PHOENIX -- Maricopa County property owners will see their tax bills drop slightly in 2013-14 after the Board of Supervisorsvoted to keep the tax rate at or below last year’s.
Monday’s unanimous vote leaves the rate at $1.46 per $100 of assessed value.
The move will cut property taxes throughout the county by $32.9 million. The annual bill on a home valued at $102,000 – the county median -- will drop $13.63, stated county spokesman Richard De Uriarte in a written release.
Property-tax calculations are based on two-year-old (2010) assessments, set during a low point in the housing market recession. Property valuations are rising in the most recent calculations, Mr. De Uriarte pointed out.
The county-controlled levy provides revenues for general government and support for the county flood control district and library district.
The reduction was triggered by the board’s decision two months ago to reduce the general fund budget from the previous year’s.
“What we have done is balance the desire to lower property taxes during a time of lingering economic hardship with the increasing needs of the organization, especially criminal justice and law enforcement,” stated Board Chairman Andy Kunasek of Paradise Valley. “It was a good, sound conservative budget, and it has resulted in another drop in county taxes for our residents. It was not easy, but it was accomplished.”
Dist. 4 Supervisor Clint Hickman said the action was appropriate. “Now, just as the as the economy is turning positive, it is the right time to relieve our citizens of any additional tax burdens,” Mr. Hickman stated in a written release.
County taxes make up 11.7 percent of the average property tax bill, said Supervisor Denny Barney of Gilbert.
Maricopa County’s supervisors have reduced property taxes by a combined $124 million over the past four years, according to Mr. De Uriarte.
Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, a Democrat from Phoenix, said in a written release she would have preferred a smaller cut, but praised a merit-pay hike for county employees.
“I do feel we could have adopted a slightly higher rate…that would not have raised taxes but would have provided about $15 more to meet our critical needs,” Ms. Wilcox stated.
Monday’s unanimous vote leaves the rate at $1.46 per $100 of assessed value.
The move will cut property taxes throughout the county by $32.9 million. The annual bill on a home valued at $102,000 – the county median -- will drop $13.63, stated county spokesman Richard De Uriarte in a written release.
Property-tax calculations are based on two-year-old (2010) assessments, set during a low point in the housing market recession. Property valuations are rising in the most recent calculations, Mr. De Uriarte pointed out.
The county-controlled levy provides revenues for general government and support for the county flood control district and library district.
The reduction was triggered by the board’s decision two months ago to reduce the general fund budget from the previous year’s.
“What we have done is balance the desire to lower property taxes during a time of lingering economic hardship with the increasing needs of the organization, especially criminal justice and law enforcement,” stated Board Chairman Andy Kunasek of Paradise Valley. “It was a good, sound conservative budget, and it has resulted in another drop in county taxes for our residents. It was not easy, but it was accomplished.”
Dist. 4 Supervisor Clint Hickman said the action was appropriate. “Now, just as the as the economy is turning positive, it is the right time to relieve our citizens of any additional tax burdens,” Mr. Hickman stated in a written release.
County taxes make up 11.7 percent of the average property tax bill, said Supervisor Denny Barney of Gilbert.
Maricopa County’s supervisors have reduced property taxes by a combined $124 million over the past four years, according to Mr. De Uriarte.
Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, a Democrat from Phoenix, said in a written release she would have preferred a smaller cut, but praised a merit-pay hike for county employees.
“I do feel we could have adopted a slightly higher rate…that would not have raised taxes but would have provided about $15 more to meet our critical needs,” Ms. Wilcox stated.
No comments:
Post a Comment