Wisconsin Department of Revenue Secretary Roger Ervin announced at the Wisconsin Towns Association State Convention last October that the DOR is seeking to consolidate municipal property assessment (town, village and city) into a county wide assessment or some variation thereof.
Emphasizing that, “now is the time to work together towards a more modern and equitable property tax administrative process”, Ervin seeks consensus among Wisconsin stakeholders before moving further on the DOR’s proposal.
Indeed, consolidation of services is a much touted budget saver for legislators trying to scramble from under a daunting four billion dollar budget deficit by the end of the fiscal year. However, no one knows for certain how combining local assessment services into one overarching entity will work.
Ervin claims that a centralized 72 county assessment system will be more efficient than the current Wisconsin property tax system where 1,851 municipalities each provide their own assessment services.
Earlier in this decade, Kenosha County took the first leap in a county wide assessment program with financial support from the State for about 75 percent of the costs. When the State tried to shift the financial burden to Kenosha County, the program collapsed.
Several towns complained that the assessor at the time was not sensitive to the farming communities in the rural areas of the county. According to the Town Chairman of Paris, Virgil Gantz, “The assessor worked for the city (Kenosha) before he was hired by the county and he did not always provide accurate values for agricultural properties.”
Ervin proposes that a county wide assessment program can be effective through a county-hired assessment administrator who would employ assessors to value properties. Professional standards for assessors would be uniformly enforced. And, a centralized database would be created for all property values.
The counties would move to full value annual assessments and eliminate the equalized value process. They would create a seven member appointed county Board of Review with representatives from the various local units of government within the county.
Under current law, five regional Department of Revenue offices set “fair market values” for all municipalities. Assessors must bring municipal values up to these levels every four years, or sooner if the assessed values fall by greater than ten percent from market values.
Ervin’s proposal empowers the county appointed board, not the state, to calculate how much any one municipality would pay in K-12 public school, tech school and county property tax.
Suspecting that county wide assessment will undermine towns in particular, Wisconsin Towns Association Executive Director Richard Stadelman writes in a November 2009 report to the association, “Past studies in at least two counties other than Kenosha have indicated that the costs of county wide assessment will be higher than current municipal assessment procedures.”
Furthermore, appeals for correcting inequities were thought to be handled with greater attentiveness and care under a local citizen committee than if the assessment were handled by distant outsiders overwhelmed with a county wide judicial burden.
Equalization of land values may be further marginalized when comparing the wide range of land uses amidst town, villages and cities within the county. The inevitable compromise when diluting equalization within the county begs the question as to whether equalization between counties and throughout the State will be equitable.
Revaluations are relatively costly, perhaps as little as $25,000 or more than $100,000, depending upon the size of the municipality. Ervin’s proposal of a “full value annual assessment” suggests a permanent expense for local levy support to the counties by increasing the frequency of assessments whether they are needed or not.
Without a doubt, assessment of property values is a telltale sign of community sustainability. It is a yardstick for State shared revenues, county services, educational facilities, and maintenance of local municipal emergency services and roads. It also measures property owner tithing for seventy-two percent of the State’s income. Arguably, a fairness issue arises where local property issues ought to be under the control of local boards and committees where local votes support them.
Stadelman notes that the idea for Wisconsin to adopt a county wide assessment program had been proposed in the past but never seriously considered. This year the Governor’s budget targeted two counties for county wide assessment. The joint finance committee removed it.
County wide assessment may or may not prove to be cost effective as the search for validity continues. Perhaps another concern is at hand: whether adding assessment to the list of duties under county oversight, such as zoning, library boards, judicial, and law enforcement, will contribute to the diminution of democracy by greasing the wheels of regional control.
Comments
Clearly this is simply an attempt by the state to shift the cost of equalizing assessments from the state to the local government level. Mandating full value assessments every year will be VERY costly for local government with little to gain. All local assessments are already equalized to 100% every year by the state. But I suppose if the state can cut another 50-75 jobs its a win-win for them. A drop in the budget deficit bucket and they wash their hands of equalizing assessments. Hopefully there will be a detailed Cost-Benefit study done before this is rammed down local government's and taxpayer's throats.
The proposal is nothing more then "rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic". The entire property tax system is broken. A new system that doesn't rely on property values to raise monies is necessary and not just "tweeking" this unfair system. Kenosha County already tried and abolished a county wide system. The system is inequitable in that higher end properties that cost in excess of $2 million only appear at a meager percentage of value while homes in the area of $200,000 are assessed/valued at 100%. They system needs to be totally abolished and replaced.
The town of Berry in Dane county moved to a full value assessment this year. At first I was opposed to this after seeing how significantly my assessment increased thinking that my taxes would increase proportionally. However, the mill rate was adjusted accordingly. I just refinanced and having a full value assessment was critical to obtaining the financing I needed without needing an appraisal. I applied for a loan and will close within 13 days of starting the process. Under the old assessment model this would not have been possible. Although this does not address the entire issue, I am in favor of full value assessments.
You people need to look outside your own state (and I mean furter away than Michigan). The vast majority of states have their real estate & business property assessments handled at the county level. What this will do is replace nearly 2000 mom & pop assessors & tax collectors with less than 100 professional ones. For us multistate business taxpayers, this reduces our reporting & taxpaying burden significantly.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!