With just 30 days left before Election Day, Constitutional Amendment A – creating a separate category for residential property taxes – is about as clear as mud.
That's not unusual in the mystery-wrapped-in-an-enigma world of property taxes, where they toss around words like “ad velorem,” “split roles,” and my favorite from tax cap debates back in Illinois, the dreaded “triple whammy.”
(I don't recall what all the whammys were, but the argument was that schools would suffer three ways if limited to annual budget increases of no more than 5 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever was less. When voters figured out that the schools wanted twice what older residents were getting in their Social Security raises each year, they voted for caps. Enthusiastically.)
I've been involved in three referendum questions over the years. In all three campaigns, a lot of work went into informing voters ahead of election day.
There were editorials, letters to the editor, radio and newspaper ads, visits to service clubs to convince community leaders, and even yard signs, pro and con. It was a lot of work.
So I'm surprised how little we have heard about this big proposed change in Wyoming's system of taxation. In recent days we've seen some news coverage, and I understand there has been some media advertising. But for normal people like me, we haven't heard much.
And I've gone from a likely “yes” vote, to a more informed “no” vote today.
The arguments on both sides are pretty good. Who isn't concerned about the crazy assessment increases up in Jackson? Keeping grandma in her home is something we can all support.
But it isn't just in Jackson. You don't hear much about increases here in Cheyenne, but our property taxes have about doubled in the 10 years since we built our house on the outskirts of town. (I'd call that a certifiable double whammy.)
On the other side, however, you can't escape the conclusion that this constitutional amendment was cobbled together in the final days of the 2023 legislative session, after about 20 bills trying to do something about skyrocketing property taxes all failed. Lawmakers obviously wanted to go home and tell their constituents they did something – anything – about property taxes.
And what they came up with has some real drawbacks – enough to change my vote.
In this era of little trust for lawmakers, one argument being made is that there's no guarantee a new residential property class would mean lower taxes. They could remain the same. It would be up to future legislatures. Some even fear they could go up.
And then there's the whack-a-mole argument. Lowering what we pay for our primary residences could just cause lawmakers to make up the difference by raising the rates for corporate, agricultural, or mineral categories. A lower property tax bill on your home might do little good if Walmart raises prices to pay their taxes. Savings on your residence could be eaten up by increases on your farm buildings.
Tax experts use the term “split roles” to describe a tax system that has multiple categories, and our simple system of three categories would be made more complex by creating a fourth.
I know the last thing anyone wants to hear is how it's done in some other state. But I witnessed a county tax cap option work pretty well in two communities. The dire predictions that teachers would leave in droves and the county would never be able to buy another snow plow if budgets were limited to the rate of inflation were pure baloney.
So that 4 percent cap that passed last session of the legislature looks pretty interesting to me. But Wyoming is a different critter when it comes to taxation, and who knows what's going to survive when the courts have their say on all this.
Given the sea change we saw in the legislative races in the August primary, let's see if a more conservative legislature can come up with something better than this flawed, last-minute constitutional amendment.
Given the skimpy debate so far and the number of question marks raised, you can put this taxpayer down as a “no.”
