Assessment Practices Review Panel - St. Louis County

When a mistake to a Duluth tax parcel is corrected, a St Louis County Board approved
refund is returned to the taxpayer. Also when a Tax Court petition (from a City parcel)
results in a reduction in taxes paid, a refund is returned to the taxpayer. The resulting
refund in both cases comes from City, School, and County funds. In the case of
Commercial/Industrial and Cabin (SRR) class properties, a part of the taxes paid goes to
the State General Fund. The refunded State General tax amount is adjusted (to County
funds) in the following year.
The County’s portion of overall tax extension rate has averaged 51% over the last 3 years.
That means that for each dollar refunded, 51 cents comes out of County funds.
Conversely the City’s portion has averaged just under 22 %, which means that a refund on
County parcels costs City taxpayers 22 cents.
Over the last three years approximately 90 % of the total County-wide Tax Court
abatements have been refunded on tax parcels in the City of Duluth. Appendix V displays
an estimated calculation of the amount of County funds that have been expended as a
result of City corrective abatements and City Tax Court abatements. The amount of
County funds expended, in addition to the time and resources of the St Louis County
Attorney’s Office and St Louis County Auditor’s staff in litigating and processing City of
Duluth abatements, is greater than the amount of City levy support received to fund the St
Louis County Assessor’s Office.
3.3.3 Recommendations for improvements within existing assessment system
The recommendations described below target improvements that can be made within the
existing assessment system. These recommendations can be implemented in the short
term (1-2 years). The short term recommendations can be implemented in order to
achieve immediate quality improvements. The short term recommendations are, in
principle, “no regret” measures that do not impact moving to structural changes in how
the assessment process is carried out over the long term. Appendix VI (Findings and
Recommendations Summary Overview) provides a summary overview linking the
recommendations to the key findings as discussed in the previous paragraph.
The current assessment system is complex, resulting in variances
The recommendations below target improving uniformity and quality management across
multiple jurisdictions.
- Establish a new position within the County Assessor’s Office to follow-up on and
facilitate the uniform execution of the assessment process across all jurisdictions.
- In improving the current assessment system, needs and characteristics of the
assessment process at each local level (organized townships, cities of the first and
second class) should be taken into consideration.
- Establish performance standards and best practices based on the TUF performance
indicators identified by the assessment panel. Establishing these standards allows for
an objective measurement of performance which can be communicated with the
responsible jurisdictions as the quality standard to adhere to.
- Formalize the performance standards in a model contract for contract assessors and
require a performance bond for contractors.
St. Louis County Assessment Practices Review Panel Draft Report February 2012 Page 23