[MissoulaGov] Fringe taxpayers

[Bob Jaffe]

Hi,

I'll try to address the various points you raise.

Businesses pay a larger share of property tax/square foot than
residential uses because they have a higher impact on infrastructure.
The customers who arrive at your business most likely get there by
driving on our streets. Your commercial property is taxed appropriately
for what it is. It is not a proxy for taxing you personally for your
home outside the city. It is true that your business does not get to
vote in our elections. This is one of the last legal differences still
maintained between corporate and natural persons. Corporations don't get
to vote. I think that is appropriate.

Missoula is a retail hub for the surrounding region. One of the
objections to the local option sales tax has been that folks from the
outlying areas already spend all their money here, why should they also
have to pay taxes? The basic answer is that there is a disconnect
between retail income and government income.  Of course that income is
great for Missoula as a community but the rate at which it translates to
income for the municipality does not cover the cost of providing
services.  

What are those services? The lion's share of the budget goes to streets,
police, and fire. Police and fire does not necessarily mean providing
services to your home either. A very small percentage of fire department
work involves putting out house fires. Folks have a rightful expectation
of top quality emergency response if they are in an automobile accident,
have a health emergency, or an incident requiring law enforcement.
These incidents requiring emergency response can happen anywhere at any
time. Providing these services along with having roads to drive on and
parks to play in are relatively expensive. The closer you are to the
city limits the more likely you are to take advantage of these services.

I would agree that there are inherent inefficiencies to the patchwork of
annexations happening in your area. It would be much more efficient to
annex the entire area at once. It will be interesting to see how the
various political realities play out on this issue over the next several
years.

 

Bob

 

 

 

   

 

From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of ERIN TURNER JON
TURNER
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 10:09 AM
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: [MissoulaGov] Fringe taxpayers

 

I understand your concern for fringe residents using services in the
city and not paying taxes.  But one should be careful of those
accusations, because many of us own commercial property in the city and
pay substantial taxes for that property.  And please keep in mind these
taxes are without representation...we are not allowed to vote in the
city even though we own property there. Our understanding from OPG is
that the commercial tax base is what makes the city run.  So, please
don't accuse of us of taking advantage of services and not paying for
them.  Many of us, pay more than our fair share of your city taxes.
Plus, the city of Missoula is dependent on the fringe residents and
beyond for retail activity.  I would hate the notion that the city is
not welcoming to non-city residents and would decline their spending
dollars.  Since you brought it up, would you mind providing a list of
the services which we use and don't pay for?  It would helpful to know.
Finally, I think is unfair for city and county taxpayers for the City to
have uncontiguous annexed parcels well over a mile outside the city
limits which creates many new and unneccessary economic burdens for city
and county.  
 

> From: missoulagov-request at cmslists.com

> Subject: MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 39, Issue 5

> To: missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 12:00:05 -0600

> 

> Send MissoulaGov mailing list submissions to

> missoulagov at cmslists.com

> 

> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

> http://www.cmslists.com/mailman/listinfo/missoulagov

> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

> missoulagov-request at cmslists.com

> 

> You can reach the person managing the list at

> missoulagov-owner at cmslists.com

> 

> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific

> than "Re: Contents of MissoulaGov digest..."

> 

> 

> Today's Topics:

> 

> 1. committee update 5-6-09 (Bob Jaffe)

> 

> 

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

> 

> Message: 1

> Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 22:27:05 -0600

> From: "Bob Jaffe" <BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>

> Subject: [MissoulaGov] committee update 5-6-09

> To: <missoulagov at cmslists.com>

> Message-ID:

>

<689D48B33023A5469751A46A44C5A7A30D425B63 at mailserver.ci.missoula.mt.us>

> 

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

> 

> Greetings,

> 

> This morning in Conservation we learned about an agreement the parks

> department had put together with developer Kevin Mitty regarding the

> park in the 44 ranch subdivision. Kevin wants to go ahead and build

the

> improvements in the park and get reimbursed later as the city collects

> impact fees. The estimated costs for the project are just over

> $1,000,000. In the end the city will only have to pay him back around

> $410,000. It's a great deal for the city. I imagine Kevin's motivation

> is that his development will be more sellable with a finished park

> instead of a weed field. 44 Ranch is a very vertical project in that

> Kevin Mitty developed the property, built all the houses, and now is

> doing the city park improvements. It's kind of like John Didell at

> Pleasantview except Kevin is working with us for parks instead of

suing

> us to avoid them.

> 

> 

> 

> In PAZ we had the dreaded Chickasaw subdivision return. This was the

> painful project out on seventh just past Tower. We had required a

three

> acre Agriculture set aside and a connecting road which required the

> whole thing to get redesigned. We approved it conditional on staff and

> the developer bringing something back to us that met all the various

> conditions we were after. They did this today and it was pretty

straight

> forward. There were still a few concerns including traffic calming for

> the someday connection to the north and how storm water was being

> handled with the shallow aquifer. The Community Food and Agriculture

> Coalition didn't like the shape of the resulting agriculture parcel so

> they requested we deny the project. I get this image of the terraced

> farms cut into steep hillsides when they say killing the project is

> better than farmland that isn't a perfect rectangle. We will finish

this

> one up next week.

> 

> 

> 

> In A&F we discussed the parking garage planned for Front and Pattee.

> There are still a lot of unknowns. It will be at least 300 spaces and

> some retail along front street. If there is enough money it will be

600

> spaces. The downtown plan calls for 600 spaces so there is some

concern

> of what the implications are to the rest of the analysis in the plan

if

> we only build it to half size. On the other hand I have some concerns

> over the idea of induced demand. We know that if we build a road

bigger

> more people will drive on it. I imagine if we make parking easier

> downtown more people will choose to drive there. That's fine if you

are

> talking about customers but not so good if you are talking about

> employees. I guess I would like to see us build the bigger structure

and

> then allocate as much as can be used for short term parking and charge

a

> lot for the leased spaces to encourage commuters to develop other

> habits.

> 

> 

> 

> In public works we had some disagreement over approving the Mayor's

> choice to replace Tom Wilkins with Ginny Iverson on the parking

> commission board. The motion stalled on a tie and will be forwarded to

> the floor with no recommendation. 

> 

> We also agreed to accept a bunch of stimulus money for the north

Higgins

> street project, a project to build a whole bunch of handicap sidewalk

> ramps around town, and the sidewalk project connecting Spruce to

> Greenough. Some of us were expecting a fight from the more republican

> sorts over the evils of stimulus money but no one had any complaints

> today.

> 

> 

> 

> In COW we heard a report from the lobbyist we hired to work the

session

> for us in Helena. If you would like to see the written report it can

be

> found here:

> 

>

ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2009/2009-05-04/Referrals/Le

> gRptCOWRef.pdf

> 

> 

> 

> Thanks for your interest,

> 

> 

> 

> Bob Jaffe

> 

> Missoula City Council, Ward 3

> 

> bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us <mailto:bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us> 

> 

> 406-728-1052

> 

> 

> 

> -------------- next part --------------

> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

> URL:

http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090506/5e94b
5f5/attachment.html 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> _______________________________________________

> -------Please delete extra content when replying to messages--------

> Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula.

But posts to this list may be entered into the public record. 

> Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org 

> List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com. 

> 

> End of MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 39, Issue 5

> ******************************************


________________________________

Hotmail(r) has a new way to see what's up with your friends. Check it
out.
<http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/WhatsNew?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_T
utorial_WhatsNew1_052009> 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090511/a22a868e/attachment.htm>