Panel reduces statewide property tax increase from 7 cents to 4 cents, commercial payers to see 8 cent increase

A House panel will bring the property tax rate down from an initial 7 cent increase down to 4 cents for residential homeowners. The proposal pushes commercial rates up 8 cents.

The House Ways and Means Committee took a straw poll on the proposal on Tuesday, and lawmakers supported it in a 7-4 vote. Rep. Adam Greshin, I-Warren, voted against the proposal because he said the 8 cent increase is a roughly 5 percent jump in the tax for non-residential taxpayers and it “strains the notion of fairness.”

Though legislators on the panel are still working through a number of details in the committee bill, they agreed to a 98 cent tax on the base rate for homeowners and a $1.52 rate for commercial payers. The base education amount, which is used in the formula for calculating the actual rate property taxpayers are assessed, will go up to $9,382.

Taxpayers who earn less than $47,000 a year will see no change in their income sensitized rebate under the plan. Middle class taxpayers who earn between $47,000 and $90,000 and get a partial subsidy will see a slight adjustment in rebates, according to Rep. Janet Ancel, chair of the committee. The slope has been extended and now includes people who own houses valued at $250,000. (Previously, the cutoff was $200,000.)

The panel lowered the limit on the total amount in income sensitivity rebate money that can be distributed to an individual household from $8,000 to $6,000.

In addition, the base income rate will go from 1.84 percent to 1.9 percent. Raising that rate, Ancel says, will address growing inequity in the Education Fund.

“This bill reduces the impact, and more fairly distributes the impact as compared to the recommendation from the administration,” Ancel said.

The tax reduction comes from changes to the formula numbers and $6 million in surplus funds.

School budgets came down from the anticipated high of 3.8 percent to 3 percent, Ancel said, and gave the committee more leeway (roughly $8 million) to reduce the rates.

Nevertheless, spending went up 3 percent, she said, “and that 3 percent is going to show up in the rates, but we need to recognize the fact that they went up less than anticipated. That’s the work of school boards.”

Gov. Peter Shumlin and the Vermont Department of Taxes recommended a residential tax increase of 7 cents next year unless school boards could significantly reduce spending.

The statewide property tax is going up 5 cents this year.

Anne Galloway

Leave a Reply

25 Comments on "Panel reduces statewide property tax increase from 7 cents to 4 cents, commercial payers to see 8 cent increase"

1000

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Jim Christiansen
2 years 6 months ago

Anne,

Do you have a projection from the legislature for next years rate of increase? Is our legislature making a wise choice reflective of spending trends, or are they simply taking the steam out of a hot issue before facing the voters at election time?

Thanks!

Wayne Andrews
2 years 6 months ago

These legislators just took the blade out of my back a little and stuck it into my plumbers back a little more.

Jamie Carter
2 years 6 months ago

Unfortunately politicians in general do not know how to think outside of the box and create actual change. The property tax as a way of paying for education is archaic. Time for a change…

And if Mrs Ancel and collegues can not figure out what that change should be they should be changed to someone who can.

Mark Milazzo
2 years 6 months ago

Anne:
Did you mean Non-Residential vs Commercial?
Mark

Moshe Braner
2 years 6 months ago
“they agreed to a 98 cent tax on the base rate for homeowners and a $1.52 rate for commercial payers.” – That sentence mixed together two concepts of “rate” and that may be confusing. It should be emphasized that that would be the actual rate for commercial payers, no matter what the local spending (no skin in the game), while homeowners would pay that “base rate” multiplied by the ratio of local per-student spending to the “base education amount”. In some towns, the homeowners end up paying a higher rate than the commercial payers. Moreover, the percentage increase in that… Read more »
Steve Allen
2 years 6 months ago

This change would provide some welcome relief to homeowners. Unfortunately, it will have the opposite effect on many households that rent. A higher “non-residential” tax rate will increase the cost burden on Vermont’s 75,000 rental units. When taxes increase on an apartment property, the direct result is higher rents. I hope the Committee will consider this inequity in their quest for fairness.

Dave Bellini
2 years 6 months ago

Too bad Howard Jarvis is dead.
Vermont needs property tax reform that sets concrete caps on how much home owners can be shaken down.
.
How about capping property taxes at a percentage of the homes’ fair market value? That would be too simple.
.
Imagine a world where everyone know exactly how much government cost and where every penny was spent. That would make the public more powerful and what politician or political party wants that?

Kathy Callaghan
2 years 6 months ago

Another business-friendly move, as New York State runs enticing ads on TV to move your business there and get a 10 year tax abatement.

Bradford Little
2 years 6 months ago
Property tax is a philosophical abomination! The ONLY measure of what a person can spend on wants, needs, and taxes is how much MONEY they have available or as income……NOT the value of their property!All states are struggling with this. At least Vermont has incorporated an “income sensitivity factor” ( unless you don’t live in the state ) Taxing inanimate, non-income producing “stuff”…property, objects, etc. is reminiscent of feudalism! It is painful, unjust and destructive in the sense that people of means as well as some commercial enterprise entities will leave. Income and consumption taxes may be equally painful but… Read more »
Karl Riemer
2 years 6 months ago
If only life were so simple. Taxing inanimate, non-income producing “stuff” is how turning actual, spendable, taxable cash into mansions and estates, thereby avoiding paying taxes, is avoided. It’s the diametric opposite of “reminiscent of feudalism”. An argument can be made about property tax efficiency and progressivity, but calling it “a philosophical abomination” is not an argument, it’s a pretense. All this hyperventilation about being mean to rich people, by, for instance, discouraging them from buying property in Vermont as a tax dodge, doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. The owners of seldom-occupied luxury houses are not the backbone… Read more »
Bradford Little
2 years 6 months ago
I was born in Vermont. I have lived an worked in Pennsylvania for 45 years. I am not wealthy. My Vermont property, inherited, was hand built by my parents……unfortunately/fortunately it is lake property. The valuation has increased dramatically….. so has the tax. I am retired….fixed income. I love my native state…. but the increasing tax burden may eventually force me to give up. I am NOT looking for a way to avoid paying taxes in Vermont…..I pay the gasoline tax, sales tax, utility usage taxes, and would gladly pay any other kind of consumption tax for services…fire, police , whatever.… Read more »
J. Scott Cameron
2 years 6 months ago

You are left with two choices – get poor from paying taxes or get rich from selling land.

Moshe Braner
2 years 6 months ago
The property tax is an abomination that is mean to poor people, not rich. The types of property being taxed are NOT purchased as a way to avoid paying taxes. On the contrary: on the average, richer people pay a smaller percentage of their income for real estate than poorer people do. More of their income goes to other, untaxed, assets (such as investments that result in “capital gains” which are taxed at a lower rate than “earned income”). Had their full income been subject to an income tax, that portion of it would not have been available for the… Read more »
Valerie Mullin
2 years 6 months ago

Schools did their job and held the line but Montpelier didn’t. 8% increase is for Non-residential which also means businesses and landlords (rent increases) if I understand correctly. This is a shifting of the problem, not addressing the problem. Businesses are running out of reasons to stay in Vermont……..

J. Scott Cameron
2 years 6 months ago

You understand correctly.

Jay Kearns
2 years 6 months ago
Valerie is right on the mark. These discussions and the proposed legislation to “juggle” the costs of education are just clouding the real problem which is: Vermont education costs are totally out of control. Many local school districts, mostly those who are “gold towns” have done a reasonable job of controlling costs. Others have spent (and have an incentive to do so) heavily under Act 60/68. In the meantime, the State Ed Dept. and the Supervisory Districts (on which we have no vote) have constantly increased spending. Emphasis MUST be focused on reducing costs at these levels, not just coming… Read more »
Tim Hollander
2 years 6 months ago

Are we taxpayers supposed to applaud this?

Bill Olenick
2 years 6 months ago

Bait and switch.
Go for the high rate, settling for the lower rate, which is the rate they wanted in the first place.
The voters are entitled, and empowered, to play the same game at the ballot box, come re-election day…
Give em’ and inch they’ll take a mile.

Steve Allen
2 years 6 months ago

Under this proposal, the education tax rate for renter occupied housing is 55% higher ($1.52) than owner occupied housing ($0.98). That is an enormous difference, and the inequity is worsened because the majority of Vermont’s lower income population is dependent on rental housing. Both types of housing (renter and owner occupied) have an income sensitized relief program, but to have the basic tax rates so different seems extremely inequitable.

Moshe Braner
2 years 6 months ago

See my comment above. Your comment helps demonstrate my point that those “rates” were not explained well.

Paul Lorenzini
2 years 6 months ago

They will add double the amount they cut this year, next year, ye hah!

J. Scott Cameron
2 years 6 months ago

OK, let me see if I understand.

First, the VT legislature proposes to raise taxes on commercial taxpayers (AKA, “the few”) so that it can lower taxes on homeowners (AKA, “the many”).

Concurrently, the Vt legislature (pushed by the Governor) proposes to raise the minimum wage, a ‘tax’ that will, again, fall only on the Vermont commercial sector.

How long do Vermont politicians and the special interests to whom they cater think the Golden Goose can keep laying eggs?

Helen Keith
2 years 6 months ago
The homestead property tax rates even with income sensitivity are way too high already for people with low earned income or fixed income – pretty soon investors will be buying up those little, un-fancy homes people have worked hard to acquire thinking they might be somewhat permanent. I support positive outcomes for children and appropriate sources of tax revenues to support them and am willing to pay for our SD decisions and have equalized statewide opportunities, just not from property taxes. The property revenue sources used now have unintended negative consequences and in my opinion are bad social policy.
Paul Lorenzini
2 years 6 months ago
Property tax in VT is akin to lot rent at the trailer park. If you think you own anything here, think again. You are only a temporary occupant of the parcel that you inhabit, for the crap headed idea of the common good. Your children will never be able to afford to live on your property in perpetuity because the taxes will drive them out of consideration. Don’t forget they will be busy paying off the $17.4 TRILLION and rising national debt, that here in VT the politicians that walk in lockstep with the regime in DC, would lead us… Read more »
wpDiscuz
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Panel reduces statewide property tax increase from 7 cents to 4 cents..."