By Lauren Gibbons
Waterfront property owners may benefit from proposed Michigan bill. Photo: wonder_al (flickr)
LANSING – A widely-supported bill that would prevent property tax increases for owners who transfer family-owned land has a high chance of becoming law before the end of the year, according to the sponsor, Rep. Peter Pettalia, R-Presque Isle.
The bill would primarily benefit families who own cottages or lakefront property, Pettalia said.
Current law decrees that the taxable value of a home cannot increase from one year to the next by more than 5 percent or the increase in the consumer price index.
When property is sold or transferred, however, the restriction doesn’t apply, and property taxes generally increase to reflect the value of the property.
That law can put families planning to pass on their cottages or waterfront property in a bind, Pettalia said.
If the taxes jump to a level the new owners cannot afford, properties that have belonged to the same family for generations are in danger of being sold to non-relatives, resulting in loss of family history, he said.
“Once it leaves the family, it’s gone forever, and the heritage associated with it will be lost,” Pettalia said. “My bill would protect that history.”
The proposal has seen support from both sides of the aisle. When the House approved the bill earlier this year, 106 legislators voted in support and only four voted no.
Opposing the bill were Reps. Vicki Barnett, D-Farmington Hills; Phil Cavanagh, D-Redford; Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor; and Jim Townsend, D-Royal Oak.
Fiscal analysts from both the House and Senate concluded that the change would lower state and local property tax revenue, but couldn’t determine an exact amount because the value of real estate varies greatly.
Local governments may lose tax revenue on the transfer of waterfront cottages. Photo: girlguyed (flickr)
The biggest potential negative impact would be on local governments and school districts, which use property tax dollars to help fund operations. Some associations representing those entities support the bill, but others remain wary of its potential implications.
Deena Bosworth, legislative coordinator for the Michigan Association of Counties, said its membership supports the measure, despite the potential ramifications it could have on property taxes in cottage-heavy areas.
“Typically it’s not our type of bill that we’d be supportive of, but we recognize that it’s family homes and vacation homes that are passed down from generation to generation,” Bosworth said. “Our board voted to support it.”
However, the Michigan Townships Association remains opposed, primarily because of the potential negative effect it could have on local units, legislative liaison Bill Anderson said.
“I’m sure this bill is a popular concept, but this bill has an impact on many local entities – schools, local governments, libraries, fire departments and others,” Anderson said. “This would have an impact on all of those.”
Anderson said the association also questions the legality of the bill because Michigan’s constitution states all properties will move to their designated tax value when ownership is transferred, and a transfer between family members is still technically a transfer.
“We understand the Legislature has power over taxation, but we point back to the state constitution,” Anderson said. “This bill acts as though no ownership will be transferred if it’s from generation to generation, which is not the case.”
The Michigan Association of Realtors supports the bill, said Doug Merriam, the association’s public policy director for West Michigan.
Merriam said changing the law to accommodate family members could encourage more people to invest in cottages with the knowledge the property could stay in the family.
“This bill really promotes the culture of the family cottage,” Merriam said. “It helps folks keep an eye towards the long term in real estate investment, and I think it’s going to promote a lot of economic activity in the state.”
Pettalia said getting the legislation passed through the Senate and on Gov. Rick Snyder’s desk is his number-one goal before the legislative session ends, and he said he believes members of the Senate will be in support as well.
People also need to know that there are ways to cap the value of hunting or other recreational lands, even if sold to a non-family member. The land value remains capped if it is protected by a conservation easement…so landowners can help protect Michigan’s natural heritage and get a tax break at the same time.
I’ve been on the title of my family’s cottage for years. Why should my taxes automatically bump up–making it unaffordable to keep–once my parents die? This seems to be a reasonable accommodation.
A larger question that nobody seems to care to raise is why should owners of cottages subsidize the educational system for others by having to pay an extra 18 mils of taxes? Cottage owners don’t send kids to school in the area, yet they pay MORE than those who send a multitude of kids to school. Talk about inequity.
The current property taxes on a cottage property will not be reduced upon the transference to a family member so the township and county will not see a reduction in revenue, just not an increase, like they would see if a non family member were to buy the property. I feel this is an unfair situation for those who are not buying from, or inheriting from family. In many other instances other than lake front or cottages where the family member cannot afford the taxes they would be forced to sell their inherited property and pay income and death taxes if it qualifies for that. If the value is so high that only rich persons can afford to buy, then they should also be able to pay the taxes.
This is the most incredibly stupid legislation I have ever read. If this passes, people who buy a family home in the towns and villages along Lake Michigan quite probably will face a higher property tax bill than the poor folks – many of whom are not residents – who have inherited their parent’s much more valuable cottage on Lake Michigan just a few miles away!