House to ask voters to trade property tax for more sales tax

[Joe Complete]

In your example, lowering the millage rate still makes the non-homesteader/recent purchaser pay 8.5 times the taxes of their neighbor.

I think it is more important that the non-homesteaders tax bill NOT BE 8.5 times higher than the homesteader. Likewise, I think it is vital that a homesteader who purchased yesterday not pay 8.5 times more in taxes than their long-time homesteaded neighbor.

So let's say the property values are rolled back to 2001 levels. Perhaps the $850K house is now valued at $350K. The homesteaders house is still appraised below the market value since they were homesteaded since 1990 so theirs doesn't change. The homesteader keeps paying the same amount. The taxes of a non-homesteader or a homesteader who purchased recently go from $7650 to $3150 which is now 3.5 times the homesteaders. The non-homesteader/recent purchaser no longer carries such an extreme amount of the tax burden and sees a significant tax relief.

It seems to me that people homesteaded for a long time are not complaining unless they desire to move, hence the name Slaves of Our Homes. In many cases these people have seen their total tax liability descrease in the past few years. This is true only in those counties such as Walton that have lowered their millage rates in the past few years. The complaints are coming from those who purchased recently and those who don't qualify for homesteading.

Any fix is complicated and I hope more comes of this tax issue than did the fix to the insurance woes.

 

[Bob]

SOH is unlikely to ever go away unless it's constitutionality is successfully challenged. It seems whatever fix is served up will create more niche inequalities. Logically, it would be perfect to eliminate SOH, and address the issue for which it was created....the protection of senior citizens on fixed incomes. Seniors could be "grandfathered" and newbies hitting the age of 65 could recieve an additional 25,000 exemption, and every five years forward the exemption could gradually increase. This would help those of modest means and not allow the Jimmy Buffets of Florida to skate paying tens of thousands in real estate taxes they could easily afford.

 

[TooFarTampa]

SOH is unlikely to ever go away unless it's constitutionality is successfully challenged. It seems whatever fix is served up will create more niche inequalities. Logically, it would be perfect to eliminate SOH, and address the issue for which it was created....the protection of senior citizens on fixed incomes. Seniors could be "grandfathered" and newbies hitting the age of 65 could recieve an additional 25,000 exemption, and every five years forward the exemption could gradually increase. This would help those of modest means and not allow the Jimmy Buffets of Florida to skate paying tens of thousands in real estate taxes they could easily afford.

Yes and I'm wondering why nobody is talking about this. Dumping the SOH cap for everybody but the seniors (or increasing homestead exemption at age 65) makes so much more sense. Everybody else could have the homestead exemption.

If, in addition to lifting the cap for everyone but seniors, they could roll back the property taxes to 2000 or 2001 levels, and cap government spending at 3 or 4 percent increases a year, that would go a long way to making things a lot more fair. Yup, those people who have been homesteaded for 15 years (like my neighbors across the street) would end up paying more in taxes, but they have been getting a break a loooong time, and they know it. Those people aged 55-65 would probably be hurt the most, but if they are taxed at 2000 or 2001 levels the pain of adjustment would not be so great.

 

[Joe Complete]

This is interesting....

Group sues over Save Our Homes
Owners of second homes ask judge to stop assessment cap
http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/CAPITOLNEWS/702270324

 

[pmd8]

The real problem lies in the assessments and not the millage rate.

Currently the county property appraisers are required by law to reassess every so often. They have to look at comparable sales nearby. The local assessors are actually quite sympathetic in general. My non-homesteaded properties are under-assessed for now. I'm holding my breath until the next time they reassess.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Currently the county property appraisers are required by law to reassess every so often. They have to look at comparable sales nearby. The local assessors are actually quite sympathetic in general. My non-homesteaded properties are under-assessed for now. I'm holding my breath until the next time they reassess.

To my knowledge, the Property Appraisers are also required to assess at 85% of the market value.

Already mentioned on this thread is one of the most alarming things -- not many people are talking about restricting the Gov't spending, and that is the one thing that drives these taxes. Property values increased greatly from 2004 to 2005, yet we received a reduction in taxes of around 1 mill. So, the County revenues probably doubled. Where is all of that money being spent, and does anyone believe that the County Gov't will cut that back to down? All of this talk about how to fix the inequities in the system still does not solve the problem of the gov't not having restrictions on spending habits. We can reduce the assessed value to 40% of the market value as the Bay Co Property Assessor recommends, but the County will not go for the 47% reduction in tax revenues, so they will have to increase the millage rate accordingly, in order to keep the spending at a the elevated mark which it currently has. For the offset, we would be looking at a millage rate increase up to around 14 mills, rather than the 9 mills.

 

[Joe Complete]

I agree 100% that counties are spending too much. Any solution must include some sort of caps that line up spending with population growth and inflation.

I find it interesting that when the Florida Supreme Court originally approved the wording for the SOH amendment in 1992, 3 of the 4 justices dissented and said it violated the "equal protection" clause. The class action lawsuit may very well have some merit.

 

[Rambunkscious]

Yes, the county budgets are the problem. I was told last Friday that in 2005 Okaloosa County had a 12% population increase yet the actual county expenditures went up 83% for 2005. ( Okaloosa County is the county adjacent to Walton County on the west).

You would think the counties would be a little sensitive here and if the values double, the millage would halve.

Apparently, however, this extra funding that the counties have began to receive in the last 2 or 3 years has only whetted their appetite for more, more, more. It would be interesting to hear their side of this story.

On the insurance side of the story, a sweet and simple answer to that problem is to let Citizens write all the homeowner business in the state; tell the other insurance companies to go home. This would cause our premiums to go way down because no profit would be realized. However, this is a very political situation, hence our politicians are not likely to agree to this.

 

[SHELLY]

Palm Beach County rejects recommendation for no budget increases

By Josh Hafenbrack
Sun-Sentinel.com
Posted February 27 2007, 7:03 PM EST


Turning back a wave of residents clamoring for slimmed-down county spending, Palm Beach County commissioners on Tuesday rejected a recommendation that they hold the line on the budget and slammed their own advisory committee for making the suggestion.

Residents told commissioners that because county spending has spiraled in recent years, property taxes are forcing people from their homes and stifling the real estate market.

Commissioners were defensive, quarreling with speakers and blaming state legislators for passing down unfunded mandates. Commissioners unloaded on the Budget Advisory Committee chaired by Commissioner Warren Newell, threatening to replace board members they appointed just months ago unless the committee changes its focus.

Of the 16 percent increase in county property taxes this year, resident Virginia Brooks noted: "That's nearly triple the combination of population growth and inflation, and almost double the growth in personal income. I think the solution might be, just like any good household would do, a belt tightening."

Commissioners rejected the budget committee's recommendation to keep 2008 spending to this year's $4.3 billion level.

The commission formed the advisory committee less than three months ago in response to a growing outcry over increases in county spending. On Tuesday, commissioners said the committee should focus on specific programs and county expenses, rather than making broad suggestions. Commissioners each appointed one person to the seven-member budget committee, save for Newell.

"Just telling us, 'Go cut,' I think we need to be more specific," said Commissioner Karen Marcus. "If they don't want to do that, we need to put new members on there."

Commission Chairman Addie Greene took it a step further.

"Why do we need this committee?" she asked. "It's my personal opinion it's a waste of time."

About a dozen residents spoke on the spending issue, all hammering home the same theme: county spending is out of control, leading to crippling property tax bills for anyone without a longtime homestead exemption.

Many more showed up, but not everyone spoke because commissioners broke the property tax session into two parts.

The issue came up before 10:30 a.m., but commissioners moved onto another agenda item less than an hour later and didn't take the budget recommendation back up until after 3 p.m.

One woman wore a T-shirt that said, "Taxation Without Representation is Tyranny," referring to seasonal residents who have borne the brunt of increased government spending.

Others complained that commissioners were being bullies for lecturing speakers on why county spending has gone up. "I resent some of the arrogance that comes across sometimes," said James Grice, 51, of Wellington.

"We'll try and work on that," responded Commissioner Jeff Koons.

David Wood noted that when 500 residents packed a legislative hearing on property taxes this month at Palm Beach Community College, no commissioners showed up. "Hundreds of citizens were there who had questions for all of you, and none of you were there," he said.

Christina Pearce, a Realtor, zeroed in on the county reserves, noting the $2.3 billion the county has in its investment portfolio. That money includes not only the budget reserves, but also money to pay for future parks, projects and roads.

"I think I speak for everybody when I say that seems to be a lot of money," she said. "I know it might be designated for this project or that. But what we're saying is, there has to be some money that can be used to offset property taxes."

Property taxes are the Legislature's top concern for the spring session. Among the proposals is a plan to roll back county spending to the pre-real estate boom levels of 2001 and replace homestead property taxes with a 2.5 percent increase in sales taxes.

"It looks like the state is finally going to make you guys prioritize your spending," said resident John Early, who ticked off county cost-saving measures from a hiring freeze to 10 percent department budget cuts. "From what I'm reading, you're going to really have to cut back a lot."

Representing a consortium of condo communities in Boynton Beach, snowbird Dory Kilburn said her taxes shot up 70 percent in one year and many of her neighbors are being forced from their homes by taxes.

"When you raises taxes in Palm Beach, we pay," she said. "We're asking you not just to freeze the budget, but? try to find some ways to save money, because our communities are not going to survive if you keep raising the taxes."

In their discussion, commissioners focused on the Budget Advisory Committee itself, lamenting that the board didn't identify specific areas the county should cut.

"Commissioner Marcus, I think you're right on track," Commissioner Burt Aaronson said when Marcus threatened to find new board members. "The fact is, I don't think they've fulfilled their mission."

Newell also criticized the committee he chairs, despite having supported its budget recommendation at the committee hearing. He said a lot of politics has infiltrated the group, later explaining it is influenced by the Economic Council of Palm Beach County, which has battled the commission over its spending. That group's executive director, Mike Jones, said the commission was shortsighted to reject the idea of holding the line on county spending.

"I think it's a lot more generous than the Legislature might do," he said.

 

[Rambunkscious]

The arrogance of the Palm Beach County commissioners is appalling.

The county budget requirements exceed the ad volorem taxation value so some new method of meeting the county budget requirements needs to be found.

When county governments are so insensitive to their constituents needs,
and keep in mind the property owners are getting killed on many sides,
(taxes, insurance, unable to sell their properties) the county commissioners should be replaced.