The Deseret News carried a fairly disheartening article this morning, comparing and analyzing the relative property tax "bite" between Utah's 25 most heavily-populated communities. The analysis compares the tax bill for a $200,000 home in these communities, and takes into account the taxing disparities that occur when similar homes are situated within varying special taxing districts.
Some tidbits:
"Some of the areas with the highest taxes among the top 25 most populous communities are: Kearns (as high as $1,942 on a $200,000 home), West Jordan (as high as $1,937 on a $200,000 home), Ogden (as high as $1,909), Cottonwood Heights (as high as $1,864) and Salt Lake City (as high as $1,843)."
Yeah, we're right in there with Kearns and Cottonwood Heights.
Significantly, Ogden City is "25th from the bottom" of the list (meaning the most heavily taxed) for homes taxed at the lowest rates, and "fourth from the top ranking" for homes taxed at the highest rates, as the handy table demonstrates. Ogdenites are getting gouged, any way you look at it.
Our gentle readers will no doubt recall the fiscal 2006 budget approval process late last spring, when there was a little extra cash laying around in the city treasury. The city council awarded city employees (including $100K+/yr. top execs) significant pay hikes, but there wasn't a dime left to give the taxpayers even a little break when the smoke cleared. Instead, the council increased taxpayer user fees.
It would appear that our new city council has its work cut out for it in the new council session.
Perhaps they'll take a second look at exorbitant executive salaries. We really don't seem to be getting much "bang for the buck." Perhaps Godfrey prodigy Stuart Reid could benefit from another "fling" in the private sector.
Please feel free to use this space as an open thread, if you're not sufficiently outraged by this Deseret News analysis to rant on a little bit.
Front and center, gentle readers. Most of you have recovered from your recent but temporary Thanksgiving gluttony, I'm sure; whereas our city government is unrepentant, and practices it year-round.
Comments, anyone?
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
18 comments:
Calling realtor on deck:
Or anyone else who knows about property tax.
The infamous $168 million dollar figure in the Kristen Moulton article stating that this is the value of Ogden City's business assets, as compared to its $88 million in government assets....
I am assuming the $168 million is solid business assets, thinking that that is the only way they would be able to put a dollar value on it. If so...
Would that $168 million if owned by the private sector be taxed at commercial property tax rates? They are different than residential rates, aren't they?
What are they, and then, what is the amount of tax dollars that would flow into the public coffers from $168 million in privately owned business assets?
I am thinking first, that even a portion of this might have made a difference in us having our property taxes raised. That might not have had to happen.
And also, the rec center might not have needed as much money for as long of a time as it currently does.
Any opinions on this?
Ye gods man, we are only fourth from the top of most highly taxed cities in Utah?
Godfrey will certainly take that as a challenge! Watch out, he is facinated with the idea of being number one in all things. A big tax raise is surely just around the corner after this news.
As our fiduciary responsibilities go, whenever a client asks a reltor about taxes, legal issues, etc., we are suppossed to refrain from answering and put the client in touch with either his or her CPA or Attorney. I know this, however, that in the couple of small, commercial businesses I own, I get hit with tax bills for a variety of things, from equipment to supplies to the property itself. As for a city paying property taxes, I don't think it does, as is the case of Ogden loosing tax revenue from the moment it bought the old mall.
Allan Bloom said....
(Do I hear screams of outrage? I think the man's name is Allan Bloom. He wrote "The Closing of the American Mind," and is labeled by some as a NEOCON. But in my opinion, the following thing he said is absolutely true.)
He said that in the life of any organization, whether it be government, or business, or non-profit, or whatever, there comes a time when the organization loses sight of the purpose for which it was originally intended, and instead begins to use the machine of itself to further itself and those working in it.
I think this has happened with Ogden City. The government, originally intended to provide us with services, maintain infrastructure, and give us a good quality of life via our tax dollars, has now become an organization that is focused on revenue For Itself, which it then uses on the pet projects of those working within it.
As if it's lost sight of its original purpose.
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!
I can tell you that Mayor Goofey wont like being in the top ranked for taxes levied. Although he does place a lot of value and confidences in the administration of his department heads, as shown with his recent back door dealings with Stuie. A starting entry level police officer and firefighter makes approx. $28,000. per year. I am sure that that is not what is breaking the bank of the City budget. The infrastructure is suffering at an alarming rate, the city is refinancing piss poor decisions that the administration has made, no fault of the general employees of the city. And in the mean time everyone is concerned about taxes, but they support the crooked dealings of the Mayor and his croonies, I know that the newely elected City Council will some how bring some sanity to the Chaos that exists in the present ways that are going on in the city.
Question about TIF money:
As I recall, originally TIF money from BDO was to be spent on BDO.
Did the City Council recently alter this, and now BDO TIF money will be diverted to be spent on the Rec Center?
I can't locate a newspaper article concerning this.
Anonymous....Yep! They needed to "tweak" the agreement to make this TIF revenue work. What the hell, who cares what the Army thinks or that EC found a brown water fire hydrant that exem;ifies the culinary condition of Ogden's East Bench. Get the bowling alley up and running.
Another interesting paradox with the property taxes: We finished what, 3rd, statewide in taxes, which means Assessed Value as per the county. The discouraging aspect is that the Assessed Value is markedly different from the Market Value of your home. What is our position of your home's Market Value and the rate of evaluation when it comes time to sell. Farmington, for instance is a rocket ship....buy a 200K home today and in 6 months or so it will have increased in Market Value to about 240K, nice little return if you were to sell it. OR, buy one in Ogden for 200K and take a look at its increase after 6 months....nada....at the most, a few grand, if you put in the landscaping and auto sprinkler.
Property in Ogden City is at the top of list for Assessed Value Statewide as per property taxes paid, but we're taking up close to last position in the increase in value part of the equation.
Interesting, huh? I'm not sure what, if anything, the City Council can do about this, but maybe if they get a handle on outgoing revenue by increasing the tax base or the reason to locate in Ogden, which will bring a bigger demand for housing, value will rise and then maybe taxes could fall. But the indebtedness of this city, especially when you factor in Ogden City, Inc., to the tune of $168,000,000, is absolutely mind boggling. There's a resaon that private enterprise is staying away, and maybe our high taxes is one. These companies do their due diligence, and I'm sure something other than the past lack of a recreation center as the mall anchor and the prsent lack of a gondola to "link" the world to the Basin just might pop out at them. Also, the parameters of how one develops here, the friendliness of whomever it is they initially talk with, and the basic pro-forma that comes from a compilation of their due diligence findings could be factors in their staying away.
The process is flawed. I've watched many new construction sites be overwhelmed with Planners coming in and insisting on obscure changes in order to receive an Occupancy Permit, so much so that their attitude is "never again." Hurdles are high, hoops are small in diameter.
But the Landlord Program is working, they claim. No worries, mate.
Two points here:
It is not the TIF money from BDO that will be backing this dumb assed Rec center. It is the lease revenue stream that was backing the original bonds issued to pay for infastructure work at BDO. Those bonds have apparently been payed down enough that the bonding agencies were willing to let the city drop that source of cash as security on those bonds.
Now instead of going into the infastructure as originally called for, that dough can be squandered on Godfrey's ego monument! Meanwhile of course the city rots beneath out feet!
Also the $168 million is not debt? I think that number was thrown out as "business" assets that the city owned. It is hard to tell exactly how upside down the city really is in debt. That is because it is nearly impossible to tell what the real truth is with all of these failed projects that the two geniuses - Godfrey and Reid - have been responsible for. Figures I have heard go from $70 million to $100 million.
I am still looking for any one who can identify just one successful project that these two bozo's have been responsible for.
dian,
Commercial property is taxed at 100% of assessed value while residential property is taxed on 55% of the assessed value.
Since Ogden City's property tax rate is about .425 milles (0.00425 X assessed value X assesed rate[1 or .55]) this means a 200,000 house (actually only owner occuppied primary residence) would pay Ogden City about 467.83 as per the article where as a business of 200,000 would pay 850.
So the 168 Million owned by Odgen would generate about 714,000 per year if owned by the private sector.
Thank you, arcritic. I didn't know how commercial property worked.
And I have made a mistake, too, on the business assets figure. It is not $168 million, but $186 million. Sorry. One really should not bandy $18 million about carelessly, whether other people are doing it or not.
However, having just paid my property taxes and having the bill handy, I am looking right now at a figure that says:
General tax rate: 0.017029
I multiplied this figure by my taxable value and it came out correctly. Except for something else added on for (you guessed it,) water, and seems to be based on one's acres of allotted water.
To continue to conjecture...
Maybe things here property tax rate wise are worse than you thought. If so, then our revenue from the $186 million would be more if this general tax rate above applies also to commercial property and I can just multiply it by the total value, the correct one this time.
It would give one a general idea, although the exact quote from Moulton's article is:
"At the end of the 2004 budget year, the city had $186 million in net business assets, thanks largely to Business Depot Ogden (BDO), and less than $88 million in net government assets: brick and mortar, sewers and water mains."
I don't think we can assume that "net business assets" consists solely of commercial real estate--- or can we?
If we could, and could also multiply it by the general tax rate, it comes out to over $3 million a year.
dian,
is that .017029 rate the total rate? My taxes list the breakdown of each taxing entity. The school district has a couple of lines the county has a couple of lines the mosquito district, sewer district and maybe something else I can't remember. My city also has a line (which is much less than Ogden) and I was fairly sure that I remembered Ogdens being about 0.0043 (Which the 0.00425 came very close to).
Granted all taxing entities lose out fairly big, cities usually only lose out at less than 1/4 of the total.
Overall the breakdown is usually something like:
Schools : 50%
County : 25%
City : 15%
other : 10%
I believe that it is, arcritic. I will nobly type the whole thing out for you.
General fund .002405
G O Bond fund .000403
Library .000721
Ogden City School Distr .005592
Statewide School Basic Levy .001720
Mosquito Abatement Distr .000110
Weber Basin Water - General .000193
Weber Basin Water - Ogden .000310
Central Weber Sewer Distr .000567
Ogden City .004253
Weber / Morgan Health .000193
Paramedic fund .000185
State Assess & Collect / Multi .000173
Assess & Collect / County .000204
Total Tax Charge .017029
I think we have been talking about different things. You were talking specifically about what portion Ogden City gets, and I about the whole thing.
(No matter what I do, I cannot get these columns straight. I have tried.)
My, this gets complex, doesn't it? Like a rec center financing deal or something.
I think we are both right. The 1.7% you are talking about is the total that is not going to all the taxing entities while the 0.425% is only the amount that Ogden City is not getting.
Either way that is alot of money that is having to be spread around to all the non-tax exempt enities, like you and me.
Absolutely, arcritic.
I have a major, major problem with the city's runaway train development agenda because of this.
If you look at the breakdown for Weber County Property tax, there are a lot of vital services there.
If the city does not pay property taxes on its properties, or less taxes than private enterprise would pay, or takes the money that should go into the Weber County tax base and gives it to developers in the form of increments, that is, simply, less money for vital services.
The thinking behind this is undoubtably that the Lease Revenues from this city owned property will fill the coffers, and herein lies the problem.
To my knowledge, there is No Oversight anywhere as to how the money gained from Lease Revenues is to be spent. From recent experience, it seems to be at the discretion of the City Council.
In fact, at the Council Meeting where the rec center was approved, an almost unmentioned agenda item was the fact that the Council was to vote on rescinding a previous Council's allocation of Lease Revenue.
The previous Council had passed an Ordinance mandating that 50% (I believe,) of the Lease Revenue from BDO was to go into fixing city infrastructure for a certain year. At the rec center meeting, the present Council (with the exception of Wicks and Garcia,) rescinded that Ordinance, thereby freeing up this lease revenue in order that it now can be used as security for the rec center bonds if necessary.
See, the property tax system is much different. I may gripe about them, but I know that a percentage of my money is going to support schools and libraries, for instance, which I like and will go along with. But telling us that all these Wonderful Lease Revenues are going to perform miracles for us does not work for me, since there is no system in place as to how they are to be spent, and especially since the one positive Lease Revenue we have (BDO) is now security for another Project.
Meanwhile, Weber County has less and less to parcel out to vital services, and therefore, our tax burden goes up and up.
This is why I disagree with the Administration's rationale for Projects, that being that we Need these projects in order to create revenue to fix our crumbling infrastructure. In my opinion, the Projects themselves can be held at least partially responsible for the crumbling infrastructure, because they have taken money traditionally earmarked to fix it.
And furthermore, where does it say that these Lease Revenues will be used to fix infrastructure? Obviously nowhere, because a previous council tried to make that happen, and it was very easily overturned. We have been told only that revenue is needed to fix it, but we have not been told that revenue will be used to fix it.
This makes our economic structure very shaky.
Now if by chance it is revealed that Ogden City does pay property tax on its properties, I will of course revise my point of view. But so far, this has not been revealed, especially in terms of on what and how much.
Yeah, about the only way the previous council could have irrevocably dedicated the lease revenue to infrastructure would have been to bond for it. And then if the revenue didn't come through at the projected levels then property taxes would have to go up some more.
Though at the same time, I don't know that I like having the extra-govermental entities (like the library, mesquito ... districts) having taxing authority. If they do the should have to get the approval of the majority of the elected officials of each municipality/county. Not sure that the library is in that, but I really didn't like the RAP tax.
I think the ONLY initiative that the current council passed was Jorgenson's "Removal of Haunted Houses." Quite a stellar track record. Like fixing the mailbox while the house is on fire.
I'll betcha the new look council might have some things up their sleeves, though, and ensure that Revenues In are properly accorded and disbursed.
It'll be a brand new look and a brand new way of doing city business, I'm thinking. January can't come soon enough.
arcritic,
"Though at the same time, I don't know that I like having the extra-govermental entities (like the library, mesquito ... districts) having taxing authority."
And speaking of that, what is this "Municipal Energy Tax (4%) Ogden" appearing on the Questar bill? Yet another Revenue Stream? Hmm. Seem to remember something about this, but can't recall the particulars. With the cost of heating going up, this could represent a hefty cash infusion.
Does that go to the city too?
New comments are not allowed.