[Vision2020] Assessment of the Property Tax

Sat Apr 9 11:16:53 PDT 2005

Shelley,

the numbers you are quoting refer to forest land, 
not agricultural land. We confuse the issue here 
in Latah County with our land use zoning 
designation of Ag/Forest. The county assessor 
does not. Most forest land in the county does not 
have the development potential any land adjacent 
to Moscow does, including the Trail property.

Mark Solomon

At 11:11 AM -0700 4/9/05, Shelly wrote:
>Hi Jeff,
>
>Yes, CJ's is for sale for 1.3 mil. The assessed 
>value on CJ's building is based on it's income. 
>Similar to farmland.
>
>Phil picked up a brochure at the city called, 
>"Idaho's Forestland Taxation Law" that I think 
>can answer your other question. Since I do have 
>the brochure I will quote from it.
>
>We are in Zone 2 also known as Latah County.
>Zone 2 Land Grade is as follows:
>
>For bare land and yield:
>Good: $150.00
>Med. $94.00
>Poor: $48.00
>
>For productivity:
>Good: $485.00
>Med.: $311.00
>Poor: $137.00
>
>In a nutshell:
>10 acres of the "primmest" AG/FOREST land goes for $4,850.00 per acre.
>Far cry from $250,000.00.
>
>40 acres of the "primmest" AG/FOREST land goes for $194,000.00 per acre.
>Far cry from $1,000,000.00.
>
>Now, if you valuate AG/FOREST land on it's 
>"potential value" with added infrastructure, not 
>it's current value then the Trail "gifted" land 
>is easily worth over a million.
>
>Phil is at the meeting and I am home sick and 
>trying to get 2 years of reading done for Phil 
>on this levy issue.
>
>Shelley/Phil's wife
>Yes Phil will get his own email account shortly. I hope! :)
>
>
>
>
>-------Original Message-------
>
>From: <mailto:dickschmidt at moscow.com>Dick Schmidt
>Date: 04/09/05 09:55:30
>To: 
><mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>vision2020 at moscow.com; 
><mailto:jeffh at moscow.com>Jeff Harkins
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Assessment of the Property Tax
>
>Jeff,
>
>So then for example CJ's is for sale for $1.3 
>million then his assessment would be based on 
>that amount using a formula you have worked 
>which probably has one formula for business and 
>another for residential? In accordance to the 
>freedom of information law then someone could go 
>in and see what they are paying in taxes.
>
>Dick Schmidt
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:jeffh at moscow.com>Jeff Harkins
>To: <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>vision2020 at moscow.com
>Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:10 AM
>Subject: [Vision2020] Assessment of the Property Tax
>
>As many of you have commented, the Tax 
>Assessment Rate may not be a good measure of the 
>tax burden for a particular county.  And yes, 
>you are absolutely correct.
>
>The real driver for the assessment of property 
>tax on residents of a county is the level of 
>budgeted expenditures for that county.  As many 
>of you are aware, the determination of the tax 
>rate is derived by identifying the amount of 
>revenue needed to fund the budgeted expenditures 
>for the year.  Then, given the level of assessed 
>valuation subject to the tax, the tax levy rate 
>is determined by dividing the required revenue 
>(to be funded by property taxes) by the total 
>assessed valuation or:
>
>Required revenues / Total assessed valuation = Tax levy rate
>
>But as is obvious, while the budgeted 
>expenditures (required revenues) are driving the 
>amount of taxes that will be assessed on 
>property owners, it is the assessed valuation 
>that determines the amount of tax that will be 
>paid by each property owner.  And there are 
>numerous and inherent problems with the 
>assessment process.  In Idaho, the approach is 
>to attempt to provide "uniformity" to achieve 
>fairness in the assessment process.  Below is a 
>quote from the 2004-05 Ratio Assessment Manual ( 
>http://tax.idaho.gov/propertytax/pt_ratiostudy.htm):
>
>MEASURING ASSESSMENT UNIFORMITY
>Uniformity determines the quality and inherent equity of property
>assessments. Although both the appraisal and the market transaction
>are subject to distortion on any individual property, if the
>magnitude of this distortion is consistently large, taxes paid by
>similar properties in the same area will differ widely. The goal of
>a fair assessment program is to reduce inequity of this type.
>There are two overall types of inequity that can occur:
>1. Inequity between categories.
>2. Inequity within a given category.
>In the first case, inequity results when the assessment level is
>lower in one category than another. This situation becomes apparent
>when level indicators from different categories are compared.
>In the second case, the distortion is entirely within one category
>and is not indicated by measurements of level.
>
>I don't really like the property tax as a 
>vehicle for funding public programs - not 
>because I don't want to support public programs 
>- but because the property tax is an 
>extraordinarily difficult tax to administer. 
>The overhead necessary to manage an equitable 
>property tax system is enormous.  Without 
>getting into a diatribe or dissertation on 
>administering a property tax system, consider 
>the following elements of the system"
>
>Must maintain an online-realtime system of all real property transactions
>Must maintain a persistent and consistent real property assessment system
>Must maintain a means of adjudicating or 
>resolving individual property assessment 
>complaints
>Must maintain a system of oversight that 
>monitors and assures that the systems operated 
>by taxing jurisdictions in the State is fair and 
>equitable
>The property tax is an expensive tax to manage. 
>For example, in Latah County, we levied about 
>$5.8 million in property tax for 2003.  Give or 
>take a few $10's of thousands, the amount spent 
>in Latah County for management of the Property 
>Tax System was above  $1,000,000 for 2003.  This 
>number is not readily available from the 
>County's financial statements because the system 
>is managed across more than one County 
>department (Assessor's Office, Collector's 
>Office, etc.), but the Revaluation program 
>(administered by the Assessor's Office) spent 
>$457,011 just on the revaluation program.  From 
>my memory (always a dubious source) the normal 
>operating cost of the Assessor's office, in 
>addition to the revaluation program) was about 
>$700,000 for 2003.  Thus, if these numbers are 
>at all reliable, about $.20 of every dollar 
>collected in property taxes was spent in 
>administering the tax.  Of course, this does not 
>include any costs incurred by the tax collectors 
>office nor, at the state level, for their 
>oversight responsibilities.  Also, my numbers do 
>not include the cost of having our elected 
>County Commissioners serve as the local 
>adjudicating body for appeal of property 
>valuations.  If you scrutinize the agendas for 
>last year, you may be surprised at how much time 
>was spent hearing tax appeals.
>
>And, by the way, even though we spend a lot of 
>money on trying to assure that the property tax 
>is fair and equitable, those that received their 
>property tax assessment notices for 2005 know 
>that the system occasionally requires 
>significant adjustment.  Again I would refer you 
>to the 2004-05 Ratio Assessment Manual for 
>details about how the assessment oversight 
>works.  Here is that link again - 
>http://tax.idaho.gov/propertytax/pt_ratiostudy.htm.
>
>As you dig into the details of the ratio study 
>and the application of that technique to 
>properties in Latah County (as well as other 
>counties) you might want to refresh your 
>statistical analysis tools - especially the 
>difficulties of small samples.  I noted that for 
>2003, in the assessment of Rural Residential 
>properties ( 
>http://tax.idaho.gov/propertytax/PTpdfs/rpt_03_county_ratio_study.pdf 
>) that Latah stats were generated from 11 sales 
>for that year.  A sample this small can be 
>problematic.
>
>This concludes my thoughts on property tax 
>assessment and the tax burden on Latah 
>residents.  For me, the conclusion is pretty 
>straightforward - our property taxes are rather 
>high and the level of tax probably influences 
>many potential businesses and individuals from 
>living here.  The fact that the Moscow - 
>Lewiston region was the only sector of Idaho 
>that did not report growth for the year is some 
>indication of that. 
>
>My next post on taxes will address the question 
>of property tax exemptions and the impact of 
>exemptions on tax receipts, fairness and equity 
>of the tax exemption, etc.  It will be a few 
>days - I have some yardwork to do.
>
>Hope this was helpful.
>
>
>
>
>
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
>  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
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
><http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=54475>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050409/12cf9a4a/attachment.htm