While the restoring some of the funds cut from LGA is welcomed and sorely
needed; it highlights the complications and consequences of funding
essential services, such as fire and police, from outside revenue sources.
LGA, after all, is a statewide program that levels the playing field for
cities whose expenses outstrip the cities property tax base and/or its
willingness to pay for the statewide average for public services. The 2003
LGA Program Reform outlined each of the six criteria that calculate a cities
fair share: number of pre-1940 housing stock, population decline in the last
10 years, traffic accidents per captia, average household size, metro vs.
non-metro status, and the adjusted tax capacity per capita. Last years LGA
contribution to the city was $84,273,424. In short, an 84 million dollar
budget shortfall.
The risk in becoming too comfortable in accepting (and perhaps creating a
perpetual "need") of these funds is that when the revenue source is reduced;
then services must be cut. Therefore the reduction in public safety
staffing was not made on a declining need for services (fewer fires and/or
lower crime rates) but a cut in funding. Crime and fires too, do not wait
for anyone, let alone funding. These would seem areas in which the local
government would concentrate its resources upon, the health, welfare, and
safety of its citizenry.
The above arrangement sets-up a curious corundum; if the need for public
services is determined by local citizens; and funding is (in part)
determined by statewide criteria, who then has the control to set the agenda
of the delivery of these public services. By accepting LGA, the city has
abdicated a portion of its ability to meet citizens needs and relies on a
subsidy to provide a level of average services that are de5termined by
state, not higher levels of quality and services that may be demanded by
citizens.
Another option is higher taxes. Granted the 2003 LGA Program reform place a
partial freeze on increase in 2003 and 2004 property taxes, but did not do
for 2005. Many have expressed the need for more police officers. A few
have offered to even pay more for these services. To borrow a page from Jim
Graham's May post "it is not for the few to contribute to this fund, but for
each and every resident in Minneapolis. The last I heard that was called
"TAXES". It is the OLIGATION of the elected politicians to tax us ALL to
the degree necessary provide adequate public safety for ALL of us".
Higher taxes would certainly equate to more public safety personnel. How
many are needed to provide a level of average services (as controlled by the
state's LGA formula)? How many are needed to provide adequate services as
defined by the city's obligation to its citizens? Or how many are need to
provide a superior level of quality and service that would be defined by a
community's vision?
It may be premature to wane the city from LGA, but over-reliance on LGA to
fund essential services has had the net effect of muddling toward the middle
of the quality and quantity of your public services.
Greg Reinhardt
Excelsior
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
