Opposition to “super-reporting” requirements in Meth Bill
To: The Governor and the State Legislature.
I have followed with interest the developments at the legislature in regards to the attempts to crack down on the statewide meth epidemic. I have become growingly concerned, however, with what I consider a gross over-legislation in this area.
I am admittedly a landlord and an attorney who represents numerous landlords in Freeborn County and therefore do have a vested interest in this issue. Likewise, I also represent many families who have been devastated by the destructive power of meth. I understand why it is easy and/or popular to get tough on this issue.
My concerns, however, stem from the need to maintain and promote affordable housing in communities; as well as providing many small real estate owners the ability to preserve the substantial investment they have made in rental property. I believe that it is easy to villanize landlords and promote a “punishment” philosophy rather than a cooperative free market approach. As I testified to in front of the Freeborn County Commissioners when they considered a similar County Ordinance:
“This is a community problem that requires a community response. Landlords are the front line of this defense. They should not be treated as if they are part of the problem. As a landlord and as an attorney who represents landlords, I find many parts of the proposed ordinances unacceptable. From a community perspective, those interested in continued economic growth should also be concerned. We are on the verge of an expected growth spurt in workers and business in our community. To create a hostile environment for landlords all but guarantees a limit on affordable housing in our community. Availability of affordable housing is a necessary pre-requisite to adding employment to our community.
* * *
The landlords are not the criminals and cannot realistically be expected to financially guarantee a drug-free rental property. Tenants rightfully enjoy legal protections to use their property without constant monitoring and harassment of their landlords or others. Addressing this community problem should require a community response.”
What I consider the greatest example of this over-zealousness is in regards to the “super reporting” provisions that have been included in the current version of H.F. No. 572 and S.F. 0423 (the “Meth Bill”). The Meth Bill provides for multiple provisions that are intended to protect the innocent tenant or property purchaser:
1. First, the Meth Bill requires that any property found to be contaminated be prohibited from being occupied until a department of health guideline clean up has occurred.
2. Second, the Meth Bill mandates that each local community health services administrator shall maintain and make available to the public a listing of the status of any meth contaminated property.
3. Third, the Meth Bill requires that all sellers of real property disclose whether meth has or has not occurred on the property.
4. Finally, the Meth Bill further mandates that an affidavit be filed against the property at the county recorder’s office, designating the property as a “Meth Lab Property”.
The super-reporting provision that I strongly advocate against is the last item listed above: the ability to record a Meth Lab Property affidavit with the County Recorder’s Office. Quite frankly, given the other three protections that are included in this legislation, this provision to me is unnecessary and constitutes a “punishment” provision to property owners. The title to a property is not the proper place for this designation.
If the intent of the Meth Bill is to protect innocent tenants, then the “no-occupation” order will prevent anyone from living at the property. As for property purchasers, the local department of health records and the mandatory disclosure provisions will protect the innocent property purchaser.
I have discussed this issue with many individuals and no one has been able to articulate why this “super-reporting” provision is necessary. Instead, I understand the Meth Lab Property Affidavit as an “extra” protection for the innocent tenant or purchaser. Such super reporting is not necessary for fire damage, flooded basements, sewage back up, chemical spills or even mold infestation and is unnecessary in this case.
I would request that the super-reporting provisions of this bill be eliminated.
Alternatively, I would request legislation to create a centralized database with the Minnesota Department of Health that would allow for designation of the location of a meth lab and a record of whether the meth lab has been cleaned in compliance with MDH guidelines.
I am also advocating for the Meth Bill to allow for innocent property owners to utilize the low-interest loans for clean-up purposes. I request that innocent property owners, having no notice of the clandestine activities should be eligible to utilize this money for clean up.
Without dragging out this issue I would simply state that undoubtedly private property owners would be more efficient in accomplishing the clean-up efforts than a government entity that will simply pass on the clean-up costs as an assessment against the property.
I fear that overzealous legislation in this area threatens to cool the rental market and put an unnecessary cap on a community’s capacity to enjoy economic growth.
For a link to the status of HF 572: http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=House&f=HF572&ssn=0&y=2005
For a link to the status of SF 0423: http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=Senate&f=SF0423&ssn=0&y=2005
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
When is a good time?
It is interesting to read the comments by members of the city council and the Albert Lea Tribune suggesting that the time for debating the issue of the creation of the new storm water and lighting utility has passed.
Please remember that the taxpayers were unaware of the financial implications or even the amount being proposed until a city council meeting held on December 13th. The Albert Lea Tribune gave the story light coverage by making a vague reference to "an equivalency factor" of $2.95 per residential lot under one acre and a "graduated system" for commercial and industrial property on the storm utility. The article did not even mention that the rate was per month, not per year. Same coverage on the lighting utility. Likewise, the coverage provided no explanation of what revenue was being collected or what the new revenue stream was to be used for? http://www.albertleatribune.com/articles/2004/12/21/news/news2.txt
Even more telling of the public's "ignorance" on this issue is revealed in the Tribune's coverage of the budget and levy limit decisions made by the city council. The coverage on the city council budget and levy amount made absolutely no reference to how much the levy was increased. I only learned that the city had increased it's levy by 25% by reviewing the minutes from the meeting. The Tribune instead ran an article indicating only that the levy was about the same as the year 2000. http://www.albertleatribune.com/articles/2004/09/14/news/news2.txt
I must confess that when I originally read that article my brain processed that the levy was about the same as last year -- I did not recognize that the comparison was to 4 years ago until much later.
It is not reasonable to expect the public to understand the intricacies of municipal finances. Yet, the public tends to have yardsticks it uses to keep an eye on what the government is doing. The primary gauge that the public watches is the annual levy increase. For example, the Tribune ran an article that the county levy increased by 5.8% from last year. Perhaps the public would not have been so quiet had they known earlier that the city's levy increase was 25%, plus two additional user fees.
It is also disingenuous to suggest that opposition to the new utilities is somehow coming out of the woodwork. Any follower of local politics knows that generally items pass through the city council with little public scrutiny. Yet, the creation of these new utilities had across the board opposition. Two of the other taxing authorities -- the school district and the watershed board -- opposed the creation of these utilities. Also, the Chamber of Commerce, representing over 500 members, clearly advocated for the use of the property tax system in lieu of the new utilities. The city council also heard from two respected members of the community, including the former mayor of Albert Lea, Bob Haukoos, asking the city to look closer at what they were doing. http://www.city.albertlea.org/9-13-04min.htm
To suggest that the public did not voice it's opposition upon the creation of these utilities is untrue. Likewise, to suggest that the public should have seen through a crystal ball what the financial implications would be at the time the "concept" was proposed seems unreasonable.
Please remember that the taxpayers were unaware of the financial implications or even the amount being proposed until a city council meeting held on December 13th. The Albert Lea Tribune gave the story light coverage by making a vague reference to "an equivalency factor" of $2.95 per residential lot under one acre and a "graduated system" for commercial and industrial property on the storm utility. The article did not even mention that the rate was per month, not per year. Same coverage on the lighting utility. Likewise, the coverage provided no explanation of what revenue was being collected or what the new revenue stream was to be used for? http://www.albertleatribune.com/articles/2004/12/21/news/news2.txt
Even more telling of the public's "ignorance" on this issue is revealed in the Tribune's coverage of the budget and levy limit decisions made by the city council. The coverage on the city council budget and levy amount made absolutely no reference to how much the levy was increased. I only learned that the city had increased it's levy by 25% by reviewing the minutes from the meeting. The Tribune instead ran an article indicating only that the levy was about the same as the year 2000. http://www.albertleatribune.com/articles/2004/09/14/news/news2.txt
I must confess that when I originally read that article my brain processed that the levy was about the same as last year -- I did not recognize that the comparison was to 4 years ago until much later.
It is not reasonable to expect the public to understand the intricacies of municipal finances. Yet, the public tends to have yardsticks it uses to keep an eye on what the government is doing. The primary gauge that the public watches is the annual levy increase. For example, the Tribune ran an article that the county levy increased by 5.8% from last year. Perhaps the public would not have been so quiet had they known earlier that the city's levy increase was 25%, plus two additional user fees.
It is also disingenuous to suggest that opposition to the new utilities is somehow coming out of the woodwork. Any follower of local politics knows that generally items pass through the city council with little public scrutiny. Yet, the creation of these new utilities had across the board opposition. Two of the other taxing authorities -- the school district and the watershed board -- opposed the creation of these utilities. Also, the Chamber of Commerce, representing over 500 members, clearly advocated for the use of the property tax system in lieu of the new utilities. The city council also heard from two respected members of the community, including the former mayor of Albert Lea, Bob Haukoos, asking the city to look closer at what they were doing. http://www.city.albertlea.org/9-13-04min.htm
To suggest that the public did not voice it's opposition upon the creation of these utilities is untrue. Likewise, to suggest that the public should have seen through a crystal ball what the financial implications would be at the time the "concept" was proposed seems unreasonable.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
HOLD ON TO YOUR WALLETS
If part of your year-end includes planning your monthly budget for 2005, you should plan on paying more per month for the honor of living within the Albert Lea city limits. As mentioned in a previous posting, residential homes will pay two new user fees: storm water fee of $2.95 per month and lighting fee of $3.85 per month.
As if a 60% increase in local revenue was not enough, the City is also proposing to increase its sewer and water charges. At the last city council meeting, a request was made to increase the sewer bill by 15% or $2.81 per month; and the water bill by 5% or $.50 per month.
If you are comparing budgets from 2004, plan on spending another $10.11 per month or $121.32 per year.
http://www.city.albertlea.org/minutes.htm
As if a 60% increase in local revenue was not enough, the City is also proposing to increase its sewer and water charges. At the last city council meeting, a request was made to increase the sewer bill by 15% or $2.81 per month; and the water bill by 5% or $.50 per month.
If you are comparing budgets from 2004, plan on spending another $10.11 per month or $121.32 per year.
http://www.city.albertlea.org/minutes.htm
Saturday, December 18, 2004
The Stealth Tax: The City of Albert Lea Quietly Raises Taxes by over 60%
Would you be surprised to learn that the City of Albert Lea is increasing the amount of money paid by local property owners by over 60% in 2005? The City has quietly increased its property tax levy by over $500,000.00 and is proposing to impose new user fees of $840,000.00.
All Albert Lea residents and businesses recently received a flyer to notify them of the new Storm Water and Public Lighting Utility. As explained by the city, these "user fees" are designed to "provide a continuous, dedicated source of revenue." On December 27th, the city will be holding a public hearing to input regarding the actual rate that will be charged against each parcel of land within the city.
It is possible that if you own farmland or a vacant parcel in city limits that you did not receive the notice, as they were mailed with the water bills.
The proposal is for each parcel of land within city limits to be charged a user fee for storm water run-off and public lighting. Each residential parcel that does not exceed one acre will pay $2.95 per month or $35.40 per year for the storm water utility. Each business will pay $5.90 to 7.38 per month -- or $70.80 to $88.56 per year. If any of these parcels exceed one acre in size, the rate increases times the number of acres.
For the public lighting utility, each parcel outside of the Central Business District (regardless of size of the lot) will pay $3.85 per month or $46.20 per year. If you own property inside the Central Business District, your proposed rate is $7.70 per month or $92.40 per year.
Overall, a standard (one acre or less) residential lot will pay an additional $81.60 in annual user fees. Businesses (one acre or less) will pay anywhere from $117.00 to $134.76 per year. If you happen to have business property in the Central Business District, you will be paying user fees of $163.20 per year. This figure can be substantial if you own large tracts of land in city limits, or if you are holding vacant property for development.
The City projects that the Storm Water Utility will generate revenue of $470,000 the first year and the Public Lighting Utility will generate $370,000, for a total new revenue stream of $840,000.
As always, there is a story behind the story. Please consider the following information in determining what input, if any, you feel appropriate to give to your city council representative(s). On September 13, 2004, the City Council approved the creation of the two new public utilities. These utilities were created with Councilors Warren Amundson, Randy Erdman, Jeff Fjeslstad and Mary Kron voting yes; and Councilors Al Brooks, George Marin and Mayor Jean Eaton voting no. There was considerable discussion regarding the purpose and need for these new fees. The Watershed Board, the School District and the local Chamber of Commerce all opposed the creation of these new utilities.
Numerous citizens requested that the Council either continue to fund these projects through the property tax formula, as they had always done previously; or to delay the decision so that a thoughtful review could be conducted. No one from the public spoke in favor of the new utilities.
In regards to the storm water utility, the City Staff explained that the driving need for this utility was the possibility that the state pollution control agency would require compliance with increased maintenance efforts. If this mandate were to be placed against the City, they apparently would have 18 months to comply. As for the need for the lighting utility, it was explained that this was necessary initially to fund the new lighting to the Wal-Mart side of town.
Currently, the pollution requirements are not projected to take effect until March of 2007. If the 18-month grace period still applies, the city will have until September of 2008 before these new requirements are mandated.
The City indicated that they initially came up with the idea of the new utilities because they were under the mistaken impression that they had a "levy limit" in place. In previous years, the state legislature had imposed a limit on how much a city could increase its property tax levy. Since the legislature did not put this limit in place during last year's session, the City of Albert Lea did not have a limit to the amount it could increase its property tax levy to cover any extraordinary expenses.
Not to be deterred, and perhaps seeing a political opportunity, a split City Council voted to move forward on the creation of the new utilities. Most beneficial to the City from a public perception standpoint was that the new utilities allowed for a creative accounting shift to occur. They were able to shift $400,000 from their general fund obligation to be funded instead by the new utilities. This allowed for the City to have the friendly headline, "Levy remains about the same as 2000", in the Albert Lea Tribune. This headline itself is deceptive as the levy actually increased 25% from last year: even with the $400,000 shift of spending out of the general fund.
If you undo the accounting shift and add back the $400,000 to the general fund, the city would have increased its property tax levy by $ 945,940 or 42%. Under the new system, their actual total local revenue collection is even higher. The local increased payments from the property tax levy increase and the new utilities are an additional $1,385,940; or a whopping 61% increase from last year. The headline should have read, "City of Albert Lea increases local taxes by 61%."
All Albert Lea residents and businesses recently received a flyer to notify them of the new Storm Water and Public Lighting Utility. As explained by the city, these "user fees" are designed to "provide a continuous, dedicated source of revenue." On December 27th, the city will be holding a public hearing to input regarding the actual rate that will be charged against each parcel of land within the city.
It is possible that if you own farmland or a vacant parcel in city limits that you did not receive the notice, as they were mailed with the water bills.
The proposal is for each parcel of land within city limits to be charged a user fee for storm water run-off and public lighting. Each residential parcel that does not exceed one acre will pay $2.95 per month or $35.40 per year for the storm water utility. Each business will pay $5.90 to 7.38 per month -- or $70.80 to $88.56 per year. If any of these parcels exceed one acre in size, the rate increases times the number of acres.
For the public lighting utility, each parcel outside of the Central Business District (regardless of size of the lot) will pay $3.85 per month or $46.20 per year. If you own property inside the Central Business District, your proposed rate is $7.70 per month or $92.40 per year.
Overall, a standard (one acre or less) residential lot will pay an additional $81.60 in annual user fees. Businesses (one acre or less) will pay anywhere from $117.00 to $134.76 per year. If you happen to have business property in the Central Business District, you will be paying user fees of $163.20 per year. This figure can be substantial if you own large tracts of land in city limits, or if you are holding vacant property for development.
The City projects that the Storm Water Utility will generate revenue of $470,000 the first year and the Public Lighting Utility will generate $370,000, for a total new revenue stream of $840,000.
As always, there is a story behind the story. Please consider the following information in determining what input, if any, you feel appropriate to give to your city council representative(s). On September 13, 2004, the City Council approved the creation of the two new public utilities. These utilities were created with Councilors Warren Amundson, Randy Erdman, Jeff Fjeslstad and Mary Kron voting yes; and Councilors Al Brooks, George Marin and Mayor Jean Eaton voting no. There was considerable discussion regarding the purpose and need for these new fees. The Watershed Board, the School District and the local Chamber of Commerce all opposed the creation of these new utilities.
Numerous citizens requested that the Council either continue to fund these projects through the property tax formula, as they had always done previously; or to delay the decision so that a thoughtful review could be conducted. No one from the public spoke in favor of the new utilities.
In regards to the storm water utility, the City Staff explained that the driving need for this utility was the possibility that the state pollution control agency would require compliance with increased maintenance efforts. If this mandate were to be placed against the City, they apparently would have 18 months to comply. As for the need for the lighting utility, it was explained that this was necessary initially to fund the new lighting to the Wal-Mart side of town.
Currently, the pollution requirements are not projected to take effect until March of 2007. If the 18-month grace period still applies, the city will have until September of 2008 before these new requirements are mandated.
The City indicated that they initially came up with the idea of the new utilities because they were under the mistaken impression that they had a "levy limit" in place. In previous years, the state legislature had imposed a limit on how much a city could increase its property tax levy. Since the legislature did not put this limit in place during last year's session, the City of Albert Lea did not have a limit to the amount it could increase its property tax levy to cover any extraordinary expenses.
Not to be deterred, and perhaps seeing a political opportunity, a split City Council voted to move forward on the creation of the new utilities. Most beneficial to the City from a public perception standpoint was that the new utilities allowed for a creative accounting shift to occur. They were able to shift $400,000 from their general fund obligation to be funded instead by the new utilities. This allowed for the City to have the friendly headline, "Levy remains about the same as 2000", in the Albert Lea Tribune. This headline itself is deceptive as the levy actually increased 25% from last year: even with the $400,000 shift of spending out of the general fund.
If you undo the accounting shift and add back the $400,000 to the general fund, the city would have increased its property tax levy by $ 945,940 or 42%. Under the new system, their actual total local revenue collection is even higher. The local increased payments from the property tax levy increase and the new utilities are an additional $1,385,940; or a whopping 61% increase from last year. The headline should have read, "City of Albert Lea increases local taxes by 61%."
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Greetings From Q
"So what seems to you to be a barber's basin appears to me to be Mambrino's helmet, and to another as something else. It shows rare foresight in the sage who is on my side to make what is really and truly Mambrino's helmet seem to everyone a basin."
Don Quixote -- Part I Ch. XXV
Don Quixote -- Part I Ch. XXV
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
