Township Revenues
UP Townships: The Problem of Local Revenue
Assuredly, the process of land fragmentation is treated differently from township to township, and from UP to LP. In the Lower Peninsula, the movement grows to restrict division (fragmentation) and growth, whereas here it is the reverse--some UP townships see fragmentation and division as relatively easy ways to raise property taxes, and thereby township revenue.
On the other hand, when UP land goes into state or federal hands, private property taxes and development potential are reduced or eliminated, resulting in lower local tax revenues, according to some. This is exactly what the township governments do not want; therefore any public grab (as perceived by Yoopers) of land is direly fought by the townships and counties. It is so intensely fought, that I hear a total halt has been placed on any further public ownership of land anywhere in the UP.
Absolute trades can go a long way to solving this problem–that way, the proportion of the UP held in private hands stays the same. In addition, our legislators need to pass laws unique for these Four Parks, in order to compensate townships for lost revenue. You see, some townships will end up gaining more private land; others will lose some in the park-building process. Options should be given to affected townships to deal with their lost revenues, to an extent. After meetings have occurred with these townships, I believe there would be new ideas, as this is an issue to be worked out fairly.
An example is: via trade, should one county have hundreds of acres transferring to public ownership, and another county have thousands of acres going into private hands, then the county with the increasing private lands should compensate the county with the increasing publicly-held acreage to the extent of the loss.
Another important point: when trading land with timber companies, lake and river frontage can be acquired from them. These desirable recreational parcels can in turn be traded later to the private sector, in exchange for their private ownership within the Four Parks. Also, federal and state-owned waterfront land beyond the park boundaries could be offered as equal value trade parcels to the intra-park private owners. Admittedly, trading such “outside” public lands is a careful topic.
I am sure that outright purchasing as well as trades within the Four Parks will need to occur (in fact, some people may prefer to outright sell). Monies for these intra-park purchases will derive from sales of public lands outside the parks (putting more land on the tax rolls), donations from the public, or from people desiring the business connected with the completion of the Four Parks. Another problem to recognize is: when outright cash purchasing is required (and only required), township property tax revenues are reduced. This must be addressed, and resolved.
Permit me to tell a short story. In northern Marquette County, Powell Township possesses five dependable sources of tax revenue: a sport club, a small town, a large lake surrounded by vacation homes, miles of Lake Superior shoreline, and a huge, luxurious historic lodge. Compare this with adjoining Champion Township, which has but one major tax source: a small hamlet. Champion Township recently tried to develop a lake, of a similar size to the developed one in Powell township, but woe to Champion township. The public got up in arms and did not want Silver Lake Basin developed. As luck would have it, this lake washed away in the spring of 2003, in an event known as the flood.
Irrespective of the flooding, this example illustrates the current inequities in township taxable assets; how some townships are very asset-poor and others are comparatively well-off. These inequities need to be given attention, as another key part of the Four Parks idea. Hopefully, something can be worked out.