Property Tax Measure Gets Assembly’s OK

The Assembly has approved a measure designed to help hundreds of Orange County homeowners save some money on their property tax bills. But the county assessor on Tuesday threw cold water on the prospect of residents reaping any windfall.

The bill by state Senate GOP Leader Ross Johnson (R-Irvine) is intended to halt the county’s practice of charging new homeowners for the cost of roads, sewers and other infrastructure improvements financed by certain types of assessment bonds.

Those additional costs have meant that some new homeowners were forced to pay $300 to $700 in extra property taxes this year. Many owners who expected to be taxed at roughly the purchase price of their homes were outraged by the practice.

But the county’s top tax man, Assessor Bradley L. Jacobs, said Johnson’s measure “doesn’t add anything new” and that he has no plans to alter taxes charged to the 1,000 to 2,000 affected homeowners.

The Assembly approved Johnson’s measure late Monday on a 68-0 vote. It now goes to Gov. Pete Wilson, who has not taken a position on the bill.

Johnson declared victory after the vote, saying that it would force assessors to prove that streets and other infrastructure improvements add to the market value of a home.

“I doubt they can do that,” Johnson said, adding that “the assessments in Orange County have been increased arbitrarily, without any proof of increased value. . . . The assessor’s office claims that somehow those bonds increase the value of the house. That doesn’t make sense.”

He noted that one homeowner in Irvine bought a house for $235,000 but was assessed at $265,000 solely on the basis of the additional bond debt. “Would the assessor or anyone else buy that house for $265,000?” Johnson asked. “I don’t think so.”

Jacobs, however, said all his assessments are gauged on a property’s fair market value--and no more. The cost of infrastructure improvements such as curbs, gutters and roads all are part of that value, he said.

“We will be super-, ultra-careful not to put anything over market value,” Jacobs said. “In the 22 years I’ve been here, we’ve always been even-handed.”

The county began adding the charges late last year because a new state law forced cities and other taxing jurisdictions to provide detailed information on the infrastructure costs of homes, Jacobs said. “We didn’t do it before because we didn’t have data to support doing it.”

Prodded by a notice issued by the state Board of Equalization in 1997, the assessor began charging for the value of street and other improvements for homes with infrastructure financed by two types of assessment bonds.

Many California counties were already including infrastructure improvements in determining homeowners’ property tax bills.

The assessments affected only new homeowners served by streets and other improvements financed by the so-called 1911 and 1915 bond acts. Mello-Roos bonds, which are used in many planned communities to pay for schools and parks, were not covered by the new rules. In addition, homeowners who paid for street and other improvements upfront were not affected.

Jacobs did offer one glimmer of hope for homeowners whacked with additional taxes for the infrastructure improvements. They can appeal, he said.