Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City records late paving bill and fielding resident complaints after property reassessment
Summary
City officials told the council they were billed $30,000—later described as the city's portion—for a county paving job done last year and described a wave of resident complaints after a five-year property reassessment increased valuations and changed tax calculations.
City Administrator James Finchem told the council that the county highway department recently billed Newport $30,000 related to paving on Carson Springs Road, a stretch where municipal and county boundaries split the roadway. Finchem said his understanding had been that $30,000 was the total cost and that the city would pay half; the county later billed the city $30,000 as the city’s share.
Finchem described the exchange with the county contractor and project manager. He said the work was completed after last year’s flood, that the bill arrived a year late and that the timing required the city to pay from the current budget rather than the prior year’s budget. Finchem said staff attempted to have the contractor bill the county for its portion and the city for its portion but was told doing so “would mess his books up.” Finchem said he was raising the matter for the public record and promised to avoid repeating the process.
On property taxes: Finchem and council members addressed resident complaints that their city property tax bills had risen relative to their county bills after the county’s five-year reassessment. Finchem said the county comptroller performs a mathematical calculation after reassessment and that residential values had risen significantly in many cases.
Council discussion noted a mix of factors that might explain the apparent parity or reversal between city and county tax bills: shifts in commercial property valuations, reassessment timing, and rate adjustments. One council member observed commercial properties in the city (Walmart, Lowe’s and other businesses) could affect the distribution of tax burden and thus the residential rate; Finchem said the city’s tax rate actually dropped in the recalculation even though assessed values rose. Council members agreed to request a breakdown from the comptroller’s office to clarify why some residents saw higher city bills.
Ending: City staff said they will follow up with the county comptroller for a line-item breakdown of rates and valuations and inform residents as more detail becomes available.
