Tye Tax and CofL Links

[XLFD]

We recently revisited a discussion based on the Mysterious House of North Washington, an address we looked at in detail after one of the two publicly-employed purchasers of the property decided some of my dissertations on the Ludington Downtown Development Authority (DDA) right here at the Ludington Torch were fostering a mob mentality among the hordes of Ludington residents.  Please re-read that article and reacquaint yourself with some of those mysteries, for we will revisit the last.

 

A recent member claimed that he was going to prove that the 201 N Washington property was not receiving any special tax breaks or assessments.  He was planning to show us by looking around the tax records/assessments of the immediate neighborhood of the Tykoski House, and create a database that would show the fairness so many of us scoffed at.  He left and took all his posts with him, came back for a bow and left. 

I presumed he was unsuccessful at his task.  I took that effort up myself, looking at the tax assessor's records for Ludington and documented the tax/sales records for a two block radius around the Tykoski House, with the exception that I didn't cross Ludington Avenue on Washington.  If you want to check out that, or any other data I present, here's the City Assessor site, which is free to use.  Here's the map of properties looked over: 

 

The 201 N Washington house is the orange square, and the 63 houses that were surveyed were along the green lines that parallel the streets on the map.  This included all properties in the 500 and 600 block of E Court, the 600 block of PM, 704-723 Brother St., 701-710 Diana, 601-713 (odds) Ludington Ave., the 100 and 200 block of N Emily, and 105-312 N Washington.  {These streets will be abbreviated C, P, B, D, L, E, and W from here on.}

 

I looked at the Summer taxes (winter taxes follow suit and are substantially smaller) over the last three years of all properties as the best metric of comparison, but not the sole comparative.  Other things such as TV, TCV, and SEV were also looked at, but those can be confusing and so I limited the analysis to what everyone can firmly grasp: the annual summer tax bill.

The full amount of summer taxes from the 63 properties was $125,387 in 2011, $127,809 in 2010, and $131,312 in 2009.  This shows a 2.7% decrease between 2009 and 2010 and a 1.9% decrease between 2010 and 2011. 

Interestingly, both times the amount of properties that actually paid less taxes between those years were in the minority:  only 29 of the 63 properties paid less taxes between 2010 and 2011, and only 30 of 63 for the other period.  Therefore, the median property owner of these 63 lots actually paid more taxes in 2011 than in 2010, even though the overall value of the houses dropped about 2%.

Here are the houses that had their taxes reduced by more than 5% between 2010 and 2011:

 

6)  715 B:  -5.8% (1927 to 1815)

5)  506 EC: -5.8% (1330 to 1253)

4)  703 D:  -6.4% (957 to 896)

3)  709 EL:  -7.2% (5170 to 4798)

2)  109 NE:  -37.3% (2334 to 1467)

1)  201 NW:  -40.3% (5434 to 3244)

 

These properties were last sold in 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007, 2008, and 2010 respectively.  All but #6 are owner occupied.  All but one paid significantly less in the previous period (losing between 3.9% and 34% between 2009 and 2010).  The one exception:  201 N. Washington which dropped from $5435 to $5434 in that period, 0%.  This is the Tykoski House.

One could say it is a statistical anomaly like the 109 NE house, #2, and maybe it is, but why did these two houses lose so much value while others like 107 NW (two houses south of 201 NW)actually saw their taxes go up 45%?

One could say that the sale of the house in 2010 may have had some effect on the tax figures, so let's look at the only other property of the 63 that changed hands in 2010 and the difference between their taxes for 2010 and 2011:  

705.5 EL:  +36.9% (1413 to 1935) 

 

A house that is purchased and has significant improvements added usually does go up in value instead of losing value and having its taxes go down by 40%.  But this is the wondrous property of the Tykoski House; nothing makes sense until you realize that the playing field is not actually level, kind of like that mystery spot near St. Ignace.

[Sweater Cows!]

All that is rather confusing, so to condense it to my way of understanding....

63 proprties looked at

6 prop w/change more than 5%

only 3 property change more than 30% (one goes up, two go down)

of houses sold in 2010...One goes UP in taxes by 36.9% and one goes DOWN in taxes by 40.3%

So, two people bought property in this two block area and one persons house went down nearly 40% in taxes paid(people who both work for the city in some way) and the other person(who is not a familiar name among city gov't or contractors) went up nearly 40%.

One lone wolf of property also went down in that 30% range, but that property was not sold in 2010, it was with the same owner it had had from the previous year. I am surprised to see it go down so much so I wonder if they went to assessor for reduction or why, because that does leave us with 2 props that went down more than 30% out of 63, But one was sold and had improvements made on it and the other was not sold and we know nothing of it's reason for decrease. So we have to focus on "similar" properties, those that were both SOLD IN 2010 and again in that department we do have an anomaly.

I wonder how the person whose property taxes paid went up nearly 40% would feel to find out that the only other person in their direct neighbors who bought a house the same year as them had there taxes go down even more than their went up. If I was that homeowner I would be irate, especially finding out the property owners whose tax went down have an *in* with the city of Ludington.

[XLFD]

I must not have made it too confusing, because you have the gist of it all, Shrugs. 

Another point is that if you take away the two properties on the far side of the bell curve that were the only ones to lose more than 7.2% of their taxes, property taxes in the area actually went up between 2010 and 2011. 

[XLFD]

A look at the 109 N Emily Tax history shows that the house paid only $1178 in taxes in 2007, and then shot up to $1815 in 2008 (when it was last sold) then to $2456 in 2009.  The more than modest drop to $1467 last year actually represents a 25% raise in taxes since 2007 (going from 1178 to 1467).

I am presuming that the homeowner may have successfully appealed some of the most recent assessments, and may have got the taxes reduced in fairness.  Or maybe the City Assessor noticed they had overvalued the parcel on her own, and reduced it to more accurately portray the value.  If anyone may know of another reason, please relate that here.

[AQUAMAN]

The taxable values of properties in all of Mason County have been on the rise, not decreasing for anyone I know of personally. The facts and figures prove just what we all stated earlier, some "favored persons" in positions with the COL are getting a big break, while the adjacent neighbors are getting the fixed agenda again. This should be reported to taxing authorities in Lansing for a review or investigation of some kind to address the matter legally with the local assessor.

[XLFD]

Not a bad idea, Aquaman, as the City Assessor who assessed 201 N Washington also permitted a 6' tall privacy fence installed in the right-of-way to be installed there in the same year, at a project cost of $200 when the fence parts alone costed around $3000.

Yet last fall, the same characters took temporary election signs belonging to 'unsavory candidates' (i.e. that Rotta scoundrel) out of the front yards of his supporters, claiming that it was City property.

[Willy]

For some reason I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around this topic, especially the following paragraphs.I keep trying to double back to compare dates, percentages and cost but I keep chasing my tail. But I get the gist of it and it does look like our local lovebirds did get special attention when it came to assessments and tax rates. Excellent work X. Your mathematics background shines thru on this topic.

"These properties were last sold in 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007, 2008, and 2010 respectively.  All but #6 are owner occupied.  All but one paid significantly less in the previous period (losing between 3.9% and 34% between 2009 and 2010).  The one exception:  201 N. Washington which dropped from $5435 to $5434 in that period, 0%.  This is the Tykoski House.

One could say it is a statistical anomaly like the 109 NE house, #2, and maybe it is, but why did these two houses lose so much value while others like 107 NW (two houses south of 201 NW)actually saw their taxes go up 45%?

One could say that the sale of the house in 2010 may have had some effect on the tax figures, so let's look at the only other property of the 63 that changed hands in 2010 and the difference between their taxes for 2010 and 2011:" 

705.5 EL:  +36.9% (1413 to 1935)

[XLFD]

You are a smart man, Willie, so I will try to clarify it.  In those paragraphs, I was trying to justify some reason that the Tykoski's house went down so much in value by looking at the numbers of the other houses in the area, not at the relationships we know of. 

Discounted first was the year of sale, as you will note the houses are recently sold, but all in recent years-- not to mention that other recently sold houses of the 63 have had their taxes raised.

Discounted next in that same paragraph was trends in taxes; the other five big droppers also had significant drops the prior year except for the House.  The House was steady, until it was bought and improved on-- then it dropped.

The next brought up an interesting point of what rationale caused one neighbor of 109 N Washington to have their taxes lowered 40% and the other to have their's raised 45%.  109 NW had their taxes reduced 4% in the period, BTW.  In my second comment, the only other large tax-dropped house was explained away.

The sale of a house can influence the taxes paid, so the last looked at the only other nearby house sold in 2010, whose taxes went up.  This discounts the 'recent sale' defense that may be raised by Tykoski apologists.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth, as Sherlock would say.

[AQUAMAN]

Who's our Crony assessor nowadays, the same retiree taking down election signs in right-of-ways? Either way, this case is a no-brainer for anyone with common sense. Knowing all too well that the realistic value of the House is not in line with the foreclosure sale, that alone should be the key note on the taxable value, unless you have other motives and connections.

[XLFD]

Chuck Zemla is our current assessor, but only for another month when his associate who hails from Howard City takes over.  This is a contracted position that works on average about 16 hours a week, but the cost is just under $40,000 to the City.  Carol Ann Foote, the full-time Assessor Clerk, probably does the majority of assessing duties nowadays, while Gina Ruiz and Baby Badger Captain Gerry Welton does the bulk of code enforcement. 

Carol Ann did the assessing on the House and did the permit for the House's "$200" privacy fence in the public  right-of-way.  That's your crony here, whose fingerprints are all over the records.

[AQUAMAN]

Let's see, 8 hrs/day for 2 days = $800? That's $50/hr.? Wouldn't mind applying for that job anytime.

[XLFD]

Since he lives very close to Lansing, you may have to wonder whether 5 of those 16 hours were charged for driving here and back, and whether he got per diem. 

[Willy]

X

Thanks for the clarification. Did I read your post correctly when you stated the assessor lives near lansing? There are no qualified individuals in Ludington to do this work? What explanation could there be for hiring someone who lives so far away?