in the State House of Representatives
on March 30, 2016, by a vote of 98-45
. Purpose: The primary function of this bill is to set the property tax rates for FY17, as well as to take care of some miscellaneous educational items. .
Analysis: Those voting YES supported reducing the the nonresidential property tax for commercial property and second homes. from $1.59 to $1.53 per $100 of assessed property value. For homesteads, they set the property yield at $9,701 and the income yield at $10,870. For those scratching your head and asking what does that mean, well, that’s kind of the point (see related Op-Ed below). It translates into a 0.2¢ increase for residential property tax payers, and in total, a $7.9 million proper tax increase ($4 million coming from residential and $3.9 million from non-residential taxpayers). It is notable the education fund has a projected deficit of $17.9 million for FY17. (See JFO Report, line 23) .
Those voting NO opposed the tax increase, noting that if the spending thresholds in Act 46 had been left in place Vermont homeowners would have experienced a cut in property taxes. .
As Recorded in the House Journal, Wednesday, March 30, 2016:“Shall the bill pass? was decided in the affirmative. Yeas, 98. Nays, 45.” (Read the Journal, p. 717-720.)
The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network. Read more...