Many property re-assessments produce sub-par results or even fail miserably due to a straightforward fact: jurisdictions often take the full-scale plunge into the venture without conducting meaningful pilots, leading to proper definitions of scale and scope of the actual event. Therefore, running a well-thought-out pilot could save a ton of money and agony (in terms of public and political embarrassment, etc.) down the road.
1. Ideally, Conduct Residential and Commercial Re-assessments concurrently. When they are run together, local governments are empowered to shift tax burdens across property groups (depending on the impact study). If it is statutorily required, the taxpayer watch groups must fight the statute to decouple them, thus making the re-assessment a genuinely transparent, as well as a fair and equitable exercise. If it is run concurrently, the watch group must hire an independent consultant to review the impact study, both inter (across property groups) and intra (within the group). Should they find any inconsistency, they must share the results with the local media.
2. Hire an Econometric consulting firm to run a Pilot. Running a meaningful pilot is one area where private and public sectors tend to part ways. For example, instead of rushing into a full-scale (and expensive) marketing campaign, private companies tend to run a meaningful pilot (i.e., proper sampling, etc.) first, leading to the primary campaign, assuming, of course, pilot results exceed expectations; just meeting expectations could force the project back into the mix of alternatives). Though the idea of pilot projects is not common in local governments, they must get into the practice of running pilots to avoid having to spend too much money at the back-end on damage control. Since a well-constructed and adequately run pilot represents the main event, a well-known econometric consulting firm must do justice to the pilot, paving the way for a meaningful and significant pilot and a reliable impact study.
3. Recollect the Exterior Data for the Pilot Project as if it were the Main Event. Before publishing the data collection manual, the consulting firm must undertake a local market significance study, thus zeroing in on the variables that significantly impact valuations in that particular market. Then, with the assistance of the consulting firm (e.g., arriving at the actual sample, variable types, extent, and use of technology, etc.), the assessing staff must recollect the exterior data on the pilot. In constructing the sample, it's prudent to ignore all incomplete and on-going physical changes. Similarly, the interior data collection is virtually meaningless for re-assessment as they represent mostly lifestyle fixtures/personal properties, not real properties. While significant interior renovations and improvements must be captured and reflected via the "Overall Condition" variable, new indoor pools, porches, etc. should be separately coded to ease valuation (only if they show up in the study as significant market variables). The data collection process must be thoroughly documented so that the process could be precisely duplicated during the main event.
4. Publish the Pilot Results, emphasizing the Potential Tax Impact. Considering this is not the actual re-assessment, the results could be published immediately, with a series of outreach seminars to educate taxpayers on the potential impact of the future re-assessment. Even the taxpayers facing tax increases would be less hostile at this point as they would be allowed a significant voice in reshaping the outcome. If the residential and commercial pilots are run concurrently, watch groups must carefully scrutinize the study, ensuring that the tax burdens are not being irrationally shifted from one group to another, especially "inter," meaning from the commercial to the residential. Of course, they must also study the equity within the group. Of course, that is the advantage of a meaningful front-ended pilot, providing a platform for all brainstorming before the fact.
5. Jurisdictions with Unfair Statutory Limitations must work on Removing the Statute before Undertaking any Major Re-assessment. Hypothetically, if the state mandates that the county must reimburse its taxing districts (e.g., towns) the amount that is refunded to homeowners due to inaccurate property assessments, it would be prudent for the county administration to work with the state to remove this unfair mandate, or at least reduce the burden to a manageable annual limit graduating to a total phase-out) before embarking on any significant re-assessment. Should this legislative effort fail, the county should seriously consider a decentralized assessment system without taking on monumental unwarranted liability. In this example, under the decentralized system, towns would be responsible for their assessments. Simultaneously, the county would continue to provide technical assistance, thus relieving the county of any potential refund liability.
Again, a front-ended pilot would do immense good before the full-scale plunge.
