SDA 2. 3 Basic Principles of State Tax System in State Constitution Personal and Corporate Income...
Transcript of SDA 2. 3 Basic Principles of State Tax System in State Constitution Personal and Corporate Income...
Special District Association 2014 Annual Conference
Taxes, Assessments and Fees
Presentation by
JoAnn Groff Colorado Property Tax Administrator
and
Michael ValdezSDA Director of Policy
SDA
1
3
State Fiscal System
Basic Principles of State Tax System in State Constitution
Personal and Corporate Income Taxes reserved to State
Property Taxes reserved to local governments:
Municipalities Counties Special districts School districts
Some taxes are allowed to both the state and local
SDA
4
State Income Tax
Reserved to the State
Includes both personal income tax and corporate income tax.
Constitutes the primary source of state tax revenue
o $6,180,665,308 collected in 2013
o 60% of all state revenue
SDA
5
Sales, Use and Excise Taxes
State Sales and Use Tax Rate set at 2.9%
Many exemptions, some in constitution, some in statute
o $3,358,295,290 Collected in 2013 (including excise taxes)
o 32.6% of all state revenue
SDA
6
Sales and Use Taxes
Local Sales and Use Taxes
Rates set by local taxing authority
Many are State collected and remitted back to the local entities
Only Home Rule Cities can collect their own sales and use tax –69 Home Rule Cities currently self-collect
SDA
7
Local sales and use tax collections and distributions
In 2007, over $1.92 billion in sales taxes were levied by
271 local governmental entities: 52 counties,
214 municipalities, and 5 special districts Total sales and use tax revenue collected in 2013 Counties: $462 Million
Cities collected by the state* $139 Million
Local Improvement Districts $5.3 Million
*Home Rule Cities information not available at slide time!
SDA
7
Specific Ownership (SO)
Tax: Paid upon registration of motor
vehicles. Statewide approximately $450 million
annually?
Distributed by county treasurer on a pro-rata share to all taxing entities based on entity mill levy
SDA
8
Property Tax
Property tax, also called ad valorem tax
Levied in Colorado by over 2000? local taxing entities
Total in excess of $7 billion in 2013.
SDA
9
Property Tax Rate
The rate of tax (mill levy) is determined annually by each taxing entity, based on
Budget established/amount of property tax needed by the entity to fund that budget
Divided by the ASSESSED value of taxable property within the entity
o As certified by the county assessor to the entity
Mill levy as set by the entity
o As certified by the entity to the County Commissioners
SDA
10
Property Tax Terms So what is a mill?
A “mill” is 1/1,000 of a dollar or
.001 applied against ASSESSED Value
For example: A residential property with an actual value of
$100,000
o ASSESSED value would be $7,960
• One mill is $7.96
A commercial property with an actual value of $100,000
o ASSESSED value would be $29,000
• One mill is $29.00
SDA
11
Property Tax Terms continued
What is a taxing entity/jurisdiction? An entity with the authority to levy taxes against
property
o School Districts, Counties, Cities and Special Districts
What is a tax area? A geographic area where all properties are serviced
by the same taxing entities.
What is ASSESSED value? It is the actual value of a type of property multiplied
by the assessment rate.
SDA
12
Property Tax Examples Tax Area Example
SDA
13
Property Tax Examples continued
Entity Mill Levies and Tax Area and Example for Mr. Smith: There will be four taxing entities for Mr. Smith’s Tax
Area
o County 20.24 mills
o City 9.07 mills
o School District 45.06 mills
o Water and Sanitation 2.75 mills
Total Mill Levy 77.12 mills or .07712
SDA
14
Property Tax Examples continued
Computing the Property tax for Mr. Smith’s Tax Area: Mr. Smith’s residential property is worth $100,000
of ACTUAL value
o Actual value X residential ASSESSMENT rate = $7,960
o Assessed value X 77.12 mills for tax area =
• $7,960 X .07712 = $613.86
Constitution provides all levies must be “uniform” Social “engineering” comes in the various
Assessment Rates
SDA
15
Total Distribution of Property taxes SDA
Based on 2013 Annual Report to the Governor and General Assembly: School Districts (Total Levy) 4.52 Billion
50.3%
Junior Colleges $84 Million 1.2%
Counties $1.40 Billion20.0%
City and County of Denver $373 Million 5.3%
Other Municipalities $342 Million 4.9%
Local and Special Districts $1.28 Billion 18.3%
16
Limitations on Property Taxes
5.5% Limitation
“Gallagher” Amendment
TABOR Amendment
SDA
17
5.5% Limit: § 29-1-301, 302, Colorado Revised Statutes:
Adopted in 1913
Limits any district’s revenue from property tax to no more than 5.5% more than the previous year
Exceptions for new growth
Provisions for voter approved suspension of the limit
SDA
18
1982 Amendment 1(aka Gallagher Amendment)
Referred Constitutional Amendment, adopted in 1982
Eliminated personal property tax on
o Household furnishings and personal effects not used for the production of income at any time,
o Inventories of merchandise and materials and supplies held for consumption
o Livestock; agricultural and livestock products; and agricultural equipment used in the production of agricultural products
Established the annual audit of assessors’ offices to confirm proper values
Ensured Agricultural properties would be valued on production rather than Market, Income or Cost approach
SDA
“Gallagher” part of Gallagher Amendment
17
SDA
Amendment initially established assessment rate at 21% of actual value for residential property, and 29% for most other properties
GALLAGHER = During a year of general reassessment, the percentage of total statewide tax base attributable to residential property shall remain the same as it was the prior year after adjusting for new construction …
The proverbial 45% of value coming from residential property, and non-residential property making up approximately 55%.
Residential rate re-calculation became a permanent part of the constitution.
“Gallagher” part of Gallagher Amendment continued
20
SDA
Recap of Residential Assessment Rates since Gallagher Years Rate enacted RAR Study Rate 1983-1986
21.00%
1987 18.00% 1988 16.00% 1989-90 15.00% 1991-92 14.34% 1993-94 12.86% 1995-96 10.36% 1997-98 9.74% 1999-2000
9.74% 9.83%
2001-02 9.15% 2003-04 7.96% 2005-06 7.96% 8.17%2007-08 7.96% 8.19%2009-10 7.96% 8.85%2011-12 7.96% 8.77%2013-14 7.96% 9.13%
21
“Gallagher” part of Gallagher Amendment continued
Evan Goulding states: “Every reduction in RAR results in a simultaneous reduction in property tax base (assessed value) for every local government which has a mill levy.”
JoAnn Groff doesn’t necessarily agree, depends on the make up of your taxing area. The problem:
Residential Assessment Rate calculated statewide
All property tax areas are local
SDA
22
Business Personal Property (BPP)
Included in property tax base for all taxing areas
Assessed Value of BPP was 14.70% of total assess value statewide in 2013
Varies greatly by county
o Lowest was Hinsdale 1.71%
o Highest was Rio Blanco 53.28%
Total assessed value of BPP in 2013 - $13 Billion State-wide
SDA
23
Business Personal Property (BPP) continued
Totally exempting BPP could result in $1 - $1.2 Billion* loss to all local governments
*Total guestimate of the PTA based on total program of schools totaling 1/3 of all property tax, 2010 Legislative Council estimate of $ 400 M necessary to backfill schools by general fund if BPP eliminated
Also has Gallagher implications:
o If you lower the 55% side of the pie you must lower the 45% side of the pie. The size of the pie must get smaller to maintain ratio.
SDA
24
1992 Amendment 1(aka Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights or TABOR)SDA
Initiated Constitutional Amendment adopted in 1992
More than fifty court cases have been necessary to provide understanding and interpretation of the complex measure
Currently a case is pending brought by a group of former legislators and concerned citizens stating the whole amendment is unconstitutional
o Until that case is decided…
25
TABOR Amendment
Limits property taxes in two ways:
i. Section (4) Required Elections. …districts must have voter approval in advance for: (a) any new tax, tax rate increase, mill levy above that for the prior year, valuation for assessment ratio increase for a property class, or extension of an expiring tax, or a tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to any district.ii. Section 7(c) limits revenue from property tax to increase in any year by no more than the previous year’s limit (or actual revenue, whichever is less), plus local growth plus inflation as reflected by changes in the Denver-Boulder Consumer Price Index (CPI).
SDA
26
TABOR Amendment continued
SDA
Mill Levy increases must have voter approval.
(Para. 4(a)).
Voting on taxes is the central mantra of TABOR
Especially troublesome when coupled with potential Gallagher assessment rate reductions, where a mill levy increase may be necessary simply to stay even with revenue.
27
Ratchet Effect
Fiscal year spending can only increase by the amount of the previous year’s fiscal year spending
+ plus local growth
+ plus inflation in the prior calendar year. Local Growth = net new construction less destruction
Inflation = Denver/Boulder Consumer Price Index [CPI]
SDA
28
Ratchet Effect continued
If revenue (and thus spending) is reduced in a given year, next year’s allowable spending is built from the reduced revenue, or the new year’s limit,
whichever is less.
The practical effect is that in bad times, a district loses revenue, and cannot move back up to a previous level without a vote of the people.
SDA
29
Refunding under TABOR
If revenue from sources not excluded from fiscal year spending exceeds limits in dollar amounts for that fiscal year, the excess shall be refunded. [Section 7(d)] Various methods of refunding are allowed
Failure to refund can result in up to ten percent penalty against the district
SDA
30
TABOR de-Brucing
Voters can approve a revenue change as an offset. This provision has led to the common practice of putting a ballot issue before the voters, asking them to allow the
district to keep and spend an unspecified amount of revenue in excess of TABOR’s limits, often for an indefinite period of time. This has become known as
de-Brucing.
Limited de-Brucing refers to a vote to retain a specified amount of excess revenue, from a specified revenue source, or for a specified period of time.
SDA
31
de-Brucing continued
General de-Brucing seeks to retain a more general amount of excess revenue, and for a longer, or unspecified time period.
de-Brucing, however, is limited only to approving revenue changes, whether limited or general, and does not relax or remove any of the other restrictions of TABOR.
SDA
32
Enterprise Status One of the more important safe harbors in
TABOR is the “enterprise exception”
TABOR excludes from its limitations any qualified “enterprise”;
However, the term presents many difficult interpretive questions
SDA
33
Enterprise continued
Section 2(d) defines an enterprise as “a government-owned business authorized to issue its own revenue bonds and receiving under 10 percent of its annual revenue in grants from all Colorado state and local governments.”
SDA
34
Enterprise continued
The district itself, because it has the power to levy a property tax, probably cannot qualify as an enterprise.
Nicholl v. E - 470 Public Highway Authority. An activity of the district, however, such
as a water distribution system, golf course, etc., may be self- supporting through fees, or other means, so that less than 10 percent of its revenue is from taxes or government grants, and thus qualify as an enterprise.
SDA
35
Designating an Enterprise
Enterprise status may vary year to year, depending upon percentage of revenue made up of taxes and grants.
When a segregated activity of a district qualifies as an enterprise, the district probably does not need to take formal action to designate it as an enterprise.
The better practice, however, is to adopt a resolution on an annual basis designating each enterprise owned by the district.
SDA
36
Special Assessments
Cost of a local improvement, assessed upon property specially benefited (local improvement districts)
§ 30-20-601 C.R.S. Frequently used by municipal “special
improvement district,” or county “local improvement district”
Funds generated by special assessment cannot be diverted to other purposes
SDA
37
Fees, rates, tolls, penalties, or charges
For services, programs, or facilities furnished by special districts
Authorized as part of general powers of the board on behalf of the district. § 32-1-1001(1)(j) C.R.S.
Adopted by rule or regulation
Constitute a perpetual lien on the property, which may be foreclosed in the same manner as provided by the laws for the foreclosure of mechanics’ liens
SDA
38
Late fees and delinquency charges are limited by statute
“Delinquency Charges” regulated by § 29-1-1102 C.R.S.
No delinquency charge on any amount paid within five days of due date
Limited to $15 or up to 5% per month or fraction thereof, not to exceed a total of 25% of the amount due, whichever is greater
No interest can be charged on the delinquency charge
SDA
39
Late fees and delinquency charges are limited
by statute continued
Interest can be charged on the amount of the fee or charge due.
Interest cannot exceed the amount of the delinquent fee, and cannot exceed 18% per annum
Limits shall not prohibit a district from recovering costs of collection, including disconnection or reconnection fees, reinstatement charges, or penalties assessed where fraud is involved
SDA
40
Late fees and delinquency charges are limited by statute continued
Water and Sanitation districts are empowered to assess reasonable penalties for delinquency in the payment of
rates, fees, tolls or charges, or violations of the rules and regulations, with interest from due date at not more than 1% per month, and to shut off or discontinue service.
§ 32-1-1006(d) C.R.S. Where these rules are inconsistent, districts
should follow the rule that is most restrictive on its administration of delinquency charges
In order to enforce, fees and charges should be adopted by rule or regulation, and have clear policy and penalties spelled out
SDA
41
Special Circumstances
Fire protection districts are limited to fees and charges as follows: § 32-1-1002(1)(e) C.R.S.
for ambulance or emergency medical services;
for requested or mandated inspections if a fire code is in force;
SDA
42
Special Circumstances continued
Water and sanitation districts have the power to divide the district into areas according to the services furnished therein, and to fix different rates, fees, tolls, or charges and different rates of levy for tax purposes against all of the taxable property within the several
areas of the district… § 32-1-1006(1)(b) C.R.S.
SDA
43
Impact Fees Special districts have no independent authority
to impose impact fees.
Cities and Counties have clear authority to impose impact fees, pursuant to § 29-20-104.5 C.R.S., adopted in 2001 in a special legislative session. This act, however, intentionally omitted special districts from
the definition of local governments, thus precluding direct “impact fee” authority on behalf of special districts. The Act also clearly states that the local government, i.e., city or county, may impose an impact fee to “fund expenditures by such local government on capital facilities needed to serve new development.
SDA
44
Impact Fees continued
The same act enumerates the conditions which must be met to avoid “takings” problems. Great care must be given to meeting the conditions included in the statute, which largely mirror leading
Supreme Court cases
Since the law would seem to indicate that the money must be spent by the collecting entity, care should be exercised in structuring cooperative efforts where a city or county imposes and collects an impact fee for the benefit of a special district
SDA
45
Multi-fiscal Year Debt
Affects bonding, short term loans, multi-year employment contracts
Must have voter approval in advance. (TABOR, Para 4(b)).
Lease-purchase has been approved by Supreme Court as one way to deal with this restriction
SDA
46
Emergency Reserves
Each district must annually reserve 3% or more of its fiscal year spending excluding bonded debt service
To be used for declared emergencies only
Problem is in the definition of “emergency.”
It excludes economic conditions or most conditions other than natural disasters, and probably does not cover most natural disasters. The result is that 3% of a district’s funding is tied up in a dedicated reserve, and completely unusable by the district.
SDA
47
Non-Emergency Reserves
Annual Revenue under revenue limits, not spent, can be moved into non-emergency reserve account
Reserve funds can be kept, grown, and spent without regard for future TABOR limits
SDA
48
Questions?
SDA
For Michal or JoAnn?
Thank you!