|
<br />_",-I
<br />
<br />,way~, lJ1ajor sewer lines, metropolitan parks, and so forth,
<br />, bccau,se of the reduced need to be concerned about the im-
<br />pact on the tax base of one community over another. More-
<br />ovei, 'it should serve to help the four-year-old Twin Cities
<br />Metropolitan Council (increasingly recognized as a national
<br />;. model) in coordinating gro\vth of the entire area.
<br />'.." ~r~dit for passage of the law can be shared by many in-
<br />, i :dividuals and groups. Democratic Governor Wendell R.
<br />" -Anderson had endorsed it, as had his Republican predeces-
<br />~ -sor.in 196~, Harold LeVander. The head of the state AFL-
<br />; ....CIO arid an executive of one of the region's largest corpora-
<br />! 'tionstestilied in its behalf..The metropolitan association of '
<br />, _ municipalities was on record in support of the concept.
<br />Other support came from several private citizen organiza-
<br />- tions.
<br />: "Butthe bill passed mainly because it stimulated a unique
<br />. coalition of central-city and suburban legislators, a kind of "
<br />'~' ~~::~~~at is likely to b~~~~e~,increasinglY important in
<br />
<br />~rst, tJle coalition included those legislators ~ both
<br />central-dty'-.and suburban':":- who believe it unlikely.that
<br />the communities they represent will be able to capture
<br />, physically within their' borde:rs an adequate share of the'
<br />region's future growth in. commercial-industrial tax base.
<br />Second, the coalition included those legislators - again
<br />both central-city and suburban - who simply believe it is
<br />inequitable to concentrate the benefit of such tax base in
<br />only a few communities: ' .., ."
<br />This coalition was able to 'Overcome strong opposition
<br />from)egislators in the so-calied "prosperous" suburbs.",:' ,.'
<br />A~'Contributing factor to "flie bill's passage was its avoid-
<br />ance. Df' what might be considered "radi~al" app'rQaches,
<br />a-~ ~ergingall commun~ties'into on~ metrop~lit~~city .
<br />~posmg a new metropolitan tax on commerclal-indus'-
<br />trial property.- , -<~; - ::~ ~ '
<br />. . ~.~
<br />" The law works entirely within thepresent framework of
<br />. local government. No additional tax is imposed. No metro-
<br />politaR taxing agency is created:~'An localities continue to
<br />.. . ";.... . ..
<br />.make tht?ir own policy decisions 'ordevying p~operty, ta~es.
<br />The lav.: also" maintains fiscal responsibility because no
<br />jurisdiction is permitted to tax its sharc:ef t!t~ region's
<br />growth without imposing the same' rate, against. its own
<br />resident .voters. . , ' " -. :,'. . _'~' ,
<br />The concept of tax-base sharing, as embodied in the new
<br />law, was first advanced by a SUburbil.I;' resident, F. ~arren
<br />Prccshl, a member of the Burnsville School Board, three
<br />years ag~. At the time, Preeshl was serving as a member of
<br />a fiscal disparities committee of the Citizens League, a Twin
<br />Cities-based, independent, nonpartisan public affairs or-
<br />ganization with some 3,600 members. A str6ng supporter
<br />of local government, Prceshl came up:' with the unique idea
<br />of tax-base snaring as' a way to keep decisions local out still
<br />overcome the problems of concentration of the tax base 'in
<br />
<br />SO CITY IFALL. 1971'
<br />
<br />,
<br />I
<br />
<br />certain communities as against others.
<br />The Citizens League adopted Preeshl's proposal in a
<br />report presented. t~ the' legislature in early' 1969~ Rep.
<br />Charles Weaver of suburban Anoka~ chairman of a legisla-
<br />tiv; subcommit,tee on fiscal disparities, grabbed onto the
<br />idea, drafted a bill, and within,a month after introduction
<br />obulined House pas$age by;,l v0t,c,of 115-14. But time ran
<br />out in the 1969 legislature.b~fore the Senate coul~ con-
<br />sidedt. ' :.......
<br />.Not unexpectedly, new obstacles arose in 1971. There
<br />continued to be, ~s expected, ~PPQsition from those com-
<br />munities who anticipate they will be' petter off in the future
<br />with a go-it-alone approach. In additiol}, rural legislators
<br />were forced to choose si.des, even thougl) the bill did not
<br />apply outside the seven-co.,4nty T'!Vin Cities area. Some
<br />outstate legislators feared a v9te for the Weaver"bill could .,
<br />be construed as a vote for ,regionalism, ? concept which has
<br />become contr~versial in outstate Minne~ota. The iUral op~:
<br />position became particularly apparent on the floor. of the
<br />Senate where, on final passage,.opponents almost .got .
<br />enough negative votes from outstate Senat~rs to kill the bill.
<br />The bill passed tpe Senate with a one-vote'majority. '_
<br />The final vote ,in the House, 83-~9~ was be.Her than ex-
<br />pected by the bill's most avid supporters. The:vast majority
<br />of outstate House members voted for the bill, perhaps an
<br />indication of the respect toat Weaver, who never has\'oten
<br />id~n:ified as ~ pro-metro legisla,t<?r, c~mn1a.n>~. a~ong' ,h~s '.-~,~'., , )
<br />outs.ate c~neagues. ; .. ': _ ., ...... . .' ;' , ' (' .
<br />, 'Rumblings that House Democrats wouid ,Stand UIiited~" f'" ,';'
<br />against"the bill as retribution for. Republican resistance:..t~'~~d ,,' '.'::~
<br />Governor Anderson's school--ald~ formula proved'nil'-' , ~
<br />founded. Earlier, some Democrat~ had feared Republicans . \
<br />~ ,woul? use passage of the W eav~!- ~il" as an eXl,::yse, fot' n'ot
<br />passing Anderson's school...;aid plan, which woul!:!' equaUze
<br />school property taxes throughout the state. : " . ,i',~",,-
<br />In fact this law, de~ling only With the sharing of- a"pd'r':" ".'" ,
<br />tion of future tax base in only ~ne .p~rt of the state; Iftust'-..' "
<br />not be construed as a substitut~.. for a truly equalizing ,"
<br />school-aid formula ,in Minnesota. Nevertheless, the . law' "
<br />speaks to the ,same .kind of problem that ,lTlore recently'
<br />prompted the California Supreme Court to dc;c1are that
<br />stat~'s school-aid plan unconstitutional: the inequitable dis-
<br />tribution of the property tax ,base an~ the resulting impact.
<br />on resources available to schopl, districts. It is possible that
<br />an expanded version of base-sharing-f~r' example, sllar-' .
<br />ing aU commercial-industrial valuation,. not simply a por-
<br />tion of future growth-could be part of a constitutionaily .,
<br />acceptable school-aid formula.
<br />, In some respects the fact that a state iegislature has the
<br />.courage to pass such legislation is even more significant
<br />than the substance of the law itself, particularly ;1t:a time
<br />\vhen'cynicism about the desirability of looking to the state
<br />'.' l~gislature for help is widespread. i , .~ '..,
<br />. . . . J
<br />~ -:: - - , '
<br />
<br />
<br />)
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />b
<br />I, :.' ~:1'
<br />.$ ..
<br />l.\\ f
<br />-,,\J .~
<br />.', '~!]
<br />
<br />>. 'N
<br />. 'f . J
<br />....:1
<br />.,~j.""I'
<br />'1;~ i
<br />.."
<br />:q
<br />-'t:3:
<br />.r "
<br />
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />...
<br />
<br />".
<br />
<br />'1 \"
<br />
<br />..
<br />
|