UPDATE: I was challenged in a phone call that the context of this post was unclear. My understanding is that City of Ramsey officials for some time have been looking at a better way to handle financing road upkeep and improvement beyond the present approach; and that road upkeep costs are said to be peaking, the bump passing through the pytnon's belly, because of a theoretical 20-yr projected lifetime of the tarred existing roads. As one answer considered for "a different way" officials are considering institutiong a utility fee against Connexus, with funds not especially earmared for road improvement, but not disclaimed that way either and with the road discussion and the fee discussion overlapping, even while arguably independent. A fee upon Connexus, what's the outcome? Connexus could complain and contest it, or the easier route could be pursued - since how Connexus operates is basically answerable to nobody - Connexus could take the hit and through some dark, non-transparent way, pass it on to electricity consumers. That is the context, with it unclear at present whether such a "utility fee" will/will not be implemented, or exactly how.
In Ramsey, the Council poses that it is not raising taxes, and resorts to a gimmick fee plan for what is a proper city function, while burning through money and credibility in Town Center real estate adventuring that has been a money sink hole; but okay for Landform.
A utility fee that will be passed on to utility ratepayers is nothing but a tax.
Lipstick on that pig still shows a pig. Money is being bonded for a rail stop for a handful of users. A new tax, called a utility fee, is being imposed for streets.
Streets are existing, used, and essential.
 |
| What a pack. |
And if a tax is needed to keep the streets up, then that's how it is. The thing that galls exceedingly is any lying (or obfuscation) about it. A utility fee is a new tax, one that had not existed before its imposition. If the money is needed, it has to be raised, but it should be done with honest admissions of what's up - not posturing, saying one thing is not doing another.
In the 1980's and earlier, the roads in Ramsey were tarred. Dirt roads were a norm before then. The grader used now for snow plowing is a carryover from when it was used for periodic road grading. It was needed, it was done, it was paid for, without gimmickry.
Now we have lost that degree of forthrightness, and talk is of a "monthly utility fee" to have money to fix the roads. Reserves were spent to buy distressed land out of a foreclosure posture - and what good has that been for citizens?
The cushion of reserves is less now, while needs remain.
Okay - it's a new tax. For those who have lived in Ramsey for years is it better or worse to do a utility fee? Each single family detached home is a rate paying utility customer - electricity is needed by all. Each shared wall residence is a utility customer - same reason. Each pays a fee, but how will the rates be set? In proportion to power consumption? Different rates for commercial and residential consumers?
With regard to wear and tear on streets, ACE Solid Waste is more a factor than the guy driving a hybrid back and forth to work - but if ACE is charged more, that is just another pass-through to residents, as with Connexus passing the "fee" through.
The devil will be in the details. But existing residents were promised tax relief from "more rooftops" so those new shared-wall rooftops need to produce - to be shown productive and of some benefit to those who suffered their additional imposition of road usage and consequent wear and tear.
Bottom line - this present council will be raising taxes; and calling it a "fee" is a fig-leaf idea, taxation-wise for a bunch of Republicans on council who have a "no new taxes" fetish that has always been unrealistic but which nobody but themselves are responsible for when entrapped into a need to spend for legitimate city needs.
Be honest, call it a new tax since it is that, and then work out fair details and move on. Depending on how "utility fee" charges are set, fairness can be debated, because one way or another somebody's ox may be gored more than the next guy's.
I cannot fault the need to keep roads in good shape. It is real. But I can certainly fault any compromised candor about what's going on in meeting a city's legitimate government spending needs. So, admit it is a new tax, implement it decently, and do road upkeep as needed. That is the satisfactory way to proceed.
The question of whether two city administrator salary costs were needed, whether a second salary cost was needed or discretionary was a legitimate question, despite the clearly illegitimate way it was handled by the mayor and whoever he consulted with before starting the political gunfire, as he did, causing the question of whether Ulrich or Nelson was the keeper if only one were to be kept. It was precipitous, confrontational, and needlessly so. Hopefully, a lesson was learned. Level heads and sound thinking are needed, and a "no new taxes" mantra clearly can get in the way.
The hope is that budget is considered, and all unneeded discretionary spending will be wrung out in fairness to Ben Dover and the other Ramsey taxpayers. As long as that Landform money's going out, can anyone credibly say that unneeded discretionary spending is being reined in adequately?