Elk County Commission - 11/26/12

Patriot · November 26, 2012, 07:23:06 PM

Well citizens, it was an interesting meeting in at least one area: The Elk County Revitalization Plan.

In spite of a reasonable request by at least one citizen that a 45 or 60 day public comment period be set for this plan...

AND

In spite of Commissioner Ritz' presentation of an Attorney General Opinion stating that it was unlikely the intent of lawmakers to have an entire county covered by such a plan...

AND

In spite of Commissioner Ritz pointing out that at least 4 items required by Kansas law were NOT included in the plan as presented...

AND

In spite of previously made arguments that backdating the start date for the plan to January 1, 2012 and accepting applications for a non-existent plan was patently unfair to the public at large (based largely on the public being unaware of the 'early opportunity'...

AND

In spite of complaints that the public had not been widely informed of the details in the plan in advance of today's hearing....

AND

In spite of Mr. Ritz previously ignored suggestion that this plan be tabled pending the seating of a new board of commissioners in just over a month on January 8, 2013...

Commissioners Liebau & Hendricks rushed to approve the plan allowing tax rebates to taxpayers who spend at least $20,000 in construction/improvements to real property if those changes substantially increase appraised values. Commissioner Ritz opposed the motion.

To the casual observer, it looked like the skids on this one were well greased. It will be interesting to see who ultimately takes advantage of the new tax rebate plan.

readyaimduck · November 26, 2012, 08:09:40 PM

AND

it will be interesting to see the skid marks or the shorts of the two that voted for it, when the COTA ruling denies it based on legaities. (If they are made aware of circumstances)

ready

Patriot · November 26, 2012, 09:36:08 PM

Quote from: readyaimduck on November 26, 2012, 08:09:40 PM
AND

it will be interesting to see the skid marks or the shorts of the two that voted for it, when the COTA ruling denies it based on legaities. (If they are made aware of circumstances)

ready

Or the AG, or a district court, or the appellate court... or maybe even the Kansas Supreme Court. Of course, I'm not sure the two who voted for it much care about legalities (they sure don't seem to care about the KOMA)... so there might not be any skid marks.

Bullwinkle · November 27, 2012, 10:16:07 AM

Well Patriot, I believe you called this one a while back. It will indeed be intetresting to see who collects. If Mama Con isn't one of them with her plan for a new building, I will be more than a little suspicious of what the heck is going on here.

proelkco · November 27, 2012, 10:46:42 AM

What difference does it make who applies as long as it is for improvement.

ELK@KC · November 27, 2012, 11:21:22 AM

Quote from: proelkco on November 27, 2012, 10:46:42 AM
What difference does it make who applies as long as it is for improvement.

I agree Proelk, it seems to me it is a WinWin for everyone involved. It brings jobs to do the improvements, creates future improved values and tax revenues, and it improves properties and the attitude about Elk county. Flintoak is agood example. There were lots of jobs for locals when they developed and built it and more as they have enlarged and improved it. There are lots of jobs for people employed there the year around. It is a first class operation.

redcliffsw · November 27, 2012, 11:42:47 AM

Please help me understand how that is a 'WinWin" for everybody involved.

It looks like you have a politcal victory by way of 'democracy' to take advantage of other people.
Isn't that un-American? Isn't that depriving them of their liberty for someone elses' benefit by and thru
government?

Improvement? What difference does it make? Does stealing individual liberty make any lot of difference?

Let 'em improve or build on their own property without government help.

Mom70x7 · November 27, 2012, 05:34:52 PM

I'm confused. How it this taking advantage of anyone?

Someone builds and/or improves upon their premises.
They get a rebate on some of their taxes - but the rest of what they owe is added to our revenue for the year.

The following year they get a smaller rebate - but the increased rest is added to our revenues.

And so forth, for 5 years (I might have the time wrong), until they pay their full taxes.

The person has improved their property, tax revenues to the county increase every year.

Who's liberty has been deprived?

readyaimduck · November 27, 2012, 06:37:55 PM

QuoteThey get a rebate on some of their taxes - but the rest of what they owe is added to our revenue for the year.

The following year they get a smaller rebate - but the increased rest is added to our revenues.

And so forth, for 5 years (I might have the time wrong), until they pay their full taxes.

nope, wrong. There is no 'rebate'. Instead of paying $20 for the first year, they pay $5, then the next year, they pay $10 and so on until the term, then they pay the full $100. It is a break to get started, to create and build a business.
You won't pay anymore taxes, as what wasn't built cannot be taxed, so no revenue. At least you get SOME irevenue.

It is the backdating of a program and the people applying for this is what concerns me...and I don't live in Elk County anymore.
That is a slide into a dark side and unethical , if youi ask me, and no you didn't.
ready

readyaimduck · November 27, 2012, 06:44:28 PM

I get what you call the "welfare" program.
Sometimes farmers need a break. It's the ones who take advntage of the ruling is what crpas my craw.
"One bad apple...."

ready