In today's Tribune is an article about Lance Olson not running for re-election to the county commission. A statement was made that has me wondering:
Although the county's tax base has grown modestly in recent years, Olson noted every time the city of Great Falls annexes property, that cuts into Cascade County's rural mill value.
Does the county not have any input into what the city annexes? The impression I get is that if the city wants it, they get it.
Perhaps Joe Briggs or somebody else knowledgeable with the process can explain.
7 comments:
You ask...
Does the county not have any input into what the city annexes? The impression I get is that if the city wants it, they get it.
Answer
Yes if City wants it they get it.
Something I learned from Joe Briggs.
Ms. Mary, Isn't this a little or possibly alot dangerous. This sounds kind of scary. Indicative of the Good 'ol Boys.
So...does anyone here read laws or are y'all just spinnin' conspiracy theories? Big Joe seems to know somehow.
Hypothesis 1: he's smart.
Hypothesis 2: he knows the law.
My money is on the latter.
Less time on cyberspace soliloquy. More time learnin’ stuff.
Yee haw.
There is state law that governs annexations. The lands to be annexed must be contiguous or surrounded by city land.
Did the landowners want to be annexed? I'd guess "yes", otherwise they wouldn't be. The only time I've heard of "forced annexations" were on property totally surrounded by the city, or perhaps a group of homeowners who had a waiver of right to protest annexation and were already using some city services.
So what's Joe's point, then? Apparently, it's that the county should tell landowners they can't annex to the city. That doesn't sound all that "pro property rights" an agenda to me.
And what mills are affected? Road and bridge and little else? Cascade county gets to tax all of Great Falls' taxable value for it's general taxes, such as sheriff, courts, general government, etc.
Otherwise he sounds like a fine commissioner
The issue of annexation is governed by state law and the county is not a party to the transaction. It is strictly between the land owners and the annexing city, the county has no say in the matter unless the annexation crosses a county line.
As to the issue of “forced annexation”, the city has not been aggressive with this over the years and there are a number of non-annexed parcels wholly surrounded by the city. If these parcels are utilizing city services and are residential, the city can annex them unilaterally. If the property is commercial or industrial, the owner must agree.
Lance's point was not that rural residents wanting to be annexed should not be able to, it was simply a statement of fact that the county loses tax base when the city annexes property.
Property within the city limits of Great Falls is assessed only the general mill by Cascade County. The balance of the taxes on annexed property are levied by the city, state and school district. Those outside of the city pay the general mill, the school mill and state mill like the property in Great Falls, but also pay a road levy, a library levy, a planning levy, a community decay levy and a health levy.
The total of these “extra” levies is significantly less than the city levy paid by in town residents so on balance, taxes are lower on rural residents than their city dwelling friends.
The theory behind this taxing method is that City taxes will cover the cost of roads within the town, the city’s portion of the library, city planning and the city’s portion of the health department budget so only the non city residents need to be taxed for these items separately. The theory is good, but in practice there are some significant problems which annexation makes worse.
The rural tax levies are where county budgets are the most difficult to balance. This is due to a sparse population and very little commercial development outside of the city.
The lack of commercial development is particularly troublesome because the cost of providing services such as roads to a rural residence greatly exceeds the rural mill tax revenue the residence generates. In essence, the property tax laws of Montana are designed that commercial and industrial properties subsidize residential property. As a result when the city annexes commercial property into the city, it has a large negative impact on several of the county’s funds.
The County budget loses all of the rural levies, but the general mill collection on the property remains the same. If the city does not also fully absorb the offsetting costs of service when it annexes, the transaction is a net loss for the county.
The real concern which I have with annexation is the manner which the city applies it. Their methods follow the letter of the law, but in my opinion not the intent.
One example would be the malting plant North of Great Falls. The facility needed city water and sewer so it was logical for them to be annexed. At the meetings held between the city and county it was agreed that the entire parcel owed by IMC would be annexed along with Black Eagle Road which runs North and South at the East edge of the parcel. (State law requires that a city annex the roads which touch an annexed parcel).
Instead, the city only annexed the portion of the parcel where the plant itself was built and left a narrow strip of non-annexed land between the plant and the road. The result was the city did not have to assume the maintenance (cost) of the road yet removed from the county funding stream the portion of the property which would generate the taxes necessary to pay for the road. That is, the county lost the road tax revenue but also kept the road maintenance cost. The city on the other hand got a huge boost in their tax base but assumed very little cost.
There are unfortunately several examples of the city’s creativity in drawing the annexation lines to avoid annexing roads. As a result, Cascade County maintains numerous sections of road providing access to city annexed developments. These annexed developments provide no road tax revenue to the county.
It is the use of flagpole style annexation and creation of buffer zones between the city and the county roads which give us pause, not the natural growth of the city limits.
Clearly, the county should not have veto power over city annexation, but neither should the city be able to continue to stick the county with these road costs. There needs to be a balance and right now, there is none.
The other element of our concern deals with funding inequalities within some of the joint city county operations. As I stated earlier, the theory is that city residents pay taxes to the city instead of to the county for such things as the library and health department. It follows that the relative funding to those shared facilities should be at a ratio comensurate with the use of the facility by each governments taxpayers. Unfortunately, this is not true. Despite accounting for 80% of the residents of Cascade County, the city pays only 57% of the cost of the City County Health department. This is why I mentioned at the outset that we had some issues with the city which the annexation process made even more difficult.
Post a Comment