[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6574882,"mediaKeyId","3173263-5e562b432eb7a09cf87658e3f1dfdb1d","parentId",3173263,"title","Board adopts remote participation policy, denies cumulative extra hearing time for Miller","audioSeconds",221,"startMs",101000,"endMs",322000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3173263-5e562b432eb7a09cf87658e3f1dfdb1d&start=101&end=322","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3173263-5e562b432eb7a09cf87658e3f1dfdb1d/thumbnail_101000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6574882/Albemarle-County/Virginia/Board-adopts-remote-participation-policy-denies-cumulative-extra-hearing-time-for-Miller","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6574882-c29d5e2aec58ae6d5fdc1a0330844aae/orig.mp4?Expires=1770930783&Signature=dkw8rmPTU-lTxex84Tgar63fgXc9Rk979TwDYSTarXnfnrg3iqdFxT8trOdfUkBzmIgCvXStYhFqJWWf82HuxMGLAj20xrn5qT-krxdcm6LwdoyRFWAfplBYo-FBKI8l8zivAQbUfHiw3xnk4zIWx6Lhxyqiq~VpYs5kdbDW6QQxmzH-ZbxL~977et6kbqzc5J2K4TMcofN5qJ3hWSpmhUX6ya0FQOyz1FsgaKVKTaCPwkDgwKoUJaeFSikXvxngY-VaiOdfj5RKmfUkjFJ490XMUg0PbJ9z66pNLFJ4~t6TVXglNXmq3aG4Q2q-plISaXoEYE3U93YWwWzzaTUIYQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Albemarle County","date","2025-05-01T20:04:04.71Z","article","Albemarle County’s Board of Equalization on May 1, 2025, unanimously adopted a draft remote participation policy and separately denied a request from Lawrence Miller for cumulative extra hearing time for three parcels; the board allowed Miller to combine his allotted presentation time so he may present all three appeals in a single 30‑minute block.

The remote participation policy decision followed questions from board members about limits on remote participation and whether vacation or being out of the country would be acceptable justifications. Board members were told the policy requires a physical quorum to be present; remote participation is allowed only if a quorum is present in person. County staff and the county attorney advised that county equipment and county accounts automatically cannot be used while outside the country; therefore the policy distinguishes between in‑country and out‑of‑country participation largely because of technical and equipment‑access constraints.

Board members asked whether being on vacation would qualify for remote participation; staff replied that vacation alone is not sufficient justification under the draft policy. The county attorney’s guidance was described as allowing out‑of‑country participation provided the member does not use county equipment or accounts; the board discussed whether to remove an out‑of‑country clause but ultimately voted to adopt the draft as presented.

On a separate matter, the board considered a request from Lawrence Miller for additional cumulative time across appeals for three parcels. Board members said they saw the three appeals as sufficiently similar that Miller could present them together; a motion denied his request for cumulative extra time but gave him the option to conjoin the presentations into a single 30‑minute slot. That motion passed unanimously.

Both actions were recorded as unanimous votes and will be reflected in the board’s rules and hearing scheduling practice going forward.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Albemarle Board of Equalization Meeting, 5/1/25","oneSentenceSummary","Albemarle County’s Board of Equalization unanimously adopted a draft remote participation policy and denied Lawrence Miller’s request for cumulative extra hearing time, allowing him instead to combine his allotted time across three parcels into a single 30‑minute presentation.","taxTitle","Albemarle County, Virginia","taxId",4417,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6574886,"Board affirms $888,100 assessment for Burgoyne property after appeal",4870,490000,5360000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3173263-5e562b432eb7a09cf87658e3f1dfdb1d&start=490&end=5360","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3173263-5e562b432eb7a09cf87658e3f1dfdb1d/thumbnail_490000.jpg","/articles/6574886/Albemarle-County/Virginia/Board-affirms-888100-assessment-for-Burgoyne-property-after-appeal","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6574886-0300281f901930041cad7c939e5fcce0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770930783&Signature=FCV33SPDn7TiI~AXFkOHhnfV8~EINfw0gqHRGm90gCdFIvrLnQA6UgiSOkUX-EP1dDEIZzikMSkDFf4bqGm8myPr3h7pDbkv8VTurw-pCR~o-0rnlpJRZoioSUJDIpeYN5oRCtvdGyyNiqBzWKEIy8ojvBAq3gUognUaGOzbhaTveUUrF5VSTJ~~4ZygMr2L5LTgG4BqMEueN66r9a4Q3oRr-2B0H~fbNZvRGK9EXoCbAak~482ANMa~QY9fxN3Dqv~gGRrXKXGukkc6FFoHVR7ZkEae3J7MYjbmuhVtkVq-sspoooEnX4WHGJBPzf7G6IXRh1ArB6Y25uZfEWdNMw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Albemarle County Board of Equalization on May 1, 2025, unanimously affirmed the assessor’s $888,100 assessment for the property owned by Walter and Patricia Burgoyne, denying the owners’ request to reduce the assessment to $794,200.

The board heard the Burgoynes’ arguments that the assessor’s value exceeded fair market value, citing the property’s $785,000 sale price, a set of comparable sales, and automated estimates from online sites. The owners also argued there were inequities among neighborhood assessments and raised concerns about the assessor’s compliance with state regulation and IAAO ratio‑study standards.

Assessor’s office staff responded that the county uses a mass‑appraisal model calibrated to neighborhood sales, noted that the assessor’s office provided one‑story comparables as a courtesy to match the owner’s evidence, and said a staff member had contacted a representative at the listing agent’s office (not necessarily the listing agent herself) to learn more about the sale. Assessor staff explained that mass appraisal produces a range of assessment‑to‑sale ratios and that the assessor’s model and chosen comparables supported the assessed value.

During the hearing the Burgoynes disputed whether assessor staff had actually spoken to the listing agent; assessor staff said a representative in the listing agent’s office provided the information that was recorded. The owners also alleged the assessor’s office had not completed required on‑site reviews and ratio studies; assessor staff said they perform mass appraisal processes and provided the neighborhood sales used in their model.

Board members questioned details of the comparable sales, basement finish treatment in the model, and the short time the property spent on the market (the listing went from active to pending in four days). After discussion the board concluded the owners had not met the burden of proof to overturn the assessor’s valuation and moved to affirm the assessment. The motion to affirm passed unanimously.

The board recorded land value at $202,000 and improvements at $686,100 (total $888,100). The appeal record includes the owner’s submission, the assessor’s packet, and the hearing testimony.","The Albemarle County Board of Equalization unanimously affirmed the assessor’s $888,100 valuation for Walter and Patricia Burgoyne’s property on May 1, 2025, rejecting the owners’ requested reduction to $794,200.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6574891,"Board of Equalization lowers McDermott home assessment to $963,400",2447,2503000,4950000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3173263-5e562b432eb7a09cf87658e3f1dfdb1d&start=2503&end=4950","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3173263-5e562b432eb7a09cf87658e3f1dfdb1d/thumbnail_2503000.jpg","/articles/6574891/Albemarle-County/Virginia/Board-of-Equalization-lowers-McDermott-home-assessment-to-963400","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6574891-e7942b94a25a56fb88fa06df405c2687/orig.mp4?Expires=1770930783&Signature=PCZpxpq2cLuEu-56IUy3M3YD7zuwhqyKxoo-fOfaP8zfOiYxnNM9Ptv20vaQYSOQBtArTcNsUSkFtU8LUndrEhtD2ygBW9kPChprBARJp9hES2hBScjkHj7hEq4dOL3wlHK0UmMfFuDnbmT-qOJ4z95oEaZBzWZlQ8JevIcu3EltLxYguGI3CQtuKJSYi0UKoGdoKctKebykDRh6PCcUjvHKpjbv~QspGd9HurZSzw9bvjeEdhAtDCSZT6aHke2q-yLQJjXHKIVHYuMGv3i3koj5OwMWJCk9c1o95ele0QZffub792h6WLQiby3f29i8IP6GeDmAOY5GVkna~hBAAw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Albemarle County’s Board of Equalization on May 1, 2025, voted unanimously to reduce the assessed value of Michael and Katina McDermott’s home to $963,400, after the assessor’s office corrected property-data items and the board considered evidence about recent renovations and neighborhood sales.

The decision matters because it changes the McDermotts’ 2025 assessment, which affects the tax bill that will be based on Albemarle County’s January 1 valuation. The board said the assessor’s final, adjusted figure best reflected fair market value after the county removed a $3,500 data entry for a whirlpool the owners said is not present.

McDermott told the board he and his wife bought the house on Oct. 3, 2022, and argued that the assessor’s model overstated value compared with sales in the Still Meadow neighborhood and with neighborhood median figures. He said his review of neighborhood sales and year‑over‑year median changes produced a lower estimate of fair market value.

Representatives from the assessor’s office explained their mass‑appraisal process, noted the house had been renovated, and described adjustments they made after a site visit. The assessor’s written review showed an initial 2025 value that was later reduced when staff confirmed renovations and removed the whirlpool item. Danielle Stein of the assessor’s office performed the on‑site review; Louis Herndon and “Mister Lynch” (assessor staff) answered board questions about the modeling and data corrections.

During deliberations board members said the assessor’s office had already reduced the appraisal after the site visit and that removing the whirlpool entry brought the assessor’s valuation close to the range suggested by some comparative calculations. The board discussed condition categories (for example, the difference between “good” and “average” condition in the model) and how those condition ratings affect assessed value.

Board members ultimately moved to set the assessment at $963,400 (the assessor’s adjusted figure after removing the whirlpool entry). A motion to set that number passed unanimously.

The board also clarified that the change applied to the improvements (the structure) rather than the land value. The McDermotts’ appeals packet and the assessor’s revised report remain part of the public record for this matter.","The Albemarle County Board of Equalization voted unanimously on May 1, 2025, to reduce the assessed value of Michael and Katina McDermott’s home to $963,400 after the assessor’s office adjusted the appraisal and the board resolved a disputed listing-item (a hot tub) on the property record.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board adopts remote participation policy, denies cumulative extra hearing time for Miller

Board affirms $888,100 assessment for Burgoyne property after appeal

Board of Equalization lowers McDermott home assessment to $963,400