OCR Text |
Show Tax laws alter leeway options The Alpine School District faces some tough decisions about the proposed voted leeway; in light of the decisions made by the Utah Legislature in it's recent special session. Acting to offset tremendous tax increases that might have resulted from a Utah Supreme Court decision, the legislature accomplished what the court ruling said was required -- it equalized the tax assessments between locally-assessed property and state-assessed property. Prior to the ruling, locally-assessed property was "frozen" at 1978 levels while state assessed properties continued to increase. As a result, those state-assessed groups - utilities, mines, etc. were paying a disproportionate amount of the tax bills. Now the homeowner will have to pay for that -- because while the legislature has limited tax increases from year to year for at least the next two years at 6 percent, homeowners will see an 8.7 percent increase. Tax increases in-creases for state assessed properties, on the other hand, will be kept at 3.4 percent, and the disparity between the two will even out. For the owner of a $70,000 home, the bottom line is that ! he or she will be paying $45 more in property taxes a year ! income taxes. j But the homeowner is not going to be buying any more government services with those dollars. In fact, Dr. j Charles Lloyd estimates that tax revenue for the Alpine District under the new legislation will be slightly lower than anticipated before the court action. But while the district will see no real increase, the conditions that prompted the school district to consider a i voted leeway next month will still exist. On the other hand, with taxes going up, the climate for approval of such a leeway will certainly be less favorable than before. Also, despite the needs of the district, board officials will have to ask themselves if it is fair to ask local homeowners to add another tax onto this new property tax increase. The Alpine School District patrons have not been kind to leeway proposals in the past. None has ever been approved. ap-proved. But if parents could agree on the need and pass the leeway tax, would that be punishing taxpayers who cannot afford any types of tax increases -- those on Social Security or other fixed incomes? If the leeway has no chance of success, is it fair to subject the district to the expense of an election? On the other hand, the Board of Education must decide if the funds from a leeway tax are essential to maintain a quality educational in the Alpine District. If that's the case, then it should be up to the voters to decide how deep their commitment to education is -- and a leeway election would allow them to say in the voting booth whether they are willing to pay more for education despite the recent unrelated tax increase. |