One of downtown Oxford’s larger commercial buildings was assessed a combined $707 on its three tax bills from the township and village last year.
In 2005, this same building had village and township (summer and winter) tax bills totalling $704.
Owned by Dave and Joan Weckle, the historic Meriam Building at 10 N. Washington Street pays the least amount of property taxes of any of the commercial buildings in downtown’s four quadrants.
Dave Weckle said he wasn’t aware his property taxes were so low. ‘I’ve never really paid attention to it,? he said. ‘I’ve never heard anything about it.
According to Dave Hieber, manager of the Oakland County Equalization Division, it seems the property has benefited from a combination of Proposal A’s effects and ‘inappropriate assessing practices? that occurred prior to the county taking over those duties from the township in February 1997.
‘It certainly appears that way to me,? Hieber said.
Built in 1912 and bought by the Weckles in 1996 for approximately $100,000, last year the building’s State Equalized Value (SEV) was $450,450 yet it’s taxable value was only $12,040.
SEV is 50 percent of a property’s true cash value.
Taxable value is used to calculate property taxes.
Under Proposal A, passed by state voters in 1994, a property’s taxable value is capped and can only increase annually by the rate of inflation or 5 percent, whichever is less, unless there is an addition to the property (i.e. physical improvement or omitted property) or the property’s ownership transferred (i.e. sold) during a previous tax year.
When a property is sold, it’s taxable value is reset to equal the SEV. This is commonly referred to as uncapping the taxable value.
Prior to 1997, Oxford Township had its own assessing department which determined the 11,771-square-foot Meriam Building to have an SEV and taxable value of $9,720.
‘We really have no idea how they got the $9,700 value back in 1997,? Hieber said. ‘I have no idea what these guys did before us.?
Considering the property was sold to the Weckles in 1996 for a reported $100,000, yet the taxable value was uncapped to equal an SEV of only $9,720, Jeff Pattison, of the county Equalization Division said, ‘It appears it was very undervalued based on the sale price . . The assessment was rather low.?
‘This is probably a pretty good example of why (the township) wanted to pay a little bit more attention to their assessing records and have us do a reappraisal,? Hieber said.
When the county was contracted to do the assessing, the Equalization Division was asked to do a reappraisal of all residential and commercial properties.
Inappropriate assessing practices and poor record-keeping were ‘a big part of why they looked to us to do a reappraisal and at least get the SEVs corrected so when properties did transfer they would be uncapped at the appropriate amount,? Hieber explained.
The reappraisals were done between 1997 and 1999, with the new SEV amounts being placed on the tax roll in 2000, according to Hieber.
Because the property tax cap imposed by Proposal A, only the SEVs could be increased, not the taxable values, hence propety taxes on the previously underassessed Meriam Building remain extremely low to this day.
There is some question as to whether or not all the physical improvements the Weckles made to the building were factored into the assessment.
Village records indicate the Weckles’s company Valley Building and Repair was issued a building permit on April 8, 1996 for additions and remodeling involving two stories and the basement.
A certificate of occupancy was issued on November 29, 1997.
Weckle said all the major improvements to the building were done between 1996-97 including the installation of an elevator.
‘It had an elevator in it right from the beginning,? he said, noting it was included with the original drawings submitted when he applied for a building permit. ‘We put in the elevator when we did all the masonry work.?
However, records from the Equalization Division indicate there is no elevator and the value of one was not included. ‘It appears to be one of two choices ? it got missed (during the reappraisal) or it got done after,? Pattison said.
‘If it was there in 1998 when we did the reappraisal, it’s a mistake on our staff’s part and we can still go back theoretically and add it (to the SEV and taxable value for three previous years),? Hieber said.
But Hieber noted including the elevator in the assessor’s records would not bring the taxable value up to where it should be in relation to the SEV.
‘It’s important to know the elevator’s not going to close the gap all that far,? he said. ‘If anyone’s thinking we’re going to go out there, add the elevator and take the taxable value up to $400,000 ? that’s not going to happen.?
‘Even if we found two extra bathrooms and an elevator, it still a property that has gained greatly due to Proposal A and inappropriate assessing practices prior to (the county taking over),? Hieber noted.
Weckle said the only improvements he’s made since the major remodel in 1996-97 was last year when he put a fresh coat of paint on the outside of the building and installed new awnings.
Hieber has suggested to village officials that if they believe there are improvements not in the Equalization Division’s records, they can send the village building inspector in to look around.
‘If they did that and they saw improvements that this owner made or improvements not indicated on our assessment record, we would be willing to look at that and value those improvements and apply all the proper laws under Proposal A,? he said.