At a guess Flaherty might have been allowed a taxbase delay; something I have difficulty understanding because TIF is deliberately made non-transparent, as to how regular detached single family homeowners subsidize extreme growth.
If Flaherty's been granted some tax-delay status, the franchise fee looks better.
Those empty units are metered, and a per meter monthly charge on each is due, given the extreme level of subsidy the McGlone led HRA led Ramsey into yielding the Indiana adventurers.
Is my speculation correct? Am I wrong? You, pin it down with city hall. It is not my place to do your, or Ben's, homework. But do take the possibility into account in weighing a franchise fee situation. And - A franchise fee situation need not have to sting for five to ten years, or in perpetuity as the greatest worry stands. The 2013 budget appears to have been set, with slack, and future budgets can rely more on normal levy procedures instead of kludging up franchise fee mischief. But if road repair needs to begin sooner than not, it has to be funded. A short - make that very, very short term franchise fee situation might not be as disgusting as the thing lingering and becoming entrenched same-old, same-old.
Keep an open mind, and ask suitable questions of city hall leadership. It is how you can reach informed understandings.
___________UPDATE___________
Ditto for the banks that might have forced out homeowners unable to avoid mortgage default. They may have vacant homes and be sitting on inventory to avoid a glut on the market and price erosion beyond their wishes, but if those homes have gas and electricty metered in, even if at zero consumption, fee the frigging banks and if they decline to pay promptly make it a lien and foreclose it to show a seriousness of intent. Whack them upside the head, so to speak, to gain their attention. Their sitting on vacant inventory is not a benefit to the community of taxpayers if they are not paying a share for their profit-chasing conduct that way.
These are practical points of concern, in thinking over pros and cons of using franchise fees SHORT TERM if at all.
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Here is where the franchise fee thing can get sticky. For the banks. If they simply refuse to pay, what then?
The fiction of the franchise fee indirect and regressive taxation method is that the fee is charged the utility and not the pass-through victim. Works fine, if the victim pays. But if not, the fee is due from Connexus, to the city, and not from the end user to the city.
Bottom line there, as a matter of law, can the city impose a lien and foreclose a franchise fee deficit?
You tell me. I do not believe the question has been litigated to establish any precedent, and courts sometimes favor banks despite better judgment. That one single MS Sect. 216B.36 statute surely avoids getting into the tall grass where the dangerous ticks can attach. It on its face, is stone silent re such nuances while posed as if actually a simple town-utility situation ignoring third party beneficiary/liability questions lurking indirectly behind its simple wording. Courts often say a facially clear statute can be construed without looking at full legislative intent and possibly implied dimensions, a KISS approach, and the Matt Look suit against PACT School is a prime example of it. Matt's suit ran into that wall with the wooden "town" has a statutory definition thinking of Judge Fredrickson in that case.
It happens.
So, if a franchise fee is imposed, regular folks pay, Flaherty does not, then what? It is a fine question. It is something that needs resolution in advance of any imposition of the regressive taxation scheme.
So, city hall, the ball is in your court. You impose a monthly per-meter fee wholly independent of any consumption levels, Flaherty declines to pay, what then?
Do you let Flaherty skate, by making it a per account fee, for "active accounts," where vacant hopefully-to-be-rented units are not "feed" if no active account has been established for them or the account is deemed "inactive" while vacant between rentals; but all Ramsey single family detached homes with active Connexus accounts are hammered with that fee? That's unfair to all the rest of us, isn't it?
And - in case readers miss this, the Flaherty thing is individually metered, at least for electricity. How the building common areas are heated and maintained, is unclear. But if Flaherty on the majority of units which are vacant would refuse paying an imposed franchise fee for them, you cannot shut the entire building down for non-payment of franchise fee impositions. Those individual tenants who pay their franchise fee are entitled to have their utility services. So, is the physical plant there individually metered in a way that Connexus can assert leverage against the vacant units? Or should the city just say, Connexus, you owe us, and how you deal with that is your problem? Will that approach sell in negotiation of the franchise renewal terms, and beyond that is it a wise approach? This franchise fee thing, in its entirety is a thicket of tall weeds where it is hard to guess where all the snakes may be hiding. That is all the more cause to simply not go there.
____________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Another approach it appears Ramsey staff and the present council seems to have ignored. My understanding is a past council, in buying the distressed Ramsey Town Center land out of bank foreclosure at a premium price for the banks "borrowed" long term and interest-free from an existing reserve account to pay the price. Given that this council declined to exploit full levy limits to build general funds up for the clearly general public function of road maintenance, how about a short term loan of that nature to get road upkeep on a good schedule and kick the franchise fee can down the road?
Ramsey could do that via now passing placeholder ordinance language of the kind Hopkins has online, in its city code sections 701.05 and 702.05, but without imposing it [unlike Hopkins' code sections 701.07 and 702.07] that language being online here and here? (Interesting Hopkins-related franchise fee news, here; so, yes once the evil things are put in place by ordinance they can at the drop of a hat be doubled, tripled perhaps, even if consequent debate and dissatisfaction were to ensue.)
If only a placeholder ordinance is passed now and borrowing from a reserve account is done, it will then be that much easier to instigate actual fees later, perhaps to repay a short term raid on reserves, so that approach is not advocated here.
But it would mean at least no franchise fee now, and would work so long as past greater levels of borrowing from Peter to pay Paul mischief has not depleted reserves set aside for other public purposes to dangerous levels.
Nobody on staff has gone on record previously saying such a danger lurks, so it might be strange if such a thing is first said now, in the present situation. However, it might be true, now, that reserves stand dangerously depleted, but with past council head-chopping - staff-contraction activity, nobody on staff wanted in the past to be the nail standing up to get pounded down.
The question of borrowing from reserves to start road work now but delaying or eschewing franchise fees and using future full levy capacity up to the limit to keep fixing roads while paying back the raid on reserves, as an option, is a legitimate question needing a timely answer, now.
Did the earlier council decision making forestall any short-term borrowing from reserves to avoid a franchise fee imposition at this time, or not? Then, if the borrowing-payback via levy is feasible, should it be done, or do we face a situation where the present council's will actually is dead set to impose the thing now (and possibly forever)?
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Wednesday, October 09, 2013
HP and Google - a $280 Chromebook, that looks like a repackage of the Samsung $250 Chromebook. How will that sell?
Reporting, here, here and here. Pre-Order one here.
I passed on the Samsung. Many did. Why pay more for more of the same? It will be interesting to see the price drop, or the items selling off the shelf and in perpetual back-order through the holidays.
I have no idea what volume it will generate. It is interesting as a marketing study.
Put in 4gig memory and 32gig ssd and a smart card slot, and price that at $280. It would be worth popping that small amount for something not crippled out of the box. Toy time. I think the Chromebook concept is one that could sell. It interests me more than an iPhone where I can do a todo list, and text, and link to a TV. But saying it tops an iPhone, that's faint praise ...
Apple people are a cult.
____________UPDATE____________
Since this post, two new low-end Chromebooks [under $300] have been announced. E.g., this link. HP and Acer are players in the desktop-notebook market for years. A Samsung ARM chip powers the HP item, an Intel latest-architecture chip in the Acer. The Acer comes with 4gig RAM, and has a smart card slot (Amazon, here). Getting the Christmas toys out the door before Halloween. Good for them. With 4gig experimenting with loading Linux on the thing is more exciting, and if you buy you can Google about that if it's your wish. Something like this might work:
Google = chromebook linux crouton
I passed on the Samsung. Many did. Why pay more for more of the same? It will be interesting to see the price drop, or the items selling off the shelf and in perpetual back-order through the holidays.
I have no idea what volume it will generate. It is interesting as a marketing study.
Put in 4gig memory and 32gig ssd and a smart card slot, and price that at $280. It would be worth popping that small amount for something not crippled out of the box. Toy time. I think the Chromebook concept is one that could sell. It interests me more than an iPhone where I can do a todo list, and text, and link to a TV. But saying it tops an iPhone, that's faint praise ...
Apple people are a cult.
____________UPDATE____________
Since this post, two new low-end Chromebooks [under $300] have been announced. E.g., this link. HP and Acer are players in the desktop-notebook market for years. A Samsung ARM chip powers the HP item, an Intel latest-architecture chip in the Acer. The Acer comes with 4gig RAM, and has a smart card slot (Amazon, here). Getting the Christmas toys out the door before Halloween. Good for them. With 4gig experimenting with loading Linux on the thing is more exciting, and if you buy you can Google about that if it's your wish. Something like this might work:
Google = chromebook linux crouton
RAMSEY - FRANCHISE FEES - A friend forwarded an email. And the post is a two-for. WOOFING. Do not expect dogs to understand decimal points.
Matt Look
Yesterday via iOS.
To all my Ramsey Facebook friends.
TONIGHT, the Ramsey
City Council is holding a public hearing, regarding their bright idea to impose a "franchise fee" on your gas and electric bills. YOUR ANNUAL cost would be $200. The average house wi...ll see a 30+% increase in taxes (fees are taxes)! Please, please, please pack the city hall chambers and voice your opposition. Explain how the reckless spending of the past (Taj Majal)does not constitute an emergency today, WHILE, hiring more staff and claiming there is no money for roadsSee More
I do not know if that was a forward, or a cut from a Facebook page. Hating Facebook, I have no verification intention beyond posting what was sent. I would guess it's a cut from a page.
NEXT, AND SEPARATE: Taxpayer League Watchdog barking:
The Anoka County Pravda tells us that a governmental body called the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB) toured the Ramsey Town Center Project recently to see all the economic development that has taken place in the past many years, as the project has lurched from crisis to crisis in search of occupants of this planned, sustainable urban village in the heart of Anoka County.
The article tells us the members of the CTIB heard from Ramsey bureaucrats about all the neat and swell prosperity being generated.
For example, a briefing was held in some apartment building, where a bureaucrat from the city with the title of "Development Services Manager" told tales of economic development in the apartment's "outdoor living room," complete with a salt water pool and grills.
Wow. $317 million for an apartment building with grills and a pool? Just what the county needs.
But, wait. There's more!
How about a church auditorium? Church is cool and all, but churches don't pay property taxes. And while they build souls, they don't build wealth.
What about the new VA clinic? Serving our veterans is important, but government can only spend money diverted from the private economy. There is no net gain in wealth.
But wait! Wait! What about the McDonald's? Getting an Egg McMuffin in convenient fashion is nice, but those aren't the jobs that build a prosperous tax base.
Heck, the article even mentions with a hint of melancholy that Super America won't be coming, after all.
I guess we'll all have to look for donuts and gas at the other 37 convenience stores on Highway 10.
Where does that hound get $317 million? Best guess, not invented as a number, just off by a power of ten. VA fact check, well, dogs are limited though lovable as pets. Church auditorium. Have not seen it. But take the dog's woof as true, there must be one - if not there, cooking - and if there is to be one, the dog forgot, it likely would not be in the taxbase. Exempt. No big help, if planned.
Earlier Ramsey franchise fee woof-woof, where it is unclear what's a quote from Jason Tossey and what's dog-think, since the pup understands neither quotation marks, nor indentation.
-------------------
In disliking franchise fees, I find myself in alien territory ...
RAMSEY - FRANCHISE FEES - More links.
Here, for a regulated utility, and "administrative" costs of a utility's pass-through of a town's franchise fee (Connexus is not a regulated utility - it is a cooperative able to charge what the market will bear without ever having any fairness hearing). As a practical matter, the PUC can for regulated utilities specify franchise fee pass-through constraints from which Connexus is wholly unconstrained. Using Connexus as a tax collector where it can set its own rules is asking for difficulties that would not attach for a firm constrained under PUC practices and oversight. See, also, this correspondence of a regulated entity.
See specific exemption language, MS Sect. 216B.01, compare IN RE NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, 707 NW 2d 223 (Minn.App. 2005)(municipal utilities, along with cooperatives are exempted from most of Ch. 216B constraints per Sect. 216B.01 express language).
See, In the Matter of a Petition by Minnesota Power for Approval of a Rider for Facilities Franchise Fee, an Unpublished Court of Appeals opinion, online here, growing out of the City of Cohasset v. Minn. Power, 776 N.W.2d 776 (Minn. App. 2010), rev'd by 798 N.W.2d 50 (Minn. 2011) litigation noted in an earlier post.
There a PUC decision on franchise fee pass through by the involved utility was upheld; because of the PUC's jurisdiction. With cooperatives exempt from the bulk of Ch. 216B, except for express franchise fee mention; Sect. 216B.36, Connexus likely might have a differing pass through situation. This opinion suggests that any "franchise fee" imposition Ramsey might place upon the high voltage power lines passing through it, if lawful, would be subject to PUC jurisdiction over pass through affairs, if the owning utility or utilities are under PUC jurisdiction, a fact question for which I do not know the answer. Since it's an unlikely hypothetical, of only slippery slope argument value, it is not worth too much attention. The bottom line point of focus, PUC regulation or exemption from regulation is a factor in franchise fee thinking.
There is a PUC Docket No.: E,G-999/CI-09-970, "In the Matter of Updating Language to Comply with Minnesota Statute and Rule Changes – Municipal Franchise Fees," where only fragmentary items were tracked down online, this online item - where we can guess what transpired - stating:
Bless the ballot box. The federal House runs with all seats up for reelection every two years. Ramsey might consider that.
That and previous posts are about all that will be posted here on the question of the statutory authority underlying Ramsey's consideration of imposing a "franchise fee" indirect and regressive tax upon its citizens. How Ramsey proceeds under its statutory authority is the open question, and it is more a question of policy decision making than constraints imposed by law.
More should we, vs can we. Policy questions include sunset specification vs ongoing entrenchment of yet another form of tax, how to structure a "franchise fee" if one is imposed, things of that nature, and opinions can vary.
It seems clear road upkeep is a public function and Ramsey's engineering department makes a case for upkeep and estimates costs but is not a policy setting authority within the city. Staff can recommend policy but the council, subject to state law and the city's charter, holds policy setting power.
County Board Member Look spoke at the public hearing, in his capacity as a Ramsey citizen and resident and not on behalf of the County Board, with a suggestion that the franchise fee question might properly be put to a citizens' vote. How that squares with Charter considerations regarding franchise fees remains an open question. Whether the council stays with its current franchise fee thinking also remains an open question. The public consensus at the Oct. 8 public hearing was strongly against taxation via franchise fee. Some spoke in favor of the idea, with at least one suggestion that a tiered approach might be better than flat-feeing the thing, if it is to happen.
See specific exemption language, MS Sect. 216B.01, compare IN RE NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, 707 NW 2d 223 (Minn.App. 2005)(municipal utilities, along with cooperatives are exempted from most of Ch. 216B constraints per Sect. 216B.01 express language).
See, In the Matter of a Petition by Minnesota Power for Approval of a Rider for Facilities Franchise Fee, an Unpublished Court of Appeals opinion, online here, growing out of the City of Cohasset v. Minn. Power, 776 N.W.2d 776 (Minn. App. 2010), rev'd by 798 N.W.2d 50 (Minn. 2011) litigation noted in an earlier post.
There a PUC decision on franchise fee pass through by the involved utility was upheld; because of the PUC's jurisdiction. With cooperatives exempt from the bulk of Ch. 216B, except for express franchise fee mention; Sect. 216B.36, Connexus likely might have a differing pass through situation. This opinion suggests that any "franchise fee" imposition Ramsey might place upon the high voltage power lines passing through it, if lawful, would be subject to PUC jurisdiction over pass through affairs, if the owning utility or utilities are under PUC jurisdiction, a fact question for which I do not know the answer. Since it's an unlikely hypothetical, of only slippery slope argument value, it is not worth too much attention. The bottom line point of focus, PUC regulation or exemption from regulation is a factor in franchise fee thinking.
There is a PUC Docket No.: E,G-999/CI-09-970, "In the Matter of Updating Language to Comply with Minnesota Statute and Rule Changes – Municipal Franchise Fees," where only fragmentary items were tracked down online, this online item - where we can guess what transpired - stating:
On April 2, 2013, the City of Wabasha repealed its electric and gas franchise fee ordinances with Xcel Energy (Xcel or the Company). According to Xcel, The fee had become effective February 1, 2013, and had been passed by the sitting City Council in November 2012. In January 2013, a new City Council was seated, and Xcel became aware through informal discussions with the City, that there may be issues within the City with the fee and it was possible the fee would be repealed.
Bless the ballot box. The federal House runs with all seats up for reelection every two years. Ramsey might consider that.
That and previous posts are about all that will be posted here on the question of the statutory authority underlying Ramsey's consideration of imposing a "franchise fee" indirect and regressive tax upon its citizens. How Ramsey proceeds under its statutory authority is the open question, and it is more a question of policy decision making than constraints imposed by law.
More should we, vs can we. Policy questions include sunset specification vs ongoing entrenchment of yet another form of tax, how to structure a "franchise fee" if one is imposed, things of that nature, and opinions can vary.
It seems clear road upkeep is a public function and Ramsey's engineering department makes a case for upkeep and estimates costs but is not a policy setting authority within the city. Staff can recommend policy but the council, subject to state law and the city's charter, holds policy setting power.
County Board Member Look spoke at the public hearing, in his capacity as a Ramsey citizen and resident and not on behalf of the County Board, with a suggestion that the franchise fee question might properly be put to a citizens' vote. How that squares with Charter considerations regarding franchise fees remains an open question. Whether the council stays with its current franchise fee thinking also remains an open question. The public consensus at the Oct. 8 public hearing was strongly against taxation via franchise fee. Some spoke in favor of the idea, with at least one suggestion that a tiered approach might be better than flat-feeing the thing, if it is to happen.
RAMSEY - FRANCHISE FEES - Examples and thoughts.
The Mankato City Code Franchise provision is online here, and in relevant part states:
That is an example of placeholder language should City of Ramsey decline a present franchise fee but wish to preserve rights over the term of a franchise grant.
Hopkins, online here, has an example of a tiered structure of the kind former council member Mary Jo Olson suggested at yesterday's council public meeting, (where the issue was tabled for further consideration and later resolution). Click the thumbnail images to enlarge and read:
As stated, Hopkins elected to impose an "account-based fee on each premise and not a meter-based fee." Thus Hopkins acknowledges alternative methods, however, nothing in any statute yet found mandates that a utility must flow through a fee in manners and amounts a city imposes on a utility. With that worry, the franchise renewal/modification ordinance Ramsey passes must specify a mandated flow-through situation, or gamble, presuming negotiation with Connexus does not stall on such an issue.
With Flaherty's thing involving individually metered units, it might be best to have a per meter, vs per property fee imposition, if there is to be one at all. Per meter of course being different than a consumption based fee, looking beyond the meter to its readings over time.
This online memorandum is valuable background for all, on utility franchise renewal options and negotiation possibilities, while at the start reviewing statutory status.
For purposes of illustration, these examples suffice. Clearly they do not exhaust all creative possibility available to Ramsey. Meter-based fee imposition has its benefits and drawbacks. If consumption-based rather than a monthly per meter flat fee, it would to a very minor degree encourage energy conservation, but a suggestion was made at the public hearing, in staff and counsel discussion if I recall correctly, that utilities prefer flat fee per-account [or per meter] imposition of franchise fees.
Why? Who knows?
It may not be true. Connexus was not at the public meeting, or if there via representatives they declined to express any opinion re preferences on the record.
A blend, making a per-account based fee scaled to value of the property would rope in the properties exempt from property taxes, and would otherwise parallel levy upon assessed value of a property. However, doing that makes the fig-leaf over evasion of levy limits really, really small - approaching nonexistence. A bare-naked end run of levy limits is what it would be, with churches and church owned land subject to a fee pass through while they dodge being taxed; so there is some virtue to doing it that way despite the vice that levy-limit evasion is arguably a bad thing.
Also, there is no credible logic in saying it's a fee imposed on the utility and not the property, if it is made to look exactly like a property tax, with minor tarting up. The entire "franchise fee" thing is an ugly fiction anyway, IT IS A TAX ON US, and at the public hearing Ramsey officials freely admitted that a utility pass-through was expected and intended by staff and council, in making initial proposals.
They were honest that way.
Even with the thing itself really being a dishonest back-door tax, and nothing else.
Government should strive for higher standards and conduct. Again, however, the legislature imposes levy limits to look good, then allows Authorities out the wazoo and franchise fees to permit lesser governmental units to blithely bypass levy limits.
The dishonesty in it all originates there, among our legislators. Posturing one way, enacting evasive largesse the other. It offends.
7.000 Franchise Fee.
7.1. Reservation of Rights. The City reserves all rights under Minnesota Statute § 216B.36, to require a franchise fee at any time during the term of this franchise. If the City elects to require a franchise fee it shall notify Company and negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually acceptable fee agreement. The fee terms shall be set forth in a separate ordinance and not be adopted until at least 60 days after notice enclosing such proposed ordinance has been served upon the Company by certified mail. If the City and Company are unable to agree on a franchise fee or on any terms related thereto, each hereby consents to the jurisdiction of State District Court, Blue Earth County, to construe their respective rights under the law, subject to all rights of appeal.
That is an example of placeholder language should City of Ramsey decline a present franchise fee but wish to preserve rights over the term of a franchise grant.
Hopkins, online here, has an example of a tiered structure of the kind former council member Mary Jo Olson suggested at yesterday's council public meeting, (where the issue was tabled for further consideration and later resolution). Click the thumbnail images to enlarge and read:
As stated, Hopkins elected to impose an "account-based fee on each premise and not a meter-based fee." Thus Hopkins acknowledges alternative methods, however, nothing in any statute yet found mandates that a utility must flow through a fee in manners and amounts a city imposes on a utility. With that worry, the franchise renewal/modification ordinance Ramsey passes must specify a mandated flow-through situation, or gamble, presuming negotiation with Connexus does not stall on such an issue.
With Flaherty's thing involving individually metered units, it might be best to have a per meter, vs per property fee imposition, if there is to be one at all. Per meter of course being different than a consumption based fee, looking beyond the meter to its readings over time.
This online memorandum is valuable background for all, on utility franchise renewal options and negotiation possibilities, while at the start reviewing statutory status.
For purposes of illustration, these examples suffice. Clearly they do not exhaust all creative possibility available to Ramsey. Meter-based fee imposition has its benefits and drawbacks. If consumption-based rather than a monthly per meter flat fee, it would to a very minor degree encourage energy conservation, but a suggestion was made at the public hearing, in staff and counsel discussion if I recall correctly, that utilities prefer flat fee per-account [or per meter] imposition of franchise fees.
Why? Who knows?
It may not be true. Connexus was not at the public meeting, or if there via representatives they declined to express any opinion re preferences on the record.
A blend, making a per-account based fee scaled to value of the property would rope in the properties exempt from property taxes, and would otherwise parallel levy upon assessed value of a property. However, doing that makes the fig-leaf over evasion of levy limits really, really small - approaching nonexistence. A bare-naked end run of levy limits is what it would be, with churches and church owned land subject to a fee pass through while they dodge being taxed; so there is some virtue to doing it that way despite the vice that levy-limit evasion is arguably a bad thing.
Also, there is no credible logic in saying it's a fee imposed on the utility and not the property, if it is made to look exactly like a property tax, with minor tarting up. The entire "franchise fee" thing is an ugly fiction anyway, IT IS A TAX ON US, and at the public hearing Ramsey officials freely admitted that a utility pass-through was expected and intended by staff and council, in making initial proposals.
They were honest that way.
Even with the thing itself really being a dishonest back-door tax, and nothing else.
Government should strive for higher standards and conduct. Again, however, the legislature imposes levy limits to look good, then allows Authorities out the wazoo and franchise fees to permit lesser governmental units to blithely bypass levy limits.
The dishonesty in it all originates there, among our legislators. Posturing one way, enacting evasive largesse the other. It offends.
RAMSEY - FRANCHISE FEES - Is it wise to open up that can of worms? Pandora's Box, where might we end up?
As I research franchise fee online stuff in Minesota, posts may be piecemeal, this one being an example.
It seems wise to think, if valuing limited government, that franchise fees present a "just don't go there" situation.
Consider:
In City of Cohasset v. Minnesota Power, 798 N.W.2d 50 (Minn. 2011) (reversing Id. 776 NW 2d 776 (Minn.App. 2010)), a trans-shipment gas pipeline was held subject to the town's franchise feeing it to raise revenue. City expenses were held to permissably be so externalized, with town poohbahs then able to tell the citizenry when seeking reelection, see, magic revenue, externalized so we don't raise your taxes but we spend, aren't we cute.
Links are given to both versions of that case, because the reversed appellate opinion presents the counterargument that did not prevail with the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Under the reasoning of that case, decide for yourself, with those big ugly electric transmission lines cutting roughly east-west in northern Ramsey, could our beloved city shake down the line owners much akin to how Champlin and its police department uses Highway 169 as a means to tithe non-residents? Not whether it would be moral or sound or just, Dennis Berg can tell you his thoughts on the Champlin situation, but only, could it be done?
Then, should it? Of course not, but this illustrates the extent of the "can of worms" that Charter prescriptions can forestall, should ill-advised future Ramsey councils look to externalize costs of government in some "franchise fee" fashion that the Cohaset v. Minnesota Power case arguably may permit.
Again, this post presents a "just don't go there" argument, slippery slope and all, in terms of what strange things lurk within this particular Pandora's Box.
If such remote possibility is no problem with this council, what of future councils? Jump off that bridge when we get there, or plan ahead? What's a sound approach? What's best, as policy?
I believe Great Lakes Energy wants additional high voltage transmission line authorization through Ramsey. Wow, if so, we can franchise fee them on it. They won't know what hit them, and town officials can brag about not raising the levy limit too greatly, because ...
What's not to love in all that?
-------------------
Here's another one for you:
Minn. Stat. 216B.36 MUNICIPAL REGULATORY AND TAXING POWERS, mentions applicable reach to "a cooperative electric association organized under chapter 308A that furnishes utility services within the municipality." Presumably in Ramsey that means Connexus.
You tell me, is Connexus such a thing, per Minn. Stat. Ch. 308A only, 308B only, or both? And does it matter that the franchise fee authorizing statute omits mention of Ch. 308B?
UPDATE: Last sentence of Sect. 216B.36 governs and does not refer to any other statutory sections, " For purposes of this section, a public utility shall include a cooperative electric association."
I have not studied either of those chapters, but there appears on superficial review to be overlap, and it is the kind of hair-splitting question that can be welfare for lawyers well into the balance of this century. Need we go there? Levy limits and parsimonious spending appear to forestall any such need. So why, exactly, is there this will to move that way? To push that envelope, so as to avoid using regular legitimate levy processes up to the limit?
It all seems, for lack of any better word, contrived.
And: Unnecessary.
___________UPDATE_____________
Here's another one to chew on.
The proposal is to not assess for roads, but to make it a fully funded city expenditure.
Then, they say - earmark a franchise fee for roads, and they make spurious arguments about well, because I own a three million dollar home and yours is worth a hundred and fifty thousand, why should I pay more when we both use the same roads roughly the same way.
Okay, big guy. Your home and personal property benefits from cops patrolling, and you should pay substantially more, disproportionately more for that. Why not?
So we can earmark a franchise fee for cops, and your road-based analogy-argument goes west.
The point is, roads and cops are both governmental functions and the basic premise of property tax is that if you prosper more and have more your societal well being is greater, as is your ability to pay, and for all governmental functions you should pay proportionately more. That is the fundamental premise underlying property taxes.
A graduated income tax is even fairer to those not as favored in society's give and take. It says you are much a fat cat, you pay disproportionately more - but only at the margin with everyone paying the same percentages at the lower income rungs, and we exempt the most destitute (and unfortunately put in loopholes for the wealthy, who also offshore income and wealth); and the premise is we tax income that way because it is the decent thing to do and government should be decent.
The bottom line, general revenue, without earmarking should all go into one pot, and then how it is spent among competing possibilities is what elected officials are elected for deciding. We entrust them to do that, but earmarking this money for such-and-such gets off track from the simple fact that tax-and-spend is ALL governments do, it is their basic and fundamental purpose, and it should be as uncomplicated as feasible.
So try this.
The last council might have proposed a franchise fee, a specific one to pay for Darren's monthly haul.
How would that earmarking grab you?
It was within their power. Instead, general funds were given Darren. While giving Darren money that way was questionable regardless of how raised, how would a franchise fee for Darren weigh on your soul?
UPDATE TO THE UPDATE: The justifying argument would have been that each of us got the same "benefit" from Darren, regardless of the size of house and land the potential for great things (including subsidized-Flaherty in Town Center) to do miracles for taxbase was evenly spread and those great facilities and restaurants would be equally yours and mine to use, so that a flat Darren franchise fee on your energy consumption should have been applied. For Darren. Because Darren's activity tied somehow to your energy consumption, as roads do? Huh? Explain that again. The roads part. How hot I run my home, if wasteful of energy is a "so what," you say flat-fee it because I am connected to a gas line. The utility lines run along the road, that's the only connection, but colocation has nothing to do with maintenance of the roads. There is no logical nexus.
If city government decision making is to not assess for road upkeep, because roads are a general government responsibility, then use general funds.
Levy limits were enacted to quell excesses. Then franchise fees are allowed to evade levy limits. Again, Alice in Wonderland logic, but after all, it is the wisdom on the hilltop in St. Paul, and sometimes they are not our best and brightest.
Last, again, there appears to be a capacity in levying more, but within levy limits, and by City of Ramsey doing that franchise fee avoidance, altogether, is feasible AND with no franchise fee at all, we can have the roads maintained.
WHY NOT DO THAT? IT APPLIES OCCAMS RAZOR.
WHAT'S THE HANG UP WITH THOSE OPPOSING IT? THE WORRY?
It seems wise to think, if valuing limited government, that franchise fees present a "just don't go there" situation.
Consider:
In City of Cohasset v. Minnesota Power, 798 N.W.2d 50 (Minn. 2011) (reversing Id. 776 NW 2d 776 (Minn.App. 2010)), a trans-shipment gas pipeline was held subject to the town's franchise feeing it to raise revenue. City expenses were held to permissably be so externalized, with town poohbahs then able to tell the citizenry when seeking reelection, see, magic revenue, externalized so we don't raise your taxes but we spend, aren't we cute.
Links are given to both versions of that case, because the reversed appellate opinion presents the counterargument that did not prevail with the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Under the reasoning of that case, decide for yourself, with those big ugly electric transmission lines cutting roughly east-west in northern Ramsey, could our beloved city shake down the line owners much akin to how Champlin and its police department uses Highway 169 as a means to tithe non-residents? Not whether it would be moral or sound or just, Dennis Berg can tell you his thoughts on the Champlin situation, but only, could it be done?
Then, should it? Of course not, but this illustrates the extent of the "can of worms" that Charter prescriptions can forestall, should ill-advised future Ramsey councils look to externalize costs of government in some "franchise fee" fashion that the Cohaset v. Minnesota Power case arguably may permit.
Again, this post presents a "just don't go there" argument, slippery slope and all, in terms of what strange things lurk within this particular Pandora's Box.
If such remote possibility is no problem with this council, what of future councils? Jump off that bridge when we get there, or plan ahead? What's a sound approach? What's best, as policy?
I believe Great Lakes Energy wants additional high voltage transmission line authorization through Ramsey. Wow, if so, we can franchise fee them on it. They won't know what hit them, and town officials can brag about not raising the levy limit too greatly, because ...
What's not to love in all that?
-------------------
Here's another one for you:
Minn. Stat. 216B.36 MUNICIPAL REGULATORY AND TAXING POWERS, mentions applicable reach to "a cooperative electric association organized under chapter 308A that furnishes utility services within the municipality." Presumably in Ramsey that means Connexus.
You tell me, is Connexus such a thing, per Minn. Stat. Ch. 308A only, 308B only, or both? And does it matter that the franchise fee authorizing statute omits mention of Ch. 308B?
UPDATE: Last sentence of Sect. 216B.36 governs and does not refer to any other statutory sections, " For purposes of this section, a public utility shall include a cooperative electric association."
I have not studied either of those chapters, but there appears on superficial review to be overlap, and it is the kind of hair-splitting question that can be welfare for lawyers well into the balance of this century. Need we go there? Levy limits and parsimonious spending appear to forestall any such need. So why, exactly, is there this will to move that way? To push that envelope, so as to avoid using regular legitimate levy processes up to the limit?
It all seems, for lack of any better word, contrived.
And: Unnecessary.
___________UPDATE_____________
Here's another one to chew on.
The proposal is to not assess for roads, but to make it a fully funded city expenditure.
Then, they say - earmark a franchise fee for roads, and they make spurious arguments about well, because I own a three million dollar home and yours is worth a hundred and fifty thousand, why should I pay more when we both use the same roads roughly the same way.
Okay, big guy. Your home and personal property benefits from cops patrolling, and you should pay substantially more, disproportionately more for that. Why not?
So we can earmark a franchise fee for cops, and your road-based analogy-argument goes west.
The point is, roads and cops are both governmental functions and the basic premise of property tax is that if you prosper more and have more your societal well being is greater, as is your ability to pay, and for all governmental functions you should pay proportionately more. That is the fundamental premise underlying property taxes.
A graduated income tax is even fairer to those not as favored in society's give and take. It says you are much a fat cat, you pay disproportionately more - but only at the margin with everyone paying the same percentages at the lower income rungs, and we exempt the most destitute (and unfortunately put in loopholes for the wealthy, who also offshore income and wealth); and the premise is we tax income that way because it is the decent thing to do and government should be decent.
The bottom line, general revenue, without earmarking should all go into one pot, and then how it is spent among competing possibilities is what elected officials are elected for deciding. We entrust them to do that, but earmarking this money for such-and-such gets off track from the simple fact that tax-and-spend is ALL governments do, it is their basic and fundamental purpose, and it should be as uncomplicated as feasible.
So try this.
The last council might have proposed a franchise fee, a specific one to pay for Darren's monthly haul.
How would that earmarking grab you?
It was within their power. Instead, general funds were given Darren. While giving Darren money that way was questionable regardless of how raised, how would a franchise fee for Darren weigh on your soul?
UPDATE TO THE UPDATE: The justifying argument would have been that each of us got the same "benefit" from Darren, regardless of the size of house and land the potential for great things (including subsidized-Flaherty in Town Center) to do miracles for taxbase was evenly spread and those great facilities and restaurants would be equally yours and mine to use, so that a flat Darren franchise fee on your energy consumption should have been applied. For Darren. Because Darren's activity tied somehow to your energy consumption, as roads do? Huh? Explain that again. The roads part. How hot I run my home, if wasteful of energy is a "so what," you say flat-fee it because I am connected to a gas line. The utility lines run along the road, that's the only connection, but colocation has nothing to do with maintenance of the roads. There is no logical nexus.
If city government decision making is to not assess for road upkeep, because roads are a general government responsibility, then use general funds.
Levy limits were enacted to quell excesses. Then franchise fees are allowed to evade levy limits. Again, Alice in Wonderland logic, but after all, it is the wisdom on the hilltop in St. Paul, and sometimes they are not our best and brightest.
Last, again, there appears to be a capacity in levying more, but within levy limits, and by City of Ramsey doing that franchise fee avoidance, altogether, is feasible AND with no franchise fee at all, we can have the roads maintained.
WHY NOT DO THAT? IT APPLIES OCCAMS RAZOR.
WHAT'S THE HANG UP WITH THOSE OPPOSING IT? THE WORRY?
RAMSEY - FRANCHISE FEES - In the immediately prior post, I shot first, and now am asking questions. And so far, I am pissed.
The Country Joe case was fine, but the problem is what I noted at the outset of the post. If there is a statute, how to deal with it becomes the question.
There is a statute. It is very vague, and I am going to do a bit of research.
The statute is online, here.
Unless I err, that's the core of problematic Ramsey council mischief, aka "franchise fee" meandering and dodging a use of the full levy limit's legitimate taxing power, while wasting cash buying and tearing down a porn shop and then admitting the roads are in a serious state.
Really. Direct Money spent for blue-nose fluff stuff, but proposing indirect regressive taxation - for roads. It's Alice in Wonderland logic, or seems so to me.
Those folks thought franchise feeing us would float low-profile under the public's radar, and revenue could be generated for admittedly public purposes, road upkeep, via indirect (and limitless) ability to increase the revenue extracted from Ramsey's citizenry. From you and Ben.
This month the Charter Commission will be looking at how franchise fee handling should be addressed in the city's charter, which is its basic organic document, akin to a constitution at higher government levels, or to the UN charter. It defines basic city powers and, while lacking a bill of rights limiting municipal powers as the charter now stands, it has what we can call a quasi-constitutional role in city government. Calling it that we can move on.
The entire concept of a franchise fee is that it is a backdoor tax, one less apparent than a property tax levy, and a regressive one to boot if done where a flat fee structure is applied to power providing utilities, gas and electric, the fee being charged those firms but under the collective council understanding it will be passed through to us.
It is the worse of taxing powers, that way. It hits the poor proportionally harder than those in Northfork (on council, previously that was McGlone, presently it is Mark Kuzma who apparently favors the franchise fee approach).
Well, the franchise fee did not go under citizen radar because Jason Tossey got on his Paul Revere horse, figuratively, and went about shouting, "The feeing is coming, the feeing is coming." Or something like that as best as I understand things. Revere was not alone in his concern about the British and what they were intending, he had a band of confederates, and Tossey may also be other than alone in his activity.
Quite simply using flat-fee taxation is the precise opposite of "tax the rich" their fair share because they enjoy a better societal status and in principal owe society proportionally more because of that. They owe us a lessening of the burden of government should it weigh disproportionately upon us, vs them.
You can read the statute. In future posts I shall review the entire thing as best as I can online, because I am pissed: There's just short of a million in levy taxation the city hid from using - that slack amount being between what has been budgeted and the levy limit for 2013. Then, three hundred grand and some change to buy and tear down the porn shop. That is then $1.3 million that could have been saved/budgeted/used for roads via only the general levy.
Then the talk is of $1.7 million, roughly, being an annual road upkeep amount. Via rough calculation where Ramsey's city engineer admits his estimates erred on the side of caution, i.e., less might do. $1.3 was on the table. Franchise fee mischief was wholly unneeded.
That is the ordinary and proper way to do things. A general levy matched to spending needs, and if there is a levy limit, then live with it by adjusting spending on needs, postponing what is better postponed - staff expansion, EDA, HRA, whatever - all the additional revenue drain activities that can be subjected to belt tightening. But leaving big-time slack on the levy limit because they'd prefer a less apparent tax, and then franchise feeing, that offends greatly. There is no cap on franchise fee revenue generation, once it becomes an entrenched thing like the HRA now is.
The Charter Commission of Ramsey will consider franchise fee matters, as a concept to be wrestled with at the most fundamental quasi-constitutional level.
I am on the commission, and Joe Field chairs it and has been a strong voice against use of the franchise fee as so far drafted by staff and presented council - something the council collectively last night agreed needed review since it was clearly problematic as things stood going into that meeting. I have not researched it. I will.
However, for now, in anticipation of the Charter Commission meeting, my state of mind is to advocate a provision to Charter Chap. 7:
That as a starting point of what I believe to be good policy, with, however, a willingness to consider:
Those two alternatives do express what I believe to be good policy, with the latter being more permissive toward government flexibility than the former.
I have discussed none of this with any others on the Charter Commission, yet I have a feeling that such an approach could, on that body, grow legs. Approaches may differ, but my hope would be that use of a franchise fee, i.e., regressive indirect taxation of the citizenry, would be generally disfavored among Commission members.
As I said at the outset and after learning of $1.3 million levy-slack and porn-store spending mischief, (not pushing levy limits and buying and tearing down the porn store while the city roads south of it may need serious upkeep - censorship hardly being a public function but something that got some judgmental folks' drawers in a bind), all that, and then the staff/council cooks up franchise fee stuff.
I am pissed. It's not quality government. It appears indirect taxation is favored by people who rode onto council as something of a reform group. Not good.
----------------------
Hit levy limits, and then and only then ask for more, and justify it at that point. And in the process, why not roll the EDA budget and HRA budget into general fund allocations without resort to separate levy impositions, and as a Bill of Rights matter, disallow separate and independent levies so as to bypass levy limits?
An interesting point to consider: The Charter has "boards and commissions" language, but is silent on "Authorities" while the City under James Norman's administrative tenure gave birth to an EDA and an HRA and there was quelled contemplation afoot even of creating a "Port Authority" while we, after all, have no port. Figure that one out.
That IS history, and I see no cause to face the doom of repeating it. One bug in my bonnet for wanting onto the Charter Commission was to figure an appropriate place in the document to add:
That can wait. Franchise fee consideration is the issue of the day.
______________UPDATE_______________
A third alternative of a Charter Section 7.13 might read:
In that fashion, the City would have flexibility to structure its fee to the franchisee in any manner convenient, but with the utility then obligated to assure fairness.
There is a statute. It is very vague, and I am going to do a bit of research.
The statute is online, here.
Unless I err, that's the core of problematic Ramsey council mischief, aka "franchise fee" meandering and dodging a use of the full levy limit's legitimate taxing power, while wasting cash buying and tearing down a porn shop and then admitting the roads are in a serious state.
Really. Direct Money spent for blue-nose fluff stuff, but proposing indirect regressive taxation - for roads. It's Alice in Wonderland logic, or seems so to me.
Those folks thought franchise feeing us would float low-profile under the public's radar, and revenue could be generated for admittedly public purposes, road upkeep, via indirect (and limitless) ability to increase the revenue extracted from Ramsey's citizenry. From you and Ben.
This month the Charter Commission will be looking at how franchise fee handling should be addressed in the city's charter, which is its basic organic document, akin to a constitution at higher government levels, or to the UN charter. It defines basic city powers and, while lacking a bill of rights limiting municipal powers as the charter now stands, it has what we can call a quasi-constitutional role in city government. Calling it that we can move on.
The entire concept of a franchise fee is that it is a backdoor tax, one less apparent than a property tax levy, and a regressive one to boot if done where a flat fee structure is applied to power providing utilities, gas and electric, the fee being charged those firms but under the collective council understanding it will be passed through to us.
It is the worse of taxing powers, that way. It hits the poor proportionally harder than those in Northfork (on council, previously that was McGlone, presently it is Mark Kuzma who apparently favors the franchise fee approach).
Well, the franchise fee did not go under citizen radar because Jason Tossey got on his Paul Revere horse, figuratively, and went about shouting, "The feeing is coming, the feeing is coming." Or something like that as best as I understand things. Revere was not alone in his concern about the British and what they were intending, he had a band of confederates, and Tossey may also be other than alone in his activity.
Quite simply using flat-fee taxation is the precise opposite of "tax the rich" their fair share because they enjoy a better societal status and in principal owe society proportionally more because of that. They owe us a lessening of the burden of government should it weigh disproportionately upon us, vs them.
You can read the statute. In future posts I shall review the entire thing as best as I can online, because I am pissed: There's just short of a million in levy taxation the city hid from using - that slack amount being between what has been budgeted and the levy limit for 2013. Then, three hundred grand and some change to buy and tear down the porn shop. That is then $1.3 million that could have been saved/budgeted/used for roads via only the general levy.
Then the talk is of $1.7 million, roughly, being an annual road upkeep amount. Via rough calculation where Ramsey's city engineer admits his estimates erred on the side of caution, i.e., less might do. $1.3 was on the table. Franchise fee mischief was wholly unneeded.
That is the ordinary and proper way to do things. A general levy matched to spending needs, and if there is a levy limit, then live with it by adjusting spending on needs, postponing what is better postponed - staff expansion, EDA, HRA, whatever - all the additional revenue drain activities that can be subjected to belt tightening. But leaving big-time slack on the levy limit because they'd prefer a less apparent tax, and then franchise feeing, that offends greatly. There is no cap on franchise fee revenue generation, once it becomes an entrenched thing like the HRA now is.
The Charter Commission of Ramsey will consider franchise fee matters, as a concept to be wrestled with at the most fundamental quasi-constitutional level.
I am on the commission, and Joe Field chairs it and has been a strong voice against use of the franchise fee as so far drafted by staff and presented council - something the council collectively last night agreed needed review since it was clearly problematic as things stood going into that meeting. I have not researched it. I will.
However, for now, in anticipation of the Charter Commission meeting, my state of mind is to advocate a provision to Charter Chap. 7:
Section 7.13 Franchise Fee Bill of Rights.
Regardless of any State of Minnesota permissions, City of Ramsey shall not use a franchise fee as a revenue generation process.
That as a starting point of what I believe to be good policy, with, however, a willingness to consider:
Section 7.13 Franchise Fee Bill of Rights.
Regardless of any State of Minnesota permissions, City of Ramsey shall not use a franchise fee as a revenue generation process, unless and until levy limits have been reached in taxing property to support the general fund and a deficit exists between general fund revenue and necessary expenditures. If ever imposed, franchise fee revenue generation shall not be structured in a way proportionately more onerous on the poor and those facing hardship than on those of greater means and greater capacity to pay.
Those two alternatives do express what I believe to be good policy, with the latter being more permissive toward government flexibility than the former.
I have discussed none of this with any others on the Charter Commission, yet I have a feeling that such an approach could, on that body, grow legs. Approaches may differ, but my hope would be that use of a franchise fee, i.e., regressive indirect taxation of the citizenry, would be generally disfavored among Commission members.
As I said at the outset and after learning of $1.3 million levy-slack and porn-store spending mischief, (not pushing levy limits and buying and tearing down the porn store while the city roads south of it may need serious upkeep - censorship hardly being a public function but something that got some judgmental folks' drawers in a bind), all that, and then the staff/council cooks up franchise fee stuff.
I am pissed. It's not quality government. It appears indirect taxation is favored by people who rode onto council as something of a reform group. Not good.
----------------------
Hit levy limits, and then and only then ask for more, and justify it at that point. And in the process, why not roll the EDA budget and HRA budget into general fund allocations without resort to separate levy impositions, and as a Bill of Rights matter, disallow separate and independent levies so as to bypass levy limits?
An interesting point to consider: The Charter has "boards and commissions" language, but is silent on "Authorities" while the City under James Norman's administrative tenure gave birth to an EDA and an HRA and there was quelled contemplation afoot even of creating a "Port Authority" while we, after all, have no port. Figure that one out.
That IS history, and I see no cause to face the doom of repeating it. One bug in my bonnet for wanting onto the Charter Commission was to figure an appropriate place in the document to add:
The City shall not create or use a Port Authority.
That can wait. Franchise fee consideration is the issue of the day.
______________UPDATE_______________
A third alternative of a Charter Section 7.13 might read:
Section 7.13 Franchise Fee Bill of Rights.
Regardless of any State of Minnesota permissions, City of Ramsey shall not use a franchise fee as a revenue generation process, unless and until levy limits have been reached in taxing property to support the general fund and a deficit exists between general fund revenue and necessary expenditures. If ever imposed, franchise fee revenue generation shall not be structured in a way proportionately more onerous on the poor and those facing hardship than on those of greater means and greater capacity to pay. Accordingly, in negotiation of franchise grants to energy providers City representatives in negotiation shall mandate as a contract condition of a franchise grant that disproportionate impact on the poor and destitute shall not happen in any franchise fee pass-through from the franchisee to the energy-consuming public.
In that fashion, the City would have flexibility to structure its fee to the franchisee in any manner convenient, but with the utility then obligated to assure fairness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)