skyrocketing property taxes

[The Worm]

Your property taxes are skyrocketing?


Dover employees cash in on unused leave
By CLYNTON NAMUO
Union Leader Correspondent
16 hours, 41 minutes ago


Dover – City employees cashed in more than $1.3 million worth of unused leave over the last five years, including more than $140,000 in payments to Police Chief William Fenniman in fiscal year 2005, documents provided to the New Hampshire Union Leader yesterday show.

The documents detail how much the city paid individual employees for their unused leave in each fiscal year since 2003 and show a pattern of large payouts by several city department heads. The money is in addition to whatever salary the employees earn.

A Strafford County Superior Court judge ordered the salary documents released to the Union Leader last Thursday. The Union Leader filed a right-to-know request seeking the salary details in September, but city officials went to court last month questioning whether the law allowed them to release the information.

Fenniman has cashed out $167,247.16 in unused leave since fiscal 2003; including two payments of about $71,600 in fiscal 2005 that together far outstrip his yearly salary of about $114,000. Finance Director Jeffrey Harrington, who plans to retire at the end of this year, was paid $134,958.21 in fiscal 2003 for his leave, while Fire Chief Perry Plummer earned $73,464.74 for his leave during the same period.

The large payouts are due to the amount of leave each department head is afforded every year and their ability to cash out that leave, as well as previous accrued leave. Fenniman's contract provides him 70 days leave each year, while Plummer and Harrington each get 40 days worth.

Numerous non-department head employees also received large one-time leave payouts, usually in the tens of thousands of dollars, for accrued leave just prior to retiring.

The late payouts are meant to pump up their final year's salary and subsequently their benefits through the New Hampshire State Retirement System, Mayor Scott Myers said yesterday. The large payouts are skewing benefits and could compromise the retirement system in the long run, Myers said, but little has been done to stop it because of resistance from employee unions.

Myers said large amounts of leave, or cash payouts if they aren't used, are provided for in some city department head contracts negotiated and approved by former City Manager Paul Beecher without the oversight of the city council. The city's merit plan, which dictates what powers the city manager is afforded, has since been amended to mandate council approval of department head contracts, Myers said.

More recent department head contracts limit leave and its accrual, Myers said, but some older contracts allowing for higher payouts remain in place with the only solution being for the employees to leave their jobs, Myers said.

"We know we're on the right track. It's just going to take a little time, through natural attrition, to move some of the contracts out and replace them with newer contracts," he said.

Harrington, Fenniman and Plummer have each been with the city for more than 20 years.

Some individual contracts have also been amended to rein in growing salaries and leave time, including Plummer's and Fenniman's, but the payouts have continued. An amendment to Fenniman's contract, signed in February, freezes his current salary and stops any increases to his leave time, but also gives him six months pay should he leave his job, for any reason, before July 1 of next year.

[Lakegeezer]

At some point, the government needs to catch up with the way businesses are run these days. Fully funded health plans, pensions and storing up unlimited quantities of sick and vacation time are rare outside the ranks of public service. Its time to make the changes now for new public employees, and gradually bring the changes to the rest. Public salaries need to come up as benefits go down, but with the proper application of technology, fewer employees will be required. There will no doubt be resistance to the changes that are needed, but if they are not made now, the changes will be more radical and painful when public outcry cuts off the gravy train.

[Gavia immer]

Heard of AFSCME's "D.R.O.P." program?

D.R.O.P. allows government employees to announce their retirement as they approach eligibility -- but five years early. During those last five years, they are granted their state-funded retirement pay IN ADDITION TO their regular salary.

The D.R.O.P. payments don't apply to the last years' total average, so the state doesn't complain. The state starts retirement payouts earlier at a lower dollar figure, which saves the state money.

The county doesn't complain because it can replace one "long-dollar" employee with three young employees.

The Feds get a bigger slice of the bloated paycheck.

EVERYBODY WINS!

http://www.afscme.org/publications/9650.cfm

[fatlazyless]

Hey there Bunky, so hows that New Hampshire Advantage working for you? Is it a wonderfull advantage or what? I say WHAT ADVANTAGE are the Republicans talking about? An advantage for whom?
Let me see here: three years ago my prop tax was $2800. and now , with the recent Meredith town-wide revaluation, my 60' Winni waterfront- 1/4 acre-50 year old handyman cottage now has a $10,000./year prop tax. WOW, that's some great advantage, WHOOPEE!

To recently defeated Senator Carl Johnson (R) Meredith, six term NH State Senator and Senate President pro-tempore; good luck and good-bye Carl! Senator Johnson has said more than once that New Hampshire has no sales tax and no income tax and that the property tax is about all that we have and we will have to continue to depend on the New Hampshire property tax system.

[NonVoting Taxpayer]

First of all you must remember these employees had contracts with their employers. Sometimes it cost money to hire competent employees. Where none of us probably sat in on the negotiations of these contracts we can't tell if these employees would have gone elsewhere if the leave buy back provisions prior to retirement were not offered. Some will say who cares they could have gone elsewhere, but others would argue you need competent people in certain high profile positions to make the town or city run. The budgets of some of these places are high enough that you now need to run them as a corporation. The days of the most popular elected officials running your town of city are pretty much over.
You also need to remember the salaries of these employees probably were a lot less than the private sector for the many years they served in the public sector. State and municipal employees don't receive the end of the year bonus or stock options that are offered in the private sector. Sometimes it is worth making less at the beginning to get more at the end. The nest egg usually is not in the bank when they retire compared to private sector employees.
Not sure about New Hampshire, but any bonus given prior to retirement usually is not computed in the calculation to figure one's retirement figures. They usually are not considered regular compensation therefore; they are excluded from the calculation. They are what they are, called a bonus.
I agree that some of the numbers stated previously seem a little excessive but there was a contract negotiated by the employer with the employee to justify them. If you think they are excessive, you need to vote out the elected official who negotiated them.

[ghfromaltonbay]

I worked for Verizon for almost 25 years and had 5 weeks vacation each year + 5 personal days by the time I retired. However, unlike the public officials, we had to use our vacation each year or lose it. We could carry over 1 week into the next year, but if we didn't use it by June we lost it. Maybe the public officials and teachers (NJ teachers have a similar deal) need to have a use-it-or-lose-it clause also. What galls me is the fact that unused vacation can be carried for 20 years by employees and then cashed out at their present rate of salary. If someone has unused vacation from 1986, for example, then they should be reimbursed for those days at their pay rate from 1986. Maybe then these people would use up their days. In some of the small towns here in northern NJ the patrolman make $75,000 per year after 3 years and they rack up unused vacation time. Imagine what their payout will be in another 20 years when they retire?!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by NonVoting Taxpayer

You also need to remember the salaries of these employees probably were a lot less than the private sector for the many years they served in the public sector.

I think that Fennimen's current salary of $114,000 per year far exceeds most people in the private sector!

[Skip]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I think that Fennimen's current salary of $114,000 per year far exceeds most people in the private sector!

FYI,

He & his wife also, under the same Dover contract, will recieve medical benefits for life paid for at 100%.

Not many private firms offering that perk, usually you have to be an elected federal official to garner that same freebie!

[ITD]

The voters are asleep as the politicians turn them upside and shake out their pockets. Yet people on this board still think the answer is MORE taxes, as if property taxes will go down or stop rising. It won't happen they will just find more ways to spend the extra money. I think a prop 2 1/2 bill or similar that LIMITS tax increases is more reasonable and may actually slow down the tax increases by forcing frugality in spending.

[jetskier]

Hi all,

First, the notion of a pension in the private sector is long gone. If you worked for a large company (like Verizon) years ago, there was likely a pension upon retirement. Today, pensions are a thing of the past in the private sector. In the private sector, you have to save for your retirement.

Second, accrued vacation that is allowed to roll over becomes a fiscal liability to the tax payers. Vacation is a benefit and not a deferred bonus. The tax rates in New Hampshire are extremely high. My house in MA is assessed higher than my house in New Hampshire and my New Hampshire taxes are roughly 20% higher.

I wonder how the police in Dover would feel if their budget was cut $167,247 to adjust for this payout? It should be realized that the taxpayers react pretty much the same way when taxes keep rising and we see these payola schemes.

Just my 2 cents.
Jetskier

[Tired of Waiting]

Originally Posted by ITD

The voters are asleep as the politicians turn them upside and shake out their pockets. Yet people on this board still think the answer is MORE taxes, as if property taxes will go down or stop rising. It won't happen they will just find more ways to spend the extra money. I think a prop 2 1/2 bill or similar that LIMITS tax increases is more reasonable and may actually slow down the tax increases by forcing frugality in spending.

In many places this is true. However, in the small town in Mass where I live the voters are awake. We have not approved a prop 2-1/2 override for many years.

And the politicians in this town have an attitude that helps us keep from overridding. Example:

After one of the last override defeats a town official was asked "ON TV" what he thought about the defeat. His response "The people of this town just don't get it." "They want us to live within our budget."

With this attitude it's easy to see why the taxes keep going up if the people are asleep at the voting booth.

I think NH needs a prop 2-1/2 type system to let the people have a voice in how big the budget is and how it's spent.

ToW

[SIKSUKR]

I don't remember what the actual number is but I thought entitlements accounted for,by far the biggest part of the budget pie.

[Lakewinniboater]

Check your assessment and be sure that they have your home listed correctly.

Alton had mine listed as a 4 bedroom and only has a 2 bedroom septic (which is on their files). So, I am being assessed as a 4 bdrm when i have a 2 bdrm... BIG difference

[vrrooom]

I have owned property in 10 states, universally they tax property (real estate) on market value. In every case, over the last 20 years the tax has ranged from 1-2% of true market value. This includes Fl, Pa, NY, NJ, Ma, NH, Ky, to name a few. The point is that we have experienced a dramatic surge in true market values on the lake. Our property has doubled in value in the past 10 years and the tax bite has more than doubled. Look at spending, every town arround the lake has new Municipal Blds, Fire houses, Librarys and on and on. The benefits paid to our employees are far more generous than we get in the private sector. I pay 50% of my health care costs, have no post retirement health care, use it or loose it vacation and sick days, and my job security is non existant. When has a lay off occurred in the private sector, when were their jobs outsourced, and how many municipal employee leave for a better job? I encourage all of you who are non resident tax payers, to become residents just for the next municipal vote let the spenders know how you feel.

[secondcurve]

Vrroom:

Merry Christmas. Don't forget to kick the dog before you leave Santa his milk and cookies, it will make you feel better.

[bobio]

Lets face it, vroom does make some good points. I have read all these posts and digested everyones comments. Still there is a point where property taxes become overwhelming. I think that the high tax burden in some New Hampshire towns has made the down turn in the housing market more painful.
Buyers are turned away from moving forward with purchasing some fine properties when they see that on top of a mortgage payment is a $1000 or greater a month tax payment.
Now I know I have sturred up some negative sentiment from the full time N.H. residents, but if the tax situation continues to spiral out of control who will be able to pay their taxes? Not many people will be able to retire here.
The real estate market will continue to suffer and condo development will continue because thats what people will be able to afford.
So let all of the tax payers be heard. Whether full time or part time residents, all should have a say as to how their tax money is spent.

[This'nThat]

Originally Posted by vrrooom

I have owned property in 10 states, universally they tax property (real estate) on market value. In every case, over the last 20 years the tax has ranged from 1-2% of true market value. This includes Fl, Pa, NY, NJ, Ma, NH, Ky, to name a few.

This thread also talks about the MA Prop 2 1/2. I know someone who bought a new construction lakefront home in 2005 for $1.3M, and pays $13,000/yr in property taxes. That's 1%. Yeah, it's a lot of money, but it's still a very low percentage. So where's the beef with respect to taxes? The real beef is with the property assessments. It's not the tax burden that's so high; it's the property value that's too high.

Why are the assessments so high? Because that's what the market will bear. It has nothing to do with towns placing artificially high values on property. If people pay that much for property, then that's what it's assessed at. Seems to make sense to me. If you want the values to go down, then somehow you have to make the whole lake less desireable.

That's not going to happen. I noticed a Manchester Union news article today that said prices for luxury homes are remaining stable, even though homes in the $300,000 range are softening.

Some people have a name for this--free market economy. Someone whose grandfather bought lakefront land for $2500 in 1924 isn't imune from supply and demand. Your property value went up, and you're going to pay a 1% annual tax. Everyone might as well get used to it, unfortunately.

[mg2107]

As the lake becomes more and more congested and polluted it will certainly become less desirable.

[JeffreyJoyal242]

Originally Posted by mg2107

As the lake becomes more and more congested and polluted it will certainly become less desirable.

The lake is busy 20 days a year. I have been hearing the same thing since 1954, with good care the lake will go on forever. Remember it sleeps 6 months of the year.

[SAMIAM]

VROOOM Hit the nail right on the head.Those of us in business pay 100% of health care costs and have no sick days,vacations or retirement other than what we create.We have to daily worry about inventory,payroll,rising costs and so forth while cities and towns continue to spend with abandon.Some of our little towns have fire and police facilities that would service cities of 1/2 a million people.How I wish I could build a new building,maybe purchase a few vehicles modernize equiptment and take a few weeks vacation and just send the bill somebody else.

[fatlazyless]

Today's Dec 27 www.cmonitor.com has a long article about Speaker Norelli who calls the property tax "probably the worst funding mechanism."

[TomC]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

...snip...while cities and towns continue to spend with abandon.Some of our little towns have fire and police facilities that would service cities of 1/2 a million people.

if the city/town you live in behaves this way, assuming there are more people calling for fiscal restraint than not - why don't you vote the bums out (mayor/councilmen/selectmen gov't) or vote down the budget (town meeting gov't)?

[tis]

Sam-And then have to try to compete with the towns for employees.

[fatlazyless]

From today's, January 2 2007 Laconia Daily Sun, a complicated, compound, and complex article about Sanbornton's property tax assessment issues written by Ron Tunning. No doubt, a whole lot of work went into this article............ what a terrific job; Laconia Daily Sun and the author.
.................................................

Dascoulis willing to compromise on timing of Sanbornton property reval

By Ron Tuning, The Laconia Daily Sun

SANBORNTON - Former selectman Peter Dascoulis insists that he's not being uncompromising by demanding that town officials provide an explanation of the assessing process used by former Town Assessor Greg Heyn and Vision Appraisal Technology (Vision). "I've read through all the information they've provided and I still can't figure out their methodology," Dascoulis said Sunday. "They've had two shots at this, in 2003 and 2005, and still haven't got it right yet."
Accordingly, the Black Brook Road resident has asked the N.H. Board of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA) to order a revaluation of the town's property this year."It is the opinion of the Petitioners that the most expeditious and thorough way to ensure that Sanbornton has achieved assessment equity and a solid platform from which to move forward with a progressive assessment program in the future is to do a town-wide assessment update in 2007," he wrote to the BTLA in responding to its October 13 ruling that found fault with the 2003 property revaluation and subsequent update performed in 2005 by Heyn and Vision.
In its response, the town asked BTLA not to require another town wide revaluation until 2008.
"Instead of waiting until 2008, let's do it in 2007," Dascoulis countered. "We can't use this (the 2005 update) as a jumping off point for a rolling revaluation."
Troubling to the former selectman is the proposal by the town to begin a "rolling evaluation" which as planned would begin an annual update of one-fifth of the town's properties each year, with all properties
thereby reassessed every five years. "Before we begin doing that, we have to make sure the base line is accurate," he said.
Dascoulis joined last year with 75 other town residents in filing a petition with the N.H. Board of Tax and Land Appeals(BTLA) asking that the agency review the 2005 update of the 2003 town-wide revaluation conducted by Heyn and Vision. Specifically, the petitioners sought answers as to how property appraisals were computed, and questioned the delineation of neighborhoods within the community.
Using as an example the assessment on his own .16 acre lot which had in one year risen in value from $64,000 to $200,700 for the land alone - not including his house - Dascoulis argued that something was amiss, and neither Heyn nor Vision could adequately explain or justify the increase of over 200-percent in the land value.
In seekng clarification, Dascoulis did sit down with Heyn and pore through materials provided by Vision, but still felt that answers were not forthcoming. "I never did get a straight answer," Dascoulis said. "But I was subsequently notified that my appraisal had been reduced by $100,000."
It was that reduction, which Dascoulis sensed was arbitrary and made largely to placate him to forestall legal action that ultimately lead Dascoulis to the BTLA. " We first sought help from the Belnap Superior Court, asking that it order the town and Vision to explain their methodology," Dascoulis recalled. " We were trying to obtain the informatin through RSA91A (Right to Know law)."
The court ruled, however, that since the town had provided the raw data, even without explanation, it met the RSA91A requirement.
"That's when we went to the BTLA," Dascoulis expained, noting that a group of town residents had been successfull in appealing to the BTLA to order the revaluation of town property in 2003.
In consideration of the petition, the BTLA ruled on October 13, 2006 that it too found signifigant problems with the methodology used in the revaluation, suggesting that Vision was tailoring adjustments to property values in order to make certain assessment ratios come out where they needed to be to meet state guidelines. But before issuing a final decision as to how to proceed, the BTLA requested that the town and Vision, along with the petitioners, respond to its finding by December 15.
In its response filed on December 14, the town through its attorney Christopher Boldt, requested that the BTLA not order a revaluation until 2008, claiming that there is "no evidence in the eyes of the vast majority of town's taxpayers of a 'systemic pattern of disportionate taxation' nor of 'such substantial inequality that the inequality must be deemed intentional."
Vision offered that "It is our belief that the assessments determined for the 2005 Statistical Update do reflect market values and comply with the state's requirements, and are further supported by (the BTLA's own) studies, and studies conducted by the Department of Revenue Administration."
"I don't know how Boldt can claim that there's no systemic pattern." Dascoulis countered after reading the town's and Vision's documents. "Even Patsy Wells (current chair of the Sanbornton Board of Selectman) has said there is a systemic problem."
"It is a systemic problem," Wells confirmed on Sunday. "But it isn't just Vision and Sandborton, it's a statewide problem."
While Wells is not opposed to another revaluation, she'd like to delay the process for a year. "Can we tweak what we have now, and do a complete reval in 2008?" she asked rhetorically. "I'd be willing to go along with that compromise."
One of Wells concerns is the cost of the process, which topped $200,000 in 2003. Facing tight economic constraints and signifigant needs for capital improvements, especially for road repairs, trying to appropriate the money in next year's budget, she suggests, would be difficult.
"Maye we can do 50-percent in 2007, and 50-percent in 2008," she offered. "Then when it's completed we can institute the rolling reval in subsequent years."
Wells also note that the town is set to hire a new assessor " who will be more hands on; who lives in the area."
"People are incredibly frustrated, and there's been no place to vent that frustration," she acknowledge. "So we want someone who has a regular presence in the town."
For Dascoulis, delayingthe revaluation until 2008 is acceptable, "so long as it's done properly and the assessor and the assessing firm can explain how they've arrived at their figures."
"That's all we really want," he said. "A transparent process that is fair and understandable."
.................................................

And our property tax system is a big part of what NH Republican's like to call our NH Advantage. What advantage? The propety tax is supposedly about local control. For Sanbornton and most likely other NH towns, it could be better called NH out-of-control!

Hopefully, the strategies used by Peter Dascoulis can be helpfull to other property owners who have seen their assessed values go up double in just one year. People like myself!

So, why did Willie Sutton rob banks? Because "that's where the money is!" Do you feel like you are getting robbed by your home town? WEll, that's because you are where the money is, sorry!

[jeffk]

The most troubling thing about this article is the fact that the BTLA found “that it too found significant problems with the methodology used in the revaluation, suggesting that Vision was tailoring adjustments to property values in order to make certain assessment ratios come out where they needed to be to meet state guidelines”. Vision is a major player in the appraisal market. I have property in Hudson and Moultonborough and Vision handles both appraisals. The fact that the, hopefully savvy, land appraisal agency of the state can not validate their process is very troubling. They also seem to make arbitrary changes (drop $100,000) in response to complaints. Frankly, I believe that the only time a change should be made to your assessment is if there is something wrong with the raw data, for example, I have an unfinished, unheated porch that was counted as finished, heated space during one revaluation. Perhaps you are inappropriately assigned in a higher valued neighborhood than you are really in. However, once the raw data is correctly gathered the formulas used to calculate the valuation should just crank out the right numbers. These formulas should be transparent and extensively reviewed. This doesn’t seem to be the case for Vision and when the outcome is challenged they simply make the problem “go away” by making an arbitrary adjustment. This seriously compromises the fairness requirement that is at the heart of any taxation system.

That said however, the valuation of a property, by itself, is not the issue. It is the combination of the valuation and the tax rate that yields the amount of tax paid. If everyone’s valuation quadruples, everything else being equal (it never is), the tax rate would be cut in quarter and the amount of taxes paid would not change. The other question is “Does the assessment approximate current market value?” If your property was assessed for $200,000 and is now assessed for $500,000 and that’s about what you could get for it if you sold it, TOO BAD! That’s how the system is SUPPOSED to work. That’s also why revaluations are supposed to be redone often, to capture real market change in valuations. I would think revaluations done this year should reflect the softer real estate prices. In addition, I would suspect (don’t know if it’s true) that lakefront property might have taken a bigger hit than regular homes. That would, theoretically, shift some of the tax burden from the waterfront owners to the general house owners.

As for the New Hampshire advantage, NH consistently has the lowest overall tax burden in the country. On average, considering a potential 5% income tax rate and 5 % sales tax rate (ballpark national averages) with both my wife and I working and living in NH for 22 years I figure we have saved over $200,000. I consider that a big advantage, even if some of it went to higher property taxes. I also had full control of the size house I built and that I bought an extra lakefront property. I also can attend town meetings and put a brake on local spending if I feel it is necessary. If you think spending is tough to control locally, try having an impact on the state level for an income or sales tax. Good luck. And when it goes to the federal level, do you think there is any chance a citizen, or a group of them would have ANY impact on the tax or spending rates? Taxes on the state and federal level are decided on a philosophical level (taxes are generally good or bad) rather than whether a specific rate would be better or worse. Also the higher the level of government the more out of control spending is. That is why we have a Federal deficit. Thankfully, most states now require a balanced budget and a local budget in deficit is considered a major issue. I say keep taxes and spending as local as possible to keep it under control.

I can think of lots of tweaks to help out retired people suffering from high property taxes if their income level warranted it. The goal would be to assure that no retired person was forced out of their home because of property taxes.
Tax breaks for over 65
Tax break for long time property owner
(current owner for over 30 years)
Partial Tax suspension until property is sold or upon death
(long term town resident only)
Lock in tax amount at age 70 (long term current resident only)
These would all effectively shift the tax burden to younger people who have active incomes.

[vrrooom]

Interesting dialogue on taxes. In a few places real estate taxes are based on square footage, multiplied by local building costs to determine value (note this is not based on selling price or comprables like we have in NH). My first home in Gilford Forest - 3400 sq ft, building currently assessed at 160K. Try and build a home of that size for the current assessed value. In reality if that home is properly insured the replacement amount for the structure would be around 400K. If that home were replaced, the tax man would raise the assesment to the reconstruction cost ie the real value.

I continue to encourgae all non resident taxpayers to register to vote in Gilford, it is one way to cause change.

[fatlazyless]

Here's a signed letter in yesterday's January 5 www.citizen.com, The Citizen of Laconia, on page A4. It is painfull to reread this when I consider the numbers for taxes verses income.....truly painfull.

Let Gilford football pay its own way

Editor, The Citizen: For the last four years we have been assured that the friends of Gilford football would cover all cost of that game. Now we are being asked, by the school committee (which is supposed to be limiting our tax costs), to pay for that football game playing.
That ripoff is led by Derek Tomlinson, the most spendthrift school board member we ever had. But, super rich Derek never had to earn the money we as taxpayers have to earn to pay his outrageous demands on us. If you, like him, have millions to live on, then we, living on $14,878 per year Social Security, with $6,700 property tax, shouldn't complain.
As one of the many taxpayers, (paying $8,678 taxes), with only $14,876 Social Security income, I strongly object to Gilford taxpayers paying for the recreation of playing football. Recreation games are great, but should not become a burden on retired home owners. Those who want to play should pay, not those who have better needs for their income.

Jack Stephenson
Gilford .................................................
Thanks to the Laconia Citizen and the author for this public letter and hopefully many readers will take time to think about the implications of the numbers. It is a very painfull picture.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Here's a signed letter in yesterday's January 5 www.citizen.com, The Citizen of Laconia, on page A4. It is painfull to reread this when I consider the numbers for taxes verses income.....truly painfull.

Let Gilford football pay its own way

Editor, The Citizen: For the last four years we have been assured that the friends of Gilford football would cover all cost of that game. Now we are being asked, by the school committee (which is supposed to be limiting our tax costs), to pay for that football game playing.
That ripoff is led by Derek Tomlinson, the most spendthrift school board member we ever had. But, super rich Derek never had to earn the money we as taxpayers have to earn to pay his outrageous demands on us. If you, like him, have millions to live on, then we, living on $14,878 per year Social Security, with $6,700 property tax, shouldn't complain.
As one of the many taxpayers, (paying $8,678 taxes), with only $14,876 Social Security income, I strongly object to Gilford taxpayers paying for the recreation of playing football. Recreation games are great, but should not become a burden on retired home owners. Those who want to play should pay, not those who have better needs for their income.

Jack Stephenson
Gilford .................................................
Thanks to the Laconia Citizen and the author for this public letter and hopefully many readers will take time to think about the implications of the numbers. It is a very painfull picture.

Less, more taxes are not going to help this guy out. They will only make his "plight" worse, why can't you see that? Here we have a "poor" taxpayer crying about a couple thousand dollars for a football program, I wonder if he would be crying if it was an increase for the senior center?
What he should be crying about is this: The proposed operating budget increased from $9,441,104 to $9,957,223 or 5.5%, Capital Projects increased from $187,698 to $512,584 or 173.1%, Capital Reserve Funding from $348,600 to $581,600 or 66.8%, and Sewer from $698,119 to $790,099 or 12.7%. (http://www.gilfordnh.org/Public_Docu...oard/I00AD8278)

The bold and red were added by me. I'm willing to bet that this guy will go to town meeting and vote these increases through.

I don't believe this guy's numbers. Even if his taxes are cut in half, he can't afford the house he is in, I call BS, this guy isn't telling the whole story or he needs to seriously reconsider his living arrangements.

[fatlazyless]

Simply put, it's the difference between receiving your property tax bill and not having enough money in your checking account to pay it verses having an income tax witheld from your paycheck. If you do not get a paycheck you have no tax to pay. If you own property you do have a tax to pay.

And, as the population of NH trends to an older median age, and residential home prices dramatically increase, and property tax assessments are now applied equally statewide: where is the NH tax system going?