On page 2 of Jan Klein's April 15, 2013 Proposed Final Budget, her own numbers show the millage to be 27.67 mills.
Through a Right To Know to the PA Department of Education, the millage is being shown as 23.05 mills. Also, there is a difference of $1.725 million in approx. tax levy for Tax Rate Calculations.
On the State form from the State
Approx. Tax Levy for Tax Rate Calculation: $61,863,271
On the State form to the State
Approx. Tax Levy for Tax Rate Calculation: $60,137,898
WHAT IS GOING ON? Are there two sets of books? Isn't that FRAUD???
16 comments:
It doesn't even match the Preliminary Budget sent to the PDE.
http://www.mtlsd.org/district/budget/stuff/a02_preliminary_budget_2013_14.pdf
I am really confused.
Elaine
There should be a special meeting for Ms. Klein to do nothing else but explain her budget(s).
And, she should have paper copies and all kinds of audio visual aids with her.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive” - Sir Walter Scott
2:17, we did have meetings like that, hosted by Mr. Fraasch, and we know what happened to him when he tried to alert the community about where it was headed.
Look back at Bloglebo, Reallebo, letters to the editor at the Almanac and here on Elaine's blog. There were some people that would've had him tarred, feathered and run out of town (sound familiar) if it were only legal.
Take a look at the assessed value difference on the Budget sent to the State and the proposed final budget posted to the District website. You will find the differences in assessed value will calculate to 23.05 mills when you adjust for the higher reassessment value and an approximate 96% tax collection rate. Look for Mount Lebanon to lower millage the same way USC did.
P. S. the assessed value in the February budget sent to the state is lower than the assessed value in the April budget on the district website. The number of appeals suggests the assessment value should be lower in the April budget than the February budget.
A lower assessed value would mean less incoming revenue than a higher assessed value given the same pillage... oooops... 'millage' rate, correct? (seems I have a smarmy spell check application)
To make up for declining assessed values due to appeals, they'll have to go to a higher millage rate to keep the books balanced, right?
2:17 PM, isn't that what the special Budget Forum was supposed to be for? When I asked for explanations, I was told everything was on the website.
2:44 PM, gee, when do you think the board was going to get around lowering the millage? Didn't Cappucci say there is no windfall?
This is so much like following the YSA payments. Every time you turn around, there is a different set of numbers. And Timmy and the board swear they're all correct.
Elaine
3:33 you didn't look at the magnitude of the upward change in assessed valuation. If you had looked you would understand the 27.67 mills needs to be reduced to 23.05 mills. 4.42 mills difference on a $200,000 house is a difference in property tax of $924 per year of overtaxation. An this overcharge was calculated by a highly paid individual that the board says they trust. Do you trust someone who overcharges you by $924 per year?
Who said the YSA paid all their bills?
A blogger wrote under the previous post "proposed Final Budget Posted":
"10:05 I'll try to answer your question as best I can using info from the Proposed Budget PDF (pages 9 and 13 of 24).
If I'm wrong, I hope someone will correct my numbers.
In 2012-13 the districts set millage rate was 27.1851.
Act 1 stipulates that due to the reassessment that can raise the mills only by 1.7% or to 27.642."
That's what I've always understood, the district was capped at a 1.7% increase to avoid a windfall from the reassessments. So the house you referred to could have seen their assessment go up to $500,000 it doesn't matter, the district can raise millage over last by 1.7%, plus apply for exemptions allowing them to go even higher. I don't see anything that makes them reduce millage to the 23.05 you offer. Could you show where it says that have to reduce the rate and by how much? I always thought that was true until I read the proposed final budget.
It's a revenue neutral adjustment to millage and THEN an increase allowed up to 1.7%.
Say the district got $100 million in real estate tax revenue last year at the 27.18 millage number. If the assessments go up by $10 million then the district would have to lower the millage rate on the new assessed value to make the revenue still be $100 million. And THEN they could raise the millage on that adjusted millage number by 1.7%
Make sense?
No it is not fraud, no it isn't a vast conspiracy, yes it is all legal and above board.
I am not a crook.
-Richard Nixon
November 17, 1973
Thank you 7:06, I originally thought that was the procedure, but then it sort of disappeared.
7:06, a couple of more questions if you please.
Back in 2002 didn't Baldwin Township ignore the windfall provision of that reassessment and residents sued and lost?
Plus, assuming you ate correct the windfall provision has no bearing on the district's expenditures. So if they correcoriginate for the windfall in property values then go up 1.7% from there, doesn't that leave them well short of the $83+ million they need to balance the budget?
Like Elaine, I'm now really confused.
What the public does not realize is that municipal and school district taxing bodies, if their budget for a reassessment year exceeds the revenue neutral/ anti-windfall millage allowance, can appeal to the local Court of Common Pleas for permission and receive court approval, and almost always do!
Revenue neutral and anti-windfall provisions in PA law alleged to protect taxpayers per-se is deception (fraud) in and of itself because it - the Common Pleas loophole - can ultimately financially benefit compensation of public employees, including legislators and jurists who make and enact such tag-on laws.
10:26 AM Is it not a big enough deal to get the "School Fraud Hotline" involved ? Or is it too much of a political hot potato ?
Post a Comment