By John Howell Sr.
First the county, now the city finds itself between a rock and a hard place as they wrestle with our property taxes.

Each entity of government has hammered out four or more successive annual budgets in the face of revenues decreased by recession and cost increases on every front. They have tightened their belts. Whether we agree that they’ve tightened them enough or tightened them in the right places depends, more or less, on whose ox got gored, but overall the county and city have established a succession of annual budgets in the face of declining revenues.

What has happened this year is the state-mandated quadrennial reappraisal coupled with the loss of the LSP generating facility from school and county tax rolls. (The generating facility remains on city tax rolls but the assessed value of the personal property has been reduced by 90 percent. City officials are trying to find out why.)

The reappraisal has resulted in an overall ten percent reduction in the valuation assessed for tax purposes. That means to raise the same amount of money from the same piece of property, millage has to be increased in the county, in the city or both. Ideally, if the value of the property appraises lower than last year, an increase in millage sufficient to offset the lower value would produce the same tax revenue, and the owner would owe no more in taxes.

But it’s not that simple. Reappraisal takes into account many factors. Some property may have fallen by more than 10 percent; some not that much. The value of other property may have even increased with the reappraisal.

Supervisors and aldermen, on the other hand, have to set one millage rate for all properties within their taxing districts. That means that the property owner whose new appraised value is greater than 10 percent less than it was formerly could see a tax reduction. The other property owners — those whose property has not decreased as much as ten percent — will pay more dollars.

Oh, if this were only rocket science!