Connection Article on Commissioner/Real Estate Issue

Here's a pretty straightforward article on the debate regarding the issue over restoring the Real Estate Assessment function back to to the Commissioner of Revenue's office. The issue will be on the September 22 Council meeting agenda. Hope to see you there. The meeting starts at 7 p.m. in City Hall. You can also register your support by sending an email to Mayor&Council@fairfaxva.gov.

Council Faces Tough Choice
Three council members walk out of the Sept. 8 meeting when Dan Drummond introduces controversial motion.

By Justin Fanizzi
Wednesday, September 16, 2009

A long-standing divide between city officials concerning real estate assessments came to a head at Sept. 8 City Council meeting, culminating with three board members walking out of the proceedings.

The debate, spawned by discussions to turn over the city’s real estate assessment function from the City Manager’s office to the Commissioner of Revenue, had lasted for several months prior to the meeting. However, when Councilman Dan Drummond introduced a motion pertaining to the matter during the comments section of the meeting, Councilman Gary Rasmussen cited a violation of parliamentary procedure, and along with two other council members, walked out of the meeting.

"This is a very controversial issue that has been discussed at least twice previously," said Rasmussen. "This is a topic that has equally divided the council."

The controversial topic is the decision lying ahead of the city council to transfer the authority of real estate assessment from the city’s real estate department, which is controlled by the finance department, which in turn answers to the city manager. According to Mayor Robert Lederer, the topic was first broached at a public work session on May 12, and was further discussed at the council’s July 26 public work session.

Drummond raised the issue during the comments portion of the meeting, where he distributed a copy of his proposed motion to his fellow council members. However, before any discussion could take place, Rasmussen called a "point of order," contending that the motion should have been introduced as a consent agenda item or as an item slated for a public hearing. Rasmussen encouraged any council members who agreed with him to walk out, and Joan Cross and David Meyer followed. The move, in effect, eliminated the council’s quorum, and forced them to adjourn their meeting.

"I felt that it wasn’t right to [introduce the motion this way] without it being on the public agenda," Rasmussen said. "So, not knowing if there were enough votes to defer [judgment], I did this."

THOUGH RASMUSSEN did not want a decision to be made on the motion, Drummond contended that he was only introducing the fact that he would like to add the motion to the Sept. 22 meeting’s agenda. Drummond said that he had no intention of calling a vote on the motion, and said that introducing the motion in the comments section of the meeting follows the precedent that the council had set on previous matters.

"The motion I was going to make was to get [the motion] on the agenda to have a public meeting," Drummond said. "We would not have voted on it that night."

Drummond, along with fellow supporters of the transfer of the assessment function, said that the purpose of the transfer would be to restore the direction of the original city charter. According to Commissioner of Revenue Page Johnson, when the city was founded, the charter called for the Commissioner of Revenue to handle real estate assessment activities. However, in 1965, when the city was still on a four-year assessment cycle, then-Commissioner Frank Carter informed the city council that he did not have the time nor the resources to do a full assessment every four years. At his behest, the authority to assess real estate values was relinquished, and the council created the real estate department under the city manager’s umbrella to handle the task.

Johnson also said that in 1974, then-Commissioner Hal Thomas requested that the function be given back to the Commissioner’s office, but the council said no. If Drummond’s motion passes, then the original system will be back in place, where the Commissioner of Revenue handled all assessments, the council set the tax rate, and the treasurer collected the revenue.

Drummond said that the purpose of restoring the original system was to save money, as he felt that the Commissioner’s office could handle the task by itself, as it already handles 40 percent of the city’s revenue. In addition, Drummond said that it is possible that since the Commissioner of Revenue is deemed a constitutional officer by the state, then the city could receive more funding for the position.

"I got on the council in July 2008, and we were facing a fairly tight budget," Drummond said. "Without knowing the history of the situation, I came to the conclusion that we may be able to save money by the consolidation of the function."

ON THE OTHER HAND, Rasmussen and others who do not favor the transfer claim that the system is not broken, and therefore, there is no need to fix it. Rasmussen and his supporters said that since the powers were transferred in 1965, the city has built an effective, efficient assessment staff and that taking the position away would only endanger the process.

"Our real estate assessor has a well-documented record of high performance," said City Manager Bob Sisson. "There is nothing broken that needs to be fixed."

Both Drummond and Rasmussen have support from elected officials from all across the spectrum. Johnson said that he favors the transfer not only because it was the way the city was chartered, but also because he believes that it will create a system of checks and balances within the city government. Johnson said that currently, since the city assessor works for the city manager, who in turn works for the city council, in effect, the entirety of the city’s assessment functions are controlled by one body. Therefore, passing the motion, he said, would restore the separation of powers.

"My premise for doing this is that it restores the fundamental system of checks and balances in the city," Johnson said. "No one entity would have control over the taxation of the community."

THOUGH THE MOTION’S opponents agree that it would bring back the separation of powers, they contend that passing the motion could lead to further problems. According to a memorandum written July 7 and sent to the city council and City Manager Bob Sisson, City Attorney Brian Lubkeman said that transferring the function could be risky because the city council would be unable to appoint or remove an assessor nor any people under his control without the Commissioner’s consent, and that there is no requirement for the Commissioner to allow a council review of any information that the office collected.

Though a long-awaited answer to the issue will come Sept. 22, for now, Lederer is not taking any sides on the issue, but is concerned instead over the tactics employed by Rasmussen, Cross and Meyer. Lederer said that healthy debate on the issue is needed, and refusing to discuss it can only be a detriment to a good decision.

"This is an issue to discuss and debate," Lederer said. "I could argue both sides, but if a minority takes it into their hands to walk out because they realize they are not in the majority, then government will be paralyzed."