Citizens Made the Difference
Yesterday, the Minnesota Department of Revenue released the Certified 2024 Property Tax Levies report. This report shows the final property tax levies for every county, city, town, and school district in the State. I was anxiously awaiting this report, because I had anticipated it would show just how significant the actions of Otsego residents were this past December. As I predicted, the results were historic.
Of the cities that had planned on increasing their levies, only 6 actually ended up reducing them from the prior year. By far, the biggest reduction was in Otsego at $2,159,666, or 19.37% from the preliminary levy; the final amount represents a reduction of 3.66% from the 2023 levy. The next largest reduction came from Isanti, which reduced it's levy by $202,442 from the prior year. Isanti had planned on an increase of 1.41% in their levy, and actually reduced it by 4.08%. This was made possible because the Council voted 3-2 to reduce their budget by not taking a surplus from the previous year. The Mayor of Isanti, Jimmy Gordon, noted that they had not taken a surplus in prior years, and still ended the year under budget.
In the end, a lot of cities lowered their levy from the preliminary amount without actually reducing their levy from the prior year. Of the 855 cities in Minnesota, 295 lowered their levy from their preliminary amount. Of those, the average amount (excluding Otsego) was lowered by 4.6%. The levies, on average, were reduced by approximately $91,000 from their initial amounts.
None of the other cities in Wright County reduced their levy from the prior year. Monticello, Buffalo, and St Michael all increased their property tax levy by more than 8.5% with the statewide average being an increase of 7.5%.
There will be no plaque to commemorate the event. There will be no dedication of a "Citizens Made the Difference Day." But it was historic, and it perfectly represented how local politics should work.
This week
City Council Meeting
The City Council met on Monday as part of its regular meeting. On the main agenda were two items: Costco and the 2024 Street Renewal Project. I voted "no" on the Costco project.
I know my vote may not be terribly popular - I started my comments by stating the obvious: most residents probably want a Costco. I personally would like to see a Costco in Otsego. And I took an oath that requires that I set aside my personal desires. An argument could certainly be made that since "a majority" want a Costco, that my vote should represent the wishes of that theoretical majority, even to the extent that I should ignore my oath. However, that is not what I was elected to do: my oath and my principles compel me to consider the facts and uphold the Constitution and other laws, regardless of the desires of the majority.
As I said during the Council meeting, I found it deficient that the material provided had only a brief mention about traffic, and neglected to go into any detail. Almost every resident that spoke at the Planning Commission meeting - and even many Commissioners - noted that traffic is a significant concern for this project. It seems unusual, in my opinion, that we have no traffic study or detail around traffic. It would typically be provided at this stage. Our zoning requirements authorize the Council to require a traffic study, or any other material that we see fit, in order to make a decision.
It wasn't initially clear if a traffic study was even completed, yet. The meeting material makes the following statement throughout the packet:
The developer has provided trip generation information regarding the planned uses of Lot 1, Block 1 based on other Costco locations, as well as estimates for development of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1. Discussions between Wright County staff, City staff, and the developer are that there is sufficient capacity planned with the improvements to 60th Street (CR 137) to accommodate the proposed development.
However, during the meeting the mention of Wright County not requiring a traffic study since they were using their own study seems to indicate that a traffic study is not available. Here's the issue with that: while the developer may have really good information from their own experience, it has not been made public - and I suspect they would consider their analysis to be proprietary.
However, now was the time to go through it, because it becomes more difficult to go through it later on. During the early stages of an application, the Council has more discretion and a greater ability to provide conditions. One of the slides in the presentation highlights a continuum of authority that a city council has in the various duties they perform. In a sense, a council acts as a legislative, executive, and a judicial body, depending on the issue before them and the authority specifically granted by the State.
When we get to the plan review stage, we have the least amount of discretion and authority. While our decisions always need to be based on the facts, we have less ability to require additional facts at that point in the process. My concern is that we may get to a decision point before we have properly exercised our authority to get the information needed to make an informed decision.
Next Week
Planning Commission Meeting
The Planning Commission will meet on Wednesday at 7pm at Prairie Center. While the Commission would normally meet on Monday, the Chambers will be in use for elections. On the main agenda for this meeting are the following items:
Klosterman Specialized Fence
Tamarack/Kurtti Preliminary Plat; Zoning Map
Les Schwab Minor Auto Repair
Coborn’s Amendment; Erbert & Gerberts Convenience Food