer reduced her time away from her job from four days to an hour and a half.
“Well, I defer to my colleagues because I’m only going to be doing this one more time, but… I would be supportive of doing it all with the hearing officer. I don’t think splitting is a good idea—there’s too much of a potential for public comparisons,” Channell said.
“There were some people who said, ‘Well, how come I didn’t get to come in front of you?’” Swenson agreed.
“I think because of the time-freeing component, the objectivity and professionalism, the relative cost… We try to be good stewards of public funds, but in the big scheme of things, if we can serve the public better by spending a few thousand dollars it is an investment that better serves the public,” Channell added.
“From my perspective, especially if it’s a small year, we ought to do it one way or another and not split because of the whole equalization factor,” said Chamberland.
“We’re responsible for consistency and professionalism as much as we are our workload,” Channell added. “We’re not trying to sidestep workload—we all have plenty to do to earn our keep.”
“And things have changed over time. You have a lot more on your plate than 16 years ago. I think it’s certainly defensible,” McFarland said.
“It’s easily defensible,” Chamberland said. “If you look at other counties, [the use of independent hearing officers] is the trend and there must be a good reason for that.”
“What if next year we have a hearing officer do all of next year, which we have never done before, and see how that goes with our staff and with the public?” Swenson suggested.
“We can get a feel for what it costs at this volume,” Chamberland agreed.
“But we can still review next year, like we did this year,” Swenson said. “It would be another trial—we’re not saying we’re going to do this forever.”
The commissioners and county staff were all in favor of the idea, particularly given that next year is a non-appraisal year. They expect fewer appeals as a result, making it a good year to test a new approach.