Thank you for great reporting. I would describe the effective more as deficient, rather than making no sense, when looking at budget increases, since it merely fails to capture the revenue lost to tax relief beyond what was forecasted when setting last year’s 0.9236 tax rate. But it’s still quite relevant to the taxpayer when determining the increase to the average tax bill by the new proposed tax rate of 0.985.
I've since learned that the "effective rate" state code section designed to limit the tax impact on existing homeowners is not being interpreted in such a way as to actually do that. I apologize for assuming that "levy" was to be interpreted as "levy revenue," which would allow the code section to produce the effective rate it was designed to produce.
Thank you for great reporting. I would describe the effective more as deficient, rather than making no sense, when looking at budget increases, since it merely fails to capture the revenue lost to tax relief beyond what was forecasted when setting last year’s 0.9236 tax rate. But it’s still quite relevant to the taxpayer when determining the increase to the average tax bill by the new proposed tax rate of 0.985.
I've since learned that the "effective rate" state code section designed to limit the tax impact on existing homeowners is not being interpreted in such a way as to actually do that. I apologize for assuming that "levy" was to be interpreted as "levy revenue," which would allow the code section to produce the effective rate it was designed to produce.