School board drops request for reassessments
By jennifer Mitchell
Rocky River
Published July 5, 2006

At the request of schools Superintendent Dennis Allen, the Board of Education unanimously decided Thursday to rescind a request of the Cuyahoga County Auditor’s Office to reassess 33 taxpayers who bought residences in the city in 2004.

Some of the residents in question thanked the board for holding off on the move and said they weren’t above paying their fair share of taxes, but that the district’s decision of who to reassess was unfair.

The district asked the county Board of Revisions in March to review 2004 property sales and disproportionate 2005 taxes paid. Allen said that only in cases of large discrepancies were reassessments requested. One example he gave was a residence bought in 2004 for $1 million that was valued on the auditor’s books at $500,000 — a half-million dollar difference. Allen predicted pursuing such differences could net the district more than $100,000 and pay the salaries of three teachers.

Loss of revenue from Westgate Mall, now under reconstruction, and increasing operation costs, are hitting the district in its pocketbook.

In 2005, for the first time, Rocky River school revenue was down $600,000, Allen said. Part of the decrease was due to residents and business owners who were “aggressive” in filing for property devaluation, he said. Many were successful, resulting in lower taxes and, ultimately, less money to city schools. That’s part of the reason the district asked for partial tax reviews.

Of the $26.5 million Rocky River City Schools 2006-07 budget, more than 80 percent covers staffing. Local property taxes comprise more than 80 percent of the district’s budget, so every dollar counts. Allen said the district has no power to raise or reassess taxes, but state law gives it the right to point out tax discrepancies to the review board.

The decision to withdraw the filings from the county auditor was based on the input of at-large residents, as well as those who would be directly affected. The county is slated to reassess homeowners this year, and Allen suggested Thursday that the board reconsider the issue once that process is complete. However, the 2006 county reassessment will not capture any tax dollars lost from undervalued properties in 2005.

Affected taxpayers protested the original plan saying there wasn’t enough public discussion about it. Some homeowners, such as Chris Hanrahan, also felt that not requesting a reassessment of residents with smaller tax discrepancies was unfair.

“It’s a tragedy that it should be portrayed as a socio-economic matter,” Hanrahan said, calling it rather an “issue of fundamental fairness.”

Allen said the reason the focus was on larger discrepancies was because it wouldn’t have been cost effective to pursue minimal discrepancies. He also said that the district had to move quickly when it decided on the reassessment plan in order to meet the county’s March 31 filing deadline.

After requesting that the board withdraw the reassessment requests Thursday, Allen said that if the district decided to eventually move in the same direction, it needed to have a public discussion on the matter to let residents know how and why its decisions are being made.

Board members James Schieda and Jay Milano supported Allen’s request but made it clear that they also supported his original actions when he filed the requests.

But Milano agreed more discussion is needed.

“If we are going to enter into a … direct effort with people’s taxes, I believe Dr. Allen is correct in that we should be cautious,” Milano said. “Let’s do this slowly and deliberately.”