According to this SunThisweek article, the Farmington City Council passed a slew of higher user fees for a variety of city functions but not without discussion as to whether it’s the proper way to take care of city business.
From the article:
Council Member Julie May advocated for simplified methods of taxing and city accounting by paying for city staff and services through the general fund instead of incorporating 15 pages of fees.
[...]
Council Member Christy Jo Fogarty said user fees reflect the city’s longstanding pay-as-you-go philosophy of taxation.
“I shouldn’t have to pay for my neighbor’s inspections because he decides to do home improvements on a consistent basis, and vice versa,” she said.
Some would argue this is absolutely the best way to go. By pushing these items into user fees instead of the general levy, taxes can be kept low and those who are looking to utilize services can pay for the work to be done themselves. However, it can also be argued that the city is then micromanaging and meddling in the affairs of its citizens which it should not even know about such as the installation of a water softener in someone’s home.
The philosophy is an interesting one. Should residents of a particular city be taxed across the board to pay for items which could be handled by user fees instead or should user fees be the standard way to deal with rising costs in a particular city? When you make home improvements do you feel like you’re nickel and dimed to death with permit fees, inspection fees, etc? Would you rather just a few dollars overall yearly instead or does the thought of potentially paying for work benefitting others irk you beyond belief? Whatever you have to say about this one, go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
October 19th, 2012 at 8:16 am
I am all for lower taxes, because they are too hight already! There are so many add-ins I’m sure these days that I’m paying for and don’t use (or take advantage of) so, unless the ‘pay for service’ model would be putting up payment centers for sidewalks, park benches and nickel and dime you to death that way, then I don’t feel I should be paying for stuff my neighbor does either.
October 19th, 2012 at 8:33 am
“However, it can also be argued that the city is then micromanaging and meddling in the affairs of its citizens which it should not even know about such as the installation of a water softener in someone’s home.”
User fees does not change this. Cities micromanage already. The primary distinction here is how do they get the money to pay for the staff that does the micromanaging.
As a principle, I prefer “user pays.”
October 19th, 2012 at 8:52 am
User fees. There are certain things we all use like roads, and I am more than happy to help pay for those. But there are TONS of government services I will never use, and I wonder what benefits I receive for programs I am forced to pay for like subsidized housing. Why should I be required to subsidize housing for families that are making up to $58,500/yr. in income. That is HIGHER than the US median household income.
October 19th, 2012 at 9:29 am
User fees are ok by me. The only case where I would be willing to cover it in taxes is when the service is one used by a majority of the citizens. EX: snow removal (despite how crappy it is in my neighborhood) is something a majority of the citizens in the city benefit from, so taxes to cover this makes sense.
When I wanted to host a birthday party at the ice rink in Burnsville, I paid a user fee to get the time. This seems sensible as not all citizens are going to use the ice rink in this manner. There is a balance here between general taxation and user fees.
On a related note, I wish the daily open skate times were more friendly to “normal” people schedules. Maybe the mayor has time to go skating every day over her break, however I doubt most people do. 11am and 12:30 weekdays is pretty tough to get away to go skate. Better would be to have/also have a late skate time which at least makes it possible for day working people to get there.
October 19th, 2012 at 9:46 am
Mrs S always says, “all we ever get from government is plowed streets and good schools.” I happen to believe that she’s quite wrong about that. But that’s why we don’t talk about politics.
I think the user fees make sense in things that you’re personally benefitting from. And BTW, I like idea that water heater installations are inspected, in California we had a hose down the street explode and catch fire after mr DIYSF Guy fucked up the gas line. So.. I get that. Deck inspections, not so much.
I would have liked to seen the Vikings stadium paid for by user fees. And if Met Transit was paid for that way we’d be paying $20 a ride for downtown transport, $1150 per ride when BRT comes online.
October 19th, 2012 at 10:42 am
What is education under this system, a user fee (tuition) or a tax on all?
October 19th, 2012 at 10:45 am
dm, in the content of the original post topic, it’s irrelevant as city council decisions have no impact on school districts. However, it could be argued the education of our children and the potential for positive outcomes there have a positive impact on all and thus should be taxed.
The point of contention comes from failures in meeting the expectation of positive outcome.
October 19th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
I generally like taxes and limited us of fees. My reason is that fees create a barrier for public use while rarely covering the entire cost of the product. Let’s take park pavilions. AV charges a fee (~$50) to reserve a park pavilion. These fees in no way pay for the construction and upkeep of the pavilion. They are an expense if they are used or not. So, the fee does two things: prevents groups from reserving a space they will not use (who care really), and prevents people/ groups with limited budgets from using the space. This is just one example. We could add nice ballparks with locked gates and community center usage to the list. We are already paying for these amenities but need to pay even more to actually use them.
The other benefit to taxes is that if forces government and the people (or should) to really look at what services are really needed. Does AV really need a nice updated community center? Are park pavilions something the city should provide? Do ball parks really need to be that nice? These are valid questions. If the answer is yes and these things are a net benefit to the residents then everyone should pay for them. Project get approved with the idea that user fees will pays the bills when in fact tax payers are still affected. The user fee is a smoke screen that hides the true cost.
October 19th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
I am not sure I understand the question. Do some cities have home improvement inspections for instance that they do not charge a fee for? I guess it applies to things like the parks issues that OBB mentions? Every city i have lived in charges user fees for just about everything?
Generally I am in favor of user fees as well. But there is an argument to be made that some general tax revenue expenditures do benefit everyone even though you don’t directly utilize the services.
Is a user fee a tax? Sure, its a tax although like Tim Pawlenty it may sound better on the ears of Farmington citizens to say its a user fee.
I am not sure what country woodz lives in, tax rates on federal levels are as low as they have been in a long time?
October 20th, 2012 at 1:48 pm
RE: Deck Inspections
There are a surprising number of decks built improperly that a proper inspection will find & fix. My ‘Family Handyman’ magazine usually does a story on deck-building mistakes every couple of years. 2 or 3 years ago, they featured a picture of a deck that had completely fallen away from the house. It looked like it just tipped over. The house was somewhere in Lakeville!
October 21st, 2012 at 9:38 pm
Farmington has a number of financial issues that the current council has been working to correct caused by questionable prior council and administrative actions. (some of the current council were involved in those decisions)
Their attempts to use fees rather than outright taxes is one proposal to impart a “feel” of not having higher taxes even though the only way they will solve many of their issues, revenue will have to go up.
Since government revenue generally comes from the public at large, I feel safe in including fees and property taxes, and income taxes all under the umbrella of taxes.
Where the City has a big issue is regardless of what they do, the city is going to look bad to people they don’t want it to look bad to. i.e. contractors are going to see higher costs for construction and improvements, thus may prefer to build elsewhere. Prospective property investors (buyers of foreclosed homes) may find the costs in Farmington outweigh the value when they can see lower improvement permitting costs in other cities. Living with a higher costs then the neighbors can not be good, especially if it leads to reduced investment in the area. Reduced investment in Farmington can not be good for the value of assets already in Farmington (i.e., your home or small business)
I’m not sure how fees are determined in Goverment when times are good. I assume they are structured so that those that use the service pay for it. As such, if times are bad, I suppose they should remain structured that way. I just hope that such services have some option in the private sector such that the government doesn’t have a lock on something such that you are stuck with the crazy fee with no competitive options. Or at least the government realizes they can’t provide that service anymore at the level it is being used, and allow properly accredited outside contractors to pick up the slack.