Prop 13 type legislation or tax revolt initiatives that blanket all secondary taxing agencies are irresponsible and WILL do harm, especially to those smaller special taxing districts and specifically those who have worked to be good stewards of the taxpayer’s dollar.

I work in a small fire district whose tax rate was adjusted down to account for massive increases in property assesments over the past couple of years. We stood almost alone in our efforts to combat rising tax bills for our constituants. I regret that many of our “peers” in government did not take the same approach, but we did.

As a result of our efforts we stand to lose big if these intiatives are passed. We work in a rapidly growing area where infrastructure is struggling to keep up with growth under the current tax structure. If our budget was limited to that of 2003 and further limited by 1% growth annually, we would in fact lay off firefighters and close fire stations. Even if we could survive on our 2003 budget, which isn’t a reality, we could not sustain our current workforce at 1% growth. That does not cover cost of living increases, double digit increases in healthcare costs, or increasing contributions to the state retirement system. Notice I have not even spoken about fire trucks, fire stations, or other service related expenses. If you appreciate your local fire service, you would not implement any of the propositions described thus far.

I agree that the tax burden on the average Arizonan is rising at an unspeakable rate. That said, there are already measures in place to limit fire districts specifically. Currently, fire districts are limited to a cap of $3.25 per $100.oo of secondary assesed value on residential properties. This was recently increased from $3.00 based on the fact that fire districts, and specifically smaller fire districts, could not continue to keep up with growth at the previous cap.

In addition to the tax ceiling for fire districts, they are governed by local fire boards which ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO YOU. if you are upset with the fiscal managment in your local fire district, I would encourage you to launch a recall effort on your board members and affect change locally.

It may be difficult for some of you to believe but I am a republican and a fiscal conservative. I would support limiting tax growth in areas other than public safety. If someone has the good sense to recognize the damage that this would do to small, locally controlled fire agencies, and if they had the courage to write a bill/proposition that limited our tax burden while preserving our public safety resources, I would be the first to support it. In the absence of public safety considerations however, I will not support the “tax revolt” and will encourage anyone who might read this to do the same.

Thank you,

Bryan

As you can see we have some folks out there who believe even higher taxes are the righ way forward. We know better!

How about you refile your initiative to correct the two showstopper problems I identified and communicated to you. It is pointless to be wasting the time and money of the good folks that are collecting signatures for your initiative that will never be allowed onto the ballot.

If you are wiling to use real statistics (80%??) and tone down your rhetoric we would be honored to have you rejoin and help promote the Tax Revolt measures.

Marc Goldstone
(928) 754-8305

The text of the messages sent to you identifying some of the MANY showstoppers with your initiative as written follow:

December 29, 2007
Lynne,
Seeing that 2007 is almost gone, and since I am in the spirit of giving, let me pose the following questions:
1) Would you please clarify your intent with defining a term in subsection (5) “Baseline Full Cash Value” and later referring to this definition in subsection (6) as “Full Cash Value.” Is it Baseline FCV or just FCV? Was it your intent to create this ambiguity for the courts to decide?

2) In Subsection (5) you use the word “Beginning.” In the context that you have used it this means, in 2009, 2010, 2011, … So the Baseline FCV in each of these years is the FCV from the 2003 tax bill. Then in Subsection (6) you define the FCV in years after 2009, in other words 2010, 2011, … to instead be the previous year’s FCV plus up to a 2% increase. So which is it in 2010, the 2003 FCV, or the 2003 FCV plus 2%. Was it your intent that the courts flip a coin?
May I suggest, both to save face and to promote property tax reform, that you just drop your initiative and if still willing to fight for lower property taxes instead act in some capacity to promote the Tax Revolt initiatives. Together we would have the clout to push the legislature toward a worthwhile referendum of “their own,” rather than just another band-aid fix.
In addition to the single amendment concerns that are somewhat subjectively interpreted there are more than a dozen other serious problems and pre-election showstoppers with your measure as written. As the months go by if you are still working against the Tax Revolt, I will have no choice but to disclose each of these publicly.
Lynne, I would disclose all the problems with your ballot language right now. Except that given your intent to strike down (by repealing sections 18 and 19, rather than amending them) all my hard work, if somehow your measure were to be upheld and get more votes, that would be folly as you could just re-file and with six months to collect signatures be a real threat to the Tax Revolt.
You read the good book “I’m Mad As Hell” which made it clear that Jarvis and Gann had to work together, not on competing measures to be successful. They found an accommodation and once again I propose that we do as well.
Marc Goldstone
December 12, 2007
Lynne,
I have spoken with our Atty. at Perkins Coie Brown and Bain and he confirmed my suspicions that your measure is in FACT in violation of several constitutional provisions and as such will be barred in pre-election challenges from the ballot.
I will disclose to you ONE of MANY, MANY showstoppers just to demonstrate that what I say is FACT not fiction. Initiatives start with OFFICIAL TITLE followed by AN INITIATIVE MEASURE. So far so good, then your initiative redacts the text of the old section 18 and 19.
Directive #1 states:
1. Article IX, Section 18 and Section 19, Constitution of Arizona, are proposed to be repealed as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor
This directive sounds good but it is PROCEEDED not followed by the text of the two sections being repealed.
Lynne, In spite of this latest personal attack, how about you rejoin the tax revolt and work to promote the best and only measures on the table?
You are wasting the time and money of your volunteers collecting signatures. So swallow your ego and let’s join forces to help all those working for the tax revolt!
Marc Goldstone, Chair.
http://www.ArizonaTaxRevolt.ORG
(928) 754-8305

Please visit and READ the information on the Arizona Tax Revolt initiatives at: http://www.ArizonaTaxRevolt.ORG which shows the error in your argument about property appraisals.

Arizona today has two property valuations neither of which is used when you apply for a loan or line of credit on your home. The first valuation is Full Cash Value (FCV) or an approximation of market value the second is Limited Property Value which can not exceed FCV, and increases slower than FCV during periods of rapid real estate price inflation. Your mortgage company does its own appraisal that is used to determine the parameters of your loan.

Sure Municipal Fire Departments have other sources of revenue, just like your fire department. I am referring to the Paramedic and ambulance services. Taxpayers believe that when they need these services they will be provided since they have been paying taxes to the fire department for decades… well that is not the case. Here in our local fire district the average cost of a trip to the hospital is $700 and I bet you would be shocked to know what you would be charged. Find out, call your fire department and ask, then get to work to promote the Tax Revolt initiatives which you can do on the WEB site by filling out the “volunteer” form.

Arizona voters will be fully informed come the November election however we need your support now just to allow the democratic process to proceed and for the question to appear on the ballot. The fire departments and their labor unions will likely outspend us tax fighters 3:1 but we believe that in the end people will make make the right decision for themselves and their children. The fire departments will go on providing the services we taxpayers expect or we will just have to replace the free spending board members with budget minded taxpayers!

Marc, you talked about “municipal” fire departments. Don’t they get their $$ from sales tax within those cities?? They don’t rely on property taxes like the so many “fire districts” within the state. How many fire departments in California rely solely on “property taxes??” When was the last Fire District Board Meeting you attended in any area of AZ?? I would suggest maybe attending one, maybe even around budget time before the new fiscal year and see just how much “wasting” is really taking place. I would also invite you to talk with the many thousands who use this valuable resource when they call 911 and ask what their impression is of the service provided.

Hopefully, “if” either of these make the ballot, Arizona voters will be FULLY educated on ALL the effects these initiatives will have on EVERYBODY and not just the one-sided information they are getting from these people now.

The K-12 school revenue will not be reduced by any property tax reduction measure since Prop 301 approved by the voters in 2000 requires the legislature to make up any shortfall in property tax revenues.

Municipal fire departments have done very well for the last 26 years under the identical 2% + growth levy limit. We propose to expand those levy limits to the separate fire districts. Should there be a shortfall in revenue all the taxing entity will have to do is convince 2/3 of those casting ballots to approve additional funds. On the other hand if the fire department wastes money the taxpayers can elect to reduce their property tax levy. How’s that for accountability to the taxpayer?

Our current property tax system allows for unlimited taxation and we saw that in action during the speculative runup in property valuations.

Those who benefit from unlimited government spending oppose Prop 13 Arizona.

Those who support it cannot deny it.

They are left with stumbling all over themselves to say how they schools will be somehow better off, that getting the illegals out might help, that shifting dollars might help…all things that will not happen and that this will not force. Not in THEIR school district.

Finally, the same excuses will pop up when we talk about fire and police.

This is a stupid idea folks. It is fueled by anger and greed…and little thought.

Appraisals are used for re-financing. Assessments are used only for tax bills.

Those of us who lived in California and saw first hand what happened after passage of Prop 13 know that public safety services continued unchanged.

So, these folks that want to roll back the taxes to 2003, if they need to re-finance or take money out on their home, will they want the current or the 2003 value? Exactly, they want both, lower taxes, and the high values on their homes. They definitely won’t want the appraiser doing their home at it’s 2003 values.

Good luck with the tax revolt Mr. Goldstone, you’ll need it.

It has been conservatively estimated that in excess of 20% of the K-12 students in Arizona are themselves not in this country legally. We are paying something like $8000 and more for ELL programs to educate Mexico’s children. Is it any wonder that little is being done to enforce our immigration laws?

And while we are on the subject of our children, imagine the property taxes they will face in 20 years when they buy their first home. Perhaps 80% of the tax amount they will pay for the home will be due to inflation above the 2003 baseline year proposed in our initiative. Our kids will be paying perhaps 5 times the already high property tax we are paying today. This would occur in the present system and the Prop 13 plan, but not in the baseline valuation system proposed by Arizona Tax Revolt because property is not revalued for tax purposes upon sale.

Not to worry about government as they will get a 2% plus the tax paid by the new growth revenue increase just like has been the case for counties, cities, towns and community college districts that have a property tax for the last 26 years. Should any taxing entity need more money like under California’s Prop 13 all they need to do is ask the voters and get a 2/3 vote in our case in a November election. The Weaver plan eliminates what they call “exceptions” but what in reality is any ability to raise revenue for any purpose no matter how many citizens desire it. The only recourse would be repeal of Weavers measure which would leave us with who knows what.

Talk is cheap and will accomplish nothing. Read about and join the Tax Revolt by filling out the volunteer form at:

http://www.arizonataxrevolt.org

Marc Goldstone, Chair.
Arizona Tax Revolt

The money factor is an odd one; it does not guarantee success but it does limit it.

2) Texas has people losing their homes not because they can’t afford the mortgage, but because their property taxes are so high they can’t afford to keep them. Property values there are very low, by comparison, because they must be to offer relief to buyers who cannot afford the home and the taxes.

3)The “incredible tax revenue windfall” is not directly beneficial to schools. The state collects the taxes, then divvies it up accordingly. Yes, schools did receive some extra funds in the last few years. But, all those were earmarked for increases in ASRS or for specific salary increases to teachers. It is disingenuous to say it resulted in “no positive results in our schools”. How do you measure teacher retention and moral? School budgets are based on their student count NOT the tax rate of the district. If a district has a high valuation, there are still limits on the amount that can be levied. The poor planning by the state on ASRS deductions, high insurance costs, and a flood of ELL students have offset the increases.

I absolutely agree there are many opportunities to shift existing monies into the classroom. (once we define classroom) But we need to look at our patchwork tax laws and stop the piecemeal approach at reform.

Adjacent ways, excess utilities, overrides, bonds, all forms of taxes in addition to basic property taxes. The schools did not invent them, the state offers them to the schools as means to provide the service they are created for; it is incumbent on the state to correct it. That does not mean eliminating funding, it means make it transparent, equitable, and with accountability.

2 points:
1) Yes, Texas’ property tax is super high, but there is zero income tax.
2)The incredible tax revenue windfall resulting from high property values the past several years produced no positive results in our schools. Having served on a research and policy board that advised a state legislature on education issues I can tell you there are a lot of opportunities to shift money into the classrooms using existing funds.