Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Multiplier Tax Impact topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Finance director explains state 'multiplier' after residents and board members report confusing tax bills
Summary
The committee discussed the state multiplier applied when assessed values deviate from levels required by the state; officials emphasized the multiplier adjusts assessed values and tax rates so taxing districts receive requested levy amounts, and several board members said the resulting tax bills are confusing to property owners
Davidson County officials walked the finance committee through how the state multiplier affects property tax bills after several members and residents reported confusing increases.
The finance director said the county provides levy requests in November, and the county clerk compiles requests from all taxing districts. If the state determines assessed values are below required levels (the meeting referenced the typical 33 1/3 percent standard), the state applies a multiplier so the taxing districts receive the dollar amount they requested. The finance director emphasized the multiplier changes assessed values used on tax bills while the taxing districts still receive the levy amounts they requested.
“I'm not gonna get some big tax dollar windfall this year,” the finance director said, adding the county expected to receive roughly $700 more than requested after state adjustments but that the state multiplier does not create new revenue beyond the levies submitted by taxing districts.
Board members and others said the computation is hard for property owners to follow. “It’s too darn complicated,” one board member said, adding that most property owners will not be able to work through the math on their own. Another attendee said some residents reported tax increases of several percent and that the county should explain the multiplier and show how levy changes and multipliers interact with tax rates.
Committee members discussed options to push back on levies or to pursue consolidation or outsourcing of statutorily required services to reduce county costs. The finance director said many county services (public safety, road maintenance, health department, animal control and court-related offices) are statutorily required and that payroll is the county’s largest expense.
No formal action was taken at the finance committee meeting on the multiplier itself; the discussion was informational and intended to help board members answer constituent questions about their tax bills.
