Friday, September 26, 2008
Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Base Year?
“The base year system…fails to reflect changes in property values, suppresses growth, and leads to inaccurate assessments and disproportionate taxation…”
Who made this accusation against Allegheny County’s base year plan? Certainly it had to have been legal counsel in the case pending against the base year (as it is applied statewide) in front of the state Supreme Court. And it is likely that such sentiments have been echoed there.
Or it could have been the man on the street, particularly one who is living in a community where values have fallen but are locked into the 2002 value. Again, it has likely been stated as such, maybe not the exact same words, but the frustration has been there.
No, the source of the statement is actually the Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh, made through the City’s 2009 budget document. Next year the revenue from real estate taxes—the City’s largest source of tax revenue—is projected to grow minimally to $126.9 million, up from about $125.5 million this year if the budget amount is achieved.
Since 2000, when the County undertook a reassessment and City real estate tax revenue stood at $114.5 million, the average annual growth in property tax revenue has been about 1.2%. The City has not raised its millage rate (though it did switch from a two-tier rate to a single rate) and it offers exemptions to senior citizens and most of its large development projects are tied up in tax increment finance deals where incremental taxes go to the development debt instead of to the City coffers. The only real year-over-year substantial growth in City real estate revenue came in 2000-2001 when, thanks to the reassessment, revenue grew 5.4%.
So count the Mayor as another party frustrated at the County’s base year plan and waiting to see what the Supreme Court decides.
Who made this accusation against Allegheny County’s base year plan? Certainly it had to have been legal counsel in the case pending against the base year (as it is applied statewide) in front of the state Supreme Court. And it is likely that such sentiments have been echoed there.
Or it could have been the man on the street, particularly one who is living in a community where values have fallen but are locked into the 2002 value. Again, it has likely been stated as such, maybe not the exact same words, but the frustration has been there.
No, the source of the statement is actually the Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh, made through the City’s 2009 budget document. Next year the revenue from real estate taxes—the City’s largest source of tax revenue—is projected to grow minimally to $126.9 million, up from about $125.5 million this year if the budget amount is achieved.
Since 2000, when the County undertook a reassessment and City real estate tax revenue stood at $114.5 million, the average annual growth in property tax revenue has been about 1.2%. The City has not raised its millage rate (though it did switch from a two-tier rate to a single rate) and it offers exemptions to senior citizens and most of its large development projects are tied up in tax increment finance deals where incremental taxes go to the development debt instead of to the City coffers. The only real year-over-year substantial growth in City real estate revenue came in 2000-2001 when, thanks to the reassessment, revenue grew 5.4%.
So count the Mayor as another party frustrated at the County’s base year plan and waiting to see what the Supreme Court decides.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]