WHEREAS, the New Albany City Council is in support of the Scribner Place Project
We've seen reading comprehension problems; we've seen selective interpretation of the facts presented (obtained from GOV); but we have to admit, selective disregard of the VERY FIRST SENTENCE IN THE RESOLUTION? Give us a break, why don't you?
Very tangible issues behind the scenes are driving this resolution; and I for one hope the City Council gets this project OFF of MY property taxes. Our blessings for Scribner and the Y can proceed without such financing regarding OUR PROPERTY TAXES.
The State adopted something called a "circuit breaker" law last year. Our City has a constitutional (City and State) debt limit of 20% of our assessed value. If I am wrong about this, surely someone will call me out and set me straight, no doubts there. The way the Cities were able to circumvent this debt limit (which is in our City constitution and State mandated) is by having the municipal City sewage bonds/works separate from our debt limit.
This new "circuit-breaker" law is meant to correct this issue. After speaking with the State of IN and telling them of the debt we, as New Albany, are in -- I felt he was stunned.
Here is the new "circuit-breaker" law, and other corresponding info you may find interesting. Enjoy.
(P.S. BTW, is it legal for the Clerks' office to release the Council's packets to the PRESS and the Mayor's blog before the Council even received their packets from the police? Just a question.)
SECTIONS 8-13 of HEA 1001-2006 expand the 2% circuit breaker beyond pay 2007 in two phases: (1) the circuit breaker becomes mandatory in all counties for qualified residential property for 2007 pay 2008 and 2008 pay 2009; (footnote 1) (2) the circuit breaker becomes MANDATORY for all types of property in all counties beginning in 2009 pay 2010. (footnote 2)
The "circuit breaker" works by giving a property owner a credit against the person's property tax liability exceeding two percent of the gross assessed value for the qualifying property.(footnote 3) The application of the credit results in a reduction of property tax collections of each political subdivision in which the credit is applied.(footnote 4) A political subdivision may not increase its property tax levy to make up for the reduction. (footnote 5) A political subdivision may not borrow money to compensate the political subdivision or any other political subdivision for the reduction of property tax collections due to the credit. (footnote 6)
Taxpayer has a qualifying property with an assessed value of $100,000 before deductions. Taxpayer's property tax liability is calculated at $2,100. Two percent of the gross assessed value of taxpayer's qualifying property would be $2,000. Thus, taxpayer receives a credit for $100, and his tax liability is reduced to the maximum of $2,000. This results in a reduction of property tax collections by the taxing units in an amount of $100.
$100,000 gross assessed value $2,100 calculated taxes due
X .02 cap -$2,000 maximum tax liability
$ 2,000 maximum tax liability $ 100 amount of credit
1 IND CODE 6-1.1-20.6-6.5(b).
2 IND CODE 6-1.1-20.6-6.5(c).
3 IND CODE 6-1.1-20.6-7
4 IND CODE 6-1.1-20.6-9.5(b).
6 IND CODE 6-1.1-20.6-9.5(d).
The following is an ESTIMATE CIRCUIT BREAKER IMPACT ON BUDGETS issued last year at the CITIES 2006 ANNUAL BUDGET WORKSHOP:
Potential Tax Credits for Property Assessed over 2% of Net Assessed Value:
UNIT 2006-2007 2008-2009 2010
FLOYD COUNTY $ 108. $ 108,526. $ 276,062.
NEW ALBANY TWP $ 3. $ 3,143. $ 7,995.
NEW ALBANY CITY $ 325. $ 324,803. $ 826,313.
NA-FC SCHOOLS $ 587. $ 587,059. $1,493,322.
NA-FC LIBRARY $ 23. $ 23,125. $ 58,825.
NA FLOOD CONTROL $ 8. $ 7,605. $ 19,345.
NOTE: The estimate impact on these budgets were based on 2003 assessed values. The impact on the budgets could be much greater when the estimates are based on current assessed values.
In other words, Cities will not longer be able to get around OUR Constitutional debt limits; but the State maintains there will have to be "new income taxes" to cover the shortfalls. Hmmmmmmmmm. Our income taxes seem to be going other ways.
Read the first sentence to Mr. Schmidt's resolution one more time, then the info posted here -- you'll find no malice; simply people who are up on those numbers and trying to protect your property tax and mine. That's the SPEAKOUTLOUDNA view, anyways.