Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Valuation Board topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stark County rejects Dickinsonboard's 15% cap on 2025 valuation increases
Summary
County commissioners declined a city recommendation to cap 2025 residential valuation increases at 15% for 140 parcels, after a lengthy Board of Equalization session in which assessors and residents debated market-based revaluations and correction of long-standing data errors.
Stark County commissioners on Tuesday voted 3-2 to reject the City of Dickinson Board of Equalizationrequest to cap 2025 valuation increases at 15% for a subset of 140 residential parcels.
Natalie Wandler, Stark County director of equalization, opened the county Board of Equalization meeting by explaining the process and urging residents that the hearing was about valuation, not taxes. "This meeting is to talk about valuation, not taxes," she said. The meeting included presentations from the county assessor and public comment from dozens of Dickinson property owners.
City and county assessors argued the county must follow state law to equalize values to market level based on median sales ratios. The assessor told the commissioners, "Century code says properties are to be valued at market value based on a median sales ratio," and presented sales and ratio tables that, he said, show the city-wide median below the statutory target and many properties still out of alignment with market sales.
City commissioners had recommended a 15% cap limited to 140 parcels that showed increases above that threshold. Supporters said the cap would soften "sticker shock" for homeowners, citing specific cases in which long-time residents faced large assessed increases. Opponents — including the county assessor and several commissioners — said caps are not equalizing and would push the burden into later years or create further inequities.
Multiple property owners testified during the hearing about large year-over-year increases after revaluation notices arrived. One speaker, David Steinbach of Eleventh Avenue East, said his home had risen from an earlier base to a 2025 value he characterized as "insane," and recounted that an initial re-check lowered his increase but not by enough to avoid what he called "sticker shock." Another owner asked that errors in property card square footage be corrected promptly after staff visitations.
The commissioners debated the legal and practical risks of accepting a cap. The countyassessor warned that a blanket cap would not be equalization and could leave the county farther behind, noting that many residential sales show the county still needs to catch up. The board also discussed the risk that a cap could trigger state review or legal challenges; commissioners pointed out there is no statutory mechanism to impose ad hoc caps countywide while remaining within state standards.
After discussion, a motion to reject the Dickinson Board of Equalizationrecommendation passed 3-2. Commissioners who supported rejection said the county must follow the equalization requirement and pursue a planned program to inspect and revalue residential properties on a multi-year cycle. Commissioners voting to reject said the city has undertaken a plan to revalue remaining properties over a six-year cycle.
The countyassessor said staff will continue reviewing properties that property owners raise individually; where clerical property-card data errors are found, assessors will correct those records and treat abatement requests under existing deadlines and procedures.
The item drew the meetinglongest public comment period; commissioners did not change the citywide valuations, and several residents said they intend to pursue abatements or appeals where they believe errors or inequities remain.
