Assessment Practices Review Panel - St. Louis County

Insufficient quality at the local level results in cost for the county
The recommendations listed above are expected to improve the ability of the County to
manage quality concerns at the local level, short of having direct authority over how the
work is carried out.
Improve communication on the assessment process
Improve the communication with all stakeholders on the assessment process. In order to
gain broad public support for measures to improve the assessment process it is important
to conduct public outreach, enhance the county web page and update the information
brochure on the assessment process and reflect proposed changes.
Encourage the City of Duluth to develop a strategic plan regarding
assessment
The panel recommends the City of Duluth develop a strategic plan to address capacity to
carry out the assessment process in line with the DoR standards. In addition, address
capacity to adequately handle tax court cases.
3.4 Funding of the Assessment Process
3.4.1 Description of findings
There is inequity in the distribution of assessment cost
The funding of the assessment process is complex. There is an inequity in the assessment
fee structure resulting in significant differences in per parcel average assessment cost
between jurisdictions.
3.4.2 Analysis
The St. Louis County’s assessor’s office budget comes in part from the county levy (58%)
and in part from fee for services charged to organized jurisdictions (42%). Locally
assessed jurisdictions use the County fee schedule as a ceiling to set their assessment cost.
All St. Louis County property owners contribute to the funding of the County Assessor’s
office through the levy. In addition, property owners in organized townships and cities of
the first and second class pay for assessment cost through their local city and township
levy. As a result property owners in unorganized townships pay significantly less than
those in locally assessed jurisdictions. This impacts fairness of the distribution of the
assessment cost. A complicating factor in remedying this situation is the fact that state
statutes do not allow to add on an additional charge for property owners in unorganized
townships.
Addressing the fairness of the distribution of the assessment cost is complex. This issue is
at the heart of a broader county services funding discussion. The long term cost
implications of shifting to a True County system are discussed in paragraph 3.7.2 and
concludes that significant annual cost reductions can be achieved. Further analysis will
need to be done to determine the one time transition cost when shifting from the current
mixed system to a True County system.
St. Louis County Assessment Practices Review Panel Draft Report February 2012 Page 25