West K gets $750K X-mas gift

[oneh2obabe]

The District of West Kelowna received an early Christmas gift courtesy of the BC Assessment Authority.

If you're a taxpayer, the news isn't quite so good.

According to Jason Sowinski with BC Assessment Authority, property values in the district have been under-assessed by an average of about $10,600 per property.

That works out to approximately $750,000 in additional tax revenue at current tax rates.

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#128080

[occasional thoughts]

I know I'm walking on thin ice here, so maybe the usual cast of hundreds will help elucidate, but . . . to find $750,000 in new assessment is not to find $750,000 in new tax revenue. Increasing the overall assessment will not get a jurisdiction a single cent of extra money. An assessment change will just change the way the impact of a given budget is distributed across the jurisdiction. No?

[oneh2obabe]

In one word - no. Tax rates and your property assessment determine how much property tax you pay. When your property assessment increases so do your taxes. I'm sure the DWK has determined how many houses will be subject to an increase in property assessment before putting forth the $750K in additional revenue.

[occasional thoughts]

I think you are incorrect. An individual may pay more, but overall the budget is redistributed between all taxpayers so that the yield meets the budget demand. It is the district's budget demand that drives total taxes; the assessments are merely controlling how the budget demand is met across all taxpayers.

Let's say a district has two taxpayers, the district's budget is $2, and both taxpayers have equal assessments. If Taxpayer 1's assessment goes up and Taxpayer 2's stays the same, the tax load will be redistributed between them. Taxpayer 1's personal share of the taxes will go up relative to Taxpayer 2's but the total tax yield for the district is still $2. There is no windfall or "Christmas present" for the district.

[oneh2obabe]

True but I'll bet the number crunchers have a good idea how many properties will see an increase in their property value and, based on that, arrived at the extra tax revenue.

ETA - original article has been updated to explain how they arrive at the increased revenue.

[occasional thoughts]

Yes, the political decision to increase the budget and therefore the demand from property owners at tax time may be taken with a sly view at the assessment numbers. For a given budget demand, an increase in assessment will reduce the tax rate, however, because the assessment game is all about the relative liability between property owners to bear a given budget. And so as I said, a $750,000 adjustment in assessment for some owners does not yield a cent of additional taxes without the district increasing the overall budget and therefore the tax grab.

[oneh2obabe]

All municipalities arrive at a budget based on projected costs to maintain services and that will result in a tax increase no matter how small.

DWK's tax rates:
2012 - 6.1701
2013 - 6.4556
2014 - 6.6986

http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/infra/sta ... _index.htm

[ensignway]

Personally I think it is a smoke and mirror ploy to get more tax revenue and the newly elected council can say "we didn't increase your rate, your property values increased", when I think if you look at the stats, property values stayed the same or may even have declined depending on what type of property and where it is located.

[occasional thoughts]

No one seems to get it: for a given budget, if the assessment rises, the tax rate (percentage or whatever) falls. There is no tax grab on a rising assessment without a corresponding increase in the tax demand by the district, and that is decided on a year-by-year basis in May. The bottom line to this whole silliness is that Castanet got the story and the headline wrong.