that I forgot to mention.
The residents of the unincorporated areas currently pay $350,000 in property taxes. The sales tax revenue the county was using to offset the burden for the incorporated residents was $700,000. It reportedly costs $1,500,000 to service the area.
350+700=1,050. Where is the other $450,000 currently coming from?
I think it's coming from the portion that city residents pay to the county.
And, even if the unincorporated resident's taxes are doubled, the revenue gathered will be $700,000. Where will the other $800,000 come from?
Can someone clarify all this?
--
Posted By Natalie to Davis County Watch: Guest Bloggers at 9/04/2008 08:11:00 PM
Thursday, September 04, 2008
[Davis County Watch: Guest Bloggers] An important property tax fairness point...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Natalie,
These are great questions. I'll ask around in the auditor's office tomorrow for some answers and then get back to you.
I just talked to someone in the Auditor's office and the way I understand it (I'm speaking now as a citizen who inquired about all of this...not as a county employee or budget expert) the ~$750,000 in sales taxes together with the ~$350,000 brought in by property taxes in the unincorporated areas paid for more than 95% of the expenditures for services in these areas.
Not only is the county losing use of this revenue to pay for servicing the unincorporated areas but the State Tax Commission is requiring the county to pay back the sales tax money it has been improperly using over the past 3 years. I think Mr. Busselberg's article mixes this penalty up together with the loss of revenue in a way that I found somewhat confusing.
It is a complex situation. I think it would be cool if someone with a blog that focuses on local county issues (hint hint) were to ask for a meeting with Mr. Rawlings on this topic to get all the information straightened out and presented to its readers. I'm not in a great position to do that since I work here but someone else might be able to put together a great and interesting blog report on this mess if they had the time and inclination!
Jeremy, thanks for the info. I nominate Tyler to meet with Mr. Rawlings.
The next question...Are revenues from incorporated areas going to be used to pay back the debt? If unincorporated residents have been getting a deal because of a mistake, shouldn't unincorporated residents pay it back? Also, are the taxes collected in the future going to be sufficient to service the unincorporated areas? Now would be a great time to consider putting this issue to rest and incorporating these areas.
Natalie,
I second the nomination...lets vote now before Tyler has a chance to remove his name from the list of candidates!
The county gets an increase in its budget each year from new growth in its taxable property base (new development that hasn't been taxed before is like a tax increase for the county every year). In all likelyhood they will try to make up for the loss of funding this year with as much of that new growth money as they can. Last year much of that new growth money went to the rebates granted to Bountiful and NSL taxpayers with higher than expected property valuation increases.
It will be interesting to read what information Tyler is able to get from Mr. Rawlings in their interview! :-)
Post a Comment