[Vision2020] Property Tax Proposal

[Jeff Harkins]

I am just as concerned about the tax mess as everyone else that has been 
writing in.  And I intend to do something about it - if you push the 
correct chad and it doesn't hang or dangle.

John Danahy writes about the Christ Church and NSA matter and seems to 
place most of the blame on them.  I have not seen their full tax exemption 
application, but I have seen enough of the testimony to gather that they 
applied for an apportioned valuation on a tax parcel that was used for 
not-for-profit as well as profit activities - not kosher, but one can 
expect that they would see this as a reasonable request.  I am NOT 
defending their actions or their position, but simply trying shed some 
light on the matter.

This type of apportionment is permitted for other not for profit types of 
entities (although I would argue that it should also be an "exclusive type" 
exemption.  Allocations of the valuation just create too many opportunities 
for mistakes and mischief.  It is better to simply set up separate tax 
parcels for the subject property and track the valuation for the defined 
parcel.

Allocation or apportionment is not permitted for religious properties, 
under state law.  Thus a great deal of the problem originated with the 
Commissioners not recognizing that the parcel was not eligible for an 
apportioned valuation.  Thanks must go to Sandra and Rosemary for having 
the fortitude to persist in their position and "encouraging the BOCC to 
correct their error.  There are some other issues to address, but I will 
comment on those in a future posting.

John also raises some interesting points about tax reform.

On the surface, these seem tantalizing, but they would not do much to 
correct the tax situation.  The homeowners exemption is really a just a way 
of providing the appearance of a tax break, when in fact, what results is 
simply an increase in the levy rate.  In other words, it is almost revenue 
neutral to the County.  There is a small "benefit" in that businesses are 
not provided with an exemption; consequently, residential owners get a bit 
of an apparent break.  However, since businesses must pass those costs on 
to customers, to the extent that if property owners are also customers of 
local businesses, they end up paying the property tax of the business 
through the prices of the goods and services provided.

But you are on the right track - the tax burden for property owners must be 
changed.  We have reached the point at which the tax burden is stifling 
growth and development ... and taxing retired folks (and probably many of 
the rest of us) right out of our homes.

We need to look, as a community, at the entire tax structure in our county 
and determine whether there are some opportunities for providing a fairer 
and more balanced tax structure. I see some opportunities for that.

But even before that, it seems to me that we need to define what we want 
Latah County to be.  We seem to be drifting in many directions right now - 
housing developments, economic declines (UI and recently Tidyman's - with 
66 jobs, water allocation issues, road construction conflicts, Latah Trail 
conflicts, public and charter schools conflicts, rural versus city 
conflicts, etc.  Our current long-range plan has been "excepted" so many 
times that it no longer seems to have any "authority" with the committees 
and Commissions that utilize it.  Raise a challenge to the plan, get a good 
attorney and you can pretty much do what you want.  It has taken 71/2 
months to "resolve" a rock pit issue.  Our local elected officials have 
banned adults from playing hockey?

The rudder on our ship might not be broken, but it sure seems to have a lot 
of nicks in it - the course seems unclear.

A fresh look at our goals and how we plan to get there will provide us an 
opportunity to look carefully at our overall county government, the cost of 
government and how the current tax structure might be altered to afford our 
future.



At 04:59 PM 7/15/2004, you wrote:

>In the recent case, a lack of information and/or incomplete or inaccurate 
>information resulted in an improper categorization of local property, 
>which in turn led to a tax exemption being granted.  Lack of, inaccurate, 
>or incomplete information is not limited to NSA or Christ Church, but is a 
>factor in both business and residential property throughout the city and 
>county.  Until recent events, there was the tendency to treat this with a 
>wink wink; nod nod; little smile.
>
>What is needed is a significant change in property tax policy, both local 
>and state.  I propose the following:
>
>1 Raise the homeowners exemption to $75,000
>2 Require complete inspections of all business and residential property 
>every five years and after sale.
>
>We should not have to subsidize those who are not paying their fair 
>share.  After all, “Render unto Caesar
” is not just God’s word, it is the law.
>
>John
>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯