Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
11.16.2007 12:18 am

Gibbons singles out districts that rollback tax rates

State Sen. President Pro Tem Michael Gibbons, R-Kirkwood and a candidate for attorney general, sent out a statement Thursday that asserts various St. Louis County entities are guilty of “$46.6 Million in Back Door Tax Hikes.”

“Only 15 Taxing Jurisdictions Roll back to be ‘Friends of Taxpayers,’ ” reads the headline of his release.

He accuses more than 60 taxing jurisdictions in the county of opting against any roll back in their tax rates, asserting they instead “have collectively increased property taxes by $46.6 million, not including new construction exceptions.

“Gibbons released data showing all taxing jurisdictions not operating at their tax rate ceilings and the amount their budgets grew since 2006,” his release said.

Those who rolled back to within 1.5 percent of the rate of inflation were lauded as “Friends of Taxpayers.”

“Legally, these (other) taxing jurisdictions did not have to roll back, but morally, I think they should have,” Gibbons said. “I commend the 15 districts that did right by its taxpayers.”

Gibbons, who has been in the Legislature for two decades, plans to make an attempt during his last session to pass legislation to require more tax-rate rollbacks.

“For years, St. Louis County was the only place feeling the harm of tax increases caused by reassessment,” Gibbons said. “Now it is a problem throughout the state and I will fight to pass legislation that will end back door tax increases caused by reassessment.”

Here’s Gibbons’ list of “Friends of Taxpayers”

‘City of Charlack, General Revenue
Village of Country Life Acres, General Revenue
City of Edmundson, General Revenue
City of Flordell Hills, General Revenue
City of Huntleigh, General Revenue
City of Kirkwood, Pension
Fenton Fire Protection District, General Revenue
Mehlville Fire Protection District, General Revenue and Ambulance
Robertson Fire Protection District, General Revenue and Dispatch
Shrewsbury Branch RDP Sewer, General Revenue
Hancock Street Light District St. Louis, General Revenue
Affton 101 School District, Operating Funds-School
Clayton School District, Operating Funds-School
Normandy School District, Operating Funds-School
University City School District, Operating Funds-School”

5 comments

Comments are closed.

On the general revenue taxing authority, there’s Charlack, Edmundson and Flordell Hills: amusing little dots on the map that balance the budget with traffic tickets.

And there’s Country Life Acres and Huntleigh, where people have everything they need for this life and the next few (in case that whole Hindu reincarnation thing is legit).

Very close to insignificant.

— Ron2
11:12 am November 16th, 2007

I am a fiscal conservative. However, you need to look at what these taxing entities did when they set their rates back in August and September. If they voted to keep their rates the same, i.e. not increase taxes on their residents, how is it their responsibility to adjust?

The cost of gasoline for city vehicles and asphalt, now $50 a ton vs $17.50 just a few years ago, have skyrocketed. Citizens, along with Mr. Gibbons, need to understand that running a municipality, school district or any other taxing entity requires periodic investment. If you do not take care of your investment, it deteriorates over time and loses value. Citizens living within that taxing entity will see their homes decrease in value. (Even faster than the recent slide)

When the potholes don’t get filled and the police can’t respond due to a lack of fuel, let’s see if the tax rollbacks were in the citizen’s best interest!

— Davey Boy
11:39 am November 16th, 2007

Davey Boy, the cost of everything goes up for everyone. That’s why state law permits a cost of living increase, plus additional revenue for new development. The only requirement is that for existing properties, reassessments must be revenue neutral overall, with the exception of the cost of living increase and new development.

If a city needs more money, they can put a tax increase on the ballot. Nobody proposes to change that. What Gibbons is trying to prevent is stealth tax increases by means of inflated reassessments.

— Nick Kasoff
12:37 pm November 16th, 2007

PS - One thing I strongly object to is the idea that they’ll only provide tax reform for seniors. While seniors are on a “fixed income” many have substantial resources. My parents have WAY more money than I do, and of course, they are “empty nesters.” Those of us who are younger have mortgage payments in addition to property taxes, we face paying for our kids to go to college, and many other expenses. We need tax relief just as much as our parents do.

— Nick Kasoff
12:40 pm November 16th, 2007

And thus continues Gibbons’ fundamental misunderstanding of property taxes. Take a finance class kid and come back when you can play the game.

Unfortunatly, the press will continue to cover his political and erroneous claims.

— Tad
4:22 pm November 16th, 2007