Assessment Practices Review Panel - St. Louis County

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Assessor’s office operates. The DoR should consider updating statutes and rules to facilitate the incorporation of GIS-Satellite Imagery based assessments. 3.6.3 Recommendations The following recommendation has been identified to address the technology aspects of the countywide assessment process: - Establish best practices requirements regarding computer knowledge, connection speed and system requirements to prevent large technology gaps while the current mixed system is in place. - The technology system used by the countywide assessors’ team should be interfaced and up to par for all assessors (seamless interface between county, city and local assessors) as it relates to computer platform and field equipment. Internet connectivity is the key issue here. - Develop a technology strategy, identifying options and appropriateness of technologies for countywide application. o Consider implementing Pictometry Change Finder Software, which identifies and chronicles changes to property structures. - The CAMA system used by St. Louis County should be user-friendly, transparent, and allow seamless integration of new technology tools such as hand-held field data devices. - The current system should be evaluated as to whether this is the best system. - Encourage DoR to investigate creating a statewide CAMA system. - Integrate technology changes and its impacts on work processes and staffing in the long range plan. Take into consideration which organizational structure is best suited to roll out technology changes. - Work with the DoR to change where necessary the regulatory requirements to allow a modernization of the assessment process using GIS-Satellite Imagery based assessments. - Develop minimum standards to return property owners’ phone inquiries 3.7 True County System findings and recommendations Minn. Stat.273.055 gives the St. Louis County Board the power to bring all assessments under the responsibility of the office of the County Assessor. A True County system is required to be authorized by the County Board by resolution and authorizes the County Assessor to assess all taxable property within the county. This option centralizes the assessment process and offers a long term (five year) option to improve the county assessment process and address the findings identified by the panel. The City of Duluth’s assessor office, a city of the first class, is on equal footing with the St. Louis County assessor office. As a result the City of Duluth can choose to opt out of a True County system and continue to carry out its own assessments. The discussion below defines what a True County system is, lists the benefits in relation to achieving a TUF assessment process and discusses additional considerations when moving to a True County system, specifically political and organizational implications. St. Louis County Assessment Practices Review Panel Draft Report February 2012 Page 28
3.7.1 Benefits of a True County system in relation to TUF A True County system can address a number of problems impacting TUF elements of the assessment process as identified by the panel members. The following benefits in relation to panel’s key findings have been identified and are expected to have a positive impact on achieving an assessment process that is TUF. Responsibility and quality management control are not in one place In a True County system authority and statutory responsibility are aligned. The responsibility for the assessment process and the authority to manage quality control is vested within one organization. Any performance or quality problems can be directly addressed by the County Assessor’s office. The current assessment system is complex, resulting in variances It is expected that a True County system, long term, will produce a better quality product at lower cost compared to implementing mitigating measures within the current Local County assessment system. The reason for this is the fact that a True County system brings the assessment process under single management, greatly reducing the probability for variance and increasing the likelihood of meeting the TUF principles. In a True County system, it is expected that fewer resources will be needed to correct variances; with that, the system becomes more predictable in planning needed resources. A True County system also increases transparency of the assessment process. There will be fewer contact points for customers. As a result, a customer will be more likely to connect with the right customer representative and is more likely to receive uniform answers. Related to this, with the assessment process under single management, there is greater control of the message (uniform message), which results in a better understanding of the assessment process by the public and increased trust that the assessment process is TUF. There is inequity in the distribution of assessment cost A True County system will be financed through the county levy and the cost to a property owner will be based on the tax capacity of their property. There will no longer be any additional fees for assessment charged to property owners in organized jurisdictions through their local levies. The True County system addresses the financial fairness and uniformity of the distribution of cost for all property owners. Improving the team environment In a True County system the assessors work under the direction of the County Assessor’s office. As a result the County Assessor can directly manage the assessor team and improve uniformity in training and knowledge levels to effectively carry out the assessment process. Closing the technology gap Under a True County system the County carries direct responsibility for the technology used by the assessors. As a result there is no longer a gap between assessed jurisdictions. An additional benefit is that under a True County system all data originates from the same source and will be made available through the same platform. This will likely improve ease of access to information for customers and staff. St. Louis County Assessment Practices Review Panel Draft Report February 2012 Page 29
Page 1: Assessment Practices Review Panel F
Page 4 and 5: St. Louis County Assessment Practic
Page 6 and 7: - Rick Puhek, Virginia City Assesso
Page 8 and 9: 4 Final Recommendations and Conclud
Page 10 and 11: The panel members recommend impleme
Page 12 and 13: - Continued budget demands and aid
Page 14 and 15: Following this, the panel held four
Page 16 and 17: agricultural describe the primary u
Page 18 and 19: The State Board of Assessors has ra
Page 20 and 21: Reviewing Sales In Minnesota, whene
Page 22 and 23: Figure 2.2: Overview of Statutory b
Page 24 and 25: 2.4.2 County practices The St. Loui
Page 26 and 27: 3 Panel Charge and Findings 3.1 Int
Page 28 and 29: addressed at the local level. It al
Page 30 and 31: - Increased pressure on county staf
Page 32 and 33: - Build a coalition with the local
Page 34 and 35: 3.4.3 Recommendations to improve fu
Page 38 and 39: When considering new technology int
Page 40 and 41: Public perception of changing to a
Page 42 and 43: for an aging workforce of local ass
Page 44 and 45: Appendix I Map of Statewide Assessm
Page 46 and 47: Appendix II Map of St. Louis County
Page 48 and 49: 71-21 766 2012 Pay 2013 County-Asse
Page 55 and 56: Appendix IV St. Louis County Fee Sc
Page 57 and 58: LAST 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Notes
Page 59 and 60: 2009-2011 Estimated City of Duluth
Page 61 and 62: Panel Findings and Recommendations
Page 63 and 64: Current Assessment Practices Findin
Page 65 and 66: Current Assessment Practices Findin
Page 67 and 68: Funding of Assessment Process Findi
Page 69 and 70: Succession Planning Finding Impact
Page 71 and 72: Appendix VII Existing and Emerging
Page 73: Public Records & Property Valuation
Page 76 and 77: 12' 12' Legend Planimetric Boundary

Assessment Practices Review Panel - St. Louis County

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?