Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have never heard of such a thing! why would the state do that? and what happens to the population of people that live in the half that the state baught? like, what do they pay for property taxes ect.?
I have never heard of such a thing! why would the state do that? and what happens to the population of people that live in the half that the state bought? like, what do they pay for property taxes ect.?
There are plans within plans. Some of the committees have open-to-the-public hearings. Sometimes they even get posted here on CD, to encourage more Mainers to attend. State policies get discussed, and lots of people stand-up to 'testify' at these public hearings.
Some people who post here attend those hearings.
However the concerns and attitudes most often voiced by Mainers at these hearings; are usually 180degrees away from what these committees decide.
My township has no elected officials deciding zoning or permits; it is all done by Augusta appointees. Such is the case for most Maine townships [52% of them in fact].
I am in an unusual position; on one hand I own land here, and on another hand I manage land that is owned by a third party who lives out-of-state [and every piece of paper sent to that land-owner from the State of Maine gets forwarded to me].
The out-of-state land owner receives four times more literature about LURC's goals and vision for the future than Maine land-owners receive.
The state of Maine is far more forth-coming with their plans to out-of-state land-owners, then they are to local residents.
'Primitive' use is the big push. No pavement, no power lines, no motorized vehicles [jeeps, ATVs, bikes, snow sleds, etc], and no full-time residents. Hike-in, enjoy primitive recreation and hike-out. Land that is simply too far to hike to, will simply have no people.
I'm guessing here, but I believe the "County Tax Rate" list is solely for unorganized towns overseen by the State. The mil rate is municipal, set by organized municipalities, with the exception of the unorganized townships, which are set and collected by the State (for instance, Carrabasset Valley was always one of the lowest at around $10.00/thousand).
The mil rate is calculated annually by dividing the total budget of the municipality by the total taxable property in the town. Then they can add in an "overlay" of, as I recall, up to 10% to cover unforeseen needs. It's been a long time.
I've seen Bangor up in the $22/thousand range, with properties severely overvalued. That said, the basis is equity, not value. If everyone in town is equally overvalued or undervalued, you have equity in application of the rate.
Commercial properties are exposed to less-than-qualified assessors who somehow believe that they can assess the cash flow to the business - which you already pay income tax on - like with restaurants and hospitality properties versus the real estate standing alone. My response was always "what if you changed chefs and drove all the customers away? What if you had a salmonella outbreak? Then whatcha got?" The answer is sticks, mortar and dirt. To which they would invariably stare blankly. I was certified as a State Tax Assessor in another life. Arguing with most of them often goes nowhere. Once upon a time I was arguing the overvaluation of hotels/motels in Bangor. Under the code, they HAVE to be on par with residential property - that is, not over or undervalued per se in comparison to the residential sector. The assessors took the position that "what? you think we should reevaluate all hotel/motel properties in Bangor??" When I said yes, they dug in their heels and it went nowhere.
Ok, sounds like we've touched the tip of the iceberg... In short what I am guessing is that the big picture is what was mentioned before.. about the state trying to force people out of the unicorperated areas and into the more metropolitan areas..
I know it must be a sensative subject but to a lay-person like myself who is on the otherside of the situation I have questioned many times why the state should support people who chose to live in those areas.... My question is is there a model of success in other rural states that maine could use..
Location: 3.5 sq mile island ant nest next to Canada
3,036 posts, read 5,884,828 times
Reputation: 2170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maineac
I'm guessing here, but I believe the "County Tax Rate" list is solely for unorganized towns overseen by the State. The mil rate is municipal, set by organized municipalities, with the exception of the unorganized townships, which are set and collected by the State (for instance, Carrabasset Valley was always one of the lowest at around $10.00/thousand).
The mil rate is calculated annually by dividing the total budget of the municipality by the total taxable property in the town. Then they can add in an "overlay" of, as I recall, up to 10% to cover unforeseen needs. It's been a long time.
I've seen Bangor up in the $22/thousand range, with properties severely overvalued. That said, the basis is equity, not value. If everyone in town is equally overvalued or undervalued, you have equity in application of the rate.
Commercial properties are exposed to less-than-qualified assessors who somehow believe that they can assess the cash flow to the business - which you already pay income tax on - like with restaurants and hospitality properties versus the real estate standing alone. My response was always "what if you changed chefs and drove all the customers away? What if you had a salmonella outbreak? Then whatcha got?" The answer is sticks, mortar and dirt. To which they would invariably stare blankly. I was certified as a State Tax Assessor in another life. Arguing with most of them often goes nowhere. Once upon a time I was arguing the overvaluation of hotels/motels in Bangor. Under the code, they HAVE to be on par with residential property - that is, not over or undervalued per se in comparison to the residential sector. The assessors took the position that "what? you think we should reevaluate all hotel/motel properties in Bangor??" When I said yes, they dug in their heels and it went nowhere.
Assessors are allowed maximum tax of 5% over the net to be raised by tax.Within that 5% is the overlay or the difference between the net and thee maximum tax to be raised.
From my understanding very few municipalities use the income approach in assessing buildings. Maybe Bangor does, not sure. But it seems a realk pain to do it that way as opposed to, as you said, sticks, mortar and dirt.
Yup. 5%. Been a long time. CRS impacts my memory going back to the 1980's.
They can only use the "income approach" as it applies to rental income, NOT to business receipts for automotive parts sales any more than a restaurant. And, hence, you're back to bricks and mortar. The cost, income and market comparison approaches, by their individual definitions, do not include "business value" or "going concern" value of a restaurant or other business. Lodging is different, but can be radically more impacted by short term economic changes. What I've seen, because it's "easier", is assessors using the Cost approach without a wit of attention to functional obsolescence, economic obsolescence, etc. If the cost approach, less depreciation is a legitimate approach, then there'd be construction in that market strata popping up everywhere. It ain't.
And utilization of the true "income approach" (rental income) is their SOLE excuse for asking for business books and receipts in their annual demand for information. All of the data is somewhat intertwined - restaurant A sells for X in similar location as restaurant B, but the cash flows are HUGELY different. So one had a better chef? There's the problem, and there's why it's a BUSINESS valuation, inapplicable to ad valorem taxation. Bricks, sticks and mortar. What might the restaurant building RENT for, and how does that RENT, with some consideration for vacancies and the vagaries of property ownership (risk, repairs, reserves, improvements, maintenance) play against an indication of market value?
Part of the problem can be laying off a transaction price partially to real estate, and declaring it as such, and partially to the business sale due to a particular income tax situation.
... I know it must be a sensitive subject but to a lay-person like myself who is on the otherside of the situation I have questioned many times why the state should support people who chose to live in those areas .... My question is is there a model of success in other rural states that Maine could use ..
I could be in error.
I have read through a bunch of the stuff on Maine.gov and this is my understanding.
It is my understanding that each county in Maine is self-supporting unto itself. Which is why the state sets the mil rates differently for each county.
One UT may or may not derive enough property tax revenue to support it's municipal services. However all of the UTs within a county combined do generate enough revenue to support that county's budget.
No revenue from one county goes to support any other county. And no state funds go to support any county.
Hmmm. Carrying the Property Tax Statute a little further, I'll bet the County mil rates are calculated on the UT's total taxable property divided into that County's budget and . . . I guess that goes without saying. The State simply does the arithmetic. I don't think the State "supports" anyone who chooses to live in a UT. You still get a property tax bill, and virtually no services comparatively speaking.
Hmmm. Carrying the Property Tax Statute a little further, I'll bet the County mil rates are calculated on the UTs total taxable property divided into that County's budget and . . . I guess that goes without saying. The State simply does the arithmetic. I don't think the State "supports" anyone who chooses to live in a UT. You still get a property tax bill, and virtually no services comparatively speaking.
Yes, exactly.
The argument could be made that one UT's taxes go to help support another UT [within the same county].
Nobody in an organized township provides support to the UTs, and no UT provides any support to any organized township.
It is my understanding that the counties themselves are just lines on a map with no real governing body. The state does all of the math [Lisa Whynot's office], and LURC does all of the zoning.
Actually, sorta, the UT's at least pay for services such as Sheriff, school tuition, etc., don't they? Seems as though I recall Bob Baldacci being a County Commissioner years ago. That would be a governing body, no?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
