Property Taxes

[tulsa1603]

What share of property taxes does the city get?  Any?  I got reassessed recently, and was shocked....at how low my assessment is.  It sat stagnant for 5 years, and now it's gone up $2,000 in value, which means about $40 added to my annual tax bill!??  Am i the only one who has been so lucky?  My house is easily worth 40% more than they assess it at....Is the city missing out on funding here?

[waterboy]

They're making up for it with my assessment. Went up about $200 even though the assessed value barely rose. Probably because they are limited in how much they can raise it each year.

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603

What share of property taxes does the city get?  Any?  I got reassessed recently, and was shocked....at how low my assessment is.  It sat stagnant for 5 years, and now it's gone up $2,000 in value, which means about $40 added to my annual tax bill!??  Am i the only one who has been so lucky?  My house is easily worth 40% more than they assess it at....Is the city missing out on funding here?

The City of Tulsa gets only a tiny fraction of property taxes. The majority goes to the County, Tulsa Public Schools, and TCC. There is a line item for cities, but it's all the cities in Tulsa County and Tulsa gets a smaller percentage than some of the suburbs.

Read pages 41-43 of the following report from the City Council:
http://tulsacouncil.org/pdfs/website%20embedded/Complete%20Our%20Streets.pdf

[sauerkraut]

Tulsa/Oklahoma has some of the lowest prop. taxes in the nation. In Texas the prop. taxes are thru the roof. A $60,000 home can have $2,000 in prop taxes, a rule of thumb is the prop. taxes in Texas is about 3 percent of the homes value. But Texas has no income taxes and Texas has a better climate than Oklahoma and the milder weather in Texas means  less need of heaters and high heating bills. I lived in Texas thru the 1980's. I loved the weather, it's mild & Sunny much of the year and winters are short with little snow and small heating bills. Texas also has no sales tax on food items if I remember correctly. Alot of it balances out.[]

[Wrinkle]

As for OK/Tulsa, most folks are stuck in the 5%/year increase in Ad Valorem due to increases in values exceeding the voted cap.

Ad Valorem, in Rule of Thumb, is 1% of the home's value each year. 11% of 10% of the Market Value.

So, a $100,000 house, by 10% is $10,000 and 11% of that is $1,100. It's really 1.1%/year.

If that homes' value increased by $20,000 in a year, such that its Market Value became $120,000, Ad Valorem would become $1,320/year.

BUT, $1,320 represents a 20% increase. The 5% Cap would require it to be only $1,155 that year. But, would continue to increase an additional 5% each year until the Market Value rate is achieved.

Unfortunately, over that time, the Market Value of the house continues to climb (in most cases. In Recession years, it could reduce)

IAC, one usually never gets caught up, so one can expect a 5% increase in Ad Valorem every year. The exception to this is if the place is sold, at which time the Market Value becomes the launching point again, and the new owner's taxes jump accordingly, then increase 5% each year.

The only time taxes may reduce is if a recession lasted more than 5 years and property values declined more than they went up. Or, a fire.

As for the City's share....formally it's zero. It's currently illegal for a municipality to collect Ad Valorem tax.

Voters can approve Ad Valorem to pay for City Bond issues, however. So, any we do currently receive is associated with Bond issues approved by voters. And, the City also does currently receive a small portion of proceeds from the County, which raised the funds via Ad Valorem. These funds are to pay the City's shared costs of City/County endevors, such as the Jail/Library.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

Tulsa/Oklahoma has some of the lowest prop. taxes in the nation. In Texas the prop. taxes are thru the roof. A $60,000 home can have $2,000 in prop taxes, a rule of thumb is the prop. taxes in Texas is about 3 percent of the homes value. But Texas has no income taxes and Texas has a better climate than Oklahoma and the milder weather in Texas means  less need of heaters and high heating bills. I lived in Texas thru the 1980's. I loved the weather, it's mild & Sunny much of the year and winters are short with little snow and small heating bills. Texas also has no sales tax on food items if I remember correctly. Alot of it balances out.[]

Not much though; I lived in Houston for three years and everything is more expensive, even if there is no sales tax on groceries and no state income tax (there wasn't when I lived there), you pay more for things like insurance, housing and the aforementioned property taxes.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle


As for OK/Tulsa, most folks are stuck in the 5%/year increase in Ad Valorem due to increases in values exceeding the voted cap.

Ad Valorem, in Rule of Thumb, is 1% of the home's value each year. 11% of 10% of the Market Value.

So, a $100,000 house, by 10% is $10,000 and 11% of that is $1,100. It's really 1.1%/year.

If that homes' value increased by $20,000 in a year, such that its Market Value became $120,000, Ad Valorem would become $1,320/year.

BUT, $1,320 represents a 20% increase. The 5% Cap would require it to be only $1,155 that year. But, would continue to increase an additional 5% each year until the Market Value rate is achieved.

Unfortunately, over that time, the Market Value of the house continues to climb (in most cases. In Recession years, it could reduce)

IAC, one usually never gets caught up, so one can expect a 5% increase in Ad Valorem every year. The exception to this is if the place is sold, at which time the Market Value becomes the launching point again, and the new owner's taxes jump accordingly, then increase 5% each year.

The only time taxes may reduce is if a recession lasted more than 5 years and property values declined more than they went up. Or, a fire.

As for the City's share....formally it's zero. It's currently illegal for a municipality to collect Ad Valorem tax.

Voters can approve Ad Valorem to pay for City Bond issues, however. So, any we do currently receive is associated with Bond issues approved by voters. And, the City also does currently receive a small portion of proceeds from the County, which raised the funds via Ad Valorem. These funds are to pay the City's shared costs of City/County endevors, such as the Jail/Library.

I don't see how this can be practical for OKC, which takes up almost all of Oklahoma County.  There needs to be exemptions to all of this pro county BS for Tulsa and Oklahoma County.  It just creates redundant governments.

[Steve]

I received my home property tax reassessment statement in the mail 2 days ago.  The market value of my property, according to Mr. Yazel Tulsa County Assessor, went up 11%, thereby increasing my property taxes for 2008 another $100.  I thought real estate values across the nation, Tulsa included to a lesser extent, for 2007 were declining.

It seems the assessed market value of my property always increases just enough for the taxable value to increase every year the statutory maximum.  Not surprising.  Since I first bought my house in 1987, the property taxes have increased 150%  No one really owns their home, we just rent it from the government, the rent being property taxes.  I bought by home and paid the mortgage off 17 years early, due to my thrift and economic efficiency.  But my responsibility is increasingly offset by rising property taxes.

I think property taxes should be fixed, based on the purchase price paid for the property, and not reassessed until the property is sold.  I think this is most fair, based on the purchaser's ability to pay at time of sale.  All the increases in tax assessment is based on paper, assumed market value and does not take into account the owner's ability to pay.  Basing property tax on so called "market value" only will eventually force long term owners out of their homes.

[rwarn17588]

Tulsa's average property values went up in 2007, which bucked the national trend.

Tulsa didn't have the crazy real-estate bubble that other areas of the country had. Tulsa experienced more modest and steady increases in property values, which in hindsight was a good thing.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Tulsa's average property values went up in 2007, which bucked the national trend.

Tulsa didn't have the crazy real-estate bubble that other areas of the country had. Tulsa experienced more modest and steady increases in property values, which in hindsight was a good thing.

No we didn't have the real estate bubble and bust that other areas have experienced.  And that is a good thing.  But we, and by that I mean Tulsa county (city), have had constant rising real estate taxes, due to increased property values or tax rate assessments.  All in all, it makes for higher tax bills, and makes it harder for responsible people like myself, that have paid off their mortgage and pay their bills, to remain in their homes.  Real estate taxes should not be tied to inflationary property values, but to the price originally paid for the property.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by Steve


No we didn't have the real estate bubble and bust that other areas have experienced.  And that is a good thing.  But we, and by that I mean Tulsa county (city), have had constant rising real estate taxes, due to increased property values or tax rate assessments.  All in all, it makes for higher tax bills, and makes it harder for responsible people like myself, that have paid off their mortgage and pay their bills, to remain in their homes.  Real estate taxes should not be tied to inflationary property values, but to the price originally paid for the property.

You have such a sad story, I'm playing the world's smallest violin for you.

[rwarn17588]

Steve, if you've paid off a mortgage, you shouldn't have trouble paying property taxes. Taxes are a fraction of what a typical monthly mortgage payment is.

If you're having that much trouble in an area that has low property taxes compared to many other areas and keeps a cap on the yearly increases, maybe you ought to apply for food stamps.

[Wrinkle]

There remains a couple of flaws in this system, at least as I see things:

1.) As municipalities grow, more Ad Valorem is collected by the County, yet the County's domain is reduced. So, they get more money for having to provide services to less area.

2.) The policy currently punishes property owners who improve their properties. If an owner puts $10,000 worth of improvements into his property, Ad Valorem can be adjusted in the same way as if the property sold. IOW, it jumps not only by whatever escalation factor, but also the new improvements all at once, bypassing the 5% cap. This is a major reason some properties are never improved, and leads to decline of entire neighborhoods.

3.) It is problematic (I started to say unfair) for fixed-income owners who continue to see their taxes increase at a faster rate than their income. Forces many to sell out. I would tend to agree with whomever said Ad Valorem should be fixed at the sale price whenever it is sold. Improvements, then, could be added at market value when the property is sold again. This would greatly encourage property improvements, rather than the condition described in #2 above, and create a turn-around market for those speculating on such.

[Double A]

My suggestion is to protest it, especially if you have not made any major improvements. 9 times out of 10 it will be reduced.

[rwarn17588]

OK, so you paid your mortgage off early.

That means you paid far MORE than the usual monthly payment, no?

Therefore, your property taxes would be even LESS of a proportion from what you were paying extra to retire the note early.

And those values set by the assessor aren't arbitrary; there's a system, and it's not on a whim.

If you had the ability to pay off your mortgage 17 years early, you shouldn't complain about something as relatively trivial as annual property taxes.