Assessment Practices Review Panel - St. Louis County

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Technology Finding Impact on TUF Key issues to address There is a gap between some technology use/access by county and local/contract assessors. This has an impact on uniformity and ability to effectively work on systems. Drivers of this include access to bandwidth, system compatibility, and computer literacy of assessors. Recommendations • Establish minimum requirements regarding computer knowledge, connection speed and system requirements to prevent large technology gaps. • Technology system of 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, field equipment and minimum standards for phone. • Develop a technology strategy, identifying options and appropriateness of technologies for countywide application. • CAMA system should be user friendly and evaluated whether this is the best system for St. Louis county. • Encourage DoR to investigate state wide CAMA system. • Work with DoR to address regulatory issues relating to technology use for the assessment process. 8
Succession Planning Finding Impact on TUF Key issues to address An aging workforce will lead to attrition and requires succession planning. Quality assessor workforce impacts all three TUF principles. Assess: • How to prepare for the recruitment and development of staff with the right aptitudes, skills and training? • What opportunities does this pose to build a future quality workforce that is able to work within an increasingly technology based environment? Recommendations • Plan for an aging workforce to ensure a high quality assessment team is in place that ensures a quality workforce and fits the County’s long term strategic direction. • Document appropriate skills and aptitudes for new assessors. Quality of incoming staff should be in line with countywide standard. 9
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 36 and 37: Assessor’s office operates. The D
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: Funding of Assessment Process Findi
Page 71 and 72: Appendix VII Existing and Emerging
Page 73: Public Records & Property Valuation
Page 76 and 77: 12' 12' Legend Planimetric Boundary
show all

Assessment Practices Review Panel - St. Louis County

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?