CountyAssessmentUpdate:
WTAOpposes DOR proposal to Adopt County Wide Assessment
By Rick Stadelman
(from the January 2010 WTAmagazine)
On Friday, December 18, 2009, the Wisconsin Towns Association board of directors voted unanimously to oppose the Wisconsin Department of Revenue (DOR) proposal to create a county assessment of real and personal property system. The WTAboard did vote to work over the next year with other organizations such as the Wisconsin Association of Assessing Officers (WAAO); League of Wisconsin Municipalities to look at issues raised by the DOR.
First, the WTAboard of directors believes the creation of county assessment is taking away local control of towns, villages, and cities, which is a basic principle of local government. Local control has proven history of controlling costs and delivering services that the local electors desire. Moving the local assessment to a county bureaucracy also imposes greater burdens on individual property owners by forcing them to work with a county staff rather than locally elected or hired assessment officials. Board of review procedures will be moved from the local community to a county courthouse site.
Second, the costs of implementation of a county system will be far in excess of town, village, and city assessment for most communities. DOR has estimated that the costs of the county assessment system will be at least $25 per parcel or more. This is compared to many towns and villages that have less than $10 per parcel costs at the present time. Just spending more money does not mean that the assessments will be better.
Third, the DOR proposal provides that the increased costs to the county will be an exception to the county levy limits which will mean that the county property tax will be increased to implement this proposed change. Increasing property taxes for a new assessment system is not acceptable to most property owners at a time when property taxes continue to rise due to cuts in state aids to municipalities and counties and increasing school property taxes in most parts of the state.
Third, the shift to a county assessment system does not insure a better understanding of the property assessment system an argument made by the DOR. While the current system of local assessment and state equalization between municipalities may not be understood by many property owners, it is a system that is not necessarily better understood if assessment is done at the county level. In fact there still will be a need for state oversight of counties.
There are many more objections and concerns to the DOR proposal, as I noted in last month’s WTAmagazine. However, the WTAboard of directors believes that studying over the next year some of the issues raised by DOR with other interested stakeholders such as assessors and other municipal groups is appropriate. For example, the DOR argues that assessor certification requirements and performance standards should be increased. At the same time the DOR has never revoked or suspended any assessors in the past who have not performed to state standards. Setting realistic certification standards and performance standards can be done while retaining local assessment. There is no need to take away local control to achieve this goal.
DOR argues that “single value” assessment will be better understood by taxpayers and will eliminate the need for a state level equalization process. The question is should “single value” assessment berealistically implemented at the county level? What about the need for equalization between counties or at a minimum oversight by the state over county assessment? What protections will individual towns, villages, and cities have to protect their taxpayers from inequities between the various jurisdictions when assessment is handled at the county level? If single value assessment is of importance, why can’t it be implemented at the town, village, and city level?
DOR has argued that the current system is not always uniform between taxpayers. The DOR proposes that the county must perform physical inspections of all properties at least once in every five years. If more frequent revaluations (with actual inspections of all properties) is important, why can’t local assessors perform these revaluations? If the current state standards under Sec. 70.05 of Wis. Statutes are not ensuring uniformity why not tighten these standards under local assessment system? {Note Sec. 70.05 of Wis. Statutes requires that local assessments must have major classes within 10% of full value and each other major class at least once every four years, but then the state law does not truly enforce this requirement through state ordered reassessments until the eighth year.}
DOR has argued that local Boards of Review (BOR) have not been conducted according to state law. What errors have been made at local BOR that can’t be corrected by training, which is currently required for one member at once every two years? What insures that CountyBORwill be a better system? Would training of additional members of the local BOR address the concerns of DOR?
DOR has argued that use of automated collection and analysis of assessment data that is consistent with industry standards will improve efficiencies in assessment practices and provide more equitable assessments. Most assessors currently have automated (although different software) for making sales analysis. If the state believes that sales data analysis should be done more uniformly, why can’t the state set assessor practices and standards that meet minimum expectations? If software is available on the competitive market that meets these standards, why can’t local assessors make the decision as to what software they want to use rather than dictate one statewide system? If the state is proposing one uniform computer data base system for county assessment, are all counties prepared to handle the system?
There are other issues that our Association is willing to study over the next year to assure property owners that assessment practices across the state are equitable and efficient for all. However, we believe that if practices warrant change they can be implemented through local assessment rather than mandated county assessment. Again our Association proposes that all interested stakeholders be involved in this study rather than introducing a bill to force counties to implement the wish list of the DOR. Those most directly involved in the current system should have an opportunity to dialogue with the DOR on possible changes. While the DOR has held open town hall meetings in the last month on their proposal, there has been no indication from the DOR or the Secretary that anything less than county assessment is acceptable to the DOR.
The DOR proposal has been drafted as a bill draft and can be accessed by linking to the draft through our Association website (the WTAwebsite is on the front cover of this magazine). To date, no actual bill has been introduced into legislation. Our Board of Directors has a face to face meeting with the Secretary of Revenue on Friday, January 8, 2010, to express our position and discuss the matter further. This proposal will take legislative action to change state law. We suggest that towns and villages contact their state legislators and let them know what your position on the DOR proposal is. We have already received several resolutions from member towns and villages expressing their opposition to the county assessment concept. We have had other member towns and villages ask our Association to provide a sample resolution in opposition to the DOR proposal. Following this article is a sample resolution that your town or village can use as a guide. Please feel free to modify anything or add any points that your town or village boards believe are appropriate to state your position on this issue.
We urge your town or village to send a copy of the resolution to your State Representative and State Senator and please send a copy to our office in Shawano at W7686 County Road MMM, Shawano, Wis.54166. We will keep you updated on the progress of the proposal both in this magazine and on-line at our website. We also will be discussing the issue at the WTA2010 District meeting as noticed later in this magazine.
Please copy and use the sample resolution available here.
# # #