What about expenses Tad?
According to a recent article in the Deseret News, written by Tad Walch (
True,
- 91% report an increase infrastructure need from FY05 to FY06
- 44% anticipate a significant increase of infrastructure spending needed FY07
- 86% report an increase cost of employee benefits for FY06
- 73% report increase service needs for new development for FY06
These statistics illustrate the challenges that many cities and towns are faced with. Can cities better address these challenges during good economic times? Definitely. But does that mean cities and towns are flush with cash? Definitely not.
2 comments:
What about revenues, Neil? I have reveiwed some interesting ideas that have been around awhile about funding for municipal services. The concept is called "land value taxation" or LVT. As I understand it, the basic idea is to reduce or eliminate the property tax component that is assessed on structures and replace it with a higher levy on the land itself.
The rationale is that the value of land is created by the community and government. As such, that value should be taxed because of it's nexus in the community. For example, a 9-block square block area begins to develop as a city in every block but the central one. As the development takes place the central square, because of it's location in relation all of the other development becomes more and more valuable even though the landowner makes no contribution whatsoever to the creation of that value.
In theory, this LVT taxation approach creates a compelling incentive for land to be developed. And, it removes the disincentive for large scale development because the improvements to land are not subject to property tax.
What do you think? And, is this a concept the ULCT should ponder for possible legislative action? Given the constitutional foundation for property tax in Utah, it may be a long tough row to hoe to make a change like this. But, the proponents tout LVT as the solution to providing a stable, sufficient funding source for municipal services.
I admit I'm not entirely familiar with LVT. I think I do however, understand a lot of the reasoning behind the concept. From what I understand LVT has been utilized in some communities primarily in Pennsylvania and Maryland, and it seems to be more popular internationally.
I do think the concept is interesting and has some merit. I think LVT seems to become much more complex in more rural areas. The League, of course, is willing to discuss any revenue generating policy that diversifies city's revenue sources and also provides flexibility. The practicality of possible legislative action is another thing..and something either Roger or Lincoln would be better able to address. I’ll try to dig up a little more research or information regarding LVT.
Post a Comment