February 2, 2007

---

House bill would require mailing of individual tax levies

Contact delegates in opposition to HB 2127; legislation could be on House floor Saturday

HB 2127 (Hugo) was introduced at the request of Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling. As amended, the bill would require localities to mail each property owner a notice of the public hearing on the budget. The notice must include the current year's real estate tax levy for each individual parcel and the proposed tax levies for the upcoming tax year. The proposed tax levy would be based on the budget proposed by the local administrator or manager. As local officials know, the proposed rate is not necessarily the final rate, and is often lowered by the governing body. This would be the first time that localities would be required to send out information about individual tax levies.

Since property taxes are generally paid along with mortgage payments, a separate notice of the tax is not mailed to each property owner. The amount of local property taxes is clearly detailed on mortgage statements. To send out a separate notice would be akin to the federal or state government mailing to each citizen an estimated income tax due in the coming year. The estimate would be only a guess, and it would be shown as an annual number, rather than the amount that shows up clearly on everyone's pay stub.

The notice requirement is triggered in any year that an annual assessment, biennial assessment, or general reassessment would result in an increase of 1 percent or more in the total real property tax revenue in the following year (at the current rate), and the locality's proposed rate would yield in the forthcoming year more than 1 percent of the total real estate tax revenue received in the prior year. While we appreciate efforts by the patron to improve the bill, we must still oppose the bill because it requires a new separate mailing, and because the information would be confusing to the taxpayer.

Please contact your delegate now and ask them to vote against HB 2127. Talking points include:

1. The bill will require a new mass mailing, with individualized information, which will be expensive for local governments. There is no state funding for this new requirement.

2. The information that the bill requires is rarely the final tax levy adopted by the governing body. As a result, it would be confusing information for the taxpayer.

^ Top | Index