OCR Text |
Show Five Taxing Districts Overlap in Grand County The unchecked growth of special taxing areas, especially espec-ially in the counties aiong the Wasatch Front, has greatly complicated property proper-ty tax administration, according ac-cording to a report :ssu:i by the Utah Foundation, the private tax research organization. organ-ization. Throughout the state there were 391 separate governmental units that could impose a property tax levy in 1963. These included the State of Utah. 29 counties coun-ties 216 cities and towns, 4J school districts and 1C5 special spec-ial districts. The Foundation repoit notes that because of the overlapping boundries cf some of these districts, there were 46S separate taxing tax-ing arer.s in the State. There were 76 separate tax- ing areas each in S".'t Lak? and Weber Countks, 42 i:i Davis County, and Zl in Bux Elder County. Even within some of th? cities there are a number of separate taxing arc-as. Og-d;n. Og-d;n. for example, has nine distinct tax rate areas wit.i total mill rates ranging from 101.94 mills to 117.13 mills in 1963. Salt Lake C:!v and Mm ray each show five different taxing areas wkh-in wkh-in their boundries. According to the Foundation Founda-tion study, there were 2 municipalities. 1 schooi district, dis-trict, and 4 special districts operating in Grand county with 5 different mill levies ranging fm a low of 60. ) mills to a high of S7.8J mil's in 19-: 3. With the overlapping tangle tang-le of taxing districts in seme counties. Foundation analysts claim that it has become extremely diifieu.t for local tax officials to b:, sure of collecting the ccr-:ect ccr-:ect tax on certain types of personal property, such as motor vehicle and boats. Eece.us.' mistakes often ar? made in assigning uh'i.lo and boats to the correct taxing area. ;he system lends itself to manipulation, at vehicle registration tint-;. Tiie report points out that the lax tangle in Utah has develcped primarily from the unchecked and ur.gu:d.-i creation of special ;:. .- ; districts to accomplish snc--if;c governmental funetiers. such as mosquito aba'vner.: sewacte sen-ices. etc. A-., nexatior.s by cities are at-cth.u- cause of the crowth in special taxing areas. In 1917. the Utah I.og's'a-' !ure adopted the Count v nt-v:ce nt-v:ce Area Act. which, it wes liep-d. would o!:Pi:nr,te )-need )-need for many sp, cie.l tex-districts. tex-districts. This Act. however, how-ever, has faikd to live u-) If original expectations. ,'; the present time, there are only seven county service areas operating in"l'tah. and six of those offer oniv ;, smgle service to resident m a limited area. Bad as the problem is in Utah, the Foundaton assises assis-es us that the stiuaiion could be worse. Illinois for example, reported 5.507 'loc ii units of government wi'i, taxing powers opera; in' within that state durin-19ti7. durin-19ti7. Tnere were 4.KU local units in Xebraska. 4.0S1 iM Minnesota, and 3.310 m C il-ifornia. il-ifornia. according to ficuivs reported in tK ? Census of Governments. |