By: northfieldseniors123 on 9/12/09
Spared from city tax bump? This article states "The owner of a $230,000 home would pay $997.17 under the proposed rate, 79 cents more than he paid on the same house when it was worth $250,000." Sounds like an almost 9% tax increase if residents now have to pay same amount of taxes for a home assessed at $230K as what residents did a year ago for a $250K home. Please... At least report this honestly versus telling us how the city is sparing home owners!

By: dapa2 on 9/12/09
Northfield Senior is exactly right? Witht he falling house values the taxes should go down but the city conveniently manipulates the tax rates and only claims a minor increase..... sounds like good headlines but it really is a much larger tax increase because it is the total tax from the new value not the old value. This is the same funny math that politicians use all over the place.

And lets remember that businesses do not really pay taxes now do they. They either pass those on to consumers in the form of higher costs of goods or services or they can not afford the increase and go out of business.

Wake up Northfield to this magic game of charades!!!!!!!!!!!1

By: Peter on 9/12/09
How can anyone justify any amount of increase to property taxes. Especially in light of falling home prices.
Everybody has to tighten their belt....except of course you work for the government.

By: dapa2 on 9/12/09
Peter you are right! But when they manipulate your tax rates and your value goes down and you still pay the same the city has increased your taxes. They certainly are not being truthful with taxpayers and homeowners!

By: 20-20nfld on 9/14/09
What planet do you people live on? The cost of operating society hasn't changed. Police, fire, roads, schools, libraries, parks, sewer service, clean water... do you use these services? If so, accept that they must be paid for, and quit whining. If you don't use or like the services our taxes buy and want to pay less, then move to Mississippi and see what life is like without them.

By: Uberstadt on 9/14/09
If I paid $3,000 in taxes on my home last year (a third of which is to the city - $1,000) and the county determined that my assessed home value has gone down 10% and I pay the same $3,000 in taxes this year as last year, my taxes have not gone up. I still paid $3,000. I would be happy if I paid that same amount much every year for the next ten years.

Did I not see that the city has cut its budget about a $1,000,000 since the state pulled the plug on state aid tax relief? If we want real change, the formula for determining the tax rate has got to change. Right now, the way it is set up, is taxes come from either residential or commercial users. I applaud the city for making the budget cuts they did while also weaning the city off of the unreliable state aid money. It will be good for everyone when the budget finances are locally controlled.

If you do not agree that your city taxes pay for the services you expect then tell it to the city council. Otherwise, go after the other two-thirds of your tax bill, the school district and the county and ask yourself if you are getting your money’s worth over the course of the year.

By: dapa2 on 9/14/09
20-20nfld make the assumptions that everything that local governments pay for are necessary or essential. That is surely a foolish thing to say. How about designing a budget that actual has government label and taxpayers verify what are essential and what is not essential. Many of them we pay for not just in property taxes but other fees and taxes as well.

People have a right to complain or stand up to government whether you like it or not. It is not our duty just to cower and oblige as some would like you to think.

Now lets look at whats wrong with what is wrong with what Uberstadt stated: "If I paid $3,000 in taxes on my home last year (a third of which is to the city - $1,000) and the county determined that my assessed home value has gone down 10% and I pay the same $3,000 in taxes this year as last year, my taxes have not gone up." That is simply not true since the taxes you were paid were based on the value of what it was before you decrease. The decrease sin value hould have had a corresponding decrease in taxes.

Assume foe simplistic sake the following: Your house last year is worth 100,000 and you pay 10% rate = $10,000. You house this year is now worth 50,000 and if tax rate is still 10% you pay $5,000 not $10,000. If you still paid $10,000 your taxes have gone up substantially. If you still pay $1000 to the city and your home value has went down significantly the only way to still be at that $1000 is for the tax rate on your property to increase.

By: EditorJaci on 9/14/09
northfieldseniors123, et al: While I don't believe our article is incorrect technically, I agree with you that it should have factored in that as real estate loses value, unless the levy declines at the same pace, property taxes increase — sometimes by quite a bit. I think that's a part of this story that probably could've been explored in a little greater depth. Thanks for pointing it out.

By: Uberstadt on 9/14/09
dapa2 - If my taxes do not go up this year because of the proposed city budget, then my taxes have not gone up. What you are arguing is a problem with the state tax formula that relies on property value to determine the tax rate. Demonstrate to me how I would be paying more in taxes if the tax bill I am writing each year stays the same. If a decrease in property value benefits me by reducing the taxes, just how much would it save? That would have been good to include in the article. If the city could keep the taxes I pay the same for future years, I am happy.

I can see a few city services we could do without, but unless less people are employed by the city, the actual budget will not decrease. Start by telling your city council what you are willing to live without and make it clear to them.

I am not willing to live without a police department, fire department, the library, plowed streets, working utilities, street and sidewalk repair, a few neighborhood parks, and someone to inspect building construction. What else is there that the city spends money on? Not much when you look at the budget.

By: northfieldseniors123 on 9/14/09
MEJaci -- thanks for your response; it is much appreciated.

I realize the city still needs money; although they could be like an average family and simply try and spend less. That said, I suspect that when the home's value rises again to say $250,000 from $230,000 that the city will NOT lower their rates as quickly as they chose to raise the rates this time. Thus, it will likely be a permanent tax increase that everyone is stuck with. It would be nice to make all Northfielders aware that the city 'snuck' in a PERMANENT tax increase on everyone's properties and that we will likely always have this new higher rate.

By: dapa2 on 9/14/09
It amazes me that you blame the state for the property valuation and taxation but that is really irrelevant is it not unless you are advocating for some flat tax not based on market valuation.

I think I made my case about the tax increase. If you are still paying the same tax and your property is worth much less you indeed HAD to have a property tax increase usually in the rate or levy to account for the same amount of taxes.

Do we really need to get into the complex scheme of tax rates, effective tax rates, tax rates vs tax capacity and the affect on taxes when cities can not control spending and the like?

We all know that the class rate remained unchanged. We can also assume that the property classification remained the same. The classification system remained unchanged and we know the values went down. So for the property to still hold the same taxes paid the levy increased or the tax rate changed or both. Both of which equates to a property tax increase or you would have seen a decrease in taxes.

Simply put, I don not understadn the mentality that the city budget should look virtually the same as it has for the last 5+ years or whatever while we endure an economic recession (depression). The rate should be decreased even as housing prices drop to offset the loss of household revenue. In conclusion, a tax rate hike or a levy increase is not a need, it is a want.

I have outlined areas I thought were questionable in the budget before. As I have also stressed before we need to address those and put them in need and want categories which would make budgeting decisions much easier. That being said we also should have zero based budgets or a variation of it so every item, in every budget has to justify spending not just given a pass in budget creation and approval process.

By: Uberstadt on 9/15/09
I applaud Governor Pawlenty for standing firm against his DFL critics and pulling the plug on State Aid to cities. There is no reason any city cannot create a budget that allows them to remain free of state control and influence. The city council in Northfield should be allowed to significantly cut its budget, as it has the past two years, while also allowing a local property tax increase to make up for some of the short-fall. This tax increase is the short term answer to the budget. Long term, any increase in the tax rate should be at or less the rate of inflation over the long term. As a resident of Northfield, I could do with a lot less service and probably not have my life affected a great deal. I can’t speak for my neighbors.

While it is easy to be critical of our little town’s leaders, the pressure to keep raising taxes to keep up with the cost of salaries and operations expenses is real. The bottom line is to find ways to do more with a smaller number of employees. About 75% of most local government costs come from the employee salaries and benefits. You could cut half of the number of employees in city government and your tax rate will still not equal what it did 15 years ago. A meaningful argument about your tax rates really begins and ends with your local government operating expenses, period.