HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0533.039 2000-2002 Charles I~Iax~son
PO I3ox 711397
Mountain View, I-II 96771
9 May 2002
kiawaii County Council
25 Aupuni Stmt -
Kilo, lHI 96'720
IZe: Real Properly Tax Rate Adjustment
In Communication 533.21, the Mayor presents a proposal for property tax rate homes that
will make up the projected. shortfall in County expenditures. 1^Ie also offers ~ addition'
rn~odels for rates that would achieve the same thing.
I would like to suggest another possibility. Let's have a single rate for all land and
builditags, but at the satr~ tiffie increase the blonxawner's Exemption. Without doing the
calculations, I would estimate that soffiething close to the following would raise the
necessary funds:
Uniform tax rate $9.00 per $1000
Basic I3orineowner's Exemption $60,000 (from $0,000)
Age 65 to 69 $ i 00,000 (from $80,000)
Age 70 and above $120,000 (from $100,000)
This ynodel is sirriple and it only provides tax relief to the low-end homeowners. I
believe it is unnecessary and confi~,sing to have the various exemptions offered i~a the
Code and then., in addition, to have variable rates based on the same criteria. Also, I have
never understood why people living in million dollar hones need a special break on their
tax rates. Let's only subsidize affordable housing.
Finally, there is the matter of sixyrplifying the tax code. I understand that the Council
intends to revise Chapter 19 sometime in the not too distant futur®. Currently, we have 9
classifications for both Land and buildings based on the Pitt Codes. Equating these to
the 24 County Zon~g Cade classifications is confusing at best. In setting rates, most of
the Pitt Codes are lurnpcd together anyway, so it would be nice to da away with them
altogether. A unifartn tax rate would make this feasible. Politically, I don't think. ft looks
good to publish rate tables that include a category called "Conservation" that is taxed alt
the highest rate.
Sincex°ely, ' / LQ.~"-'~--~
Charles Kansan Cornox. Noa
File Ido.
{tee. ~`o
Kef. Date