CORDRY-SWEETWATER — Cordry-Sweetwater residents will notice an additional number on their tax bills next year after the conservancy district’s board of directors voted to implement a $269 assessment starting next year to help cover works of improvement.

The assessment will be paid per freeholder, or lot owner, and will also help to reduce the ad valorem tax the district’s residents pay, explained Area 6 board representative Pat Sherman at the board’s Oct. 20 meeting.

The sum of the assessment fees paid, which the board estimated to be around $425,000, will be taken off the district’s total budget.

That budget is funded by the ad valorem taxes collected from residents. The assessment money would fund the maintenance and operation of the district’s works of improvement, which include roads, security, and taking care of the lakes and nature and recreation areas.

The board also approved the 2021 budget at the Oct. 20 meeting, which will be $1,795,889.

Why do this?

Currently, taxes in the district are collected ad valorem, where the budget is divided among parcels as a ratio of the value of one parcel versus the value of the total of all parcels. On Aug. 18, the board approved the first reading of a resolution to change the way it collects the conservancy district’s assessment to an equal assessment.

Going forward, it will not be based on the value of each parcel, but will be one flat rate no matter how much each property is worth.

Under an equal assessment, the budget is divided equally by the total parcels in the district, so the district divided 90 percent of their budget among actual freeholders to come up with the estimate that the district originally announced, which was $972.

After hearing from around 150 residents at the Sept. 15 board meeting who were upset about the potential of paying $972 per lot they own, the board announced at a special meeting on Sept. 24 they would not charge more than $275 per freeholder, and not per individual lots, as long as the lots were owned by the same person.

“Most of the folks we talked to thought that ($275) would be a good place to start. Others we talked to, we understood from conversation, that this is not something we will do in a year. We have to bring this in over several years. That’s how the finance committee was born,” Sherman said in October.

At the Oct. 20 meeting, board attorney Roger Young said the resolution authorizing the board to move forward with the assessment was approved as part of the budget on Sept. 15 following a public hearing that lasted over an hour. More than 150 property owners attended.

The resolution the board approved on Oct. 20 codified $269 as the amount that was to be charged to each freeholder as part of the assessment that will be paid in two installments, with May and November tax collections next year.

Area 4 board representative Josh Edwards was the only member to vote against the resolution establishing the $269 assessment. He said he wanted to hold off to give the finance committee time to form and provide their input.

“I haven’t heard anyone scoffing at the amount. My theory is I know we have to start someplace, sometime. I know we haven’t done this for 59 years. I don’t know what another year will be to put this off to follow the process,” Edwards said before a vote was taken.

At the Sept. 24 meeting, the board stated they wanted to establish a finance committee with members representing on-water, off-water, buildable and non-buildable lots, along with two members from the board in non-voting roles who can offer input on such matters like the assessment.

“We’re the ones who said ‘Hey, we’re going to do this. We’re going to put this committee down, however, here is the first price without any input.’ That’s a problem,” Edwards said.

He added that he believed the board was “putting the cart in front of the horse” by implementing the assessment with the 2021 budget. Residents at the meeting applauded.

Around 30 residents attended the Oct. 20 meeting in person, with another 82 attending virtually via Zoom.

A recommendation to form a financial committee was not formally made at the Oct. 20 meeting, but board members said they wanted resumes from those interested in serving.

“They will help us determine the fair way for all of us to pay whatever share that we need to pay down here to fund our district expenses,” Sherman said.

“I understand that some folks do not use the lake. Let’s determine what that value is. The finance committee will be something that we need to have people that are forward-thinking, that understand the issues we have within the district, and give the board suggestions on how we go about collecting the revenues that we all need to run this district.”

The board also wants to create an advocacy committee to “have an honest and truthful dialogue with Brown County to determine why we can’t have any reimbursement” from property taxes or road taxes collected in the district, Sherman said.

He added that the assessed value in the district is over $400 million, which is close to one-third of the assessed value for the entire county.

“I am hopeful this group can try to have some of the money we’re paying to Brown County come back to our district,” he said.

Why now?

At board meetings, it has been explained that the reasoning for the assessment was due to a disparity in the collection process which has become worse over the past few years due to inconsistent assessed values. This means freeholders pay from about $20 a year to well over $4,000 a year.

“As we presumed the biggest majority of the people that are affected in this district are anyone that has a house that is assessed between $200,001 and $500,000. (That) represents 862 freeholds. Those folks that are in that pay 71 percent of the costs associated with this district,” Sherman said in October.

“There are 90 that are above $500,000 (and) pay about 13 percent on what the cost of this district is. Anyone that is below $200,000, which is a little over 1,000 freeholds, pay 16 percent of the cost of our district.”

Sometimes there are disparities between assessed value and fair market value.

Sherman said there was an instance where a home on Cordry Lake that was assessed at $223,000 sold for over $700,000.

Sherman added that the board is trying to make the way money is collected for the district fair.

When asked if, under the current system, the budget is being met, Sherman said it was.

“You yourself said, you see this as a three- or four-year process,” one property owner asked. “Why are you not waiting those three or four years, put the finance together, put the community group to work with Brown County together, micromanage every aspect of the budget over those three or four years while the budget is being met under the current system, and then when everything is done and finalized, then kick in the 2020-4 (the assessment)?”

Later in the meeting, he told the board that people who buy homes in the district have an idea on what they will pay for taxes and special assessment, so they should have been aware they’d have higher tax bills.

“You bought that house, you walked in there knowing that, and other people live in a lesser house, and that’s fine,” he said.

Area 5 board representative Jay Nogan said the board “had to pull the Band-Aid off the wound to get the conversation started” and that doing so resulted in more residents attending board meetings in the last couple of months.

Nogan added that the board threw out the original $972 rate as a way to get reaction and input from residents.

“It was not a well-thought-out plan, I will not deny that. It was communicated poorly. But we got civic action out of it,” he said.