Earlier tonight, at a Candidates Night, I was asked the question “what are you telling the taxpayers about Senior exemptions”. My answer was “call the Assessors Office…. that the office can only do what is allowed by law, but some of the exemptions might apply to you”. And, the following is the law in California:
1.What are Propositions 58 and 193? Proposition 58 provides for an exclusion from reassessment real property transfers between parents and children. Proposition 193 expands this tax relief to include certain transfers from grandparents to their grandchildren (transfers from grandchildren to grandparents are not eligible). Specific requirements must be met.
Reference: Section 2(h) of Article XIII A of the California Constitution and section 63.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
1.What are Propositions 60 and 90?Propositions 60 and 90 allow senior citizens to transfer the adjusted base year value from their current home to a replacement dwelling. Certain requirements must be met.
In general, if you or your spouse is age 55 or older, you or your spouse may buy or construct a new home of equal or lesser value than your existing home and transfer the adjusted base year value of your existing home to your new home if certain requirements are met. This is a one-time-only benefit. Thus, once you have filed and received this tax relief, neither you nor your spouse (if your spouse is a record owner of the replacement dwelling) can ever be granted this benefit again. The only exception is if you or your spouse becomes disabled after receiving this tax relief for age. If this happens, you or your spouse may transfer the base year value a second time based upon the disability. The relief for disability involves a different claim form.
Reference: Section 2(a) of Article XIII A of the California Constitution and section 69.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
2.What is the difference between Proposition 60 and Proposition 90?Proposition 60 relates to transfers of base year values between properties located within the same county. Proposition 90 relates to transfers of base year values from an original property in one county to a replacement property in another county within California. For a transfer to be eligible under Proposition 90, the county in which the replacement property is located must have adopted an ordinance that allows such transfers. Currently, the following seven counties have passed ordinances authorizing these intercounty transfers:
Alameda Orange San Mateo Ventura
Los Angeles San Diego Santa Clara
This list may change at any given time. Please call your county assessor’s office to check if your county has passed such an ordinance.
3.What is Proposition 110?Proposition 110 extends the benefits of Propositions 60/90 to qualified disabled homeowners of any age. Other than the age factor, the same requirements under Propositions 60/90 must be met. Effective September 25, 1996, qualified persons who had prior claims based on age may file a second claim based on disability. However, once a person qualifies due to disability, he or she may not receive the base year value transfer benefit due to age.
Reference: Section 2(a) of Article XIII A of the California Constitution and section 69.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
Our obligation, as the Assessor Recorder, is to explain fully these Propositions, which is one of my goals.
Ron Largent for Shasta County Assessor Recorder on June 8th.
www.largent2010.com
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Letter to the Editor on Numbers and Philosophy
Letter to the Editor
May 10, 2010
In your editorial of April 4, 2010, you challenged me to “prove” the statistical facts pertaining to property assessments in Shasta County since the incumbent Assessor-Recorder took office in January of 2007. The factual information and official data from the Assessor-Recorder’s Office and from the California State Board of Equalization indicates the following:
• January 1, 2009: Of the 96,000 properties in Shasta County, 16,400 were re-assessed to a lower value because of the real estate value down turn under the provisions of Proposition 8, representing only 17% of all properties on the secured roll.
• Shasta County, with only 17% of all secured roll properties enrolled with a Prop 8 assessment is significantly lower than the California State Wide Average of Proposition 8 reassessments, which was estimated to be 30%.
• California Law requires the Assessor to annually enroll either a property’s adjusted base year value (Prop 13 value) or its current market value (Prop 8 value), whichever is less.
• On January 1st, 2007 (the tax lien date), even with the market dropping in the last half of 2006, the actual number of Prop 8 assessments dropped from 1,318 for 1-1-2006 to 1,205 for 1-1-2007.
• For 1-1-2008, the actual Prop 8 assessments rose to only 5,496 when property transfers with Prop 13 values set during 2005 and 2006 exceeded 15,000 properties that may have been eligible for Prop 8 reductions.
These are the numbers. My job as a candidate for Assessor-Recorder is to identify and clarify for the public the reasons I am running for this office. The numbers clearly show that more properties in Shasta County should have had a Prop 8 reassessment sooner than they did. My immediate goal, when elected, is to enroll 100% of eligible properties for reassessment and to correct any prior year reassessments that were missed to the extent allowed by law.
Leadership in an office is critical, and this is where I am clearly different than my opposition. I come to the campaign with a significant difference in philosophy of the office and the job. I believe in small government versus large. I believe a public servant job exists for the benefit of the taxpayer, not the other way around. I believe that when we see a market value decline of 40% over the past two years, we have an obligation to the entire population to recognize this decline as quickly as possible. We must reassess their property according to State law. An elected official must be proactive, not waiting for the public to react. Many taxpayers just “do not know the process”, which in itself is somewhat difficult at times. The Assessor-Recorder’s job is to help the voter understand this provision of the law that can actually save them tax dollars. Over assessment is over taxation. Call it what you want, this is not right, not fair and should be addressed aggressively and immediately. The question for the voters is, do they want the status quo or do they want to be part of a new approach that will aggressively address property tax reassessments in this on-going real estate market downturn.
This is not a personality contest. This is a contest of differing philosophies on the role of the government servant. I am coming as a small business taxpaying citizen without government background or experience. This is clearly different than the incumbent. The voter will decide which they prefer on June 8th.
www.largent2010.com
May 10, 2010
In your editorial of April 4, 2010, you challenged me to “prove” the statistical facts pertaining to property assessments in Shasta County since the incumbent Assessor-Recorder took office in January of 2007. The factual information and official data from the Assessor-Recorder’s Office and from the California State Board of Equalization indicates the following:
• January 1, 2009: Of the 96,000 properties in Shasta County, 16,400 were re-assessed to a lower value because of the real estate value down turn under the provisions of Proposition 8, representing only 17% of all properties on the secured roll.
• Shasta County, with only 17% of all secured roll properties enrolled with a Prop 8 assessment is significantly lower than the California State Wide Average of Proposition 8 reassessments, which was estimated to be 30%.
• California Law requires the Assessor to annually enroll either a property’s adjusted base year value (Prop 13 value) or its current market value (Prop 8 value), whichever is less.
• On January 1st, 2007 (the tax lien date), even with the market dropping in the last half of 2006, the actual number of Prop 8 assessments dropped from 1,318 for 1-1-2006 to 1,205 for 1-1-2007.
• For 1-1-2008, the actual Prop 8 assessments rose to only 5,496 when property transfers with Prop 13 values set during 2005 and 2006 exceeded 15,000 properties that may have been eligible for Prop 8 reductions.
These are the numbers. My job as a candidate for Assessor-Recorder is to identify and clarify for the public the reasons I am running for this office. The numbers clearly show that more properties in Shasta County should have had a Prop 8 reassessment sooner than they did. My immediate goal, when elected, is to enroll 100% of eligible properties for reassessment and to correct any prior year reassessments that were missed to the extent allowed by law.
Leadership in an office is critical, and this is where I am clearly different than my opposition. I come to the campaign with a significant difference in philosophy of the office and the job. I believe in small government versus large. I believe a public servant job exists for the benefit of the taxpayer, not the other way around. I believe that when we see a market value decline of 40% over the past two years, we have an obligation to the entire population to recognize this decline as quickly as possible. We must reassess their property according to State law. An elected official must be proactive, not waiting for the public to react. Many taxpayers just “do not know the process”, which in itself is somewhat difficult at times. The Assessor-Recorder’s job is to help the voter understand this provision of the law that can actually save them tax dollars. Over assessment is over taxation. Call it what you want, this is not right, not fair and should be addressed aggressively and immediately. The question for the voters is, do they want the status quo or do they want to be part of a new approach that will aggressively address property tax reassessments in this on-going real estate market downturn.
This is not a personality contest. This is a contest of differing philosophies on the role of the government servant. I am coming as a small business taxpaying citizen without government background or experience. This is clearly different than the incumbent. The voter will decide which they prefer on June 8th.
www.largent2010.com
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Too Little Too Late for Shasta County Taxpayers
Interesting conversation today with a voter....$163,000,000 paid in property taxes in Shasta County last year....claim made by the incumbent that $16.5 million was saved the taxpayers. Quite a difference, and a small percent of the total....and many should have been on Prop 8 to bring assessed value to market value, but were not. Not fair, and not right. Change is "a comin'".
Ron Largent for Shasta County Assessor Recorder on June 8, 2010.
www.largent2010.com
Ron Largent for Shasta County Assessor Recorder on June 8, 2010.
www.largent2010.com
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Campaign Signs Stolen in Redding
OK…finally reported to both the Redding Police and the Shasta County Sheriff’s office….I have had a number of campaign signs removed….especially along Old Oregon Trail near Highway 44 and the Big League Dreams park. I was called first by a motorist who saw two people get out of a white pickup and take down my 4 x 4 sign…which was adjacent to my oppositions sign. The motorist could not get the license #, in that they were in traffic…but then in checking back with the gas station-convenience store they apparently got it on video, but could not get the license number also.
I reported this to both the Redding Police and the Shasta County Sheriff’s office, for sign theft is treated as a minor property crime. Altogether, I have lost 4 big signs at this location….which is at the corner of Old Oregon Trail and Old 44, and along Old Oregon Trail. And along Old Oregon Trail, 8 yard signs were removed, including two that were attached to fences. For all locations, I had received permission to post the signs.
Should anyone see someone taking signs down, please take a moment and try and get the identification of the car or pickup, and let me know and it will be reported to both police and Sheriff. Shascom is at 530-225-4564
Many thanks for your cooperation on this…..this kind of behavior in political campaigns cannot be tolerated.
Ron Largent for Shasta County Assessor Recorder
www.largent2010.c0m ronlargent@shasta.com
I reported this to both the Redding Police and the Shasta County Sheriff’s office, for sign theft is treated as a minor property crime. Altogether, I have lost 4 big signs at this location….which is at the corner of Old Oregon Trail and Old 44, and along Old Oregon Trail. And along Old Oregon Trail, 8 yard signs were removed, including two that were attached to fences. For all locations, I had received permission to post the signs.
Should anyone see someone taking signs down, please take a moment and try and get the identification of the car or pickup, and let me know and it will be reported to both police and Sheriff. Shascom is at 530-225-4564
Many thanks for your cooperation on this…..this kind of behavior in political campaigns cannot be tolerated.
Ron Largent for Shasta County Assessor Recorder
www.largent2010.c0m ronlargent@shasta.com
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Redding and Google...a Winning Combination
Tonight the Redding City Council voted to send a letter to Google inviting Google to bring ultra high speed fiber to Redding and Shasta County. If you go to Google.com and enter the site, you can help the cause by completing their survey. The more the better, for they are looking for numbers.
thanks,
Ron Largent www.largent2010.com
thanks,
Ron Largent www.largent2010.com
Monday, March 15, 2010
California Real Estate Prop 8...Are you in?
Did you know?
Proposition 8 requires the county assessor to annually enroll either a property’s adjusted base year value (Proposition 13 value) or its current market value, whichever is less. When the current market value replaces the higher Proposition 13 value on the assessor’s roll, that lower value is commonly referred to as a “Prop 8″ value.
Although the annual increase for a Prop 13 value is limited to no more than two percent, the same restriction does not apply to values adjusted under Prop 8. The market value of a Prop 8 property is reviewed annually as of January 1; the current market value must be enrolled as long as the Prop 8 value still falls below the Prop 13 value. Thus, any subsequent increase or decrease in market value is enrolled regardless of any percentage increase or decrease. When the current market value of a Prop 8 property exceeds its Prop 13 value (adjusted for inflation), the county assessor reinstates the Prop 13 value.
Proposition 8 will be followed to the extent allowed by law when I am elected Shasta County Assessor Recorder. Guaranteed.
Ron Largent
www.largent2010.com
Proposition 8 requires the county assessor to annually enroll either a property’s adjusted base year value (Proposition 13 value) or its current market value, whichever is less. When the current market value replaces the higher Proposition 13 value on the assessor’s roll, that lower value is commonly referred to as a “Prop 8″ value.
Although the annual increase for a Prop 13 value is limited to no more than two percent, the same restriction does not apply to values adjusted under Prop 8. The market value of a Prop 8 property is reviewed annually as of January 1; the current market value must be enrolled as long as the Prop 8 value still falls below the Prop 13 value. Thus, any subsequent increase or decrease in market value is enrolled regardless of any percentage increase or decrease. When the current market value of a Prop 8 property exceeds its Prop 13 value (adjusted for inflation), the county assessor reinstates the Prop 13 value.
Proposition 8 will be followed to the extent allowed by law when I am elected Shasta County Assessor Recorder. Guaranteed.
Ron Largent
www.largent2010.com
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Homeowners Exemption in California
As I travel about talking to folks about my candidacy for the position of Shasta County Assessor-Recorder, I am often asked, "what is the homeowners exemption?"
Here is some info on the exemption:
HOMEOWNERS' EXEMPTION: A property owner may claim a Homeowners' exemption on a residence they own and occupy as their primary residence at 12:01 a.m. on January 1; or qualifies within 30 days of change in ownership or new construction for which a Supplemental Assessment is levied. The exemption reduces your assessed value by $7,000 and reduces the tax bill by approximately $70 if filed timely. It is the homeowner's responsibility to apply for the exemption. To receive the full exemption, you must file with the Assessor's Office on or before February 15, or within 30 days of a Notice of Supplemental Assessment. A late filing is accepted from February 16 to December 10 for 80% of the exemption. The exemption continues each year as long as the property is owned and occupied as the primary residence. It is the homeowner's responsibility to terminate the exemption when no longer eligible.
This is the kind of information that will go out to all taxpayers upon my election to the office, and this notice will be published on January 1, 2011.
Ron Largent www.largent2010.com
Here is some info on the exemption:
HOMEOWNERS' EXEMPTION: A property owner may claim a Homeowners' exemption on a residence they own and occupy as their primary residence at 12:01 a.m. on January 1; or qualifies within 30 days of change in ownership or new construction for which a Supplemental Assessment is levied. The exemption reduces your assessed value by $7,000 and reduces the tax bill by approximately $70 if filed timely. It is the homeowner's responsibility to apply for the exemption. To receive the full exemption, you must file with the Assessor's Office on or before February 15, or within 30 days of a Notice of Supplemental Assessment. A late filing is accepted from February 16 to December 10 for 80% of the exemption. The exemption continues each year as long as the property is owned and occupied as the primary residence. It is the homeowner's responsibility to terminate the exemption when no longer eligible.
This is the kind of information that will go out to all taxpayers upon my election to the office, and this notice will be published on January 1, 2011.
Ron Largent www.largent2010.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)