Topic: Rep. Dan Dorman
started by: cwolff
Posted by cwolff on Feb. 24 2004,11:43 am
An article appeared today in the Star Tribune regarding a proposed LGA bill in the House.Sen. Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook unveiled a proposed bill to restore $60 million to the hardest hit cities, or about 40 percent of the $150 million in reductions. Mr. Bakk's bill will be cosponsored in the House by Republican Rep. Dan Dorman.
The statistics showed that the per-capita LGA cuts for Minneapolis and St. Paul amounted to about $82, and about $42 for outstate cities, but only about $17 per capita for affluent surburban cities.
The proposed LGA bill would like the formula that sets the LGA amounts to be changed to give less to the more affluent surburban cities. The more affluent cities already have the highest valued properties in the state.
Rep. Dorman, my question to you is this, do you want the affluent surburban cities, who already pay the highest property taxes in the state, to have their LGA payments cut even more, so that their property taxes will have to be raised even higher than they were this past year to make up the difference?
I know of outstate residents/friends that have larger homes and larger properties, but pay not even one fourth of what I pay in property taxes living in Burnsville.
Posted by minnow on Feb. 24 2004,4:27 pm
It's a little like this here...You gots to give up a few bones to placate da inner city thugs so they don't migrate out yer way.Call it insurance if that makes ya feel better...LOL
Posted by MrTarzan on Feb. 24 2004,6:16 pm
Why do we have LGA? Why take money from communities so that it can be spent by the state in the form of refunds to communities? Leave it in the community in the first place and get rid of the middle man. Otherwise it is plainly redistribution of wealth, not taxation for necessary governmental services. 
Posted by cpu_slave on Feb. 26 2004,9:48 am
Tarzan, we have LGA simply because smaller towns (like Albert Lea) don't pull in enough tax money on their own to pay for the basic services provided. If you want to see LGA go away, then prepare for the double-digit spike in tax increases to pay for all the things the local government does. Do you honestly think that a cut or an elimination of LGA is going to mean that local government is actually going to get smaller? Someone has to pay for that port authority and economic development program...
Posted by Madd Max on Feb. 26 2004,12:17 pm
| Quote (cwolff @ Feb. 24 2004,11:43:am) |
| Rep. Dorman, my question to you is this, do you want the affluent surburban cities, who already pay the highest property taxes in the state, to have their LGA payments cut even more, |
cwolff
Last session I thought that the metro area was upset because cities outside of the metro area were getting LGA but city in the metro were not. thus they cut LGA payment to cities outside of the metro area I believe (not sure ) but I think Albert Lea had 1 1/2 Million cut from its LGA SO can someone tell me what is really going on.
Posted by cwolff on Feb. 26 2004,5:07 pm
CPU_Slave, wouldn't you rather have your taxes raised to pay for basic governmental functions in your city or would you rather have my taxes raised in Burnsville so that you can again receive the same amount of LGA or more?
Posted by iowegian on Feb. 26 2004,5:53 pm
Not that Iowa always has more common sense, but... Isn't LGA sort of a welfare for cities that spent more than their tax base could support?
Weren't the citizens of those cities in the dark when city councils spent way more than they could afford because everthing looked fine in the budget with millions of LGA added?
Now won't the citizens see the councils were spending like drunken sailors (all that LGA) and will hopefully scrutinize their city council's budget ?
That's how it is supposed to work.
LGA caused an abnormality in economics. Without it the voters would have seen the city staff and council were not doing their jobs of being business friendly, building tax base, and being frugal with their budgets.
LGA caused staff to think they knew it all and could do it all with all this money coming in, and they then squandered, wasted, and bloated their budget thinking the day of being responsible would never come.
Let the residents see their elected officials balance a budget without LGA.
Let the bill for more welfare for cities that don't know what they are doing die on the house floor.
Enough losing jobs, and chasing ghosts with promises of buying and selling buildings for a dollar--(leave that to private enterprise).
If the city councils and staff can't run the city, it's time to find people who can.
I'm glad my house is in Northwood. Love seein' those MN license plates in town. Y'all come back now, ya hear?
Posted by cwolff on Feb. 26 2004,8:18 pm
Iowegian, I got one word to say to that, AMEN! Nicely done!
Posted by MrTarzan on Feb. 26 2004,9:51 pm
I could'nt have put it better Iowegian. Hey by the way is our economic development leaders family business doing well now that they put it in Iowa too? 
Posted by repdan on Feb. 26 2004,11:01 pm
cwolf.....and others..Property tax is based on value not size of shape or income. On average, the wealthy suburbs pay a rate that is 10% less than we do.
Short course on LGA
LGA is a property tax relief program that when funded, attempts to even out property tax rates on basic services. The key word is basic services. The extras that a community may want or waste is not considered. So you have need less ability to pay equals the amount of LGA. For example, City A and B have the same need but A has less value (ability to pay). What the formula would do is send LGA to city A to bring down it's city portion of the taxes to the same rate as city B. Now if both cities want to have extras, let's say downtown flowers, the rate required in city A would be greater than that in city B. So in the example, the two city budgets are the same tax payers would pay the same rate for basic services and the tax payers in the property tax poor city would pay a higher rate on the extras. A city is not rewarded for higher spending. That went out in the 80's but the myth is still out there.
I don't know where in the metro you live, but I would be shocked if you live in an outer suburb and you taxes (city portion) went up anywhere near what they did here.
The question that we have to ask ourselves is what do we want our state to look like. I don't choose to live in South Dakota for example.
There are many places that recieve no LGA because they don't have need. However, these cities do recieve transit levy relief. If you go back to the 2001 bill, many suburbs got more transit relief than we got in total relief.
The cities in Greater MN cut their budgets by almost 5% from last year, how did your city do? The ave for the burbs was only 1.8%
Going back to the 2001 bill , the idea was to get that same % of relief in all parts of the state. That ment that in the property tax wealthy areas, they got more $$$ per person but the % of relief was the same. It seems to me, that if we can no longer afford the 2001 tax bill that the % of the cut should be the same.
Posted by repdan on Feb. 26 2004,11:06 pm
Also, there is another plan in place for the metro called fiscal disparities which property tax $$$ in the metro area. Both this and the LGA program are redistribution programs that is what they are designed to do.
Posted by iowegian on Feb. 27 2004,9:56 am
Wow--I sure was wrong. Now I get it.LGA isn't welfare, it's a handout for cities with poor tax bases to use for basic services so there is other budget money to waste as those poor cities see fit. Without LGA they'd need to use their own budget money for basic services. Like city A in your county.
And the cities that budget their property tax money well don't need or get much LGA, like smaller cities G and H in your county.
What incentive is there for cities like A to get off the LGA rolls?
I'm glad I have property in city N--------Iowa just seems to have more common sense sometimes.
Posted by repdan on Feb. 27 2004,1:17 pm
To each there own my friend. My guess is that you pay a much higher home tax rate in Iowa. As much as you would like to paint it otherwise, the program reduces property tax rates. The additional money in 2001 had to come from the levy resulting is property taxes going down and cities could only levy back 60% of the lost aid.
Posted by cwolff on Feb. 27 2004,2:39 pm
Rep. Dan Dorman, you state that the percentage of cut should be the same. If city A receives $1.5 million and has a population of only 10,000 and city B only receives half this amount but has 75,000 people, you would rather have the cuts the same even though city A is receiving more LGA with less people? If a city has less people they should have to pay more! A city with more people has more competition for these basic services and in essence the people with more populated cities would have poorer service. More populated cities have less open space, more traffic, and more murders among other fringe benefits, so I say if you cannot pay for your own basic services, then you need to cut back elsewhere. Don't blame your mismanagement on unfavorable wealth redistribution.The same thing is going on with the Federal budget and future entitlements. I have heard that future promised entitlements for social security, medicare, medicade, federal retirement pensions and insurance, survivor benefits, and ect.. total around 65-70 trillion dollars, but we have no chance in he!! to pay for it. We need to start setting examples at the local level by showing fiscal responsibility, and to take responsibility for your own services. If you cannot afford all of your basic services, then you start to share some of your basic services with other near by cities.
Posted by minnow fan on Feb. 27 2004,4:11 pm
| Quote (iowegian @ Feb. 27 2004,9:56:am) |
| Iowa just seems to have more common sense sometimes. |
Keep posting that, I think you are the only one who believes it.
Even if there was a shread of truth to it, that is the absolute only thing Iowa has going for it. You say keep coming to Iowa to spend our money in your state? Are you kidding me? I can't say I know of anyone who goes to Iowa to vacation or do any serious shopping. I think it is quite the opposite. Check out Apache or River Hills Mall during back to school or Christmas, it is full of Iowa plates. Check out Brainerd or Duluth, plenty of Iowegians vacationing there as well.
Can you tell me, where can I buy a computer or plasma TV in Northwood? Or maybe visit the Northwood Red Lobster, or is it Mason, nope, sorry, niether could come close to supporting one.
Posted by minnow on Feb. 27 2004,10:09 pm
Maybe a 60" plasma, but I'd rather have a nice projector and do almost a whole wall on a nice screen. I've got a 40" Sony flatscreen hooked to Dish and a $15K audio system. I can even run my computer songs through it like the theme song for the Jeffersons TV show. Movin' on up...to da east side...to a deluxe apartment in da sky yi yi...movin on up......I finally got a piece of da pie...
Posted by MrTarzan on Feb. 29 2004,12:30 am
I really makes no sense to drive to Mankato to make a major purchase when you will pay less in Mason City. I would rather buy local, but if it is not here, I don't look north, I look south. When purchasing large end items like commercial lazer printers, the best buy in Des Moines was able to offer them 15% lower than the one in Burnsville because of lower workers compensation and other expenses. But none of that has anything to do with LGA. I find it a weird concept, and strange that a Republican would support a plan that is clearly wealth redistribution. Of course I realize that if you opposed giving your voting public money that they can get, you would be lynched, so maybe it is not so strange. Got to pick your battles carefully don't you?
Posted by cpu_slave on Mar. 01 2004,3:53 pm
I basically got this argument-cwolff is a resident of the suburbs, and is tired of paying property taxes to ‘subsidize’ smaller communities. Only problem is that he is not looking at the entire picture here. In any suburb, you are going to have thousands of high-dollar property and home owners paying in taxes based upon the value, while in the rural areas, you have fewer people paying in on lower valued property and homes. What cwolff would only like anyone to see is the perceived wealth distribution and wasteful spending (another discussion entirely) and not the fact that what he would like to see is that more people paying taxes means less tax for them, while fewer people paying taxes means more tax for them. LGA is sort of a leg-up for rural cities who otherwise would not have the necessary tax base to draw the money necessary to cover all the expenditures of local government.
Now while I know the questions were not directed at me personally, I would still like to take a crack at them.
| Quote |
| If city A receives $1.5 million and has a population of only 10,000 and city B only receives half this amount but has 75,000 people, you would rather have the cuts the same even though city A is receiving more LGA with less people? |
You are not looking at the entire picture here. In this example, city B with the higher population also has a bigger property tax base on top of being a higher valued one, thus already pulling in plenty more tax money than city A.
| Quote |
| If a city has less people they should have to pay more! |
So what you are saying is that a person who has a home valued at $100,000 in city A should be paying a larger total dollar amount than a person who has a $500,000 home in city B? Talk about wealth redistribution…
| Quote |
| A city with more people has more competition for these basic services and in essence the people with more populated cities would have poorer service. |
Bullsh!t! At any give time there are more fire, police, ambulance, and medial facilities per capita in the metro than in outstate. If you feel that the service is poorer than take it up with your local officials and stop trying to lay the blame on LGA.
| Quote |
| More populated cities have less open space, more traffic, and more murders among other fringe benefits |
So you feel that more populated cities should have to pay less in taxes because they have less space, more traffic, and more murders? You do realize that no one if forcing you to live there right? Besides, a lions share of the state’s spending goes to the metro area over greater MN already, so what you are essentially saying is that somehow you deserve more?
| Quote |
| The same thing is going on with the Federal budget and future entitlements. I have heard that future promised entitlements for social security, medicare, medicade, federal retirement pensions and insurance, survivor benefits, and ect.. total around 65-70 trillion dollars, but we have no chance in he!! to pay for it. |
While not really on topic, the Social Security scare is nothing but smoke and mirrors done so that there will be support to move money out of the Social Security Fund into the stock market. You have to look deeper than the 10 second news bite from your favorite talking head and see that the scare is not as real as they make it seem. There is an agenda to all this, you just need to look. Anyhow, back on topic-
| Quote |
| If you cannot afford all of your basic services, then you start to share some of your basic services with other near by cities. |
So here you are saying that cities like Albert Lea should have to share basic services like police, fire, etc. with other communities? Great, next time there is a major fire we can all call over to Austin to have their fire dept come over and put it out. Now imagine the insurance rate increase now that all the major services are now more than 30 minutes away…
Posted by Jesus Juice on Mar. 01 2004,5:16 pm
| Quote (MrTarzan @ Feb. 29 2004,12:30:am) |
| I really makes no sense to drive to Mankato to make a major purchase when you will pay less in Mason City. I would rather buy local, but if it is not here, I don't look north, I look south. When purchasing large end items like commercial lazer printers, the best buy in Des Moines was able to offer them 15% lower than the one in Burnsville because of lower workers compensation and other expenses. |
To each their own but I would disagree. Never been impressed with Mason City shopping. I believe anything you can find in Mason, you can find it and much more in Rochester or Mankato and I don't think things are more expensive, plus no sales tax on clothes. Also, no Best Buy in Mason, enough said right there. And afterall, I would prefer to keep my money in Minnesota all other things being equal.
Just my opinion...thanks for reading.
-JJ
Posted by The Advocate on Mar. 01 2004,5:31 pm
Thank-you, Dan Dorman for answering questions.
Posted by MrTarzan on Mar. 01 2004,5:37 pm
Yeah JJ, that is true as far as clothes go, I don't know why they tax clothes, but on major purchases such as washer or dryer you just plain save more. I go to Rochester on a regular basis and Mankato once and a while, but not really for shopping. I have made quite a few major purchases in Iowa though because even with delivery, they were significant savings. Is it disloyal, yeah, I guess, but oh well, I did'nt make the tax disparity, I fight increased taxes for most things. Don't mind them at all for essentials like fire and police and roads, but I don't like em for artcenters and waterparks and other crude like that. I believe that stops people from opening those things privately. Anyway, we are way off the subject of LGA but it is always fun to hear how people shop and think. Peace out JJ, keep pouring the sauce and living life cool 
Posted by cwolff on Mar. 02 2004,2:16 pm
quote by cpu_slave:| Quote |
| So what you are saying is that a person who has a home valued at $100,000 in city A should be paying a larger total dollar amount than a person who has a $500,000 home in city B? Talk about wealth redistribution… |
Cpu_slave, that is not what I said but this is what I said:
| Quote |
| I know of outstate residents/friends that have larger homes and larger properties, but pay not even one fourth of what I pay in property taxes living in Burnsville. |
I said that larger homes with larger properties are paying a lot less than smaller properties in Burnsville, and I did not say anything about the value of those properties.
Outstate Minnesota needs to raise the value of those undervalued properties if they want to increase their tax base. Oh, I see you do not want too raise your taxes. You want to eat cake but do not want to pay for it. You would rather have my taxes raised and have me pay for it so you can keep your taxes lower. This is exactly what you are saying!
As far as sharing basic governmental functions, this is occuring all across outstate Minnesota.
Posted by cwolff on Mar. 02 2004,2:31 pm
quote by cpu_slave:| Quote |
| Bullsh!t! At any give time there are more fire, police, ambulance, and medial facilities per capita in the metro than in outstate. If you feel that the service is poorer than take it up with your local officials and stop trying to lay the blame on LGA. |
No, cpu_slave I am not the one here trying to bring back the LGA payments, you are! Or at least that is the way you are acting! It seems to me that if Albert Lea can afford a $40 million dollar courthouse, $40 million to dredge the lake, $1.5 million annual sales tax increase, and $millions for a new library, then you can afford to take care of your own basic governmental functions. Otherwise, you need to reconsider your priorities!
And by the way, I do regularly talk to local officials and legislators.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 02 2004,4:36 pm
| Quote |
It seems to me that if Albert Lea can afford a $40 million dollar courthouse, $40 million to dredge the lake, $1.5 million annual sales tax increase, and $millions for a new library, then you can afford to take care of your own basic governmental functions. Otherwise, you need to reconsider your priorities! |
When you put it like that it's hard to argue in defense of LGA.
Posted by repdan on Mar. 02 2004,4:49 pm
cwolf...In 2001 we passed a tax bill. The standard set out by Gov. Ventura and others was that the % of relief should be close to the same in all parts of the state. In order to do that, we got more LGA and you got the transit levy picked up. $$ per capita you won, but for me a passed the smell test, you pay more and get more relief if done this way. Now 2 years later, we find we can't afford the 2001 property tax bill but we only cut LGA, the transit levy remains 100% funded by the state and the MVC was only cut for one year, the result last year we lost both as a % and $$$ per capita. I have heard Dan McElroy uses the logic that you are using based on % of income to property taxes. The odd thing is that he never put in a bill to get rid of the property tax and move to the income tax.
Again, understand that the new formula does not send more money to a high spending city. Sorry it does not fit into your box but it is about property tax relief not spending. In fact, on average Greater Minnesota Cities reduced their spending by about 5% while the burbs only 1% last year and are some of the biggest whiners about he levy limits.
Posted by cpu_slave on Mar. 02 2004,4:58 pm
| Quote |
| I said that larger homes with larger properties are paying a lot less than smaller properties in Burnsville, and I did not say anything about the value of those properties. |
That’s right, you did not, and that is where the difference is. A large house with plenty of property in rural MN is going to be considerably less in cost and perceived value than some small home on a small lot in the metro, because of something called market forces and value. (supply and demand)
| Quote |
| Outstate Minnesota needs to raise the value of those undervalued properties if they want to increase their tax base. Oh, I see you do not want too raise your taxes. You want to eat cake but do not want to pay for it. |
Value is determined by market forces (supply and demand) and not something that should be legislated. I’m sorry but if I was to have 2 identical homes, on identical sized lots with one being in Albert Lea and the other in the metro area, guess which one is going to have the greater value based on supply and demand? Are you saying that all property and houses in MN should have a value assigned to them by what they would be worth had they been in the metro area? Not likely.
| Quote |
| You would rather have my taxes raised and have me pay for it so you can keep your taxes lower. This is exactly what you are saying! |
The way I see it, if an area of the state (metro) benefits directly more than others (outstate) through tax dollars, then why shouldn’t they pay more?
| Quote |
| As far as sharing basic governmental functions, this is occuring all across outstate Minnesota. |
Care to site some examples?
| Quote |
| No, cpu_slave I am not the one here trying to bring back the LGA payments, you are! Or at least that is the way you are acting! |
No, sorry, wrong again. I am just trying to counter your argument that the metro should receive more LGA than outlying areas.
| Quote |
| It seems to me that if Albert Lea can afford a $40 million dollar courthouse, $40 million to dredge the lake, $1.5 million annual sales tax increase, and $millions for a new library, then you can afford to take care of your own basic governmental functions. Otherwise, you need to reconsider your priorities! |
So, if you want to try and compare Apples to Apples, how much did your county spend on it’s courthouse (or planning to spend in the next few years?) How much did your city spend on the interstate roadways giving you easier access to the rest of the metro? How much did your city spend on it’s library, police station, and other government buildings and projects? Are you advocating that counties in outstate MN should have to choose between services the metro counties take for granted or property tax increases? pu-leeze!
| Quote |
| And by the way, I do regularly talk to local officials and legislators. |
And I assume that this is why you are so against LGA, because leaders in the metro feel that they are not getting as much as they would like.
Posted by repdan on Mar. 02 2004,10:22 pm
Don't forget the Metro regional park system, increased nursing home funding and hospital reimbursement rates.