By STEVE SOUTHWELL

In May, voters within Lewisville ISD will go to the polls to decide whether to approve $737.6 million in bond financing for capital projects in the district.  While that dollar figure is large, the level of debt both before and after the election are very comparable to other local districts and districts of similar size to LISD.

Previous articles have explained the process by which the Facilities Advisory Committee evaluated the district’s facilities and needs, and proposed the 2017 bond program.

The Lewisville Texan Journal has obtained current debt information from the district as well as forecasted issues and tax rates for the bond package if it passes.  Here, the LTJ explains what the impacts will be if it passes, and how the district compares to other local school districts.

Quick school finance primer

Texas school finance is way more complicated than we can hope to explain here.  But to understand why bonds are used, it’s helpful to at least have a simplified view of the system.

In Texas, school districts have two major budgets with separate funding sources and legal expenditures.  The larger of the two budgets is the maintenance and operations budget which pays for things like teacher salaries, utilities, supplies, transportation, and basic maintenance.  The smaller one is the interest and sinking fund, which is used to pay off debt for the purchases of land, buildings, and equipment with useful lives of several years to decades.

That M&O budget is funded by local property taxes, the State of Texas, and to a much smaller extent the federal government. Local property taxes are capped by the state at $1.04 unless local voters approve more.  Lewisville ISD tried to raise that rate to $1.06 in 2010, but voters rejected it, and with shortfalls in state funding, the district had to reduce its teaching staff with contract buyouts for hundreds of teachers.  

Many taxpayers believe that when their home values go up, the district gets more money, but that is not the case.  The Texas Legislature switched to a formula in 2007 that cut the M&O tax rate in every school district by about a third, and set state aid to districts at a fixed amount per student.  The formula actually uses weighted average daily attendance, but for simplicity, what you need to know is that as the school district’s property tax collections go up, the state sends a smaller contribution to offset it.

Under certain scenarios, local tax dollars not only reduce state aid, but can flow to the state for use in other school districts.  Many school districts sued the state, arguing this is an unconstitutional statewide property tax, and that it takes away all local meaningful discretion on tax rates.

The I&S fund, on the other hand, is entirely funded by local taxpayers via the I&S portion of the tax rate.  If property values go up, there is a little discretion to lower the rates, so that the district collects just enough to pay that year’s debt payments and set aside a reserve just in case of an economic downturn or other emergent situation.  Beyond a point, any rise in property values is not a windfall for the district.  It can only be used to pay off existing debt, and the rate has to go down if too much would be collected.

In Lewisville ISD, that was the situation for the 2016/17 budget year.  Not only did property values grow, but the district refinanced some existing debt at lower interest rates, saving money and lowering required payments. The school board dropped the I&S portion of the tax rate from $0.4367 per $100 of valuation to $0.38.

State law does not allow that money to be used in the M&O budget at all.

There is a relationship between the M&O and I&S portions of the district’s budget. Investments in new buildings and equipment can drive savings on maintenance and utilities, compared to inefficient older facilities.  Conversely, sometimes new facilities require new personnel and add new costs.

Each year, property owners get a tax bill from the county that includes their city, county, and school district taxes.  Lewisville ISD’s current combined tax rate is $1.42 per $100.

Bond Sales

School districts borrow money by selling bonds.  Bonds are similar to a mortgage, but instead of having a single creditor like a bank, the bonds are sold in financial markets to investors.  They pay the district the face value of what the district needs to borrow.  In exchange, the district promises to pay back the amount it borrowed in yearly payments, plus interest.

Investors like to buy school district bonds because the State of Texas guarantees that the investors will get their money back.  The interest they earn on the bonds is exempt from federal income tax.  

Just like a prospective homeowner’s bank would check a credit score before writing a mortgage on a house, bond buyers consult credit rating agencies like Fitch, Moody’s or Standard and Poors to see how creditworthy a school district is.   Lewisville ISD’s most recent rating from Fitch is AA+, but because its bonds are guaranteed by the state’s Permanent School Fund, they are rated AAA, the highest rating offered.

These high credit ratings allow school districts like Lewisville ISD to borrow the money at lower rates than other borrowers.  Current forecasts use conservative estimates of 3.75% for any bonds sold in 2017, and 4.5% for bonds sold in subsequent years.  Hilltop Securities, the company assisting Lewisville ISD with the bond sale has written that market conditions now are actually for lower rates than these.

For long-term assets like buildings, Lewisville ISD pays back the bonds over 20 years.  It uses much shorter-term bonds for things with short lifespans.  For instance, the proposed bond package calls for 99.1 million for technology, so the district’s Chief Financial Officer Michael Ball has set up the repayment schedule so that $99.1 million in principal is paid back in the first five years.

Ball says that Lewisville ISD’s short repayment schedule on its bonds is the most responsible borrowing he has seen in his 20 years in school finance.  He said that other school districts finance bonds for longer.

In Texas, in order to sell bonds, a school district must first get approval from the voters. Once the voters approve an amount, the school district then figures out how much it needs to borrow each year to finance the construction and other projects it needs to do.  

Each year, before a district can sell bonds, it must first get approval from the Texas Attorney General by proving that it can pay back the money from that bond sale and all prior sales without raising its tax rate higher than $0.50 per $100 valuation.  

Current and future debt loads

Lewisville ISD currently owes about $1.09 billion in bond debt.  Much of that is from the 2008 bond authorization, but voters also approved bond elections in 2005 and 2001 and years prior.  The currently proposed bond authorization is for $737,550,000.

It would be incorrect to add the two amounts and say that Lewisville ISD will owe $1.82 billion if the bond election is passed.

The reason is that Lewisville ISD will not sell all of the bonds at once.  Current forecasts call for selling some each year for the next five years.  The school district also continues to make the payments on its existing debt at about $117 million per year.  Its current schedule has it paying off all of its existing debt by 2030.

The chart shows current indebtedness in blue, decreasing each year until it is paid off in 2030. The other colors on the right are the new debt that the 2017 bond election would authorize. Each year's issues are shown in a different color. (Data via LISD, chart by LTJ)
The chart shows current indebtedness in blue, decreasing each year until it is paid off in 2030. The other colors on the right are the new debt that the 2017 bond election would authorize. Each year’s issues are shown in a different color. By 2024, the district would owe less than it does currently.
(Data via LISD, chart by LTJ)

If the forecast sales and payments provided by Lewisville ISD are correct, then the district would hit its maximum outstanding debt amount in 2019.  That number would be approximately $1.43 billion.

These amounts are larger than most voters regularly deal with, so it can be useful to compare school districts, and look at the amount of debt per student and the ratio of debt to the property values.

Debt per student is shown for Lewisville ISD and comparison districts. The purple bar shows approximately where Lewisville ISD could be if the bond election passes.
Debt per student is shown for Lewisville ISD and comparison districts. The purple bar shows approximately where Lewisville ISD could be if the bond election passes. (Data via TEA FIRST and Texas Bond Review Board)

In the chart above, showing Lewisville ISD and some of the surrounding school districts for comparison, Lewisville is towards the lower end of the group with debt of $20,399 per student.  If voters approve the bonds, and they are sold as forecast, then debt per student would reach a high point of $26,676 per student in 2019, which is still on the low end of the group.

Student enrollment growth is highly correlated with debt per student.  In districts with rapid growth, more schools have to be built quickly. Lewisville ISD had 3.84 percent growth between 2010 and 2015.   

It is important to note that these figures were based on data from 2016 property tax values, and debt information from the Texas Bond Review Board.  The other districts may take on more debt or pay off debt in the coming years, so this is only valuable as a snapshot comparison.

Lewisville ISD is compared with other local districts for its debt to taxable value ratio. (Data via Texas Bond Review Board, and county tax appraisal districts)
Lewisville ISD is compared with other local districts for its debt to taxable value ratio. (Data via Texas Bond Review Board, and county tax appraisal districts)

Another helpful way to look at debt is as a percentage of taxable property value.  Right now, Lewisville ISD’s debt is 3.84 percent of the district’s total taxable property values of $30 billion.  It is forecast that by 2019, the district will have $36.6 billion in taxable values.  The higher the taxable values, the more ability a district has to pay off debt. Higher taxable values mean lower tax rates needed to pay off the debt.

Lewisville ISD is in the middle of the comparison group, which ranges from 1.36 percent for Carrollton Farmers Branch to 6.65 percent for Denton ISD.  Even though LISD’s debt will be going up, it is currently forecast that its debt-to-value ratio would go down to 1.67 percent due to rapid increases in taxable property values.

Tax Rates

Tax rates are set each year by the Board of Trustees, usually in August.  By this time, the appraisal district has a certified tax roll showing how much property value is available to be taxed.  

The real estate market in North Texas has been on a rapid rise in recent years.  Lewisville ISD forecasts its value growth at 9.5 percent for the coming year, and 6 percent the year after, declining to a conservative norm of 2 percent for the remaining years.  If these growth rates hold, and the bonds are sold on the schedule that Ball and the district forecast, then the district would raise taxes slightly in the first year from $0.38 to $0.387.  In 2019, it would go up to $0.4210, and climb a bit each year until it peaks in 2022 at $0.4465.

The forecast then shows the tax rate dropping a bit each year, coming back near the current tax rate around 2028, then taking a steep drop. History suggests it is likely the district will need another bond election in 8-10 years to take care of needs that develop after the bond authority is exhausted.

Senior citizens over 65 who have filed for the senior citizen exemption with the Denton Central Appraisal District will not see an increase in taxes, because their rates are frozen.

Uncertainty is met with oversight

Financial markets, interest rates, property values, enrollment growth and construction costs, all key to accomplishing the bond program’s objectives, have uncertainty.  A bond program is built on assumptions and forecasts, but situations can change.

The district’s elected trustees must individually approve each bond sale and each construction project or major purchase.  Ball, the district’s finance staff and consultants, and their construction staff will have to assess all of the factors each year and adjust the pace of the bond sales or projects either to avoid spending too much at once, or to take advantage of opportunities that may arise.  

At the meeting on Monday night, April 10, the board of trustees cancelled a package of construction projects previously scheduled for this summer. Those projects would have updated some campuses using some of the remaining bond money from the 2008 authorization.  However, Ball told the board that he felt that the costs of the work were higher than they should have been, and that the projects should be rebid.  Because of the timeframe for the projects that have to be done during the summer, they will not be able to be done this year, and will have to wait until next year.

With the number of projects in the current program, it is likely there will be shifts like this through the years that could affect the forecast debt and tax rates to a small degree.

At least two of the projects proposed with the bond program have been controversial to Lewisville residents.  The plans to retire Hedrick Elementary, and the plans to relocate College Street elementary have drawn opposition.  While the board and administration are likely to prefer to stick to the plans approved by the FAC, it is at least possible they could still modify plans based on political changes or stakeholder feedback.  

The 2008 bond program did have changes along the way.  For example, the district had planned to build two new middle schools, but only built one.  It had not planned to rebuild Lewisville High School. That project became necessary when updates needed to be done, but asbestos was found, and it increased the cost to the point where it was more cost-effective to rebuild.

For more information

The Lewisville Texan Journal put together a spreadsheet with all of the above information including comparisons of districts, paydown schedules for current and proposed bonds, all of the charts shown here, and links to sources for the information.

Lewisville ISD provided a chart showing forecast future borrowing, tax rates, and payments.

Lewisville ISD has a chart showing a comparison of its debt load with other school districts.

The Texas Bond Review Board has a searchable listing of school district debt.

For insight into Lewisville ISD’s student population and growth rates, you can review the 2016 Demographic Study.

Lewisville ISD has put together an informational website about the bond program here.

Prior articles:

Poll: How will you vote in Lewisville ISD bond election?

Lewisville ISD board approves placement of bond prop on ballot

2017 Municipal Elections

 

 

 

19 COMMENTS

  1. 1) This article is not telling the truth, “The 84th Legislature amended Texas Education Code, §42.101, to allow for the adjustment of compressed tax rates (CTR) for school districts that had 2005 maintenance and operations (M&O) tax rates below the maximum allowed M&O tax rate of $1.50 per $100 of valuation.”

    2) “Lewisville ISD tried to raise that rate to $1.06 in 2010, but voters rejected it, and with shortfalls in state funding, the district had to reduce its teaching staff with contract buyouts for hundreds of teachers. ” hmmmm sounds like they do not want to hire teacher.

    3) This bond is not building schools, it’s refurbishing. The only school that was rebuilt during the first bond was Marcus. Steven southwell , your politics is showing. Perhaps this journalist is ok with bias sources.

    Why is the board allowing the state to reduce our school funding?

    • “… the adjustment of compressed tax rates (CTR) for school districts that had 2005 maintenance and operations (M&O) tax rates below the maximum allowed M&O tax rate of $1.50…”
      Clear as mud. The bottom line is that across the state, each district lost about a third of its M&O taxation ability. We’re stuck at $1.04 for now.

      “hmmmm sounds like they do not want to hire teacher.”
      I’m pretty sure they would if they had the funding. The district and its board members continually advocate for better funding for the M&O side. Crowded classrooms are not something anyone likes to do.

      “This bond is not building schools, it’s refurbishing.”
      Per the package presented by the FAC and approved by the board, $205.7 million is for new facilities (exclusive of fine arts and athletics).

      “Why is the board allowing the state to reduce our school funding?”
      The Texas Legislature is superior to school districts. Districts must accept whatever state law dictates. They do fight it, and have fought it in court and with visits to legislators. But school districts are not sovereign.

  2. The Texas Comptroller has a really good site showing debt by district and compares that debt to the same size districts. Comparing Argyle debt to Lewisiville Debt is not an apples to apples comparison. Look at https://comptroller.texas.gov/transparency/local/debt/isd.php?isdname=Lewisville+ISD&isdsubmit=GO
    LISD has the highest debt in comparable sized districts and the second highest debt per student, second only to Frisco. Also, LISD debt has increased much faster than student growth.
    Compare apples to apples, not apples to kiwi.

    • There are numerous choices of districts to compare with. LISD chose these: https://www.lewisvilletexan.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/LISD-Debt-Comparison-of-Peers-as-of-8-31-2016.pdf
      (And they’re the second lowest of this list)

      We went with all of the surrounding districts that touch Lewisville ISD and added Dallas and Allen since we think residents will be more familiar with them.

      There are definitely a lot of variables in play here, including student growth rates, property and construction costs, where the districts are in their bond cycles, and total property values. Districts also have different mixes of residential and commercial properties, which can affect the tax rates.

      • In the interest of robust journalism, why not show the Comptroller chart in addition to just publishing the district’s comparison? Tell the full story.

        • We encourage readers to visit your link. However, we’ve not had the time to look over that data and confirm that it is up-to-date. We spent a couple of weeks on the data we used, and ended up making multiple revisions based on finding better and more up-to-date data.

  3. Excellent article. I’m a CPA, and you did a great job of explaining some complex issues. Bottom line – the state gets increased revenue from incremental M&O taxes coming from property value increases (the state simply reduces its payments to a district to offset the increased local revenues). The DISTRICT keeps its increased revenue from incremental I&S taxes coming from property value increases. This is what allowed LISD to decrease its I&S rate – they had a bigger tax base, so they could generate the same revenue with a lower rate.

    You are correct that these “buckets” – M&O and I&S – are separate and distinct, and the district can’t just move funds from one to the other.

    LISD built a LOT of buildings 20 years ago – that’s why the renovations and “life cycle” items in this bond package are almost $250 million. We do have to take care of the buildings that we have, whether or not student enrollment is growing rapidly.

    Thank you for a well-written, informative article.

  4. M&O has nothing to do with the I&S , they are complete separate. You can only have reduce payment if the state allows its based on your Interest and sinking debt obligations , that is why the bond was rated as AA+ and the CFO has stated the I&S will rise to the highest amount at 44.65.

    Yes Admin and and Carol , I am going to call out your B.S and lies because the information you left out was http://www.lisd.net/cms/lib010/TX01918037/Centricity/Domain/7044/CAFR_2015_16.pdf non audited version that explains exactly what the bond is, the chances for financing . The debt obligations that are needed to be met. The cost of each contract , those whom are contracting with.
    “In May 2008, voters approved a $697.7 million bond package designated to finance facility needs
    through 2015. All authorized bonds as of August 31, 2015 have been issued. The District continues
    to enjoy excellent bond ratings. The District’s bonds presently carry very favorable ratings as
    follows:
    Standard and Poor’s “AA+”
    Fitch Investor Service “AA+”

    LISD has never tried to advocate for a higher M&O , that’s a complete lie. There was more tax money spent to pass capital investments in news letter then raising the general funds. Just to protect property tax on appraisal values not the schools. That the districts fault for not fighting against the educational allotments and the formula in the guarantee yield rate.

    Your M&O does not increase your house value twice the amount, that’s just simple not true.
    “Delinquent taxes are prorated between maintenance and debt service based on rates adopted for the year of the levy. Allowances for uncollectible taxes within the General and Debt Service Funds are based on historical experience in collecting taxes. uncollectible personal property taxes are periodically reviewed and written off, but the District is prohibited from writing off real property taxes without specific statutory” Bottom line they both are equally the same in revenue , I&S is being sold to banking investment with yield rates and each investment and separate interest rates to each maturity vs the M&O ,which is your general funds however , neither of them can separately affect house value or annuity.

    Qualified School Construction Bonds (“QSCB’s”) are a tax-credit bonds authorized through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The QSCB program provides school districts the opportunity to issue interest free or very low interest bonds to finance the construction, rehabilitation, or repair of a public school facility or for the acquisition of land on which such a facility is to be constructed. Purchasers of QSCB’s issued in 2009 receive a federal tax credit instead of interest payments. We would only see this tax credit after the 20 year debt obligation was met to transfer credited amount into the general funds for school , therefore reducing tax rate amount.

    Carol I could not care if your a CPA. I have MBA working with JP Mortgage Chase in compliance for mortgaging, liquidation process and refinance . This bond is ok…. but your selling it as if your a fiduciary and this bond is sound investment. For that reason , I am saying its wrong and someone is benefiting off of tax money. You can review the Fund CP0647 Capital projects , Obligation funds, Textpool, Textprime , East West Bank MM which has a Market value, Per value a separate interest packed into this bond.
    Bonds are a scumming way for banks to profit from your tax interest rates in each contract. You also have the Fed year curve fund on Federal Treasury interest rates that can affect the bond refinance which is at 3.0% . I would compare this bond at as AA+ to a CDO mutual fund that fluctuates with uncertainty because it has a dependent results on population, house value, mortgages , Commercial input, Commercial equity and Commercial Taxes. Your 401k has more protection vs a capital project fund on contractual management. I would audit any stock option any employee had tied to each capital investment. The only bond that I see as a sound interest is a municipal bond 5178406RO Las Vegas valley river. Only $22 million in Federal agency coupon securities. The math does not check out, your monthly payment for the bond is ridiculously low valued from reality. Your passing this bond just like the 2008 bond passing that affected my first tax dollars. Your not telling 100% the truth on the real purpose. This bond also includes a contract in Plano with a construction firm for reconstructing at a higher rate with little adjustment. Majority of these contract adjustments after purchase is astonishing from $225 million dollars only $10 million was saved on adjustment value.

    -rate will remain at $1.04 per $100 valuation through 2016-17.
    -The District will not be subject to Chapter 41 recapture.
    -Due to increases in taxable property values of 9.5 percent, State funding is expected to decrease to offset the
    -increase in local tax revenues.
    -Student enrollment growth and resulting average daily attendance is expected to increase by approximately 0.4 percent.

    “At August 31, 2016, the carrying amount of the District’s deposits (cash, certificates of deposit, and interest-bearing savings accounts included in temporary investments) was $39,608,907 and the bank balance was $40,941,773. At year end, the District held $40,878 in petty cash. The District’s deposits at August 31, 2016 were entirely covered by FDIC insurance or by pledged collateral held by the District’s agent bank in the District’s name. ” The district does have petty cash that is has not used, but pledge as collateral . Rather then using the money to invest in its own project however , this could also be due to regulatory laws.
    The only reason why we are stuck at 1.04 it due to the fact the school is selling off the banks…. to prevent further tax increase . You rather sell off to debt then increase your local schools. ” The 84th Legislature amended Texas Education Code, §42.101, to allow for the adjustment of compressed tax rates (CTR) for school districts that had 2005 maintenance and operations (M&O) tax rates below the maximum allowed M&O tax rate of $1.50 per $100 of valuation.” Your context is making it seem as if the school has zero choice in its own tax rate which is not true based on Texas law. FISD M&O was only frozen for 3-4 years vs 10 years in LISD.

    Yes you are correct the state funding always decreases when local tax increase, That’s not due to property value, that’s due to commercial rates. You keep talking about the residential but not the
    business aspect of each value that pays into our schools system. Whom might be profiting from these bonds.

    • You wrote: “LISD has never tried to advocate for a higher M&O , that’s a complete lie. “

      As we mentioned in the story, Lewisville ISD did hold a tax rate election in 2010 that would have increased the M&O rate from $1.04 to $1.06. We have tons of links to that coverage, as we linked in the story above. Please visit this link: http://www.lewisvilletexan.com/xoops/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1823

      Our point is that we’re trying to explain that the M&O tax rate is separate from this bond issue. The district could always go back to the voters on that if they wanted, but the reality is that it’s harder to pass an M&O increase than it is a bond election.

  5. The future debt load chart is very misleading and you don’t consider patterns from past bond frequency or amounts. As a result, the likelihood of the future debt load going down as explained and shown in the chart is one sided. History tells us that LISD will have another bond election within 10-years and if that bond passes, the total debt will increase by around $550mm and taxes will need to increase to cover it. If you wanted to be transparent, you should have shown a historical chart starting with the 2001 bond so that folks would see that the trend line never goes down, it has actually been increasing with each bond election.

    • In the story, we noted the prior bond elections in 2001, 2005, and 2008, and included this paragraph:
      “The forecast then shows the tax rate dropping a bit each year, coming back near the current tax rate around 2028, then taking a steep drop. History suggests it is likely the district will need another bond election in 8-10 years to take care of needs that develop after the bond authority is exhausted.” (emphasis added.)

      We may yet update the debt load chart if we can find reliable data for prior year ending balances, but it would be irresponsible of us to insert our assumptions about future bond issues into the chart, beyond what is being proposed for 2017.

  6. “Our point is that we’re trying to explain that the M&O tax rate is separate from this bond issue. The district could always go back to the voters on that if they wanted, but the reality is that it’s harder to pass an M&O increase than it is a bond election.”

    Then this article is pro bond and pro political. you proved my point. I did read your article. You left out many facts. It easier to sell out to the banks then explain the purpose for general funds . Your not going to win the argument when I can list , detail and audit every single capital investment that’s included in the bond that you left out.

    My suggestion to the district would be to focus on the M&O and find a better compromise.
    The district can pass HB5 , then they district can focus on a better M&O. Morality is never the easy,
    just how its not easy to audit JP Morgan chase with a team of lawyers.

    My suggestion , rather then trying to persuade the public as being pro bond and risk ethic violations,You should write an article on the education allotments in the Texas education code and how to better improve state funding.

    • This story is not written to be pro-bond. The Lewisville Texan Journal has not taken a position on the matter. Our goal was to find and present data to put the numbers in context and help readers understand how it would work. It is up to the voters to decide whether the numbers seem reasonable or not.

  7. I am all for improvement of our schools, but there has been no serious debate over this. A four month discussion by a select few for a borrowing of this size ($737.5M) is just not enough. I would like to know the details of exactly what went into each line item rather than just a broad summary. Also, I do not agree that we need to spend on some of the items included. It is warranted that LISD have a genuine public discussion on this at a line item level. Secondly, the bond proposal need to be broken down, so that citizens can specifically vote for the items they approve rather than a carte blanc approval for $737 million. I propose the voters really need to think this through as most voters will end-up paying significant additional amount in taxes each year for the next 20 plus years. I personally will be voting against this, as the bond proposal is being rushed through without adequate discussion and without the option of approving/disapproving additional taxes on an individual project level.

  8. your such a lair .Everyone is using this article as pro bond for an argument.
    Even the candidate that are being pro bond or anti bond, deserve to be reported to the Texas ethics commission.

  9. $16 MONTHLY TAX INCREASE NOT TRUE

    There’s one thing missing from this discussion, and that is what the bond will cost monthly. Yes the rate increases are discussed but what do they mean. The district and school board say that the “worst case” will be $16 increase for the average house. We’ll, that is not true. Here are the facts based upon LISD’s reports:
    Average house price in 2016 in LISD: $309,763
    Here’s the math LISD used: $309,763/100 x (0.4465{2022 rate} – 0.38{2017 rate})/12 = $17.17/month
    Their $16 rate was based upon tax rates for a $700 M bond. But this is not the error I referring to. If you look at the math, they are applying the tax rate of 2022 to a house value of 2016, yet their payment calculations on based on house values for 2022.

    According to LISD projections for increased house values, here’s the true math:
    Avg Value Annual I&S Monthly Tax Increase
    House Increase I&S Rate Tax I&S Tax from 2017
    2016 $309,763 0.0% $0.4367 $1,353 $113
    2017 $339,190 9.5% $0.3800 $1,289 $107 $-
    2018 $359,542 6.0% $0.3870 $1,391 $116 $9
    2019 $377,519 5.0% $0.4210 $1,589 $132 $25
    2020 $392,620 4.0% $0.4349 $1,708 $142 $35
    2021 $404,398 3.0% $0.4383 $1,772 $148 $40
    2022 $412,486 2.0% $0.4465 $1,842 $153 $46

    So the truth is, taxes will not go up only $16/month for the average house, but $46. That is almost 3x their claims.

    • Thanks Peter. It seems that you may have a point here. Let me look into this.

      At first glance, I think it may split the difference a bit, since property tax value growth always includes both inflation of existing properties and new properties.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here