I get back to Madison, and things go from bad to worse. Let's not jump to conclusions....
The Madison City Commission meets Monday night to consider a revamped special maintenance fee to generate additional money for street repairs. This is the same dollar-per-frontage-foot fee, authorized by the same statute, that the city passed in May, then illegally rescinded when citizens called for a public vote. The only change: the fee is capped at $100 per property parcel.
So if you own a skinny lot with just 50 feet facing the street, you would pay $50 a year to fix the streets. If you own a wider lot with 100 feet facing the street, you pay $100. If you own a corner lot with 150 feet facing the street, you pay $100.
And if you are, say, Dan Roemen, and you own a grocery store that takes up nearly an entire block and 1,000 feet of street frontage, you pay $100. If you are Pat Prostrollo and own a car lot that fronts some 1,600 feet, you pay $100.
Do you see where I'm going?
One of the citizen complaints about Madison's first swing at a special maintenance fee was that it unfairly laid the tax burden on too narrow a segment of citizens. However fair any property tax may be as a means for financing roads, this capped fee formula does nothing to address the concerns raised by opponents of the original fee. Low-income and fixed-income folks with smaller properties pay an even larger proportion of the capped fee than they would have paid of the original fee. The capped fee does nothing to capture a fair share from us out-of-towners who own no property in Madison but tear merrily up and down Main Street with our Volkswagens and bikes and what-not.
The only people whose lot this new proposal improves are folks with big lots. The cap adds regressivity to an already unfair tax, reducing the tax burden on our wealthiest landholders and reducing the new revenue available for road repairs to less than the amount that commissioners cut from last year's existing revenue collections.
From the broadest Tea Party perspective, the capped fee is good because it doesn't transfer as much money from the free market to the government. But it's still a tax increase, and it places a greater portion of the burden on the little guy. And local Tea drinkers can't like that.
Isn't it usually the business owners that whine and complain about having to pay too much for their land and end up getting their way?
We must remember that the Tea Party is an illusion. In reality it's a vehicle for the rich to dupe everyone else into making life better for the rich.
Not swinging at you Nick, but I believe in what the TP represented initially and I feel an increase in Road Tax as some call fuel tax is appropriate so how does that twist your illusion.
Why not have the tourists, trucking and sales that travel our highways share our local burdens? It isn't just the TP that is against my thoughts but the whole dang bunch of you because you may have to pay a little more. Illusion my butt, we all have them and they all stink.
The adherents of the so called Tea Party, plus all the rest of the Republican Party have signed Grover Norquist's no new tax pledge. It hamstrings government and sets our infrastructure up for deterioration. I would support increased fuel tax, especially if the increase went to local government to fix local roads.
I think some of the opponents of the original special maintenance fee recognize the need for road repairs and are willing to discuss finding new revenue to do it. They would be happy to discuss options like what Les suggests to access the wealth of more users of Madison's roads.
And remember, Les, I have no property in city limits, so I'm freeloading on those roads! I'd be happy to see Madison impose a gas tax, if the munis had such authority (which a commenter on a oprevious thread says they don't, alas!).
The local governments don't have the authority to levy a gas tax, the best locals can do is hope for a more equitable share of the existing funds. But the state guards those funds jealously and the cost of local roads is largely paid for by the local property owners.
Nick, would chaos ensue if the Legislature authorized municipalities to levy an extra-penny fuel tax to fund local street repairs?
CAH it would never work for a community to do so. Guess how many cartons of ciggys are sold in SF to MN residents?
Charlie, the municipal gross receipts tax (the bed, board, and booze tax) works, doesn't it? Does everyone leave Mobridge to eat out in Eureka just because Mobridge has a 1% entertainment tax and Eureka doesn't?
I wouldn't mind a little of the Road Tax to go local for the thousands of pheasant hunters that drive the gravel off our township roads, but the local I'm speaking of Nick would be the state roads that suffer little if any Federal Support.
Cities benefit on transiting traffic through sales tax Cory, townships do not. We in rural pay our own road costs as city residents should and our roads are funded off property tax from within.
Corey the fuel tax is a totally different animal then the B&B Tourism tax. Locals pay usually only on the occasion of eating out while travelers pay the lions share when visiting. Although a penny on a gallon is a lot less then a 1% tax the reality is the per gallon tax instead of a percentage is what got us into trouble in the first place with proper highway funding. And I don't care what anybody says WE need good roads to keep our economy running strong. What needs to be done and very soon in the legislative process is a switch from per gallon to % of dollars purchased similar to the sales tax. Our States highways are getting further behind in scheduled maintenance every year.
If the city of Madison is going to assess a special tax on its residents, it should consider adding a service along with it.
In the Winter, every time it snows, the city plows are out in force clearing the snow off the streets. Unfortunately a lot of that snow blocks driveways and sidewalks. If you live in the wrong spot, you can have the fun of clearing the windrow of snow several times.
I have spent a fair amount of time shoveling the end of a relative's driveway only to have to come back a few hours later and do it all over again. Now you can't blame the city employees for doing their job, but repeatedly shoveling that pile of snow has the potential to really piss a person off.
My suggestion is for the city to use skidsteers to take care of the driveways. Yes it would cost the city money and yes they might have to hire seasonal part time help, but doing this one service would be a godsend to its residents.
Charlie, I understand it's a different animal in who pays... that adds to the fairness of the fuel tax for road repairs over property tax. But legislatively, is there any reason Pierre couldn't authorize cities to impose their own gas taxes, or even extend an extra-penny gross receipts tax to fuel sales?
Where is the contribution by the home owners with that scenario Cory. It is their neighborhoods and their streets not driven by all those transiting your city.
Michael, we need to have snowgates returned to the routes, simple, elegant, and efficient.
Corey, please educate me. Is the commission talking about repairing city maintained streets that received no state funding from the gas tax?
I have had people on this subject at other times blame trucks and large vehicles for the damage done to roads.
My recollection is that Highway 34, the bypass along with other roads in Madison were not just simply Madison's responsibility, money came from the state to help with those roads.
I agree with other posters that hunters and other city people use our rural roads and tear them up especially dirt roads that whenever is rains it seems that someone always want to " four wheel" on them and tears the he** out of them.
I can guarantee you it is not the rural people that do this. Then I have to try and use these roads to get to my fields when it dries up. Property taxes pay for ALL of that maintainence less the little bit townships get from hunting licenses.
It seem you want to tax everyone else to help Madison with their streets but where is the help for the counties and townships?
Holy cow, Gary, one problem at a time!
I sympathize completely with you on hunters and other outsiders tearing the heck out of the rural roads. (But I'll note that the kids tearing up and down our lake access roads are pretty much all local.) Hopefully our gas tax captures their wealth and gets their share of the cost. If the counties and townships need more assistance from the state to meet their needs, then by all means, let's have that conversation.
What you say about state highway repairs sounds right. I could use some education, too: how far into our side streets does state funding extend? One can only hope the Madison city commission is thinking of using the special maintenance fee to pave the side streets that are still gravel.
Changed from $2 a foot with cap to $1 a foot with cap and adjoining lots of same ownership enjoy cap. Still regressive but visibly less offensive.
Hang on, John: was there a point at which the commission was talking about a $2/foot fee? I thought it was $2/ft all along.
I appreciate Richard's point (in a separate post) that a base exemption could lead to platting shenanigans. But which do you think is less offensive, John, the cap or my proposed base exemption?
Richard has a good point on the platting shenanigans although I'm not sure it's worth the legal costs to set up such a tax avoidance scheme. He makes a good point though, avoid all such problems by charging a flat rate per foot, no exemptions and no caps.
An increase in the state gas tax and a formula to distribute that increase to local governments is the cleanest way to address local road problems. The gas tax hasn't kept up with the cost of maintaining roads. We still have to run the county or township blade down those roads that are experiencing greatly increased traffic because of changes in agriculture in SD. More grain and less livestock means more road traffic while a quadrupling of diesel prices means it costs the county or township a lot more to run that blade and may cause them to cut back on passes at the exact time when they need to make more passes. Meanwhile the state does nothing because of a no new taxes pledge.
Charlie Hoffman's idea for a sales tax on gas would help the tax keep up with inflation. I don't know if any state does this or if there are any other issues I haven't thought of that would preclude that kind of radical change to existing tax structures.
Notice how I just cleverly linked Charlie Hoffman to radical tax changes. Have at it Charlie and Cory.
I've been pushing for a gas tax increase for close to 5 years Nick, Charlie has been one of a very few who doesn't look at me like I'm stoned. Townships deserve some help, but I don't agree that we as landowners who are primarily the served from those roads shouldn't carry the main burden. There is a small amount of commercial traffic plus the hunters that should find a common interest in contributing. So yes a very small % of a fuel tax distribution back to the locals.
.
We have organized townships and unorganized townships in our county. The organized mill to pay their road costs and I believe we pay a higher cost for road maintenance than our counterparts who are unorganized and have the county do all their work. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me there are no politics involved in how the county is able or willing to dig deeper into their property taxes to cover that expense comparable to those of us who mill at a high enough rate to maintain great roads.
.
I also don't feel like paying for your graveled highway on every section line in eastern SD Nick.
I'm not sure where you live Les but in my part of eastern SD unimproved section lines greatly outnumber graveled highways. Here in Hyde County most townships are unincorporated and the few that aren't have crappy roads because the tightwads who live in those counties are unwilling to pay for improved roads. The unincorporated pay higher taxes to have the county maintain, which is OK because the county does a better job than the townships that try to maintain their own roads. I suspect most counties are already taxing at the max allowable rate. The property tax caps imposed by the state have really hamstrung local governments in the maintenance of local infrastructure. I for one would be willing to pay more property tax for better roads, it's too bad the state doesn't let me.
Im no expert on prop taxes Nick, but our township has always been bragged up by the county highway super for milling enough to have the best township roads in the county so I'm assuming your township could get more out of you if they/you wished for better roads.
BTW Nick, I fly over eastern SD regularly and it looks like a section line super highway compared to our western SD ranch country. It could be your unimproved sections lines beat out our roads? ;-)
Who expects the city to operate within its budget when the state and country cannot? They are just doing what everyone else is doing. People, Businesses, Organizations are getting their earmarks and hand outs. Someone has to pay it!
I will say this though, I was talking to a Madisonite and he/she thought this new tax was paying for brand new roads, not to simply repair or put down a new layer of asphalt. Darn uneducated people. If that was the case at the age of 25 I wont see more than a handful of city blocks done by the time I die if we relied on this fee.
Les, I live in an unorganized township but have land in a nearby organized township too. In the unorganized township the township roads are maintained by the county and are in much better shape than in the organized township, but the road taxes are also higher in the unorganized township. I would be willing to pay more in the organized township if they would blade the washboards out of their roads. But, since I don't live there I don't have a voice in decisions in that township, it will be ruled by the old fuddy duddies who live there and brag that their taxes are the lowest in the county. I suppose I and all the other non-resident land owners who own the vast majority of property there should thank them.
Trails down section lines are much more common in the East River country and even more so the closer you get to Minnesota or Iowa. In my area probably less than half have a two track trail going down them, and some are pretty decent trails, I've hauled gravel and oversize rock to fill in potholes and built grades through low spots, the bigger trucks and machinery we use require it in some places.
In the west there are county roads paid for by all(very good roads) and township organized(good roads) and unorganized maintained by the county when they have time(poorer by far than the organized township roads).
.
The old saw I used to hear was "the county roads slid past some mighty important folks and we all pay their dues".
.
it's important to note that the forest service farms out snow removal and maintenance to counties on roads that serve loggers and school districts.