State ex rel. Iowa State Bd. of Assessment and Review v. Local Bd. of Review of City of Des Moines

• Decision Date: 30 December 1938
• Docket Number: 44411.
• Citation: 283 N.W. 87,225 Iowa 855
• Parties: STATE ex rel. v. LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW OF CITY OF DES MOINES et al. (MISSILDINE et al., Interveners). IOWA STATE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW et al.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

283 N.W. 87

225 Iowa 855

STATE ex rel. IOWA STATE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW et al. v. LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW OF CITY OF DES MOINES et al. (MISSILDINE et al., Interveners).

No. 44411.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

December 30, 1938

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; Jas. P. Gaffney, Judge.

This is an action of mandamus commenced by plaintiff against the defendant to compel the Local Board of Review of the City of Des Moines, Iowa, to perform an order issued by the State Board of Assessment and Review, September 18, 1937, and three supplemental orders prescribing certain procedure for the Local Board of Review. The lower court held that the action of the State Board was void because it had no jurisdiction to enter the same and therefore dismissed plaintiff's petition. Plaintiff appeals.

Reversed.

John H. Mitchell, Atty. Gen., Charles Bookin, Asst. Atty. Gen Carl A. Burkman, Co. Atty. of Polk County, of Des Moines, and D. M. Kelleher, of Fort Dodge, for appellant.

C. I McNutt, of Des Moines, for defendants-appellees and for interveners-appellees Joe Cordaro, C. C. Cook, and Mazie Cook.

John Connolly, Jr., of Des Moines, for interveners-appellees W. B Lawler, Elizabeth Lawler, A. A. Anderson, and Nellie Anderson.

H. Pierce Witmer, of Des Moines, for intervener-appellee C. S. Missildine.

E. D. Perry, of Des Moines, for intervener-appellee Guy A. Miller.

KINTZINGER, Justice.

For their own convenience in facilitating the listing of property for taxation in the City of Des Moines, the local taxing officials divided the city into zones or so-called taxing districts. The land values in such various zones or districts were appraised separately from the improvements thereon. Measurements of the cubical contents of the improvements or buildings thereon were made and classified according to type. There was no appraisal of individual residences or business structures as separate items, but all structures were valued according to certain unit costs based upon reproduction minus depreciation.

The ground or lot values minus the improvements were then added to the unit estimated costs of said improvements, minus depreciation. The valuation so determined was entered on the assessment rolls and then arbitrarily discounted from 2 to 50 per cent, the discount not being based upon the physical condition of the improvements but according to location. The Local Board of Review approved the plan of the assessor and ordered further discounts from 2 1/2 to 10 per cent.

About 7,000 taxpayers of the City of Des Moines appeared before the Local Board of Equalization, filed objections to their assessments, and when relief was denied, about 2,000 taxpayers appealed to the District Court of Polk County. About 1,100 of these appeals have been disposed of.

As an illustration of the unjust methods of assessments made in various districts of the subdistricts in the City of Des Moines, we quote from the testimony of C. A. Crosser, Secretary of the Bureau of Municipal Research. He testified that he made a study of the 1937 assessment during its progress and that before the assessment was made he and the city assessor attended neighborhood meetings. He further testified:

" As to the effect of these subdistrict reductions, * * * taking the area between 28th and 42d on University, the property on the south side of University was initially assessed 100 per cent and on the north side 85 per cent. In the second district, on one side of 7th Street the assessment is at 98 per cent, and on the other side at 67 per cent.

I made an examination of houses of similar types, dozens of them in different sections of the city for the purpose of comparison, and I made a good many photographs. * * * The two properties in Exhibit B are on Second Street between Ovid and Boston, one on one side, one on the other side. The house-3214 Second Street-is on the west side and it received 2 per cent discount first and then 10 per cent. It is in subdistrict 3 of assessment district VII. Across the street is another house of the same cubic contents and virtually the same unit cost per cubic foot; the land value nearly the same; but it was in subdistrict 1 of assessment district VII; it got a 33 per cent discount first and then 2 1/2 per cent. The computed actual value of the house and lot, that is the actual value * * * of the house on west side of the street, was $2,026, and on the east side, $2,266; but after these discounts were applied to the house in a high discount district, he was assessed $1,700, while the house that I computed the value on the east side was assessed at $1,480; which is a good illustration of the fluctuation across the street. These figures are all set out in various exhibits.

Shown on Exhibit ‘ C’, assessment subdistrict 3, is a property on the right side of Exhibit ‘ C’ located at 1243 East 7th Street, in subdistrict 1, assessment district IV. The house on the left is 740 Sixteenth Street, in the third assessment district. That one got 10 per cent discount. The man on this side of the street * * * that is the one I say is assessed at $1,000 less than the other house, and yet is three years newer and its reproduction value, depreciation allowance is $200 greater.

In Exhibit ‘ D’ the property on the right side is the house-1618 Beaver, in subdistrict 3, assessment district X; * * * and the house B is about three or four blocks away from it in a little district which was assessed at 100 per cent; that is around 1500 30th Street. The house A is assessed at $350 less than the house B, yet the reproduction allowance and reproduction value of house A is $800 more than house B, and it is eight years newer than house B, and they are within five blocks of one another.

House A on Exhibit ‘ E’ is 3124 Fourth Street, subdivision 3 of assessment district VII. That was assessed first at 98 per cent, and house B which is compared to it, is 1824 East Walnut Street. It was assessed at 70 per cent. That is in subdistrict 2, assessment district IV. A and B have about the same assessment. A is eight years older than B, and its reproduction allowance, depreciation value is $800 less than house B.

In Exhibit ‘ F’ the house A is 3212 Fourth Street, subdivision 3, assessment district VII, assessed at 98 per cent; while house B is 2729 Capitol Avenue, discount of 43 per cent, subdivision 2 of assessment district V. That house A, Highland Park house, is assessed for $1,600 more than house B, yet the reproduction allowance and depreciation value of house A is only $500 more than house B. The lot values are just about the same.

In Exhibit ‘ G’ the house, 4337 Pleasant Street, is in subdistrict 2, assessment district IX, assessed at 100 per cent as compared [283 N.W. 89] to 5723 Waterbury Circle, which is subdivision 7 of assessment district IX, assessed at 60 per cent. The comment on this is: Why should House A in an older district be assessed $1,300 more than House B, although it is $1,300 less in computed actual value?

In Exhibit ‘ H’ House A is 1212 Bluff Street, which is off of University Avenue in subdistrict 3, assessment district VIII, assessed 94 per cent as compared with 5800 Waterbury, in subdistrict 7, assessment district IX, assessed at 60 per cent. The comment is: Why should House A in a poorer part of the city get a $1,862 higher assessment than House B in the best residential district when the 100 per cent computed values are about the same?

Exhibit ‘ I’ is house A 664 31st Street, in subdistrict 2 of assessment district IX, with 100 per cent value as compared to house B, 5807 Waterbury, subdistrict 7, assessment district IX, which got a 40 per cent discount. The comment is: House A is assessed $660 more than house B, yet is eight years older and has a smaller reproduction allowance and depreciation value, and the lot is smaller value, why should House A get only 10 per cent discount from 100 per cent value when House B gets first 40 per cent and then 2 1/2 more?"

Mr. Crosser testified that he compared hundreds of assessments and found such discrepancies running more or less the same. " These that are selected here were only intended to be typical. I tried to study the whole thing as thoroughly as anybody could."

He further testified regarding the assessments made in the City of Des Moines that: " There were discounts made in some districts that were not made in others after measurements had been first taken and values computed thereon. The Des Moines assessment is too high in some districts as compared to others and as compared to other cities in the state."

The objections made by Mr. Crosser were of the discrepancies between the assessment in various districts in Des Moines as compared with each other and as compared with the assessments made in other cities. There is also testimony in the record tending to show that the assessment of the Des Moines properties is comparatively at its actual value while the assessment of properties in other cities in Iowa is to the extent of only 60 per cent of its actual value. Mr. Crosser testified: " One of my objections is that Des Moines is assessed on a basis of its actual value and some other cities assessed on a 60 per cent basis and we would be paying higher state taxes."

Written and oral objections were filed and presented to the State Board of Review by various property owners and taxpayers of the City of Des Moines, including the Bureau of Municipal Research of said city, and after hearing by the State Board of Assessment and Review, on notice to the defendants, the State Board of Review entered an order directing the Local Board of Review of the City of Des Moines to increase or decrease by certain percentages the assessments made in the various district zones. Thereafter, several...