Lauderdale County Tax Assessor Jimmy Slay sat down last week with The Meridian Star’s Editorial Board to discuss real property appraisals and his decision change the minimum agricultural use value minimum from 20 acres to 5 acres — a move that the Lauderdale County Board of Supervisors revoked during its July 17 meeting.

Here are excerpts from that interview.



The Meridian Star: The Lauderdale County Board of Supervisors last week revoked a decision you had made to grant agricultural use to residents with more than 5 acres of property. What avenues, if any, are you taking to address their decision?

Jimmy Slay: I sent out letters (Wednesday) to the same residents that had received the original letter in June saying I had granted them agricultural use value.

Residents can appeal the board’s decision in writing, submitted to the chancery clerk’s office, before 5 p.m. on Aug. 9. Then, on 9 a.m. on Aug. 10, the board will start hearing those appeals. The process is out of my hands at this point.



The Star: What is the rest of the state doing in terms of granting agricultural use to property owners?

Slay: All the counties I investigated, and I didn’t look at all 82, have a certain level where any acreage over that level is automatically given agricultural use value without inspecting it or without any type of proof that they have it. In some counties, it’s 1 acre, in some it’s 3, or 5 or 10. There are a few that are 20.



The Star: Is it set up that way because at any time you could choose to use your land for agricultural use?

Slay: I don’t know if it’s set up that way, but I know it works that way. Why it was set up that way, I don’t know, but I know that’s the way it has been in the past.



The Star: Was it the other counties having a lower acreage that made you want to adjust it for Lauderdale County?

Slay: It was because I felt like the taxpayers of Lauderdale County deserve the same benefits other counties in Mississippi were receiving.

I personally think it is unfair for a person to have 19 acres in Lauderdale County and he can’t get agricultural use value on it when a guy in another county is getting agricultural use with no proof required.



The Star: But they could come and apply if they had 19 acres or less?

Slay: They could, but they had to come into our office and provide us with some information that would say that. That puts the burden on the taxpayer again because so many people were not aware of that.

I hope that what we’ve done and the activity around this will enlighten some people and now they will know they can do this.



The Star: What about the decision of the supervisors to revoke a decision you made. Can they do that?

Slay: Under Section 27-35-87 of Mississippi State Code, it’s the duty and responsibility of the Board of Supervisors in equalization to carefully examine the rolls. It says “the board shall examine the land rolls and see that it embraces all land in the county.”

And they are the final authority when it comes to value. They have the authority to change any value on that roll. They can complain about a hotel or a mall or anything like that, but that value has been on there for a number of years and they have approved it every single year and that’s what their job is as the board of supervisors.

I really don’t know the answer to your question. I do know that when I did it and when we had a meeting, it was stated that there is an attorney general’s opinion out there that said I had the right to do this. If their right supersedes mine or my right supersedes their’s, I don’t know.



The Star: Are you seeking an attorney general’s opinion about this?

Slay: I am considering a number of options.



The Star: How much revenue would the county have lost had they left your action in place?

Slay: Based on my action, had it been left in place, the revenue lost to the county in tax dollars would have been between $148,860 and $186,075. I couldn’t be exact because I didn’t have time to extract each one of those and make a calculation on it.



The Star: Have you heard a lot from the residents who got those letters about the agricultural use?

Slay: I have had a tremendous positive response from people who got letters and from people who did not get letters. I’ve had people walk up to me and say they want to shake my hand. I’ve had people call me and congratulate me. I have had one negative response.



The Star: You supplied a fact sheet to the board after they had revoked your action. Is that right?

Slay: When the board and I talked on July 13, they asked me for some information and I put it together as quickly as I possibly could. They met July 17 in a session that a lot of people didn’t know about at 3 p.m. to equalize the rolls.

At that meeting, the very last item of business was to revoke my decision to do this. At that point in time, I didn’t have the information to give them. But at the 5 p.m. board meeting, I presented them with the fact sheet.



The Star: Do you feel like they overreacted by doing this before you were able to present them with the information they had asked for?

Slay: I don’t know, I can’t speak for them. I can just say I wish they had waited and gotten the information I had for them before they made the decision.



The Star: Did you have in mind any way to replace the $148,860 and $186,075 that would be lost in tax revenue due to lowering the agricultural use acreage?

Slay: Well, that’s not my job. My job is to appraise property for tax purposes. The board has budgeting authority. They are the ones that can raise taxes, lower taxes, raise spending or cut spending. But if you look at the fact sheet carefully, you will see that the values in Lauderdale County went up over $19 million.

I also pointed out where we lost value and why we lost value. The top three items are going to generate $8.5 million. Based on my estimate of tax revenue, that $148,860 to $186,075 could have been made up in the overage or they could have cut that much from the top figure.

If they will let me, I will look at their budget and show them where they can cut back enough to fund that and give the taxpayers a break.



The Star: Is it fair to say that you did at least consider how it could be made up?

Slay: I understood the situation, but again, I don’t have any budgeting authority.



The Star: Some supervisors have complained that several Meridian properties, including the Union Hotel and Bonita Lakes Mall, are not appraised correctly, what is your response to that?

Slay: That’s a good question. If they feel that way and had documentation to show that then they should have, in their position as the Board of Equalization, made that change to the roll at that point in time. They have the authority to do that.

Let’s take the hotel, it is for sale for something like $600,000 and it is appraised in around $70,000. But has it sold yet? Do we value something because somebody asks that price for it? I don’t think so.

The fact is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the board approved that value in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and now, in 2006. They reapproved it on (July 17). They accepted the rolls as they were.

But we do make mistakes in value. We make corrections all the time and we look at properties. We have forms that we developed in my office that are called a request for review. Usually, people that come in are requesting a review so their property values will be lowered. We don’t have many that come in that want their property values raised, but sometimes we do.

The way the state system works is that every four years, you do a reappraisal, and it is at that point in time that you readjust all values all over the county so that it will be equitable. You don’t pick one property out and adjust the value, you do it equitably.

In the past, the board had to reserve 1 mill to provide for reappraisal services in the county. They changed that a number of years ago, and they can take that 1 mill and they can spend it any way they want to. They don’t have to keep it for reappraisal. If that law was still in effect, for the 2008 reappraisal, I would have had approximately $2.5 million to do reappraisal work. The contract for the reappraisal work was a little over $1 million.

In Lauderdale County, 1 mill generates over $400,000.



The Star: What would the benefit be to the county for the Union Hotel and the mall to be appraised higher?

Slay: It would give them more money to spend in tax revenue. Every time they point out the mall needs to be valued higher, there is one thing they want — more tax dollars. When they say the Union Hotel should be valued higher, there is one thing they want — more tax dollars. When they say it has to be 20 acres of land or more, it’s because they want more tax dollars.

The mall in Hattiesburg, for example, is appraised for more because it is in Hattiesburg and the sales figures are higher than those of our mall. All of those things are factors.

Appraisers put economic obsolescence on the mall here because it was not producing what they thought it would produce. That obsolescence is still on there, but it’s possible that it will come off in 2008 depending on what the appraiser determines.





TAX ASSESSOR’S PRESENTATION



Jimmy Slay, Lauderdale County tax assessor, presented these facts to the Lauderdale County Board of Supervisors last week on real property values and the amount of lost tax revenue his decision to change Ag Use minimum from 20 acres to 5 acres would cause.



Estimated reduction in tax revenue due to changing Ag Use minimum from 20 acres to 5 acres: $148,860 to $186,075

Real property values rose $5,035,770 in 2006

Personal property values rose $14,120181 in 2006

Loss in value due to Senate Bill 3100: $3,138,075

Parcels that lost value due to Hurricane Katrina: 300

Value lost due to change in Mississippi State Tax Commission Timber Use Values: $2,467,050