“County's property tax increases, assessed value declines” plus 2 more |
- County's property tax increases, assessed value declines
- Delaware County property-tax rollback still in place
- Property-tax limit might not be legal
| County's property tax increases, assessed value declines Posted: 24 Aug 2010 09:45 AM PDT Graham County's property tax rate increased for the 2010-11 fiscal year from $$1.555 to $1.8132 per $100 assessed, value, but tax rates for several public school districts decreased. The Graham County Board of Supervisors approved the new tax rates after a taxation hearing Aug. 16. This year's tax levy is $3.943 million compared to last year's tax levy of $3.450 million — an increase of $493,000. The new tax rate is $0.2582 more than last year's rate. This means the owner of a $100,000 home will pay $25.82 more for property taxes — unless the home's assessed value decreased. According to taxing information released by the county, Graham's assessed value decreased from $221.875 million last year to $217.455 this year. For homeowners, the assessed values of their homes are equal to 10 percent of the full-cash value. The tax rate decreased in several county school districts but increased in others. For the Safford School District, the primary property tax rate was set at $3.19 per $100 assessed value — $1.06 per $100 less than last year. The tax rate decreased also for the Thatcher School District from $2.745 per $100 assessed value to zero. A secondary tax rate of $1.1700 in Safford and $1.4499 remains in place. Secondary tax rates are used to pay off debts. The primary property tax rate increased slightly in the Pima School District — from $3.1651 to $3.5528. The secondary tax rate dropped, however, from $1.0200 to $0.4278, according to taxation information from the county. The primary tax rate also dropped in Solomon and Bonita. In Solomon, the rate decreased from $4.3850 to $1.109, and in Bonita, the rate went from $3.5660 to $2.8325. In Klondyke, the school property tax increased from $1.9446 to $2.4094. This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php |
| Delaware County property-tax rollback still in place Posted: 24 Aug 2010 01:48 AM PDT Property taxes for Delaware County residents will stay the same next year, after county commissioners voted to retain a 1-mill tax rollback yesterday. County commissioners created the tax break in 1998 in exchange for a 0.75 percent sales-tax increase. The county can collect up to 2.8 mills, and the rollback has been as high as 1.8 mills in 2003. In 2009, the commissioners voted to return the rollback amount to 1 mill. At yesterday's meeting, the current commissioners - all Republicans - voted 2-1 against eliminating the rollback. Commissioners Ken O'Brien and Todd Hanks voted to keep the tax cut; Commissioner Tommy Thompson voted to collect the full amount of the county's property tax. The move did not require voter approval. The reduction's repeal would have added $6.2million to the county's general fund next year and would have cost a homeowner about an additional $31 per $100,000 of valuation. The county's general fund budget this year is $62 million. "I am concerned, if we don't do this, we're going to give people less services for the same amount of money - and to me that's a tax increase," Thompson said before the vote. Thompson said the county needed to start planning for next year, and officials needed to know how much money they would have to work with. Among his concerns: the $2.2 million in state funding that might not be available next year. Deborah Martin, interim county administrator, said the budget next year is "going to be tight, with a lot of needs and bills to pay that are not all going to be met." But O'Brien and Hanks cited the recession and concerns raised by county residents as reasons for their votes. State Rep. Kris Jordan, a former county commissioner, spoke out against the repeal at yesterday's meeting. While a commissioner in 2004, Jordan, a Republican, voted to keep a property-tax rollback. "Delaware County residents are being nickel-and-dimed to death," he told commissioners. "And for us to say we're going to hit their wallet one more time is criminal." This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php |
| Property-tax limit might not be legal Posted: 23 Aug 2010 06:22 PM PDT JENNIFER LEARN-ANDES jandes@timesleader.com A cap on property taxes might be one of the most appealing aspects of Luzerne County's proposed home rule charter, but opinions differ on whether such a restriction is legal. County Solicitor Vito DeLuca said case law – specifically a 2007 Commonwealth Court case in neighboring home rule Lackawanna County – established that tax rates can't be limited by home rule charters. The reason: The state's home rule law prohibits tax rate limitations, and the state law supersedes any home rule charter, he said. A county taxpayer had initiated that court case when Lackawanna County Commissioner A.J. Munchak and former commissioner Robert Cordaro increased the millage rate more than 5 percent without the voter referendum approval required by the county's home rule charter. "So the selling point that home rule is a way they'll keep taxes down, it's just a lie. There's no other way to say it. I don't know how they expect to squeeze that by," said DeLuca, who has become an outspoken critic of the charter that will be selected or rejected by voters in November. But Jim Haggerty, an attorney who oversaw the committee that drafted the charter, said it's different here because the Luzerne County charter limits the amount of revenue that may be received from property taxes – not the tax rate. The proposed charter says budgeted property tax revenue can't be more than 8 percent higher than the previous year unless county council convinces a county judge that a higher increase is warranted. Haggerty said charter drafters, their legal counsel and the entity they hired to assist – the Pennsylvania Economy League – were all conscious of the 2007 case law in Lackawanna County as they crafted the wording. "We're talking about the revenue that the county generates from property tax. It is legally different. It is practically different," Haggerty said. Attorney Jeffrey Malak, solicitor for the county government study commission, said he believes the charter's revenue cap would survive a court challenge. The revenue limit was modeled after the cap placed on government entities after a countywide reassessment, Malak said. Revenue from property taxes can't increase more than 10 percent the first year after reassessment. DeLuca pointed out that the county currently has a maximum millage rate cap – 25 mills – while the charter has none. The 25-mill cap is set by the state County Code, the law governing non-home rule counties. Millage earmarked for debt repayment and some services isn't factored into the 25-mill cap, and the county may seek court approval to increase taxes 5 mills beyond the cap. The county tax rate was able to escalate to 94.9 mills before the countywide reassessment took effect in 2009. The charter's 8 percent revenue cap also excludes money required to repay county debt. Haggerty said charter writers realize the county has no choice in fulfilling the debt obligation. The county owes about $464 million – almost half a billion – in debt, which won't be repaid until 2027 at the current schedule. The county millage rate is currently 5.215 mills. A mill is a $1 tax for every $1,000 in assessed property, which means county taxes are $521.50 on a $100,000 property. A roughly 20-mill increase to reach the cap would equate to $360 million, and the county budget is currently $127.5 million. The county has increased taxes twice since reassessment – 10 percent in 2009 and 15 percent this year. The proposed switch to county home rule will be on the Nov. 2 ballot. The charter would replace the three elected commissioners with an 11-member, part-time council and an appointed manager.
Send Question/Comment to the Publisher This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Yahoo! News Search Results for property tax To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 comments:
Post a Comment