A very interesting move by City Commissioner Joel Hockenbury to address the school board - one week before the school bond vote is tallied – challenging the estimated cost to the average homeowner for the $36 million project.
The $34 does seem low, but it's apparently based on an average home valuation of $54,000. Now that also seems low. In fact realtors have told the newspaper that the average value is about $65,000. But those are selling prices, I believe. The schools must be using the assessed valuation used for tax purposes by the county assessor. If anybody can shed more light on this, please do.
But I wonder why Hockenbury would raise this in a public meeting at this late date? It seems easier for him to ask Superintendent Ballard or the school board chair privately for back up information to confirm the numbers, or is he hoping to cast doubt on the whole project and the veracity of information about the bond by making a public appeal he knew would probably get reported in the newspaper?
I've frankly been surprised by some of the high level critiques and the late hour of that opposition going public — Lee Gregg. Jr. who is on the Cowley College Board of Trustees, and Jean Snell, the former schools superindentent. It seems like they might have voiced these concerns much earlier in the process when public hearings on the proposal were being held and there was time to make adjustments to the project.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
There is no point in giving Hockenbury a hard time for asking a question. It is everybody's right.
Even the report in the paper is unclear about how the numbers are derived.
They say that half will be paid for by the state, and that has been known all along.
Then they say that is not the only factor, that the state will be paying more than half in the future.
They indicate that it has worked that way for the 1996 bond, where the mill rate went down over the term of the note, although there are still many years to go.
Does this mean that the mill rate will be higher for the first years and then go down or does it mean the charged rate will be lower, expecting some state change in the future to repay the higher initial rates?
This stuff is simple. You can break it down by total numbers, per year numbers, total property value numbers, state contributions and taxed mill rates. Taxed mill rates can be applied to individual property values and everyone can calculate exactly what they will pay.
The issue was raised about a month ago. It seems that the Traveler, in its support for the school bond, has been dragging its feet on reporting exactly how the figures are derived.
The fast way to shut down controversy is to publish exactly how the numbers are determined.
It is pretty clear that the blog asks "why the question?" instead of "what is the answer?".
Why is that?
Whoops. I accidently deleted the last comment.
Ron Ballard, schools super, said the average homeowner cost is based on the cost of the bond and the average appraised value by the county and applied toa formula set by the state and reviewed by the schools' bond counselor.
He said he'd have to refer someone to the bond counselor to see the actually math.
Unfortunately, the average home value is pretty low in Ark City due to lots of small and crumbling housing. That probably is what drives this figure so low.
It is all so difficult. (not)
Take the amount billed to the USD470 taxing district each year and divide it by the total value of the property base in the district.
That is the ratio of tax payment to the individual taxpayer's property value.
Stated differently, it is the mill rate.
This should be a 10 second answer that can be answered off the top of the head. Why is it so difficult? Why is it referred to someone else?
If the property value in Cowley County is low, then that just means it costs more per thousand, not that it lowers the taxes.
This is junior high arithmetic. What is the trouble with the answer? Is it just to delay?
It does seem that the answer should be fairly simple. They did factor in the belief that state aid will increase over time, which could complicate it.
Either way, it seems logical that the average homeowner cost would be fairly low because the average assessed value in Ark City is low. Look around, we have lots of small housing and lots of it is in rough shape.
Low priced housing average doesn't matter.
Amazingly, if everyone had $5,000 houses (and most people didn't have much higher or lower) or if everyone had $500,000 houses (same deal), the dollar amount per taxpayer is the same.
You take the amount billed to the taxing district and proportionally divide it among the taxpayers, no matter what the average value is.
I just want to know the total cost of the project including interest over the 20 year period. If I know that I then can take the total cost divide by 20 to know the annual cost to the District. Then I can take the assessed valuation and divide it into the annual cost and know what the mill levy is to pay for the bond issue. From this I will know what my cost is based on the value of my house. Example: Total project cost=$30,000,000, divide by 20 years = $1,500,000, Districts assessed valuation = $94,000, divide $1,500,000/$94,000 = 15.95 mills. My house is valued at $65,000, the taxable percentage is 11.5%=$7,475 times the mill rate 15.95 divided by 1,000= my cost $119.22 per for the bond issue. I think the district is playing smoke and mirrors with the actual cost to the tax payer until after the vote is in because the cost is higher than they are currently projecting.
The total cost with interest is about $60 million, we've reported. Half of the sticker price, or more, will be paid for by the state, so subtract that from the total levied on local property owners.
The School Districts current Bond and Interest valuation is approximately $94,800,000. So the mill equivalent is $94,800,000/1,000=94,800. The total bond amount for the district is $60,000,000/2=$30,000,000, divide this by 20 years=$1,500,000 per year. Divide this by the mill equivalent and you get 15.82 mills. My house is appraised at $65,500 so my assessed valuation is $7,532. So my taxes will increase by $7,532X15.82/1,000=$119 per year to pay for the bond issue.
Add in the fact that commercial and agricultural property is taxed at a higher rate.
Also, the taxing area is not the city, but the entire school district, including commercial and agricultural lands outside of the city limits.
Agricultural land is taxed at a higher rate than residential or commercial property. Really?
Not in your worst or best nightmare.
Smoke and mirrors.
What's the math and why can't we get an answer?
That's why KSOK keeps cows outside their offices. It's not commercial property, it's "farmland".
Jean is right. Agricultural lands are taxed differently...much lower. The governor convened a commission of 12 that looked at these issues around a decade ago and altered the way we determine valuations and assessments. Guess what? It came out in favor to ag land. They have caps on their valuations and their valuations are based on land use. Who bears the brunt of the tax burden now? You do. Residential and commercial properties have skyrocketed while ag properties have stayed roughly the same and they continue to receive exemptions all the time. The Farm Bureau, Livestock Associations, etc. etc. were all involved on lobbying on behalf of the farmer. Guess which voices were heard to protect the business owner and residential land owner? Very few. We are all on our own. We don't have a lobbying organization that protects our rights.
Okay, so what does that have to do with anything related to this bond issue? Well, just means we will pay at a higher rate than ag in the school district. It also means that if you have a decent house, you are going to get "stuck." It also means that all of the low-valued homes will contribute very little. You can "average" the payments out to come out with the $34, but that is nowhere near realistic. The reality is, like others have said, there are a ton of terrible homes here and they artificially deflate the average. The school district has said 9.x mills according to their calculations. The city seems to think it will be higher. This isn't rocket science, so it does seem very puzzling why we don't have these very basic answers. Could it be that there are those who really don't want you to know? Could it be that there are enough who want this so badly (and may genuinely think we need it) that they don't care how much it costs?
All that aside, the kicker to me it that IF this passes and the money is made available, make sure you stand by watching closely to see how much of that which has been proposed DOES NOT get accomplished. You'll hear the "costs have gone up" since the initial proposals several years ago and this is a result of inflation. Um, don't you plan for that when you are putting together a proposal that you know is going to be years in the process? Also, let's see how many bidders there are on individual projects. Will one company get the entire project? Will it be the architectural group that gave the citizen's committe the original numbers in the first place? Since they didn't "charge" anything up front for figures provided on how much all of these items would cost, does that mean we are obligated to award the work to them if the bond passes? That "no cost" up front consulting figure all of the sudden becomes a real sweetheart deal for them. Is it a good deal for you?
why dont u go down to Kan Pak and interview Mr. Hockenbury and put a story in the paper as to why half the town smells horrible! u should have done a story explaining this already, but u r probably to scared to put in anything negative in your cater paper
Why is it that people who don't take care of their property don't pay as much tax? They let their homes deteriorate to worthless. Many have had nobody live in them for years. Slumlords don't fix up their rentals. Businesses use old homes for storage. The town looks trashy because of all of the junk homes. Worse, it forces the responsible owners to pay more taxes. Lower values, Lower taxes. If these trashy owners were forced to clean up and fix up these junk homes and pay their fair share taxes would balance out and responsible owners would pay less.
Post a Comment