Property tax inertia
Text 
For those Utahns who got whacked upside the bank account with out-of-the-blue property tax hikes in 2007, the Legislature has spoken on the issue: The status quo is fine, get over it.
Our guess is that the potential number of tax revolters will about double this fall, when the next round of property tax pummeling is set to begin -- it'll be just prior to Election Day, and lawmakers who sat on their hands this session may have some explaining to do.
As this is being written Wednesday, it's possible, we suppose, that a rabbit might still be yanked from a hat before midnight, when the Legislature's regular 2008 session ends. But it would be a miracle -- and as everyone knows, people don't go looking to Utah's Capitol when in search of miracles.
The one property tax reform bill of any substance that passed and will meet the governor's approval is House Bill 54. It "requires a county assessor ... to use a computer assisted mass appraisal system to conduct its annual update of property values." It's a baby step, but it'll probably help prevent the once-every-three-to-five-year shocks we saw in 2007.
What hasn't happened is any significant relief for retired homeowners. There are people in the Ogden Valley and Bountiful who are retired, living on fixed incomes and wondering how in the world they're going to keep their homes. Lawmakers have responded with, "We'll get back to ya on that one," having scooted the issue off to an interim-study committee; maybe they'll take another look at it next year, but then again maybe not.
The problem is not all lawmakers, mind you, but it is most lawmakers. If the way property taxes are assessed bothers you, this is the year to press your state representative -- and, if he or she is up for re-election this cycle, your state senator, as well -- for answers. They're counting on your anger to subside between now and November.
Maybe it will, and the status quo will be preserved.
Reader Comments
Seems to me this much at least is non-deniable: when someone's property taxes on their owner-occupied home shoot up dramatically in one year, something in "the system" is not working as it should. I don't pretend to have "the" answer, or even "an" answer to how to fix it all. And no matter what is done, some will gain and be happy, and some will lose and be angry. But that is true if nothing is done as well.
There are two problems here. Both involve considerations of equity, of a sort. The first involves this question: how should property taxes be assessed fairly across all residential property owners in the County? By what means can this best be achieved? The second involves this question: Is it fair/ equitable/ just/ acceptable [pick whichever word you like] that elderly persons should find themselves forced to sell the homes they have lived in in some cases for decades, by dramatically rising property taxes? I'd say "no, it is not acceptable." How then, can we fix this problem in a way most consistent with the answer [whatever we decide it is] to question one?
"Let's take time to study the matter" is sometimes the course of wisdom. But it is also sadly true of many legislative bodies, the Utah legislature included, that "let's take time to study the matter" is often used simply as a stalling tactic in hopes the need to do anything will go away over time. If the "put it off to study it" included some mechanism to shield, until the study is done, those likely to be very seriously affected by ballooning property taxes in the interim, it would be more appealing to me than a naked "delay while we study" option.
I saw the legislators giving a great deal of thought to this issue, I applaud them for having the fortitude to step back and study the issue rather than give a knee-jerk solution to a fairly narrowly focused (geographically) problem. The bill requiring the computer program be used is more than a baby step. It should eliminate the whining from the assessors that claim they don't have time or money to do their jobs as the law currently reads. Want to vote out the ones that screwed up your property taxes? It isn't the Senators or the Representatives. Start at your assessors office!
Because many Retirees DO NOT have their homes paid off, nor do they have "wealth". We spent it all raising you!
STICKER SHOCK I disagree.....Just to set the record straight; in reality, the taxpayers who have a legitimate right to whine are property owners who “overpaid” a property tax to compensate for those, whose homes were in some cases valued 50% below fair market value for 3, 5, and in some cases 10 years. We never heard a word from those who are now whining and complaining when their homes were assessed far below fair market value. It is only now, when County Assessors, constitutionally bound, are doing the job they have been elected to do; assessing properties at their fair market value, that we hear cries from those now required to pay a reasonable and “FAIR” property tax based on their home’s “fair market” value, thus spreading this burden more equitably among all home owners.
So why do the retired people living on "fixed incomes" merit more attention when it comes to "fixing" property taxes than families with children that struggle with finances every day?
Does the Standard Examiner really advocate for placing more of the tax burden on families in an effort to make life easier for those retired people who generally have more wealth than new families and homes that are paid off?
Sounds pretty dumb to me.
You want an answer? Base property taxes on State Adjusted Gross Income and charge 1 or 2 % after taking school districts off the property tax tab. Include businesses and corporations who skate by since Leavett took office. Schhool Districts already get 100% of our "Income Taxes". Seems "fair" and "equitable" to me"...and is based upon ability to pay considerations. Low income seniors and young couples just starting out would feel some releif at a time when they could use it and no one would be exploited if say a $500,000 cap were imposed so no one would pay more than $10,000 a year in property taxes. Individuals, couples, businesses, or corporations.