Maplewood City Assistant Manager Anthony Traxler explained in an email to 40 South how the measure city officials approved to be on the April municipal elections ballot would effect home owners. The proposal for an increased tax to cover trash and recycling pickup would add $0.10 per $100,000 assessed valuation.
The current residential rate is $0.218 per $100 assessed valuation. This rate was passed by Maplewood voters in 2004. See the 2004 resolution here.
Traxler says the bottom line is that if the new tax is approved, it will cost residents $19.00 for every $100,000 of appraised value. If it’s not passed, a fee billed to residents would cost $8.16 per month or $97.92 annually. “Therefore, the tax would definitely be cheaper for residents vs. the user fee option,” he said.
He said in the council meeting on Tuesday that if passed, the new rate would cover the expenses for 10 years.
He included in the email a flyer from St. Louis County that explains how the 10 cent increase would equate to $19.00 per year for every $100,000 of appraised value. The highlights are Traxler’s. See the flyer here.
Hmm… another tax hike. I actually don’t mind paying more for trash pickup. It’s an essential service. Although it does seem odd that if we don’t vote for it, we’ll end up paying even more.
My broader point about taxes is this: I’ve lived here for 11 years, and in that time there have been seven tax hikes/bond issues for Maplewood. I have voted for all of them, but it’s way too many. I will have to think long and hard about voting for another one if another one shows up soon.
This is a lovely town in a lovely place, but let’s remember it is a very small town. Eight thousand people live in this town – that’s it. And we’re not wealthy, certainly compared to our neighbors of Webtser, Brentwood, Richmond Heights and Clayton.
Why do we have a huge library, at a huge expense, plus three years fixing the flooding in that building. The kids don’t go. They get laptops when they go to school.
Here are some facts that might help people process this. Your property tax goes to several categories, but they basically break up like this
75.5% Schools
13.5% City Costs
1% Roads
12% Non-Maplewood stuff (state, county, etc)
This increase in relation to these percentages is 0.02%
Maplewood has had free trash and recycling for almost 20 years
Why is this based on home value … it seems it should be a fixed cost, not one that punishes someone with a home that is valued higher (who also already pays more taxes/upkeep/etc)
I already pay $2900.00 + in taxes. Increase would put me to close to $3000.00 I would be paying in taxes! Thus approximately 25% of my monthly income will be going to St. Louis County Taxes!
That is about $250 a month for property taxes. That amount added to a house payment makes me wonder who is buying homes here in Maplewood. Or how some of our senior citizens can continue to pay these kinds of amounts on their fixed incomes.
You make $12000 a year?
I don’t understand how they come up with this total of $19.00. If I take .10 x 100,000 I get $100.00 which is no where closet to $19.00. How do you come up with an odd number when you are working with 2 even numbers?
The assessed value, per St. Louis County Department of Revenue, is 19% of the appraised value of residential property.
Sounds like extortion to me. Accept a tax increase or pay more anyway. Maplewood never saw a tax increase they did not like. The people of Maplewood get it in the end either way. I just wonder if the mayor and the council will ever understand that our pockets are NOT endlessly deep. Probably not………………………..
Our home values have been going up and also our property taxes. I can understand the need for this but how about lowering some of the other taxes? Every year has been a struggle for me to come up with the money.
The tax portion of the tax that goes directly to the City of Maplewood is less than 10% of your total property bill and that rate has risen about 1% in the last 10 years. It is also dependent on the County’s appraisal/assessment of your property. The other recipients of property tax revenue are listed on your County tax bill or you can find them online at https://revenue.stlouisco.com/Collection/YourTaxRates.aspx
If you are over 65, you might qualify for a tax rebate. Go to https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/human-services/aging-services/property-tax-credit.cfm
to see if you meet the qualifications.
*sigh* I am disappointed by the misleading math shown or implied by our Mayor in his reply in the other post and by Mr. Traxler here in this article.
A $0.10 per $100 assessed valuation increase would be $19 per $100,000 of appraised value as correctly explained above. But what’s not clearly being said is that this would be in addition to the already $0.218 per $100 assessed valuation. So the new rate if the measure passes would actually be $0.318 per $100 assessed valuation or $60.42 per $100,000 of appraised value. The current rate being $41.42 per $100,000 of appraised value.
The median value of a home in Maplewood today according to Zillow is $162,000. Thus the median annual tax for trash pickup will be $97.88 if this new tax measure passes. The current annual tax at this median home price is $67.10.
I guess we are to assume if the measure does not pass they continue to collect the $0.218 per $100 assessed valuation tax approved in 2004 and then also bill $97.92 annually? Making trash pickup cost $165.02 annually at today’s median home price ($162,000) if the measure fails.
Nut shell:
At today’s median Maplewood appraised value of $162,000 trash pickup currently costs $67.10. The new measure would add a new $30.78 to the current $67.10 if it passes for a total of $97.88 for a home appraised at $162,000.
If it does not pass, the median appraisal pays $67.10 in tax and are billed an additional $97.92 annually, totaling $162.02???
That is a good question to ask. Can you please clarify this as well Barry?
1. Your math is correct regarding the proposed property tax calculations.
2. I was only attempting to address the property tax increase and was not trying to represent or misrepresent that number as the total portion of property tax that goes to the solid waste fund.
3. I will need to clarify what the final cost to taxpayers would be. There is information that I need in order to definitively answer your question. For instance, I don’t believe that we are currently collecting the full amount that was approved in 2004 and I need to verify the amount currently being collected and how that would affect the rates that have been discussed. I am hoping to have the necessary information by the end of the week.
4. The city will publish an informational flyer and answer all questions soon so that the voters have the complete picture with which they can formulate their opinion of the tax request.
“I don’t believe that we are currently collecting the full amount that was approved in 2004 and I need to verify the amount currently being collected and how that would affect the rates that have been discussed.”
Well, if the full amount that was approved for the solid waste fund is not being collected, then why not? Where is it going? I’m sure the Maplewood citizens who approved this tax back in 2004 assumed it was being collected and going to that fund. Now you are saying the full amount approved is possibly NOT being collected and therefore we need to up the tax? I’m confused. I’m pretty certain that if a tax amount was approved to be added to our taxes in 2004, that the city of Maplewood would have collected it. So the question becomes, where is it going and why not stop applying it to something that is was not intended for? I’m sorry, but this just sounds “off” to me.
Yes, very misleading to state “it’s only $19.00 at $100,000 evaluation”. That is how they play the game to get people to vote for the tax. They should tell you what it is for the median appraised value for our city. Our elected officials should tell us what the total cost is based on the median appraised value. I also find it hard to believe that they have not been collecting the full amount that was approved in 2004. It all seems a little shady to me.