Last week Burnsville’s City Council met to vote on the 2011 tax levy for city residents (previous coverage: here and here). A few residents stood before the council in an attempt to sway their opinion away from raising taxes against people who are unemployed, having to pay more for their health care, or have just had other taxes rise to pay for school districts, counties, etc. Unfortunately the majority of the Burnsville City Council already made up their minds about their votes and these speeches were not going to change the minds of any of the councilmembers.
Please watch the particular portion of the meeting above (it’s about 6 minutes total) where a Burnsville resident comes to speak to the council and is disappointed to find that his breath is wasted and that he was under the misconception that discussions about taxes happened at worksessions and not council meetings. During this discussion the resident accuses the council of having these discussions behind closed doors something which the mayor clearly took great offense to as she raised her voice, became visibly upset, and began a lengthy explanation (backed up by Dan Kealey and Mary Sherry) about open meeting laws and the council’s adherence to them.
Mary Sherry later mentions a most important fact about open meeting law which according to the State is only in effect when there are three or more members of a group meeting:
The court determined that the two council members did not constitute a committee or subcommittee of the council because the group was not capable of exercising decision-making powers.
The councilmembers’ explanation of their adherence to the open meeting laws are correct–when they meet as a group larger than two. But some may consider their failure to mention their one-on-one interactions as outright and purposeful deception. Meetings occur “behind closed doors,” as noted by the resident, they’re just not happening in more than groups of two. Lobbying for decision-making happens all the time whether or not the councilmembers want the public to know they do it or not.
At the end of the clip the council votes 3-2 in favor of raising taxes 5.2% or about $15 a year on a median-priced home. The members who voted in favor of raising taxes were Mayor Elizabeth Kautz, Mary Sherry, and Dan Gustafson with both Dan Kealey and Charlie Crichton voting against the measure. I am certain that most residents who are aware of Dan Gustafson’s financial situation will no doubt see the irony in his voting in favor of a tax levy increase being that he has filed for bankruptcy so that his debts will be forgiven, something most of the residents who voted for (and against) him are not able to do.
What do you think about Burnsville’s 5.2% tax increase for 2011? Do you believe it’s fair for a man who has filed for bankruptcy to absolve him of most of his debt load while not holding any viable employment aside from his councilmember stipend to vote in favor on a tax increase for others? Do you agree that the majority of decision making occurs in one-on-one meetings and not when a quorum of members are present? Whatever you have to say about Mayor Kautz’s purposeful misdirection about meeting behind closed doors go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
December 13th, 2010 at 8:29 am
Bill –
Thanks for the link…I can’t bring myself to watch it yet but will eventually. I guess I already figured it was a done deal back in September when the vote was 3-2 for the max tax. I expected this from Dan G & Mayor Kautz. I am very disappointed in Mary Sherry, she likes to talk about the impact on our struggling citizens but isn’t doing anything about it.
December 13th, 2010 at 9:31 am
Is Burnsville even in a situation where it can avoid raising taxes? Seems to me they have little choice unless they were suddenly going to get smart. Perhaps a Christmas Miracle?
December 13th, 2010 at 9:37 am
Mikeh,
According to their discussions back in September Kealey and Crichton supported raising taxes 3.2% which would cover the decertification of the TIF district.
So no, it’s unlikely they could have survived without raising taxes at all now that they have put themselves in the situation they have but they could have eliminated the additional 3% tax bump the three majority councilmembers voted to pass on tot he taxpayers.
December 13th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Of course they make deals behind closed doors. Shame on the mayor for her contrived act of outrage.
I cant wait until all three of these idiots are up for reelection.
December 13th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
They didn’t seem all that riled up to me. A bit defensive, but not out-of-hand.
December 13th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
What the council failed to explain to these Burnsville residents is that 71.15% OR $980,000 of the 5.2% max tax goes to pay off the debt service and operation of the Burnsville Performing Arts Center!! When I heard the Mayor and her council minons tell these individuals that they welcome public input and they NEED public input…….. nothing more than a crock of you know what!!! If you noticed Council Members Crichton and Kealy wanted only a 3.7% increase in max tax. This is the $980,000 to pay off the PAC obligation bonds and its operation . Everything else would have remained the same as last years budget. Once again the city is run by three members of the council who know absolutely nothing about being fiscal responsible. One filed for bancrupcy, one is in the clouds and the other writes about being in the clouds.
December 13th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
“What the council failed to explain to these Burnsville residents is that 71.15% OR $980,000 of the 5.2% max tax goes to pay off the debt service and operation of the Burnsville Performing Arts Center “
That can’t be true – If I remember correctly when the Mayor was pushing for the PAC to be built she stated no tax increase or new taxes would be required to finance it.
(How can you tell if a politician is lying? )
December 13th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
I agree, when Mrs. Sherry explained how they are aware of the open meeting rules, there does seem to be a distinct implication that they may be discussing things in private by specifically ensuring no more than two of them are present. Perhaps then playing some type of city council telephone to pass the decisions around. If I had more time I’d piece through the meetings and work sessions and see when exactly they were discussing the budget and begging for the public to talk to them about it.
December 13th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
“Serial meetings in groups of less than a quorum held in order to avoid open meeting law requirements may also be found to be a violation, depending on the facts of the case.” — http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/openmtg.pdf
December 13th, 2010 at 11:28 pm
Here are my thoughts on this.
1. Tax rates and actual taxes are two different things (I think this point has been made, but restating it anyway). The percentage can go up without the actual tax dollar value going up (though in some Burnsville cases, both are definitely going up). I’m not opposed to a tax rate increase when decreased home values mean a lower real dollar amount that can’t keep up with basic services, but I’m certainly not in favor of actual tax dollar increases.
2. The council doesn’t need the public’s input. They need to quit whining about the fact that they opened this up to the public for comments already. We elected them to use their brains and while we do what we can to assist in our free time, a lot of us are involved in a lot of other things. That’s why we elect a council, to handle these decisions for us. I don’t show up at the capitol in St. Paul or Washington for every bill that interests me; I vote for representatives to go there and use their brains. I expect the same out of my council.
3. There’s more that can be cut, but probably not enough to make much of a dent. I could be wrong there, but from what I’ve observed, a lot of cuts have already been made. I don’t feel over-taxed as a Burnsville resident and I’m pretty happy with the service levels where they’re at. I don’t want that to change.
4. Who’s running for council and mayor in 2012?
December 14th, 2010 at 9:01 am
Thank you Bill for adding this video of the citizens who spoke and council discussion. I see I spoke a long time, something I had not planned, however, I was moved by the citizens who came and spoke and felt somethings needed to be said.
To Will-
The clarify, the 3.7% increase I referenced is all new revenue and not from any existing tax payer. The similarity to the money the BPAC gets is pure coincidence.
What we needed to do is have 1 other member of the Council support Council Member Crichton and my position that 3.7% is enough and instruct staff to find more cuts to eliminate the additional 1.5% that was the increase on existing payers. Late in the game some cuts were made, but not enough. Staff needs to start those cost cutting measures in June/July to allow sufficient time to adjust and implement, and quite frankly respond to the unpredictable decisions of the Council by the time the vote happens in early December. This is why I would like to see the Budget Open House event in July, when there is time to make some adjustments as a result of the input.
Defining wants and needs is part of the process. In the past, money was flowing more so many ‘wants’ were addressed. today, we have cut or eliminated many of those ‘wants’ and we are debating needs today, at every level of government.
To Joey –
I like your points, they were well thought out. I agree that i am voted in office by many who decided that I would represent their values and principals in making decisions with their money.
I encourage citizen input as I believe in what our founding fathers created at it’s core, a Representative Government. I am not looking for citizens to make my decisions for me, I am interested in listening to what they have to say as part of my decision making process. Every vote makes some happy and some unhappy, but our Government is a majority rule democracy. Therefore, to me, citizen input is important in fulfilling an elected officials role as “Representative of the people.”
December 14th, 2010 at 10:30 am
Dan, I totally agree with you on citizen input. I try as much as I can to be involved but between federal, state, and local government on top of other commitments – local athletics, church, etc. – people can only spread themselves so thin. It sounds like I’m not alone in trying to get involved given that there were a ton of us who tried to get on the planning commission this year. I also have to say that I’m not always clear on what opportunities exist outside of meetings like this and that may be my fault. Additionally, when numerous examples exist of the council voting against what the majority of citizen input seems to want, it can seem somewhat pointless to make an attempt.
December 14th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Joey,
When the will of the people is not represented in government, especially local, elections are a chance to change that. 2012 is not that far away and I believe there will be allot going on with the presidential cycle that will affect not only federal, but state and local races as well.
Hopefully we will have some good candidates step up at the local level and challenge the office. This always makes for excellent debate and a chance for voters to say they either like what they have, or want change.
For me it will be nice this time to watch from the sidelines!
December 15th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
In response to scooterbum posting #7:
1) You can tell Kautz is lying by her lips. If they are moving, she’s lying!
2) Where did you find the $980,000 number? Does that include the $135,000 ISD in paying for rent?
To the best of my knowledge, the City has never published a cash flow statement breaking down all the public subsidies for the PAC. In addition, they have never published an operating statement for the PAC except for CAFR reports that included depreciation for the PAC but not the parking structure
December 15th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Cliff, there was a page titled ” Summary of Changes Impacting the Levy” part of a power point presentation at one of the work sessions. One of the changes was an INCREASE of $570,000 labeled as Performing Arts Center,for debt and operations. On another page there is the EDA Levy of $460,000. Of that amount $410,000 goes to Performing Arts Center debt reduction. That’s where the $980,000 comes from.
Regarding that Burnsville school district #191 $135,000 PAC rental fee.This article, appeared in last week’s edition of ThisWeek Newspaper Titled, “Burnsville arts academy enrollment lower than envisioned” has “stand out” numbers that are frightening… From the 60% reduction in students TO the additional taxpayer’s cost of $90,000 for transportation to and from the PAC. Then the additional cost of $170,000 for staff at the PAC. In reality the taxpayer is shelling out $395,000. If the Envision Academy was moved to the High School it would reduce this number down to nothing!!!! This is a must read article:
http://www.thisweeklive.com/2010/12/08/burnsville-arts-academy-enrollment-lower-than-envisioned/
December 15th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Thanks Will for making the point that citizens have to make like accountants and auditors to learn just how bad the PAC boondoggle realy is. I have been following this issue since 2007 and I have NEVER seen the numbers summarized for the PAC by the City of Burnsville. Even the audited numbers leave some serious questions about the grants. Have they included the tipping fees of approximately $300,000 in the grants to inflate the amount donated by Burnsville’s imaginary philantropists?
Can you tell me the date of the worksession? I would like to see what makes up the $570,000. Thanks for your help!
March 22nd, 2011 at 7:06 am
[...] We’ve seen it happen with the Farmington School Board, the Dakota County Commissioners, and some members of the public believe it happens in Burnsville when it does not. Zhang notes in Citizen Participation in the Budget Process: The Effect of City [...]