This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2007, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

The Legislature will consider a bill next year that would require a vote of the people to increase property tax revenues beyond the inflation rate. That sounds like a good idea. It's democratic, and it might provide some tax relief.

But be careful what you wish for.

A booming real estate market drove assessed valuations higher by an average of about 20 percent in Salt Lake County last year. Under Utah tax law, tax rates are reduced to compensate for higher values. Governments are only allowed to increase revenues by the amount attributable to new growth. If they seek a tax increase beyond that certified rate, they must conduct a truth-in-taxation hearing before enacting an increase.

Sen. Wayne Niederhauser, a Sandy real estate developer, says that process doesn't do enough to protect taxpayers. He is pushing a bill that would require a vote of the people to increase tax revenues beyond the inflation rate.

The problem with this proposal is that it doesn't get to the heart of the problem. Because not all properties are affected by the market at the same rate - some may go up 10 percent, some may go up 40 percent in the same year - many property owners who are paying higher taxes this month are doing so not because their governments increased tax rates, but because the market affected them more drastically than it did most other taxpayers.

Even if Niederhauser's bill had been law, there would have been no public vote.

Rather than attempting to limit tax increases by putting them on the ballot, the Legislature might want to take a close look at how the appraisal process is implemented, especially outside Salt Lake County. If certain properties are only revalued every five years during an inflationary period, they can be socked with a huge tax increase when a reassessment finally does occur, and adjustments of the certified tax rate won't help them much.

The Legislature also might want to examine ways to give homeowners on fixed incomes a break, such as freezing their property taxes when they retire. Of course, if that happens, young people buying their first homes might end up paying higher taxes to compensate for the tax exemptions extended to retired taxpayers.

There is no magic bullet in tax equity. Putting every property tax increase on the ballot wouldn't be one, either.