Krinke takes issues with Peppin’s levy letter rebuttal

After my letter appeared in the Star News, I received a call from Gregg Peppin telling me I am wrong, that the Hassan surplus that Hassan will transfer to Rogers will cover his and the Hassan third phase 2012 taxes.

I quickly realized that I was verbally overmatched. He was better at debate. As he was not listening to my points, I started taking notes.

After listening to him for about a half hour, I realized that he kept repeating two points.

1. Gregg does not like any part of Rogers, their administration, their politics, their taxes and especially their police, and he feels that someone sold him out in the 2008 merger negotiations. That part was probably true.

2. Gregg believes that by using the Hassan reserve to pay his and the third phase taxes, my money is not paying his taxes. I was a 25-year resident and taxpayer in Hassan before my Phase 2 annexation. Was that surplus picked off a tree? My tax money is in there which should now be transferred to Rogers. Gregg believes the reserve should only go to the people in the third phase which means, Gregg, wake up, I am paying your taxes.

I asked Gregg if Hassan uses up their reserves and only brings in a minimal reserve to the merger, how much reserve is Rogers bringing in to the merger? He said he did not know. After commitments, Rogers will have a reserve of over $3 million. Gregg cites a Hassan figure of a “huge $845,000 windfall,” but this includes monies Hassan has previously committed and there are still individuals in Hassan trying to reduce this figure to zero.

Should Rogers at this point also set their 2012 tax at zero and also bring a minimal reserve into the merger? I believe this would be a government that is totally fiscally irresponsible, so Gregg, why was this not also fiscally irresponsible on the part of Hassan?

As I understand it, there is a state law that in a city/township merger, township money previously committed can be paid for by the city or billed back to the residents of the previous township which means I could end up paying more of your taxes.

Gregg did mention that Joyce (his wife), could have introduced and passed legislation making it tough for Rogers, but chose to not do so. But as Gregg brought it up, you have to believe this option had been considered.

Gregg did mention that Joyce was neutral, that he did not know how she had voted, (pants on fire). If Joyce Peppin wishes to maintain the illusion of neutrality, she should not have jumped up after the vote and shouted, “We won, we won!”

There were 125 voters there who did not feel that they had won.

In Gregg’s rebuttal letter he cites Star News Editor Jim Boyle with “It’s time for the two sides to work together,” and somehow he believes a Zero Tax is working together. — Al Krinke, Rogers

Comments Closed

up arrow