Johnson County tax error: Doing the right thing Is harder than you might think

It has been quite a week of community discussion on an issue regarding a Johnson County resident, Jean Fisher, who had an assessment that since 2010 had a pretty obvious error. The Johnson County Assessor's office assessed her land higher because they thought a cell tower was on her property; there isn't one.

Despite what you may have read or heard, I have supported the process that has fixed Fisher's assessment to the extent possible by the Johnson County Assessor. In fact, the assessor made the correction after being notified by Fisher of the error; the assessor admitted to the error and that correction, by law, allowed the assessor to go back the current assessment year (and also the previous assessment year because Fisher had not paid her taxes yet). Last week the Board of Supervisors was faced with something new. It was a request by Fisher and a motion by the Board of Supervisors to refund the excess taxes paid on her parcel; she wanted a full refund.

It's well known that at the time, three supervisors did not support the motion. I was one of them. I guess in retrospect, it's probably good I didn't. That's because Iowa law does not allow the board of supervisors the ability for a full refund for Fisher. The law only allows the board to refund a resident for two years after being notified of an 'illegal or erroneous action” of the assessor. It's unfortunate that we have some legislators making comments to fully refund a property taxpayer for this error when it is their 'body” that won't allow us to do so! Reading comments from certain legislators, it'd be nice if they would review the laws before they chastise our decision-making, insult us, threaten us politically (whatever that means?) and then go as far as to asking us to do things that would in essence be illegal.

My hope is that instead of grandstanding, they would actually look into the issue, and change the law to define the term 'erroneous” and then allow a resident to be fully refunded by determination of the assessor. Then, if the assessor still chooses to not admit an error, and one is clearly identified, then the Board of Supervisors could weigh in.

To be clear, my vote wasn't based on the full refund motion, it really was based on past practice and process and my interpretation of the law that would involve the Board of Supervisors if there was intent by an assessor to not admit to the 'erroneous action”. Past practice has always respected the current process that residents have had to go through when they find an error or question their assessment. This includes contact with the assessor that may result in further investigation by the Board of Review, the Property Assessment Appeal Board (PAAB), or District Court; we have not had in the recent past (at least in the last 15 years that I have served in office) a request to supersede this process by placing the Board of Supervisors in that chain. The law allows the Board of Supervisors into this process when 'illegal or erroneous actions” by an assessors office have taken place, but it is not clear when the Board of Supervisors would be asked to weigh in and how to actually define what an 'erroneous action” is. When we set precedent next Thursday during another vote, it will occur when we are officially notified by the property owner. I also I suspect that we will be getting a lot of requests from residents to try the Board of Supervisors if an 'error” has occurred so they could avoid the Board of Review and their permitted time frame, PAAB and/or District Court.

It's been no secret; errors do occur by the offices of the Johnson County Assessor and the Iowa City assessor. I want to thank a farmer who told me that 10 years ago he tore down a corncrib and a barn and it still is on his assessment. His assessment is higher because the assessor thinks there is a barn and crib there. There isn't. He hasn't told the assessor yet. Can he get a refund for the error? Is that the assessors fault for not knowing the barn isn't there or is it the farmer's fault? Should this error fall under this portion of Iowa law? An Iowa City resident contacts me and says he has an assessment the same as his upstairs condo neighbor. The neighbor has a deck which increases the value, this resident doesn't. Should that 'error” be refunded? Sounds like an error to me; yet Iowa law doesn't define if this is an 'error” that is eligible for Board of Supervisors review under Iowa Code Section 445.60. Or does it? Confused? Me too!

Now that it is likely that we are changing policy to fix this particular 'erroneous action,” (for the previous two years after being notified), it should be known that the funding, by law, will not just come out of the county budget. It will come from all taxing bodies (schools, townships, cities, and the county, etc.) that received the taxes. It will have an impact on their budgets as well. If a request is made during a period of time when taxes have already been divided and given to taxing entities, then which budget does the money come from? Have each entity, the county, the schools, the townships, the cities write a check to the property tax payer immediately? Have those entities borrow from a county department until the next tax period? We are currently working on that scenario. By law, the most Fisher can be refunded will be $2,848. Of which, the County will pay her $1,010.19, Solon school district will pay her $1,627.73, Area School Taxing Authority $105.26, Graham Township and Fire $60.47, the assessor $30.80, Ag Extension Council $8.08 and a State tax fund .33 cents. Next Thursday, I will support that and will remain consistent in future votes on these kinds of requests, now that a precedent is being set.

I want to thank the County assessor, City assessor, County Treasurer, County Attorney's office, County Auditor's office and the Board of Supervisors Executive Assistant for reviewing potential scenarios now that a majority of the Board of Supervisors has given direction to change past practice and policy. I encourage all residents to look close at your assessments. A Board of Supervisors precedent is being set … it will be interesting to see how each Supervisor will now determine the definition of 'erroneous” since the Iowa Code doesn't make it clear.

So despite what you may have read or heard, I take this issue very seriously, particularly the process and precedent that is being set and the laws intent. I will continue to be fair and do my best for Johnson County. Doing the right thing sometimes is more difficult than you think.

' Terrence Neuzil, of Iowa City, is a Johnson County Supervisor. Comments: (319) 356-6000; tneuzil@co.johnson.ia.us