We received our updated property valuation, and it is down. I have to hand it to the Assessor’s office–they got it right, at least to my approximate knowledge of our property’s market value.
Do you remember the stink we raised at the last valuation in 2009 when assessments increased: the letters to the editor (one of them, mine) and the public meetings? Well, now the Assessor has caught up with the market (according to the legal timeframe, I’m sure), and our property is 40% lower than before.
Only an actual buyer could validate the new figure, but we find the trend accurate. Thank you, Assessor.
This also means we will be paying 40% lower property taxes. Good for payers; bad for collectors. We might find ourselves allocating some of those “freed-up” monies to under-supported organizations such as the school, the library, the fire department. That’s an honorable way to direct voluntary support to institutions we value without needing a tax
collector as intermediary.
Paige McCormick
Paige…thanks for the letter, but while assessments have gone down, the amount of revenue you will be paying (in general) will stay the same. Great explanation from sanjuanislander.com:
Does the decrease in overall property value decrease the amount of tax revenue the county, libraries, fire districts, schools, etc. receive?. Washington State set up our state’s system with the belief consistent services needed consistent revenue.
When the property values change – either up or down – the rate changes accordingly.
Taxing districts do not receive more tax revenue when property values go up. On the flip side taxing districts do not receive less tax revenue when property values go down. The tax rates are adjusted to produce the same amount of revenue.
To be simplistic, the average Orcas property owner’s property value went down 31%. The average tax bill will go up 31% in order for the schools, libraries, county, fire districts etc. to continue to operate as budgeted.
Orcas Park and Rec is an exception. Orcas Park and Rec’s levy specified a 9 cent per thousand levy and therefore will receive 31% less than they expected.
Janet is right about most of what she has said. One must not forget, however, that the assessments of 2009, and since then till the recent assessment, were above reality and higher than comparable assessments on San Juan and Lopez. This caused Orcas tax payers to pay (for at least 3 years) more than their fair share of the the overall revenue collected. What is the answer to that?