Few things about the property tax debate in
Residential values have outpaced the growth of commercial, agricultural and other property so much that even with the homeowner's exemption, residential values now make up some 66 percent of the state's total — that's some 20 percentage points more than in 1980.
But there are no easy answers as to why that is or what to do about it.
"It's like interpreting the Bible," said Alan Dornfest, the Tax Commission's property tax policy supervisor.
Some Democrats argue the change is a shift from businesses to individuals,
sparked by the state's failure to let the homeowner's exemption grow with the
economy. Retired
Business groups point to rapid growth in population, home building and home values, and say the system is still fair and balanced. Raising the homeowners exemption, they say, would be an unfair tax shift to business.
And a few Republicans don't want to discuss these property taxes in a vacuum, and argue that the state should be exploring the way all taxes are raised and spent.
The 14 lawmakers charged with studying the property tax were leaning toward the first explanation after hearing from more than 1,500 Idahoans this summer.
But the legislators weren't so gung-ho to raise the homeowner's exemption by the time they decided what to recommend to the full Legislature. That recommendation only survived in a last-second compromise.
Those who favor the third stance — a holistic look at taxes and spending — were disappointed.
The battle, though, will continue in the Statehouse this winter.
Home values, business values rise at different rate
In 1980, homes and apartments with four or fewer units made up 45 percent of
"At the present time, because of existing law and regulations and because of economic realities, residential property is being taxed proportionately higher than other properties," concluded the Governor's Committee on Taxation in the late 1970s.
By 1983, voters had passed the "50-50," an exemption for 50 percent of the value of your home, or $50,000, whichever is less.
The average sale price in
Values rose, but business values and home values didn't rise at the same rate.
In 1985, residential values were 54 percent of the state's taxable value, but they dropped to 47 percent in 1990, and jumped back up to 54 percent in 1995.
In 2000, they were at 57 percent.
Then something happened. Or, several somethings.
Two roads to 'market value'
First, a quick primer on assessments.
Assessors determine the value of your home largely by comparing it to how much people are willing to pay for similar homes.
They look at businesses differently. Fewer businesses sell, so assessors figure business values by their annual incomes. Prospective buyers gauge the value of businesses in the same way.
Both methods are used to guess the real market value of the properties.
Dornfest thinks the methods work. Others aren't so sure.
The economy slows but investors discover
In the past five years or so, the economy dipped, and with it the revenues of many businesses. The real estate market, meanwhile, has boomed.
Low interest rates fueled new construction, and encouraged homeowners to trade up. Meanwhile, the dot-coms faded and investors turned to real estate for a turn-around.
"The combination of construction and inflation is focusing on homes and homeowners," Dornfest said.
Home values climbed every time another sale set a new neighborhood record.
In
And what of business?
Business incomes dipped, and that means their property values reflect that.
While homes around it saw their values rise, the
almost 28,000-square-foot
The Pizza Hut at 2300 S. Apple dropped from $842,000 in 2001 to $670,100 in 2004.
Large companies didn't fare well either.
In 2001, Micron Technology's value peaked at more than $1.5 billion — largely due to the personal property tax on technology and equipment that businesses pay, but individuals do not.
The company cut a deal with the county on how to assess this expensive and unique equipment, and that lowered the assessment. But all business personal property loses value over time, too, and big companies like Micron weren't replacing their depreciating machines while the economy lagged.
In 2005, the value of Micron's main property had dropped to around $601 million, a little more than half what it was just four years earlier.
A one-man property tax battle
Ken Robison thinks the assessment differences between homes and businesses are unfair. He has some allies among sitting Democrats in the Legislature, but Robison largely is fighting a one-man battle against the prevailing winds of the property tax debate.
A longtime Democratic leader in the House and the minority party's loudest
voice on the legislative budget committee, Robison co-wrote the
He bristles when anyone suggests such a change would force a tax shift to businesses, rental units and second homes.
The shift, he points out, has been moving to homeowners ever since the exemption was first passed.
In 1983, residential and non-residential taxpayers split the state's $264 million property tax burden right down the center.
About a decade later, when then-Gov. Phil Batt was pushing property tax relief, residential started outpacing the rest, and it's been climbing ever since. Residential taxpayers who paid 52 percent of the tax burden in 1994, paid 62 percent in 2004, even more in 2005.
Robison argues that business values should have been growing at the same rate as home values, and that appraising properties using income gives businesses an unfair break.
He uses apartments to illustrate his point.
A duplex on Avenue H in
If you do the math, it means the owner of the duplex was paying more than twice as much tax per unit as the owner of the larger building.
That, Robison said, is unfair.
Debate around the country
On Nov. 8, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote a story about how one town dealt with a tax shortfall.
The top of the story says it all: "Voters in Crestwood agreed to tax businesses but not themselves to help the city out of a financial jam."
All over
The state allows locals to charge businesses with higher tax rates. Not everyone does it, but many are getting pressure to shift the costs away from homeowners.
The State newspaper in
"Businesses tend to support the notion of homeowners paying the burden
of the costs of government," University of
He cites two reasons:
1) Businesses pay less.
2) Homeowners complain about the taxes and they stay low.
Orfield is a former state legislator from
Meridian school leaders have seen this play out. Though they can continue to pass bond issues to pay for new schools, they struggle to pay the maintenance and operations costs of all the new buildings.
But there are only two ways to lower property taxes, Orfield said. Spend less or shift the costs to another tax, or other taxpayers.
Whether to do it at all
In 1982, the $50,000 limit for the homeowner's exemption was more than the average sales price in the state.
That's not true anymore, but still less than half of the homeowners in the
state have maxed it out. By the latest state
estimates, which don't include this year's values, about 40 percent of
Robison wants the homeowner's exemption to be raised and then tied in to inflation so it will keep moving up slowly. If the original concept had let the exemption ratchet up with inflation, it would be close to $100,000 by now.
But even increasing the exemption to $75,000 and including land, like the legislative committee suggested, would leave $88 million of taxes left to be paid by someone else, whether that's a shift to business or a shift back to business.
Conservative tax watcher Bill Ahern, from the Tax Foundation in
"My off-hand comment is that it's high enough already," he said.
Lawmakers have talked about replacing the $88 million with state dollars, and though that would keep businesses from paying for it, it would just mean Idahoans are paying for it in a differently. Meanwhile, local governments lose some local control.
"That money doesn't come with no strings attached," he said.
Contact reporter Gregory Hahn at ghahn@idahostatesman.com or 377-6425.
Sources for graphics and timeline: Idaho Tax Commission, Associated
Taxpayers of Idaho,