|
|||||
|
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Thanks for the article on property assessments [Jan. 31] in Chesterfield County by Greg Pearson. This should be a hot topic this year because of the huge jump in property assessments. Here is an opportunity to educate people as to how the system works. The assessor needs to do his job in appraising each property at its fair market value each year. Assuming that the assessor did his job fairly and accurately, the result was that the assessed value of all properties increased by 16.6 percent. This does not and should not imply that the county needs 16.6 percent more property tax paid by property owners. The assessed value is multiplied by the tax rate to yield the amount of property tax due each year. Since the assessed value of [revalued] properties spiked by 16.6 percent in a single year, the tax rate should decrease by 16.6 percent to yield the same amount of property taxes as was paid last year. This tax neutral rate would be 87 cents per $100 of assessed value. Any tax rate above 87 cents would amount to a flat out tax increase by our county supervisors. Last year, our county supervisors suggested that a five cent decrease in the property tax rate may be appropriate in 2007. My primary argument is that it is impossible to estimate a year in advance what an "appropriate" tax rate might be. In this case, a five cent decrease in the tax rate from last year would result in a new tax rate of 99 cents, which yields an average property tax increase of 13.8 percent. Increased property assessments are not an open invitation to increase property taxes. More that ever, I believe we need to challenge our supervisors to justify why any additional taxes (above the amount paid last year) are necessary to fund county government. According to the Real Estate Assessor's Office, a "neutral tax" would be 92 cents and not 87 cents. The difference is new construction for homes and commercial development. About 40 percent of the county's operating budget comes from real estate taxes. Editor |
|||||