Dispute over property tax ceiling heads to court
JEFFERSON CITY — A recent veto by Gov. Jay Nixon has triggered a lawsuit over how local property tax rates are set.
The city of St. Joseph filed the suit yesterday in Cole County Circuit Court. The city says it stands to lose $300,000 in general revenue because Nixon vetoed a bill that would have relaxed restrictions on the property tax ceiling.
A law passed by the Legislature in 2008 (SB711) caps tax rates at the most recent voter-approved ceiling.
After some taxing districts complained, the Legislature this year passed a bill (HB148) that would have restored an earlier provision allowing rates to range as high as the level set in 1984.
Last month, Nixon vetoed HB148, saying it would “overturn an important property tax reform that was passed in 2008, which prohibits taxing districts from increasing property tax rates without a vote of the people.”
The St. Joseph suit was filed by attorney Paul Campo of Lee’s Summit. In an odd twist, he uses the anti-tax Hancock Amendment as a legal foundation. The suit contends that SB711 violates the Hancock Amendment’s assurance that taxing districts will receive the same gross revenue as the prior year.
A legislative staffer estimated that about 150 taxing districts could lose money under the SB711 provision.
So Nixon vetoed a bill which the Republican legislature passed, that would allow municipalities to increase taxes to higher than the voter approved rate? Am I in Wacko World here, or what?
On a not totally unrelated note, I wish somebody would sue St. Louis county over their policy excluding consideration sales of bank-owned properties in determining assessed value. This has resulted in a distorted assessment that will ultimately mean those in areas with many foreclosures will pay substantially more taxes. That would be disproportionately minority and low income homeowners. It disgusts me that we have an African-American county executive from north county, and he let this happen.
Concerning Nick’s “not totally unrelated note”, Mr. Dooley’s house apparently had its appraised value reduced by 11% primarily due to one of his comparable homes being sold in a bank sale in 2007. It also was sold in a bank sale in 2006 and was in a foreclosure sale in 2005. RHIP???