Elk County taxes & income.... say what?!?!

[Patriot]

From an email I just received from Senator Jeff King....

...Elk County has the second lowest median household income in Kansas...

Yet Elk County has one of the, if not the highest property tax rates in the entire state?

County        Mill Levy       Tax per capita
Elk                 .1946             $1266
Greenwood    .1590             $1078
Chautauqua   .1767             $1092
Wilson            .1114            $1134
Cowley           .1623            $  948
2009 State figures

And one of our county commissioners has been heard to be finding ways to spend our windfarm windfall on all kinds of 'stuff' other than property tax relief?

Who's been running this dog n pony show & for how long?

Still trying to figure out what I'm getting for my money.  I shudder to think.

Maybe we need more sunshine.

[evanstrail]

Try looking at this report from the Kansas Policy Institute (think-tank bankrolled by Koch Industries):

Kansas County Budget Analysis — In Search of Efficient Government
Dave Trabert - July, 2010

http://www.kansaspolicy.org/researchcenters/budgetandspending/budgetandspendingstudies/65372.aspx

Page 14 - 2009 Per-Resident Budgeted Spending

Of the thirty-eight Kansas counties with less than 5000 residents, Elk county spent the third least per person at $1364.26.  Osborne was just lower at $1340.16, and Chautauqua spent the least at $1109.35.  The median for these 38 small counties was $2082.79.

--------------------------------

Elk County really isn't over-spending, it just doesn't have very much property valuation to tax, the lowest in the state to be exact, and by a large amount - 2010 numbers from the Knasas Department of Revenue:

http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/novanalysis.pdf

County - Valuation (in dollars)

Elk - 19,999,882
Wichita - 26,366,392
Wallace - 26,827,193
Chautauqua - 27,800,149
Greeley - 28,094,169
Woodson - 28,389,770
Rawlins - 29,202,724

[jerry wagner]

Try looking at this report from the Kansas Policy Institute (think-tank bankrolled by Koch Industries):

Kansas County Budget Analysis — In Search of Efficient Government
Dave Trabert - July, 2010

http://www.kansaspolicy.org/researchcenters/budgetandspending/budgetandspendingstudies/65372.aspx

Page 14 - 2009 Per-Resident Budgeted Spending

Of the thirty-eight Kansas counties with less than 5000 residents, Elk county spent the third least per person at $1364.26.  Osborne was just lower at $1340.16, and Chautauqua spent the least at $1109.35.  The median for these 38 small counties was $2082.79.

--------------------------------

Elk County really isn't over-spending, it just doesn't have very much property valuation to tax, the lowest in the state to be exact, and by a large amount - 2010 numbers from the Knasas Department of Revenue:

http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/novanalysis.pdf

County - Valuation (in dollars)

Elk - 19,999,882
Wichita - 26,366,392
Wallace - 26,827,193
Chautauqua - 27,800,149
Greeley - 28,094,169
Woodson - 28,389,770
Rawlins - 29,202,724

Also, combine that with the an exceptionally low population which is what the original statement was based on, property taxes per person. 

[srkruzich]

Also, combine that with the an exceptionally low population which is what the original statement was based on, property taxes per person. 

Reduction in population means it should take less money to run things in the county.  Not as many people needing government services.  So taxes should be falling, not rising.

[evanstrail]

There are just as many miles of road to maintain, EMT's, Sheriffs deputies and fire trucks needed when there are 4 people per square mile as there would be if there were 20 per square mile.  That is unless you want to completely depopulate the townships and move everyone into the five incorporated towns and quit maintaining 90% of the roads.

[Patriot]

Wow.  Sounds like a punditry interview on CNN in Washington.  I never cease to be amazed at the energy some will expend to justify the exercise of the 'taking' powers of government. As we endeavor to justify takings, let us not forget to whom both the property and money belong in the first place.... we the people, NOT the government.  Yes, we elect officials to manage such things on behalf of the people.  That should never result in defensiveness when the citizenry makes inquiries. 

Also, my original post had nothing to do with spending per capita.  It was about tax rates & takings per capita.  Though one might wonder if Elk County's takings are higher per capita, why aren't the spendings correspondingly higher.

Perhaps someone here will enlighten on how many acres in this county are, for any reason, receiving exemptions or abatement from property taxation.

[srkruzich]

Wow.  Sounds like a punditry interview on CNN in Washington.  I never cease to be amazed at the energy some will expend to justify the exercise of the 'taking' powers of government. As we endeavor to justify takings, let us not forget to whom both the property and money belong in the first place.... we the people, NOT the government.  Yes, we elect officials to manage such things on behalf of the people.  That should never result in defensiveness when the citizenry makes inquiries.  

Also, my original post had nothing to do with spending per capita.  It was about tax rates & takings per capita.  Though one might wonder if Elk County's takings are higher per capita, why aren't the spendings correspondingly higher.

Perhaps someone here will enlighten on how many acres in this county are, for any reason, receiving exemptions or abatement from property taxation.
.

there should be 272000 acres if a county is required to be at least 425 square miles

[Patriot]

There are just as many miles of road to maintain, EMT's, Sheriffs deputies and fire trucks needed when there are 4 people per square mile as there would be if there were 20 per square mile.  That is unless you want to completely depopulate the townships and move everyone into the five incorporated towns and quit maintaining 90% of the roads.

Lest we run off the road completely, consider that a smaller (and shrinking) population (nor # people/sq mile) necessarily form the basis for justifying the number of EMTs/Sheriff deputies/fire trucks needed to service that population.  As for depopulating the rural areas, I'm not sure that's a function of government. 

[frawin]

Even if the rural areas do loose all of their population that is living in the country, the county would still be obligated to keep a passable road to the taxpayers land. How can you tax landowners but not provide them with a road to their property. As much as I hate to admit it, it looks like consolidation of the the counties maybe the best solution.

[srkruzich]

Even if the rural areas do loose all of their population that is living in the country, the county would still be obligated to keep a passable road to the taxpayers land. How can you tax landowners but not provide them with a road to their property. As much as I hate to admit it, it looks like consolidation of the the counties maybe the best solution.

IF you remember, roads are paid for (OR THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE) from the tax imposed on gasoline and diesel, tire sales, and other road taxes imposed on products. 

county consolidation might work IF it drops tax rates.  You can't tax the bejeebers out of people and expect them to stay.