Williston, ND Active Issues

Steve Powell · Guru

RE: Property Taxes

Steve Powell · Guru

So far from my knowledge the state government hasn't asked for more money. In fact it seems to me my property taxes dropped recently due to an agreement between the Governor and the cities.

I know alot of people that would like the tax surplus back but I don't quite agree. I would rather get the state setup so we don't have to struggle during an economic downturn. I'm all for planning for rainy days. Now's the time to do just that.

However, I still think there's a way to provide instant tax relief to the tax payer while still maintaining our current budget, without considering spending cuts. Even though there certainly are places we could work on.

R Hill · Veteran Member

You are not delusional. I to also think taxes are necessary.Responsible governments will have them.You will probably agree that some governments seems to push that what they say is a need when it actually isn't.
Having lived and worked in the"oil patch " at one time when there was a "boom" It is easy to get used to services used when it is going good, It is the planning for the down time that is needed. Remember the saying "don't muzzle the ox that is treading the grain".

Steve Powell · Guru

R Hill wrote:

The Idea is not to figure out where the money will come from if taxes are abolished. It will be to stop spending so much so as to need the tax. That is a better plan,as for you being called stupid for not signing petition ,that was wrong. But it does not change the fact you would regret not signing the petition if your taxes were raised and spending was not reduced.

-- Edited by R Hill on Sunday 1st of August 2010 06:21:09 PM

-- Edited by R Hill on Sunday 1st of August 2010 06:27:49 PM

How about both? I completely agree that there's plenty of pork spending. However, there HAS TO BE taxes. We have to pay for infrastructure, education, and programs. There's no getting around that. My fear is that if we transfer the power over our "3rd in the state ranking" sales tax revenue, we won't get near enough of it back. That's how it is working with the oil money right now.

So how about the state take away a percentage of their state sales tax (5 percent) and let the local entities add more local sales tax and then start to lower our property taxes? Isn't that a win-win situation?

The state has collected billions of our dollars, both through state sales and oil reserves. How much more do they need? Take the surplus they have, invest it, and then lower what they are collecting so the rest of us can see some tax relief.

Or am I dilusional? biggrin

vko · Senior Member

No one should ever push a Vote one way or another. If someone tries, good clue to run the other direction. We all do the best we can under these $$$$$$ times. You just don't cross some guidelines and if someone tries to push you, push back, we all know what is the difference between right and wrong. Good place to start. I never sign petition's nor send money to any party. If it right - you don't need my donation. Other than for Children and Parks and safe places for them. I don't need Lobbiest, or picture shouldering up to a Congressman or Woman or a Senator, nor a President. You want this job - then do it. My money is spent on people who actually need it here at home, from churches - bible camps - food banks - clothing etc etc etc. Political people are way to the bottom of my list, they have stoled enough. A bid morbid I know, could never draw a straight line - nor follow one.

-- Edited by vko on Sunday 1st of August 2010 11:30:48 PM

R Hill · Veteran Member

The Idea is not to figure out where the money will come from if taxes are abolished. It will be to stop spending so much so as to need the tax. That is a better plan,as for you being called stupid for not signing petition ,that was wrong. But it does not change the fact you would regret not signing the petition if your taxes were raised and spending was not reduced.

-- Edited by R Hill on Sunday 1st of August 2010 06:21:09 PM

-- Edited by R Hill on Sunday 1st of August 2010 06:27:49 PM

NDGirl · Veteran Member

I do not have anything against the tea party as a hole, but when member of the tea party start telling me that I am stupid for not signing their petition for getting rid of property taxes and telling me that i will regret my decision. They donot have a valid plan on where money will come from, and I am the stupid one? yah right

Steve Powell · Guru

I have nothing against the tea party. Only the radicals.

vko · Senior Member

I do not think the Tea Party is a joke. It is people really unhappy about where this country is going. And it is about time people scream loud enough to make our leaders listen.

I worked at Hardy Salt Co. in 1973 for 13 Years. The boom went thru. The boom quit. Hardy was a Very Old Company. So was the owners. They sold it, close to end of the boom, it was bought, shut down, cleaned out for parts, we all contacted Bismarck. Esp. Dorgan, Conrad, and Pomeroy. Many people were laid off during the bust. This vein was the purest and largest. Of course they could not help us.

Next thing you know DCP was built which polluted Williston. Check out DCP - and Thank God DCP got shut down and Sabin is there. These boy's have make big bucks doing there back door deals. Do I trust one party or another? NO. Although taxes need to be paid and not just by the citizens. The Butt heads in Washington as well.

The Tea Party is just ripping them a NEW one. And it is about time.

-- Edited by vko on Friday 30th of July 2010 07:46:10 PM

Steve Powell · Guru

If you think housing is expensive in Williston now, go ahead and vote yes on this and watch how much the cost of construction will be on a new house. Imagine paying 13.5 percent sales tax on $150,000 worth of house.

I can honestly say that I believe that this measure will put a major halt to construction all over this state. Again, that would be very bad for Williston.

NDGirl · Veteran Member

romoisajedi--do you never plan to buy new clothes, a car to drive, food, ect.? you will have to pay more for these things, as well as services. Do you not enjoy having businesses in Williston? Business owners are already getting hassled because to compete with the oilfield, they have to raise wages and inturn raise prices. What are you going to do when your $5 item has 13% tax on it and is $6.55. or if you buy a vehicle (new or used) say $10,000, you will be paying around $1,300 in taxes instead of the $500 you would right now. You will be paying more in taxes if we do not pay the property taxes, and our money will go to the bigger cities before us. you will see more smaller schools closed because the state will not have any money left for the smaller schools once they get done giving money to the larger schools. I am sorry if I offend anyone, but this idea of the tea parties is a joke.
We already have a shortage of police, and crappy roads. They will just get worse because we will have to go to the state for money instead of the county. Businesses will close and we will become a ghost town. Is that what people want? Yes we have a surplus now, but what happens when this money is gone, Then what? We will have to either pay higher taxes or bring back property taxes. As for not being able to buy a house because of property taxes, we live on a corner lot in a nice area of town and our property tax is only $1300. that is only an extra 108 a month. If you cannot afford that, then you cannot afford a house.

vko · Senior Member

If and when this is on the ballot, the bigger population will get their way, again. Williston will pay and pay again. Of course people don't want Bismarck to run our tax structure. But tell me, how does Williston stop it? You can vote and so what then, we always get out voted. I already know what I am to do, but so what.

Steve Powell · Guru

So you're no different than many of the radical tea partiers in that you have a pair of blinders on that prevents you from seeing any solution that might work for all parties involved?

You would rather transfer the power over our hard earned money to the state government rather than keep the money here so we don't have to lobby to get it back?

By chance are you from eastern ND?

ps...I realize you're just trying to push my buttons...I get it...but at the same time you're giving me the opportunity to build my argument. Thanks dude!

romoisajedi · Senior Member

when is this on the ballot?

I need to get out and vote in support of removing property taxes,

I can avoid buying things I don't need, property taxes if there I can't I need a place to live...

romoisajedi · Senior Member

vko,

you're right, it's almost impossible to change stuff on the books once they've got power they dont' give it back,

Steve Powell · Guru

When the time comes?

The time will never come if people aren't actively seeking this information and looking for better ways for all of us.

I would challenge everyone reading this to start looking into this property tax versus sales tax issue. It's bad for Williston. Unless the state is willing to put the bulk of the sales tax on each individual city/county, moving to a huge state sales tax is a very bad idea for our region.

I would also challenge all of you tea party folks to debate me on this here. You guys were the ones pushing to get this on the ballot. I can't lie, I put my name on the list...I wish I could take it back. If I'm Valley City, Devils Lake, Dickinson or any other city that has a very low sales tax revenue, I'm licking my chops at the opportunity to get rid of my property taxes AND be able to take advantage of the huge amount of sales tax that cities like Fargo, Bismarck, Williston, and Grand Forks are bringing in.

Remember how hard we fight to get our extraction tax back. And we still get a very small percentage of what we put in. We'll have that as well with a state sales tax.

vko · Senior Member

I don't know - haven't looked at Local to State Sales Tax. However, will vote for the lessor of two evil's when the time comes.

Steve Powell · Guru

That being said, local sales tax versus state sales tax?

vko · Senior Member

From City to County to State taxes, not a one of them care to change anything. They already have their hands in our pockets. To change this, the vote will have to be strong and loud enough to pry any monies out of their cold dead fingers. Pretty hard to change laws that are in place. I just see more add ons to the taxes already in place. Is this on the State Level ballot or City? State I can vote - City I can not.

romoisajedi · Senior Member

no, i know what your saying...

I'm just frustrated and teetering on the edge of falling back in to apathy,

I was elaborating on VKO questioning transparency, at the local level I was merely saying its worse on the national level, our federal govement but specifically the "fed" I was refering to is the federal reserve.

anyways, in no way will I ever think a property tax or income tax on citizens of the united states is ok... so I'll bow out of this discussion now,

sales taxes and other methods of taxes that are aviodable and not direct I will agree to and endorse....

if you want to know why I won't endorse a failing "communistic" public school system or pay taxes that go to it read "deliberate dumbing down of america" by

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt

http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

great book!!!!

Steve Powell · Guru

Worthless and laughable? I would disagree. I think it's hugely important, especially since it's going to be on the ballot in November. The discussions need to take place whenever and wherever possible.

The part about D.C. and whatnot doesn't make sense considering we're discussing North Dakota state and local government and decisions that will be made initially by the voters.

Tell me your thoughts on property taxes versus sales tax without telling how bad our Federal Government is. I don't care about the Feds in this thread.

romoisajedi · Senior Member

VKO,

I'm with you,

this is all pretty worthless and laughable discussion actually, as long as we don't know what is going where and to whom there is no accountability.

D.C. has the highest wages in the nation right now, and thats not because they actually produce anything, it's because they have a bunch of bought and paid for reps to don't represent us "the people" but represent big corps.

if anyone knew what was going on at the fed it would be closed in a day....

Steve Powell · Guru

The City of Williston mill levy isn't really that high compared to other cities in North Dakota. It's actually fairly low. However, the county taxes are high compared to the rest of the state.

What the state should be considering, now that we have a multi-billion dollar surplus...is lowering the state sales tax and providing room for the cities to increase their local sales tax. They could do this on the condition that each city also lowers their mills.

For example...the state drops their state sales tax to 2 percent. Williston would then be at 4.5 percent. But since many of us feel sales tax is a more fair tax than property taxes, we vote that the city/county/school district/parks/vector are allowed to include another half cent sales tax each bringing our local tax to 6.5 percent. But in doing so, each entity has to lower their end of the property tax enough for everyone to see some significant relief.

The state is still getting plenty out of the sales tax and extraction tax combined. The local entities are raking in the dough. And the property owners see some nice tax relief.

vko · Senior Member

That is right Steve. But Williston's taxes are too high. Also during the last boom....Williston got took by Bismarck - Grand Forks - and Fargo. More people living there. Dug ourselves out of that one, barely. No, taxes should be paid to Williston for Williston. But we should know where the money is exactly spent. Who is getting paid what? During this Crazy time again. My husband and myself work alot. Last year MY wage went to the Federal Goverment cause we didn't Lie - Cheat - Have Kids - Hide Anything. Now they are thinking about retiring the Bush Tax laws????? When Charlie Rangle or what his name is - is ripping us off. Ahead of the tax laws. Kinda make you loose a whole lot of Faith in the system. Democrates and Republicans alike.... We make it too easy on the White House from President on Down. I guess the answer is Go into Debt....Alot of Wiggle Room there. cry

Steve Powell · Guru

Here's the deal....moving our tax to a statewide tax is pushing us also towards a more socialistic government. The larger government gains control of the local government monies and distributes it evently (supposedly) to the rest of the state. If you're a tea partier, or a true conservative, you would NOT be for this type of tax system. I understand sales tax seems like a fair system but in the case that the larger government entity gets control...you can bet your a$$ it won't be fair. Perfect example is our extraction tax.

The second part of this deal is the fact that Williston is now number 3 in the state in sales tax revenue. Do we really want to go down the same road with our local sales tax as we do with our extraction tax? Do you fellow Willistonites or Willistononians or whatever we are really want to give that up to the rest of the state too? Look how hard we have to battle for the small chunk of our extraction taxes...now we have to battle for our high amount of sales tax???

So before you go and vote yes for getting rid of property taxes...think good and hard about it. It wouldn't be good for us here in Williston.

romoisajedi · Senior Member

I'm against property taxes yes.

I don't believe you should constantly have to pay for something you already own.

you can gain public support for funding by other means then forcing people who can't afford it to chip in.

IMO,

Sue Evans · Senior Member

Having trouble viewing this email? Click here

Month Date, Year

Property Tax Gap Being Filled By Cities, Counties , and Park Boards

Today, I would like to pass along an article by State Senator George Nodland of Dickinson.

In this article that recently ran in the Dickinson Press, Senator Nodland points out that, as predicted last March local governments are back-filling the tax gap left by the state's massive property tax bailout of school districts.

Statewide, school taxes decreased 28.3 percent due to the property tax relief bill (SB2199) adopted in the 2009 legislative session. City property taxes increased 4.3 percent and county property taxes increased 8 percent for an overall state property tax decrease of 12.6 percent.
District 36 2008-2009 property tax comparisons are the following:
Dunn County had an overall average decrease of 16.1 percent. School taxes decreased 32 percent, city taxes increased 1.6 percent and county taxes decreased 7.1 percent.
Stark County had an overall average decrease of 12.6 percent. School taxes decreased 32.2 percent, city taxes increased 5.2 percent and county taxes increased 8.4 percent.
Hettinger County had an overall average decrease of 14 percent. School taxes decreased 32.4 percent, city taxes increased 9.9 percent and county taxes increased 4.7 percent.

In just the first year, the state bailout of school property taxes have been cut in half, or more, by cities, counties, and park boards.

We heard the same thing from the Minot area a few months ago.

Why is this happening?

Simple: tax relief without reform is nothing more than a bailout of local government.

This is what NDTA testified to during the 2009 legislative session (SB 2199 refers to Senate Bill 2199 that eventually became the tax relief/bailout plan):

SB 2199 fails to address the real problem which is a lack of mill levy reductions to counteract property valuation increases.
SB 2199 fails to address the issue of spending at the local level outside of education. (Note: State funding for Education increased by 50% over and above inflation in the last 15 years, while enrollment has declined by 20%.)
SB 2199 fails to prevent cities, counties, and parks from filling the property tax void left by the state-funded property tax relief.
SB 2199 fails to limit future spending increases as a condition of receiving this new state money, allowing the status quo that created this situation to continue.

The next legislature will be faced with a choice:

1. Continue to throw state tax dollars at local school districts while other local officials do nothing to curb the spending that creates high property taxes.

2. Crea mills

te actual mechanisms to at least make it politically uncomfortable to allow this to keep happening.

...or...

NDTA has been discussing actual reforms with state legislators.

Many have agreed that the best way to apply some friction to property taxes is to amend the local budget formula to require that when valuations go up X%, the mill levy automatically goes X%.

Local governments would have the option to raise taxes, but they would have to vote to do it.

This proposal would not tie local officials from raising property taxes, so long as they go on the record as doing such.

If your property taxes go up, your local officials should be on the record one way or another.

For more information contact:

Dustin Gawrylow

North Dakota Taxpayers' Association

701-751-2530

P.S. The North Dakota Policy Council has started holding Property Tax Forums around the state. Their next one is in Grand Forks on June 30th. Click here for more details.

Forward email

This email was sent to s_evans64@hotmail.com by dgawrylow@ndtaxpayers.com.

Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.

Email Marketing by

North Dakota Taxpayers' Association | 1720 Burnt Boat Drive | BISMARCK | ND | 58503

Steve Powell · Guru

Great Romo, but what is your personal opinion on abolishing property taxes?

romoisajedi · Senior Member

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173#

IMO one of the best documentaries ever,

must see for anyone interested in learning more about the history of our tax system or american history.

romoisajedi · Senior Member

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-15/end-the-income-tax-abolish-the-irs/

interesting piece on taxes in general,

good points made based of creation of federal reserve and the stress that put on us all.

instead of our federal government printing our money, which is one of their responsibilities they pased this off to some private bankers who inturn charge us interest on the same process.

our entire income tax goes to pay debt to the fed none of it is used for any public good.

Sue Evans · Senior Member

Steve Powell wrote:

While we're at it....can we get rid of the IRS too? Both Fed and State? I'm all for a straight flat tax. As long as we're on the subject of taxes.

NOW YOU HAVE IT.. biggrin

Steve Powell · Guru

While we're at it....can we get rid of the IRS too? Both Fed and State? I'm all for a straight flat tax. As long as we're on the subject of taxes.

Steve Powell · Guru

I'm confused. So if we abolish property taxes how do you propose we..."levy" for lack of a better term...the sales tax?

Go to an 11 percent sales tax with only 5 percent still going back to the state and the other 6 percent staying local? We'd still have to add the existing 2.5 percent which puts sales tax at 13.5 percent. So we'd keep 8.5 percent of that 13.5 percent?

I guess I'd be alright with that. At least until the oil goes away. The problem with that is that once that happens our sales tax climb dramtically to keep what we have. Whereas when the oil goes away and we have property taxes, our property taxes drop along with home de-valuations.

Hmmm....very interesting scenarios. I'm not seeing how the change from property taxes to sales tax correllates with pork spending.

Sue Evans · Senior Member

Look at the housing bubble. It is happening here. Over inflating the value of our homes and assessing the property tax. The local government then adjusts spending according to the inflated amounts.

The pensions are a huge part of the problem. We need to adjust those NOW. On the local level. I am not suggesting a raise in any tax to the state and asking the state to send the money back to us. Leave the money at home.

Thus far our legislators have shown us they are fully guilty of heavy pork. They have to much at the state level and need to balance out the problems. I can not see handing them our funds and begging for it back. Property tax money is local.

We force the leaders to address the big issues. On the local levels. Pensions, travel, bonds, what we have in CD's, mini match programs, our original penny sales tax. We are taxed yearly for infrastructure, asked the governor for help for infrastructure and pay a sales tax that is dedicated towards infrastructure. Time to redirect that penny. It has been abused in my eyes. Time to set a hard line on that. Make it into a concrete issue. No rents paid from our penny tax, no new business signs, no loan backing for new store fronts, place it to benefit our community as a whole. Infrastructure is well covered. No more grant funds. They are a violation of ND Constitution. Currently under a lawsuit by Bob Hale of Minot. We can set this right, at home. We already have the money. Our leaders are just affraid to tell you. They can find money for the design and our percentage of the grand "Welcome to Williston" signs. We do not need to spend $8'000 to design one sign. I am conservative. Green reflective sign for $50, simply says, Williston. Good enough.

We do need to look at what has happened by the government across the nation. Increasing the value of the homes, increasing the taxes collected and then POP.

Steve Powell · Guru

Sue Evans wrote:

Steve Powell wrote:

I have a confession to make. I signed the petition.

But I only did this based on the fact that it merely allows the initiative to be more widely discussed/debated.

I asked the gentleman that approached me last night some questions...a couple that he struggled answering.

First I asked why a group of conservatives would push for something that puts so much power into a larger government entity. His reply was something down the lines of, "it already is". I felt compelled to remind him how the mil levy works and that property taxes stay local.

I asked how the state sales tax money is disbursed throughout the state. Not really a straight answer, this is where he told me getting the petition signed would allow the discussions on this to begin taking place.

The previous question was a lead-in question to this next one which he had absolutely no answer for and could really only agree with me on. I mentioned the fact that right now Williston is 5th if not 4th highest in the state in sales tax revenue. If we abolish our property taxes and go to a straight sales tax...we are no longer maximizing the fruit of our labor. Instead we are having to share our local success with the rest of the state. Sounded like a socialist idea to me.

But again, I went ahead and signed the petition because I'm interested in hearing all the facts on this so I can make a decision in November.

Thanks for listening to my confession. I feel much better.

Not all of those who are behind the petition can answer every question.

Part of me hopes the answers can be found. I still struggle with giving extended power to the bigger government entities. Transfering decisions to the state on how tax money is distributed to local governments, quite frankly, scares me more than anything.

Sue, these pork spending cuts can happen regardless of whether we maintain a property tax or go to a sales tax. So if the issue is actually cutting spending, the need to eliminate property taxes is moot.

And as far as "across the nation", the states that have no property tax and depend on sales tax are struggling tremendously also.

And I still feel an all out state sales tax is pushing towards a socialist idea. I'm not dead set against it because I'm always open to ideas. But I haven't been convinced a state sales tax versus local property taxes is going to be beneficial to anyone other than the state government.

Sue Evans · Senior Member

Steve Powell wrote:

I have a confession to make. I signed the petition.

But I only did this based on the fact that it merely allows the initiative to be more widely discussed/debated.

I asked the gentleman that approached me last night some questions...a couple that he struggled answering.

First I asked why a group of conservatives would push for something that puts so much power into a larger government entity. His reply was something down the lines of, "it already is". I felt compelled to remind him how the mil levy works and that property taxes stay local.

I asked how the state sales tax money is disbursed throughout the state. Not really a straight answer, this is where he told me getting the petition signed would allow the discussions on this to begin taking place.

The previous question was a lead-in question to this next one which he had absolutely no answer for and could really only agree with me on. I mentioned the fact that right now Williston is 5th if not 4th highest in the state in sales tax revenue. If we abolish our property taxes and go to a straight sales tax...we are no longer maximizing the fruit of our labor. Instead we are having to share our local success with the rest of the state. Sounded like a socialist idea to me.

But again, I went ahead and signed the petition because I'm interested in hearing all the facts on this so I can make a decision in November.

Thanks for listening to my confession. I feel much better.

Not all of those who are behind the petition can answer every question. The petition is just to allow the measure to be placed on the ballot. There is going to be a LOT of bias on both ends.

The main issue is the schools. The school levies the largest piece of the pie.
Some things people do not know:
Interest from unclaimed monies goes to the education system
Monies from the ND lottery partially go toward education, - could be fully dedicated
$921 mill found thus far in PORK spending. Dedicating funds toward the horse racing commission, landscaping the bank of ND, or using baffalo meat on pizza.
Meetings for the Sioux nick name that cost us (the tax payer) many flight tickets for breakfast meetings ect... that could have been handled in a conference call.

Even on the local setting, how many trips are made? Florida for the pasta convention. Vegas for building. How have we benefited?

Do we really need a park within 10 minutes walking distance for all? That is in the Williston plan.

The ND Pension plan is in serious condition. The nation faces the same problems. We have let this happen. NORMAL retirement plans should be instituted now. On the state and local levels. They are breaking our tax system.

Would we loose the ambulance service? NO. Have you ever taken a ride in an ambulance for free?

Would this stop funding for the library? NO. That is under the infrastructure.

You do not just get a bill for your property. You get a bill for special bond assessment, and infrastructure. It is felt by many, your property should not be a cash cow.

Take a look at what happened across the nation. The housing bubble. The value of homes were inflated. Taxed. Many refinanced due to these values and many purchased at these high values. The bubble popped. Their home was now worth half of what they owed. Who valued these homes at these prices? What was the purpose of these values? TAXES. The home owners who were selling felt great, others felt great about equity.

Now, look at Fargo. Building was going great. WAS...key word.

Steve Powell · Guru

I have a confession to make. I signed the petition.

But I only did this based on the fact that it merely allows the initiative to be more widely discussed/debated.

I asked the gentleman that approached me last night some questions...a couple that he struggled answering.

First I asked why a group of conservatives would push for something that puts so much power into a larger government entity. His reply was something down the lines of, "it already is". I felt compelled to remind him how the mil levy works and that property taxes stay local.

I asked how the state sales tax money is disbursed throughout the state. Not really a straight answer, this is where he told me getting the petition signed would allow the discussions on this to begin taking place.

The previous question was a lead-in question to this next one which he had absolutely no answer for and could really only agree with me on. I mentioned the fact that right now Williston is 5th if not 4th highest in the state in sales tax revenue. If we abolish our property taxes and go to a straight sales tax...we are no longer maximizing the fruit of our labor. Instead we are having to share our local success with the rest of the state. Sounded like a socialist idea to me.

But again, I went ahead and signed the petition because I'm interested in hearing all the facts on this so I can make a decision in November.

Thanks for listening to my confession. I feel much better.

Sue Evans · Senior Member

What is a mill levy worth?

Here are Williston Levies:

City Mill: 66.68
County and State: 91.8
School: 121.02
Park: 40.07
Other: 1.93

Taxable value: $ 27,764,345
Taxes/100'000 Residential = $1447
Taxes/100'000 Commercial = $1608
(Williston only)

I am viewing 13 communities: Our Park mill levy is in 4th place. Devils Lake is the highest at 58.12 and Dickinson is the lowest at 26.88. Minot is close behind with 30.68.

We are about equal with Dickinson for the school levy. Our levy is the lowest of all cities on this.

Other wise Fargo has the lowest of all the cities with 58.25 and Jamestown the highest with 134.63.

County and State mill levy Williston ranks 5th out of the 13 in this study. Bismarck pays in 56.44 and Grafton pays 145.2.

http://www.cityofwilliston.com/usrfiles/AUD/Docs/Resolution0953.pdf

Now this should help some what. You may see where some of your taxes are applied.

Sue Evans · Senior Member

http://www.williamsnd.com/tax/search/default.asp

All you have to do is type in a last name. Hit the search key. You may now check your home values and the increase over the years.

type in city of williston in the owner category.
view what we own as a collective. Look at things like Stockman Motors. It says PARKING LOT. Careful, be sure you are reading all the things correct. We don't own Stockman Motors. I am just using that as an example so people will be aware to look at all - not just scanning the document. It will cite if the city (US) own a parking lot. LOL.

This is public information. I am posting a calculation on my web site on how to figure your percentage of increase in value soon. I have a person adding a page and more information. I know there are some who only visit this page and think this will be of value here. View how your property has increased in the last 10 years alone. Have your wages done so well?

Sue Evans · Senior Member

long but well done. The conclusion was just like the ND Policy council is touting. We really do not have blighted areas anymore. This freezing of tax zones is not required any more. Excellent find.

Steve Powell · Guru

Wow...here's an interesting article on TIF's. Sorry it's quite long, but very informative.

http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/1078_Tax-Increment-Financing

Land Lines: January 2006, Volume 18, Number 1

Tax Increment Financing (Land Lines Article)

A Tool for Local Economic Development

Author(s): Dye, Richard and David Merriman
Publication Date: January 2006

Inventory ID LLA060102; English

Article

Tax Increment Financing: A Tool for Local Economic Development

Richard F. Dye and David F. Merriman

Tax increment financing (TIF) is an alluring tool that allows municipalities to promote economic development by earmarking property tax revenue from increases in assessed values within a designated TIF district. Proponents point to evidence that assessed property value within TIF districts generally grows much faster than in the rest of the municipality and infer that TIF benefits the entire municipality. Our own empirical analysis, using data from Illinois, suggests to the contrary that the non-TIF areas of municipalities that use TIF grow no more rapidly, and perhaps more slowly, than similar municipalities that do not use TIF. An important finding is that TIF has different impacts when land use is considered. For example, commercial TIF districts tend to decrease commercial development in the non-TIF portion of the municipality.

Designating a TIF District
The rules for tax increment financing, and even its name, vary across the 48 states in which the practice is authorized. The designation usually requires a finding that an area is “blighted” or “underdeveloped” and that development would not take place “but for” the public expenditure or subsidy. It is only a bit of an overstatement to characterize the “blight” and “but for” findings as merely pro forma exercises, since specialized consultants can produce the needed evidence in almost all cases. In most states, the requirement for these findings does little to restrict the location of TIF districts.

TIF expenditures are often debt financed in anticipation of future tax revenues. The practice dates to California in 1952, where it started as an innovative way of raising local matching funds for federal grants. TIF became increasingly popular in the 1980s and 1990s, when there were declines in subsidies for local economic development from federal grants, state grants, and federal tax subsidies (especially industrial development bonds). In many cases TIF is “the only game in town” for financing local economic development.

The basic rules of the game are illustrated in Figure 1. The top panel shows a land area view of a hypothetical municipality. The area on the western border is designated a TIF district and its assessed value is measured. The lower panel of Figure 1 shows the base-year property values in the TIF (B) and the non-TIF (N) areas. At a later point in time, assessed property values have grown to include the increment (I) in the TIF district and growth (G) in the non-TIF area of the municipality.

Tax increment financing carves out the increment (I) and reserves it for the exclusive use of the economic development authority, while the base-year assessed value (B) stays in the local government tax base. Thus,

Before-TIF value = before TIF local government tax base = B + N;
After-TIF value = B + N + I + G;
After-TIF tax base available to local governments = B + N + G; and
TIF district authority’s tax base = I.

Impacts on Overlapping Governments and Non-TIF Areas
The value increment (I) is the tax base of the TIF district. In most states (like Illinois, but unlike Massachusetts) there are multiple overlapping local governments, e.g., the municipality, school district, community college district, county, township, park district, library district, and other special districts. Figure 2 illustrates this situation with the school district representing all the nonmunicipal governments. To understand the economics and politics of TIF, it is crucial to note that while the municipality makes the TIF adoption decision, the TIF area value is part of the tax base of the school district and other local governments as well. Moreover, the TIF district gets revenues from the increment times the combined tax rate for all local governments together. The following hypothetical tax rates for a group of local governments overlapping a TIF district are close to the average proportions in Illinois.

Municipal tax rate = 0.15 %
School district tax rate = 0.60 %
Other governments’ tax rate = 0.25 %
Combined tax rate = 1.00 %

For each 15 cents of its own would-be tax revenues the municipality puts on the line, the school district and other local governments contribute another 85 cents. Thus, there may be an incentive for municipalities to “capture” revenue from growth that would have occurred in the absence of TIF (to collect taxes that would have gone to school districts). Or, municipal decision makers may favor inefficient economic development strategies that do not result in public benefits worth the full cost, since their own cost is only 15 cents on the dollar. TIF proponents would counter that nothing is captured, because the increment to the tax base would not exist “but for” the TIF authority expenditure. That argument, of course, turns on what would have happened to property values in the absence of TIF.

If, as municipalities are often required to assert when they adopt TIF, all of the increment is attributable to the activities of the TIF development authority, then TIF is fair, in that the school district is not giving up any would-be revenues. If, as critics of TIF sometimes assert or assume, none of the increment is attributable to the TIF and all of the new property value growth would have occurred anyway, then the result is just a reallocation of tax revenues by which municipalities win and school districts lose.

The impact of TIF on growth in property values requires a careful reading of the evidence. It is wrong, as those who look only at growth within the TIF district in effect do, to assume to know the answer. Part of the solution is to use appropriate tools to statistically control for other determinants of growth.

It is also necessary to take into account the potential for reverse causality. We want to know the extent to which TIF adoption causes growth. But the causation could go the other way; anticipated growth in property values could lead to TIF adoption if municipalities attempt to capture revenues from overlapping governments. Or there could be reverse causation bias if TIF is adopted in desperation by municipal decision makers in areas where low growth is anticipated. Either way we should ask: Are the municipalities that adopt TIF systematically different from those that do not? If the municipalities are systematically different, we must statistically disentangle the effect of that difference from the effect of the TIF using a technique that corrects for what economists call “sample selection bias.”

Impacts on Growth and Property Values
There are two sides to any government budget: revenues and expenditures. As a revenue-side mechanism, TIF is a way of earmarking tax revenues for a particular purpose, in this case local economic development. The effectiveness of economic development expenditures depends on opportunities, incentives, and planning skills that are specific to each local area and each project. By combining data from a large number of TIF and non-TIF municipalities, we can ask: On average and overall, is TIF adoption associated with increased growth in municipal property values? We have addressed this question in two research studies, both of which use statistical controls for the other determinants of growth and for reverse causation due to sample selection bias.

The first study (Dye and Merriman 2000) uses data from 235 Chicago area municipalities and covers preadoption, TIF adoption (or not), and postadoption time periods. We control for the selection bias (reverse causation) problem by first predicting which municipalities adopt TIF and then using that information (a statistic called the inverse Mills ratio) when estimating the effect of TIF adoption on property values in a second stage. Use of selection bias correction was first applied to the study of TIF by John Anderson (1990) and is now standard practice.

Our estimates of the impact of TIF have a number of additional variables controlling for home-rule status, the combined tax rate, population, income per capita, poverty rate, nonresidential share of equalized assessed value (EAV), EAV per square mile, distance to the Chicago loop, and county of location. We found that property values in TIF-adopting municipalities grew at the same rate as or even less rapidly than in nonadopting municipalities. The study design did not get at this directly, but the offset seemed to come from smaller growth in non-TIF area of the municipality (lower G).

Our findings were a surprise to those, especially nonacademics, who naively had inferred TIF caused growth by observing growth within a TIF district (I) without any statistical controls for the other determinants of growth (in I or G). Our findings were quite threatening to those with an interest in TIF, such as local economic development officers who spend the earmarked funds or TIF consultants who are paid for documenting findings of “blight” or “but for.” Our findings were also at odds with an Indiana study that found a positive effect of TIF adoption on housing values (Man and Rosentraub 1998).

Because our findings were controversial, because the effect of TIF was unsettled in the academic literature, and particularly because we wanted to pursue the possibility of a negative cross relationship between growth in the TIF district (I) and growth outside the TIF district (G), we undertook a second study (Dye and Merriman 2003). In addition we wanted to look at whether there are different TIF effects when more municipalities are included and different types of land uses are considered. We used three different data sets: property value data for 246 municipalities in the six-county Chicago area; less complete property value data for 1,242 municipalities in all 102 Illinois counties; and property value data for 247 TIF districts in the six-county Chicago area.

For the six-county sample (similar to our earlier study, but with more years and more municipalities), Table 1 presents the pre- and postadoption growth rates for the TIF-adopting and nonadopting municipalities. These calculations are from raw data, before any statistical controls for other growth determinants or corrections for selection bias. The first row compares EAV growth rates of the TIF-adopting and nonadopting municipalities in the period before any of them adopted TIF. EAV grew slightly faster for municipalities that would later adopt TIF.

The second row shows that in the period after TIF adoptions took place, gross-of-TIF EAV grew less rapidly for TIF adopters. The last row shows that the net-of-TIF EAV growth rate for TIF adopters was even lower, suggesting that growth (I) in the TIF district may come at the expense of property values outside the development area (G). In summary, if we make no statistical adjustment for the effects of other determinants, TIF adopters grew more slowly than nonadopters.

When we use the more recent six-county data in a multivariate regression model with statistical controls for local characteristics and sample selection, we no longer get the earlier provocative result of a significantly negative impact of TIF adoption on growth, but we still find no positive impact of TIF adoption on the growth in citywide property values. Any growth in the TIF district is offset by declines elsewhere.

The second study was designed with particular attention to land use. The property value data is broken into three land use types: residential, commercial, and industrial. Each TIF district also is identified by one of five development purpose types: central business district (CBD), commercial, industrial, housing, and other or mixed purpose. Thus, we can look separately at growth in municipal EAV by type of land use and type of TIF. Unfortunately, the data do not record EAV by land use within TIF districts, so we must settle for the growth in the tax base that is available to local governments. Most of the estimates of effects by land use type are not significantly different than zero. However, commercial and industrial TIF districts both show a significantly negative impact on growth in commercial assessed values outside the district.

The second study also extends the analysis to all 102 Illinois counties, which results in a much larger sample of municipalities (see Table 2). The TIF-base EAV (B) is unavailable, so we look at growth in available EAV. The simple means from the larger sample again suggest a negative effect of TIF on growth in property values. When we use this all-county sample to estimate the impact of TIF in a multivariate regression with statistical controls for other growth determinants and for TIF selection, there is a significantly negative impact of TIF adoption on growth in overall available (non-TIF) property values. This revives the earlier hypothesis that TIF adoption actually reduces property values in the larger community.

When we run separate regressions for available EAV growth by type of land use for the all-county sample, we see more evidence of a zero or negative impact of TIF on property value growth. Again, there is a significant “cannibalization” of commercial EAV outside the TIF district from commercial development within the TIF district.

The TIF district sample of the second study includes 247 TIF districts in 100 different municipalities in the six-county Chicago area. We match TIF base (B) and TIF increment (I) in each year to information for the host municipality. The key results are:

Enormous variation in TIF district size, with an average base of around $11 million.
Enormous variation in TIF district EAV growth rates around an average of 24 percent growth per year.
TIF districts that start with a smaller base tend to have higher rates of growth.
Most of the TIF growth occurs in the first several years, and growth rates decline an average of about 1 percent per year after the initial surge.
Growth rates in the host municipalities are generally much smaller in the TIF district (an average of 3 percent compared to the TIF average of 24 percent).
The estimated relationship between TIF growth and municipality growth is U-shaped; starting from zero, higher growth in the host municipality means lower growth in the TIF district, but the relationship turns positive at a host municipality growth level of about 6 percent.

Conclusion
Tax increment financing is an alluring tool. TIF districts grow much faster than other areas in their host municipalities. TIF boosters or naive analysts might point to this as evidence of the success of tax increment financing, but they would be wrong. Observing high growth in an area targeted for development is unremarkable. The issues we have studied are (1) whether the targeting causes the growth or merely signals that growth is coming; and (2) whether the growth in the targeted area comes at the expense of other parts of the same municipality. We find evidence that the non-TIF areas of municipalities that use TIF grow no more rapidly, and perhaps more slowly, than similar municipalities that do not use TIF.

Policy makers should use TIF with caution. It is, after all, merely a way of financing economic development and does not change the opportunities for development or the skills of those doing the development planning. Moreover, policy makers should pay careful attention to land use when TIF is being considered. Our evidence shows that commercial TIF districts reduce commercial property value growth in the non-TIF part of the same municipality. This is not terribly surprising, given that much of commercial property is retailing and most retail trade needs to be located close to its customer base. That is, if you subsidize a store in one location there will be less demand to have a store in a nearby location. Industrial land use, in theory, is different. Industrial goods are mostly exported and sold outside the local area, so a local offset would not be expected. Our evidence is generally consistent with this prediction of no offset in industrial property growth in non-TIF areas of the same municipality.

Richard F. Dye is a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in 2005–2006. He is also the Ernest A. Johnson Professor of Economics at Lake Forest College, Lake Forest, Illinois, and adjunct professor at the Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois. Contact: dye@lakeforest.edu

David F. Merriman is professor of economics at Loyola University of Chicago and adjunct professor at the Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois. Contact: dmerrim@luc.edu

References

Anderson, John E. 1990. Tax increment financing: Municipal adoption and growth. National Tax Journal 43: 155–163.

Dye, Richard F., and David F. Merriman. 2000. The effects of tax increment financing on economic development. Journal of Urban Economics 47: 306–328.

———. 2003. The effect of tax increment financing on land use, in Dick Netzer (ed.), The property tax, land use, and land-use regulation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 37–61.

Dye, Richard F., and Jeffrey O. Sundberg. 1998. A model of tax increment financing adoption incentives. Growth and Change 29: 90–110.

Johnson, Craig L., and Joyce Y. Man (eds.). 2001. Tax increment financing and economic development: Uses, structures and impact. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Man, Joyce Y., and Mark S. Rosentraub. 1998. Tax increment financing: Municipal adoption and effects on property value growth. Public Finance Review 26: 523–547.

Steve Powell · Guru

Here's a thought to ponder. I realize by taking property taxes out of the equation on a state level does remove local control on how many tax dollars we have to use for all the local needs. We end up having to scratch and fight for every penny in that scenario.

However, if we somehow honestly feel property taxes aren't a fair tax, would it be possible to consider moving all property taxes to a sales tax?

Pros? People would be less reluctant to do home improvements considering the concern they will be punished with higher valuations. I'm still not 100 percent sure how comps are done on these valuations without actually seeing the entire house.
Feel free to add your "pros" here.

Cons? Might cause people to spend their money in Montana so they don't have to pay the high sales tax.
Feel free to add your "cons" here.

Just processing some thoughts and want to kick around the ideas. Please add to the conversation.

Sue Evans · Senior Member

Take the levies on our property. Pensions. Our city employees pensions are placed as a levy on our property. Most all of them own property. When their pension increases so does their property tax. Perhaps we need to revisit the program. Now, we also have "band" assessed against us. How much is fully in this account and do we fully need it? The general fund is padded by this levy. The Library which is a traditional infrastructure expenditure is also a levy.

Our state pension fund is estimated to be broke in 10 years. The man who runs this just committed suicide. I placed the AP article on my web site. www.sueevans.net
We really need to address these pensions prior to them becoming the gorilla in the room.

Also there are the TIF problems. I have a video on my site about this also. This abuse makes our property taxes unfair.

Sigma · Veteran Member

Sue Evans wrote:

We have so many program abuses that could be cleaned. We have some years to adjust. This measure should jolt our reps into fiscal responsibility.

So what programs can be trimmed? What abuses are present that would provide a revenue equivalent equal to that provided by property tax revenue? Frankly, eliminating the property tax sounds like a tax protester's dream come true. And like most tax protester claims eliminating property tax is an idea based in pure fantasy.

-- Edited by Sigma on Tuesday 13th of April 2010 08:08:09 PM

rwaitman · Senior Member

Sue Evans wrote:

http://www.policynd.org/index.php?/site/article/critics_of_property_tax_measure_need_to_read_it

With the property taxes as high as we have them, and such a small population, we do need to address this. Even if this is voted down. We have a viable discussion. Our reps are getting a good look at this issue. It is all we can ask. Right now the pension system is going broke. They are looking at increases somewhere to adjust this issue in our state. We do not want an increase in property taxes to finance this problem. We have so many program abuses that could be cleaned. We have some years to adjust. This measure should jolt our reps into fiscal responsibility. They have to understand our property is not a cash cow. It could some day end.

This is a very viable conversation alright and definitely merits discussion. I don't think we can possibly raise taxes locally any more than we already have. The people simply would not stand for it. ...and while we might not really like it, the one cent tax has been pretty much accepted, and even if there is a sunset, the idea of an extension of that tax, in my opinion, is reasonable, all things given, although with very strict oversight as to where that money is spent.

;o)
R

Sue Evans · Senior Member

http://www.policynd.org/index.php?/site/article/critics_of_property_tax_measure_need_to_read_it

With the property taxes as high as we have them, and such a small population, we do need to address this. Even if this is voted down. We have a viable discussion. Our reps are getting a good look at this issue. It is all we can ask. Right now the pension system is going broke. They are looking at increases somewhere to adjust this issue in our state. We do not want an increase in property taxes to finance this problem. We have so many program abuses that could be cleaned. We have some years to adjust. This measure should jolt our reps into fiscal responsibility. They have to understand our property is not a cash cow. It could some day end.

rwaitman · Senior Member

I tend to agree with jibslider.

Because of our isolation, and lack of publicity touting the wonders of ND, people, (tourists)in general, already have a pretty negative perception of North Dakota despite all that we have to offer. If we had a high sales tax, even with the local benefits of no property taxes, you will likely see a wholesale by-passing of our wonderful state, the real "last best place" (with apologies to Montana), by those people. Not small business friendly at all.

;o)
R

Jibslider · Senior Member

Steve Powell wrote:

Signatures are now being gathered to put a measure on the november ballot that would eliminate all property taxes across the state. Our sales tax would increase...more than double...but it would be less burden on the serfs...err, I mean the property owners.

Is this a good idea?

Can we possibly create enough of a surplus (yikes) to put the state in the same situation as Alaska and be able to eventually eliminate sales tax as well?

Any other ideas on how to approach this logically?

Wow. Do these folks that want to completely eliminate property taxes from ND want to completely eliminate tourism from the state? If so, continue to remove property taxes and replace them with increasing sales tax. See ya later Medora.

Sue Evans · Senior Member

50% of our property tax goes to the public school system. We pay a separate tax for our roads and infrastructure. This tax would not change. How many of the property owners use the public school? How many home school and still pay this tax? How many opt for a private school and still pay this tax? Many are exempt from this tax due to building projects, TIF, zones, charity status....It falls upon 60% of the home owners at any given time.

The parks also have their hands in our property tax. It appears they feel they have not gotten enough. They want more and now a sales tax. The sales tax is upwards of $3 million/yr.

Perhaps they would not levy our property for such issues as a "band". We need to visit this with some very open eyes. Either property tax is shared by all or none. TIF freezing is unjust. It increases burdens on the citizens. We all need to educate ourselves.

rwaitman · Senior Member

Steve Powell wrote:

Signatures are now being gathered to put a measure on the november ballot that would eliminate all property taxes across the state. Our sales tax would increase...more than double...but it would be less burden on the serfs...err, I mean the property owners.

Is this a good idea?

Can we possibly create enough of a surplus (yikes) to put the state in the same situation as Alaska and be able to eventually eliminate sales tax as well?

Any other ideas on how to approach this logically?

definitely needs some thought.....there are obvious pros and cons, but personally, I do not know enough about it to hazars an opinion at this point....will look to education from others on the concept.

;o)
R