|
<br />Leag~~"~f-Mi~~~~~t; Cities
<br />480 Cedar Street
<br />St. Paul. Minnesota 55101
<br />''7{'' . - . ":;.- .,~; .~': '.\ .~","'. . :. :'" . . ;.:..' :.: 1
<br />Jl ax~bj;tse~"sharln.'g- .- .:.'
<br />. . . .' ." '1
<br />.....1. '..___ ..,. -.' .. . . n'- ..~ .-. '.. .
<br />h . . ": '-. ,.: ~ ..... .... ,;'i.', .:_,~:-:~'_"""_JW-'_~"'_'-'"'" - -,.-'. '.. '--,--.-.:-,.,!. '.:.......... ":.......... ~'J:
<br />
<br />t' .~.._.....-... ",' t---.' ... '.R' . b' · .'R d"'.'
<br />1. . 'e '.ml ,. e. '0 " 0 . ifll~':'~:"" .. ",.'0'" .::',>
<br />f. ~.." . II'. " .' 3. (1 .. ;"-:- ';. .' : U '.:')-;~'
<br />~ ,... .". __~~~ ;:~. ~ ...~...:.~_~~._~.~.~~~. .~;.:;;;:;~I..~.Y;:a:~:~ ;.:~.::.:;>..:::.~.;.i.-.'.i;:.:...',;~',.~",: =:.:.:.:....;.;"....: :':"';' I - . .+. .f h"=i.?:L-,-"", .. . "";;'1
<br />'," By CHARLES' WHITING'~' :.-:.:':':, .:'.. ",..... ....-.. ....._-c....- V:i'., .~-: .,- ... ...-,~ ;:.:-~r.~;":..~....;::: '~'. ,'. ~ ~."':~~..h.fi.. ld"" d'E .. ,.:,.... .
<br />. . " . ..".. ,.' O'k II .,' .., '.. ~.- ..,~tllC Ie an agan.'
<br />Of the OpInIon Page swi-':..;.... . "'~'~ MapJewood and a db. e:."; .,;...:'.':.::.l:~~~ '~l:'"J ":r:. .....:.7'-:: :.:',I<~. ., :..,,~:'.~.h "i
<br />
<br />. ", "...' '", ,....... "."'1 ::-; .- -:". _.., ....~..~._~../.. ..-.....,..... ~..,;......_ .' .~ ..::....... .-_._~.~!. ~ ._~.;.. :..:::...... ...:.......J;~:-.c"'_.. .-.., . '__}f"-'_'. -....
<br />:1h - th't li '--. .....'. ._...,....,......:..\00.:., ...................~:-.\......,...{.1""..;,'!.":'.J'..<....h.~"^.'l:i':.,.."'I-.lJ.-(1:1 ':~!:.f",,~~ ....:\,.,....,J.."
<br />
<br />em . ~ as still gets:. ~even years ~~~ .:.j',:..~>.,;:i:...~:.:.;;..<:,~.;~:~~~~il~:..;~.;~_.,.,~~;.0:,'::; :.:.y:.~S~ch \mo;es tbward the metrOpOlitan j
<br />f~fter th; Mrnnesota Leglsla!ure passed the.:..1- What thiS means is most dramatically "'center, 'while not as dramatic. in other i
<br />"n?t~atxr; and. contro~erslal Fiscal Dis-:.' d'emonstrated by a comparison between cases have been' general. Without sharing, .!
<br />f.erl es.. . ~.to cdlo~eth~,tax-base'~~p be':~"-,t;y.ro adjoining suburbs east of St. Pau1,Ma.~< . for ~xample, Richfield's ,~'have'not" per I
<br />~yee~ ,nc " an.. poorcommumtles In .:: plewood a.nd Oak?ale. The }977 assessed, :. capita ~-~ tax bas~ of $598 wou!d be equ~l. \
<br />t~t; 1 r-'U1 C!W~ hetropolltan area. . the :.~ value.ot (:om~eI.:qal.~Ln_qust~al__p~perty In . -to about half. of the metropolitan ar~ ~
<br />~tmes %~EI... ~~...~,,~:?:~~t~;.~~f~~~~~~~,'r Maplewood".was $76.3' millio!1' i.whi](!' in: .;'$1.176 average.. With .shanng, however. i~ I
<br />poo., . i. . ,;:,.:~,<~.'.':"i.~'..,-"~,;.;;;\. :{2.o.ii;;'~I. Oakdale it.. was under $3.3 mIllIon.... Olt. a.J...:...~.,lS $697i or..aoo. ut~6.0 perc~nt ,of t.he. avehr . \
<br />..:..~ EY_ B:S.~'!~~.<':"l>:S~~~2::::Z~..;)?::.:::.:Jper;'~apita:basis;(Maplewood'spopulation~; . age. . Conver~elY,' III Eagan, where. t e
<br />.T~ tQ the Fiscal Disparities-share..~;being more.tbantwice-thatofOakdale's)/ ,:withou~-s~anng, .C,I tax"b~e of $1.~ :
<br />t!le.tax-base plaii, -a kind of Robin HOod in ~ ,.that's..S2,700 for each. Maplewood . resl-:' . would .bel 53 percent ,abOve the region .;
<br />tax-assessor's clothing,~: the:.gap between~ .dent. ~..hlghest .among' the metropolitan.. .. average, the with-s?anng figure. of $1,491 ~
<br />t~~ area's "bave" and,"hav.e-not":commu~':i.area's 44 communitieS.of 9,000 population. ,)5 2'1 percent ab<;';ve th~ aye rage, s~lll c~m- .1
<br />rtlt1e~ is -closing. ~y.. taking'fn:iri('theiex;'f or more.ForsoI?eo~e li~ing in Oakdale,: :,~fortably:on t~~.: hay~.,.~l~~( a.l.t~oug~;.~ot I
<br />pan dIng commercIal-industrial (C-I) . taxi' just across the City hne; It's $269, lowest ,;-by as muc~. _"d'" .":C..; ...~,.: .... ,
<br />bases of the "baves'~. aild'.giviIig::'to' theJamong the 44, 'A 10-to-l ratio;;:'~'~!..'; '.' .;.' . But while the tax base-shann~ .f~rmu1a ;
<br />~3gnated "have-nots,,,,the plan..is:be in. i'" But a~m.ost. $33 million: of Maplewood's~ '.' Is working in most cases.(the ad~01Dmg ta-.I
<br />:ung to demonstrate its effectivenesS~o:.f:.:;;':hC-I va1u.atIpn. came from new d,evelopment :' .ble show~ !~ impact on the a:ea s 44 most :
<br />.: The progress is .gradual,-and thereare~i:'or:incrr~~s In the value of eXisting prop- p~pulous c:tles). some exceptions m.~et th; ..!
<br />:ome apparent exceptions to it. But in" en.~.erty., snice 1971. .Forty _percent of tbat ..~eye. Theres at least one case of a hav~:
<br />;!allt is clear:from new' figUres prep:red:,t-<~~3'2-ini1Uon) therefore yvent into the re';' ~communlty-one with more per caplta.C-I'~
<br />~ ,the A~oka County. auditor's: office.: ,'glOna1~pot.. (jakdale, on .the 'other--hand;,: tax' bas~'. than. the ~ $1,176 metropohtaD i
<br />_'1~lch admmisters the plan, that' the 1911.'hadJu~~'" $.1...1.. m.l..l.lo..n 0 .fPO. st.197.1 . C-l: .average.-. ..g.e. tUng m.. o.re. o..u.t..Ofth....e. p~~. than.,.
<br />!imnesota Legislature's passage of theFis~fgro~~.; $#1,-082: of . which went into- the. . it put In. and several inStanc~ of have-'j
<br />.:al Disparities Law is beginning to pay offfI '. ~o~io/':~ 'l"!'::~,;",' :~:_:~.: ~.i::,;;::'.~'~'~~," ::.:. ';nots" fa11lng even fart~.~~h:~~ ~a/e:-;
<br />~ That s good news for residential proPer..... f~'~:: WJ1~11. ~t: ~e time. to 'distribute the ~ .:.~lt of the ex~~~t:1g~!,;,o.;: :}~'':~ ~''-7-~;,.'''''':- .'. - ~
<br />y taxpayers who-Jive in communities that ',money, tbe. fonnul~ ~ave $2.8 million to. :.."'''; One example' of such a "double loser" 11 -
<br />lllv.been able. to. attract muchcommer. '" Maplewood. $2..l.mIlhon.to Oakdale.The.. ;;. Lakeville, out in Dakota County. where ope ,
<br />Jal trial '(C~Q d!!elopmEmt .'to' help: i; per:. ~apita. result after sharing: a C-I .tax '. ;: pasition to' the' Fiscal ,Disparities 'L~w has . .
<br />lay expa.'1ding faX. bill for local.gOV':'}': ,base equal to $.2,33~ per person. in Mapl~: !: been' vociferous.' As far'~ per capita C.I' !
<br />rnmentaJ..-serviees..Jt'(l8BaJso..-be'good. )vood andto $408 In Oakdale.c,.;.'C:..:,:-.... ';'. /tax.. base..withotit-sbarlng' is concerned, t
<br />leWB because It.ought- to. reduce~the pres-::1;;"~.' T~at ~Ul :leaves Maplewood next to the. : Lakeville 'is .' definitely~in.the .' ~'have';'not!'~!
<br />~e on local governments to overplanfor ,i>'Jopm -toW: C-I tax base ~O?g the area's.: ; category' Wlth..' $~8~-wprth per resident.: I
<br />:-1 developmeDt, w~lch for envirOnmental'r1r.44 mOSVpopulouscommumtles andOak,:~ ,. But 'far:from' gam!ng ;in the - exchan,e, I
<br />,r other reasons mlght nat be in the best ! '.dal7 still 'at' the bottom. But it has cut. tbe~ . Lakeville's per capita. C-Itax . base wltb
<br />lteres!-, of the community and the region. r~tlo bet~e~n them to ju~ 5.7 to I, a con- .' sharing turns 'out.:.tobe just $635. a $47.
<br />'. Here s haw the sharing p-Ian works: 40' ~.,Slderabl.1IJll.. pro o.vement J.n Jus..t seven years~. .' per-person drop. . Others WhO. suffer the
<br />!ercent of each communIty s growth in a&-'F~.j .:,;,~'.V ~i::;t . .' .' ;'~.;;:,.,:. . .. .: < same fate, to one.degree or another, are
<br />essed commerclal-Industrial valuation I .... < . ..' . Brooklyn Center,:' Cottage Grove, Maple
<br />Inee 1971 goes into. a metropolitanpOt:. Grove, Ne.~':H?p~;~e~t. ~t..Pau1 and
<br />aehyear,outotwhlcbeachcommunltyf ,Woodbury~:'~"~"b~.;i:',~'.:"'" .'. . ~
<br />~en dra~s a portion based C?n Its popula-.. :~'.That's'se:,en of .the:reglOn'S',most popu. .
<br />.!on and Its overall (commerclal-industrial.i :'lous 44' cities. Or,;:to put It another. way,
<br />esldentlal)1ax base. The latest figures, -r . almost Ii t!tird of the 22 such cities which
<br />:te ones t,bat wIll.be used In' calculating _, : put more m!o the pot .than they ~oo~ out
<br />~xt 'lears property taxes. show mOFe j ; had less to give in the.fIrst place......:-:.
<br />~an 0;>258 million In the 1979 pot.'That's1The reasons, apparently, ar~ that those
<br />.p $58 mUlioR from a year ago. .' ....;,,_ , d 'clties' have large residential tax bases (a
<br />. _ . _.v .;.' "'.>~. '.;.'j factor in the distribution 'formula) and
<br />,'_'_' ~. H. ,;' .' their populations'. have, been expanding
<br />more rapidly than their c-t tax bases. In-
<br />deed, it Is those same factors, operating in
<br />'. reverse, that explain why Minneapolls~
<br />'w:hichis nominally on the "have" side,
<br />, winds up collecting.more from the sbsririg
<br />_pot.t~~nltputsi~1 :-:'.'",>:r .~:'..,::
<br />
<br />DlJfR. - .~
<br />
<br />.-..---.... .---.-... ...-.
<br />
<br />Municipality
<br />Date II /13/78'
<br />
<br />. I
<br />,Sl;!bJect If\~- bASe
<br />
<br />~hf\f''',t\J(?
<br />
|