The successful tax appeal won by Borgata for 2009 and 2010 isn’t just hitting financially strapped Atlantic City as the resort’s home county will have to pony up about .8 million over two years for its share of the tax repayment.
The state Attorney General’s Office has ruled that the county has to pay the $6.8 million to Atlantic City for the successful Borgata tax appeals for 2009 and 2010. The county will pay $3.3 million this year for 2009 and $3.5 million next year for 2010.
That translates into a county tax increase of 1.7 cents per $100 of assessed value.
“Unfortunately, the taxpayers once again take the hit,” Atlantic County Executive Dennis Levinson said in a statement. “Our budget was adopted on March 22, 2016 with a slight decrease in the overall tax rate as well as a 1.2-cent decrease in the general purpose tax. With this latest development, the tax rate will now increase.”
Levinson said the county adopted its 2016 budget without the tax payments because Atlantic City had not informed it that an appeal of the tax case had failed.
The state’s Attorney General ruled that the county would have to pay an extra $3.3 million this year and $3.5 million next year instead of doubling the $6.3 million already going to Atlantic City this year, according to the Press of Atlantic City.
“We had no idea of the finalized amount of the Borgata settlement with interest,” Levinson said. “To add insult to injury, Atlantic City still owes the Borgata $88 million more in refunds for tax appeals from 2011 through 2014 that is excluded from the PILOT legislation.”
The PILOT legislation—or payment in lieu of taxes—is part of a rescue package for Atlantic City passed by the state legislature that bars casinos from appealing property taxes by allowing them to make fixed payments instead of taxes for 10 years.
In another matter, Atlantic City Council voted to ask the state to allow city voters to consider reducing the council’s size by two at-large members, leaving six ward members and one at-large, in an effort to reduce council costs. The state would have to approve allowing such a reconfiguration of the council, which is not typical for seven-member governing bodies in the state.
