Although there are no deaths to avenge in this story, it can be a tragedy to lower a business personal assessment when it is not warranted. Reducing a value, is a de facto exemption. It is an expense to the county. Accounts (parcels) with the highest value in local governments are quite often business personal property accounts. When a BPP assessment is reduced without proper reason, it can create de facto classifications. This means your largest taxpayers could be assessed at a lower assessment ratio than the smallest residential taxpayers. That doesn’t sit well with me. There are certainly many variables to consider when faced with a request to lower an assessed value. Read on for this 5 act, I mean 5 question, blog post.
Page 8 of 9
The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued GASB Statement No. 84, Fiduciary Activities the last week in January 2017. Obviously, this is breaking news – stop the presses! The standard is the culmination of a long-term, wide-ranging project to address accounting and financial reporting for the following:
- Pension plan assets that are entrusted (GASB Statement No. 67 and
- Pension plan assets that are not entrusted (GASB Statement No. 73)
- Other postemployment plans (OPEB) assets that are either entrusted or not entrusted (GASB Statement No. 74 and GASB Statement No. 75)
With GASB Statement No. 84, the GASB provides definitive guidance on how all fiduciary activities of a governmental entity should be reported. It is now definitive that assets that are associated with a fiduciary activity and are legally entrusted should be reported in one of three specific fiduciary fund types. Those assets that are not legally entrusted but still meet the definition of a fiduciary activity are to be reported in a separate fiduciary fund type. This does clear some inconsistencies with fiduciary fund reporting currently where entrusted and non-entrusted assets may be reported in the same fund type (although many of us probably never lost much sleep over it).
There is always room on the wall for a new shiny credential and on your resume for that matter.
The mission of the North Carolina Local Government Budget Association (NCLGBA) is to promote the budgeting profession through education, networking, and advocacy. As a strategy to promote the educational component of this mission, the NCLGBA created a certification program in July 2008 for members of the association to become Certified Budget & Evaluation Officers. Individuals seeking to become a Certified Budget & Evaluation Officer must possess a certain level of professional experience, must take four courses, and must pass three exams. I am writing this blog to respond to some of the most common questions associated with the certification, with the goal of promoting the certification program among budget and evaluation professionals.
In m
y last blog I talked about the limitations that we all have on decision making and how we satisfice and make decisions based on incomplete information. That is all true, but it does not mean that we should not strive to have a more robust understanding of the landscape we are working in. To that end, I am going to be devoting some of my blogs to topics that are both interesting and important to understand for those working in government, especially those in budget and finance positions. This week: tax incidence!
Last month, I started the discussion with Part 1 of this topic. Near the conclusion of Part 1, I hoped for some questions and what-ifs. I got ‘em, and I hope this month’s post will provide some insight.
Everyone is well aware, or should be, that the cost of retiring is escalating almost by the minute. There are financial advisors and estate planners who solely focus on enabling us to have a shot at a decent retirement, relatively free of financial concern. Employers in both the public and private sectors are recognizing mammoth liabilities for the pension resources they are holding in trust for their employees. But, are employees all that are going to retire from a state or local government? Is that the only long-term cost that a governmental entity is going to be liable for (above and beyond normal indebtedness)? The answer is obviously no or I would not be writing this post.
In a previous post, I mentioned objective and subjective data along with the NCDOR’s new reappraisal standards. That information will be helpful when reading this post. The new reappraisal standards have been in development for over two years and have involved committees with members from the NCDOR, UNC School of Government, and NCAAO. In August, the NCDOR emailed a draft of those standards to all assessors for review and comment. Some comments from local tax officials have been related to the need for additional staff in order to meet the new standards. Chapter 5 of Assessment Administration. Chicago, IL: IAAO, 2003 is a well written chapter detailing the management tasks needed for an assessment office to meet requirements and goals. This post focuses on how planning well includes an effective justification of the assessor’s need for staff and resources. Understand first that we all engage in planning almost every day. It’s either done formally or informally. So if we’re going to plan anyway, we should plan well and be exposed to the best practices. Regarding planning, Albert Einstein is rumored to have said, “If I had 20 days to solve a problem, I would take 19 days to define it.” Our objective in this post is really to turn staff and resource concerns into math problems, without requiring Albert Einstein’s help for the solution.
These new reappraisal standards, if followed, will alter your goals and plan objectives. For example, checking and updating property characteristics data at a designated level of accuracy is an example of a plan objective tied to the goal of meeting the NCDOR reappraisal standards. That objective requires specific activities. Activities require people and resources. We hope all local tax officials desire to do quality appraisal and reappraisal work for the public they serve. Our taxpayers deserve competency, fairness, and equity. No doubt, high standards are needed and the NCDOR should be applauded for issuing them. NCGS 105-273(10a) defines a local tax official as including a member of a county board of commissioners. And while all local tax officials most likely desire to do a good job and meet standards, raising standards undoubtedly can require more staff or other resources, which in turn requires adequate funding.
“[T]he budget becomes an expression of public policy in terms of the resources a government is willing to allocate for equitable property taxation. The budget is also a reflection of how much political support exists for accurate and equitable assessments. Legal and administrative responsibilities cannot be met if resources are inadequate.” Assessment Administration, 119.
In my previous post, Are You Certifiable?, I reviewed the North Carolina Finance Officers’ Certification program, sponsored by the North Carolina Government Finance Officers Association (NCGFOA). As was probably clear in the post, the process is challenging but certainly doable, and those that become certified finance officers in North Carolina should definitely be proud of their achievement. But after the months (or years) of classes, studying, and testing, what happens after the success? Is the certification permanent (just like an appointment on the United States Supreme Court)? Does it expire? DO I HAVE TO TAKE THE TESTS AGAIN?? This blogpost will summarize the “post-certification” years and how certified finance officers must continue maintaining the high standards that got you where you are in the first place.
So I joke that when I get calls it is almost always someone wanting to see what the law says about the implementation of some revenue related issue. To which I respond you need to talk to Chris, Kara, or Frayda. The legality of government’s actions and the scope of the law are critical, but that is not what I am going to be able to help you with. Continue reading
This is the exact question that I was asked recently.
“Are all North Carolina, county, ad valorem, real estate appraisers subject to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP)?”
This could be a very short blog post. The answer to the question is, “no”. But a different question, “Should all North Carolina county ad valorem appraisers comply with USPAP?” leads to a more in depth discussion. The answer to that question is, “yes”. I believe if you act as an appraiser, you should comply with USPAP.
© 2025 Copyright,
The University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑