Districts study effect of River City Casino tax settlement

The Hancock Place School District and the Lemay Fire Protection District will have to return some tax money to the River City Casino.
The recent settlement of a property assessment dispute between St. Louis County and River City Casino for 2010-2012 could force the refunds.
For 2010 and 2011, the casino paid under protest a combined $12.4 million real estate taxes to the county. Under the settlement, River City Casino will be credited with $9.5 million and will be refunded about $2.9 million. The 2012 taxes have not been collected.
The settlement avoids an appeal to the State Tax Commission.
Hancock Place and Lemay officials are not sure how much they might have to give back. The districts won't have to write any checks, but the county will deduct any amount from the 2012 taxes.
The Lemay district's board of directors will have some meetings in the next couple of weeks to discuss the potential payback.
“We're figuring out what's going to happen,” said Jerry Schloss, the district fire board treasurer. “We'll need to meet with the county and figure out the numbers.”
Before the settlement, the real estate assessment on River City was $60.4 million for each year of 2010-2012. After the settlement, the real estate assessment for each year is $56.7 million, about $3.7 million less.
Before the settlement, the personal property assessment was $26.9 million for 2010, $27 million for 2011 and $26 million for 2012. With the settlement, the assessment is now $19.2 million for 2010, $23.2 million for 2011 and $19.2 million for 2012.
Schloss declined to speculate on how much the district might lose. The casino brings in about $1 million annually to the fire district. Lemay has a $2.5 million budget.
The biggest concern for Hancock Place is the 2010 taxes because of an agreement with the casino that started in 2011.
“Right now, I don't want to speculate if we'll have to give anything back,” said Paul Northington, Hancock's director of finance and business operations. “I can say it won't affect our 2012-2013 budget.”
Hancock Place is in better shape than many other taxing districts because of an agreement between the St. Louis County Port Authority and Pinnacle Entertainment.
The port authority, which leases the land for the casino, made an agreement that guarantees Hancock Place an annual minimum of $4.3 million in taxes from River City. The agreement started in 2011.
Hancock Place's 2012 budget is $16.3 million.
Still, Northington was pleased with the settlement.
“Nobody liked the uncertainty,” Northington said.
The St. Louis County's Assessor's office estimated River City Casino will pay about $7.5 million in property taxes for 2012.

Toronto homeowners face property tax hike after home values gain 22.8%

TORONTO — The average value of Toronto homes has risen 22.8% since 2008 and property taxes could rise as a result, according to the latest assessment by Ontario’s property appraisers.
The report released Friday by Ontario’s Municipal Property Assessment Corp. said property owners will see an average assessment increase of 5.5% in each year for the next four years as it phases in the increases.
“Residential property values have increased by an average of approximately 22.8% in the City of Toronto since 2008 when the last assessment update was delivered,” said Joe Regina, municipal relations account manager in MPAC’s Toronto office.

Filing of property tax appeals hits a 6-year low, Only 1,422 challenge assessments in 2012

FLORIDA -- The number of petitions filed in appeal of assessed property tax values are at a six-year low in Lee County, according to Clerk of Court records.

In a county with more than 600,000 properties, only 1,422 have had their values appealed in 2012, according to Clerk of Court records. About three times as many petitions were filed in 2008, with 4,264 property owners refuting their values at end of the real estate boom and 2120 filed last year.

“It’s a phenomenal record,” Property Appraiser Ken Wilkinson said. “I would be willing to bet we have the best record in the state.”

The vast majority of property owners who walked into Wilkinson’s office after receiving their assessment in August, he said, had questions about homestead exemptions.

The Value Adjustment Board consists of five members, including two county commissioners, a commission appointee, a school board member and a person appointed by the school board.

Attorneys and property appraisers sit as special magistrates at hearings, in which property owners contests their appraised values.

Wilkinson’s office gave Brian McGloin his homestead exemption back after he filed a petition with the Value Adjustment Board.

“They just got back to me and said they made a mistake, ‘Your homestead is back in effect,’ ” McGloin said. “That’s all I wanted. I was complaining about the assessment, but I really wanted my homestead back.”

McGloin lives in Cape Coral, which saw some one of the area’s biggest increases in taxable value at 3.82 percent. Countywide values dropped by 0.2 percent.

But not everyone has settled their dispute.

Another Cape Coral man, Richard Kistner, said the property appraiser valued his home at $125,000 this year after he paid $65,000 for it in 2010.

“The $65,000 was the MLS price on the open market. This wasn’t a closed door deal,” Kistner said. “When I asked why they weren’t limited to just 3 percent (increase) they said on first-time sales they had no limit.”

“To me, this whole thing stinks. Its become stupid,” he said.

Wilkinson said Kistner and others like him will have their disputes reviewed again by higher-ups in his office, before they make it to the Value Adjustment Board.

“Often times, if it’s on the first line, the analyst who did the work, they might not be able to justify an adjustment,” Wilkinson said. “Further getting into it, that may expose itself and we have no problem with making an adjustment.”

Propertyowners had until Sept. 14 to appeal their values. Hearings will start Oct. 15.

The Clerk of Court anticipates having all the hearings finished by January, Chief Operating Officer Linda Doggett said. In previous years, she said, hearings have lasted into the spring.

“It’s probably not going to take as long as it has in the past,” Doggett said. “As property values are down, not that many people are complaining about their tax bills.”

Boat Property Tax Amendment On Ballot in Kansas

Your votes will determine whether it sinks or swims, a yes vote on a statewide ballot issue would allow legislators to change the Kansas constitution, and how watercraft are taxed statewide.
Kansas Wildlife and Parks officials say about 10,000 boats in Kansas are registered outside the state, in order to avoid high tax rates, sometimes 8 times higher than those in surrounding states.
The boat tax rate is determined by 30-percent of the boat's value, times the mill rate for that county.
Three neighboring states – Oklahoma, Nebraska and Missouri – don't have any property tax on watercraft, neither do Texas and Iowa.
Supporters say the amendment would mean lower taxes per individual, but more revenue collectively.
"The idea is to lower that, get more of those folks who have registered their boats outside of Kansas in order to dodge the Kansas taxes, and get them paying some taxes here, so that we all don't have to make up for it," Lake Perry Marina's Mike Stanley said.
Opponents say regulations in Kansas have helped create a strong market for used boats, and that the amendment is being pushed mostly by sports fishermen who want to save money on expensive boats.
The measure needs a majority to pass. It then goes back to lawmakers, who would debate how, and if, they would change the boat tax structure outlined in the constitution.

New Jersey County Boards of Taxation

Most of New Jersey’s twenty-one counties have websites for their County Board of Taxation with a wealth of information for property owners and taxpayers.  While the information provided was accurate at the time of publication, no representations are made for the content of any of the external links provided. 

• Atlantic County
• Bergen County
• Burlington County
• Camden County (contact information only)
• Cape May County
• Cumberland County
• Essex County (contact information only)
• Gloucester County
• Hudson County
• Hunterdon County
• Mercer County
• Middlesex County
• Monmouth County
• Morris County
• Ocean County
• Passaic County (contact information only)
• Salem County
• Somerset County
• Sussex County
• Union County
• Warren County (contact information only)

Groton Long Point Homeowners File Class Action Lawsuit

Ten homeowners with property in Groton Long Point have filed a class action lawsuit against the Town of Groton and town assessor, saying the town unfairly drove their property assessments over the market value, violating state law and potentially causing them to overpay taxes.
The lawsuit, filed Sept. 11 in New London Superior Court, contends the assessments during the most recent revaluation “were not the true and actual values as of the assessment date, but rather were arbitrary, grossly excessive, disproportionate, and unlawful in that they failed to properly reflect the true market value of said properties.”
Court injunction sought
It contends the town used an adjustment factor in Groton Long Point that it did not use elsewhere, that this drove values up 35 percent in the subdivision and that it added to the grand list in Groton.
The lawsuit seeks a court injunction declaring the 35 percent increase void, reducing the assessments to their proper value and reimbursing the homeowners for overpaid taxes.
The Town Council is expected to receive a briefing on the lawsuit in executive session during its meeting at 7 p.m. today in the Town Hall Annex.
The suit said land values fell in every part of Groton except in Groton Long Point, where they went up 5.1 percent.
Ten homeowners
The suit was filed by the following homeowners: John P. and Mary B. Tuohy, of 60 East Shore Drive in Groton; Robert and Yola Feery, of 71 Kingswood Drive in South Glastonbury; David W. Nickolenko, Sr. and Charlene J. Nickolenko, of 14 Burrows St., in Groton; James J. and Linda A. Falcone, of East Longmeadow, Mass.; Louise H. Fisher of Norwich; and Betsey F. Amador of Rancho Palos, Verdes, Calif.
Three own property on East Shore Drive. Others own property on Beach Road or Burrows Street.
The homeowners are suing on behalf of all who own residential property in the subdivision; it could apply to 620 properties with residential buildings.
Groton hired the firm Tyler Technologies, Inc. last year to handle the revaluation for the assessment year starting Oct. 1, 2011.
Foreclosures and Short Sales
The lawsuit said the assessor, Mary Gardner, based on a recommendation from Tyler, excluded certain sales in Groton Long Point when determining property values – including estate sales, foreclosures, ‘short sales’ – but did not exclude them when looking at other parts of town.
The suit also contends that the assessor applied a “1.35 adjustment factor” in Groton Long Point, which it did not apply elsewhere, increasing their value.
Residential building values in the subdivision went up 14.6 percent after the revaluation.
Other neighborhoods
By comparison, the suit listed these changes in building values elsewhere: a 3.8 percent increase in Old Mystic-River Road, a 1.6 percent increase in Center Groton, a .3 percent increase in Mystic Village and Old Mystic, and a .8 percent increase in Mumford Cove.
Values in Noank Village fell 1.1 percent, the suit said.
The suit said the “adjustment factor” in Groton Long Point added $32 milllion to the grand list, or $700,000 in additional property taxes for the town.

Initiative roundup: States split on tax hikes

When voters cast their ballots across the country on November 6, they’ll also have the chance to decide on a gamut of state-level ballot initiatives. Given most states’ fiscal woes, many of these measures will be tax hike propositions, but there will be other noteworthy issues as well. Human Events will examine some of the more substantial tax-related initiatives. We’ll come back in the following weeks to highlight other measures.
Out of all ballot initiatives this fall, California’s menu of propositions is most wide-ranging. Three out of the state’s 11 propositions are tax hikes: Proposition 39 would increase taxes on multistate businesses in California. Propositions 30 and 38 would each raise sales and income taxes, their proponents say temporarily, to fund schools.
Prop 39 would level the playing field between in-state and out-of-state businesses in California, but it wouldn’t necessarily be any fairer.
The current law levies lower taxes on multistate businesses that operate in California with property and payroll outside the state. Rather than consider giving the in-state businesses a break, the proposition’s main supporter, Silicon Valley billionaire Thomas Steyer, would have taxes raised on the out-of-state companies that have customers in California.
A total of $550 million per year of the high tax’s revenue would fund projects that create energy efficiency and clean energy jobs in California, according to the initiative’s language.
As for the other two California tax hike propositions, there is a duel raging—both purport to fund schools but appear, upon closer inspection, to be little more than political jockeying between Gov. Jerry Brown, backer of Prop. 30, and education advocate and former federal prosecutor Molly Munger, who supports a rival initiative, Prop. 38.
Prop. 30 originated with Gov. Brown and would change the California Constitution to raise sales and income taxes and put the revenue toward K-12 schools and community colleges. Prop. 38 would direct an estimated no-strings-attached $10 billion to classrooms next year, as well as alter the school finance plan. Prop. 38 would create a fund specifically for classrooms that the state legislature would not be able to touch. The unions, including the California Teachers Association, have gotten behind Brown’s Prop. 30, which would not create a separate, no-strings fund for classrooms.
Lisa Snell, education policy expert at the Reason Foundation, finds this puzzling. Because the biggest expense in a classroom is the teacher, the lion’s share of Prop. 38’s revenue would go to teachers, something unions ostensibly would prefer. The apparent real motivator, she says, is “political dealings that take precedent over what would be best for their members and the kids. If they were really for the kids and the teachers, you’d think they would back the proposition that’s, on its face, more advantageous for the kids and the teachers,” she said.
The state legislature passed Brown’s 2012-13 budget, which he wrote as if a November affirmative vote was a done deal on Prop. 30’s revenue increases and were available for the state budget. That has enabled him and his union backers to campaign for his proposition with the message that if voters don’t pass it, K-12 and higher education will lose $6 billion.
Florida
The Florida legislature unanimously passed two initiatives for tax breaks for service members and their spouses in March. Amendment 2 would ease property taxes on combat-disabled veterans over the age of 65 by discounting the ad valorem tax on homestead property. Amendment 9 would do the same for the spouses of fallen military service members who died while on active duty.
The amendment also includes the same homestead tax exemption for the spouses of firefighters and police officers who died performing the duties of their employment.
More exemptions for homesteaders: Amendment 5 would give all first-time homesteaders an exemption at the rate of 50 percent of the national median home price.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire residents will vote on a constitutional amendment that would ban the levying of any new personal income taxes in the state.
The proposed measure, Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution 13 (CACR 13), would add this clause to the constitution: “No new tax shall be levied, directly or indirectly, upon a person’s income, from whatever source it is derived.”
New Hampshire already doesn’t have a personal income tax at the state level, but proponents of the ballot measure believe the amendment would be an important safeguard against any changes. In January, the state House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt touted the proposed amendment as a “strong and unmistakable message to our citizens and to our business community that we are going to hold firm the New Hampshire advantage of no personal income tax.” Detractors worry that the language is too vague and may put excess limits on the state government’s sources of revenue.
Michigan
The Michigan Alliance for Prosperity (MAP) is sponsoring a ballot initiative that would require either a two-thirds majority vote in the legislature or a statewide vote before raising any state taxes. MAP raised $1.89 billion in 2012 to campaign for the initiative.
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder has come out against it. On his website, he calls it “a bad idea for our state.” He claims that the two-thirds vote would be necessary not just for tax increases, but for tax reform of any sort. “If the two-thirds amendment would have been in place a few years ago, … [w]e couldn’t have taken the steps we did to improve Michigan’s business climate to bring more and better jobs to our state.”
In the Bureau of Labor and Statistics Jobs Report for August, Michigan had an unemployment rate of 9.4 percent, lower than the 10.4 percent Michigan held before Snyder signed an eight-bill tax reform package last May. Michael LaFaive, director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center, a libertarian think tank, thinks that’s a moot point. If the proposed amendment had been in place last year, “a tax reform such as the one Gov. Snyder put through would have still been plausible,” he told Human Events.
Indeed, the language of the proposed amendment does not require a special vote for all tax reform, just increases. The two-thirds vote might have nixed the tax hike in last year’s deal, but the budget gaps could have been filled in other ways. One option would have been to cut costs, “which is something the Mackinac Center would support,” LaFaive said.

House Prices in Italy’s Tourist Spots Fall Amid Recession, Taxes

 

House prices in recession-hit Italy’s tourist resorts such as Capri fell more than in the biggest cities this year as investors grew concerned about the economic outlook and higher property taxes, a research institute said.
Prices of residential properties in 31 resorts across the country fell an average 4.4 percent in the 12 months through September, the Bologna-based institute Nomisma said in an e- mailed report today. That compares with a 3.4 percent decline in Italy’s 13 biggest cities, the report said.
“The severe fall in Italian and foreign demand prompted the sellers to review their asking prices,” the report said. As Prime Minister Mario Monti introduced a new property tax last year, expectations of more levies on real estate “pushed some owners to shorten the timing of their de-investments and this led to a downward trend that doesn’t seem” likely to end in the short term, Nomisma said.
The euro region’s third-biggest economy will shrink 2.4 percent this year as rising joblessness and Monti’s austerity drive weigh on demand, employers’ association Confindustria estimates. The government matched that projection in its growth forecasts released on Sept. 20 as Europe’s second most-indebted economy grapples with the sovereign-debt crisis.
Some of the biggest decreases in prices of resort properties were recorded on the island of Capri, the ski destination of Cortina D’Ampezzo and the village of Positano on the Amalfi coast, where prices fell 5.7 percent, 6.4 percent and 7 percent respectively, today’s report showed.
Home sales in the second quarter posted the biggest drop since data collection began in 2004, the Finance Ministry’s Agenzia del Territorio said on Sept. 27. A property levy, marking the return of taxation on first homes after four years, “won’t be an incentive for the market” in coming months, the agency said in a separate report on June 19.
Prices may keep falling in coming months amid a “widespread perception that the investment in real estates is the primary target of any budget adjustments,” Nomisma said.

Seminole County School Board deliberately misled citizens with ballot language

In 2010 the Seminole County School Board tried, unsuccessfully, to sway the citizens of Seminole County into voting for the extension of the “Sales Tax” under false pretenses – they’re at it again in 2012. Only this time the “TAX INCREASE” is much more eloquently disguised as the “Seminole County School District Ad Valorem Millage Election”. The exact ballot language per the Seminole County Supervisor of Elections website reads as follows:
“Seminole County School District Ad Valorem Millage Election Shall Seminole County School District ad valorem millage be increased by up to one mill beginning July 1, 2013, and ending not more than four (4) fiscal years later on June 30, 2017, for essential operating expenses to: preserve "A" rated academic, vocational, arts, and athletic programs; retain highly qualified teachers; and repair and maintain school buildings with annual reporting to the county's citizens to ensure fiscal stewardship of the funds?”
The facts:

1. Seminole County student enrollment is at a seven-year low
2. Seminole County School Board recently discovered an additional $5 Million
3. Seminole County schools rank among the highest in Florida – even with a tax decrease in 2010
4. 40% of the School Board voted NO on the ballot in the first place
5. Seminole County Schools are going into next year with a surplus

The myths:

1. Seminole County Schools may lose their “A” rating without a tax increase
2. Seminole County Schools may lose some teachers without a tax increase
3. Seminole County School buildings may not be properly maintained without a tax increase
4. Unlike the sales tax debacle, the millage tax increase will quietly go away in four years
5. The School Board can’t account for $5 million in its current budget this year - but it promises to account for an additional $100 million over four years

Currently, 84% of the School District’s budget is consumed by employee salaries and benefits. As stated in the School Board’s own ballot language referenced above, we must assume that “fiscal stewardship of the funds”, an additional $100 million - would be allocated using current budgeting guidelines. Or, 84% of the $100 million would be spent on employee salaries and benefits.
Nevertheless, the lack of specifics in the ballot language means the additional $100 million tax on the citizens of Seminole County can be allocated (or misplaced) in whatever manner the School Board deems necessary.
In the summer of 2012 the Seminole County School Board gave school employees a $3 million bonus. Just last year the School Board justified closing Longwood Elementary because they said it would save $1 million per year. This past year, the School Board threatened to close two more Seminole County schools, citing budget constraints, right up until it miraculously discovered an additional $5 million.
Closing Longwood Elementary last year which displaced hundreds of children and saved $1 million - a tiny fraction of the budget - didn’t make a lot of sense at the time. No school employee lost their job when the school closed, as far as I know, and the vast majority of the savings would have come from employee salaries and benefits in the first place.
Fast-forward to 2012, the School Board frightened our community once again with its threat to close two more schools - citing budget constraints. After all, they must be taken seriously this time because they closed Longwood Elementary one year ago. These threats quickly receded when the School Board distributed the aforementioned $3 million in bonuses and found another $5 million.
The Seminole County School Board and former Superintendent were furious following the defeat of the half-cent sales tax by Seminole County residents in 2010. A few of the Board members and the Superintendent have been replaced but their thirst for raising taxes on Seminole County residents has never been quenched. Ever since the half-cent sales tax defeat, it seems like the Seminole County School Board and Superintendent(s) have been carefully conditioning the Seminole County residents to approve their next ballot initiative – tax increase. The voters are not going to stand in their way this time.
There are many unanswered questions and the citizens deserve the truth.

1. Was Longwood Elementary closed as part of a deliberate scheme to shock Seminole County residents into submission?
2. Was the threat of more school closings meant solely to re-enforce that “shock” and further condition us to support a tax increase to stop the proverbial “bleeding”?
3. Are the first two questions examples of pay-back by the School Board for the 2010 half-cent sales tax defeat?

“Let me be clear”, to quote our fearless leader. There is no proof of any elaborate scheme nor has anyone been mentioned by name or specifically accused of anything. However, the past two years of crisis and consequence have been incredibly coincidental, albeit, systematic. At the very least, the School Board has all but lost the public’s trust and long since lost the expectation of trusted fiscal stewardship. At the very worst, our Seminole County School leaders have some explaining to do.

Report Details Use of Payments in Lieu of Taxes by Nonprofits

At least 218 local governments have received payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) from nonprofits that are collectively worth more than $92 million per year, according to a new report by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy that provides far more detail on these voluntary payments than was previously available in any single source.The great majority of PILOT revenue comes from universities and hospitals, most PILOT activity occurs in the Northeast, and a small number of multi-million dollar PILOTs account for the majority of all revenue received nationwide, according to Payments in Lieu of Taxes by Nonprofits: Which Nonprofits Make PILOTs and Which Localities Receive Them, authored by Daphne A. Kenyon, Adam H. Langley and Patricia C. Bailin.
Tables that list all local governments that have received PILOTs and all nonprofits that have made them are available at the online resource Significant Features of the Property Tax in the Resources & Tools section of the Lincoln Institute website.
The research is a follow-up on the Lincoln Institute Policy Focus Report Payments in Lieu of Taxes: Balancing Municipal and Nonprofit Interests, authored by Kenyon and Langley.
In recent years, a growing number of cities and towns have looked to PILOTs from tax-exempt nonprofits as one way to address growing fiscal challenges. Boston recently put in place the most comprehensive PILOT program in the nation and received $19.4 million in the first year. Providence, R.I. has made PILOTs an important part of efforts to deal with a serious fiscal crisis and has negotiated new agreements with Brown University and four other nonprofits.
Some of the key findings from the study:

• PILOTs have been received by at least 218 localities in at least 28 states since 2000; these payments are collectively worth more than $92 million per year.
• Although more than 90 percent of all PILOT revenue comes from "eds and meds"—college payments are far more important than hospital payments with colleges contributing about two-thirds of PILOTs and hospitals another quarter.
• Many other types of nonprofits also make PILOTs even if their contributions are generally small. Nonprofits that make PILOTs of these types: housing (47), religious organizations including churches (36), social services (15), and arts/culture (11).
• The Northeast accounts for roughly 75 to 80 percent of PILOT activity, with the largest share in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.
• Most nonprofits make fairly small PILOTs while most revenue generated comes from a small number of multi-million dollar PILOTs. As a result, the average PILOT for all nonprofits ($292,952) is nearly 10 times larger than the median ($30,000).
• While at least 420 nonprofits make PILOTs, the majority of revenue comes from just 10 organizations: Harvard University, Yale University, Stanford University, Brown University, Boston University, Massachusetts General Hospital, Dartmouth College, Brigham & Women's Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Princeton University (in order of payments, beginning with the highest).
• PILOTs generate little revenue in most localities—accounting for less than 1 percent of total general revenue in 165 out of 181 localities that have information available.
• Most PILOTs go to cities and towns, but at least seven school districts and four counties also receive PILOTs.

Although many more municipalities are considering PILOTs, the report provides a reality-check for anyone expecting them to be a panacea for cash-strapped cities and towns. For the typical locality receiving PILOTs, these voluntary payments account for only 0.13 percent of general revenue. That's the same amount that local governments raise from charges for parking meters and parking lots.
"Sometimes the debate surrounding PILOTs can seem a lot bigger than the dollars involved," said Adam H. Langley. "PILOTs simply don't generate enough revenue to be a panacea for cash strapped cities and towns, and concerns that these payments will seriously undermine nonprofits' financial health seem exaggerated since these payments are voluntary—nonprofits can say 'no'—and are typically much less than what nonprofits would pay if taxable."
"It's important to keep in mind that PILOT revenue overwhelmingly comes from large universities and hospitals," added Daphne A. Kenyon. "While there are cases where churches and small social service organizations have made PILOTs, most contributions come from large institutions that rely on publicly-provided services like police and fire protection but don't pay property taxes to cover that cost."
Findings in the report are based on a survey of local government officials in approximately 600 jurisdictions with the largest nonprofit sectors and a three-year data collection project. This expansive methodology resulted in the identification of roughly twice as many instances of PILOTs than in previous research.
The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy is a leading resource for key issues concerning the use, regulation, and taxation of land. Providing high quality education and research, the Institute strives to improve public dialogue and decisions about land policy.
About the Authors: Adam H. Langley is a research analyst in the Lincoln Institute's Department of Valuation and Taxation. Daphne A. Kenyon is a visiting fellow in the Lincoln Institute's Department of Valuation and Taxation. Patricia C. Bailin is a graduate student at Tufts University.
SOURCE Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

Property Tax Bills for Second Half Coming Due

The second installment of the 2011 Douglas County property tax bills is due July 31.

Payments can be made in person to the County Treasurer’s office 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. weekdays. Payment by check or money order is preferred, but cash is accepted. Due to limited parking and long waiting lines, mailing tax payments is recommended.

Payments can be mailed to the Douglas County Treasurer, 1313 Belknap St., Room 102, Superior, WI 54880 and must be postmarked by July 31 to avoid interest charges.

Payment by credit card or electronic payment can also be made through Point and Pay. Call (877) 791-1361 or click on Pay Real Estate Taxes Online at www.douglascountywi.org. Point and Pay will charge an additional 2.39 percent convenience fee for credit cards and $1.50 for electronic transfers. If using a Visa debit card, a flat fee of $3.95 will be charged. Make sure there are sufficient funds in your account or the payment is charged as a credit card payment.

Payments received after July 31 will accrue an additional 6 percent interest charge — 1 percent per dating back to Feb. 1. Interest will continue to accrue at a rate of 1 percent each month until paid in full.

If at any time you feel you are unable to make your installment by July 31, the Treasurer’s Office will accept partial payments, with a $20 minimum. However, any balance due after July 31 will be subject to the same interest charges until satisfied.

The Treasurer’s Office is now offering a “structured” payment plan for those customers who are delinquent on property taxes for 2 years or more. There could be substantial savings to the taxpayer in the future by setting up a payment plan now.