| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
 Posted - 11/05/2009 : 11:17:01 AM
|
Anyone know what last years tax rate was?
"Deb"
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2009 : 12:50:45 PM
|
| Residential - 11.18 per thousand, Commercial/Iindustrial/Personal Property - 28.98 per thousand |
 |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2009 : 1:24:57 PM
|
| I'm sorry, I missed the most of the meeting, what amount is proposed this year? |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2009 : 1:37:54 PM
|
Did I get the new numbers correct?
Residential....$13.51
Commercial.....$37.02
"Deb" |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2009 : 1:43:13 PM
|
| They sound about right as I recall Massdee. As I said in another thread, I was waiting for last night's replay to try to follow along and take a couple of notes. But, well, you know the deal... |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
25 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 10:42:28 AM
|
EVERETT TAX RATE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE WEBSITE
93 2000 10.41
93 2001 10.53
93 2002 10.24
93 2003 7.63
93 2004 8.24
93 2005 8.52
93 2006 9.01
93 2007 8.34
93 2008 10.35
93 2009 11.18
93 2010 13.51
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2009 : 11:46:27 AM
|
I promised to watch last week’s entire MRF hearing before commenting on it any further. Well, I’ve seen it at least three times now. And while I still have a couple of open questions from it, I won’t be able to catch any more replays of it. So I guess it’s it time to comment on it.
I have never understood exactly how the shifting of the burden of the tax rate to the commercial base was accomplished. I’ve also been a long-time proponent of more presentations being done at city government meetings. Given those two things, I was very pleased to see a presentation being done at last Wednesday’s MRF hearing. The presentation started out well enough, if a little dryly, i.e., I’m not sure that the average person cares what state law requires the hearing to be held. Things seemed to going be going along well enough. But then, it appeared that the mayor might have gone off script, Matt Laidlaw started jumping back and forth thru the slides at a rapid pace and ECTV cut away from the slides to show shots of the council chamber.
All of that said, I still feel that I came away from my first viewing of the entire hearing with a fairly good understanding of the process of setting the tax rate given my affinity for numbers. But, I’m not sure that would be the case with everybody. The setting of the tax rates is really nothing more that some simple math done in a precise order at the end of a large data gathering effort. My subsequent viewings were more about trying to catch some of the numbers that I missed the first time around so that I could validate my understanding of the process. And even after two subsequent viewings, there were still two numbers I needed to do that I’m not sure were included in the presentation or not.
When giving a presentation like this, I think that it’s important that you feel comfortable with the material. I’m not sure that the Mayor was by his own admission (“Sometimes I confuse myself.”) There would not have been any harm in letting Bill Hart or Linda Martin make the presentation if that were the case. But it seems like that might have been a bone of some contention though as evidenced in the Mayor’s remarks to Alderman DiPerri about assessors always liking to make presentations.
Some may make the argument that Alderman Marchese threw off the presentation by asking questions about the 20% owner occupied exemption. But, the presentation had already gone astray prior to that. If you’ve been watching city government meetings, you could have predicted that Alderman Marchese was going to ask that question. And even though the hearing was not about that subject, it plays directly into how the tax rate is set and could have been included in the presentation. It actually may have been but that part of the presentation was skipped thru so fast, it was hard to tell. It also would have backed up the statement that giving the owner occupied exemption does not have any effect on the commercial tax rate. I believe that statement and see how that it is possible to grant that exemption without affecting the commercial rate. I just don’t have all of the numbers that I would need to back up that assertion though.
Even though some may feel that this is a rather critical review of the presentation, as I said before, it was not impossible to get something out of it. I’m still a proponent of having these types of presentations and I hope that the administration will view this post as it is intended, as constructive criticism. I’d ask them to remember though that presentations like these are intended for both the City Council and the viewing audience and it’s harder to us to get our questions answered.
|
|
|
|
Political Hack
Member
11 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2010 : 10:22:01 AM
|
Called the mayor on Monday evening to let him know that I have a highly qualified person to fill a vacancy on his financial team and it is now Friday with no response whatsoever. To bad that they don't really care about hiring qualified people.
Political Hack |
|
|
|
waterboy
Senior Member
101 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2010 : 12:36:41 PM
|
| I agree with you p. h. can't call monday holiday another day off |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Property Tax
