According to this article from Thisweek, Dakota County’s illustrious Commissioners are considering raising taxes to cover…wait for it…Bus Rapid Transit and the Cedar Transitway. You know, the same BRT and Transitway that Will Branning was “working so very hard” to procure funding for but never could. But it’s not like you weren’t warned that this exact thing would happen. You may or may not recall but way back in January of 2009 I said:
In typical fashion, Dakota County is pushing forward with plans for Cedar Ave’s Bus Rapid Transit corridor even though there is nearly a 20% financial hole that has yet to be filled. I’m not quite sure why they’re so flustered about where this funding is going to come from as they know exactly where to find the money…via additional taxes on everyone, especially bus riders.
Well, Will Branning’s dream of funding BRT has come true. They have built out some of the unnecessary infrastructure, like the money wasting and poorly designed $21 million Apple Valley Transit Station (which in winter is as cold as can be and in summer is as hot as can be), and empty transit stations in farm fields. Exactly how much money will come out of the taxpayers’ pockets on this one?
From the Thisweek article linked at the top of the post:
Commissioners also talked about raising the 2011 Regional Rail levy 38 percent.
Although the percentage increase sounds significant, the result on a median-value home, which for 2011 is $206,100, would increase $2.35 per year, going from $5.69 per year to $8.04 annually.
The funds would help pay for continued transit improvements along Cedar Avenue and the Robert Street corridor.
Well most people would say that such a small increase in taxes isn’t all that bad–hardly noticeable. Well when your house is already upside down and slipping further and further into the hole I just don’t see how the Dakota County Commissioners could seriously feel that taking any additional money out of our pockets would be acceptable. No, we didn’t want BRT in the first place, no we don’t want streetscape enhancements, no you should not have paid someone to re-sod all the dead sod around the AVTS, and no we should not even be thinking about buying new buses to add to a route where you have already failed to implement a very expensive “Bus 2.0″ concept except for a useless simulator which at least one of you happily described as like a ValleyFair ride. The same amusement park that many families may not be able to enjoy next summer because you raised their taxes and depleted their savings even further than you already have… If we’re all cutting back because we have less money so should you. Just because you have less money doesn’t mean you get to take it from the taxpayers.
I am absolutely disgusted with the actions of the Dakota County Commissioners regarding BRT. The State regards it as a wasteful expenditure and refuses to fund it, the residents couldn’t care less if it happens today, tomorrow or 12 years from now and the cities really cannot afford to pay for your requirements to make it look pretty. Please do us all a favor and resign effective yesterday. You are not being good stewards of our tax dollars and raising taxes is not an acceptable thing to do for something which can wait.
What do you think about the thought of Dakota County’s taxes raising to cover BRT on top of the threat of your local cities raising taxes to cover their own ridiculous $20+ million expenditures which they promised would never cost the taxpayers a cent? Do you think it’s a reasonable request to put BRT’s more useless requirements on hold until the economy recovers (however long that takes) or do you think that these are things which must happen right now–even with the suburbs shrinking as people move back to the urban core? If the County Commissioners voted to raise taxes would you vote them in again? Whatever you have to say about the thought of raising taxes to cover Bus Rapid Transit and the Cedar Transitway go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
August 27th, 2010 at 8:38 am
My blood boils when I see asinine statements like:
An increase of 38% is significant and should not be so quickly discounted. Not to mention their talk of a 1% tax increase, and other 2% and 3% increases. They are looking to increase our county taxes by over 41%. And don’t forget we are already getting nailed for a fucking wheelage tax which rakes in about 1.5 million.
And if you didn’t know, the Wheelage tax, when it was first instituted by Dakota County required any funds received through it to offset the property taxes collected. Well, in 2008 they and other counties got the legislature to remove that requirement (163.051 Subd. 5). So now they collect the wheelage tax, and don’t need to cut property taxes, and they are coming up with more needs. (not only that they’ve tried every year to get the max tax they can bill raised from $5 to $20)
What is so crazy about this BRT thing is that the County just went through significant cuts after the State cut county funding. The County Board seemed to understand the challenges out there. And yet they come up with this stupid idea. You cut services, you decrease the benefits available to the citizens in the county, and when you finally do decide to raise taxes, you do it for bus rapid transit? I feel like I’m living in the wrong County.
http://www.co.dakota.mn.us/CountyGovernment/News/CountyGovernment/2010Budget.htm
August 27th, 2010 at 8:52 am
I agree with you totally. 21 million for what I see there is obscene, who pocketed about 12 million or more on that deal? Not that long ago, counties saved up to build structures and paid cash for them, i.e. the beautiful court house in Glenwood in Pope county was built for about 200,000 dollars that were saved for it. No tax hikes, no bond issued. Common sense government by the people, not career politicians.
August 27th, 2010 at 9:07 am
While the amount is tiny, this is not OK. If it is up 38%, my total will go from about $11 to about $15. But $4 is not the point.
I have 3 data points that I think are related. 1: This should be covered by the bus fare. 2: My dakota county taxes are up 16% since 2005. 3: 196 ISD has another levy up to vote this year. If approved, I estimate this will cost me an additional $500. While not related to the county, it is related to my local tax bill.
August 27th, 2010 at 9:09 am
I’m glad this is getting attention. The County Commissioners don’t get nearly the attention of the city government personnel, yet their decisions have just as much impact on us.
This sucks. Why people can’t be straight up and honest about the tax implications that spending decisions will have is beyond me.
August 27th, 2010 at 9:29 am
I had to laugh at your remarks about the AV station. I used it a few weeks ago, and you’re absolutely right about the waiting area. The sun was shining in from the west, there were no blinds to stop it, and I sat there roasting and also STEWING, because of the thoughtless spending that went into this thing. I’m a huge fan of light rail and buses, but it should be a law that those who vote for it, plan it and build it, ought to RIDE it. The 2.0 IS kind of like an amusement park ride, though, especially since I’ve ridden the local Minneapolis-MOA route on a wet day. NOT pleasant.
I hate how polarized things have gotten. If you’re against raising property taxes for it, then you must be anti-bus and oh yeah, you hate poor people. It’s a debater’s trick, and it serves nobody but the person building his political resume. Another political trick, is trumpeting a “no taxes” record at the state level, when the elected know perfectly well and good that the local governments will levy and bond instead.
And who doesn’t know that in five years, the same people who pushed for the bus rapid transit will be pushing for a light rail instead?
August 27th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Hate to get in the way of a perfectly good rant, Marty, but you’re wrong about how that courthouse was paid for.
From http://www.co.pope.mn.us/history.html:
“In 1906, the County board of commissioners made arrangements for a building fund. Action was taken to create a half mill tax, or 50c on every $1000 of assessed valuation. The money thus collected, plus the accrued interest was by 1929 sufficient to build a new courthouse without issuing bonds for the purpose.”
No bonds, but definitely a tax, sorry.
Anyway, I don’t think BRT is the way they should have gone with this to begin with, and they should have been open about the need to raise taxes to pay for it.
August 27th, 2010 at 9:43 am
As far as I’m concerned, Bill’s first paragraph and first quote cover it. I’m going to keep my rant saved up for another day.
August 27th, 2010 at 9:48 am
I, like you, ride the bus and LRT and think they are both great and that we need more of them–not just for poor people either. But as when I was complaining heavily about AVTS being 40 degrees in winter (and now well over 80 in the summer–even in the morning) and people were telling me to thank my lucky stars I wasn’t waiting in a standard shelter I’d like to note that I fully support waiting outside, in the elements, if it would have saved Dakota County taxpayers $21 million.
The problem with AVTS and the rest of BRT is that it is doing nothing but keep money from being funneled to the poor people who depend on mass transit to get around. As I’ve stated many times before, instead of funding buildings and parking lots they should be funding what people will actually use–routes and not just routes to the MoA. Routes to other suburbs too–you know like mass transit is supposed to work and does work in many other cities in the world.
August 27th, 2010 at 9:58 am
I am not surprised given the fact that the uneducated voters elected Liz Workman onto this board. The same Liz Workman who voted for the BPAC. She is famous for her ability to roll her eyes whenever she is confronted with any taxpayer who might have an opinion that differs from hers. She’s a real class act.
August 27th, 2010 at 10:04 am
Very well said, Bill! I would love to bus to my job in Savage. And I would love to never have to step foot in MOA again. Yeesh.
August 27th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Add enough insignificants together and pretty soon it’s very significant.
Federal insignificants, state insignificants, county insignificants, Met Council insignificants, city insignificants, school district insignificants, water shed insignificants, god-knows-what-else insignificants.
Bill, you do a great service watching all this closely for us. One of these days, you’re going to have to run for something.
Tim
Farmington
August 27th, 2010 at 11:04 am
In response to JP’s comment above about the ISD196 levy proposal — and for those of you who don’t know, I sit on the school board in 196 — I just wanted to clarify the tax impact of the levy we are proposing. The estimated tax impact of a 10-year levy question up to the state cap would be about $280 per year
or $5.38 per week to the owner of an average-value home in District 196 ($238,500). This is not insignificant, but the $500 in tax impact mentioned in JP’s post is substantially higher than most district residents will see.
The levy, if approved, would mitigate some of the $23 million in cuts we have already directed the administration to make next year in anticipation of further state aid cuts and shifts (remember, the state has an 18 percent hole in its budget in the next biennium).
We will still have to cut almost $8 million even if the levy passes. As a reminder, we have cut our budget by $25 million over the past two years. Class sizes have gone up by 2 at every level.
I would hope that our residents would see the value in investing in strong schools in our district, and I will continue to put our costs and achievement record up against any other district in the state. There is a ton of information about district finances, academic rigor and achievement and the November levy referendum at district196.org.
Please feel free to call me or email me if you have any questions (my email and cell number are available on the district site). — Art “UpWithTheMooses” Coulson
August 27th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Wow – I didn’t realize the proposed ISD 196 levy is that high (it will be the maximum allowed by law). I would assume that based on the median value it’s around $1.38 in new tax per $1000 in home value. For the next 10 years. The fluff piece in ThisWeek glossed over that fact. See http://www.thisweeklive.com/2010/08/19/majority-support-district-196-operating-levy
How it’s presented, “$515 per pupil” or “65 cents per day” sounds reasonable. Someone has to pay for the schools after all. But with the existing levy it would be bumped up to $1,554 of taxes per student. How was the question presented in the school district’s survey to get 60% support? I have a hunch that they didn’t ask homeowners of $300,000 house whether they are willing to pay $350 more every year in their property taxes for the next ten years. Does decreasing enrollment over the next 10 years really justify a maximum levy?
August 27th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
To clarify, I was guessing that my personal increase would be $500 from the ISD 196 levy. My house is worth more than the $238k median. District196 dot org has has a pdf that echos what Art has said above.
August 27th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Hi, ACLR. Actually our enrollment in ISD196 has stabilized after a short-lived and small decline and is projected to grow over the next few years. We do a pretty extensive district census each year to help us plan for rises — and falls — in enrollment. But enrollment isn’t a key consideration in the levy request. The bigger factor is the district’s reliance on state aid for more than three-quarters of its budget and the state’s inability to manage its finances responsibly. We expect K-12 education, which makes up 40 percent of the state budget, to participate proportionately in the pain of fixing the state fiscal mess (a hole that is approaching $7 billion in the next biennium). We have, accordingly, directed administration to prepare cuts (and new revenue, such as higher participation fees) totaling 7 percent, or about $23 million for next year. I invite folks who want to know more about District 196′s conservative budgeting practices to look at the fiscal info on our web site or even consider attending one of our Budget Advisory Council meetings (this is a great group of private sector finance experts who live in our district and offer budgetary advice to the administration and school board).
August 27th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
To echo UWTM, Minnesota handled education funding a little different in that much of the funding goes into a pile at the state that the state then divvies out to districts based on various formulas.
The Minnesota house has a useful research report on how education funding works in MN with a historical look at why it is the way it is today.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/mnschfin.pdf
August 29th, 2010 at 8:00 am
Damn you Moosses. I was going to be angry and vote no just ’cause.. now you’ve screwed that up and I have to think about it.
Bill, you’ve hit the nail on this one. This whole thing reeks bigtime, and just wait till light rail.
August 29th, 2010 at 8:37 am
I agree with Bill in that I’d much rather see money spent on more routes and increased service than on fancier facilities. I don’t care how nice the shelters are or how smooth the ride on the bus is if I can’t, for example, catch a bus on a Saturday night.
December 27th, 2010 at 10:14 am
This is why we shouldn’t bother with the beautification costs of BRT: http://www.twincities.com/ci_16948506
December 27th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Wow. That bus shelter is beyond useless.
February 9th, 2011 at 9:51 am
A great article over at MinnPost about the costs of BRT vs LRT: http://www.minnpost.com/steveberg/2011/02/09/25640/lrt_or_brt_it_depends_on_the_potential_of_the_corridor