The City Council is considering three alternatives to changing the tax-relief program for senior citizens and the elderly. Which alternative do you prefer, and why?

City Council should adjust the maximum income threshold for 100 percent exemptions by the amount that home values dropped from 2010 to 2014.

The City needs to care for it's elderly instead of trying to profit off them. The water, HRSD and trash collection fees are travesty enough.
No deferred taxes for inheritance to pay especially with an outrageous 8% interest on top of the taxes!

City Council should adjust the maximum income threshold for 100 percent exemptions by the amount that home values dropped from 2010 to 2014.

I believe we should go for Option 1, knowing that many living in this area are singles, mostly older divorced women trying to live alone, but still wanting to keep their home. Read the article by Janet Kidd Stewart in the Chicago Tribune, 2/13/15 talking about the "Grey Divorce" numbers that have doubled from 1990 -2013 with 30% of divorced women 62 & older living below the poverty line and that demographic group is growing....it's getting difficult just trying to pay the electric and water bills each month...they need all the tax relief they can get.

City Council should adjust the maximum income threshold for 100 percent exemptions by the amount that home values dropped from 2010 to 2014.

Eligibility should be based ENTIRELY on the income(s) of the name(s) on the title. Other residents could move out at any time. Their income should not enter the picture at all. The water bills are ridiculous. Why do we get charged $70. for a new trash can?

City Council should adjust the maximum income threshold for 100 percent exemptions by the amount that home values dropped from 2010 to 2014.

City Council should adjust the income threshold for 100 percent exemption to 60 percent of the city’s median household income ($62,855).

The purpose of this program is to help those truly in need to stay in their homes until they are no longer able to for other than tax reasons. This is not a program to help the heirs of those people in need. Thus, deferring the taxes on the needy until the property changes ownership, and charging an interest rate on those deferred taxes at an equivalent rate to that which the City pays on its debt, is most fair and equitable to all, while still accomplishing the purpose of the program.

City Council should adjust the maximum income threshold for 100 percent exemptions by the amount that home values dropped from 2010 to 2014.

I believe option 1 is the best for everyone. I can not afford to pay these taxes. I live off social security and that is not much. I want to stay in my home and I need this help!

I propose a different alternative and have explained my suggestion below.

This program should be eliminated.

I propose a different alternative and have explained my suggestion below.

Having lived in both Florida and California, I have seen other alternatives that bear consideration. In Florida, there is a homestead exemption for long-term residents. In California, home values are frozen for the duration of ownership, with new assessments performed at the time of sale. Both are designed to allow the elderly to stay in their homes, if they have budgeted properly.

I propose a different alternative and have explained my suggestion below.

Option 1, modified - first level of relief 90%, rather than 100% exemption. Everyone pays something.

I propose a different alternative and have explained my suggestion below.

I prefer Option 1 because it is based on facts not an arbitrary percentage of the Median Household Income, and I also prefer a tax freeze not a tax deferral. Option 1 is the fairest of all 3 Options as it helps the most people in the 100% exemption category. These are the ones that the program should be geared to help i.e. those that need help the most. Additionally, it caps the maximum income that one could get even a 20% tax exemption at $50,688. This is both reasonable and fair. The big change, however, needs to be the elimination of the deferral program and the keeping of the freeze program. The city can not afford to have hundreds and possibly thousands of people in a program that people will pay no real estate taxes until 5, 10 or possibly 20 years into the future. Also, there could be many legal entanglements that may be associated with tax deferrals. The City should not be in the business of giving interest free loans to anyone. Whereas a tax freeze will allow the City to keep everyone in the current program in the program if the income threshold is set at the maximum of $68,293. The City would collect 100% of taxes due next year and close to 100% in proceeding years. There is currently a 13 million dollar shortfall in the City's budget for next year and it is apparent that City Council will be considering raising our real estate taxes. How are we being fiscally prudent if we defer real estate taxes on one hand and raise real estate taxes on the other hand? Doesn't make sense to me. Does it to you?