Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes measure letting counties use local levy for assessing and collecting; debate focuses on winners and losers
Summary
House Bill 359 passed after lengthy floor debate. Sponsor Representative Brown argued the bill returns assessing-and-collecting financing to county discretion; opponents warned the formula creates winners and losers among counties and could produce inequities when other tax changes take effect.
Representative Brown introduced House Bill 359 to alter how assessing and collecting costs for property tax administration are funded. Brown described the measure as a way to "get the legislature out of the middle" and allow counties to levy an amount (the triple 0.005 mill levy referenced on the floor) to pay for assessing and collecting functions.
Brown and supporters said the change will stop inter-county redistribution fights and allow counties to decide what portion of the existing levy they need for assessment and collection. He cited historical redistribution pool sizes to illustrate the problem: "In 1987, there was in the pool for redistribution $2,300,000. In 1991, there was only 800 and, 93,000," as read on the floor.
Opponents and questioners raised multiple concerns: that centrally assessed properties and large businesses can distort the formula, that wealthier counties could benefit more, and that the timing of the bill may compound effects of other tax changes (one speaker noted removal of a 5% intangible tax in the same year could produce double impacts). Representative Stevenson, as chairman of the Eminent Taxation Committee, said the current system is subject to abuse and that both the House and Senate proposals are preferable to the present arrangements.
The debate included multiple proposed substitutes and references to ongoing Senate negotiations (floor discussion referred to a sixth substitute being drafted in the Senate). Members pressed for constraints on county administrative spending if the levy approach were used; Representative Henry said the bill does not control how much counties spend on administration and favored the Senate bill for that reason.
After extended debate and a call for the previous question, the House recorded a final vote reading of 51 affirmative and 19 negative, and the measure was referred to the Senate.
Next steps: Bill referred to the Senate for further consideration.
