City government is guilty of the same kind of overspending that goes on at the state and federal levels of government. And it is nearly impossible to get a change without some serious amount of pain inflicted upon the taxpayers. Glad I don’t live there, but sad that I don’t have a desire to even visit simply because of the cost and the implied safety concerns.
Institutions of purely public charity, non-profits, educational institutions, places of worship, hospitals and care giver facilities, libraries, public buildings should all pay SOME property taxes…period!
Brandt is reasonable and level-headed even if I don't agree with all of his proposals (a wealth tax won't work for many reasons). I do agree with him that we need to lower the levy overall. He also does his homework and knows his facts.
I am left wondering just what it takes to exert enough pressure on the Mpls government leadership to cause them to reduce spending. These increases are unaffordable and unfair, and I am unconvinced Frey and the council are willing to made hard decisions. Writing wrathful emails to Frey and the council has little impact…..can anything else be done? If not, this all continues until next time…when they will need even more to hang on to everything just as it is.
Any meaningful income tax on high earners is completely self defeating. The exit costs are low and as it is we are getting a lot from high earners in property taxes. Make it clear that we only see them as a revenue source for foolish spending and plenty will get the message.
Yes. A healthy city needs some high earners and high property tax payers in the mix to keep the city well funded and vibrant. However, there seems to be a growing contingent that would actually prefer these folks leave the city.
This is jaw dropping. Last year the hike was 8.3%. An 11% hike is unjustified. The city spends how many $$$$$$$ on bollards that no one wants, changed road patterns with concrete medians that no longer allow for firetrucks or emergency vehicles, have a reduced police force, and yet they continue with special interest funding. My mortgage payment which went up $300 @ month between taxes and insurance will soon become unaffordable. As it is, many people in the city couldn't afford to buy their own homes at current market rate. Didn't the city add over 5000 new rental units that are paying taxes? The city has to curb unnecessary spending. We all talk about 'affordability,' but hand outs, and special interests are costing homeowners, not corporate titans. When do tax payer home owners get to see, much less vote on city spending?
I can't find any info (short of watching the meeting video) on what the BET decided last night. I'm still baffled about what value the BET provides to Minneapolis government.
The interview was released on Tuesday, the meeting was on Wednesday. Unfortunately, the Star Tribune didn’t cover it, but from social media I learned that they split 3-3. That means if they will continue negotiations until the September 30 deadline.
Thanks for the update. I hope to watch today. If we are lucky, they will remain deadlocked through 9/30, and the 2027 levy will be the same as 2026 (0% increase).
I think the BET is important: it's a check on the maximum tax levy, and with 2 additional independent members, it provides a venue for the "regular resident" of Minneapolis to be represented. It's also the only way for the Park Board to have a public debate about what it needs every year. Without the BET, the Park Board's budget would be at the whim of the mayor and city council and the Park Board would have no formal say or vote in its budget requests (in the past, when we had a Library Board, it was also included in the BET votes).
As for what happened at the meeting:
-At the start, 4 members voted in favor of the Park Board president Olsen's levy amendment request (co-sponsored by Steve Brandt) for 5.86%: Olsen, Brandt, Chughtai, Payne. The mayor and BET vice chair Eric Harris Bernstein voted against. This motion carried 4 to 2. Bernstein is worried about overall impacts to the city's general fund, and also wants commitments to reduce police spending, though he'd previously stated wanting max support for the parks.
-BET president Brandt then motioned to reduce the overall city tax levy to 9.5%. This was voted down 1 to 5, with only Brandt in favor. He is concerned about high taxes, but does want to support the parks.
-The BET voted on an amended overall levy request, which was the main purpose of the meeting (5.86% for the park board and 11.8% overall for the city, instead of the overall 11.3% the mayor wanted). This motion deadlocked 3-3, with the mayor, BET vice chair Bernstein, and BET chair Brandt voting against it. Because it deadlocked, the prior vote to increase the Park Board levy by 5.86% was wiped out. The mayor doesn't want an increase to the parks. Bernstein is worried about the overall levy. Brandt wants a lower overall levy, but an increase to the parks.
-The Mayor then offered a new levy option: 4% increase for the Park Board (which equates to a $1.7 million cut to the parks), which would lead to an overall city levy of 11.5%. Payne said he didn't think it was appropriate to force cuts on the Park Board via the BET given how much work it had done already. Olsen said the size of the cut was massive to the parks. This motion failed 2-4, with the mayor and surprisingly council member Chughtai voting in favor of it (unclear why Chughtai, who previously expressed wanting max support to the parks, immediately switched sides and voted to cut the parks).
-Without any further motions available, the BET decided to adjourn and reconvene on 9/29 at 4pm.
Terry, Thanks for doing this interview and writing this piece. For me, the key sentence is
"He believes it is time to separate the city’s 'nice-to-haves' from its 'must-haves.'"
In fact, it should never be "not time" to do that! But I'm glad Steve has gotten there!
I hope that just by framing the conversation that way, at least some folks will be prompted to at least begin to think in those terms. When I attend DFL events like caucus, conventions, etc., I am often struck by how quickly some thing we do not even YET have becomes a "must-have" in the eyes of dedicated activists, and how many of the obvious "must-haves" become "nice-to-haves" or even "don't-wanna-haves" (...policing that meets Charter requirements? ...adequate parking for small businesses to succeed?) in the minds of many. Sometimes I think just getting folks to think about the CONSEQUENCES of policies with a mind-set of must-have vs. nice-to-have can be helpful. After all, almost all of us do this instinctively when we're thinking about spending our OWN money!
Mara, Thanks so MUCH for this! It's a little weird that I have to resort to saving Terry's topical items, and coming back to them after events happen, hoping someone will "cover" the event in lieu of our actual "legacy news media" and put the coverage in the Comments, but, dang! you did it well!
City government is guilty of the same kind of overspending that goes on at the state and federal levels of government. And it is nearly impossible to get a change without some serious amount of pain inflicted upon the taxpayers. Glad I don’t live there, but sad that I don’t have a desire to even visit simply because of the cost and the implied safety concerns.
Institutions of purely public charity, non-profits, educational institutions, places of worship, hospitals and care giver facilities, libraries, public buildings should all pay SOME property taxes…period!
Brandt is reasonable and level-headed even if I don't agree with all of his proposals (a wealth tax won't work for many reasons). I do agree with him that we need to lower the levy overall. He also does his homework and knows his facts.
I am left wondering just what it takes to exert enough pressure on the Mpls government leadership to cause them to reduce spending. These increases are unaffordable and unfair, and I am unconvinced Frey and the council are willing to made hard decisions. Writing wrathful emails to Frey and the council has little impact…..can anything else be done? If not, this all continues until next time…when they will need even more to hang on to everything just as it is.
Any meaningful income tax on high earners is completely self defeating. The exit costs are low and as it is we are getting a lot from high earners in property taxes. Make it clear that we only see them as a revenue source for foolish spending and plenty will get the message.
Yes. A healthy city needs some high earners and high property tax payers in the mix to keep the city well funded and vibrant. However, there seems to be a growing contingent that would actually prefer these folks leave the city.
This is jaw dropping. Last year the hike was 8.3%. An 11% hike is unjustified. The city spends how many $$$$$$$ on bollards that no one wants, changed road patterns with concrete medians that no longer allow for firetrucks or emergency vehicles, have a reduced police force, and yet they continue with special interest funding. My mortgage payment which went up $300 @ month between taxes and insurance will soon become unaffordable. As it is, many people in the city couldn't afford to buy their own homes at current market rate. Didn't the city add over 5000 new rental units that are paying taxes? The city has to curb unnecessary spending. We all talk about 'affordability,' but hand outs, and special interests are costing homeowners, not corporate titans. When do tax payer home owners get to see, much less vote on city spending?
The Mn Constitution gets in the way of an income tax. The State got an amendment for income taxes and would oppose extension.
I can't find any info (short of watching the meeting video) on what the BET decided last night. I'm still baffled about what value the BET provides to Minneapolis government.
The interview was released on Tuesday, the meeting was on Wednesday. Unfortunately, the Star Tribune didn’t cover it, but from social media I learned that they split 3-3. That means if they will continue negotiations until the September 30 deadline.
Thanks for the update. I hope to watch today. If we are lucky, they will remain deadlocked through 9/30, and the 2027 levy will be the same as 2026 (0% increase).
Post from Eric Harris Bernstein https://www.instagram.com/p/DdrD-p6kV_I/?stkn=Y3o3bjVvMG1yaTMx
I think the BET is important: it's a check on the maximum tax levy, and with 2 additional independent members, it provides a venue for the "regular resident" of Minneapolis to be represented. It's also the only way for the Park Board to have a public debate about what it needs every year. Without the BET, the Park Board's budget would be at the whim of the mayor and city council and the Park Board would have no formal say or vote in its budget requests (in the past, when we had a Library Board, it was also included in the BET votes).
As for what happened at the meeting:
-At the start, 4 members voted in favor of the Park Board president Olsen's levy amendment request (co-sponsored by Steve Brandt) for 5.86%: Olsen, Brandt, Chughtai, Payne. The mayor and BET vice chair Eric Harris Bernstein voted against. This motion carried 4 to 2. Bernstein is worried about overall impacts to the city's general fund, and also wants commitments to reduce police spending, though he'd previously stated wanting max support for the parks.
-BET president Brandt then motioned to reduce the overall city tax levy to 9.5%. This was voted down 1 to 5, with only Brandt in favor. He is concerned about high taxes, but does want to support the parks.
-The BET voted on an amended overall levy request, which was the main purpose of the meeting (5.86% for the park board and 11.8% overall for the city, instead of the overall 11.3% the mayor wanted). This motion deadlocked 3-3, with the mayor, BET vice chair Bernstein, and BET chair Brandt voting against it. Because it deadlocked, the prior vote to increase the Park Board levy by 5.86% was wiped out. The mayor doesn't want an increase to the parks. Bernstein is worried about the overall levy. Brandt wants a lower overall levy, but an increase to the parks.
-The Mayor then offered a new levy option: 4% increase for the Park Board (which equates to a $1.7 million cut to the parks), which would lead to an overall city levy of 11.5%. Payne said he didn't think it was appropriate to force cuts on the Park Board via the BET given how much work it had done already. Olsen said the size of the cut was massive to the parks. This motion failed 2-4, with the mayor and surprisingly council member Chughtai voting in favor of it (unclear why Chughtai, who previously expressed wanting max support to the parks, immediately switched sides and voted to cut the parks).
-Without any further motions available, the BET decided to adjourn and reconvene on 9/29 at 4pm.
Mara, great commentary on what occurred at the BET meeting. Thank you for documenting.
Terry, Thanks for doing this interview and writing this piece. For me, the key sentence is
"He believes it is time to separate the city’s 'nice-to-haves' from its 'must-haves.'"
In fact, it should never be "not time" to do that! But I'm glad Steve has gotten there!
I hope that just by framing the conversation that way, at least some folks will be prompted to at least begin to think in those terms. When I attend DFL events like caucus, conventions, etc., I am often struck by how quickly some thing we do not even YET have becomes a "must-have" in the eyes of dedicated activists, and how many of the obvious "must-haves" become "nice-to-haves" or even "don't-wanna-haves" (...policing that meets Charter requirements? ...adequate parking for small businesses to succeed?) in the minds of many. Sometimes I think just getting folks to think about the CONSEQUENCES of policies with a mind-set of must-have vs. nice-to-have can be helpful. After all, almost all of us do this instinctively when we're thinking about spending our OWN money!
Mara, Thanks so MUCH for this! It's a little weird that I have to resort to saving Terry's topical items, and coming back to them after events happen, hoping someone will "cover" the event in lieu of our actual "legacy news media" and put the coverage in the Comments, but, dang! you did it well!
Thanks for the summary. I have been skeptical of the value of BET. This was a good defense of its value.