www.rutlandherald.com
Published July 9, 2016 in the Rutland Herald
Springfield taxes see 2.56 percent increase
By SUSAN SMALLHEER
SPRINGFIELD — Combined town and school property taxes are going up 2.56 percent, as the Select Board approved the final documents setting the rate for 2016-17 Thursday evening.
The residential or homestead rate is $3.03 per $100 of assessed value, while the non-residential or business rate is lower at $2.91 per $100 of assessed value. Last year’s rate was $2.96 and $2.81, respectively.
The percentage increase for residential property owners was 2.56 percent, while for the non-residential, it was 3.68 percent this year.
The vote to approve the tax rate was unanimous, although Board Chairman Kristi Morris noted: “I’m sure there are some out there who oppose it.”
The rate rate will support a $11 million town budget and a $28 million school budget. Both spending plans are offset by other revenues, in the case of the Springfield school budget, state aid to education.
In addition to the $11 million town budget, voters had approved an additional $400,000 in road paving, which was responsible for about half of the increase.
Without the paving project, the Select Board had estimated that taxes on the $11 million budget would go up 1.49 percent; the paving pushed it to 2.56 percent.
The Select Board had put the paving article on the warning as a gauge to see if the public supported spending additional money on the town’s roads. A special analysis of the town’s road conditions had recommended the town spend between $900,000 and a $1 million a year on repaving or rebuilding.
Townspeople had also approved $200,850 in special appropriations to such groups as the Springfield Family Center and the Visiting Nurses, the two largest, at $55,000 and $63,500, adding to the tax rate. The smallest was $2,000 for the Springfield Community Band, which puts on summer concerts.
The paving appropriation added six cents to the tax rate, which originally was believed to be offset by the level-funded school budget.
But more ominous on the tax front was the news that for the sixth straight year, the town’s Grand List, or list of taxable property had declined.
The list now stands at $6,343,576, down from the previous year of $6,493,240. In 2011, the list was at $6,660,953. This year, the town granted $25,374 in tax abatements.
The school budget was originally expected to see a six-cent decrease in the tax rate as Act 46 provisions pushed the school board to cut 15 full time positions, most of them in the Gateway Program.
But the decrease actually turned out to be less than that, or about three cents, from $1.549 to $1.514, according to documents distributed by Town Manager Tom Yennerell.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20160709/NEWS02/160709577
ReplyDeleteAnother year, another tax increase. Nothing new here.
yup 2.56 for property tax and like 9.6 for water/sewer,wish the town was as good saving money as they are spending money,i wonder how many more homes will be abandoned because the owner's will not be able to afford them
ReplyDeleteWill our taxes EVER decrease?!
ReplyDeleteWell, they COULD, if we ever set up a just taxation system.
DeleteIn Vermont, a person who earns three times as much as the median income pays three times the base rate of 3%, but a person who earns 6,000 times the median income also pays three times the rate.
If we look at household income in Vermont, lumping together all the money earned by all the families making the same amount, we get tens of thousands in all income categories who earn pretty much the same-- the 19,461 households in 2012 who made $25,000-$30,000 a year altogether earned $534.4 million, which was just about as much as the 76,400 who made less than $15,000 ($556 million). A lot of households have to get by on one-quarter of what is barely adequate for 20,000 households above them-- and they all pay the same tax rate.
So, we should have a tax rate that reflects not a household’s income level, but its income in relation to all the income of all households in Vermont. In other words, make it a tax rate that reflects the average household income in each group: If a household income is 1% of the income of the highest average household income, its tax rate should be 1% of the state’s established tax rate. For example, if the average income of the highest group is $1 million, then a household making $100,000 would pay one-tenth the state’s tax rate.
If put into effect, a tax rate that would have generated the same revenue as the 3% / 6% system did in 2012 would have CUT taxes for all households below $1 million. The cuts would have started at 60% for households in the $500-$1M range (a savings of $31,000 on average) to 100% for households making less than $10,000 (savings of up to $17).
So, if we want to, we can make taxes go down. You can do something about it.
but think on the bright side,we'll have a nice paved bike path to leave town on
ReplyDeleteOur property taxes have now surpassed our mortgage payment. Never thought I'd see the day. I'm hoping that the town-wide property reassessment gears property-value downward. There's no way I could sell my home for what the town last assessed it at.
ReplyDeletePositive proof that you can never really own your own home. You only rent it from the government.
Deletedoesn't really matter what your house is worth,the town will just keep raising the tax rate to fund their wasteful spending
ReplyDeleteThat Biomass plant and the other businesses it would have brought in looks pretty good now. Doesn't it? Can't decrease residential taxes if we keep stalling businesses from settling here
ReplyDeleteNah. The biomass plant still doesn't look good. I'm really happy with all the work people are getting installing solar farms.
Deleteeyesores
Delete1:42 PM, yes they decrease once you die, but when you are dead remember there is a death tax still due.
DeleteSTILL not as ugly as those wind turbines.
Delete