Introduced
by
To eliminate a cap on the maximum amount that tax assessors can raise the assessment of rental property due to a higher occupancy rate, if the assessment had been previously lowered as a result of a lower occupancy rate. A 2002 Supreme Court ruling held that raising these assessments faster than inflation violates the Constitutional tax cap put in place by Proposal A in 1994, which limits assessment increases to five percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is less. Note: The effect of the of this bill and House Bill 4375 in some sense would be retroactive, requiring property owners to pay higher taxes in the future to compensate governments for past tax savings under the WPW ruling.
Referred to the Committee on Tax Policy
Reported without amendment
Without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
Substitute offered
by
To replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described.
The substitute passed by voice vote
Substitute offered
by
To replace the previous version of the bill with one that eliminate the retroactive nature of the bill, which would require property owners to pay higher taxes in the future to compensate governments for past tax savings under the WPW ruling.
The substitute failed 50 to 58 (details)
Substitute offered
by
To replace the previous version of the bill with one that eliminate the retroactive nature of the bill, which would require property owners to pay higher taxes in the future to compensate governments for past tax savings under the WPW ruling. Also, to require a vote of the people on jurisdiction-wide ad-valorem "special assessments" (which some say are no different from regualar property taxes for which a popular vote would be required under the Headlee amendment.) Also, to to revise the rules that local government property tax assessors use to establish the value of property. Under current law, assessors are able to base a property's value on "comparable sales" from the two years prior to the previous April. The amendment would change this to the one-year period prior to the previous Sept. 30. Note: The selling price of many homes in Michigan has fallen in the past year, but many assessments are still being raised because of higher-price sales in the earlier period..
The substitute failed 49 to 59 (details)
Passed in the House 59 to 49 (details)
Referred to the Committee on Finance
Substitute offered
To replace the previous version of the bill with one that does not revise commercial real estate assessments. Instead, the bill was used a "vehicle" to allow Detroit to essentially attach a new $300 solid waste collection fee it has adopted onto property tax bills. Unlike Senate Bill 313 (a similar measure that failed in the Senate on June 21), this version would not allow the city to foreclose on a parcel just because of nonpayment of the solid waste fee, but only if the property owner also was delinquent in property tax payments.
The substitute passed by voice vote
Amendment offered
by
To allow a property owner to redeem from foreclosure without paying the unpaid garbage tax ("fee"), if the owner pays the delinquent property taxes.
The amendment passed 34 to 2 (details)
Passed in the Senate 24 to 11 (details)
To allow Detroit to essentially attach a new $300 solid waste collection fee it has adopted onto property tax bills. If a property owner was delinquent in both property tax payments and this fee, the city could enforce collection by foreclosing on and ultimately seizing a person's property. However, if property was foreclosed for delinquent taxes and this fee, the owner could redeem it by paying only the back taxes. The unpaid fee would remain a lien on the property, but the bill does not specify how it would be enforced.
Passed in the House 57 to 52 (details)
