To: Michele NeSmith From: Ashley Meggitt Re: TELs Date: 9 ...



To: Michele NeSmith From: Ashley Meggitt Re: TELs Date: 9/8/2006

UTAH

Main Features of the Limit:

1989, Statute, Spending

Spending Growth is limited by formula that includes growth in population, and inflation.

Overall: Null Report for TELs effects on counties

• TEL applies only to the state

• No local government TEL

• Local Governments have not had to cut programs and services due to the TEL

• There have not been any shifts the state has made to local governments due to the TEL

• TEL has not caused any general problems

MICHIGAN

Main Features of the Limit:

1978, Constitution, Revenue

Revenue limited to 1% over 9.49% of the previous year’s state personal income.

Overall: Negative Report for TELs effects on Counties.

• Headlee Amendment, 1978, limited them to taxing 9.49% of personal income (contradictory to info above).

• Problems for Counties

▪ Must roll back milleage levy if the taxing unit’s equalized value increases over the rate of inflation (excluding new construction, improvements or losses).

▪ 1994 Constitutional Amendment, approved by voter, freezes property taxes: property taxes can only increase by the rate of inflation or 5, whichever is less.

-tax rate is “uncapped” when homes are sold, and taxable value catches up to the taxable value, this is termed a “pop-up.” (see email attached)

▪ TABOR-like constitutional amendment which would limit revenue taken into the state to 2006 revenue number, plus a small inflation factor

-Counties would have to take all special assessments, all multi year indebtedness to voters for approval (even copier rentals).

-Hoping it stays off ballot! Likely to be kicked off for fraudulent signatures!

NORTH CAROLINA

Main Features of the Limit:

1991, Statute, Spending

Spending is limited to 7% or less of total state personal income

Overall: Null report for TELs effects on counties.

• Reported not having a TEL (contrary to info above)

• In Theory, limited to 1.5 per 100 but there are many exemptions= “meaningless” ex:-no limit in taxing for social services and schools

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download