Perhaps, consolidation is the only way to equalize the tax burdens between the two townships. I'm not necessarily for consolidation, but I am definitely for equalizing the tax burden. On another forum subject, I have posted the information about the inequality in individual millage rates for the townships of Peaine and St. James. I think that if you check my math, you will find that St. James taxpayers have been paying a higher millage rate for many, many years. I calculated that rate to be between 25-30%. So, when someone complains about their taxes going up by 9% if they live in Peaine, it doesn't really strike me as such a big deal.
If the only way to equalize what you Peaine residents pay for the same joint services as I do as a St. James taxpayer, then I will have to vote for consolidation. I've paid $1000 more for EMS for the eighteen year period of 1994-2011 or 2012, while I was providing that service to my neighbors to the south, and in 2013, paid 25% more in taxes than a Peaine taxpayer for joint projects. All of my calculations are based upon individual millage rates, because individuals pay taxes, not townships.
Do you believe in fairness in taxation, or do you want to continue the unfairness of island people living on the same island paying different tax rates?
Joe Moore
AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED BEAVER ISLAND TOWNSHIP
Moderator: Gillespie
-
meadefamily
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:35 pm
Re: AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED BEAVER ISLAND TOWNSHIP
Joe
Are you saying you paid 1,000 more for the 17 year period? The equates to 58.82 more per year. Why only till 2011? What happened from 2011 to 2018?
If my taxes go up 9% a year my taxes will go up approximately $432.00 per year or estimate of $7300 in the same 17 yr period.
Unless I am doing the math wrong I am not sure the 9% is fair. I would gladly raise my taxes 58.00 per year for the EMS to equalize and be fair, yet the pro-consolidation team wants to cut the EMS by 40%. Thinks just don't make sense.
I agree with you Joe, things need to change, I just don't see it changing for the better with the proposed budget and plans from this group. Too many mistakes, not enough facts. I for one do not want to see EMS cut.
The good I see coming from this process is it has opened the dialog and come next election I think people will be more involved.
Kathe
Are you saying you paid 1,000 more for the 17 year period? The equates to 58.82 more per year. Why only till 2011? What happened from 2011 to 2018?
If my taxes go up 9% a year my taxes will go up approximately $432.00 per year or estimate of $7300 in the same 17 yr period.
Unless I am doing the math wrong I am not sure the 9% is fair. I would gladly raise my taxes 58.00 per year for the EMS to equalize and be fair, yet the pro-consolidation team wants to cut the EMS by 40%. Thinks just don't make sense.
I agree with you Joe, things need to change, I just don't see it changing for the better with the proposed budget and plans from this group. Too many mistakes, not enough facts. I for one do not want to see EMS cut.
The good I see coming from this process is it has opened the dialog and come next election I think people will be more involved.
Kathe
Re: AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED BEAVER ISLAND TOWNSHIP
Kathe--
I don't believe that I stated that I am for consolidation, but I am for equal taxation for individual taxpayers, no matter what township they live in. You missed the fact that this was just one joint operation, and you completely ignored the one year information. You see, mathematically your taxes are paid based upon a millage, and I see no reason that your millage should be different than mine.
Next, the years listed were listed because those were the years that I have kept track of information because I was director of EMS for the majority of the time. The information is historical, meaning that, in the past, I paid 25% more in taxes than Peaine taxpayers did for the same taxable value. This happened year after year after year and included all joint projects. This happened because the Peaine board refused to match millage, but decided to match dollars instead.
Millage is the equalizer, not equal dollars. So, if I have paid 25% more in millage and taxes for twenty years for the same taxable value, why is a nine percent increase per year for Peaine not a fair increase now? Using just percentages 25% times 20 make 1000% more millage and taxes. I believe this makes your 9% increase look pretty minor. It will take a long time for your nine percent to catch up to my 1000 percent.
What happened in the past should not continue. It's time for equal taxation for equal services provided on the same island for the entire population.
Joe More
I don't believe that I stated that I am for consolidation, but I am for equal taxation for individual taxpayers, no matter what township they live in. You missed the fact that this was just one joint operation, and you completely ignored the one year information. You see, mathematically your taxes are paid based upon a millage, and I see no reason that your millage should be different than mine.
Next, the years listed were listed because those were the years that I have kept track of information because I was director of EMS for the majority of the time. The information is historical, meaning that, in the past, I paid 25% more in taxes than Peaine taxpayers did for the same taxable value. This happened year after year after year and included all joint projects. This happened because the Peaine board refused to match millage, but decided to match dollars instead.
Millage is the equalizer, not equal dollars. So, if I have paid 25% more in millage and taxes for twenty years for the same taxable value, why is a nine percent increase per year for Peaine not a fair increase now? Using just percentages 25% times 20 make 1000% more millage and taxes. I believe this makes your 9% increase look pretty minor. It will take a long time for your nine percent to catch up to my 1000 percent.
What happened in the past should not continue. It's time for equal taxation for equal services provided on the same island for the entire population.
Joe More
-
meadefamily
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:35 pm
Re: AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED BEAVER ISLAND TOWNSHIP
Joe
I understand you are putting consolidation aside. But to raise my tax base 9% and lower yours on the whole pot is not equal.
I am just struggling to understand the math. So you are saying for every 1000 I spend ( before my non-homestead is added) on JOINT projects in my tax base you spend $1,250?
I don't understand the 25%x 20 analogy. You are using compounding methods and I believe this is more of a simple crediting method. You have not paid 1000 times more than me over 20 years.
Using your 25% for 2013 as an example:
Kathe paid 1000 x 20 = 20,000
Joe paid 1250 x 20 = 25,000
That is a 5000 difference over a 20 year period, or 25% average of the 20 years accumulated. Over 20 years you paid 5000 more, not 250,000 more which is what your 1000 times more would equal.
As far as the millage issue. Both townships pay the same amount in joint ventures on the year ends I saw. I don't think your per household anology used in the past is fair, as you have to take into account property values as well. Taxes are not based on per head, the are based on values. You are wanting to change the whole structure that EVERY township does, your fight is with the State. Property taxes are based on values of your home, not by how many homes are in a township. If my house is worth more than yours, don't I already pay more?
Kathe
I understand you are putting consolidation aside. But to raise my tax base 9% and lower yours on the whole pot is not equal.
I am just struggling to understand the math. So you are saying for every 1000 I spend ( before my non-homestead is added) on JOINT projects in my tax base you spend $1,250?
I don't understand the 25%x 20 analogy. You are using compounding methods and I believe this is more of a simple crediting method. You have not paid 1000 times more than me over 20 years.
Using your 25% for 2013 as an example:
Kathe paid 1000 x 20 = 20,000
Joe paid 1250 x 20 = 25,000
That is a 5000 difference over a 20 year period, or 25% average of the 20 years accumulated. Over 20 years you paid 5000 more, not 250,000 more which is what your 1000 times more would equal.
As far as the millage issue. Both townships pay the same amount in joint ventures on the year ends I saw. I don't think your per household anology used in the past is fair, as you have to take into account property values as well. Taxes are not based on per head, the are based on values. You are wanting to change the whole structure that EVERY township does, your fight is with the State. Property taxes are based on values of your home, not by how many homes are in a township. If my house is worth more than yours, don't I already pay more?
Kathe
-
carolburton
- Posts: 247
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:27 am
- Contact:
Re: AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED BEAVER ISLAND TOWNSHIP
http://www.peainetwp.org/government_dep ... udgets.php
http://www.stjamestwp.org/government_de ... nter_rz680
Revenues - Budget Expenses = Working Room or Not
The projections from both sides are not what will be set in stone they are views, opinions, and suggestions. The collective board will have to choose the best option for everyone. If you determine that townships combined there is working room as is, because these budgets and numbers are said to work now, what could be the outcome of a balanced "equal taxation" across the island? What would that really amount to if it was balanced?
http://www.stjamestwp.org/government_de ... nter_rz680
Revenues - Budget Expenses = Working Room or Not
The projections from both sides are not what will be set in stone they are views, opinions, and suggestions. The collective board will have to choose the best option for everyone. If you determine that townships combined there is working room as is, because these budgets and numbers are said to work now, what could be the outcome of a balanced "equal taxation" across the island? What would that really amount to if it was balanced?
burton
More propaganda for Mike Green to consider
Joe . . .
Thanks for your post.
As of the most recent year, the millage levied by St. James township was about 7% more for shared services. That equates to about $28 a year for a home with a taxable value of $50,000. I know this will not be a satisfactory answer, but the reason is simply . . . that's what the townships agreed to.
The larger concern is that St. James levies 46% more than Peaine for its general fund and roads. That's nearly a $100 a year more for a home with a taxable value of $50,000.
Many Peaine Township taxpayers are convinced that the proposed consolidation is nothing more than a raid on their bank account. Perhaps you should appeal to your township board for tax relief rather than argue for consolidation!
Thanks for your post.
As of the most recent year, the millage levied by St. James township was about 7% more for shared services. That equates to about $28 a year for a home with a taxable value of $50,000. I know this will not be a satisfactory answer, but the reason is simply . . . that's what the townships agreed to.
The larger concern is that St. James levies 46% more than Peaine for its general fund and roads. That's nearly a $100 a year more for a home with a taxable value of $50,000.
Many Peaine Township taxpayers are convinced that the proposed consolidation is nothing more than a raid on their bank account. Perhaps you should appeal to your township board for tax relief rather than argue for consolidation!
-
meadefamily
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:35 pm
Re: AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED BEAVER ISLAND TOWNSHIP
In regards to the Carols above post:
Here are some things to consider:
Take a look at the ACTUAL YEAR ends for 2017. Compare them side by side. Each township is unique and runs thier books based on thier spending habits and needs. The needs of each township vary.
Year end is March 2017, so the townships should have them out. The links are great but the issue is not a budget plan. I can put down anything on a budget I want. The pro-consolidation people used a "projected budget" based on bad numbers that means absolutely nothing to the future of the island. Joint projects are already equal based in how the State divides property taxes. This number changes based on households in each township. The ACTUAL year end statements from the year ends give a better snap shot. (Edited to correct: the owed taxes are paid to township by County so that is not an issue)
The petitioners for consolidation put thier eggs all in one basket on the tax issue, yet the group can not seem to understand how they work or do you take into consideration the long term factors.
Again the post demonstrates just another reason why a DISINTERESTED third party should have prepared the facts in taxes, cost and impacts of consolidation. Bring me solid, not embellished, good numbers. Take the attacks, posturing and emotions of days past out of the equation. No one can do that on the island, there is too much history and bad feelings.
Kathe
Here are some things to consider:
Take a look at the ACTUAL YEAR ends for 2017. Compare them side by side. Each township is unique and runs thier books based on thier spending habits and needs. The needs of each township vary.
Year end is March 2017, so the townships should have them out. The links are great but the issue is not a budget plan. I can put down anything on a budget I want. The pro-consolidation people used a "projected budget" based on bad numbers that means absolutely nothing to the future of the island. Joint projects are already equal based in how the State divides property taxes. This number changes based on households in each township. The ACTUAL year end statements from the year ends give a better snap shot. (Edited to correct: the owed taxes are paid to township by County so that is not an issue)
The petitioners for consolidation put thier eggs all in one basket on the tax issue, yet the group can not seem to understand how they work or do you take into consideration the long term factors.
Again the post demonstrates just another reason why a DISINTERESTED third party should have prepared the facts in taxes, cost and impacts of consolidation. Bring me solid, not embellished, good numbers. Take the attacks, posturing and emotions of days past out of the equation. No one can do that on the island, there is too much history and bad feelings.
Kathe
Last edited by meadefamily on Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED BEAVER ISLAND TOWNSHIP
I'm not sure what your point is, but, if I pay 25% more in taxes for two years, then I have paid 25% more no matter how you do the math.
Let's say that you paid 1000, and I paid 1250 for two years in a row. That means that you paid 2000, and I paid 2500. Mathematically, I paid 500 more than you did. 500/2000 is still 25%. You can continue you this out for four years: 1000 more for four years is 1000/4000. So you are right. I am still paying 25% more than you are over twenty years for the joint projects. So, let's go with the assumption that your taxes and mine did not go up over the twenty years.
You paid 20,000 in taxes over twenty years. I paid 1250x20 years or 25,000. This is mathematically correct only if the property values or millage values do not change. The important point is that I paid more for these joint services. You kept 5000 more than I did. Now, depending on what I could have done with that 5000, and what you could have done with that 5000 over this twenty years. It could have grown to a lot more.
So, you are right, but your nine percent is still pretty minor compared to my 25% over twenty years. So when you have paid your 9% over twenty years, then we can talk about fairness in taxation again.
So, if I still pay my 1250 for my share, and now you pay 9% more than me, how long will it take to make up the 5000 more that I have already paid. Well, you'll pay 1362.50 or 112.50 more than me. So it will take 5000/112.5 or 44 years. I truly don't think you have anything to complain about regarding paying equal millage on this one island that we all use.
Now these amounts could easily be multiplied by any number, and it still will take the same amount of time. Take all these numbers and multiply them all by the same number and do the calculation over again. It will still take 44 years to equalize the millage paid.
Now you said that my taxes would go down. By how much are they going to go down? Do we know that the consolidation will take my taxes down? If so, will they go down by 9%? If so, then it will only take 22 years to make our tax millage equal. I don't think we have any idea what the future may bring with or without consolidation, but we do know what history shows.
Joe Moore
I don't have any issues with the way taxes are calculated. I just have issues with the fact that we all don't pay the same amount for the same services provided by the same people.
Let's say that you paid 1000, and I paid 1250 for two years in a row. That means that you paid 2000, and I paid 2500. Mathematically, I paid 500 more than you did. 500/2000 is still 25%. You can continue you this out for four years: 1000 more for four years is 1000/4000. So you are right. I am still paying 25% more than you are over twenty years for the joint projects. So, let's go with the assumption that your taxes and mine did not go up over the twenty years.
You paid 20,000 in taxes over twenty years. I paid 1250x20 years or 25,000. This is mathematically correct only if the property values or millage values do not change. The important point is that I paid more for these joint services. You kept 5000 more than I did. Now, depending on what I could have done with that 5000, and what you could have done with that 5000 over this twenty years. It could have grown to a lot more.
So, you are right, but your nine percent is still pretty minor compared to my 25% over twenty years. So when you have paid your 9% over twenty years, then we can talk about fairness in taxation again.
So, if I still pay my 1250 for my share, and now you pay 9% more than me, how long will it take to make up the 5000 more that I have already paid. Well, you'll pay 1362.50 or 112.50 more than me. So it will take 5000/112.5 or 44 years. I truly don't think you have anything to complain about regarding paying equal millage on this one island that we all use.
Now these amounts could easily be multiplied by any number, and it still will take the same amount of time. Take all these numbers and multiply them all by the same number and do the calculation over again. It will still take 44 years to equalize the millage paid.
Now you said that my taxes would go down. By how much are they going to go down? Do we know that the consolidation will take my taxes down? If so, will they go down by 9%? If so, then it will only take 22 years to make our tax millage equal. I don't think we have any idea what the future may bring with or without consolidation, but we do know what history shows.
Joe Moore
I don't have any issues with the way taxes are calculated. I just have issues with the fact that we all don't pay the same amount for the same services provided by the same people.
Additional thought
Some Peaine residents have expressed their concern that property taxes may continue to increase (beyond the 9%) and note that the ballot proposal provides for a nearly 22% increase in their tax levies. Inspite of the claims that it's good for the Island, they don't know what they would get in return for the additional taxes paid!
Re: AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED BEAVER ISLAND TOWNSHIP
Joe . . .
My math follows for your consideration. The table illustrates that nearly 80% ($28 divided by $124) of the increased tax burden in St. James Township relates to levies for the general fund and roads.
My point is that many Peaine residents see the proposed consolidation as a raid on their bank account. It appears that their concern is warranted.
My math follows for your consideration. The table illustrates that nearly 80% ($28 divided by $124) of the increased tax burden in St. James Township relates to levies for the general fund and roads.
My point is that many Peaine residents see the proposed consolidation as a raid on their bank account. It appears that their concern is warranted.
- Property taxes 4.25.2018.tif (25.17 KiB) Viewed 21090 times
-
meadefamily
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:35 pm
Re: AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED BEAVER ISLAND TOWNSHIP
,
Thank you for your response.
My point is Joe...you do not pay 1000% more over a 20 year period than me as you stated.
I do not want voters and taxpayers to be misguided.
If I have to pay 9% more on joint services I have no issue with that. Hopefully the township leaders will discuss this and rectify it. I believe they agreed on the joint ventures.
Thank you for your response.
My point is Joe...you do not pay 1000% more over a 20 year period than me as you stated.
I do not want voters and taxpayers to be misguided.
If I have to pay 9% more on joint services I have no issue with that. Hopefully the township leaders will discuss this and rectify it. I believe they agreed on the joint ventures.
-
meadefamily
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:35 pm
Re: AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED BEAVER ISLAND TOWNSHIP
Richie,
I have a question, if the consolidation happens what happens to current zoning laws?
Each township has their own guidelines and zoning rules. From what I researched prior to buying on the island the zoning laws are very unique to each township.
Some concerns for property owners may be:
Would the current zoning rules thrown out with the merger, or do they stay the same?
Does the new township have to create all new documents for zoning? (Costly to do so?)
If a zoning issue was in dispute currently how would that be handled?
Are we protected by the old rules (grandfathered) or is it the new board has free range to create new rules for a new township without a vote?
If there is currently a dispute over zoning does the new board have the authority to change laws to allow zoning that the old board have disputed and denied?
When we invest in property and homes we look closely at zoning issues. I would not want someone to build a commercial business in my resident zoned home. I would not want a new board to be able to change rulings the old board had already made.
Thanks
I have a question, if the consolidation happens what happens to current zoning laws?
Each township has their own guidelines and zoning rules. From what I researched prior to buying on the island the zoning laws are very unique to each township.
Some concerns for property owners may be:
Would the current zoning rules thrown out with the merger, or do they stay the same?
Does the new township have to create all new documents for zoning? (Costly to do so?)
If a zoning issue was in dispute currently how would that be handled?
Are we protected by the old rules (grandfathered) or is it the new board has free range to create new rules for a new township without a vote?
If there is currently a dispute over zoning does the new board have the authority to change laws to allow zoning that the old board have disputed and denied?
When we invest in property and homes we look closely at zoning issues. I would not want someone to build a commercial business in my resident zoned home. I would not want a new board to be able to change rulings the old board had already made.
Thanks
-
carolburton
- Posts: 247
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:27 am
- Contact:
Re: AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED BEAVER ISLAND TOWNSHIP
The zoning laws would not change. They are based on the areas and were determined on what suited the needs of those areas at the time the laws were developed. Our Planning Boards would have to discuss some things but for the most part I believe they would be left as is. Property if requested by a property owner can have a zoning change if it suits the guidelines and needs and is approved by the board. You can verify that by giving Rick Speck a call. He is the island Zoning Administrator and very knowledgeable about the zoning ordinances that we have in place.
burton
-
meadefamily
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:35 pm
Re: AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED BEAVER ISLAND TOWNSHIP
Wow...Kraig says I opened a can of ..... on the other thread
Bob Tidmores also replied on the other thread...
Bob's reply:
The current zoning ordinances are fairly similar and I don't see a lot of work to consolidate them
The current land uses are established by ordinances and are on each townships zoning map.
The Master Plan identifies possible changes in those designations and are shown on a map in the Master Plan"
I left out the snotty tag line, as I thought this was a question both sides should understand. And I left out his obvious dig...
Kraig was also very upset by me asking about zoning...so now I guess this is against consolidation. Go figure! Transparency is so important!!
I am curious to what the proposed changes are on the Master plan.
I guess I will have to call County Clerk to get my questions answered.
Bob Tidmores also replied on the other thread...
Bob's reply:
The current zoning ordinances are fairly similar and I don't see a lot of work to consolidate them
The current land uses are established by ordinances and are on each townships zoning map.
The Master Plan identifies possible changes in those designations and are shown on a map in the Master Plan"
I left out the snotty tag line, as I thought this was a question both sides should understand. And I left out his obvious dig...
Kraig was also very upset by me asking about zoning...so now I guess this is against consolidation. Go figure! Transparency is so important!!
I am curious to what the proposed changes are on the Master plan.
I guess I will have to call County Clerk to get my questions answered.
-
Andy's Grooming Barn
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:23 am
Re: AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED BEAVER ISLAND TOWNSHIP
Richie
You state, "Some pretty sketchy comments in the interview last night, calling people liars and misstating the truth in such an important debate is really low!" Please elaborate as I listened to the broadcast and never heard any of this, be specific.
Since you brought up the broadcast it was concerning to me that on several questions asked to Angel there was not direct answers or sometimes not answered at all. When asked about what legal costs to get the proposal on the ballot she refused to answer, I would think knowing what some of these costs were just to get it on the ballot would give us a good idea of legal costs for consolidation, as getting the legal cost for the ballot should just be a drop in the bucket. Why wouldn't they be willing to answer this? What is there to hide? Aren't some of these individuals part of the people screaming transparency to the townships? Now well now they have made themselves involved in the townships government so shouldn't they be transparent as well? Is this the kind of behavior we should expect with the new government if we should consolidate?
One other thing that I would think would be very helpful to the community not only for helping in the decision for May 8th vote but also if the consolidation should go through. Apparently St. James attorney has quoted that legal fees would not be above $20,000 I would like to see the document from the attorney showing that as well as showing exactly what they are planning on coving with that $20,000 fee (rewriting all the joint entities etc.) just to verify that everything would be covered no hidden fees later. I would not want to find out later that this was just a verbal comment from the attorney and that the petitioners don't have something down in writing from him, I would hate for down the road somebody to say that that things were not included in that $20,000 quote. It could be even added on to the budget page so everyone can see it go over it and ask questions.
You state, "Some pretty sketchy comments in the interview last night, calling people liars and misstating the truth in such an important debate is really low!" Please elaborate as I listened to the broadcast and never heard any of this, be specific.
Since you brought up the broadcast it was concerning to me that on several questions asked to Angel there was not direct answers or sometimes not answered at all. When asked about what legal costs to get the proposal on the ballot she refused to answer, I would think knowing what some of these costs were just to get it on the ballot would give us a good idea of legal costs for consolidation, as getting the legal cost for the ballot should just be a drop in the bucket. Why wouldn't they be willing to answer this? What is there to hide? Aren't some of these individuals part of the people screaming transparency to the townships? Now well now they have made themselves involved in the townships government so shouldn't they be transparent as well? Is this the kind of behavior we should expect with the new government if we should consolidate?
One other thing that I would think would be very helpful to the community not only for helping in the decision for May 8th vote but also if the consolidation should go through. Apparently St. James attorney has quoted that legal fees would not be above $20,000 I would like to see the document from the attorney showing that as well as showing exactly what they are planning on coving with that $20,000 fee (rewriting all the joint entities etc.) just to verify that everything would be covered no hidden fees later. I would not want to find out later that this was just a verbal comment from the attorney and that the petitioners don't have something down in writing from him, I would hate for down the road somebody to say that that things were not included in that $20,000 quote. It could be even added on to the budget page so everyone can see it go over it and ask questions.
Andy Kohls
Andy's Grooming and Boarding Barn
Andy's Grooming and Boarding Barn