View Single Post
Old 11-14-2013, 06:46 PM   #73
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk View Post
I think they moved to a revenue neutral calculation in 2000. I'm not totally sure of the rationale. Could be because of the nature of a boom-bust economy - assessment numbers can swing wildly.
Thanks for the explanation.

Is it correct then that when the city proposing a 5% increase and that number is reported in the media they are referring to a revenue neutral increase so if all properties had the same proportion of value then tax would increase by 5%?

or

Are they saying that city reveues need to increase by 5% through a variety of means including property taxes.

I am assuming it is the former.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote