1 / 21

Property Tax Relief 2011: Who Wins ? Who Loses ?

Property Tax Relief 2011: Who Wins ? Who Loses ?. 2011 Florida League of Cities Annual Conference August, 12, 2011. Alan Johansen. 2011 Legislature Passed HJR 381. Constitutional amendment g rants s elective n ew property t ax breaks – 2012 Ballot

iola-herring
Download Presentation

Property Tax Relief 2011: Who Wins ? Who Loses ?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PropertyTax Relief 2011:WhoWins? WhoLoses? 2011 Florida League of Cities Annual Conference August, 12, 2011 Alan Johansen

  2. 2011 Legislature Passed HJR 381 Constitutional amendment grants selective new property tax breaks – 2012 Ballot • Why did the Legislature approveit? • Whatdoesit do? • How willit affect cities and other local governments? • How willit affect taxpayers? • Who wins? Who loses?

  3. What Does HJR 381 Do? Three primary elements: • Non-homestead Assessment Cap – drops from 10% to 5%. • “First-time” Homesteader exemption – 50% of value phased-out over five years. • Assessment Caps - Anti-Recapture so that assessed value does not go up by CPI or 3%, if just value drops; applies to both Save Our Homes and to the Non-Homestead Assessment Caps. Only the Save Our Homes Anti-Recapture change affects Schools.

  4. Why Did Legislature Approve HJR 381? • Simple answer is that it appears to grant additional tax relief (but not in a way that will affect state finances). • A more complete answer requires some historical context. • The 2007 Legislature approved numerous statutory and constitutional property tax measures. • Why all the changes in 2007?

  5. I wouldn't ever set out to hurt anyone deliberately unless it was, you know, important —like a league game or something. Dick Butkus

  6. In 2006, Charlie Crist promised to fix the property tax crisis. • Fiscal 2007, Total Property taxes rose to $30.4 B • Double the $15.3 B in Fiscal 2001 • For 6 years, compound annualgrowth rate of 12.1% • Non-schoolproperty taxes increasedeven more • from $8.8 B to $18.1, a six-yearannual rate of 12.8% • Increaseswerefueled by the real estate boom. • As local millage rates fell, non-homesteadownerspaid a disproportionateshare of the increases.

  7. What Happened Between Fiscal 2001 and 2007? Why Did Property Tax Shoot Up? • In the 6 years thru FY 2007, non-school property taxes rose at 12.8% annually, but total economic activity in Florida increased at only 6.8% per year over the same period. • For most 20+ years before FY 2007, property taxes and economic activity (measured by Florida Personal Income) moved in tandem. • The impact of the real estate boom on taxable values severed the historic relationship.

  8. Why Did Property Tax Shoot Up? Weren’t Elected Officials Concerned? One of the primary reasons was the Save Our Homes Assessment Cap. • When market values rise rapidly, SOH keeps homestead increases at or below 3%. • Also, millage rates were falling as taxable value went up, often enough to make homestead taxes fall. • Property owners without SOH bore the brunt of the tax increase, but homesteaders, the preponderance of voters, were largely satisfied or disinterested.

  9. The Legislative View – Soaring Property Taxes Spurred Legislature

  10. The Legislative View – Soaring Property Taxes (Cont’d)

  11. Legislature Explored Linking Property Tax Growth to Income • From Fiscal 1991 through 2003, property taxes relative to income stayed in a narrow band • Ratio did not fall below 1.8% • Nor did it rise above 2.1% • But beginning in Fiscal 2004, property taxes began to grow much faster than the state’s economy.

  12. Legislature Looks at Property Tax Caps Based on Economic Growth

  13. Legislative Solution: Millage Rollbacks and Caps on Increases

  14. The Stated Goals For the 2007 Property Tax Breaks Have Been Met & Exceeded • Through Fiscal 2011, Non-School Property Taxes have declined by $3.5 billion, or 19%. • Non-school property taxes are likely to decline again this year, even as rates increase. • Current and near-term non-school property taxes are well below a cap based on economic activity as measured by income.

  15. Why is the Legislature Again Proposing New Property Tax Breaks? • The recent tax levies that exceeded economic growth have been reversed and non-school taxes have fallen. • In fact, non-school property taxes are currently below an income-based cap, even one with a base year of 1975-76. • Non-School taxes will fall again this year. • These new tax breaks will benefit narrow groups of taxpayers, shift the tax burden to others, and will take effect just a the tax base is likely to stop shrinking and to show modest growth.

  16. FY 2011-12 Non-School Property TaxesWill be Less than an Income-Based CapEven a Cap Starting with FY 1975-76 Taxes

  17. No Real Answer to the Question: « Why is the Legislature Again Proposing New Property Tax Breaks in HJR 381? » • Why are the provisions in HJR 381 needed? • Little to no policy justification was offered in support. • The state’s Revenue Estimating Conference provided only aggregated, statewide impact estimates and even those estimates are found in footnotes. • Legislators who voted for HJR 381 did so with little to no idea what the potential impacts would be on their constituents and on the local governments in their districts.

  18. HJR 381 WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON THE TAX BASETHESE IMPACTS ARE DELAYED & GROW IN AN ATYPICAL FASHION.

  19. THE IMPACTS OF HJR 381 ON THE NON-SCHOOL TAX BASE CAN BEUSED TO DEVELOP TAX IMPACTS ON NON-SCHOOL GOVTS

  20. Conclusions: • Non-school property taxes in Florida experienced unprecedented increases through FY 2006-07. • Those increases have since been reversed; current levies are well below the appropriate levels established by the 2007 Legislature; and non-school levies are expected remain suppressed for some time. • Additional reductions in the property tax base do not appear warranted without clear, specific policy objectives and should take into account the impacts on local governments and on taxpayers unlikely to benefit from the changes.

More Related