This is an example of what I am going to make known and understood by each taxpayer as it applies.
TOTALLY DISABLED VETERANS’ EXEMPTION: If you are a veteran who is rated 100% disabled, blind, or a paraplegic due to a service connected disability while in the armed forces (or if you are the unmarried widow of such a veteran), you may be eligible for an exemption of up to $100,000 or $150,000 (adjusted annually for inflation since January 1, 2006) of the assessed value of your home.
The filing period for Veterans’ and Disabled Veterans’ Exemptions is on or before February 15 for full exemption. A partial exemption may be available for a claim filed after February 15. An annual filing is needed for the higher exemption amount which is based on the claimant’s annual income. The lower exemption amount generally only requires a one time filing. The filing period for supplemental assessment due to change in ownership, is within 30 days from the date of the Supplemental Notice for full exemption amount.
NOTE: A property owner may NOT have more than one exemption, such as the Homeowners’, Veterans’, or a Disabled Veterans’ exemption on the same property. Applications and additional information may be obtained at the Assessor’s Office.
Ron Largent for Shasta County Assessor-Recorder www.largent2010.com
Monday, March 8, 2010
Are you paying too much in property tax?
It’s almost impossible today to avoid a news article or story referencing how much property values have declined. If you are a property owner in California then you probably are well aware that property values have been affected here more so then almost anywhere else in the United States. With property values decreasing, in some areas, as much as 30% in one year, there is a very good chance that you may be over paying on your property taxes.
Ron Largent for Shasta County Assessor - Recorder www.largent2010.com
It’s almost impossible today to avoid a news article or story referencing how much property values have declined. If you are a property owner in California then you probably are well aware that property values have been affected here more so then almost anywhere else in the United States. With property values decreasing, in some areas, as much as 30% in one year, there is a very good chance that you may be over paying on your property taxes.
Ron Largent for Shasta County Assessor - Recorder www.largent2010.com
Decline In Value- Prop 8 (Prop 13)
Important factors to remember related to a Decline in Value review on your property:
This type of property tax relief generally applies to more recently purchased property.
Property acquired after January 1, 2010 are not eligible for Proposition 8 review for the 2010-11 tax year.
The Assessor will be valuing the property as of the most recent January 1st.
Certified Appraisers will analyze sales and other information for comparable properties.
Property tax payments are due as indicated on your property tax bill. If a reduction in assessed value is warranted, a notice of correction and revised tax bill or refund will be processed by the County Tax Collector and County Auditor.
This type of property tax relief generally applies to more recently purchased property.
Property acquired after January 1, 2010 are not eligible for Proposition 8 review for the 2010-11 tax year.
The Assessor will be valuing the property as of the most recent January 1st.
Certified Appraisers will analyze sales and other information for comparable properties.
Property tax payments are due as indicated on your property tax bill. If a reduction in assessed value is warranted, a notice of correction and revised tax bill or refund will be processed by the County Tax Collector and County Auditor.
Daniel Rodriguez Sings in Redding
Tonight was the Daniel Rodriguez concert at the Shasta Community Concerts Night at the Convention Center, and what an outstanding night it was. Rodriguez, the “singing NYPD cop”…is a wonderful classical tenor that belongs on the Broadway stage. An inspiring program, if you ever have a chance to hear him, take it. Great program.
Ron Largent www.largent2010.com
Ron Largent www.largent2010.com
Proposition 13 and Prop 8 in California
As I travel about talking to folks in Shasta County in my bid for the County Assessor-Recorder, I am frequently asked "what is Prop 8?". It is not the marriage prop recently passed in California, but rather the follow on to Proposition 13 passed by in 1978....and Prop 8 came shortly thereafter.
Proposition 8 - Temporary Decline in Value
Proposition 8 was passed in 1979 and requires the Assessor to temporarily lower the assessed value of property. Under Proposition 8, the Assessor will review the market value as of January 1st, and enroll the lower value for the following tax year.
Reductions in assessed value under Proposition 8 are temporary and are reviewed annually until the factored base year value is again lower than market value and is reinstated.
Your assessed value can increase more than 2% in a single year if you have new construction (e.g. adding a room or swimming pool), had a temporary reduction due to Prop. 8, or had a qualifying change in ownership. Some property owners whose properties were in the Decline in Value Program may see an increase in their assessed value more than two percent (2%) when restoring to the factored base-year value.
Ron Largent www.largent2010.com
Proposition 8 - Temporary Decline in Value
Proposition 8 was passed in 1979 and requires the Assessor to temporarily lower the assessed value of property. Under Proposition 8, the Assessor will review the market value as of January 1st, and enroll the lower value for the following tax year.
Reductions in assessed value under Proposition 8 are temporary and are reviewed annually until the factored base year value is again lower than market value and is reinstated.
Your assessed value can increase more than 2% in a single year if you have new construction (e.g. adding a room or swimming pool), had a temporary reduction due to Prop. 8, or had a qualifying change in ownership. Some property owners whose properties were in the Decline in Value Program may see an increase in their assessed value more than two percent (2%) when restoring to the factored base-year value.
Ron Largent www.largent2010.com
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Hard Times for Shasta County Ahead
Over the past few months as I have talked with citizens of Shasta County in my quest for County Assessor-Recorder, I have heard great concerns about County spending, with folks asking “what am I going to do about it?” My platform, as reflected at www.largent2010.com clearly explains my views. Today, though, in the Record Searchlight, the following appeared and is very much in line with what I am hearing, and think. This is worth reading and thinking about:
If righteous outrage could refill Shasta County’s depleted treasury, the sheriff’s deputies wouldn’t need to take a pay cut.
The union representing deputies, jail guards and other county officers has lambasted the Board of Supervisors and County Administrative Officer Larry Lees. It’s cried foul that other unions aren’t facing concessions as severe as the Deupty Sheriff’s Association. It’s taken out radio ads blasting – what else? – palm trees.
The anger is no surprise. The county is on track to declare contract talks a failure and unilaterally impose wage and benefit cuts that, depending on who’s counting, add up to between 9 percent and 18 percent of officers’ pay.
None of the indignation, however, deals with the heart of the issue: the collapse of local tax revenues. The supervisors have to cut spending and cut it severely.
Even after the county drafted a pessimistic budget for the current fiscal year – which forced deputy layoffs, the dismantling of Crystal Creek Boys Camp, the closure of one floor of the jail and a drastic reduction in the sheriff’s work-release program, just to name prominent cuts – the economy has exceeded even those grim expectations. Lees has said the county faces a further $7.5 million deficit over the next year and a half, and that’s not even counting the fallout from budget cuts by an equally strapped state.
One major culprit is falling sales taxes. They’re on track to drop 18 percent this year from last, and a total of nearly 30 percent since the 2006 peak. They’re a critical source of financing for the county’s public safety operations, and they’re drying up like a month-old Christmas tree.
To cope, the county is paving the way to impose pay cuts at its Jan. 12 meeting.
The biggest ticket is having employees pick up the 9 percent share of their wages that goes toward funding their pensions. Though officially known as the “member contribution,” the employees’ share has been picked up by the county for decades. Quite frankly, handing public employees part of the burden for the generous pensions they’ll eventually enjoy is a good idea, but for the average deputy it’s just a pay cut.
Separately, the county is imposing new retirement formulas so newly hired deputies and correctional officers couldn’t retire with a full pension until 55, instead of the current 50. Steve Allen, negotiator for the deputies union, complains that this change won’t save the county any money in the short run, and he’s right. It is, however, a step toward taming the long-term disaster of unaffordable pension promises, and there’s no time to start like today.
Imposing a contract, bypassing the usual negotiations, is a tough move – and one that could well have political fallout, with Supervisors Les Baugh and David Kehoe up for re-election this year. But the county does not have the luxury of endless negotiations, especially when unions facing cuts have every incentive to stall.
Let’s be clear: The deputies shouldn’t be asked to take pay cuts that their bosses, including the supervisors, aren’t willing to share. Other unions, when their contracts are up for renewal, should get the same deal.
And in the long run, the county’s leaders need to remember that, with law enforcement as with anything, you get what you pay for. Shasta County’s officers get mediocre pay by law enforcement standards. Deputies earn about 20 percent less than Redding police, before the looming cut, and the jail’s correctional officers even less. Sheriff Tom Bosenko ran for office in 2006 in part on a promise to staff up a department that had endured chronic trouble recruiting deputies. Pay increases since have helped. This move won’t.
But to survive the long run without a detour through U.S. Bankruptcy Court, the county will first have to make it through 2010. And if this unilateral pay cut is part of the means to do that, the supervisors really have no choice.
Part of my reason for becoming involved in local government is to make a differenc,and there will be many opportunities to do just this, as above, and I am ready.
If righteous outrage could refill Shasta County’s depleted treasury, the sheriff’s deputies wouldn’t need to take a pay cut.
The union representing deputies, jail guards and other county officers has lambasted the Board of Supervisors and County Administrative Officer Larry Lees. It’s cried foul that other unions aren’t facing concessions as severe as the Deupty Sheriff’s Association. It’s taken out radio ads blasting – what else? – palm trees.
The anger is no surprise. The county is on track to declare contract talks a failure and unilaterally impose wage and benefit cuts that, depending on who’s counting, add up to between 9 percent and 18 percent of officers’ pay.
None of the indignation, however, deals with the heart of the issue: the collapse of local tax revenues. The supervisors have to cut spending and cut it severely.
Even after the county drafted a pessimistic budget for the current fiscal year – which forced deputy layoffs, the dismantling of Crystal Creek Boys Camp, the closure of one floor of the jail and a drastic reduction in the sheriff’s work-release program, just to name prominent cuts – the economy has exceeded even those grim expectations. Lees has said the county faces a further $7.5 million deficit over the next year and a half, and that’s not even counting the fallout from budget cuts by an equally strapped state.
One major culprit is falling sales taxes. They’re on track to drop 18 percent this year from last, and a total of nearly 30 percent since the 2006 peak. They’re a critical source of financing for the county’s public safety operations, and they’re drying up like a month-old Christmas tree.
To cope, the county is paving the way to impose pay cuts at its Jan. 12 meeting.
The biggest ticket is having employees pick up the 9 percent share of their wages that goes toward funding their pensions. Though officially known as the “member contribution,” the employees’ share has been picked up by the county for decades. Quite frankly, handing public employees part of the burden for the generous pensions they’ll eventually enjoy is a good idea, but for the average deputy it’s just a pay cut.
Separately, the county is imposing new retirement formulas so newly hired deputies and correctional officers couldn’t retire with a full pension until 55, instead of the current 50. Steve Allen, negotiator for the deputies union, complains that this change won’t save the county any money in the short run, and he’s right. It is, however, a step toward taming the long-term disaster of unaffordable pension promises, and there’s no time to start like today.
Imposing a contract, bypassing the usual negotiations, is a tough move – and one that could well have political fallout, with Supervisors Les Baugh and David Kehoe up for re-election this year. But the county does not have the luxury of endless negotiations, especially when unions facing cuts have every incentive to stall.
Let’s be clear: The deputies shouldn’t be asked to take pay cuts that their bosses, including the supervisors, aren’t willing to share. Other unions, when their contracts are up for renewal, should get the same deal.
And in the long run, the county’s leaders need to remember that, with law enforcement as with anything, you get what you pay for. Shasta County’s officers get mediocre pay by law enforcement standards. Deputies earn about 20 percent less than Redding police, before the looming cut, and the jail’s correctional officers even less. Sheriff Tom Bosenko ran for office in 2006 in part on a promise to staff up a department that had endured chronic trouble recruiting deputies. Pay increases since have helped. This move won’t.
But to survive the long run without a detour through U.S. Bankruptcy Court, the county will first have to make it through 2010. And if this unilateral pay cut is part of the means to do that, the supervisors really have no choice.
Part of my reason for becoming involved in local government is to make a differenc,and there will be many opportunities to do just this, as above, and I am ready.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)