I agree with Tracy Olsen, Nebo School District business manager, that the district did not receive a tax windfall. But it's obvious that many residential property owners have been assessed much more in taxes this year.

Read more...

The county assessment algorithm is really a crapshoot.  I spent a few minutes looking up properties in north Utah County.  I had no trouble finding many that were assessed at about half their actual value.  A couple properties actually had sold on the MLS a couple years ago (before the big jump in prices) for well over $100k more than the current assessment.  At the same time, mine is assessed at probably a little more than it is worth.  If we are going to tax based on property value, then we should value everything far more accurately.  At least we should get the easy values right.

earljr wrote:

The county assessment algorithm is really a crapshoot. I spent a few minutes looking up properties in north Utah County. I had no trouble finding many that were assessed at about half their actual value. A couple properties actually had sold on the MLS a couple years ago (before the big jump in prices) for well over $100k more than the current assessment. At the same time, mine is assessed at probably a little more than it is worth. If we are going to tax based on property value, then we should value everything far more accurately. At least we should get the easy values right.


The letter writer, and you, are on the right track. The taxable value should be the last price the property sold for. Then, we wouldn't need some knuckleheaded department assessing property differently for different places, or for some "special" people.

Establish the taxable value this way would establish a constant evaluation, and then we could set the mill levy to what is needed to meet the budget requirement. But then, everyone would know and understand exactly what is going on...much to honest for our system, apparently.

Russ wrote:

earljr wrote:

The county assessment algorithm is really a crapshoot. I spent a few minutes looking up properties in north Utah County. I had no trouble finding many that were assessed at about half their actual value. A couple properties actually had sold on the MLS a couple years ago (before the big jump in prices) for well over $100k more than the current assessment. At the same time, mine is assessed at probably a little more than it is worth. If we are going to tax based on property value, then we should value everything far more accurately. At least we should get the easy values right.


The letter writer, and you, are on the right track. The taxable value should be the last price the property sold for. Then, we wouldn't need some knuckleheaded department assessing property differently for different places, or for some "special" people.

Establish the taxable value this way would establish a constant evaluation, and then we could set the mill levy to what is needed to meet the budget requirement. But then, everyone would know and understand exactly what is going on...much to honest for our system, apparently.


This all sounds well and good until you look at what it actually accomplishes. Let's start with a (somewhat) real-world example. I bought my house 7 years ago for $168000. I have a neighbor down the street who bought his a few years earlier for about $125000. I have a couple of neighbors across the street who bought earlier this year for around $350000. Why should my neighbor down the street pay less than any of the rest of us and why should I pay less than my neighbors across the street for homes that are all currently valued in the $325000 to $350000 range?

We have a problem with disparity in valuations, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of property taxes based on current valuation. What we need are assessors who are willing to put in the work to find the anomalies on both ends of the valuation spectrum and fix them.

Property owners whose valuations are too high already have a grievance process. I would encourage everyone who thinks their property is valued too high to appeal. The real problem is all the properties that continue to be undervalued for tax purposes. I don't know of anyone who is going to go to the assessor and say, "Hey, I don't think I'm paying enough." With today's technology it should not be too difficult for assessors to root out properties with unusually low valuations and perform live reassessments.

dadofone wrote:

Russ wrote:

earljr wrote:

The county assessment algorithm is really a crapshoot. I spent a few minutes looking up properties in north Utah County. I had no trouble finding many that were assessed at about half their actual value. A couple properties actually had sold on the MLS a couple years ago (before the big jump in prices) for well over $100k more than the current assessment. At the same time, mine is assessed at probably a little more than it is worth. If we are going to tax based on property value, then we should value everything far more accurately. At least we should get the easy values right.


The letter writer, and you, are on the right track. The taxable value should be the last price the property sold for. Then, we wouldn't need some knuckleheaded department assessing property differently for different places, or for some "special" people.

Establish the taxable value this way would establish a constant evaluation, and then we could set the mill levy to what is needed to meet the budget requirement. But then, everyone would know and understand exactly what is going on...much to honest for our system, apparently.


This all sounds well and good until you look at what it actually accomplishes. Let's start with a (somewhat) real-world example. I bought my house 7 years ago for $168000. I have a neighbor down the street who bought his a few years earlier for about $125000. I have a couple of neighbors across the street who bought earlier this year for around $350000. Why should my neighbor down the street pay less than any of the rest of us and why should I pay less than my neighbors across the street for homes that are all currently valued in the $325000 to $350000 range?

We have a problem with disparity in valuations, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of property taxes based on current valuation. What we need are assessors who are willing to put in the work to find the anomalies on both ends of the valuation spectrum and fix them.

Property owners whose valuations are too high already have a grievance process. I would encourage everyone who thinks their property is valued too high to appeal. The real problem is all the properties that continue to be undervalued for tax purposes. I don't know of anyone who is going to go to the assessor and say, "Hey, I don't think I'm paying enough." With today's technology it should not be too difficult for assessors to root out properties with unusually low valuations and perform live reassessments.


I disagree. "Current evaluation" is at best, a speculative number. You can ONLY sell your property for that value IF you can find someone to purchase it at that price. Since you have not, then you are just guessing that you could. Do so, and then, under the plan I suggest, that would then become the new taxable value. Right now, I have a home whose taxable value is about $30,000 MORE than I can possibly get out of it. I am perfectly willing to sell it to the auditor who set that value - but I am betting that they won't buy it either. Not at that price! Why not be honest?

One of the things that we do is drive people out of their homes by assessing them at a higher price, and ultimately tax them out of their homes if they cannot afford the taxes on the perceived value. Another is that we allow confusion enter into the picture. Instead of the taxing entity getting a vote on a higher mill levy, they can just raise the taxable value of the property in the district. How is that fair? One requires a vote, and the other is no under the table, it is practically unbelievable.

You are bothered by the idea that the neighbor might be paying less in taxes than you. Well, nobody said life was fair. I submit that when buying/selling, that you should consider the future. If you did, then what you suggest would not be a problem. Are you saying that the price that property can actually be sold for is not a legitimate price to tax it on?

I once bought a car for $300. My son and I pushed it home, and I fixed it. When I went to get it licensed, they wanted taxes on $3600. I took the risk of being able to fix the car, and very well could have wound up junking it, losing my $300. I provided a bill of sale, clearly stating the purchase price. NOBODY would have paid $3600 for the car which would not run. Do you really belive that I should have been taxed for that perceived value? Really? By the way, the market value of the car was about $2500 in good, running condition.

Why should we pay based on some speculative perceived value. Why not be honest - and fire 99% of the auditors out there? We don't need them...we DO HAVE a real value...the one the property actually sold for.

How do you propose to solve the problem of those retired whom are now on a fixed income, and can no longer afford to let someone else continually reset their taxes, eventually pushing them out onto the street?

Russ wrote:

dadofone wrote:

Russ wrote:

earljr wrote:

The county assessment algorithm is really a crapshoot. I spent a few minutes looking up properties in north Utah County. I had no trouble finding many that were assessed at about half their actual value. A couple properties actually had sold on the MLS a couple years ago (before the big jump in prices) for well over $100k more than the current assessment. At the same time, mine is assessed at probably a little more than it is worth. If we are going to tax based on property value, then we should value everything far more accurately. At least we should get the easy values right.


The letter writer, and you, are on the right track. The taxable value should be the last price the property sold for. Then, we wouldn't need some knuckleheaded department assessing property differently for different places, or for some "special" people.

Establish the taxable value this way would establish a constant evaluation, and then we could set the mill levy to what is needed to meet the budget requirement. But then, everyone would know and understand exactly what is going on...much to honest for our system, apparently.


This all sounds well and good until you look at what it actually accomplishes. Let's start with a (somewhat) real-world example. I bought my house 7 years ago for $168000. I have a neighbor down the street who bought his a few years earlier for about $125000. I have a couple of neighbors across the street who bought earlier this year for around $350000. Why should my neighbor down the street pay less than any of the rest of us and why should I pay less than my neighbors across the street for homes that are all currently valued in the $325000 to $350000 range?

We have a problem with disparity in valuations, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of property taxes based on current valuation. What we need are assessors who are willing to put in the work to find the anomalies on both ends of the valuation spectrum and fix them.

Property owners whose valuations are too high already have a grievance process. I would encourage everyone who thinks their property is valued too high to appeal. The real problem is all the properties that continue to be undervalued for tax purposes. I don't know of anyone who is going to go to the assessor and say, "Hey, I don't think I'm paying enough." With today's technology it should not be too difficult for assessors to root out properties with unusually low valuations and perform live reassessments.


I disagree. "Current evaluation" is at best, a speculative number.

And? It's still a lot closer to reality than what you paid for your house 5, 10, 20 or even 30 years ago.

You can ONLY sell your property for that value IF you can find someone to purchase it at that price. Since you have not, then you are just guessing that you could.

So the entire real estate appraisal business is all based on a bunch of guesses? Is that what you're trying to say?

I think you're smarter than that Russ and I think you're just making stuff up to justify a position that would benefit you personally. Well, tax policies should not be set in order to benefit individuals. Tax policies should be set to benefit society as a whole. If there are individual circumstances that warrant reconsideration, there are already ways to do so (see my comments earlier regarding appealing valuations.)

Do so, and then, under the plan I suggest, that would then become the new taxable value. Right now, I have a home whose taxable value is about $30,000 MORE than I can possibly get out of it. I am perfectly willing to sell it to the auditor who set that value - but I am betting that they won't buy it either. Not at that price! Why not be honest?

Didn't I already say that you could appeal your valuation? If you honestly believe your house is over-valued, then do the work and prove it. Why not be honest and just say that you favor a policy that benefits you personally while screwing your neighbors who've bought their houses more recently?

One of the things that we do is drive people out of their homes by assessing them at a higher price, and ultimately tax them out of their homes if they cannot afford the taxes on the perceived value.

Tax relief is available for situations such as you describe. You could argue that the relief should be more widely available and I would probably agree. But I really doubt there are too many situations where people actually have to give up their homes because of increasing property taxes. This is just a scare tactic used to further nutty tax reform proposals.

Another is that we allow confusion enter into the picture. Instead of the taxing entity getting a vote on a higher mill levy, they can just raise the taxable value of the property in the district. How is that fair? One requires a vote, and the other is no under the table, it is practically unbelievable.

Yeah, you've posted this garbage before and I think it was James T. who thoroughly rebutted you and explained how things really work. It just goes to prove that you either don't know what you're talking about (and don't care to know) or that you are dishonestly posting incorrect information to further your agenda. If you really cared about affecting tax policy you'd at least stop posting disinformation. Here's how things really work:

By law, the mill levy is adjusted every year so that each taxing entity receives the same amount of money as the year before. If property values go up, the mill levy automatically goes down in proportion. If your property value increases or decreases at the same rate as the average property within a tax district then your property tax will stay the same.

The only way your property taxes go up, outside of an actual tax increase or additional levy, is if your property increases in value relative to the average property within the tax district. If taxing entities want to increase the amount of money they collect (i.e. increase taxes) then they must hold truth in taxation hearings open to the public. If there's enough of a public outcry it is possible to reverse the increase. For some reason, elected officials are somewhat loathe to vote for tax increases when their constituents are yelling and screaming bloody murder.

You are bothered by the idea that the neighbor might be paying less in taxes than you. Well, nobody said life was fair.

Yes, I am bothered by that idea. Tax policy should be fair. I never said life should be. :

I submit that when buying/selling, that you should consider the future. If you did, then what you suggest would not be a problem.

I submit that you are selfish and don't mind if your neighbors get screwed as long as you don't.

Are you saying that the price that property can actually be sold for is not a legitimate price to tax it on?

I think you already know that's not what I'm saying. Never did I come close to saying such a thing. What I am saying is that if you don't believe your property is valued properly that you already have the ability to appeal. Is that not enough for you?

I once bought a car for $300. My son and I pushed it home, and I fixed it. When I went to get it licensed, they wanted taxes on $3600. I took the risk of being able to fix the car, and very well could have wound up junking it, losing my $300. I provided a bill of sale, clearly stating the purchase price. NOBODY would have paid $3600 for the car which would not run. Do you really belive that I should have been taxed for that perceived value? Really? By the way, the market value of the car was about $2500 in good, running condition.

Well, seeing as how we no longer tax passenger vehicles based on value this isn't really a valid comparison. Regardless, if I remember correctly, when we did tax vehicles based on value, there was an appeal process available for situations just as you describe. Did you avail yourself of this process? If not, that's your fault, not the State's.

Why should we pay based on some speculative perceived value. Why not be honest - and fire 99% of the auditors out there? We don't need them...we DO HAVE a real value...the one the property actually sold for.

Because the real value is what the property is actually worth. If your house is only worth to you what you paid for it twenty years ago, then I'd be happy to take it off your hands. I might even give you a ten percent premium.

How do you propose to solve the problem of those retired whom are now on a fixed income, and can no longer afford to let someone else continually reset their taxes, eventually pushing them out onto the street?

As I said before, tax abatement and/or deferral is already available.

http://propertytax.utah.gov/standards/standard03.pdf

If there's one thing we agree on it's that people should not be taxed out of their homes. Apparently, the State agrees. If you really do know people who are in danger of losing their homes, please share this information with them. I'm sure they'd appreciate it.