Property Taxpayer Protection Act

I got this info off of a Republican website (www.timburns.us) but we should be paying attention anyway. I try not to get into debates on property taxes. I tend to favor them as a way of keeping wealth distribution more equal and help balance our shaky budget in LA, but that's easy for me to say since I don't own any property. At any rate, increases of 500% on taxed property value are unreasonable and should be addressed. The proposed act and some text from Tim Burns below:

PROPERTY TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT

Property tax bills, which will be mailed this week, will bring a rude surprise to many St. Tammany residents during Christmas week. Although I was able to obtain a temporary restraining order enjoining the Louisiana Tax Commission from certifying what I believed to be an unconstitutional reassessment process, the district court later dissolved the temporary restraining order. The Louisiana Tax Commission called an emergency meeting to certify the rolls before further legal action could be taken.

Consequently myself and the ollowing members of the Northshore Legislative Delegation are hereby proposing the Property Taxpayer Protection Act to promote the uniform collection of property taxes and help ensure that our constituents are treated fairly by the process of assessing and collecting property taxes: State Sen. Boasso (R-Chalmette) and Rep. A. G. Crowe (R-Slidell), Rep. Tank Powell (R-Pontchatoula), Rep. Mike Strain (R-Abita Springs) and Rep. Diane Winston (R-Covington):

1) Cap on Increase in Assessed Value:

Current law does not provide for a cap on the increase in assessed value for property tax. Many homeowners have experienced the sticker shock of having 400 and 500% increase in the amount of their property tax, which was unexpected and not budgeted for.

This proposal would provide that the annual increase in the assessed value of any property subject to property tax shall not be increased beyond the aggregate increase in the Consumer Price Index for all taxable years since the property was most recently appraised or reappraised and valued. However, this limitation provided in this paragraph shall not be applicable to improvements completed subsequent to the most recent appraisal or reappraisal of the property.

Linking increases in assessed value to the Consumer Price Index would ensure that assessed value rises in general proportion to the cost of goods and services as well as wages and would help insure that individual taxpayers would not be disadvantaged by dramatic increases in property values caused by factors beyond their control.

2) Fair Review and Appeal Rights:

Current law provides that assessment lists shall be exposed daily for inspection by the taxpayers and other interested persons for a 15 day period, beginning no earlier than August 15 and ending no later than September 15 . Those contesting assessments generally must do so in person and must personally visit the assessor during working hours.

During this current reassessment process, many were unable to take time from their jobs to personally appeal their assessments or became discouraged by long lines at the assessor’s office. There is no provision in the current law requiring that the assessor justify their assessments and demonstrate the uniformity of their assessment to the taxpayer. Instead, the taxpayer is required to obtain an appraisal at their own expense. All these provisions are unfair to the taxpayer.

The proposal would expand the review period from July 1st (the date that the law requires that the preparation and listing of all real and personal property be completed by the assessor) until September 30th and require that all assessed property be posted on the Internet by July 1st. The provision would allow taxpayers to appeal their assessment by phone, regular mail or email and require that their assessor respond within 21 days justifying the amount of the assessment, including but not limited to the following factors: 1) uniformity of assessments of similar properties, 2) any special considerations raised by the taxpayers and why those considerations may or may not affect the assessed value of the property, and 3) any other conditions affecting fair market value.

Currently those who are contesting assessments are required to appear before the Board of Review, which is the St. Tammany Parish Council, which either increase or decrease the assessment of the property made by the assessor.

The proposal would provide that the Board of Review can only decrease assessments so that those wishing to challenge assessments will not feel intimidated by the process.

3) Freezing of Assessments for the Disabled:

Current law provides that residential property shall be frozen for any person 65 years or older.

The legislation would expand this protection to those who have not yet reached the age of 65, but are unable to work due to disability.

4) Removal of Income Cap for Elderly:

Current law provides that the tax freeze for any person 65 years or older shall apply only to those whose adjusted gross income is below $50,000.

The legislation would remove this income cap.

This would further help market Louisiana and the North Shore as a retirement community.

5) Suspension of Tax Sales and Assessment of Interest:

Under current law, delinquent taxes are subject to the assessment of interest and the forfeiture of property. Currently, the Sheriff of St. Tammany Parish has extended the delinquent date to January 21, 2005.

This proposal, which would be applied retroactively to January 1, 2004, would exempt from tax sales and the assessment of interest for any property whose increased assessment exceeds the aggregate increase in the consumer price index for all taxable years since the property was most recently appraised or reappraised and valued.

6) Justification of Tax Millage Increase:

Tax millage are the rate of tax which property owners pay on the assessed value of their property. Under current law, after any reappraisal or valuation, millage rates shall be rolled back (tax rates decreased) so that there shall be no increase in the total amount of property taxes collected by the taxing authority in the year preceding implementation of the reappraisal and valuation. However, millage rates can subsequently be rolled forward (tax rates increased) to their previous level by a two-thirds vote of the total membership of a taxing authority without further voter approval

The proposal would require that the taxing bodies justify the need for such increase in millages or tax rates and solutions would include mechanisms for increased public awareness and participation.

California passed Proposition 13 about 20 years ago to cap property taxes for existing homeowners. Short term, this dramatically impacted state revenues, caused cuts in many programs and set the stage for many of California's fiscal woes. Long term, it created disparities, since new homebuyers today pay several times the tax rates of neighbors who have lived in the same area for decades.

While a 500% tax increase is excessive, severe caps can have severe consequences as well.

It needs to be addressed, but we need to be careful how we do it. This Act is the only action I've seen like it in LA, so Progressives should be taking a look, finding the good and bad points, and maybe even *gasp* working with the Republican backers to make sure we don't create more budget problems by making caps too restrictive.

If you are renting, your landlord has factored into your rent the property tax he is paying on that property. If the taxes go up, your rent will probably go up at the next rent renewal. And the landlord gets the benefit of the tax write off.

Allegheny County (metro Pittsburgh) was on a system where the tax was based on 25% of the sale value of the home, and was never readjusted until a new sale. Right after we bought the house, they changed to a market value using comparable properties. Our tax bill went up 164% in a year.

What I wish Pittsburgh had was a system with a split-cap. We have many seniors who cannot afford to pay their increases in lump sum, but since we are reassessed every few years, if they could spread the increase across several years instead of at once, many seniors would be better able to afford the increase.

Then again, if Allegheny County had a different system of raising revenues, we wouldn't have this issue.

DBDB

A lot of landowners, especially those who own rental property, spread the lie that renters don't pay property taxes. All properties are assessed taxes. Smart landlords simply calculate it into the rent along with a little extra to cover when the unit is vacant. Do you for an instant think that your landlord is going to reduce your rent if they do away with a property tax? Fat chance, they're going to add it to their profit margin.

Most taxing bodies have a two phase plan in place to increase the taxes. Phase one is the adjust the "millage", the rate of tax paid per $1000 of assessed value. In many areas it requires a vote of the governing body or a local election to change this rate. The second phase is by changing the assessed value of the property. This phase has no oversight, you have to go personally to the taxing body and prove that their assessment of your property is incorrect to get any relief.

The proposal above sounds like somebody's ox got gored and they're looking for revenge or they've got a bunch of swamp they're trying to sell as prime waterfront properties.

Now I don't have to feel like a hypocrite when I vote for property tax increases.

That's actually a pretty obvious point, I don't know why it didn't occur to me before. I promise I'm not an idiot. Usually. :)

BUT

here in New Orleans, it's been shown that most of those who are "outraged" about property tax increases are those who weren't paying their fair share for a lONG LONG TIME. There are homes on St.Charles here that are now worth upwards of 3 million yet were still paying the tax percentage on the last appraisal from 30 YEARS AGO! Somehow they were able to legally (?) and willingly not have a reapraisal for that long of a period of time KNOWING that their homes had appreciated at an astounding rate. No wonder this city is so broke.

How about we make them pay back taxes on those amounts too?

Now how do we communicate these concerns?