Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Assessments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner tells commissioners assessment error drove costly appeal for Liberty Wedding Chapel
Summary
At the Sept. 4 Clinton County commissioners meeting, Christina Frank, representing 1900 Redbarn Partnership LLC, said the county—oard of Assessment Appeals wrongly set the fair market value of 637 Island Road (Liberty Wedding Chapel) far above later court-determined value; she asked commissioners what they will do to avoid similar errors.
Christina Frank, representing 1900 Redbarn Partnership LLC, told the Clinton County Board of Commissioners on Sept. 4 that an "egregious error was made" when the county—oard of Assessment Appeals assigned a fair market value of $241,788 to 637 Island Road, the Liberty Wedding Chapel. Frank said the property had been purchased for $18,500 and that the owners offered a settlement of $60,000 at the initial appeal but were denied. "The final court ordered fair market value was $30,400," she said, and added the owners incurred $3,336.36 in court costs and legal fees and paid for an appraisal.
Frank asked the commissioners what each of them was doing "individually to educate yourselves on the actual value of properties within Clinton County so that all taxpayers within the county are treated fairly and accurately." She warned the appeals process imposes a cost many property owners cannot afford: "My concern is the poor person that doesn't have $3,000 to go to court to appeal something that you've made an 88% error on."
Commissioner (unspecified) responded that the assessment-appeal materials the board had were provided by Chief Assessor Mark Anderson and that the commissioners focused on the records they had available before the hearing. The commissioner said the board has, in other cases, reduced assessments after receiving additional appraisal information and noted reassessments have not taken place countywide since 2007. The commissioners reiterated that the board of commissioners and the board of assessment appeals are separate entities but that the three commissioners sit as the board of assessment appeals in those proceedings.
Frank contended the county could have settled the matter earlier and urged commissioners to improve their understanding of local property values. Commissioner (unspecified) suggested the county would welcome property owners coming in to discuss assessments and acknowledged mistakes can occur, saying staff had lowered the assessment after reviewing an appraisal.
Background details Frank supplied at the meeting: the purchase price she cited was $18,500; the appraisal and legal fees she reported totaled $3,336.36; the owners had earlier offered $60,000 as a fair value; and the court later set the fair market value at $30,400.
No formal action or vote on the assessment was taken at the Sept. 4 meeting; the remarks came during the public comment period.
The commissioners heard Frank's complaint, noted the role of the chief assessor in providing data used during appeals, and said they would consider ways to work with property owners before formal appeals proceed.
