Still a bit abstract. As I recall, the impact of the levy shift was to be $12 to $13 per $100,000 valuation for city dwellers. Looking at my last tax bill breakout, this means my county tax would increase by at least 8.7% from last year, plus the 1% additional increase. Since rural bills are not going down, and the county plans to do the levy shift to generate additional funds, this smells like an illegal tax hike, unless voter-approved.

Perhaps the picture could look a little different if someone could lay out actual numbers and calculations, and an explanation how it's all OK under the law.

I have no idea what, if any, legal research our county commissioners may have requested. Judges Godfrey and Edwards have repeatedly suggested our commissioners act without having done their homework. Perhaps those observations/opinions apply in this instance as well.

Someone--Terry Willis, I think--was quoted as saying other jurisdictions have done the levy shift. While that may be factual, it is not legal research.

The 1% annual non-voted increase cap is relatively new law (late 'nineties?), so there well may be no interpretive caselaw on point, yet. Perhaps it is time to make some caselaw. Or, it could be that the beloved Mr. Eyeman did such a poor job drafting the law that this tax-shifting ploy is clearly permissible. Since I have done no research myself, IDK.

Thank you. This link does explain why the rural tax stays unchanged, and the general concept of the levy shift. It also points out several potential limitation that could apply--most notably, the 1% annual increase cap. So, the question remains, if the net impact on those who reside within municipal boundaries is a tax increase (of the county levy) of close to 10%, how does this not violate the cap? The short answer--it appears-- is that it does violate the cap.