Posted: 23 Dec 2010 08:36 AM PST

The time is nigh for the people of Montana to demand a permanent property tax system that is simple to understand, equitable for all, and provides predictable revenue from residential, commercial and agriculture property owners. Our Legislature should put an end to the reappraisal panic every six years, the inequities of phase-in and our method of "mitigating" the impact of abnormal market value increases. We need a full reappraisal no later than 2012 to avoid over taxing Class 3 and 4 property owners.

Montana Residents for Fair Property Taxation (MRFPT), based on eight years of trying to work within the Legislative system and proposing another state's proven approach, has lost confidence that our Legislature will do anything meaningful to reform property tax and will continue with the current law. Our governor has distanced himself from the reappraisal problem and has shown no interest or compassion for our plight in this economy.

Our present property tax system or law has failed. This economic recession is not the time to increase taxes for anyone from reappraisal. Montana, however, increases the tax liability for every property with market value increase above the statewide average just to offset the amount of decrease for owners below the average. Not one dollar goes to increase state 101 mill revenue or county/city/district operations; only the tax burden shifts to the areas of largest growth. The mitigation solution also creates a separate class of owners called "outliers" whose increases are very large and not affordable for the average Montana resident.

Phase-in of market value increases over six years in arrears is not in compliance to the Montana Constitution requirement for "Equalization of Value." Phase-in of decreased taxable value causes the owner to pay more tax than he would without phase-in; also a violation of the constitution.

The Legislature has shown some understanding or compassion. Owners with income less than $75,000 can limit property tax increases to 6 percent per year. The irony of this is the state county and cities/districts increase the taxes of residential, commercial and agriculture owners without the limit to make up the loss of revenue. In my opinion, this is unconscionable. The concept of fair and equal treatment has been ignored, but if you consider that this exemption with its cost is not necessary if Montana would just come into the 21st century.

Here is our travesty in the making: 1. Most, if not all, Flathead Valley residents believe their market values from the 2008 reappraisal are overstated as much as 25 to 45 percent. (These numbers are validated by comparing adjustments given to people who appealed their reappraisal.) 2. Many owners of property, some for several generations, cannot afford the assessment increase and will be forced to sell their homes. 3. There are very few buyers or sales in the valley and no one is able to sell for the reappraised value, so property values are falling rapidly and the current market value is not being updated. 4. Every property owner is paying more tax than he would if the property had been properly appraised in 2008 and reappraised again in 2012 and 2014. 5. Montanans who would like to buy in the valley cannot because the values/prices are too high. 6. If we wait until 2014 to reappraise, the decrease in tax base will be very large and cause increases in tax as a percent of market value (mills), which means owners that had decreases 2008-2014 will pay more tax.

What can we do to protect our way of life? MRFPT believes the only way we can get this Administration and Legislature to reform property taxes is to overturn HB 658, the current law, in court. We intend to file suit during the 2011 Session.

We will have a bill sponsored by Flathead Valley legislators that could solve our problems, but we doubt there will be serious consideration unless the governor intervenes with the Legislature and the Department of Revenue. Our feeling is that the majority of the legislators of both parties do not care about the high growth areas. You could contact every legislator and the governor and plead for them to do the right thing.

Dud Mahler lives in Whitefish.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured site: So, Why is Wikileaks a Good Thing Again?.

KC’s property tax rates already high for area

Posted: 22 Dec 2010 06:41 PM PST

In recent days I've started to examine how much Kansas Citians pay in property taxes vs. how much residents pay in other local cities.

It's part of a long-term effort to review Kansas City's tax structure now that voters next April will decide whether to renew the 1 percent earnings tax.

That tax creates $200 million a year and accounts for 40 percent of the city's general fund, the biggest source of funding for the police and fire departments.

City Hall officials already have stated that they likely would have to increase the city's property tax rate to bring in more public dollars if voters reject the earnings tax.

Today's column takes a snapshot look at some local property tax rates for selected houses.

My conclusions so far:

•The property tax rate for Kansas City is already higher, in many cases, than the rates for suburbs such as Overland Park, Shawnee and Lenexa.

That means increasing the property tax rate in Kansas City won't be very popular with residents. It also means that asking voters to hike the property tax could be a tough sell, especially if a large increase is sought at some point.

•The overall property tax bills for Kansas City residents — including the payments to school districts, counties and other taxing jurisdictions — aren't cheap.

That's not good news for anyone at City Hall who still might be hoping that increasing the property tax would be a relatively easy task.

Consider several examples from this area, while keeping in mind in all these cases that estimated market values don't necessarily reflect what houses would sell for, and that people live in different cities, counties and school districts for a host of reasons.

All of these cases compare the percent of property taxes paid vs. the stated market value of the house.

For example, my house in Kansas City had a market value of $85,107 for 2010. The city portion of the property tax was $280.70.

So the overall city tax was

0.33 percent of the house's market value.

Here are some of the city property tax rates in 2010 for other examples:

0.10 percent for an Overland Park house with a value of $212,000.

0.28 percent for a Leawood house with a value of $267,900.

0.28 percent for a Shawnee house with a value of $204,900.

0.29 percent for an Olathe house with a value of $157,600.

0.30 percent for a Kansas City house with a value of $37,532.

0.31 percent for a Kansas City house with a value of $166,940.

0.33 percent for a Fairway house with a value of $330,800.

0.35 percent for a Kansas City house with a value of $576,000.

Of course, the city tax isn't the biggest portion of a property tax bill. So it makes sense to look at a total property tax amount while examining whether Kansas Citians appear to be over- or under-taxed on their houses.

Unfortunately, they don't get any big bargain when it comes to overall rates, either.

The overall annual property tax burdens for the residences I reviewed ranged from a low of 1.38 percent of the house price (in Overland Park) to 1.78 percent of the house price (in Kansas City).

That last house was mine, and it was highest on the list because the Raytown School District had the most expensive property tax levy of any other district checked — almost 28 percent higher than the Kansas City School District. And the Kansas City district rate was higher than those for the Blue Valley, Shawnee Mission and Olathe districts in Kansas.

Other caveats come with this column, such as the fact that the generally higher housing prices for Kansas-side houses often meant higher property taxes for those owners, too.

As this cursory review shows, Kansas City's property tax rates already are fairly high for this area. If the earnings tax goes away, boosting the property tax rate won't be a simple task.

Reach editorial board member Yael T. Abouhalkah at abouhalkah@kcstar.com or 816-234-4887. He blogs at voices.kansascity.com. He appears on "Ruckus" at 7 tonight on KCPT, Channel 19.

Do you qualify for a property tax rebate?

Posted: 22 Dec 2010 08:15 AM PST

The Missouri Property Tax Credit program, operated by the Missouri Department of Revenue, is the only program that allows senior citizens or those 100 percent disabled to receive a rebate on property taxes.

Participants must pay the tax first and then apply for a rebate.

The program also covers those who rent. Documentation for renters includes copies of payments made to landlords.

There are three different ways to qualify, according to the St. Charles County Assessor's Office.

— If you or your spouse was 65 or older as of Dec. 31, 2009.

— If you are 60 or older and receive Social Security benefits as a surviving spouse.

— If you or your spouse is 100 percent disabled.

Qualified senior citizens or disabled people can apply for a refund when filing their state income tax return. Those who do not file a state income tax return can still obtain a refund.

For more information on how the program works go to www.dor.mo.gov/tax/personal/ptc or call the assessor's office at 636-949-7429; the Mid-East Area Agency on Aging at 1-800-243-6060; the St. Charles County MEAAA office at 636-579-0555; or contact your local senior center.

The program is limited to those with an annual gross income of no more than $30,000 for single people and no more than $34,000 for married couples. The refund could be full or partial, based on income.

Property Tax

Thursday, December 23, 2010

“Taxpayer Revolution for Property Tax Reform” plus 2 more

“Taxpayer Revolution for Property Tax Reform” plus 2 more

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Feedjit

Popular Posts