[Vision2020] candidate questionnaire--responses

Fri Aug 18 13:15:33 PDT 2006

Hi Donovan,

What you may be referring to is a prohibition on raising user fees 
more than 5% without a public hearing. This item is on Monday's 
Council agenda:

3.       Public Hearing - City User Fee Increases Over 5% - Don Palmer
Staff prepared the proposed FY 2006-2007 Fee Resolution.  According 
to Idaho law, a public hearing must be held if individual fee 
increases exceed 5% of the fees in the previous year.  The FY 2007 
budget proposal is based on this Resolution.  Increases of 5% or 
greater include:  water, sewer and sanitation utility fees; all new 
Community Development fees; engineering fees; most license fees; 
Farmers' Market fees; and all Parks and Recreation's existing, new 
and special program fees as detailed on the Resolution.

ACTION:  Approve the Resolution; reject the Resolution; or take such 
other action deemed appropriate.

And you're right: If you live in a $300,000 house you are taxed on 
less than that due to the homeowner's exemption, now raised to the 
first $75,000 of value or 50% whichever is lesser. So, the owner of a 
$300,000 owner-occupied house would pay taxes on $225,000 of value.

Mark

At 12:56 PM -0700 8/18/06, Donovan Arnold wrote:
>Thanks Mark,
>
>I am sure you are correct on most of the information. However, I 
>have been told by a very reliable source that City governments in 
>Idaho are not allowed to raise their total budgets by more than 5% 
>regardless of funding. That 5% does not count schools however, which 
>have their own line. I know nothing about the 3%, which as I under 
>stand is a different rule. I am also not sure if the same rule for 
>city restrictions apply exactly the same for county governments 
>regarding taxing rates.
>
>I also know that a person who could sell their house for $300,000 in 
>Moscow will not be paying taxes for a $300,000, far from it.
>
>I do agree with a cap on how much you raise property taxes in any 
>given year. Your explanation regarding how property taxes could rise 
>quickly in just one year does make sense.
>
>Best,
>
>_DJA
>
>Mark Solomon <msolomon at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>Re: [Vision2020] candidate questionnaire--responses
>Donovan,
>
>You've made a mistake quite common in the discussion of assessed 
>valuation and property taxes. While they are definitely related, 
>raising assessed valuation (which is required by law to be at market 
>value: read about what's been going on in Bonner County...) does not 
>automatically raise property taxes. Taxes are based on a local 
>governing district's budget levy, set after public hearing by 
>locally elected officials, and restricted, by law, to not go up more 
>than 3% annually. For clarity: it is the levy rate that can not rise 
>more than 3%, not budgets.
>
>So, yes, an individual's property taxes could rise significantly IF:
>
>the assessed valuation in a neighborhood or taxing district rose due 
>to market values generally increasing; AND
>the taxing district (city, county, library, highway, school, etc or 
>any combination thereof) raised its levy rate the full 3% allowed by 
>law.
>
>Practically speaking, it's the school district, followed distantly 
>by the county and the city that make up the bulk of our local 
>property taxes. Bonds such as the one for the Moscow Aquatic Center, 
>approved by the voters for public infrastructure, are the other 
>major property tax component. The City relies primarily on user fees 
>(water, sewer, etc) for funding city government.
>
>Mark
>
>At 3:55 PM -0700 8/17/06, Donovan Arnold wrote:
>
>>This assessor question is built on a false premise. Property values 
>>are not based on real market values, and thank God they are not, 
>>otherwise people would be paying about 4x as much in taxes. 
>>Properties are more assessed based on what the expenditures of the 
>>city/county are and the value of a home( about 1/2 real market 
>>value - 50% for property owners on their first home). Local 
>>governments can only raise their budgets 5% a year, not counting 
>>the school district which is separate, so they couldn't legally 
>>raise it to market value anyway, well, at least not and be within 
>>state law.
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>_DJA
>>
>>
>>
>>Bruce Livingston <livi at turbonet.com> wrote:
>>
>>I am fine with both of these questions. BDL
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Art Deco"
>>To: "Chasuk" ; "Jennifer McFarland"
>>
>>Cc: "Bill London" ; "Bruce Livingston"
>>; "Donovan Arnold" ;
>>"Barrett Schroeder" ; "Vision 2020"
>>
>>Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:32 AM
>>Subject: Re: candidate questionnaire--responses
>>
>>
>>>  Perhaps we still need work.
>>>
>>>  In deference to Bruce's suggestion of a general question for the "minor"
>>>  candidates, perhaps a very specific one for each office might be in order:
>>>
>>>  Examples:
>>>
>>>  Assessor candidates: What procedures should be followed to insure that
>>>  the assessed value of all properties is as close as possible to their real
>>>  market value?
>>>
>>>  Coroner candidates: What procedures should be followed in the event of an
>>>  unattended death or a death where there is even some slight probability of
>>>  criminal activity?
>>>
>>>  Asking specific office related questions may provide a better insight into
>>>  a candidates viability.
>>>
>>>  W.
>>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>>  From: "Chasuk"
>>>  To: "Jennifer McFarland"
>>>  Cc: "Bill London" ; "Bruce Livingston"
>>>  ; "Donovan Arnold" ;
>>>  "Barrett Schroeder" ; "Art Deco aka W. Fox"
>>>
>>>  Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:54 PM
>>>  Subject: Re: candidate questionnaire--responses
>>>
>>>
>>>>  On 8/15/06, Jennifer McFarland wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  If we're all part of a committee to decide which questions to ask,
>>>>>  shouldn't
>>>>>  we all have input into which people are asked questions as well?
>>>>
>>>>  Barrett has indicated that he doesn't consider himself a member of
>>>>  this committee, so that excludes him, but I suggest that we take an
>>>>  "aye" or "nay" vote on this matter to get it out of the way.
>>>>
>>>>  Since it is my suggestion, I'll start the ball rolling. I don't
>>
>>  >> really care what a coroner's opinion is about anything. I care that
>>>>  he performs his job professionally, and I cannot personally conceive
>>>>  of any questions that I might ask that would help me make that
>>>>  determination.
>>>>
>>>>  Of course, maybe we should split this into two issues:
>>>>
>>>>  1. Are you happy with Bill London's list of candidates?
>>>>
>>>>  2. Are you happy with Bill London's proposed questions?
>>>>
>>>>  I vote "aye" in both instances.
>>>>
>>>>  Everyone else, please respond ONLY this divisive issue.
>>>>
>>>>  Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>  Chas
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>Want to be your own boss? Learn how on 
><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=41244/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index> 
>Yahoo! Small Business.
>
>
>=======================================================
>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
>=======================================================
>
>
>
>
>Want to be your own boss? Learn how on 
><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=41244/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index> 
>Yahoo! Small Business.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060818/99cb4b47/attachment.htm 