Taken from www.MoneyCentral.msn.com September 2, 2004

 

The Basics

Housing market hottest in 25 years

Stronger economy and continued low mortgage rates credited for 9.4% year-over-year increase, the most since 1979. See where your city and state rank.  By MSN Money staff An improving economy and continued low mortgage rates drove prices for U.S. homes up at the fastest pace in 25 years during the second quarter. House prices rose 9.36% over the last 12 months, said the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO). "The appreciation over the past year is the largest four-quarter increase since 1979," said Patrick Lawler, chief economist at OFHEO. "These data show no signs of the long-anticipated, and ultimately inevitable, slowing of house-price inflation." In comparison, the prices of non-housing goods and services have increased 3.03% in the last year. Price growth likely will slacken when interest rates rise, Lawler said. "House prices may become increasingly vulnerable to potential sustained higher interest rates in the future, but that has not happened so far," Lawler said in a statement. In fact, mortgage rates have dropped since the Federal Reserve began raising its key overnight lending rate in June. Still, economists at Fannie Mae, the largest U.S. mortgage financier, say the average rate for a 30-year fixed mortgage probably will rise half a percentage point to 6.5% next year, reverting to 2002 levels. During the first quarter of 2004, though, the rate hit a nine-month low of 5.4% in mid-March, spurring sales that closed in the second quarter. The appreciation rate for the second quarter was 2.21%, the OFHEO said, an annualized rate of 8.83%. Nevada leads; Utah trails Nineteen regions had above-average annual price growth in the second quarter, led by Nevada, at 23%, Hawaii, at 19%, California, with 18.4%, Rhode Island, at 17.9% and Washington D.C. with 16%. Prices in New York gained 11%, and Massachusetts grew 9.8%.   House prices by metro area How does your city compare? See below for the complete list of 220 places and see which are hottest.    The states with the slowest year-over-year price growth were Utah, at 2.6%, Texas, with a gain of 2.9% and Indiana, at 3.1%. Those states also trailed in the first quarter, but, unlike then, none experienced falling prices in the second quarter. Regionally, appreciation has slowed in the New England and West South Central (Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma) divisions. New England "slowed" to a 10.65% rate, while West South Central prices rose only 3.83% -- the smallest increase of all census divisions. The study, known as the House Price Index, excludes properties with mortgages higher than $333,700, the maximum amount allowed in 2004 for loans bought by government-chartered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It tracks average house price changes in repeat sales or refinancing of single-family properties in their portfolios. OFHEO is the regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.      How much have prices gone up in your state? State Rank* 1-Yr. 1-Qtr. 5-Yr. Since 1980 Alabama (AL) 48 3.26 0.55 20.16 136.63 Alaska (AK) 21 9.15 2.22 26.04 109.16 Arizona (AZ) 17 9.46 2.61 37.16 160.6 Arkansas (AR) 34 5.5 1 22.05 118.57 California (CA) 3 18.39 4.85 84.1 338.72 Colorado (CO) 47 3.51 0.78 37.8 227.1 Connecticut (CT) 14 10.7 2.6 53.36 284.46 Delaware (DE) 12 11.52 1.9 47.34 276.08 District of Columbia (DC) 5 16.07 2.78 95.1 316.06 Florida (FL) 7 14.23 3.93 61.28 208.96 Georgia (GA) 40 4.24 0.8 29.4 186.66 Hawaii (HI) 2 18.9 4.47 53.79 255.49 Idaho (ID) 31 6.23 2.71 21.37 143.97 Illinois (IL) 25 7.67 1.88 34.96 208.25 Indiana (IN) 49 3.05 0.62 18.2 138.67 Iowa (IA) 35 5.08 1.21 23.02 123.59 Kansas (KS) 37 4.82 1.28 25.39 118.18 Kentucky (KY) 38 4.8 1.09 23.14 160.56 Louisiana (LA) 33 5.75 1.54 25.64 96.29 Maine (ME) 10 12.01 2.79 58.36 314.61 Maryland (MD) 6 15.4 3.65 58.1 260.49 Massachusetts (MA) 16 9.79 1.63 73.38 528.62 Michigan (MI) 42 3.99 0.73 27.86 205.42 Minnesota (MN) 20 9.28 1.94 54.9 223.12 Mississippi (MS) 43 3.95 1.2 19.21 113.76 Missouri (MO) 30 6.35 1.32 30.93 160.24 Montana (MT) 18 9.43 2.04 34.03 175.99 Nebraska (NE) 36 4.86 1.49 19.38 133.1 Nevada (NV) 1 22.92 7.53 53.06 183.37 New Hampshire (NH) 15 10.39 2.33 71.13 318.61 New Jersey (NJ) 8 12.75 2.19 64.97 329.4 New Mexico (NM) 27 6.98 1.84 22.1 143.95 New York (NY) 13 10.95 1.81 63.18 414.16 North Carolina (NC) 44 3.85 0.99 21.16 180.79 North Dakota (ND) 28 6.67 2.17 24.62 100.96 Ohio (OH) 45 3.79 0.62 21.24 156.46 Oklahoma (OK) 39 4.38 0.65 24.24 75.51 Oregon (OR) 23 8.1 2.38 27.53 211.02 Pennsylvania (PA) 19 9.4 2.29 36.44 217.34 Rhode Island (RI) 4 17.85 4.22 87.78 383.92 South Carolina (SC) 41 4.08 0.89 24.41 159.27 South Dakota (SD) 29 6.5 1.78 25.6 139.89 Tennessee (TN) 46 3.79 0.94 19.5 153.79 Texas (TX) 50 2.91 0.98 24.93 90.61 United States ** 0 9.36 2.21 43.59 218.03 Utah (UT) 51 2.58 0.97 11.55 165.06 Vermont (VT) 11 11.77 2.67 47.73 250.07 Virginia (VA) 9 12.21 2.73 52.01 234.44 Washington (WA) 24 7.81 2.43 30.69 237.91 West Virginia (WV) 32 6.06 1.65 23.41 103.63 Wisconsin (WI) 26 7.37 1.72 30.64 177.75 Wyoming (WY) 22 8.22 2.54 33.23 99.61 Source: OFHEO *Ranked by 1-year growth rate **Weighted average

House prices by metro area

How does your city compare? Check out this list of 220 places and see which are hottest.  By MSN Money staff Metropolitan statistical area rankings for house-price appreciation from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) were released Sept. 1. The Pacific Division, which comprises California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii and Alaska, showed the largest annual house price increase: 15.7%. The West South Central division, which comprises Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma, saw the smallest annual house price increase: 7%. Only seven of the 220 ranked metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) experienced negative quarterly growth, compared with 39 in the first quarter. Metropolitan areas in California, Nevada and Florida continue to dominate the top 20 when ranked using annual price growth. Metro areas in Utah, Texas and North Carolina saw the worst appreciation. OFHEO’s House Price Index is published on quarterly basis and tracks average house price changes in repeat sales or refinancings of the same single-family properties. OFHEO’s index is based on analysis of data obtained from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from more than 7.33 million repeat transactions over the last 29 years.      Housing appreciation by metro area* Metro area Rank* 1-Yr. 1-Qtr. 5-Yr. Akron, OH 202 2.67 0.5 18.57 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 43 13.42 3.19 41.19 Albuquerque, NM 125 6.03 1.88 18.41 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA 56 11.54 2.64 34.44 Anchorage, AK 83 9.17 1.36 29.86 Ann Arbor, MI 169 4.11 0.98 30.6 Appleton-Oshkosh-Neenah, WI 146 5.14 0.83 24.02 Asheville, NC 117 6.42 1.97 35.29 Athens, GA 130 5.67 1.01 31.59 Atlanta, GA 185 3.59 0.49 29.44 Atlantic-Cape May, NJ 18 17.44 2.61 73.62 Augusta-Aiken, GA-SC 127 5.71 2.75 22.84 Austin-San Marcos, TX 220 1.05 0.49 29.68 Bakersfield, CA 8 20.5 5.32 58.67 Baltimore, MD 30 15.61 3.66 55.83 Barnstable-Yarmouth, MA 39 14.6 2.26 105 Baton Rouge, LA 191 3.33 0.73 19.45 Bellingham, WA 35 14.99 3.21 39.6 Benton Harbor, MI 118 6.37 2.61 30.3 Bergen-Passaic, NJ 61 11.32 1.51 64.6 Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula, MS 160 4.48 0.66 22.08 Birmingham, AL 171 4.05 0.33 23.43 Bloomington-Normal, IL 158 4.57 1.12 17.13 Boise City, ID 139 5.34 1.85 23.02 Boston, MA-NH 86 8.84 1.36 71.8 Boulder-Longmont, CO 216 1.9 0.8 41.13 Bremerton, WA 66 10.99 2.61 38.49 Bridgeport, CT 69 10.85 2.5 62.75 Brockton, MA 57 11.42 2.33 87.15 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 121 6.2 2.13 21.22 Burlington, VT 58 11.42 3.2 49.98 Canton-Massillon, OH 198 2.98 0.59 21.32 Cedar Rapids, IA 174 4.01 1.56 19.19 Champaign-Urbana, IL 109 7.52 1.44 27.54 Charleston-North Charleston, S 122 6.17 0.73 40 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, 207 2.47 0.92 17.94 Chattanooga, TN-GA 150 5.01 0.87 25.12 Chicago, IL 97 8.24 2.03 40.86 Chico-Paradise, CA 19 17.39 2.76 82.83 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 166 4.21 1.28 23.04 Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH 168 4.11 0.53 20.97 Colorado Springs, CO 173 4.03 0.45 30.9 Columbia, MO 138 5.37 1.69 18.71 Columbia, SC 179 3.75 0.18 22.23 Columbus, OH 170 4.11 0.61 22.79 Dallas, TX 205 2.57 0.71 24.55 Danbury, CT 63 11.16 3.45 55.62 Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, 151 4.8 2.08 24.13 Daytona Beach, FL 27 16.17 4.71 60.05 Dayton-Springfield, OH 192 3.25 0.51 16.24 Denver, CO 195 3.1 0.44 41.47 Des Moines, IA 128 5.69 1.42 24.5 Detroit, MI 188 3.49 0.56 27.81 Dubuque, IA 159 4.57 1.46 22.91 Duluth-Superior, MN-WI 65 11.07 1.17 54.87 Dutchess County, NY 64 11.16 2.19 75.37 Eau Claire, WI 119 6.35 1.88 30.98 El Paso, TX 187 3.57 -0.72 17.94 Elkhart-Goshen, IN 219 1.62 -0.55 15.88 Eugene-Springfield, OR 104 7.71 2.47 20.45 Evansville-Henderson, IN-KY 182 3.74 0.33 17.74 Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers 101 8.08 1.74 28.06 Fitchburg-Leominster, MA 55 11.57 3.38 76.44 Flint, MI 193 3.17 0.39 24.2 Fort Collins-Loveland, CO 184 3.65 1.53 38.13 Fort Lauderdale, FL 26 16.33 4.1 81.12 Fort Myers-Cape Coral, FL 38 14.64 5.2 68.1 Fort Pierce-Port St. Lucie, FL 4 21.9 6.83 80.07 Fort Wayne, IN 214 1.94 0.33 15.38 Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 211 2.3 1.05 22.92 Fresno, CA 3 23.16 5.06 77.76 Gary, IN 180 3.75 1.11 18.73 Grand Junction, CO 103 7.73 1.67 33.69 Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland, 167 4.17 0.74 24.72 Greeley, CO 204 2.58 0.87 33.22 Green Bay, WI 141 5.33 1.09 24.08 Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High 210 2.31 0.16 17.44 Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderso 212 2.24 0.95 18.62 Hamilton-Middletown, OH 197 2.99 0.1 19.61 Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, P 126 5.91 1.47 21.25 Hartford, CT 77 9.79 2.36 46.63 Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, NC 215 1.91 0.56 21.94 Honolulu, HI 23 16.83 3.62 45.46 Houston, TX 186 3.58 0.69 29.04 Huntsville, AL 213 2.2 0.44 18 Indianapolis, IN 208 2.45 0.49 18.14 Iowa City, IA 144 5.19 1.67 22.8 Jackson, MI 131 5.66 1.92 30.49 Jackson, MS 172 4.03 1.06 18.89 Jacksonville, FL 72 10.31 2.69 49.84 Janesville-Beloit, WI 123 6.15 2.44 21.16 Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol 162 4.4 0.41 20.87 Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, MI 165 4.23 0.5 25.7 Kansas City, MO-KS 153 4.7 1.09 30.57 Kenosha, WI 102 8.02 2.2 33.4 Knoxville, TN 132 5.61 1.58 24.84 La Crosse, WI-MN 110 7.44 1.68 28.66 Lafayette, IN 218 1.76 -0.28 11.28 Lafayette, LA 136 5.51 2.42 23.34 Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL 93 8.46 2.24 33.86 Lancaster, PA 99 8.18 2.11 26.08 Lansing-East Lansing, MI 155 4.66 0.68 30.22 Las Vegas, NV-AZ 1 24.94 8.12 56.69 Lawrence, KS 114 7.21 1.44 32.63 Lawrence, MA-NH 98 8.22 1.38 70.79 Lexington, KY 129 5.68 1.04 25.73 Lima, OH 164 4.26 0.26 21.38 Lincoln, NE 178 3.84 1.29 18.4 Little Rock-North Little Rock, 137 5.43 1.01 21.67 Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 6 21.52 4.8 80.77      Housing appreciation by metro area* Metro area Rank 1-year Quarter 5-year Louisville, KY-IN 161 4.47 1.12 23.83 Lowell, MA-NH 92 8.46 1.6 70.86 Macon, GA 189 3.41 -1.18 19.36 Madison, WI 94 8.45 2.22 33.6 Manchester, NH 68 10.88 2.4 74.66 Medford-Ashland, OR 20 17.34 5.33 56.84 Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay, 12 19.62 6.04 63.7 Memphis, TN-AR-MS 203 2.62 1.09 15.71 Merced, CA 29 15.78 3.87 89.68 Miami, FL 33 15.39 3.23 75.63 Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon, 54 11.7 2.31 63.63 Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI 95 8.44 2.14 33.66 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI 79 9.53 1.98 58.59 Missoula, MT 42 13.97 3.38 47.28 Mobile, AL 194 3.13 1.2 20.11 Modesto, CA 16 17.64 4.96 89.45 Monmouth-Ocean, NJ 36 14.9 2.53 81.71 Montgomery, AL 199 2.81 1.14 14.3 Naples, FL 41 14.03 4.83 74.99 Nashua, NH 76 9.83 2.67 71.27 Nashville, TN 175 3.94 0.99 18.88 Nassau-Suffolk, NY 50 12.21 2.01 87.22 New Haven-Meriden, CT 51 11.9 2.53 56.77 New London-Norwich, CT-RI 44 13.27 2.84 59.41 New Orleans, LA 106 7.63 2.13 30.68 New York, NY 53 11.74 2.9 73.28 Newark, NJ 67 10.9 1.49 61.81 Newburgh, NY-PA 48 12.96 2.11 71.7 Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport 34 15.37 4.09 45.77 Oakland, CA 62 11.22 3.71 81.36 Oklahoma City, OK 145 5.17 0.89 25.84 Olympia, WA 78 9.77 2.48 29.3 Omaha, NE-IA 148 5.12 1.13 20.94 Orange County, CA 5 21.6 5.32 88.23 Orlando, FL 74 10.13 2.76 46.46 Pensacola, FL 81 9.39 2.24 29.41 Peoria-Pekin, IL 152 4.74 0.68 20.39 Philadelphia, PA-NJ 46 13.13 2.91 51.7 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 100 8.16 2.21 35.81 Pittsburgh, PA 135 5.58 1.15 27.54 Portland, ME 49 12.44 2.95 62.3 Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA 105 7.66 2.29 25.34 Portsmouth-Rochester, NH-ME 73 10.24 1.94 69.36 Providence-Fall River-Warwick, 21 17.19 3.77 86.6 Provo-Orem, UT 217 1.83 0.63 10.96 Pueblo, CO 163 4.29 1.98 23.09 Punta Gorda, FL 25 16.41 3.72 68.91 Racine, WI 88 8.76 1.97 30.59 Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC 201 2.78 0.74 17.42 Reading, PA 96 8.25 1.43 27.51 Redding, CA 14 17.71 3.32 74.71 Reno, NV 10 20.18 6.37 52.04 Richland-Kennewick-Pasco, WA 183 3.67 1.74 25.9 Richmond-Petersburg, VA 85 8.88 1.88 35.1 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 2 24.73 5.7 85.75 Roanoke, VA 140 5.33 0.82 25.51 Rochester, MN 181 3.75 0.56 33.52 Rochester, NY 142 5.23 1.65 18.36 Rockford, IL 143 5.22 0.59 17.83 Sacramento, CA 13 18.18 5.11 90.41 Saginaw-Bay City-Midland, MI 177 3.85 0.46 24.37 Salem, OR 133 5.61 1.4 18.65 Salinas, CA 15 17.69 5.15 99.75 Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT 206 2.47 0.81 11.58 San Antonio, TX 190 3.41 1.63 23.03 San Diego, CA 9 20.21 4.86 102.51 San Francisco, CA 89 8.68 2.99 65.94 San Jose, CA 124 6.15 2.74 57.28 San Luis Obispo-Atascadero-Pas 28 15.87 4.6 99.56 Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lomp 22 16.93 4.15 98.27 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA 91 8.58 2.77 73.05 Santa Fe, NM 84 9.11 0.46 34.98 Santa Rosa, CA 45 13.17 3.43 84.77 Sarasota-Bradenton, FL 40 14.48 3.19 65.18 Savannah, GA 80 9.52 3.4 40.1 Scranton-Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton 134 5.6 0.68 22.65 Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA 113 7.29 2.33 34.84 Sheboygan, WI 149 5.08 1.58 20.2 Shreveport-Bossier City, LA 120 6.28 -0.14 24.98 Sioux Falls, SD 147 5.12 1.34 22.96 South Bend, IN 200 2.81 -5.99 18.13 Spokane, WA 112 7.4 2.93 18.98 Springfield, IL 154 4.69 1.07 12.83 Springfield, MA 59 11.41 2.37 50.23 Springfield, MO 156 4.62 0.27 17.76 St. Cloud, MN 90 8.62 2.2 47.72 St. Louis, MO-IL 107 7.55 1.62 35.1 Stamford-Norwalk, CT 82 9.2 1.97 57.01 Stockton-Lodi, CA 37 14.75 3.79 83.2 Syracuse, NY 111 7.42 2.87 29.72 Tacoma, WA 87 8.84 2.71 34.78 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwate 47 13 3.47 58.37 Toledo, OH 157 4.59 0.94 24.61 Trenton, NJ 70 10.68 2.33 61.72 Tucson, AZ 75 9.91 2.7 36.6 Tulsa, OK 196 3.02 9 23.52 Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa, CA 32 15.42 4.01 100.59 Ventura, CA 7 21.25 4.81 87.8 Visalia-Tulare-Porterville, CA 11 19.8 6.09 42.83 Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV 31 15.43 3.55 70.94 Waterbury, CT 60 11.38 3.34 47.72 Wausau, WI 116 6.72 2.06 28.46 West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL 17 17.62 4.07 76.46 Wichita, KS 176 3.88 1.04 19.27 Wilmington, NC 115 6.91 3.03 21.83 Wilmington-Newark, DE-MD 52 11.87 2.61 45.41 Worcester, MA-CT 71 10.57 1.87 73.72 Yolo, CA 24 16.68 4.83 99.01 York, PA 108 7.52 2 22.21 Youngstown-Warren, OH 209 2.41 -1.61 16.62 * Note: Rankings based on annual percentage change, for all MSAs containing at least 15,000 transactions over the last 10 years.

---

 

Oklahoma Constitution Title 68 Section 2802.1

Amendment to SECTION X-8B

Limit on percentage of fair cash value of real property.

 

Despite any provision to the contrary, the fair cash value of any parcel of locally assessed real property shall not increase by more than five percent (5%) in any taxable year.  The provisions of this section shall not apply in any year when title to the property is transferred, changed, or conveyed to another person or when improvements have been made to the property.  If title to the property is transferred, changed, or conveyed to another person, the property shall be assessed for that year based on the fair cash value as set forth in Section 8 of Article X of this Constitution.  If any improvements are made to the property, the increased value to the property as a result of the improvement shall be assessed for that year based on the fair cash value as set forth in Section 8 of Article X of this Constitution.  The provisions of this section shall be effective January 1, 1997, and thereafter for counties which are in compliance with the applicable law or administrative regulations governing valuation of locally assessed real property as of such date.  For counties which are not in compliance with such law or regulations as of January 1, 1997, the provisions of this section shall be effective January 1 of the year following the date the county is deemed to be in compliance with such laws or regulations as provided by law.  The provisions of this section shall not apply to any personal property which may be taxed ad valorem or any property which may be valued or assessed by the State Board of Equalization.

The Legislature shall enact any laws necessary to implement the provisions of this section.

 

[1] Added by State Question No. 676, Legislative Referendum No. 306, adopted at election held on Nov. 5, 1996. EDERIV

 

---

 

Oklahoma Attorney General´s Office Opinion

Appellant: The Honorable Russ Roach State Representative, District 66 State Capitol, Room 400 B Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

The Honorable Mark Liotta State Representative, District 77 State Capitol, Room 500 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

The Honorable Tad Jones State Representative, District 9 State Capitol, Room 539 B Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

The Honorable Penny Williams State Senator, District 33 State Capitol, Room 415 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

The Honorable Dave Herbert State Senator, District 42 State Capitol, Room 426 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

The Honorable Wes Lane District Attorney, 7th District 320 Robert S. Kerr Avenue, Suite 505 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102
Jurisdiction: Attorney General of Oklahoma - Opinion
Hearing_Date: September 7, 2001
Text_of_Rule:

Dear Senators, Representatives, and District Attorney Lane:

This office has received your requests for an official Attorney General Opinion addressing, in effect, the following questions:

1. Assuming that the provisions of Article X , Section 8B of the Oklahoma Constitution relating to transfers of title or other exceptions to the general rule are not applicable, if the fair cash value of a parcel of locally assessed real property increases by more than five percent (5%) from one year to the next, does Section 8B limit the increase in fair cash value (for purposes of computing the taxable value of that parcel for ad valorem tax purposes) to a maximum of five percent (5%) for such assessment year?

2. Assuming the same conditions posed in your first question, if the fair cash value of the same parcel of locally assessed real property were to increase by more than five percent (5%) in the succeeding assessment year, may a county assessor increase the fair cash value of that parcel by more than five percent (5%) of the fair cash value for the parcel established during the preceding assessment year?

3. If a county assessor increases the fair cash value of a parcel of locally assessed real property which is subject to the provisions of Article X , Section 8B of the Oklahoma Constitution by five percent (5%) each year, based upon information which supports a determination that any such increase is not in excess of the actual fair cash value of the parcel, does this practice violate either Section 8B or 68 O.S. 2817.1 (2000)?

4. Do the provisions of Section 8B of Article X of the Oklahoma Constitution mean that the assessed (taxable) value of a parcel of locally assessed real property cannot increase more than five percent (5%) each year?

5. If the actual fair cash value for a parcel of locally assessed real property increases by twenty percent (20%) in a single year, does the Oklahoma Constitution either authorize or require a county assessor to increase the fair cash value of the parcel, for ad valorem tax purposes, at the five percent (5%) annual maximum prescribed by Section 8B of Article X of the Oklahoma Constitution until the twenty percent (20%) increase is reflected on the assessment roll, or do the provisions of 68 O.S. 2817.1 (2000) require a different result?

6. Is the correct interpretation of Section 8B of Article X of the Oklahoma Constitution, together with 68 O.S. 2817.1 (2000), that it is legally permissible for a county assessor to increase the fair cash value of the relevant category of real property by less than five percent (5%) each year or alternatively, if there is no supportable increase in the fair cash value of such property, should there be any increase in the value of the property at all?

BACKGROUND

Assessment of ad valorem taxes begins with the establishment of a fair cash value for each taxable piece of property. See OKLA. CONST. Article X , Section 8(A) / Article X , Section 8(B) / Article X , Section 8C; 68 O.S. 2817(A) / 68 O.S. 2817(B). The fair cash value is then multiplied by an assessment ratio to set the assessed valuation. Id. 68 O.S. 2802(5). From the assessed valuation are subtracted any exemptions to establish a taxable value for each piece of property. Id. 68 O.S. 2802(27). The taxable value is multiplied by the millage rate to calculate the total taxes due on each property. Id. 68 O.S. 2802(22).

I.

Assuming that the provisions of Article X , Section 8B of the Oklahoma Constitution relating to transfers of title or other exceptions to the general rule are not applicable, if the fair cash value of a parcel of locally assessed real property increases by more than five percent (5%) from one year to the next, does Section 8B limit the increase in fair cash value (for purposes of computing the taxable value of that parcel for ad valorem tax purposes) to a maximum of five percent (5%) for such assessment year?

In 1996, pursuant to referendum, Article X , Section 8 of the Constitution was amended to place limits on the assessment ratio applied to property subject to ad valorem tax. Section 8 now reads in pertinent part:

"2. Real property shall not be assessed for ad valorem taxation at a value less than eleven percent (11%) nor greater than thirteen and one-half percent (13.5%) of its fair cash value for the highest and best use for which such property was actually used, or was previously classified for use, during the calendar year next preceding the first day of January on which the assessment is made."

Id.

In addition to amending Section 8 at the 1996 election, the voters also approved the adoption of Section 8B which limits annual increases in fair cash value to not more than five percent (5%) in any taxable year:

"Despite any provision to the contrary, the fair cash value of any parcel of locally assessed real property shall not increase by more than five percent (5%) in any taxable year. The provisions of this section shall not apply in any year when title to the property is transferred, changed, or conveyed to another person or when improvements have been made to the property. If title to the property is transferred, changed, or conveyed to another person, the property shall be assessed for that year based on the fair cash value as set forth in Section 8 of Article X of this Constitution."

Id.

A constitutional provision is to be applied to give effect to the intent of the people voting on it. Draper v. State, 621 P.2d 1142, 1145 (Okla. 1980). The intent is determined by the provision itself, and where unambiguous, courts are not at liberty to search beyond the instrument for its meaning. McCurtain County Excise Bd. v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 340 P.2d 213, 216 (Okla. 1959) (citing Shaw v. Grumbine, 278 P. 311 (Okla. 1929)). Neither courts nor legislatures have the authority to augment or