OCR Text |
Show V'.f 'S ENTERPRISE t The reappraisal flap ? ,y by Kent Shearer .nty property is scheduled to be ix purposes this year. The State appraised Tax Commission wants to meet the deadline, widespread errors in reassessment work to dragging their heels. An examination of the controversy tells us something about government in general, and about state and local officials in particular. Prior to 1969. the vast majority of property tax valuations were made exclusively by county assessors, elected officers. Because they depended for rcelcction upon the people they assessed, their appraisals almost always were artificially low. This, in turn, impacted state government adversely in two ways: (l)it reduced the yield from th state's property tax mill levy; and (2)it h Id down the states bonding capacity which is dependent upon the property worth of Utahns. In reaction, the 1969 legislative session by officers-claimin- g date-a- re j ? tew id m Mr APPMm t: as well. Now it is Salt officeholders in 1978 pie. owe SUM-- MAf ? I tOHX 10 05 :k re-electi- on HfAPCF F.0.1. - mwo rs.iM 1$. Lakes turn and the county 11 of whom are up for desperately want to postpone the effects of revaluation until after November. As noted, they could reduce the county mill levy and still be blamed for increased taxes occasioned by the unreduced levies of the likes of Salt Lake City and Granite f--m the same time, state goverment desires the increased assessments on the books as quickly as possible. State property tax is no longer of concern, having been abolished several years ago. Bonding capacity, however, maintains importance. Under the budget just proposed by Governor Matheson, it is, in fact, vital that Salt Lake County be brought on line. The Governor asked bonding to the tunc of $109 million. Absent the increase to the caused by Salt Lake valuation, the Governor's figure is approximately $17 million over capacity. So that's the reason for the controversy. The Governor, a Democrat to the core, craves bonding capability at a high point the better to spend lots of money. The Salt Lake officials, although not necessarily antipathetic to Matheson 's goals, at least want their reclection campaigns concluded before the taxes go up. Neither motive is especially laudable. Both prc-196- mo, in -- At - Salt Lak but county School District. overwhelming vote enacted a statute mandating State Tax Commission county-b- y county revaluation. Shortly thereafter, the reappraisal and all hell broke loose. began But for the greed of local taxing units (counties, cities, school districts, etc.) that need not have been the upshot. As the Commission hiked values, those units could have reduced their mill levies proportionally and 9 level. kept property tax exaction at its They did not do so, however, with the consequence that taxes jumped everywhere the Tax Commission went. Quite often, the resident took out their anger at the polls and county officials paid the electoral price not only for their own greed, but for that of other local units S i 5J PRAGMATIC DOGMATICS :v.-- A.- 1 motives arc. however, perfectly eeue6 iu&p. i eeueie iu &xp I AR ewou BNP aup m PI6HT mUS r M AUP fcWIO note TO Keep I i i I 4 n i iU 9K rua j i I Httm. I'M n?iseAT$:r cm RM50JP?. ivowmemc MV t t I'M A WOMAU. imfrom (xCIK- Ha mimz SAIiV-MA- m msL gf - rsou m-mro- e ; JDd- - j t t f i 5 More on the insurance rip-of- f by Parker M. Nielson o CL CC LU The Utah Attorney General is correct in demanding that the insurance agents who collected fees from the state for sendees As Kent Shearer noted in his they did not perform repay them. recent column, the state has bestowed a windfall in the form of Commissions" on the insurance industry for insurance purchased by the state, much of it going to agents who had nothing to do with writing the policies. The trouble is that Shearer, the A.G.. the governor and the insurance department have not gone far enough not nearly far enough. The larger question is why the state should pay for insurance at all. Wc little folks must insure. First because we cannot bear the risks of casualty loss, personal liability or bad health. Secondly, because a state legislature dominated by special interest has enacted laws requiring groups, like the insurance industry, such as in that wc carry insurance in many circumstances, - a business. O O driving a car or operating as But the logic of why an entity as large and broadly based the state should carry insurance at all escapes me. Insurance companies arc in the business of spreading the from automobile accidents, natstaggering losses which result a broad ural disasters. fires, or similiar occurrences over a form of communizing" these segment of society. It is free enterprise system. exigencies of life, albeit through the But these threats arc just not the same when the insured is as large as a state. State buildings are as prone to fire, flood or earthquake as any others, but the intercession of a corporate entity cannot serve to broaden the exposure to such risks. The state is the community. Its resources arc larger than those of most, and in real terms perhaps all, insurance carriers. The insurance company therefore cannot supply any real security against the loss that the state docs not already possess. The only effect of insurance in such circumstances is to furnish a commission to the insurance agent and dividends to its shareholders. Protection against disaster is not furnished in any meaningful sense. So, if the insurance agents who collected fees for services they did not render should be required to reimburse the state, why not the companies they represented as well? For that matter, should wc not rethink the entire insurance philosophy? If the state is to demand that the hard pressed consumer pay commissions to insurance agents, high salaries to insurance executives and dividends to their shareholders, which is what a system of mandatory insurance means, it should furnish an alternative for those who do not wish to do so. The State Insurance Fund, for example, could furnish such services on the basis of underwriting costs sans return to investors. It could insure state buildings, if insurance is necessary, on the same basis. If conventional insurance companies can compete with such a system, then - but only then - should the consumer or the state be forced to deal with them. -- -- |