Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
aPtH~~,~ emoran u m .6 . , <br />2- 9 <br />• • <br />s in <br />r - o - i~orth Carolina Association of County Commissioners <br />goy '' ` ,~~y :Llailing.9ddress: P. O. Box 1488, Raleigh, NC ?760?-1.338 <br />~~ COUNT Go Street.-Iddress: Albert Coates Local Government Center, 21~ N. Dawson Street, Raleigh, NC ?7603 <br />Telephone: 919-71~-?893 • Fax: 919-733-106 • Email: NCACC@NCACC.org <br />Home Page Address: http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/NCACC <br />BOARD AGENDA #W-21-98 <br />TO: OFFICERS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS <br />FROM: C. RONALD AYCOCK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR <br />DATE: APRIL 16,1998 <br />SUBJECT: HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION LEGISLATION <br />One of the priorities of the House majority for the 1998 short session is a change in the <br />Homestead Exemption. In a caucus held prior to the Special Session, the House <br />Republicans approved a proposal to increase the value of property excluded under the <br />Exemption from $20,000 to $2,000 and to increase the income threshold below which <br />taxpayers qualify for the Exemption from $15,000 to $2,000. The cost estimate on this <br />change in $8.7 million. These are, of course, county revenues. <br />Two bills now before the Legislature would change the Homestead Exemption. <br />House Bi1137, introduced by Rep. Cary Allred (Alamance), would increase both the <br />exclusion and the income threshold to $25,000. The. bill provides no reimbursement to <br />local governments. H37 has been discussed in the House Finance Committee and has <br />been referred to a subcommittee for further review. <br />Senate Bi11421, introduced by Sen. Roy Cooper (Nash), would provide for a statewide <br />referendum on a Constitutional Amendment to ~ve individual counties the authority to <br />determine the amount of the exclusion and the i come threshold under the Homestead <br />Exemption. The bill was approved in the Senate in late April and is currently in the <br />House Committee on Ways and Means. <br />Historically, the Association has supported periodic increases in both the amount of <br />property excluded from taxation under the exemption and the amount of annual income <br />below which a taxpayer qualifies for the exemption. We have also, however, supported <br />efforts to see that the state reimbursed local governments for the revenue lost because of <br />the exemption. Prior to 1990, these efforts were successful, with the state absorbing ~0% <br />($8 million) of the loss and reimbursing counties that amount. <br />