We received a notice our taxes will increase from $1900 to $8900...(b

[MFC]

Their bill suggests using the last sale price to establish value?

No both their bill and original BRT presentations addressed caps on increases in taxation. They didn't "establish value based upon the last sales price" they "establish value" (i.e., assess the property) at market value but they cap the increases in actual taxation on certain properties / homeowners in various ways (it is about how you "implement AVI - not the methodologies for assessing the properties).

The BRT had 5 different caps as I recall (google for newspaper articles which discuss them - and proposed approaches in council at the time). Kenney / Squilla are talking about a single cap for homeowners of longer than 10 years which would cap the tax at either 200% or 300% of the original amount. I think that bill is well intentioned and a good start, but I think it can be improved upon in numerous ways. The discussion of how needs to happen in a more constructive forum . . ..

[seand]

No the Kenney approach (based on state legislation he helped craft as an aide to Vince Fumo) applies limits to how fast tax bills can go up as a result of nearby development. It isn't based on the price they bought at but is a means-based limit on how fast an increasing tax bill can be rolled in based on new assesments can be rolled in.

It also may not pass muster with the PA constitution if its challenged.

Tax bill has Fumo stamp - Philly.com

In reality if AVI is revenue neutral and you limit how fast bills can go up for some you are in fact raising the rates for folks not receiving the benefit and they can go to court and argue they are being taxed at a different rate. A deferment works because eventually the homeowner is taxed at the same rate as their neighbors when they either die or sell, but Council does not like that because they want to spend the revenue now.

[ShoshTrvls]

It also may not pass muster with the PA constitution if its challenged.

Right. As I mentioned before, the bill would result in non-uniform taxes among similar properties in violation of Article VIII.

[raider.adam]

No both their bill and original BRT presentations addressed caps on increases in taxation. They didn't "establish value based upon the last sales price" they "establish value" (i.e., assess the property) at market value but they cap the increases in actual taxation on certain properties / homeowners in various ways (it is about how you "implement AVI - not the methodologies for assessing the properties).

The BRT had 5 different caps as I recall (google for newspaper articles which discuss them - and proposed approaches in council at the time). Kenney / Squilla are talking about a single cap for homeowners of longer than 10 years which would cap the tax at either 200% or 300% of the original amount. I think that bill is well intentioned and a good start, but I think it can be improved upon in numerous ways. The discussion of how needs to happen in a more constructive forum . . ..

The poster said around 1% for everyone. None of the proposals are or were close to that.

[ArcticSplash]

No the Kenney approach (based on state legislation he helped craft as an aide to Vince Fumo) applies limits to how fast tax bills can go up as a result of nearby development. It isn't based on the price they bought at but is a means-based limit on how fast an increasing tax bill can be rolled in based on new assesments can be rolled in.

It also may not pass muster with the PA constitution if its challenged.

Tax bill has Fumo stamp - Philly.com

In reality if AVI is revenue neutral and you limit how fast bills can go up for some you are in fact raising the rates for folks not receiving the benefit and they can go to court and argue they are being taxed at a different rate. A deferment works because eventually the homeowner is taxed at the same rate as their neighbors when they either die or sell, but Council does not like that because they want to spend the revenue now.

Had a chat with State Rep Taylor about this in Port Richmond.

Everyone is pretty much aware that property tax reform is going to have to involve altering the PA Const. But that takes two legislative sessions and then a referendum to voters to approve.

Pittsburgh went through their version of AVI and then hit the reset button on it.

[bootsywannabe]

Hey, good news, now the City can tax us based on the "actual value" of our homes - which the city determines - rather than a percentage of the actual value.

Sounds like a huge tax increase to me.

thanks Nutter and City Council for once again raising taxes, and continuing to force residents out of their homes

Metro - City, state officials work together to pave the way for AVI

[raider.adam]

Hey, good news, now the City can tax us based on the "actual value" of our homes - which the city determines - rather than a percentage of the actual value.

You do know the city determines the value in both situations, right?

[bootsywannabe]

I also understand that taxing somebody based on the ENTIRE assessed "actual value", rather than a 1/16 or 1/32 percentage of that value, IS A HUGE TAX INCREASE. And that is the hallmark of the Nutter administration. As well as City Council for the last 65 years.

Get ready to see the value of your home decline substantially, as your tax bill climbs substantially.

[raider.adam]

I also understand that taxing somebody based on the ENTIRE assessed "actual value", rather than a 1/16 or 1/32 percentage of that value, IS A HUGE TAX INCREASE. And that is the hallmark of the Nutter administration. As well as City Council for the last 65 years.

Get ready to see the value of your home decline substantially, as your tax bill climbs substantially.

They aren't keeping the rate the same. They aren't doing AVI and keeping a 9% tax rate. Is it possible the new rate they use will be a tax increase? Yes (in fact that was Nutter's original proposal). That in of itself isn't a reason to be against fixing the assessment process.

And the City can still have the "taxed value" 1/32nd of the actual value, but that doesn't change the fact they need to fix the actual values.

[bootsywannabe]

Yes, like I said, and like Nutter said, IT IS A HUGE TAX INCREASE.

When's Nutter going to cut taxes and cut city government? Because that is what will lift Phillys fortunes, not taxing homeowners out of their houses - which is exactly what the kind of tax increase in the title of this thread will accomplish.

$1900 to $8900 is ridiculous. How about $1900 to $1901. How about we give Nutter $1 extra.

[bootsywannabe]

Well I guess they'll just have to raise our taxes some more.

Raises are here, but pension reform not introduced in Philadelphia City Council