As I read the joint comments of former Gov. Joe Kernan and Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard regarding the transfer of assessing functions from the elected township assessors to the county, I can only think they are speaking from the ivory towers and rarified air of Indianapolis.
As a locally elected office holder, I feel much closer to what the everyday taxpayer expects for their money/ They expect to have an office that is accessible to them and staffed with competent personnel who understand their individual issues.
I was quite surprised to have such unsupported statements and generalizations coming from a former governor and an Indiana Supreme Court justice. I'm certain Shepard would not allow speculation to pass as proof in his court.
For them to suggest some taxpayers are not paying their fair share because of local assessors belies the factual reason: Through legislation (during the term of Kernan) and inadequate assessments of our largest industries by the state, their contribution to the tax pool is now less than 20 percent of what it was just six years ago -- with the burden shifted to homeowners.
They also infer that money is being wasted, but they do not specifically say it is being wasted by assessing offices. $25 million was wasted by the Indiana General Assembly when it forced Lake County to pay the professional firm of Cole-Layer-Trumble, under the direction of the state Department of Local Government Finance, to do the assessments in 2003 (also during the term of Kernan). We are still resolving the errors and omissions from that fiasco.
They then assert that "1,008 townships ... interpret(ed) ... rules in 1,008 ways." I truly believe they do not understand the process.
Getting to the final values is a three-step process:
1) The township assessors perform their duties under rules, guidelines and cost schedules established by the state.
2) County offices then review the townships data for consistency through a series of ratio studies.
3) The counties then submit their data and findings to the state for conformance to their rules and receive an approval or disapproval.
How can 1,008 different interpretations be used if the counties and the state are doing their reviews properly?
Assessing offices are among the most transparent of all government offices. If you want information on your neighbor's property, it's all right there online. We have thousands of taxpayers visit or call our office asking questions about a myriad of subjects -- many not even our responsibility, like their tax bills.
Why do they come here? Because they are frustrated with trying to get an answer at the county, and they know we will get them answers.
Finally, they say. "Voting �no' would most likely cost you money." There is absolutely no evidence to support this statement. In fact, there is a greater likelihood that the costs will increase because of the loss of qualified personnel and the need to contract out many of those functions.
There are costs to you that are certain: A loss in the service and convenience you now have and a diluted elective power to determine who is responsible for assessing your property.
I encourage you to vote "No" to the referendum, the last item on your ballot.
Add your content here