  |
|
| Watershed districts must be accountable for taxes |
|
|
| Wednesday, 12 November 2008 | |
|
Sen. Ray Vandeveer Guest Columnist The persistent and unaffordable property tax increases across the state have resulted in a generally positive response to our legislation requiring county board approval of watershed district property tax levies (SF3869 and HF 4243). Watershed districts are intended to manage the quantity and quality of water in a specific geographic area. The legislature decided the operation of a watershed district would be determined by a board whose members are appointed by the county commissioners of the county in which the watershed is located. Once appointed, watershed board members usually cannot be replaced until the term is up. In the metropolitan area, the watershed districts have their own levy authority meaning they can tax property within their boundaries. The problem for property taxpayers is that they have no one to hold directly accountable for spending and performance issues. In addition, those who they elect such as city council or county board members, cannot directly intervene on their behalf. This is clearly a form of taxation without representation, a tenant of freedom that can be traced as far back as the English Bill of Rights 1689, which forbade the imposition of taxes without the consent of the Parliament. Since the colonists had no representation in Parliament they came to believe the taxes violated their rights, a belief often cited as a major cause of the American revolution. “No taxation without representation” is an inherited right we should not be quick to surrender, even in a small way. The current lack of accountability is another serious concern. The non-partisan Legislative Auditor Program Evaluation Division released a study of local water management entities in January of 2007 and concluded (in part): “The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), which has primary responsibility for overseeing the local entities, has not (1) established standards for the performance of the local water management entities, (2) systematically monitored their performance, or (3) adequately held them accountable for their performance. This reflects BWSR’s limited authority but also its reluctance to fully use the authority it has (p. 43-46). The report continues: “For example, it has no standards specifying the amount of water quality improvement or flood risk reduction that should be achieved by local entities. In fact, it has no standards specifying that local entities should monitor water before and after projects are completed to determine whether the projects have made any difference at all. Consequently, BWSR cannot systematically assess the performance of local water management entities..” You can view the entire report at: http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/2007/watersheds.htm The legislation proposed by myself, Rep. Dettmer (and others) simply adds the requirement the county boards in which the watershed district is located approve the watershed’s property tax levy. This will provide accountability to the voters. Some have asserted that the current system avoids “politics” in water management. If avoiding politics means doing an end run around the taxpaying public, forcing the people to give up an important right, then it is wrong regardless of the good attempted. Most citizens who serve on these organizations are hard working caring people with the best of intentions. Nevertheless, these unelected managers routinely raise property taxes without having to answer to the people who pay those taxes. The purpose of this proposal is to ensure tax paying property owners their right to a say in when and how much they are taxed. We sometimes blame local elected officials for tax increases they have no say over. This common sense proposal would give them the authority, along with the responsibility, to control property tax increases. Sen. Ray Vandeveer, R-Forest Lake, serves District 52 in the Minnesota State Senate. Social Bookmarking ...       |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|