New Castle County Tax Increase: BS Patrol
I ran into one of the crochety old men that I sometimes run into at some functions. Invariably, our discussion turns to something political or social. This time we were discussing the current budget situation when he brought up that county taxes were rising 25%. I said, “really, it isn’t much money that we are talking about here.” “The hell it isn’t!” he replied. “It’s gonna cost me $500/year because I still haven’t sold my other house.”
The other house is the one that he can’t sell because he has a Mexican on one side and a “Chinamen” on the other side. Sigh.
I tried to explain to him that I was certain that it wasn’t as much as he feared. He wasn’t buying it.
So I have worked the numbers for him as best as I can. His new home in Middletown was taxed $534 in 2008. I couldn’t find his Newark home in the NCC Parcel Search, so I found a home on the same street. The alternate home is likely overvalued, as it was sold in 2005, and thus reassessed recently. I don’t believe this to be the case for his home. That home paid $363 in taxes last year.
Now, this means that in County taxes (not school taxes, mind you) he paid $897 last year. This year he will pay an additional $225 in taxes. Keep in mind that he has a tenant in his old house, so surely some of that will be passed down to the tenant. But even if it isn’t, he will pay an additional $18 of taxes per month. It hardly seems like something to freak out about.
Tags: New Castle County, taxes
Looks like I’m going to have to get a second job. 😉
Some people are just upset when they have to pay any taxes at all.
When you are on a fixed income a $200. extra expenditure represents alot. Pity the poor city residents who got the 25% from the county AND 15% property hike from the city, plus increase in water costs, and practically every other fee and fine that can be indentified as
‘money maker’.
Meanwhile, just like in the county, those at ‘the top’ in the city still hold onto their gas guzzling Durango’s, 4 employees in a 1 person communication department, a useless police commissioner and many, many other ways the budget could have been reduced.
I, for one, hope that when Coon’s term is up he does the same thing past county execs have done: fade away into obscurity (sp). In our household he’ll never get another vote for any office….including dog catcher (if we had that position). He coulda campaigned to end those row offices (aka political patronage jobs) by the state taking responsibility. Coons and Baker are having ‘royal’ administrations, however, I see that the emporer(s) has no clothes.
Quit whining, Susan. Higher taxes are your patriotic duty. It doesn’t matter one bit what people drive or how much the city spends. Just shut up, get in line, pay your higher taxes and vote for the next person who shows up on the Democratic side of the ballot. ‘Kay?
LOL!
The above statement is not a glimpse into Republican thought. That’s all there is.
I wish I could pick the services I want to pay taxes on. State and federal.
Susan – You will note that that $200 is for two houses, not the typical one house. For example, you will end up paying $40 more next year than this year in county taxes. Perhaps you are feeling like you are already being overcharged. Fine. I don’t mind that discussion, but let’s have it on fair terms. You will not be paying an extra $200/year. You will be paying less than $4/month.
“….The alternate home is likely overvalued, as it was sold in 2005, and thus reassessed recently…..”
FYI, properties in New Castle County ARE NOT reassessed when they are sold. All properties in NCC are, at least in theory, are assessed at what the property would have sold for in 1983. The only thing that drives an assessment change here is a physical change to the property (like an addition) and even then, the added assessment is supposed to represent what that addition would’ve added to the property in 1983. Even new homes are assessed based on what something similar sold for in 1983. That is why real estate assessments are so low in New Castle County.
The best way to avoid an actual tax increase is to re-assess ALL properties and adjust the tax rate. Since most properties are worth more today than they were in 1983, the actual tax rate/hundered of assessed value would likely go down. Studies show that following a reassessment, 1/3 of people’s taxes go down, 1/3 go up and 1/3 stay virtually the same. A rolling assessment could be implimented at that point and values could be held more in line with reality.
Right on point PI. The whole state needs to be reassessed not just NCCo. I don’t know what the huge uproar is about–I feel bad for the those on fixed incomes, but the county offers generous breaks to the disabled and seniors. I paid $260K for my house 3 years ago…my taxes will go up $85 a year or $7 a month. They got tough with employees and cut $20 some million out of the budget so I will not complain like the majority of people tend to do.
Reassessment has never been a function of the state, but rather a function of each county. There is absolutely no reason to consider it on a state level…unless it’s with the idea of removing a layer of government. (coucils and levy court). Each county has it’s own ecomony and specific zoning regulations so to make it a ‘statewide’ project isn’t that viable. In the past, the counties have footed the bill for reassessment. There has been a push by the Coons admin to put it on the state. That’s the easiest way to keep it from happening at all. I do think, however, that a portion of the burden of the expense should be shared by the school districts since they reap the greatest rewards from property taxes. In most cases, school taxes weigh in at about 75% of an average tax bill.
Should there be a concern though if say, NCCo reassessed and Kent didn’t? Would that spur more development just over the county line? On another note, I think I heard an example in Sussex of an average home in Seaford paying more property taxes than a beach front home!
Anon….I don’t think there should be that concern. Even though the assessed value would change, because the tax rate is reduced becomes an equalizer. In the first year of a reassessment, the county is limited to how much they can profit from a reassessment. In the meantime, Kent would probably be increasing their tax rate so the balance would be struck.
Re: inequities in Sussex…I can believe it but you really don’t have to travel that far to find those inequities. And, if that is the case and all other factors being similar in the properties with the exception of location, the Seaford property owner may have a valid tax appeal.
I believe that the legislature can mandate the counties to reasses properties (not totally sure about that) but we could use stimulus money to pay for the reassesment and put a lot of people to work for at least a few months. The property tax bills would be more reflective of value, and in Sussex the people from DC who own the $1M+ properties would start paying more taxes than a townhouse in Middletown. Also, we could fix the problem going forward by doing a blanket reassessment every other year using comparable selling prices for similar houses in the neighborhood. It would be relatively easy to do using a software program like Zilla.com uses.
The state can make the counties do just about anything, since the counties get their authority from the state.
I’m not ruling out a pre-July 1, state-mandated reassessment/statewide property tax, depending on how willing the Legislature is to actually cut anything.
Reassessment is going to be one of the good-government issues of the next few years. It’s one on which ACORN, Vance Phillips and the League of Women Voters can agree. Best way is to get General Assembly to mandate reassessment in all three counties.