Assessments (and other things) - Part 2
I have been emailing with another Gilfordite, and that person has agreed to let me post the substance of our conversation. This person's observations span the column and my comments on it are the shorter tabbed ones (opposite of what we normally do here).. Just decided to be different for a change....
-Skip
=======================================
I am curious to hear from you two what your position on creating a broader tax base is.
Now, hear me, I am not educated in economics to the extent that either of you may or may not be. I am simply a tax payer.
Skip: Economist? No, just a middle aged, greying (thankfully not balding.....yet) engineer that sees numbers that just are not adding up right. The assessments are not adding up right either....I have already posted one complaint here on GilforGrok for somebody that wanted to remain anon., but I vetted their story. The more we post, the more people will become aware of it.
Is there a 'healthy' ratio of commercial, industrial, and residential contributors to taxes? If so, how does Gilford stand? Now, I understand that at least Doug is a business owner, who probably doesn't like paying taxes via his business, just as much as via his residence. But, there is something to be said about property taxes paid by industry and commerce.
I dunno about the right "mix" part - and remember this carefully - companies do not pay taxes. Oh sure, they cut a check, but even Doug will agree that it is simply a cost of doing business. The people that actually pay that tax are those folks who purchase those companies' products and services - the tax cost is built into the price of the product or service. I'm quite sure that Doug does it, and I know that I did it when my wife and I owned a business.
It isn't always quite as simple that companies don't pay taxes and sorry if I left that impression.
While the cost is picked up by customers, if the taxes are too high to be able to pass along (e.g., customers start refusing to buy ever increasingly priced goods), taxes do become an issue. All other things being equal (which they seldom are), the place with lower taxes should win out. Why? Either higher profit margins (everyone else charging the same price) or increased market share (can charge a lower price due to a lower cost of sales and manufacturing).
I am not one for clearing perfectly good forest for the sake of 'progress'. If you knew me, I was brought up with hunting, fishing, and a family-owned camp, and I love the rural feel. What I am about to suggest does not include defacing the Town of Gilford, a town that I love very much.
I think there should be more of an effort to solicit businesses into the Town of Gilford. Yes, some prefer to be a 'bedroom community', but unfortunately, being a member of such a community is notoriously expensive. Now, if the majority of the tax payers want to be strictly a 'bedroom community', then I guess I might not belong here. I can't afford that.
Think about this too. This is especially true when large amounts of land are off limits either by regulation (e.g. each house should be on X number of acres) or by conservation. Less land available will drive up property values if that community is deemed "desirable". Please note that while such things might seem to be the right things now, they may indeed be parts of the reason why your children may not be able to buy a house in Gilford when the time comes - just look at CA for examples of this happening now.It is the Law of Unintended Consequences
To actually answer your question, it really is one for the town at large. What kind of community do we wish to be? Broadening the tax base to lower my taxes could be a good thing, but at what rate and by interesting which kinds of businesses?
My take? I like it here - more "clean" manufacturers would be good, but not number that I see flying over Chicago where all you see is blocks and blocks of one and two story factories. I'll wimp out and say keeping things in proportion to what we have now is not a bad thing.
Nor can we afford to cut too much from town services.
The marketplace forces companies to operate at "best practices" levels; if they do not, their goods or services are either generally overpriced or the company is not returning value to the owners in the forms of lowered profits or growth. The key is value - and there are metrics measuring that across almost every industry.
The problem that I see here in Gilford is a lack of how to measure that value - how do we, as taxpayers, know that we are receiving the best value for our taxes? We have a high budget in relationship to the other towns in our demographic segment; our per student cost is well above state average. I see nothing in the media about the flip side to the cost - value metrics; I see nothing from the town departments that show that they are offering objective measurements that show we are deriving value.
I am NOT saying we don't - but it is all SUBJECTIVE, and not objective right now. So I make the claim that we do not know if we are, or we are not. The only thing I can say is that from the tables I've put up here, the town employees are receiving very good wages relative to other towns our size. While that is valuable to the employees, how do we taxpayers know that this is a measurably good value for us?
We are a tourist-based town next to a moderate-sized city.
True enough.
Our year-round population is not a good gauge, as our numbers almost triple during the summer.
I really disagree with this statement, as that time period is not a good indication of the biggest part of our taxes - education. And while I can see a blip upwards for the Police department, what are the best practices of other towns seeing the same thing - does Sturgis ramp up its full time year round department just for its bike week? Or Daytona, or any other city where populations shoot up for a short period of time?
Instead, I am faced with driving by Sawmill Road. An eyesore, that to me, appeared that government may have tried to slow or halt. Then, there is Hounsell Avenue. Hhhmm, kind of bare? Rumor has it, a dentist practice wanted to buy and build there, but were refused. Too bad we missed out on that opportunity.
Fortunately, the old Lakes Region Plaza is moving.... slowly. Did the town play a role in how slow this moved?
Governmenta policies play a role in what industries will settle where within a town and how quickly - zoning and politics. And sometimes, the politics is played by the company.
In this case, I do not have an answer for you.
Recently, The Grant was placed on the market. A prime piece of real estate, already developed, so we would not lose any wilderness. If properly done with landscaping, a large business, perhaps a upscale hotel/conference center, would have little impact on our rural look. Mind you, what exists there now needs to be leveled....
Boy, the old Gilford Getty and the piece of property east of it could use something...
The bank on Airport Road, across from Gilford East Drive. Enough said.
If you really sat and thought about it, you could name several other areas in town that have already been developed, yet are not being used.
Please remember, these are private properties and the owners may have their own ideas and timelines in which to do something with those properties. They may choose to do absolutely nothing. That is their right and their privilege as long as no laws or codes are violated.
Granted, I believe in cutting the fat, just as much as you, but I also think the town should be considering bringing in more businesses at the same time. They will contribute to the tax base, they won't be sending any kids to school, and they can utilize land already developed (to some extent).
Instead, our taxes go up.
Again, it depends on what the town as a whole desires Gilford to be. I'll be honest - I do not know if we even have a Master Plan - the document that would answer your question. Ask someone at Town Hall if such a thing it exists. If so, let us know!
Second, curious on your stand of the proposed increases on assessments versus what our new tax rate may be. First off, I have NO problem bringing the town 'up to speed' if we are behind in assessments. If that were to happen, we all would go up, the tax rate would go down, and I would pay just slightly more for taxes each year, as we have inflation and slight budget increases.
Not quite so fast! Just because assessments go up does NOT mean that the tax rate goes down. Look at what I wrote in the GIlford Steamer - the third leg is the budget. All three (assessments, tax rates, and budgets) interact with each other. Higher assessments do not automatically mean higher taxes; lower tax rates can mean higher tax burdens even coupled with higher assessments if the Town and School budgets go up.
But instead, I am faced with articles and comments made by Wil Corcoran that some properties went DOWN in value. So, my increase, 19% by the way, means I will bear more of the tax burden.
All other things being equal, you are correct!
I am beginning to understand Joe Hoffman, when I ask the town for examples or at least the type of property that went down this year, and I am told they don't know. Don't know! How? They worked the numbers themselves. After doing dozens of increases, one would think a decrease might catch their attention. Plus, they told the public some went down. Comment publicly on something you can't back up?
This is what I am hearing too, and is very bothersome. Start calling your Selectmen and bother them about this!
All I wanted was some examples. Or, the particular neighborhood or type of housing. I had been told "well, mobile homes did not do well this year, some of the values went down", I would be fine with that. I am not fine with "I don't know".
Last, I just had my house appraised for a refinance of a second mortgage. It came back at ~$279K. Huh, weird, this would be 100% market value. My tax assessment, targeted at 96%, is ~$286K. How can that be? That means the town considers my house to be worth ~$300K, but the bank doesn't think so. They tell me to argue in court, there has to be more than a 5% difference, because appraisals are just opinions. But when I show the difference is closer to 8%, the answer changes. They are only required to be within 10% and technically, the state's requirements are almost up to 14%.
I don't have a problem with the assessments, as long as they are applied equally, so tax burden remains equal and fair for what property(ies) you own. But, it appears some people are getting quite the deal. Now, I hear the marinas didn't increase. I got a 19% increase? Funny.
Funny is not the word I would use......suspicious would be one, though..... While nothing wrong may be happening, better explanations and more transparancy in the process may well be overdue.
OK, I'm done venting.
That part of what a blog is all about!
Let me know what you think about the tax base, and perhaps, the biased tax assessment increases.
I Think I Already Have!
You are NOT the only one bringing this up and thinking that things are perhaps fair in some places and unfair in others. In fact, you are the fourth person in a week to have brought this up. Anecdotally, I think I've heard enough, and read enough, that those that are annoyed (and beyond) ought to start demanding answers
P.S. I think the key to arguing over assessments isn't over the mere fact they went up. It is a fact of life. Dramatic or not, it is real. Look at real estate prices! I believe they should be kept up to date, but BEHIND current appraisals and market value. The key to any debate, or even comparison, is the bottom line. What you pay for taxes.
You can't compare towns tax rates, as each town appears to assess very differently.
Actually, look at the RSAs! I do believe that there are rules in place but as you have seen, things can be "subjective" instead of "objective". Very powerful differences.
Doug: I think what you have outlined in your listing of current const. projects illustrates what I have oft contended- that Gilford has a slow, yet steady increase in taxable properties, that should be able to sustain normal inflationary budget growth. Our taxes should be STABLE, not necessarily reduced by any large measure. The only way to make this happen is through fiscally conservative budgeting and seeking maximun value for our dollars. I do not like the idea of some "Shifting" of property tax burdens more heavily towards commercial properties- esp. not equipment and fixtures- this was a disaster for Berlin's paper mill industry. I'm all for controlled tax-base expansion.
Thanks for your thoughts. The exchange of ideas is always my goal in politics..Doug: Another thought- while the salaries may not be equal to the private sector, the benefits far surpass them.
By the way, I would never want Gilford to set all it's egg into one basket like Berlin did. I would just like the town to diversify more, and introduce some more businesses, in light of all the residential development, overloading our schools, which end up being half our tax bill.
Skip: actually, the School is 2/3rds of the budget, the Town only 1/3 (roughly)
Developing some properties on Hounsell Avenue, and investment we already committed to, makes sense to me. Developing or redeveloping run down properties with various businesses makes sense to me.
Either way, thanks for you time.
Either way, thanks for you time.
Doug: I absolutely favor tax base expansion and agree the assessments are probably biased- I have always said that if taxes were stabilized, the assessment issue would melt away. In a hyper-increasing atomosphere, this issue gets "hot." The wry cynic in me believes that while people are busy looking at how their friends and neighbors are assessed, the big spenders are doing just that while everyone's otherwise occupied...
Thanks for taking the time for this exchange of ideas.
Oh, if the word got out that Gilford had low property taxes, businesses would find their way to us, I think..
So is there/should there be someone in local government soliciting businesses? Or, who is in charge of soliciting businesses into Hounsell Avenue? Or, is it time to change real estate brokers?
Doug: don't think a paid position in local gov't cuts it (at least on the town level) The county has an economic development council, but unfortunately, I don't see them doing much- too busy giving themselves awards and such. That is where we should focus. Get them to do the job they are paid to do. The current director only wants movie studios- we need someone with a greater sense of reality in that position.
Change realtors? I don't think you'll find anyone that would do a better job than who does it now- but maybe that is worth a try anyway.
I think advertising a stable taxed, well-run town would attract more business- oh, and a planning board with a more positive approach to business and its needs wouldn't hurt, either.
