My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0641.007 2010-2012
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2010-2012
>
COM 0641.007 2010-2012
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/28/2012 11:46:10 AM
Creation date
11/7/2012 3:25:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2010-2012
Communication
0641
Point
007
Author
Pete Hoffmann, Council Member
Communications - Referred To
FC
Comments
FC: Postponed to Finance Committee meeting scheduled for December 18, 2012 - 11/20/12
Document Relationships
AGE FC 11/20/2012 2010-2012
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2010-2012\Finance Committee (FC)
AGE FC 2012/12/18 2010-2012
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2012-2014\Finance Committee (FC)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
obtain residency information from income tax returns and death certificates to prevent <br /> abuse of homeowner' s exemptions. In addition, the Division should institute procedures <br /> to verify residency using drivers' licenses and voter registration records. <br /> Recommendation 33: The Council should require the Finance Department to analyze <br /> the effects of the 3% assessed value increase cap to determine if the underlying policies <br /> are being fulfilled. In addition, although no new claims can be made for the non- <br /> speculative residential use dedication, the Council should review the underlying policies <br /> for retaining this value freeze for properties remaining under the dedication. Both <br /> programs should be reviewed with respect to the different tax treatment that results for <br /> similarly situated properties with and without the dedication or the 3% cap. <br /> Recommendation 34: The Council may wish to consider incorporating sunset provisions <br /> into exemptions to force periodic review of underlying policies. <br /> Recommendation 35: The Council should consider establishing a stakeholder committee <br /> to identify problems related to tax relief and review options. <br /> Recommendation 36: The Council should consider establishing a stakeholder <br /> committee, including taxpayers, to determine specific ways to make the relationship <br /> between taxes and value changes more transparent. <br /> Recommendation 37: The Council should revise Section 19- 93 of the Code. <br /> Specifically, it should reduce the 20 percent value-difference threshold to no more than <br /> 10 percent, at least for residential property. The current non-uniformity ground should <br /> be revised to permit non- uniformity appeals based on valuation practices generally. <br /> The filing fee requirement should be eliminated, at least on principal residences. <br /> Appellants should not be allowed to appeal only the land value or the improvement <br /> value without contending that the sum of the land and building values exceeds the <br /> over-valuation threshold that is adopted. <br /> Recommendation 38: The Council should make the first stage in the appeal process <br /> an informal appeal to the Division. <br /> Recommendation 39: The Council should require the Finance Department to undertake <br /> an analysis of the cause of the increase in the gap between delinquencies and delinquent <br /> tax collections to determine whether there is weakness in billing and collection <br /> procedures. <br /> 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.