Topic: 1/2% local sales tax
started by: Lil Pimp
Posted by Lil Pimp on Dec. 30 2003,8:53 pm
I know this has been touched on in numerous other threads so I thought I try & tie it into this one.I remember when Mankato was pushing for the local sales tax about 10-11 years ago. There was much uproar about the tax as there has been uproar in this forum about the potential Albert Lea tax. If I recall, I believe the tax passed 55% to 45%, it was close.
Many people said 'if this passes I will shop elsewhere', this in turn caused other people to say 'we can't pass this, we will lose business'.
Now, 10 years later, the tax has not only paid for the civic center but also airport improvements and Mankato has certainly not lost any business. I think for Mankato it has been a very good thing. I also remember when a couple years ago, the cities of New Ulm & St. Cloud also enacted local sales taxes, again, apprehension by citizens when it was proposed.
If you look back and ask the citizens of cities which have the local sales tax, I think you will find much more then 50% that believe the sales tax was a good idea, even if they voted against it to begin with. Especially in cities where you attach a tangeable outcome of the tax (i.e. a civic center-New Ulm, Mankato, new parks-St. Cloud).
Will this work in Albert Lea? Are cleaning up lakes tangeable enough to satisify the voters? Hard to say, but to say you will shop elsewhere because of the tax just won't happen. If you are spending a $1000 on a new HDTV, does $5 really make a differance? It doesn't because I see them flying out the door at Best Buy in Mankato all the time. After a tax is inacted and a few months passes, no one even thinks about it anymore, life goes on. Is that good or bad? Probably depends on how you look at it but I have a hard time believing Albert Lea will lose business to other places because of it. Mankato has the tax, Rochester has the tax...you watch, if Albert Lea gets it, it probably won't be long before Austin and/or Owatonna tries for it as well!
I am not some tax & spend liberal but I do think in Mankato's case, the tax provided more then was promised & has worked out well. Will this hold true for Albert Lea?
Place your vote, will this tax really benefit Albert Lea?
Posted by guest on Dec. 31 2003,7:56 am
exactly Lil Pimp. You must be the only one on this forum that has a clue.
Posted by kid dyn-o-mite on Dec. 31 2003,11:15 am
Wrong again guest. Mankato's exceptional growth rate was simple able to "handle" the tax . But, that DOESN'T mean increased taxes are good. Increased taxes beyond mere necessities hurt society...you must be one recieving there income from taxes. I'm right aren't I?
Posted by guest on Dec. 31 2003,11:26 am
kid-dim-wit, just think what this community could be with clean lakes. People would come here to use our lakes and spend money on our community. Maybe some big shot of a company will come here for vacation to use the lakes, fall in love with the area and open a branch of his company here and provide more jobs. If not for that possible scenario you should at least want the lakes cleaner for us to use and enjoy. With the new retail facilities opening in town and with the possible new additions that are rumored we will be drawing in more people for shopping which will help raise this money.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 31 2003,11:57 am
| Quote |
| the tax has not only paid for the civic center but also airport improvements |
Port Authorities for airports are increasingly popular for this reason--in Wisconsin, airports do not receive State funds unless they ARE organized this way. Mason City recently went to a Port Authority for its airport, as well. An additional benefit of the Port Authority is that it has its own budget--it can plan projects and accrue money for for large projects over several years--unlike a City Council, which cannot obligate future councils.
I think Lil Pimp has touched on something, though. The most successful sales taxes have well-defined goals--"build a civic center" or "build the Metrodome" (or, our own "build the school" would be an example)--and a SUNSET--"when this project is paid for, the tax goes off". The sales tax proposed here needs better-defined goals. "Clean up the lakes" doesn't have a defined goal, OR a sunset. What IS our goal in "cleaning up the lakes"? Is it a water quality standard? (they're already safe for swimming and fishing). Is it water clarity? Is it COLOR of the water? How will we know when we've reached our goal?
Similarly, "revitalizing downtown" is a nebulous goal. It has been talked about for YEARS--studies have been done, consultants have been retained, schemes from pedestrian walkways to covering the streets to create a mall have been floated.
If we are to have a sales tax, let's have clearly defined goals and a sunset provision.
Posted by minnow on Dec. 31 2003,11:58 am
Boy you're really lost aren't you? Lost in some fantasy CEO falling in love nuttiness...huh? LOL 
eutrophication, aging of a lake or slow-moving stream by biological enrichment of its water. In a young lake the water is cold and clear, supporting little life. With time, plant and animal life burgeon and organic remains begin to be deposited. As the lake grows shallower and warmer, marsh plants take root and begin to fill in the basin. Eventually the lake gives way to bog, finally becoming dry land. The natural aging of a lake may span thousands of years. However, wastes from human activities can accelerate the aging process, as with water pollution. The prime pollutants are nitrates and phosphates, which greatly stimulate the growth of algae, producing a pungent surface scum. Decomposition of dead algae reduces the water's dissolved oxygen content, adversely affecting fish and other aquatic life forms typical of a mature lake.
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 31 2003,1:34 pm
Just because a person is against the 1/2% sales tax it doesn't mean that person is against cleaner lakes. I'd like to see the watershed cleaned up but I would like to see it come from property taxes.Even if you think the 1/2% sales tax is a good idea you should at least be realistic about its chances in St. Paul. I'm sure the state lawmakers would rather not see Minnesota lose any sales tax revenue to Iowa and a local sales tax would make Albert Lea sales tax 2% higher than Iowa.
I have to agree with Jim when he said this tax needs clearly defined goals and a sunset provision.
| Quote |
Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state. Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776 |
Posted by MADDOG on Dec. 31 2003,1:43 pm
Cwullf stated a while back that the first thing we need to do to get money for cleaning the lakes is to get them listed on Minnesota's Impaired Water List. Because of the federal Clean Water Act, this would trigger mandatory state funds.But if there is a sales tax increase, Liberal and Jim are right. There needs to be a sunset clause on X number of years. Otherwise, where do we stop?
Posted by kid dyn-o-mite on Dec. 31 2003,1:54 pm
Why is it that the largest cheerleaders for bigger government work IN government? ...just a coincidence do u suppose?
Posted by Lil Pimp on Dec. 31 2003,10:18 pm
Good points Jim, I appreciate the insight on the airport issue. I am sure you know the 'rest of the story' on the local airport funding from the sales tax but for those who do not I will enlighten...Since it's inception, the local sales tax has by far exceeded revenue expectations. With this extra money, the city thought it would be nice to use some of this money for major airport improvements. They couldn't just shift this money over to this cause so there was a vote (if I recall the legislature had to approve this, again). Of course there was the usual sales pitch 'we need to improve the airport, either we use the extra local sales tax or we will have to raise your property taxes'. Well guess what, the voters voted to amend the tax. How couldn't they really? The money was already there & who wants their property taxes to go up any more then they already have?
Anyway, what I am getting at it is that Mankato adopted the tax to build a civic center; and surprise, they collected nearly twice as much money as planned, pretty nice problem to have. Now, 2 major issues are resolved with little expense to the property taxpayer. What would happen if Albert Lea would be lucky enough to be in this situation, you never know.
I also agree with the above posts, you have to have a goal, plan and sunset on the tax.
A local sales tax is not a cure-all-magic-money machine but I believe for tangible local projects, it does have merit. Ask anyone in Mankato about the civic center, it has helped promote local pride in the community, people feel good about it.
Will cleaning up the lakes in Albert Lea be tangible enough to work and make citizens feel good? I don't know, but I think if the city has the opportunity to try it, they have to take a risk and go for it.
Just my $.02
Posted by BeBack on Jan. 01 2004,8:58 am
Lil Pimp, the Mankato Civic Center is truely a very nice building, and it would be a great addition to any community. That being said, it is my understanding that the functions that the Civic Center puts on continuously loose money. In fact the Civic Center has never been in the black. it survives on the sales tax.Another point that you have failed to look at is the fact that Albert Lea's retail economy is quite a bit smaller than Mankato's. If you don't think so, maybe you can tell us when was the last time you came from Mankato to Albert Lea specifically to buy something!
Posted by Lil Pimp on Jan. 01 2004,9:25 am
Actually, I believe 2003 will be the first year that the civic center finishes in the black or at least breaks even but you are right, it has lost probably a couple hundred thousand $ in the past 10 years. As with most venues like the civic center, it is not a money making facility. When it was built no one ever promised it would make money, the hope was that it could break even.I hear you on the tax generating capacity (Mankato vs. Albert Lea). How much is Albert Lea expected to generate from the tax? The civic center was around $35 million and I believe the sunset for the tax was around 10 (maybe 15) years.
How much $$$ are they talking about to clean up the lakes? Is downtown restoration still in the mix on the tax or was that just talk? If it is, how much is projected to fund this?
Anyone know?
Happy New Year to all
Posted by GEOKARJO on Jan. 01 2004,10:22 am
Yeah and Alabama would have to have another farewell show for them to finish in the black again
Posted by cwolff on Jan. 01 2004,10:49 pm
Minnesota added lakes for the first time to Minnesota's Impaired Water's List in 2002. Every two years the list is updated. Heron Lake, which is currently the only lake in the seven county area in Southwest Minnesota on the list, was not on the initial list out for public comment in 2001. I wrote a letter and asked that Heron Lake be added to the final list, and indeed Heron Lake was put on the final 2002 list. The process for how Heron Lake will be cleaned up is still being formulated by the MPCA. In fact, you can attend the free seminar on January 13, 2004 at the St. Cloud Civic Center where the MPCA will be gathering public input on how Minnesota will clean up its lakes and streams that are on the current Impaired Water's List. Once, your lakes are on the list, they cannot come off of the list until they meet water quality standards, which were set by the Clean Water Act of 1972. The Clean Water Act requires the MPCA to acess and monitor all of the water bodies of the state Minnesota.
The process for cleaning up the lakes and streams will be facilitated by the MPCA through the watershed districts. The process basically finds out who the polluters are and asigns responsibilities to them. In other words, if you are the cause of the problem, then you will have to clean up your act. If wastewater treatment facilities are putting out more than one part per million of phosphorous then they may have to cut back their phosphorous discharge. In some cases the phosphorous may have to be cut back to less then one part per million if water quality standards are not being met.
If you have any questions, fire away?
Posted by Lil Pimp on Jan. 01 2004,11:47 pm
| Quote (GEOKARJO @ Jan. 01 2004,10:22:am) |
| Yeah and Alabama would have to have another farewell show for them to finish in the black again |
That concert isn't until spring '04 (May?) GEO. That being said, it should insure a second straight year in the black.
What I would like to know is this:
1) How much revenue does the city plan on generating from this tax?
2) How long do they expect it (length of tax) to last?
3) Will downtown renovations be included in the tax?
Posted by guest on Jan. 02 2004,12:35 am
1) How much revenue does the city plan on generating from this tax? They don't know. But estimates on lake cleanup are $20million-$40million
2) How long do they expect it (length of tax) to last?
They don't know. But I would guess until the lake is clean.
3) Will downtown renovations be included in the tax?
No, they tried that last year and it didn't work so this year they are dropping the downtown renovation part and they will try for lake cleanup only.
Posted by BeBack on Jan. 02 2004,12:16 pm
And what about the Watershed Board's plans for taxing to clean up the lakes? Will they be passing their own tax on top of the sales tax, or will they be content to receive money from the city sales tax.
Posted by jimhanson on Jan. 02 2004,12:26 pm
Beback--you beat me to the keyboard--I was going to post the same question. The Watershed board has a budget of $250,000--and the taxing ability for much more. If the WATERSHED board--with taxing capability for most of the COUNTY is taking tax money, why do we need it in the CITY?There are also jurisdictional problems. Remember, one of the reasons for the creation of the Watershed Board was that, despite the County contributions to plans for lake rehab, the originators felt the County was not doing enough. Now, the City would raise money--but what do they do with it? Give it to the Watershed Board? Why not let the Watershed Board exercise their tax capability directly? It wouldn't require authorization from St. Paul, either.
Good discussion--interesting, informative, civil, lots of new input.
Posted by Concit on Jan. 02 2004,12:49 pm
The first step to clean up any watershed is stopping the point and non-point pollution. I would wager that every poster knows some farmer (or non-farmer) that has their septic system hooked up to tile lines or directly to a drainage ditch. If you don't, you should perform a water quality test on your nearest drainage ditch and I can almost guarantee you'll find some percentage of human sewage. Second, the amount of fertilizer put on fields and yards that because part of the run off is another major problem that needs to be addressed. People are well aware of these problems but they don't want to confront them (or pay to fix them) until they are forced to by a regulation authority. It's sad.
Posted by guest on Jan. 02 2004,1:23 pm
Things needed to clean the watershed.1. Have a watershed wide ban on fertilizers that contribute to algae blooms and harm the watershed and ecosystem.
2. Install more filter strips along farm fields to limit the amount of erosion that comes from the farm fields.
3. Work on installing additional erosion control on all ditches and streams that enter Fountain and Albert Lea Lakes as well as better erosion control on the lakes themselves. What I am talking about here is actual erosion control, not just riprap. Riprap is not the cure all. We must reslope our lake shores so they are more gradual to the lake. That way the wave energy can be dissipated as the wave laps along the shore instead of just bouncing off of the riprap and continue to bounce from one side of the lake to the other.
4. People need to be more conscientious when it comes to our environment. Do not blow your leaves and grass into the street, they eventually make their way to the lakes and add nutrients to the water which further pollutes the water. Don’t litter. I am amazed at how much trash people, including fishermen, leave along our lake shores.
5. Reduce the quantity of rough fish in the lakes. Start netting carp, bullheads, sheepheads, etc. Get them out of the lakes in mass quantities. All they do is stir up the bottom which makes it impossible for aquatic vegetation to grow. We need the aquatic vegetation to act as a filter and help clean and clear up the water. The vegetation will also help establish more game fish by giving them sources of food and shelter as well as spawning grounds.
6. Get the City to make improvements to their sanitary sewer system so they do not have to by pass raw sewage into the lakes during heavy rain events. This practice has reduced greatly in the last few years; however it does still occur from time to time.
7. After, and only after, water quality improvements are being seen can you then consider any dredging of the lakes. If you just dredge without making the other changes you will eventually fill in all that you have dredged, which is what has already happened.
All of this will take much time and money. First goals must be made, ways of monitoring the watershed to determine if the goals are being met must be defined, and an end product must be agreed upon. After this is done then the cost of this can be determined. Once the costs are known, we, as a community, can decide how we are going to fund this endeavor.
Posted by BeBack on Jan. 02 2004,2:04 pm
These are all good thing that I would not oppose. The thing I was trying to point out was there appears to be a game of capture the tax base being played out on this issue. If we don't pay attention to this situation we could have a governmental failure to do anything about the problem but two taxes for the privilege of having their involvement.
Posted by minnow on Jan. 02 2004,2:40 pm
If 1/2 percent tax is GOOD...why isn't 1 percent better?
Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 02 2004,2:41 pm
Excellent post, guest. That's pretty much exactly what needs to be done, and done before anything else is. | Quote |
| Have a watershed wide ban on fertilizers that contribute to algae blooms and harm the watershed and ecosystem. |
| Quote |
| People need to be more conscientious when it comes to our environment. Do not blow your leaves and grass into the street, they eventually make their way to the lakes and add nutrients to the water which further pollutes the water. |
| Quote |
| Get the City to make improvements to their sanitary sewer system so they do not have to by pass raw sewage into the lakes during heavy rain events. |
Posted by jimhanson on Jan. 02 2004,2:48 pm
Good points, Guest--and your comment on the order of precedence was right on target. I do have a question of viability on your #1 point, though.| Quote |
| 1. Have a watershed wide ban on fertilizers that contribute to algae blooms and harm the watershed and ecosystem. |
Not fertilizing lawns would be easier to police--but politically unpopular.
A couple of additional issues--what do we do with the waterfowl problem--according to the folks that monitor Silver Lake over in Rochester, each "resident" goose "contributes" 88 pounds of "manure" annually to the water in which it resides. This "fertilizer" is very slow to break down--takes years.
How about motor boat stirring up mud? Any attempt to improve water clarity would have to address this issue--a 10 h.p. motor stirs up mud 7 1/2 feet below the surface, according to a guy I know that used to be on the Lake Minnetonka Watershed Board--larger motors go even deeper. Are we willing to restrict the size and speed of motors on the lake?
No easy answers!
Posted by 180 on Jan. 02 2004,3:06 pm
We can never stop farming so trying to change the lake is nothing more than a mere fantasy. It won't show any change in the lake in the next 5 years, in the next 10 years, in the next 20 years, in the next 50 years, in the next 100 years.But we won't have to build a new courthouse for 100 years! Yippee....Yes I know that's what they said in 1954 but they were wrong and Mr. Dan "the man" Springborg is right about the new courthouse.
Posted by guest on Jan. 02 2004,3:14 pm
I think having the additional filter strips in the rural farm locations would help the fertilizer runoff from the fields. The city lawns most of the time do not need the fertilizer. As for the City dumping the sewage, it is either that or let it back up into people’s basements. It really is a no win situation. The sump pump disconnection program from a few years ago seems to have helped. Since then we have had less dumping events. What the City needs to do is continue to keep people’s sump pumps disconnected and to upgrade their facilities in areas where the overloads have been a problem. I have also heard that the County Fair Grounds is a major contributor to this problem. I guess they have a number of open drains that are connected into the City Sanitary Sewer. When it rains all this water goes into the system and drains toward the Bridge Avenue bridge along Fountain Street. I’ve been told that the City has installed a valve in the fair grounds that they close when it is going to rain to keep that water out of the system until the system can handle the excess water.
As far as the boating stirring things up. I think that by changing the slope of the shorelines so the wave energy is dissipated instead of bouncing around would help with this issue. You will never get the size of boat motor restricted. Too many people with too much money that will whine and cry too much about it.
I never though maddog would ever agree with anything I had to say. What is the world coming to?
Posted by jimhanson on Jan. 02 2004,3:24 pm
I see that by the new County depreciation schedule, buildings are to be depreciated over 40 years. Yes, that means the 1954 building reached 40 years and was certified as "not economically feasible" to remodel shortly thereafter. Are we out of the woods yet? No, the Current LEC will reach that "golden age" of 40 in a few more years!While the current pro-expansive-expansion Commissioners (and the County Administrator, who leads these sheep around) will hopefully be drummed out of office by then, you can expect the clones of these clowns to propose tearing down the existing LEC to match the 1880 building. One more time, tell us how the 1954 building CAN'T be used, and the 1880 building CAN?
We need not worry about "depreciating" the new Courthouse, though--since the County Board elected to use Lease-Revenue Bonds to circumvent the need for a referendum--WE DON'T OWN IT--WE'RE JUST "LEASING" IT!
Posted by jimhanson on Jan. 02 2004,3:36 pm
Guest--the guy from the Minnetonka Watershed was talking about stirring up the bottom. Flying over the lakes in the summer time, you can see a dark mud trail behind boats on Albert Lea Lake. Fountain lake will often have a "trail" that lasts for up to an hour, as boats bring up clearer water from below the surface to replace the algae-laden water near the surface.Fountain lake is pretty well rip-rapped--I assume that Albert Lea lake would have to be sloped and rip-rapped as well.
Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 02 2004,3:50 pm
guest | Quote |
| I never though maddog would ever agree with anything I had to say. |
I agree with the sump pump issue, also, 
There is no good alternative just yet. As for the county fairgrounds, I believe the county board passed a resolution for fairground upkeep and repairs to sewer systems and electrical, along with some grandstand repairs. They are aware of the problem.Sorry, though, I can't prove this, they passed this I think in October or November, and the public minutes have yet to be published for these dates.
Posted by guest on Jan. 02 2004,4:14 pm
jimhanson - I understand what you are saying about the boat motors. The only thing that would change that is the lower motor size or an aggregate lake bottom (something that would not stir up). With ripraping the shoreline you are only temporarily holding the shoreline in place. Eventually it will want to sluff into the lake to reach its equilibrum point. The riprap also just bounces the wave energy around instead of disapaiting it before it causes more harm.I am sure the county is aware of the problem. The real problem is money though. Always too many things to do but never enough money.
Posted by Concit on Jan. 02 2004,4:24 pm
Guest what about the clowns pumping human waste directly into drainage tile and drainage ditches? What do we do about that problem?
Posted by guest on Jan. 02 2004,4:28 pm
That too is a problem. It is actually a problem that the county should already be taking care of with their septic inspections. I heard that the county is trying to get the stables and governmental acreas areas to be anexed into the city so they have to hook up to city sewer becasue thier systems are failing and doing just what you said. The county has let the septic problems go for too long in this county. They are just going to have to get tough with people and tell them to get their system fixed and if they don't then impose fines on them until it is corrected.
Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 02 2004,4:36 pm
Here's a table I found on a Wisconsin website on Mn. vs. Wi taxes: [quote]Minnesota Tax Comparison - Economic DevelopmentWisconsin Taxes Minnesota Taxes
Corporate Income Corporate Income
Base: Net Income Base: Net Income
Rate: 7.9% Rate: 9.8%
Personal Income Personal Income
Rates: 4.60% to 6.75% Rates: 5.35% to 7.85%
Property Property
State wide average rate State wide average rate is
is estimated at $21.43 per estimated at $19.00 per $1000 of
$1000 of full value full value Rate for commercial/
industrial property is estimated
at $42.00 per $1000 of full value.
Sales & use Sales & use
State rate: 5.00% State rate: 6.5%
Local county option 0.05% County rate: none
Stadium tax: 0.10% Local option rate: 0.5% to 1.0%
(Metro-Milwaukee area) Combined rates: 6.5% to 7.5%
Combined rates: 5.0% to 5.6%
Unemployment Comp. Unemployment comp.
Base: $10,500 Base: $20,000
Rates: 0.02% to 9.75% Rate: 0.17% to 9.07%
New employer: 3.05%-3.25%New employer: 1.17%
Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 02 2004,4:46 pm
This from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce: | Quote |
| Local Option Sales Tax ISSUE Should Minnesota expand or curtail the use of local option sales taxes? POLICY The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce opposes general local option sales tax authority and the expansion of local sales taxes. The Minnesota Chamber also opposes local sales taxes that are used to finance projects that will directly compete with existing area businesses. Accordingly, we urge the Legislature to: Limit communities seeking local sales tax authority to a rate of one-half cent. Require communities seeking local sales tax authority to raise one-half of the project cost from other local sources, e.g. private contributions, property taxes, spending cuts, state or federal grants, etc. This requirement guarantees that citizens within the city limits want the project enough to arrange financing for a substantial portion of its cost. A sales tax referendum is not a sufficient test of citizens' willingness to pay because people who shop in their community and live elsewhere will pay a significant portion of the tax. Grant individual communities' authority to enact local sales taxes only under the specific conditions enacted as part of the 1999 omnibus tax bill. The criteria are: (i) the proceeds from the proposed local sales tax are used to finance a specific capital improvement and the tax sunsets on a specific date; (ii) the proposed tax increase must have voter approval at a general election; and (iii) the local government is prohibited from seeking authority to renew its local sales tax for at least one year after the tax expires. Sunset perpetual local sales tax authority on December 31, 2004 unless a referendum is passed at a general election that re-authorizes the local sales tax for a specific project and for a specific period of time. (Duluth has perpetual sales tax authority.) The Minnesota Chamber also opposes a metro area sales tax because it complicates the administration of the sales tax and reduces accountability by exporting a portion of the tax to individuals that can not vote on its imposition. BUSINESS IMPACT The Department of Revenue estimates that businesses pay approximately 45 percent of Minnesota's general sales and use tax. One of the Chamber's long-term goals is to eliminate the sales tax on intermediate purchases and equipment. As local sales taxes become more prevalent, this will be more difficult to do because local government will want to expand the sales tax base not contract it. Furthermore, local sales taxes have the potential to divide the business community. Some businesses directly benefit from the projects that local taxes finance, while others don't directly benefit, face higher costs on their purchases and greater administrative burdens. |
< option tax >
Posted by cwolff on Jan. 02 2004,5:03 pm
Concit, several watershed districts are currently going after grants to clean up their septic problems within their boundries. The grant that I am talking about is relatively new, and more information can be found at www.pca.state.mn.us/programs/ists/finacial-assistance.htmlIt sounds like that all septic systems within the watershed will have to be checked for compliance, and any septic systems not in compliance will have to be upgraded.
Posted by jimhanson on Jan. 02 2004,7:17 pm
Guest--good point on the septic systems--that should be the easiest item to check and reform of all the lake cleanup items, and one of the most effective. There is no excuse for non-compliance with direct discharge. Other septic systems should be given a deadline date for compliance IF THEY HAVE PROVED TO BE CONTRIBUTING TO POLLUTION. The "red dye" check is pretty conclusive. Maddog--good find on the tax system comparisons, MN. vs. Wisc. That is the sort of empirical evidence we need in discussions, not "I FEEL" discussions.
Good find on the State regulation on local option sales tax--the law provides for a specific capital improvement, and for a sunset provision. Local option tax advocates are going to have to provide these specifics in order to advance their cause, well as telling people exactly what their money is expected to do for the community. The GOOD news is, if they CAN provide these specifics, people are MORE likely to vote for them. State law is very specific on these items--maybe there is STILL HOPE FOR THE FOLKS THAT GATHER AT THE CAPITOL!
Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 03 2004,9:54 am
Jim, | Quote |
| Good find on the State regulation on local option sales tax--the law provides for a specific capital improvement, and for a sunset provision. |
Jim, I believe the find I made is the opinion of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, not a bill or law. God, we can only hope it is law.
Posted by Concit on Jan. 03 2004,11:17 am
cwolf thanks for the information. The problem I have is with property owners that easily could afford to pay for a proper septic system, and chose not to do so, because its easier (and cheaper) to simply dump their sewage into their tile lines or drainage ditch. In the end, its you and me that have to pay to clean up the watershed because these yahoos don't care. We need some environmental regulations (and regulators) with some real teeth. I know from experience, just telling someone to do something doesn't get it done in Freeborn County. You have to hold a "hammer over their head", and even sometimes that doesn't work. We need consequences for these types of blatant environmental abuses, not just directives. Fines don't always work either. A lot of these land owner set up "dummy" corporations and simply file bankruptcy when they get in trouble. Again, in the end, tax payers are stuck holding the back. I believe more environmental legislation should contain a criminal provision that imposes real consequences. If the offenders can't afford to pay the criminal fine, make them put on a orange jump suit and make them manually dredge our lakes. When they're done doing that, they should apologize to every youngster that swims in our lakes for poisoning the water they swim in. Without real consequences, nothing will change.
Posted by minnow on Jan. 03 2004,12:48 pm
huh?"The problem I have is with property owners that easily could afford to pay for a proper septic system, and chose not to do so, because its easier (and cheaper) to simply dump their sewage into their tile lines or drainage ditch. In the end, its you and me that have to pay to clean up the watershed because these yahoos don't care"
LOL
What a gimp! wah freaking wah...Let me get this straight...you're all worried because some guy and his wifes poop aren't being deposited as deeply in the ground as you'd like, yet you support pig plants and pig farms that let thousands of animals S.H.I.T in a big poop holding pond and that's ok...
...freaking just more dumb Albert Lea whiners, fools and losers...
par for the course.
This is complete fantasy and shows to the Nth degree just how clueless you really are..
"A lot of these land owner set up "dummy" corporations and simply file bankruptcy when they get in trouble."
Really? Is that so? Then name me just one that you know about.
You don't even know of one do you? That's what I thought, just making up S.H.I.T again to prove your invalid points.
Yep, par for the course...
Posted by cwolff on Jan. 03 2004,2:18 pm
Concit, just ignore Minnow because he is just a bottom feeder and still lives at home with his mommy. There are alot of laws already on the books regarding septic systems, but there is no real enforcement in place. The MPCA is suppose to make sure that the ISTS laws are carried out by the local environmental offices, but the MPCA is so short staffed that they do not have even enough resources (bodies) to follow up on blatant complaints. I know of one instance where a property owner was required to update his septic system as part of a variance and conditional use permit. The environmental officer would not require the property owner to upgrade his system after I complained and after 900 plus days had passed from when the septic system was suppose to be finished. The answer I got from the environmental officer was that "if I had to write citations for every septic system violation in this county, I would not get any thing else done." I think this kind of attitude is more wide spread than one might think. The real problem is the lack of enforcement and accountability by our governmental officials, instead of new laws being created. Quote: Minnows eat too much invertebrates, which are better suited for migrating ducks that require huge amounts of protein. Do away with those dam rough fish.
Posted by Guest on Jan. 07 2004,8:22 am
Has anyone ever seen how much money they expect to generate with this 1/2% sales tax? I recently came across some retail sales figures for Freeborn County for the year 2000. Unless the information I saw was wrong, it said there was retail sales of $1.04 million in 2000. If that is the case we would get a wopping $5,000 with this 1/2% tax. Does not seem like it is worth it.
Posted by Guest on Jan. 07 2004,8:32 am
I just double checked the information. One spot says $1.04 million and another says $1.04 billion. If it is billion then we would generat $5 million, that would be much better and we could actually do something with that money.
Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 07 2004,8:58 am
guest, I would have to guess that the billion dollar figure would have to be more acurate, but even that seems like a lot. In any event, I believe big ticket items, such as vehicles planes, boats, etc. will be exempt from the 1/2% and just have a flat fee.cwulff:
| Quote |
| you can attend the free seminar on January 13, 2004 at the St. Cloud Civic Center where the MPCA will be gathering public input on how Minnesota will clean up its lakes and streams that are on the current Impaired Water's List. Once, your lakes are on the list, they cannot come off of the list until they meet water quality standards, which were set by the Clean Water Act of 1972. The Clean Water Act requires the MPCA to acess and monitor all of the water bodies of the state Minnesota. The process for cleaning up the lakes and streams will be facilitated by the MPCA through the watershed districts. The process basically finds out who the polluters are and asigns responsibilities to them. |
Posted by cwolff on Jan. 07 2004,11:06 am
Maddog, Let Mr. Miller know that the MPCA is currently going around the state with informational meetings about the proposed 2004 impaired waters list. They will be in Mankato on January 7, 2004 from 1-3 P.M. at the Blue Earth Library, and in Rochester on January 21 from 1-3 P.M. at the MPCA office. To obtain more information on TMDLs, visit the MPCA's website at www.pca.state.mn.us
Posted by Tax us saurus on Jan. 07 2004,11:10 am
Put your money where your mouth is DONHow come Don Sorensen watershed board member hasn't proposed this tax for cleaning the lakes.?
?Is it because he owns restaurant
??January 6th, 2004
Chamber may propose food, drink tax
Funds could build trails, fields
By Tim Krohn
Free Press Staff Writer
MANKATO — A proposed 2 1/2 percent local sales tax on food, beverages and entertainment would generate some $3 million a year in Mankato that could be used for things like new soccer fields, bike trails, parking spaces or an arts center.
The Greater Mankato Chamber of Commerce is still deciding whether to endorse the tax, which is being met skeptically by many bar and restaurant owners. If enacted, the tax would be collected and controlled by the city. Other cities in Blue Earth and Nicollet counties could enact a similar tax that they would control....
Mankato City Manager Pat Hentges told City Council members at a work session Monday night that focusing the tax on entertainment-related businesses makes sense.....
While the Legislature must give its approval first, it’s not clear if there would have to be a local referendum to implement the tax or if it could simply be approved by the council. Hentges said the St. Cloud City Council implemented the local tax without a referendum.
Please educate us Mayor Jean
You might be able to ram it though without a vote
Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 07 2004,3:53 pm
guest | Quote |
| I just double checked the information. One spot says $1.04 million and another says $1.04 billion. |
Posted by irisheyes on Jan. 07 2004,6:05 pm
It would have to be billion. Their are business's in town that have more than 1 million in sales annually.
Posted by snickers on Jan. 08 2004,3:00 pm
1 million seems too low but 1 billion seems way too high. Retail sales are retail sales only, I do not believe they include auto sales for example. 1 billion works out to about 19 million in sales per week, no way that is happening in Freeborn county.can I add this as well: nice job of proof reading your story In Business mag !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by jimhanson on Feb. 04 2004,10:06 am
| Quote |
| But, until the law is changed, Dorman has to submit a proposal allowing residents to vote on the one-cent tax increase that would go towards water and other natural resource improvements. |
Posted by minnow on Feb. 04 2004,10:24 am
Do you mean the 1.5% tax?
Posted by tax machine on Feb. 04 2004,11:32 am
No, you both are wrong, you are talking about the proposed 2% tax.
Posted by jimhanson on Feb. 04 2004,11:42 am
If 2% is good, 10% would be even better! You say "that will make taxpayers WARDS OF THE STATE"? That's even better--look at how people in the large metro areas vote--all "blue"! Don't pass up this opportunity to be just like the BIG CITIES--dependent on government! 
(sarcasm)
Posted by MADDOG on Mar. 03 2004,8:31 am
The city requested that the county board pass a resolution stating that the board is in support of the city's quest for the 1/2%. Dorman needs to move quickly on this bill in this legislative session.Not only did the county board not pass this resolution in support of the city, they changed their next meeting to the 23rd of this month. That pushes it back from two weeks to three before the board could possibly try to pass it again.
SORRY GUYS!
Posted by MrTarzan on Mar. 03 2004,5:54 pm
What was the reason given for not giving any support? I guess I can't say they were out of line until I know why they did not want to support it.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 03 2004,6:35 pm
Belshan asked if the resolution, as proposed, was for bringing it to the Legislature to lobby for the ability to hold a referendum, or if it was in support of the sales tax initiative. Gabrielson repeatedly asked Mullenbach what language he wanted to use--Mullenbach kept replying "that we are in favor of it". There never was a sense of what they were in favor OF.Belshan cut through the muddle by stating (paraphrase) "I think it is out of line for us as a County Board to get involved with this".
I think he was right--this is a City decision--the referendum, if allowed will allow voting only by CITY residents. The County Board SHOULD NOT become involved.
Posted by MrTarzan on Mar. 03 2004,6:56 pm
Sounds reasonable. I guess I would have stayed out of it too. Rep Dornan is pushing to make it the right of all cities to decide local sales tax without interference from St. Paul, as it is in most states. I support him in this.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 04 2004,9:36 am
The board wanted to support the sales tax but there were only 3 commissioners there because Springborg was at a conference and Mathiason had to leave for a family emergency. So when it came down to a vote Behrends and Mullenbach voted in favor of it and Belshan abstained. When Belshan abstained they no longer had a quorom and the resolution couldn't pass on only 2 votes.I'm guessing there are plenty of angry sales tax supporters in town. But they don't have anything to worry about, when the lockstep four are all at the next meeting the resolution will pass 4 to 1
Posted by cwolff on Mar. 04 2004,11:15 am
Mr. Tarzan, I totally agree that it should be left up to the each city to determine if they want to raise their sales tax, with of course a vote from the citizens of those cities. But I think if it was left up to the cities, and Albert Lea passed a 1/2% sales tax to raise $1.5 million per year to dredge the lake, Albert Lea would loose some leverage when asking for more LGA funds. I mean dredging the lake before the upper reaches of the watershed are restored to keep the sediments in place is a waste of money! If Albert Lea has money to waste on dredging then why would they need more money for LGA? Maybe the watershed has waken up and now wants the 1/2 percent to fix the problem and not treat the symptoms.
Posted by repdan on Mar. 04 2004,11:51 am
Cwolff,You may want to read the plan. Most people that the first and only step is to dredge. The work needs to start above the lakes.
You might think it would impact LGA but it does not, revenue from local options are not figured into the need formula.
Posted by Madd Max on Mar. 04 2004,2:50 pm
repdan Is there a website that has the plan posted on it? If so could you please post.
Posted by MrTarzan on Mar. 04 2004,6:04 pm
cwolff,I don't want to dredge, I think it is ineffective, however, that is what the people have decided to date as far as it was presented in the paper. I am in favor of draining and bulldozing one time to get back to the gravel that exists under the muck, and was so clearly raved about by the Dragoons that first wrote about the lake. A gravel bottom is a natural filtered lake, and the one time fix would have been cheaper than the courthouse no one had a chance to vote on. Then with a proper dam, well administered watershed district, and people who have seen the difference, the lake should never be spoiled again. The gentlemen in charge of Metal Culverts here in town once shared a plan that he had for bypassing and digging out the lake (can't remember his name right now), but I thought it was brilliant. I have seen dredging in other places and I am not impressed.
As for the tax, I don't want to pay more for goods, and I don't know how I would vote. I would have to see how it is worded, and what assurances the city would have that the tax would be used for what it was raised for. If our mayor is just going to use it to pay for more studies from outside the county, or retreats, then I will vote no. If it is going to strictly be used for the lake, yeah, then I will even if it is dredging. But I believe I already heard they want to use it to subsidize business downtown, hiding it as "restoration", which I do not believe is the governments business and unfair to businesses not downtown. What have any of you heard they will do with the tax?
I still believe that it is each cities individual right to control its own local sales tax without any say from a central government in St. Paul.
Posted by cwolff on Mar. 04 2004,7:21 pm
I think the watershed knows that the $250,000.00 maximum levy does not get you much if you are going to try and restore an entire watershed, and that the 1/2% sales tax will help get some of the things done within the watershed. At Heron Lake, around $177,000.00 of the $235,000.00 levy is used just for overhead; such as wages, insurance, office rental, office expenses, ect.... Also at Heron Lake, they rely heavily on grants.
Posted by Madd Max on Mar. 04 2004,9:14 pm
This article was on the Tribune web site Fate of tax bill up in the air
By Benjamin Dipman, Tribune staff writer
Let the lobbying for a sales-tax increase begin.
And the waiting and the hoping and the expecting.
After local council discussion, public hearings, professional surveys and strategic meetings, the possibility of a tax increase is now in the hands of the state legislature.
State Rep. Dan Dorman, R-Albert Lea, has introduced a bill that would allow Albert Lea to hold a referendum to increase the sales tax by 1/2 percent, with revenue going toward lake and Shellrock River improvements.
"This is the biggest issue in Albert Lea for the past 74 years," said Councilor Randy Erdman, a forceful proponent of the increase.
And officials have eyes on Speaker of the House Steve Sviggum with education in their peripheral vision, should they need it.
Councilors Erdman and George Marin, Mayor Jean Eaton and Dorman all said the person who needs to hear from the community is Sviggum, R-Kenyon.
"What we can do now is to lobby the speaker of the house for his help," Eaton said.
"I think the speaker of the House controls what hits the floor," said Erdman.
"I certainly want to be open and hopeful to the suggestion of Representative Dorman and the community," Sviggum said.
But he mentioned a negative aspect of tax proposals like Albert Lea's.
"From the stance of tax policy, a tax purest would say you're separating those who pay the tax from those who decide how the tax is being spent," he said. "It's not the purest of tax policies."
Many variables affect each community's tax proposal, the speaker said, including fairness, equity and type of tax policy.
"We try to be fair," he said. "What we do for one community we do for another."
Equity is the manner in which tax revenue will be spent. Communities should have specific projects in mind, he said.
Finally, legislators will determine if it is "good tax policy." They will consider alternate forms of funding and determine if the projects are justified.
But legislators want to hear from residents, the speaker said.
"You always want to hear from citizens, Sviggum said. "That is important, as long as it is balanced with some comments we hear from other areas such as Brownsdale and Hollandale."
In addition to calling, e-mailing or writing Swiggum, Eaton suggested a group take a bus to the Capitol to lobby for the proposal. But she said that should not be instigated by the council, but rather by residents.
"This has to be a grass roots effort," she said. "This is a community issue. I think it should be driven from the community."
Should the bill pass, officials are thinking about education, but concrete plans have not been formed.
Though his ward has been quiet, Councilor Marin said he and other councilors would be available to answer questions from constituents and hold ward meetings.
He anticipates more public discussion once the bill get closer to passage.
"I think we have a lot of education to do," Eaton said. "(People should know) exactly what the money would go for and exactly what people would be taxed on. Hopefully some people will step forward."
Along with the sales tax bill, Dorman submitted a proposal that would allow communities more sovereignty over such tax initiatives.
If passed, residents could vote on tax issues without the approval of the legislature.
"It seems to me the bigger communities in our state has received this tax ability," Eaton said. "If it's good for one it's good for all."
Tax increases would have to follow a criteria, Erdman said.
Among other conditions, the tax would have to go toward capital projects, there would have to be a time limit on the tax, and an expected amount of revenue would have to be outlined.
But if the qualifications are met, local governments could conduct a vote without legislative acceptance.
"It would essentially get the state out of picking winners and losers," Dorman said.
So heres your chance people if you are for or against it let Sviggum know how you feel.
Speaker of the House
Steve Sviggum ® 28B
* 463 State Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155
(651) 296-2273
E-mail: rep.steve.sviggum@house.mn
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 11 2004,2:48 pm
I unintentionally recorded about the last 8 mins of audio of the house tax committee meeting this morning and I happened to get a recording of a funny exchange between rep. Dan Dorman and the chair rep.Ron Abrahms. It's about 1 min 25 secs into the recording. < House Tax Committee Meeting from 03/11/04 >
Dormans response cracks me up, he sounds pleasant enough but I really wonder if he was thinking "Boy, would I like to catch that smarta$$ alone in a dark alley"
Posted by MADDOG on Mar. 12 2004,3:29 pm
You're right, Liberal, the wise a$$ remark Abrahms makes, what Dorman asks him a question he doesn't know the answer to so he smarts off. Says something "cute". Doesn't matter whether it's city, county, or state, it seems like the "leader of the pack" remains the same.
Posted by repdan on Mar. 12 2004,7:33 pm
Abrams was not happy with me. He is one of the folks trying to claim that we did not raise taxes last year. We did on some people, check your tax bill. What set him off is that I pointed out that for some people we reduced their income tax last year. Given that we reduced payments to group homes for the handicaped by 1% it is hard to explain why we would lower the income tax. For the record, I voted no on both the Health and Human Services bill and the Tax bill.
Posted by Montyman on Mar. 12 2004,9:06 pm
You guys just shifted the burden, didn't you?
Posted by Madd Max on Mar. 12 2004,10:46 pm
Rep Abrams has never been one to back a local sales tax. But if you would like to write or e-mail Rep Abrams here is the info you will need to let him know your feelings on any issuesSpeaker Pro Tempore
Ron Abrams ® 43B
* 585 State Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155
(651) 296-9934
E-mail: rep.ron.abrams@house.mn
Posted by MrTarzan on Mar. 13 2004,3:59 pm
The issue should not be whether or not a sales tax is good or bad, appropriate or not, but rather the central control of the state extending down into local counties and cities, telling them how to run themselves. Am I wrong here, or do we even need permission from St. Paul to put in a traffic light? Isn't that taking state power too far?
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 15 2004,11:12 am
From Today's Trib. --another request for County Board Support for the Sales Tax. | Quote |
| Belshan's disagreement was not with the initiative, but rather the wording of the resolution. "The resolution was not about supporting a referendum on the (sales-tax) increase," he said. The resolution was described as a "request for county support of the proposed sales-tax increase according to the agenda. "I believe it is not the county board's place to endorse a tax increase or decrease in any city in the county," Belshan said. |
Can you imagine the reaction if the City of Hollandale asked the County Board for a similar vote--a resolution NOT to ALLOW a vote, but ON THE ISSUE ITSELF?
One of the Commissioners--Springborg--seemed confused as to not only the resolution, but the use of the tax itself.
| Quote |
| "I'm not in favor of raising taxes," he said, "But I think it's important to support our lakes." |
Looks like another 4-1 vote coming up!
Mr. Tarzan--you are correct--we shouldn't have to have permission from the State for a vote. I only comment on the County aspect of this issue--let's put the thing to a vote, and quit debating.
Posted by Madd Max on Mar. 15 2004,2:09 pm
I agree with you 100% on this one Jim. It is a local tax question that local people will pay or not pay it is OUR decision to may Not St.Paul's One comment I would like to make is In Washington DC at the Capital we hear Representatives and Senators fighting for States rights that the Federal Government has to much power over the states. Here we have a case where the local people are saying that the state has to much power over us and we should have the right to make our own local decision not the state telling us what we can or cannot do. I just think it is kind of interesting.
Posted by farouk on Mar. 15 2004,5:02 pm
In most cases, it is our right to agree to tax ourselves, or agree not to tax ourselves. That is true with most taxes except sales taxes. Sales taxes don't always tax those who would benefit from the tax, infact the benefit of a local sales taxes is that many of those who fund the tax receive little benefit from the tax. It is a good way to shift the burden for what you want onto the backs of others. So I guess I would disagree with some of you and state that St. Paul does need to have a say in this!
Posted by farouk on Mar. 15 2004,5:07 pm
In most cases, it is our right to agree to tax ourselves, or agree not to tax ourselves. That is true with most taxes except sales taxes. Sales taxes don't always tax those who would benefit from the tax, infact the benefit of a local sales taxes is that many of those who fund the tax receive little benefit from the tax. It is a good way to shift the burden for what you want onto the backs of others. So I guess I would disagree with some of you and state that St. Paul does need to have a say in this!
Posted by Nose for News on Mar. 15 2004,5:39 pm
ARGUMENTS AGAINST A GENERAL SALES TAX1. Equity considerations are unfavorable:
(a) tax is ordinarily regressive with respect to income.
(b) not only fails to take account of personal obligations but actually strikes larger families having less margin for saving more severely.
© takes no account of the difference between earned and unearned incomes.
(d) places no unusual burden on windfalls or monopoly profits.
2. Any attempt to reduce the disadvantage indicated on grounds of equity by such devices as the taxation of services and rentals adds greatly to the administrative task.
3. The development of an administrative machine and a set of regulations is so extensive a task that it precludes the use of a general sales tax as a temporary expedient.
4. Once a tax like this has been set in operation and is producing large revenues, it will be very difficult to repeal. This is indicated by European experience during the 20's add 30's.
5. The strain on administration during the early years tends to prevent heavy rates and large collections.
6. The development of a system of rationing and price fixing will lead logically to the reduction in the sales tax base and at the same time will increase the difficulties of administration.
7. The tax offers no assistance in the transfer of resources to war time production unless differential rates are established. The letter would produce a sharp increase in the administrative load.
8. The tax eight very well serve as an excuse for wage increases since it has a tendency to raise the cost of living.
9. The "painlessness" of a tax of this sort as compared with a collection at source income tax is dubious.
10. The tax base cannot be kept simple without some sacrifice in the form of multiple taxation and pyramiding.
11. The tax base is pretty certain to be complex. Gross receipts is itself difficult to define and must be corrected substantially if a tax base having undesirable economic consequences is to be avoided.
12. The cost of collection plus payment is apt to be high.
13. The consequence of 12 is a demand for the reimbursement of the firms individual which in effect act as collecting agents.
14. The small unit presents an unusually difficult problem. The application of the tax to such units is difficult and their exemption is inexpedient from the point of view of equity as well as economic effects.
15. Although the yield is relatively predictable and elastic, similar virtues adhere to a broadly based collection at source tax on individual incomes.
16. Unless a special scheme such as the suggested coupon plan or the free distribution of an iron ration is installed it will be impossible to arrange adequate protection of the minimum standard of life without adding greatly to the complexity of administration.
17. The shift of the tax to the consumer is less certain than is commonly assumed. Hence the results are less predictable than in the case of a levy falling directly on personal net income.
18. When the tax fails to shift, discriminatory taxation of business enterprise results and the weight of the tax is apt to fall on smaller firms with unusual force. Haig and Shoup indicate these firms are less apt to shift the tax. The result is the introduction of a certain regressivity into the treatment accorded the various business enterprises which are in effect operating as collecting units under the tax.
19. While the tax does reach some of the income which is not taxed under a levy on personal income, it is unlikely that this is a desirable consequence if the income tax is applied to a broad base.
20. The enactment of a general sales tax does not really mean we are tapping a new source of income but rather that we are going at consumer income by a circuitous route. Why not tax incomes directly with a collection at source income tax?
Date 5 February 1942
Author unknown
Title Arguments against a general sales tax
Description Internal staff memo, Division of Tax Research, U.S. Treasury Department
Location Box 1; General Sales Taxes; Records of the Office of Tax Analysis/Division of Tax Research; General Records of the Department of the Treasury, Record Group 56; National Archives, College Park, MD.
Treasury Department, Division of Tax Research
February 12, 1942
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 16 2004,3:27 pm
| Quote |
| The resolution was described as a "request for county support of the proposed sales-tax increase according to the agenda. "I believe it is not the county board's place to endorse a tax increase or decrease in any city in the county," Belshan said. |
Does anyone else see the IRONY here?
This is the same County Board that voted 3-2 to DENY the public to vote on the largest expenditure in the history of the County--YET--they have indicated a willingness to SUPPORT a referendum (vote) on a sales tax by another governmental body over which they have no interest!
-- (Four-to-one!)
Posted by MrTarzan on Mar. 16 2004,10:07 pm
Yes, I see it. DO DO DO DO DO DO DO DO (Twilight Zone theme)
Posted by repdan on Mar. 18 2004,4:37 pm
Farouk...You bring up the exporting of the tax to someone else. That also happens in property taxes, the industrial taxes that Lou Rich pays or Mrs Gerry's pays in for the most part passed on to people outside of our area.
Posted by farouk on Mar. 19 2004,10:34 am
repdan...Property tax has a county, school and city component. Explain how that gets passed on to people outside of our area. What other industrial taxes are you talking about? Are you talking about income taxes? I think I was talking about a city Sales tax, like the ones in Mankato and Rochester, you know were I travel to those communities to make purchases, and for that right they assess a tax on me.
Posted by repdan on Mar. 20 2004,7:23 pm
Industrial property tax is for the most part exported. The taxes are passed on to the customer and in the case of industrial taxes most of the customers are from outside of the area. Just as when you shop in Rochester the local option sales tax is exported or not paid by someone who lives in Rochester.Depending on the community, the amount of a local option sales tax which is exported can vary. The tax in Rochester would be exported more than one here would.
When you say that the property tax has a county, school, and city componet you describe who levies the tax and spends it not who pays the tax after the shifts.
Here is a link you may want to check out, the Dept of Revenue puts out a Tax Incidence Study every 2 years that looks at who really pays taxes.
< http://www.taxes.state.mn.us/taxes....e.shtml >
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 20 2004,11:18 pm
Karen Trows article in the Tribune is nothing but a bunch of lies and baseless assumptions.| Quote |
A majority of the people in Albert Lea appear ready to vote for a "local option sales tax" if it were to go toward cleaning up our lakes. |
We know this isn't true because we paid for a study and only about 48 percent of the respondents said they liked the idea of a half-percent sales-tax increase to clean up the lake. Since when is 48% the majority?
| Quote |
Albert Lea is the not-so-proud beneficiary of local government aid funds from the state that represents more than 50 percent of our municipal budget. To add insult to injury, these funds were recently cut by several hundred thousand dollars at a time when we could least afford it. |
The actual amount of LGA we lost was $1,046,547 which dropped our total LGA to $5,358,383 which isn't even close to 50% of our budget it's more like a third of our budget. And what does she mean by "at a time that we could least afford it", when can you ever afford LGA cuts?
The remainder of her article was basically assumptions that supported her views like "Believe me, the Iowans are not too happy with the quality of water that we are sending their way." How would she know this and why would anyone believe her when she can't even get the basic facts straight.
Posted by repdan on Mar. 22 2004,1:47 pm
One interesting thing, if you read the STrib piece and Abrams comments you might be surprised to find he always pushs for an increase in the cap in local school excess levies. Right now there is a cap of about $800 a kid, but the are a handfull of districts that are allowed to be above the cap and have levies over $1000 and in the case of Hopkins almost $2000 per student.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 22 2004,1:58 pm
Abrams must be tough to work with. He's a smarta$$, he isn't nearly as witty as he thinks he is and he apparently wouldn't cross party lines to save his life. He's just the kind of person that neither party needs. Also he's completely wrong about the auto lease tax issue. No matter what he says it's a shift at best and will solve no long term problems and most likely hurt the lease business.
Posted by repdan on Mar. 24 2004,8:49 am
Thanks for the link to the Tribune on the budget.
Posted by cwolff on Mar. 28 2004,12:57 pm
H.F No. 2705, as introduced: 83rd Legislative Session (2003-2004) Posted on Mar 2, 2004 1.1 A bill for an act
1.2 relating to sales and use taxes; authorizing the city
1.3 of Albert Lea to impose a sales tax.
1.4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.5 Section 1. [CITY OF ALBERT LEA; SALES AND USE TAX.]
1.6 Subdivision 1. [SALES AND USE TAX
1.7 AUTHORIZED.] Notwithstanding Minnesota Statutes, section
1.8 477A.016, or any other provision of law, ordinance, or city
1.9 charter, the city of Albert Lea may, by ordinance, impose a
1.10 sales and use tax of one-half of one percent for the purposes
1.11 specified in subdivision 2. The provisions of Minnesota
1.12 Statutes, section 297A.99 govern the imposition, administration,
1.13 collection, and enforcement of the tax authorized under this
1.14 subdivision.
1.15 Subd. 2. [USE OF REVENUES.] The proceeds of the tax
1.16 imposed under this section shall be used to pay for lake
1.17 improvement projects as detailed in the Shell Rock River
1.18 watershed plan.
1.19 Subd. 3. [REFERENDUM.] If the Albert Lea City Council
1.20 proposes to impose the tax authorized by this section, the
1.21 question of imposing the tax must be submitted to the voters at
1.22 the next general election.
1.23 Subd. 4. [TERMINATION OF TAXES.] The taxes imposed under
1.24 this section expire at the earlier of (1) ten years after the
2.1 taxes are first imposed, or (2) when the city council first
2.2 determines that the amount of revenues raised to pay for the
2.3 projects under subdivision 2, shall meet or exceed the sum of
2.4 $15,000,000. Any funds remaining after completion of the
2.5 projects may be placed in the general fund of the city.
2.6 [EFFECTIVE DATE.] This section is effective the day after
2.7 compliance with the governing body of the city of Albert Lea
2.8 with Minnesota Statutes, section 645.021, subdivision 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by MADDOG on Mar. 31 2004,8:27 am
It seems to me, that channel 6 is being fed statistics. Kind of like our Tribune, just report what they are told to.We forum posters are obviously the obsessed minority around here. The city is 80% in favor of the tax and we are 90% against. How did TV6 get their info from? The city council? Chamber? Watershed board? Hmmmm.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 31 2004,8:45 am
You need to educate the media before you can educate the public. What was the point of spending all that money on that study if you're just going to ignore the results and make up your own numbers? Didn't the council chose the more expensive study because it would have a more professional look? Who's looking at it? When it came back with numbers they didn't expect, it all but disappeared.
Next time they should save the money and just make up the lies from the start.
Posted by hoosier on Mar. 31 2004,8:50 am
LOL @ Maddog, was thinking the same thing. Where did they get the 80 percent figure? But if i am asking the questions, I can get bout any answer I want. Its kinda like the tooth paste commercial, you know, the one where they say 4 out of 5 dentists recommend brushing with this brand. Come to find out, they asked if it was better to use there brand, or not brush at all. Im sure it went something like this.
If we were to pass a 1/2 percent sales tax, would you be in favor of using it to clean up the lakes? Yes!
I dont believe they just came out and asked, Are you in favor of the tax? Samething with the library study. They dont ask if you need a new library, they ask if one were to be built, where would you like to see it?
But 80 percent? Anyone that thinks 80 percent of the people in A.L. are going to vote for this, I have 100 dollars that says it aint gonna happen. Not only will it not pass with 80 percent in favor, but it wont pass at all. Sorry, but i cant vote for this, not knowing what the watershed board will do in the future with taxes. It just seems to me that we are making another obstacle to people and business wanting to locate here, and thats more taxes.
The watershed board lost my support when their first order of business was to decide to pay themselves for being on the board. They went from community activists to people with their hands in my pocket, mostly for their own gain.
Posted by farouk on Mar. 31 2004,9:01 am
How come does the media have such different numbers on their poll than are showen here. Word coming out is over 80% want this 1/2% tax. Those of us here must be out of the mainstream!
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 31 2004,9:20 am
My guess is somebody in that group of supporters that went to the St. Paul yesterday is a manipulative liar and gave Sarah Colbert that number. Can you think of anyone that has lied to a local reporter about the sales tax support before?
Posted by MADDOG on Mar. 31 2004,10:09 am
hoosier | Quote |
| Im sure it went something like this. If we were to pass a 1/2 percent sales tax, would you be in favor of using it to clean up the lakes? Yes! |
Erdman, Erdman, he's my pal; if he gets this one done, he can go straight to "hall."
Posted by repdan on Mar. 31 2004,2:42 pm
It did not come from me! 80% for anything would be a huge number to reach.
Posted by Jesus Juice on Mar. 31 2004,5:17 pm
Now it apears Waseca is jumping onto the local sales tax bandwagon. Waseca is proposing 1/2 percent to raise money for a new swimming pool, movie theater & lake clean up.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 31 2004,11:13 pm
Karen Trow sent me a letter using snail mail. I'd post the text of the letter but it's like four pages and her printer must have been running out of ink so my OCR software wouldn't read it.The Cliff notes version said "Mr. Hayson some people told me you slandered me and called me a liar on the forum...."
(how many times do we have to tell people that slander is spoken and libel is written).
She also says she isn't use to people telling her that her articles are full of lies and baseless assumptions. (obviously she doesn't write much.)
In her letter she tries to back up the claims made in her Tribune article and falls way short. For instance she tells me that Iowa isn't happy with the water we are sending them, she bases this fact on attending an Iowater workshop and being an Iowater citizen monitor. (I guess one workshop and a couple of classes and you get to speak for a whole state)
She also tried to explain how over half our budget is provided by LGA, but, when I look at the finance departments report for last year it says.
| Quote |
During 2003, the Finance department issued 4,830 accounts payable checks to pay for goods and services. This represents a decrease of 406 checks over the previous year. The total amount of these checks was $16,185,540. That is $1,285,932 more than was spent the previous year. Accounts payable checks were issued to 1,538 different vendors. < Finance Dept 2003 report > |
We received $5,358,383 in LGA last year which is not even close to half of $16,185,540.00.
To back up her argument that 50% of our budget comes from LGA she sends along a printout that shows 52% of our general revenue comes from LGA.
She also mentioned a guy she met at a symposium on civility and civic dialogue named Grif Wigley. Mr. Wigley has made his living online since 1986 as an online community builder and he is "very much aware of of what is going on in Albert Lea on our forums" and she thought he could give me some instructions on how to make you people behave and use your real names. (I don't know if I can believe the whole Mr. Wigley story though, I don't think Al Gore had even invented the internet yet in 86.)
She closed the letter telling me that she hoped I would raise the bar on the forum, make you people use you real names and make sure you stick to the facts. (isn't that ironic)
Posted by shaker on Mar. 31 2004,11:33 pm
What WAS the question asked, and WHO were the people that were asked? It sure as hell wasen't Me or for that matter anyone I know, o well, business as usual in Albert Lea. Keep your heads buried in the sand folks and just bitch when you get your tax statement. Whatever you do don't take the time to go to county or city meetings, you will all get just the kind of goverment you deserve(like what we have now)
Posted by minnow on Mar. 31 2004,11:45 pm
Can someone tell me who these Trows are? I keep hearing the name Tony Trow...now Karen Trow. Who are the Trow's? Do they hold elective office? Who are they?
Posted by Liberal on Apr. 01 2004,12:20 am
She included 2 photocopied pages of the sales tax study that she claims proves her point that the people would vote yes for a sales tax.So she apparently speaks for the entire state of Iowa on issues of water quality and she can tell us how future votes will turn out.
Posted by sick of it on Apr. 01 2004,9:30 am
who are the trow's?i'll tel you who the trow's are
the trow's are a couple of retirement age that have come back to albert lea to try and awaken the old style of government here anyone that has lived around albert lea long enough should remember his father and his group of good old boys drinking at the country club while making laws up. If you go way back to tony's father or grandfather you will also find that he married his own cousin. they always say that people around here are inbred i guess they are not far off from the truth
The trow's are involved in dal and a few other groups that are hell bent on raising your taxes for their own benefit.
Posted by minnow on Apr. 01 2004,5:49 pm
Well, that makes sense because their actions prove exactly that. They don't appear satisfied with their own money and seem as if they're always leering over at mine.AL must be a trash magnet. Even the old trash comes back to trash it up...
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Apr. 01 2004,9:52 pm
| Quote |
| She also mentioned a guy she met at a symposium on civility and civic dialogue named Grif Wigley. Mr. Wigley has made his living online since 1986 as an online community builder and he is "very much aware of of what is going on in Albert Lea on our forums" and she thought he could give me some instructions on how to make you people behave and use your real names. (I don't know if I can believe the whole Mr. Wigley story though, I don't think Al Gore had even invented the internet yet in 86.) |
As 7 of 9 would say about the tax, "It will FAIL, your attempts will be futile"
Sorry but this lady is full of Sh!te, online since 86? eighty fricken six? RRIIIIGGGHT.
I also cannot find any reference to this so-called Mr, Wigley. If he had made his living online there would be write up all over the NET. She's just PO'd cause she cannot tell who is who. Second of all, how in the hell could you determine if someone's name was real or not? Cannot be done. I post sometimes on the Star Rag Tribune, and one requirement is the use of your real name, I don't use my real name, and I have been posting there for years.
Here's a little < History > lesson for dat dumb biatch.
Now if you will excuse me I have to go drop Trow.
pun intended
Posted by sick of it on Apr. 02 2004,8:44 am
the trash that comes out of her mouth is typical when something doesn't go the trows way they will usualy twist the fact or just flat out lie to make it seem that they are right and everyone backs them.what a couple of losers they are a shinning example of modern day aristocrats oh for a barel of tar and a bucket of feathers.
Posted by minnow on Apr. 02 2004,12:34 pm
It is strange that these seemlingly unknowns are suddenly quoted as if they're elected officials or something. It's wierd...Obviously, some people believe these returning snowbirds are some kind of authority or royality of sorts. I don't get it.
From what I can garner...they're dumb as a sack of rocks.
Posted by Liberal on Apr. 02 2004,2:46 pm
Wow, I can see her point about the personal attacks.There is no need to be calling people names just because they are willing to stand up for something they believe in.
As far as the great grandpa story that's no big deal to me. My mothers family comes from a small town in central Kentucky that's a lot smaller than Glenville and I have a second cousin down there that calls everyone in the town "cuz" because she says everyone of us is a cousin either by marriage or by blood and she can tell you exactly how. It's kind of like a weird inbred version of that Kevin Bacon thing.
Posted by minnow on Apr. 02 2004,3:32 pm
Posted by BDV on Apr. 07 2004,8:22 am
Do you mean you are not supposed to LOVE your cousins? Oops.