Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Contributed by: Anonymous
The Mark Harris editorial against the “Taxpayer Protection Act” - [Click for full editorial] - gives Winnebago County residents a good look at his ideologies and how he wants to run the county government. He argues that the Taxpayer Protection Act will cause:
“The revenue limits will be so tight that few local governments could afford to issue bonds at all. The impact of this provision is that no significant investment in infrastructure could occur without a referendum. It's unlikely that even desperately needed road, bridge, stormwater or other major projects would pass if the benefit isn't realized across the community”
In effect he is saying that the people of Winnebago County can’t make the decisions necessary to continue developing our entire community. We don’t have the ability to make the choices that are necessary to ensure that the infrastructure of the county remains intact. We need him and politicians like him to make these decisions for us, and we should just keep our wallets open so that he and his like can come get the funds that they need, because after all they know what best for us.
Later in his editorial he states that:
The inevitable decline in infrastructure would quickly make Wisconsin unattractive to businesses that might otherwise locate here. The slow continued degradation of roads and streets will prove frustrating to community residents.
This is a quote from the politician that ran a campaign on “honesty in government”. He is telling the truth in that States and Communities that have declining and failing infrastructures are unattractive to businesses, but he is not being honest with us on the issue of business locating here. One of the primary reasons that business choose not to locate in particular areas is taxes. Wisconsin already has the fourth highest tax rate in the nation, the “Taxpayer Protection Act” is designed to help slow the rate of growth of taxation in Wisconsin to make our state a more business friendly region. It is an attempt to turn the state a more tax friendly region that will not overburden its citizens and businesses with oppressive taxation. Mr. Harris’ argument is like that of a teenager telling his parents that he is “going to the Library” then goes to the Library and from there leaves to go other places that his parents would not approve. The teenage was being truthful about going to the library, but was not being honest as to where they were actually going.
It’s a shame that Winnebago County has a county executive that doesn’t believe that the residents of the county have the abilities to make decisions with their own money on how to best invest in our community. That he feels that the savings and wages of the residents of the county should remain a government slush fund that can be raided whenever the politicians deem it necessary, and that no forms of checks and balances should exist to protect the citizens against overzealous taxation. It is also a shame that we have a county executive the we not only have to listen very carefully to what he tells us, but we have to listen even more carefully to what he doesn’t tell us.
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 01:29 PM MST
The TPA is needed. While it may go too far, I'm beginning to believe this is the only way to curb government spending. Let's just call it "Tough Love".
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 02:54 PM MST
The only place something like this is needed is at the state level. These people need to rein in their own spending and leave the locals alone. They have already caused enough problems.
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 04:33 PM MST
It goes way too far and will only hurt us in the long run. What we've already seen is only the beginning if this thing passes.
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 05:48 PM MST
I agree with Mr. Harris, this bill will be the destruction of local communities and schools. The Fox Valley has always been frugal in its spending and that has been punished with revenue controls and levy limits that make it exceedinly more difficult to move forward.
Do I think that the taxpayers will vote no on referendums that fix the roads in another part of town, sadly I do.
Even the legislature is unsure of what the implications are, hence they put in a provision that allows a Fast Track out of the amendment process. That sure breeds confidence. This does not belong in our constitution.
There is NO information from the state that tells you exactly HOW this will affect Oshkosh. You think our roads are bad now, just wait. You don't think this will affect police and fire service, just wait and see, it will affect EVERY aspect of government services. This is a terrible idea, ask someone who lives in Colorado.
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Mark L. Harris on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 05:00 PM MST
The serious defect in TPA that I identified regarding the treatment of bonding (essentially counting it twice against the limits) has know been acknowledged by the Americans For Prosperity and several members of the legislature. They promise that it will be corrected and I received the legislative bureau's draft of a possible amendment today. Other serious defects remain. It is simply unrealistic to expect voters in Oshkosh to know if a road project in Menasha or Winneconne or Nepeuskun is necessary or for people in those areas to know what is needed in Oshkosh. By the way the county operates with less employees today than at any time in the last 10 years. The equalized tax rate was reduced last year and the budget was held to a 2.75% increase. It would have been only 1.5% but for a new state mandate regarding moving some nursing hore residents to group homes that was both required by the state and funded by the state. The 1.8 million provided by the state shows as both revenue and expense in our budget. I wonder if any of the prior posters have even read the current TPA proposal.
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 05:53 PM MST
Mr. Harris, don't you know you can't convince most of the people who post on this site by using FACTS. That is just dismissed, you need to use misinformation or mistatement of facts, that is much more accepted here. (That was sarcasm).
It really is too bad that the facts don't matter, we keep hearing how this or that level of government is "spending money like drunken sailors" but I just don't see the proof of that. Also, I think the posters on this site think that because they believe something "EVERYONE" thinks/believes what they do. Thankfully that is NOT true.
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 22 2006 @ 11:01 AM MST
Mr. Harris wrote:
"It is simply unrealistic to expect voters in Oshkosh to know if a road project in Menasha or Winneconne or Nepeuskun is necessary or for people in those areas to know what is needed in Oshkosh. "
Does this mean that you are agreeing with the point that you feel the people are not capable of making these decisions? That the people of Oshkosh (or any other area) are so petty and/or uninformed that they simply don't understand the need to develop other areas of the county? That only an informed Government official has the abilitiy to make these decisions, and that the residents of the county should stand there and trust the Government to have open access to their wallets? (Ask the residents of the City of Oshkosh about the cost of the Giant Sundial)
Another question: you seem to be making the argument that if the Taxpayer Protection Act goes through the roads of the county will deteriorate due to lack of funds. Doesn't the county budget include road repairs in it right now? Will all road repair stop if this bill is passed?
The argument you are giving against the Taxpayers Protection Act appears to be simply a scare tactic. The Taxpayer Protection Act does not block the raising of taxes beyond its limits it just requires voter approval to do so, and it seems to me that you lack the faith in the residents of Winnebago County to do what is in the best interest of the county.
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Mark L. Harris on Wednesday, March 22 2006 @ 05:17 PM MST
The following associated press article by J R Ross appeared in Monday's Post Crescent:
Analysis: Profits outpace tax bills
Study counters state's reputation as being unfriendly to businesses
By JR ROSS
The Associated Press
MADISON — Wisconsin companies saw their profits grow more than twice as fast as their state and local tax bills over a two-decade period, helping produce a business tax climate that compares favorably to other states, according to an Associated Press analysis.
The AP study estimates Wisconsin businesses paid more than $2.9 billion in state and local taxes in 1982, more than 85 percent of the profits they earned in Wisconsin.
By 2000, that tax bill increased to $7.5 billion, roughly 33 percent of profits, according to the AP review.
A separate analysis by a vice president of the Federal Reserve, who created the formula the AP used for its study, found Wisconsin ranked among the bottom one-third of states in 2000 when calculating state and local taxes paid as a percentage of business profits.
Harold Schaefer said Wisconsin is mistakenly perceived as a high-tax state for businesses. The chief executive officer of Schaefer Brush Manufacturing Co. Inc. in Waukesha said he has a harder time keeping up with his health-care costs and his fuel bill than paying his taxes.
Schaefer, who said his business has doubled in size since 1990, said he has a bigger problem with individual income taxes, which he believes are helping to create a dwindling talent pool that will make it hard to find quality workers by the next decade.
"I don't feel like we're held over the coals," Schaefer said of his tax bill.
The drop in taxes as a percentage of profits is not necessarily due to anything state or local officials have done.
There have been few significant changes to the state's tax codes affecting businesses over the time period the AP reviewed. Business groups, academics and tax experts said that suggests several factors at play: more aggressive use of tax shelters, more profitable companies and a relatively constant tax burden.
The analysis comes amid an ongoing debate among lawmakers on whether Wisconsin's business tax climate is competitive and if tax cuts are needed to attract and retain companies.
Mari Ann Larsen, vice president of Chem-Tech International in Random Lake, said Wisconsin's business taxes are high by any measure.
The company, which Larsen's husband owns, has grown from two customers in 1986 to some 600 now. Larsen said the company's profits have nothing to do with the taxes they pay in Wisconsin. Rather, they're due to the hard work of themselves and their employees.
"Taxes are what's killing us," Larsen said. "If we didn't have all these taxes, we'd be a very highly profitable company."
The AP based its analysis on a formula created by Robert Tannenwald, a vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank in Boston. Tannenwald devised the methodology as lawmakers in his home state of Massachusetts debated whether the business tax climate there was fair. He applied it nationwide for 2000 and found Wisconsin ranked among the bottom third of the states when comparing taxes to profits.
Tannenwald argues that estimating state and local taxes as a percentage of business profits is a good measure of a state's competitiveness because firms trying to maximize their profits are influenced by how taxes affect their bottom lines.
— The Associated Press
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 24 2006 @ 10:19 AM MST
So your saying that is someone works hard to make more money that they should be punished for this by being forced to pay higher taxes, right? Just because businesses are profitable that does not mean that they should be "CASH COWS" for tax happy government officials.
If a business is profitable what exactly happens to those profits (if they are not taxed away)? Does the business take the profits and bury them in a hole in the ground out back? No, businesses do one of two things with profits:
1. Reinvest them into their company. When they do this they are attempting to build their business even farther, possibly by purchasing more equipment or hiring more employees. Both hiring more employees and purchasing more cause economic growth in a community. Purcahsing new equipment helps other people in the comunity grow their business and possibly hire more employees. And when employees are hired they help the entire community because the new jobs help to add to the overall taxbase and thus causing a net gain in tax revenue for the community.
2. Pay out dividends to shareholders / owners. These dividends then become taxable income which once again helps the State Tax base. Also when these people get these dividends what do they do with the? (Hint: its not burying it in the back yard). People take these additional profits and they either invest them (either directly in or inderectly by putting them in the bank (savings)). Or they spend them, in either case it helps put the money back into the economy and helps the economy to grow. If they invest them now other companies will have a chance to expand and hire more employees. If they spend them it puts the money back directly into the local economy and the business that they spend their money with can then grow themselves.
Just because businesses are profitable does not mean that they should be punativly taxed. Government is set up to service the people, not the other way around. There are very few if any Government agencies that actually do any form or productivity in our country (produce products). When the Government starts seeing the businesses and citizens of its communities as simple revenue sources then there is definately something wrong. In this case it appears that you are attempting to argue that because business have grown their profit margins that the Government is suddenly entitled to a greater cut of the businesses profits.
Here is a simple question for you, if these business have grown their profit margins that would mean that the taxes that they pay in should also have grown as well, right?
As a matter of fact in the article you posted it states that the business 1n 1982 paid in 2.9 billion in taxes and in 2000 they paid in 7.5 billion. That is an increase in Tax Reveunues of 38.67% over those 18 years. Using an inflation calculator that can be found at: [inflation calculator]
We found that 2.9 billion in 1982 would have been equivelent to 5.29 Billion in 2000. And the taxes that were paid in were (according to your article) 7.5 Billion. That is a net increase in tax revenue of 2.21 Billion in and that is adjusted for inflation.
In other words the taxation (and thus spending) in the state of Wisconsin has risen by 1.4% Above the rate of inflation over the 18 year period that is listed in the article you produced. and yet we have Government officials demanding more and more money, they want to increase fees, they want to raise taxes, they want to create new taxes, such as a county sales tax. How much money is enough for these Government officials, and when will the taxpayers stop being seen as nothing but a revenue source for their big spending?
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Mark L. Harris on Wednesday, March 22 2006 @ 05:29 PM MST
Major road repairs and improvements are normally bonded for and repaid over ten years. Under the current TPA language this would likely require a referendum.
Most people do not want to be involved in every government decision but prefer to rely on representative democracy. They do expect to recieve good value for their taxes and rightly so.
The sun dial was not paid for by the city it was a gift from a group of donors. Many people did not realize that. Perhaps you mean other spending on Opera House Square. I hope this addresses some of your questions.
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 07:00 PM MST
Has the original poster actually read the Legislation ?? Read and then discuss it.
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Mark L. Harris on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 08:28 PM MST
A second troubling aspect of the TPA is that the allowed increase in revenue is applied to property taxes, fees, fines and other revenues but not to transfers from Wisconsin or the Federal Government. These intergovernmental transfers are nearly half of the County's budget. These revenues have not been growing anywhere near the rate of inflation. If for instance inflation is 3% and population growth 1% then half of the County revenue could increase 4% under the TPA. A 4% increase on half of the budget is only 2%. As the inflation rate increases the County revenue would fall further and further behind.
I apologize for the typing in my prior post. I was in a hurry.
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 21 2006 @ 11:30 PM MST
Can someone tell us where to find the bill?
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: admin on Wednesday, March 22 2006 @ 09:59 AM MST
Dear Anonymous, in answer to your question about where to find the bill, Winnebago County Executive Mark Harris was kind enough to email me a PDF version of it. Because PDF versions might not display accurately here, I converted it into a more "displayable" version. It is posted below for everyone's convenience. It may have lost something in the conversion process, so I am also providing a direct link to where you can find it as posted by the Wheeler Report.
That link is as follows:
http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/Feb06/Feb9/0209grothmanresolution.pdf
And following is the converted file (be forewarned, it's long):
I hope this helps everyone.
- Cheryl Hentz
2005 SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION
To create section 11 of article VIII of the constitution; relating to: creating a
revenue limit for the state and local governmental units, depositing excess
revenue into an emergency reserve, returning excess revenue to taxpayers,
elector approval for exceeding the revenue limit, state and local governmental
approval for reducing the revenue limit, allowing local governmental units to
raise revenue to compensate for reductions in state aid, requiring the state to
reduce its revenue limit in conjunction with reduction in state aid, reimbursing
the reasonable costs of imposing state mandates, standing to bring a suit to
enforce the revenue limits, and requiring the approval of only one legislature
to amend the revenue limit provisions (first consideration).
Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
This proposed constitutional amendment, proposed to the 2005 legislature on
first consideration, limits the amount of revenue from taxes and fees that the state
or a special purpose district, school district, technical college district, county, city,
village, or town may receive in any year to the amount it received in the previous
year, for the year in which the limit takes effect, or the maximum amount it could
have received in the previous year, for subsequent years, increased by the percentage
that is the average of the annual percentage increases, if any, in the consumer price
index for each of the three years preceding the previous year, but not to exceed the
annual percentage increase, if any, in state personal income for the year preceding
the previous year, plus the percentage increase in population for the state, a special
purpose district, a county, or a technical college district; the percentage that is the
average of the annual percentage increases, if any, in student enrollment for a school
district in each of the three years preceding the previous year; and 60 percent of the
percentage increase from the first to the second of the two previous years in property
values related to new construction for a city, village, or town.
Under the proposed amendment, a “special purpose district” is defined as any
entity other than the state, a school district, a technical college district, a county, a
city, a village, or a town that is authorized to collect taxes or fees.
The proposed amendment defines “revenue,” generally, as all moneys received
from taxes, fees, licenses, permits, assessments, fines, and forfeitures imposed by the
state or a special purpose district, school district, technical college district, county,
city, village, or town, lottery proceeds less the amount of any prizes, tribal gaming
proceeds, and all moneys received from bonds not including moneys generated from
municipal economic development bonds, from the refinancing of bonds, or from
short−term cash flow borrowing. However, for the base year upon which the revenue
limit is calculated, “revenue” does not include moneys generated from bonds.
Generally, all revenue from taxes and fees that the state receives in excess of
the limit must be placed in an emergency reserve fund. Any remaining excess
revenue must be returned to the taxpayers. In addition, all revenue from taxes and
fees that a special purpose district, school district, technical college district, county,
city, village, or town receives in excess of the entity’s limit must be returned to the
taxpayers.
Under the proposed amendment, generally, if a special purpose district, school
district, technical college district, county, city, village, or town receives state aid in
any year in an amount that is less than the amount of state aid that the entity
received in any previous year beginning, generally, after the ratification of the
proposed amendment, the entity may collect additional revenue in the current year
in an amount not to exceed the greatest amount of state aid received by the entity
in any previous year beginning, generally, after the ratification of the proposed
amendment, minus the current year’s state aid. The additional revenue is not
included in determining the entity’s revenue limit. Furthermore, the state must
reduce its revenue limit by the amount of any aggregate reduction in state aid.
However, if a program or function for which the state aid is provided is eliminated
or commensurately reduced in scope or applicability, as determined by the
legislature, the state is not required to reduce its revenue limit by the amount of the
reduction in state aid, and an entity may not collect additional revenue to
compensate for the reduction in state aid.
The state may make expenditures from its emergency reserve fund with the
approval of a majority of the members of each house of the legislature for tax relief
or in a year in which the amount of the state’s revenue limit is greater than the
amount of its revenue. The expenditures are included in the calculation of the state’s
revenue limit.
Under the proposed amendment, the state, or a special purpose district, school
district, technical college district, county, city, village, or town may reduce the
revenue limit imposed under this section by a majority vote of the governing body of
the entity or, in the case of the state, by the vote of a majority of the members elected
to each house of the legislature; and may exceed the revenue limit only with the
approval of the electors of the state, county, special purpose district, school district,
technical college district, city, village, or town, respectively, at a referendum as
prescribed by the legislature by law. The referendum must specify whether the
increase in the revenue limit is on a recurring or nonrecurring basis.
Under the proposed amendment, the legislature may, by law, adjust the
revenue limit for any governmental unit to accommodate the transfer of services
from one governmental unit to another. In addition, generally, a state law or
administrative rule that requires a special purpose district, school district, technical
college district, county, city, village, or town to expend money may not be enacted or
adopted after the ratification of this proposed amendment unless the state provides
for the payment to the entity of an amount that is equal to the reasonable costs
incurred by the entity to comply with the law or rule, as determined by the
legislature.
The proposed amendment allows any individual or class of individuals residing
in this state to bring a suit to enforce the revenue limits imposed on the state or on
the local governmental unit where the individual or class of individuals resides or
pays property taxes. In addition, the provisions created in the amendment may be
amended with the approval of one legislature, rather than two, and ratification by
the people.
A proposed constitutional amendment requires adoption by two successive
legislatures, and ratification by the people, before it can become effective.
Resolved by the senate, the assembly concurring, That:
Section 11 of article VIII of the constitution is created to read:
[Article VIII] Section 11 (1) In this section:
(a) “Calendar year entity” means a local governmental unit that has a calendar
year as its fiscal year.
(b) “Fiscal year entity” means the state or a local governmental unit that has
a fiscal year that is not a calendar year.
(c) “Local governmental unit” means a county, municipality, special purpose
district, school district, or technical college district.
(d) “Municipal economic development bond” means a bond issued to finance
real property improvement that is directly related to economic developments, as
defined by the legislature by law.
(e) “Municipality” means a city, village, or town, not including a town whose
budgeted revenue is less than $1,000,000 for the 2009 calendar year or, in
subsequent calendar years, less than $1,000,000 increased by the percentage
increase, if any, in the consumer price index for Milwaukee−Racine or its successor
index from the 2007 calendar year to the calendar year preceding the previous
calendar year. “Municipality” includes a district, utility, or other entity that receives
moneys from taxes or fees and that is authorized, created, or established by a city,
village, or town, regardless of whether the governing body of the city, village, or town
retains any authority or control over the district, utility, or other entity. For purposes
of this section, the moneys received by such a district, utility, or other entity from
taxes or fees shall be considered revenue of the city, village, or town that authorized,
created, or established the district, utility, or other entity, unless such moneys would
not be revenue under this section if received by the city, village, or town or unless
considering them revenue would result in the inclusion of such moneys twice in
revenue.
(f) “Population” means annual population estimates adjusted by the most
recent federal decennial census, as determined by the state.
(g) “Revenue” means all moneys received from taxes, fees, licenses, permits,
assessments, fines, and forfeitures imposed by the state or a local governmental unit,
lottery proceeds net of prizes, tribal gaming proceeds, and all moneys received from
bonds, but not including moneys generated from municipal economic development
bonds, from the refinancing of bonds, or from short−term cash flow borrowing.
“Revenue” includes revenue transferred or spent from a fund under sub. (3), not
including moneys transferred or spent for refunds or relief from taxes imposed by the
state, and, in the case of the state, the amount of any tax credit enacted into law after
December 31, 2008, if the credit percentage exceeds the applicable highest marginal
tax rate. “Revenue” does not include excess revenue deposited into a fund under sub.
(3), moneys used for debt service on a municipal economic development bond, moneys
used to pay a damage award, or moneys received from the federal government, from
the state or a local governmental unit providing governmental services to
governmental entities, from gifts, from damage awards, or from real property sales
to taxable entities, moneys received for the operation of a telephone, gas, electric, or
water utility, or moneys received for medical care provided by hospitals, nursing
homes, assisted living facilities, or other medical facilities operated by any entity
that is subject to the limits imposed under this section, from unemployment
insurance taxes, from insurance assessments or premiums, from employee
payments for fringe benefits, from governmental property insurance, from
investment trusts, from private purpose trusts, from college savings programs, from
fees imposed for airport or mass transportation systems, or from tuition or fees
imposed on students to support university or technical college functions. The
legislature, by law, may exclude from “revenue” moneys generated by a local
governmental unit from any source other than taxes, except that the legislature may
not exclude any amount of money generated from licenses that exceeds the cost of
issuing the license or any amount of money generated by a fee that exceeds the cost
of providing the service associated with the fee. For the 2008 calendar year, for
calendar year entities, and for the 2009 fiscal year, for fiscal year entities, “revenue”
does not include moneys generated from bonds.
(h) “Special purpose district” means any entity other than the state, a school
district, a technical college district, a county, or a municipality that is authorized to
collect taxes or fees.
(i) “State aid” means all of the following, as defined by the legislature by law,
but does not include a one−time grant:
1. Shared revenue.
2. Equalization aids.
3. Community aids that are used to provide social services.
4. General transportation aids.
5. Categorical school aids.
6. Aid to technical college districts.
(2) (a) Subject to subs. (3), (4), and (6) to (8), for the 2009 calendar year, for
calendar year entities, and for the 2010 fiscal year, for fiscal year entities, the state
or a local governmental unit may not collect more in revenue than the amount it
collected in the previous calendar year, for calendar year entities, or in the previous
fiscal year, for fiscal year entities, increased by the percentage that is the average of
the annual percentage increases, if any, in the consumer price index for
Milwaukee−Racine, or its successor index, for each of the 3 calendar years preceding
the previous calendar year, for calendar year entities, or for each of the 3 fiscal years
preceding the previous fiscal year, for fiscal year entities, but not to exceed the
annual percentage increase, if any, in state personal income from the 2006 calendar
year to the 2007 calendar year, for calendar year entities, or from the 2007 calendar
year to the 2008 calendar year, for fiscal year entities, plus:
1. For the state, a special purpose district, a county, or a technical college
district, the percentage increase from the first to the 2nd of the 2 years preceding the
previous year in the population of the state, special purpose district, county, or
technical college district, respectively.
2. For a school district, the percentage that is the average of the annual
percentage increases, if any, for each of the 3 years preceding the previous year in
enrollment of students in 5−year−old kindergarten through the 12th grade.
3. For a municipality, 60 percent of the percentage increase from the first to the
2nd of the 2 previous years in property values attributable to new construction, less
the value of any property removed or demolished, in the municipality.
(b) Subject to subs. (3), (4), and (6) to (8), for calendar years beginning in 2010,
for calendar year entities, and for fiscal years beginning in 2011, for fiscal year
entities, the state or a local governmental unit may not, in any calendar year or in
any fiscal year, as applicable, collect more in revenue than the maximum amount
that it was permitted to collect in the previous calendar year, for calendar year
entities, or in the previous fiscal year, for fiscal year entities, under this subsection,
increased by the percentage that is the average of the annual percentage increases,
if any, in the consumer price index for Milwaukee−Racine, or its successor index, for
each of the 3 calendar years preceding the previous calendar year, for calendar year
entities, or for each of the 3 fiscal years preceding the previous fiscal year, for fiscal
year entities, but not to exceed the annual percentage increase, if any, in state
personal income from the 3rd calendar year preceding the current calendar year, for
calendar year entities, or preceding the end of the current fiscal year, for fiscal year
entities, to the 2nd calendar year preceding the current calendar year, for calendar
year entities, or preceding the end of the current fiscal year, for fiscal year entities,
plus the applicable percentage increase under par. (a) 1., 2., or 3.
(3) (a) If the revenue received by the state in any state fiscal year exceeds its
limit under this section, the state shall deposit into an emergency reserve fund all
of the excess revenue, except that the total amount in the emergency reserve fund
may not exceed an amount that is equal to 8 percent of the state’s total revenue in
the previous state fiscal year.
(b) The state may make expenditures from its emergency reserve fund only by
a majority vote of the members of each house of the legislature, and only for relief
from taxes imposed by the state or in a fiscal year in which the amount of the state’s
limit determined under this section is greater than the amount of the state’s revenue.
(4) If a local governmental unit receives state aid in any calendar year, in the
case of calendar year entities, or in any fiscal year, in the case of fiscal year entities,
in an amount that is less than the amount of state aid that it received in or after the
2008 calendar year, for calendar year entities, or in or after the 2009 fiscal year, for
fiscal year entities, the local governmental unit may collect additional revenue in the
current calendar year or current fiscal year, as applicable, in an amount not to exceed
the greatest amount of state aid received by the local governmental unit in or after
the 2008 calendar year, for calendar years entities, or in or after the 2009 fiscal year,
for fiscal year entities, minus the current year’s state aid. Any additional revenue
collected under this paragraph shall not be included in determining the local
governmental unit’s limit under this section. A local governmental unit may not
collect additional revenue under this paragraph for a reduction in state aid if a
program or function for which the state aid is provided is eliminated or
commensurately reduced in scope or applicability, as determined by the legislature.
(5) (a) The state shall return to the taxpayers the amount of any excess revenue
received in any fiscal year that is not deposited into an emergency reserve fund under
sub. (3) (a).
(b) If the revenue received by a local governmental unit in any calendar year,
for calendar year entities, or in any fiscal year, for fiscal year entities, exceeds the
local governmental unit’s limit under this section, it shall return to the taxpayers the
amount of the excess revenue received in that calendar year or fiscal year, as
applicable.
(c) A refund made under this subsection shall be made in the calendar year, for
calendar year entities, or in the fiscal year, for fiscal year entities, immediately
following the calendar or fiscal year in which the state or the local governmental unit
has the excess revenue.
(6) The state or a local governmental unit may reduce the revenue limit
imposed under this section by a majority vote of the governing body of the local
governmental unit or, in the case of the state, by the vote of a majority of the members
elected to each house of the legislature; and may exceed the revenue limit imposed
under this section only with the approval of the electors of the state or local
governmental unit, respectively, at a referendum. The referendum shall be held in
such manner and at such time as the legislature shall prescribe and shall specify
whether the increase in the revenue limit is on a recurring or nonrecurring basis.
The revenue limit imposed under this section may not be increased on a recurring
basis by referendum in any year by more than the greater of $50,000 or 15 percent
of the amount of the revenue limit that is in effect prior to the increase.
(7) The legislature may, by law, adjust any limit imposed under this section to
accommodate the transfer of services from any entity subject to a limit under this
section to any other such entity, including the transfer of services that results from
annexation. Any increase to a entity’s limit under this subsection shall be offset with
a corresponding decrease to the limit of other entities affected by the transfer of
services.
(8) The state revenue limit under this section for a fiscal year shall be reduced
by the amount of any reduction in that fiscal year in the aggregate amount of state
aid to local governmental units, as compared to the previous fiscal year. This
subsection does not apply to a reduction in state aid if a program or function for which
the state aid is provided is eliminated or commensurately reduced in scope or
applicability, as determined by the legislature.
(9) A state law or administrative rule that requires the expenditure of money
by a local governmental unit may not be enacted or adopted on or after the
ratification of this subsection unless the state provides for the payment to the local
governmental unit of an amount that is equal to the reasonable costs incurred by the
local governmental unit to comply with the law or rule. For purposes of this
subsection, the legislature shall be the sole determiner of the reasonable costs
incurred by a local governmental unit to comply with any law or administrative rule.
This subsection does not apply to any state law or administrative rule that is enacted
or adopted in order to comply with a requirement of federal law, including a
requirement related to receiving federal aid.
(10) Any individual or class of individuals residing in this state has standing
to bring a suit to enforce this section as it relates to the state or to the local
governmental unit in which the individual or class of individuals resides or pays
property taxes. A court of record shall award a successful plaintiff costs and
reasonable attorney fees in the suit, but may not allow the state or a local
governmental unit to recover costs and reasonable attorney fees unless a suit against
it is ruled frivolous.
(11) Any amendment or amendments to this section that are directly related
to the revenue limits under this section may be proposed in either house of the
legislature, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected
to each of the two houses, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered
on their journals, with the yeas and nays taken thereon; notwithstanding section 1
of article XII, it shall then be the duty of the legislature to submit such proposed
amendment or amendments to the people in such manner and at such time as the
legislature shall prescribe; and if the people shall approve and ratify such
amendment or amendments by a majority of the electors voting thereon, such
amendment or amendments shall become part to the constitution; provided, that if
more than one amendment be submitted, they shall be submitted in such manner
that the people may vote for or against such amendments separately.
2. Numbering of new provision. The new section 11 of article VIII
of the constitution created in this joint resolution shall be designated by the next
higher open whole section number in that article if, before the ratification by the
people of the amendment proposed in this joint resolution, any other ratified
amendment has created a section 11 of article VIII of the constitution of this state.
If one or more joint resolutions create a section 11 of article VIII simultaneously with
the ratification by the people of the amendment proposed in this joint resolution, the
sections created shall be numbered and placed in a sequence so that the sections
created by the joint resolution having the lowest enrolled joint resolution number
have the numbers designated in that joint resolution and the sections created by the
other joint resolutions have numbers that are in the same ascending order as are the
numbers of the enrolled joint resolutions creating the sections.
Be it further resolved, That this proposed amendment be referred to the
legislature to be chosen at the next general election and that it be published for 3
months previous to the time of holding such election.
(END)
[ Reply to This | Delete ]
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: admin on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 12:03 PM MDT
SUBJECT: Summary of Revenue Limits Under SJR 63, as Modified by SSA ___ (LRBs0669/1)
SJR 63 would create a constitutional limitation on certain revenues of the state and local
governments, effective with budgets adopted for either the 2009 calendar year (for those
governments with calendar year budgets) or the 2009-10 fiscal year (for those governments with
fiscal year budgets). In addition, SJR 63 would create a constitutional restriction on unfunded
mandates on local governments and would establish a procedure to amend the constitutional
revenue limits by passing a resolution in only one session of the Legislature before submitting the
proposed amendment to the electorate. Currently, all proposed constitutional amendments must be
passed in identical form by two successive sessions of the Legislature before submitting the
proposed amendment to the electorate.
Each section of this memorandum first summarizes the provisions of SJR 63 and then
describes how those provisions would be modified by SSA ___ (LRBs0669/1).
Applicability of the Proposed Limit
The limit would apply to the state and to counties, municipalities, school districts, technical
college districts, and special purpose districts (collectively referred to as "local governments"). The
joint resolution would define "special purpose district" as any entity other than the state, a county, a
municipality, a school district, or a technical college district that is authorized to collect taxes or
fees. This definition would include metropolitan sewerage districts, sanitary districts, public inland
lake protection districts, local exposition districts, and local professional baseball park and football
stadium districts, since these districts have been authorized to collect taxes. The definition would
also include any entity that has been authorized to collect fees.
Page 2
"Municipality" would be defined to include cities, villages, and towns. However, towns that
have budgeted revenue (as defined for purposes of the limit) of less than $1,000,000 for 2009
would not be subject to the limit in that year. The $1,000,000 threshold would be increased in
subsequent years based on increases in the consumer price index for the Milwaukee-Racine area
(the "Milwaukee-Racine CPI") from 2007 to the year two years before the year in question. For
example, the threshold for 2011 would equal $1,000,000 increased by the change in the
Milwaukee-Racine CPI from 2007 to 2009.
The term "municipality" would include a district, utility, or other entity that receives money
from taxes or fees and that is authorized, created, or established by a city, village, or town,
regardless of whether the governing body of the city, village, or town retains any authority or
control over the district, utility, or other entity. Revenue of the district, utility, or other entity would
be included as revenue of the associated city, village, or town, unless the revenue is of a type that
would not be treated as revenue if received by the city, village, or town. In addition, such revenue
would not be included if doing so would result in double counting the revenue.
Modifications Under SSA ___ (LRBs0669/1). The substitute amendment would modify
the definition of "special purpose district" to include entities that are authorized to collect
assessments. The definition of "municipality" would be modified, as it relates to districts, utilities,
or other entities authorized, created, or established by a city, village, or town, to include such
entities that receive money from assessments.
Revenue Subject to the Proposed Limit
The joint resolution would create a definition of revenue that includes the following items:
(a) moneys received from taxes, fees, licenses, permits, assessments, fines, and forfeitures imposed
by the state or a local government; (b) lottery proceeds net of prizes; (c) tribal gaming proceeds; (d)
all moneys received from bonds, except from municipal economic development bonds (defined as
bonds issued to finance real property improvement that is directly related to economic
developments, as defined by law), from the refinancing of bonds, or from short-term cash flow
borrowing; (e) revenue transferred or spent from a state emergency reserve fund, except for moneys
transferred or spent for refunds or relief from state taxes; and (f) for the state, the amount of any tax
credit enacted after December 31, 2008, if the credit percentage exceeds the applicable highest
marginal tax rate.
The definition of revenue created by the joint resolution would specifically exclude excess
revenue that the state must deposit into an emergency reserve fund and moneys used for debt
service on a municipal economic development bond or to pay a damage award. In addition, moneys
received from the following would be excluded from the definition of revenue: (a) the federal
government; (b) the provision of governmental services by the state or a local government to
governmental entities; (c) gifts; (d) damage awards; (e) real property sales to taxable entities; (f) the
operation of a telephone, gas, electric, or water utility; (g) for medical care provided by hospitals,
nursing homes, assisted living facilities, or other medical facilities operated by the state or a local
Page 3
government; (h) unemployment insurance taxes; (i) insurance assessments or premiums; (j)
employee payments for fringe benefits; (k) governmental property insurance; (l) investment trusts;
(m) private purpose trusts; (n) college savings programs; (o) fees imposed for airport or mass
transportation systems; and (p) tuition or fees imposed on students to support university or technical
college functions. Revenue for the base year for the limit (either calendar year 2008 or fiscal year
2008-09) would not include any moneys generated from bonds.
The joint resolution would allow the Legislature to exclude, for local governments only,
revenue from any source other than taxes. However, the Legislature could not exclude any money
generated from licenses that exceeds the cost of issuing the license or any money generated from a
fee that exceeds the cost of providing the service associated with the fee.
Modifications Under SSA ___ (LRBs0669/1). The substitute amendment would modify
the definition of "revenue" to include the following items: (a) interest and penalties on late or
delinquent payments; (b) payments in lieu of taxes; (c) money retained by a trustee for the purpose
of issuing or paying debt service on revenue bonds; (d) charges for services; (e) moneys used to pay
a damage award; and (f) insurance assessments (moneys received from insurance premiums would
remain excluded). The following items would be excluded from the definition of "revenues": (a)
real or personal property sales (the joint resolution specifically excludes real property sales only to
taxable entities); and (b) fees paid by or on behalf of students to support University of Wisconsin or
Wisconsin Technical College System functions (the joint resolution only excludes fees imposed on
students).
The substitute amendment would specify that "revenue" includes any amount of taxes, fees,
or assessments, including penalties and interest, retained by the state or a local government
regardless of whether they are the entity that initially imposed these amounts (this clarifies that the
portion of a revenue source such as the real estate transfer fee that is retained by an entity -- in this
case the counties -- other than that imposing the fee would be included as revenue for that entity).
The substitute amendment would also specify that all local general property taxes retained by a
local government are considered their revenue, regardless of who pays the taxes (this clarifies that
the portion of property taxes paid through state credits on behalf of taxpayers would be included
under the revenue limit). Finally, the substitute amendment would allow the Legislature to exclude,
from both the state and local government limits, that portion of a charge for services used to fund
the cost of providing the service associated with the charge.
Structure of the Proposed Limit
The limit under the joint resolution would first apply to the 2009 calendar year (for local
governments with a calendar year budget) or to the 2009-10 fiscal year (for the state and local
governments with a fiscal year budget). For the 2009 calendar year or 2009-10 fiscal year, the state
and local governments would be prohibited from collecting and retaining (other than in a state
emergency reserve fund) more in revenue than they did in the 2008 calendar year or 2008-09 fiscal
year, plus their allowable percentage increase under the limit.
Page 4
For each subsequent calendar year or fiscal year, the state and local governments would be
prohibited from collecting and retaining (other than in a state emergency reserve fund) more in
revenues than they were allowed to collect and retain under the limit in the previous calendar year
or fiscal year, plus their allowable percentage increase under the limit. Since this provision uses the
allowable revenue from the previous year rather than the actual revenue, the state and local
governments would be allowed to carry forward 100% of their unused revenue limit authority.
Modifications Under SSA ___ (LRBs0669/1). The substitute amendment would establish
the base year revenue for a town that first exceeds the threshold for having revenue limits apply as
$1,000,000 increased by the percentage increase, if any, in the Milwaukee-Racine CPI from 2007
through the third preceding calendar year. For example, CPI increases from 2007 through 2009
would be used to establish a 2011 base revenue figure for a town that first exceeds the revenue
threshold in 2012.
Allowable Revenue Growth Under the Proposed Limit
The joint resolution would allow two types of growth under the revenue limit, one that
applies to all affected governments and a second that varies both by type of government and
between governments of the same type. All affected governments would be allowed to increase
their revenues by the lesser of the following two percentages: (a) the average of the annual
percentage increases, if any, in the Milwaukee-Racine CPI (or a successor index) for each of the
three years preceding the previous year (calendar years would be used for those governments with
calendar year budgets and fiscal years would be used for those governments with fiscal year
budgets); and (b) the annual percentage increase, if any, in state personal income from the third
preceding calendar year to the second preceding calendar year (for those governments with fiscal
year budgets, this would be counted from the calendar year in which their fiscal year ends).
Therefore, for determining allowable growth for 2009-10 fiscal year budgets, the lesser of the
average of the 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08 fiscal year increases in the Milwaukee-Racine CPI
and the 2007 to 2008 calendar year increase in state personal income would be used. For 2009
calendar year budgets, the lesser of the average of the 2005, 2006, and 2007 calendar year increases
in the Milwaukee-Racine CPI and the 2006 to 2007 calendar year increase in state personal income
would be used.
In addition to the growth based on either the Milwaukee-Racine CPI or state personal
income, each type of government would be allowed additional revenue growth as follows:
1. State government, counties, technical college districts, and special purpose districts
would be allowed a percentage increase equal to the percentage increase in their respective
populations from the first to the second of the two years preceding the previous year. Therefore, for
budgets for calendar year 2009 or fiscal year 2009-10, the change in population between 2006 and
2007 would be used. Population would be defined as annual population estimates adjusted by the
most recent federal, decennial census, as determined by the state.
Page 5
2. School districts would be allowed a percentage increase equal to the average of the
annual percentage increases, if any, in their five-year-old kindergarten through 12th grade
enrollment for each of the three years preceding the previous year. Therefore, for school districts'
2009-10 budgets, the average of enrollment growth, if any, for the 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08
school years would be used.
3. Municipalities would be allowed a percentage increase equal to 60% of the percentage
increase in their property values attributable to new construction (net of the value of any property
removed or demolished) from the first to the second of the two previous years. Therefore, for
municipalities' 2009 budgets, growth in values due to net new construction from 2007 to 2008
would be used.
Modifications Under SSA ___ (LRBs0669/1). The substitute amendment would base the
general allowable revenue growth percentage on the lesser of the three-year average increases, if
any, in the Milwaukee-Racine CPI (this is the same as under SJR 63) and the three-year average
increases, if any, in state personal income (compared to using only one year under SJR 63). For the
population and net new construction adjustments, the substitute amendment would add the phrase
"if any" to the increases used. For the net new construction adjustment, it would be specified that
this applies to taxable value changes.
Adjustments to the Proposed Limit
The joint resolution would create the following adjustments to the revenue limit:
1. Transfer of Services. The Legislature would be allowed, by law, to adjust the revenue
limit for the state or local governments to accommodate the transfer of services from any affected
government to any other affected government. The authority would include the transfer of services
resulting from an annexation. An increase to one government's revenue limit due to this provision
would have to be offset by a corresponding decrease to the revenue limit of other governments
affected by the transfer of services.
Modifications Under SSA ___ (LRBs0669/1). The substitute amendment would require
the revenue limit for the state or local governments to be reduced by the amount used in the
previous year to support a service that is transferred to either a revenue source that is not subject to
the revenue limit or to a unit of government, or an entity established by a unit of government, that is
not subject to the revenue limit.
2. Reduction in Total State Aid. The state's revenue limit for a fiscal year would be
reduced by the amount of any reduction in the aggregate amount of state aid provided to local
governments, as compared to the previous fiscal year. This reduction would not apply if a program
or function for which the state aid is provided is either eliminated or commensurately reduced in
scope or applicability, as determined by the Legislature. The joint resolution would define "state
aid" to mean all of the following, as defined by the Legislature by law, but not to include a one-time
Page 6
grant: (a) shared revenue; (b) equalization aids; (c) community aids that are used to provide social
services; (d) general transportation aids; (e) categorical school aids; and (f) aid to technical college
districts.
3. Reduction in State Aid to an Individual Local Government. A local government
would be allowed to collect additional revenue in the current year (calendar year or fiscal year, as
applicable) if it receives less state aid (as defined above) in that year than it received in any previous
year beginning with either the 2008 calendar year or 2008-09 fiscal year, as applicable. The amount
of additional revenue would be limited to an amount equal to the highest level of state aid received
in any year beginning with either the 2008 calendar year or 2008-09 fiscal year, as applicable,
minus the current year's state aid. The additional revenue would not be included in determining the
local government's revenue limit. Therefore, this would be an allowable adjustment that would be
recalculated each year, based on that year's aid levels, and would not be added to the revenue limit
base. A local government could not use this adjustment for a state aid reduction if a program or
function for which the state aid is provided is either eliminated or commensurately reduced in scope
or applicability, as determined by the Legislature.
4. Reduction in the Limit by a Governing Body. The revenue limit for the state could be
reduced by a majority vote of the members of each house of the Legislature. Similarly, the revenue
limit for a local government could be reduced by a majority vote of the local government's
governing body. Since the limit for subsequent years is based on the allowable revenues for the
prior year, a reduction under this authority would permanently lower allowable revenues.
Modifications Under SSA ___ (LRBs0669/1). The substitute amendment would modify
the procedure used to lower the state's revenue limit to specify that it would have to be lowered by
the Legislature by law, which would extend the process of making such an adjustment to include
the Governor.
5. Increase in the Limit by Referendum. The revenue limit for the state or a local
government could be exceeded only with the approval of the electors of the state or local
government at a referendum. The referendum would have to be held in such manner and at such
time as the Legislature prescribes. The referendum question would have to specify whether the
increase in the revenue limit is on a recurring or nonrecurring basis. Recurring increases in any one
year would be limited to the greater of $50,000 or 15% of the revenue limit that is in effect prior to
the increase.
Modifications Under SSA ___ (LRBs0669/1). The substitute amendment would change
the limit on recurring increases in any one year to the greater of $100,000 or 15% of the revenue
limit that is in effect prior to the increase.
The substitute amendment would also create a new adjustment, as follows:
Page 7
6. Increase in the Limit to Retire Stadium District Debt. A local professional baseball
park or football stadium district would be allowed to exceed the revenue limit by a majority vote of
the district's governing body in order to retire or defease debt incurred by the district prior to
January 1, 2008.
Disposition of Excess Revenue
The joint resolution would specify that any revenue received by the state in excess of the
state's revenue limit must be deposited into an emergency reserve fund. However, the total amount
in the emergency reserve fund could not exceed 8% of the state's total revenue in the previous fiscal
year. Any excess revenue that is not deposited into the emergency reserve fund would have to be
returned to the taxpayers in the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the state has the excess
revenue. Expenditures from the emergency reserve fund could only be made by a majority vote of
the members of each house of the Legislature. Such expenditures could only be made for relief
from taxes imposed by the state or to substitute for current revenues in a fiscal year in which the
state's current revenues are less than the state's allowable revenues.
If a local government receives revenue in a year (calendar year or fiscal year, as applicable)
that exceeds its revenue limit for that year, the local government would have to return the excess
revenue to its taxpayers in the following year.
Modifications Under SSA ___ (LRBs0669/1). The substitute amendment would modify
the procedure used to make expenditures from the state's emergency reserve fund to specify that this
would have to be done by the Legislature by law, which would extend the process of approving
such expenditures to include the Governor.
Prohibition on Unfunded State Mandates
The joint resolution would specify that a state law or administrative rule that requires the
expenditure of funds by a local government could not be enacted or adopted after the resolution are
ratified unless the state provides for the payment to the local government of an amount equal to the
reasonable costs that the local government incurs to comply with the law or rule. This prohibition
would not apply to a state law or administrative rule enacted or adopted to comply with a
requirement of federal law, including a requirement related to the receipt of federal aid. The
Legislature would be the sole determiner of "reasonable costs" under this provision.
Standing to Sue to Enforce These Provisions
The joint resolution would specify that any individual or class of individuals residing in the
state would have standing to bring a suit to enforce the new constitutional provisions as they relate
to the state or to the local government in which the individual or class of individuals resides or pays
property taxes. A court would be required to award a successful plaintiff costs and reasonable
Page 8
attorney fees, but could not allow the state or a local government to recover costs and reasonable
attorney fees unless a suit against it is ruled frivolous.
Modification to Constitutional Amendment Process
The joint resolution would create a new, shorter process to amend the constitutional revenue
limits that the resolution would establish. Currently, either house of the Legislature may initiate a
proposed constitutional amendment. If both houses of the Legislature agree to the proposal by
majority votes, the proposal is to be referred to the next Legislature and is to be published for three
months prior to the time of the election of that Legislature. If a majority of the members of each
house of the next Legislature agree to the proposed amendment in the same form, the Legislature
must submit the proposed amendment to the people in such manner and at such time as the
Legislature provides. If a majority of the people voting on the question approve the proposed
amendment, the constitution is amended.
Under the joint resolution, a proposed amendment to the newly-created constitutional section
that directly relates to the revenue limits created by that section would only have to pass each house
of the Legislature once, rather than twice, before being submitted to a vote of the people. This
would allow the revenue limit provision to be amended without an intervening vote by the people
for a second Legislature, which would accelerate the amendment process. However, an affirmative
vote of the people would still be required.
Relationship to Other Constitutional Provisions
Modifications Under SSA ___ (LRBs0669/1). The substitute amendment would specify
that the proposed revenue limits section of the Constitution would take precedence over any other
provision of the Constitution that conflicts with the new section.
BL/FA/lah
The Mark Harris editorial against the “Taxpayer Protection Act” - [Click for full editorial] - gives Winnebago County residents a good look at his ideologies and how he wants to run the county government. He argues that the Taxpayer Protection Act will cause:
“The revenue limits will be so tight that few local governments could afford to issue bonds at all. The impact of this provision is that no significant investment in infrastructure could occur without a referendum. It's unlikely that even desperately needed road, bridge, stormwater or other major projects would pass if the benefit isn't realized across the community”
In effect he is saying that the people of Winnebago County can’t make the decisions necessary to continue developing our entire community. We don’t have the ability to make the choices that are necessary to ensure that the infrastructure of the county remains intact. We need him and politicians like him to make these decisions for us, and we should just keep our wallets open so that he and his like can come get the funds that they need, because after all they know what best for us.
Later in his editorial he states that:
The inevitable decline in infrastructure would quickly make Wisconsin unattractive to businesses that might otherwise locate here. The slow continued degradation of roads and streets will prove frustrating to community residents.
This is a quote from the politician that ran a campaign on “honesty in government”. He is telling the truth in that States and Communities that have declining and failing infrastructures are unattractive to businesses, but he is not being honest with us on the issue of business locating here. One of the primary reasons that business choose not to locate in particular areas is taxes. Wisconsin already has the fourth highest tax rate in the nation, the “Taxpayer Protection Act” is designed to help slow the rate of growth of taxation in Wisconsin to make our state a more business friendly region. It is an attempt to turn the state a more tax friendly region that will not overburden its citizens and businesses with oppressive taxation. Mr. Harris’ argument is like that of a teenager telling his parents that he is “going to the Library” then goes to the Library and from there leaves to go other places that his parents would not approve. The teenage was being truthful about going to the library, but was not being honest as to where they were actually going.
It’s a shame that Winnebago County has a county executive that doesn’t believe that the residents of the county have the abilities to make decisions with their own money on how to best invest in our community. That he feels that the savings and wages of the residents of the county should remain a government slush fund that can be raided whenever the politicians deem it necessary, and that no forms of checks and balances should exist to protect the citizens against overzealous taxation. It is also a shame that we have a county executive the we not only have to listen very carefully to what he tells us, but we have to listen even more carefully to what he doesn’t tell us.
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 01:29 PM MST
The TPA is needed. While it may go too far, I'm beginning to believe this is the only way to curb government spending. Let's just call it "Tough Love".
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 02:54 PM MST
The only place something like this is needed is at the state level. These people need to rein in their own spending and leave the locals alone. They have already caused enough problems.
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 04:33 PM MST
It goes way too far and will only hurt us in the long run. What we've already seen is only the beginning if this thing passes.
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 05:48 PM MST
I agree with Mr. Harris, this bill will be the destruction of local communities and schools. The Fox Valley has always been frugal in its spending and that has been punished with revenue controls and levy limits that make it exceedinly more difficult to move forward.
Do I think that the taxpayers will vote no on referendums that fix the roads in another part of town, sadly I do.
Even the legislature is unsure of what the implications are, hence they put in a provision that allows a Fast Track out of the amendment process. That sure breeds confidence. This does not belong in our constitution.
There is NO information from the state that tells you exactly HOW this will affect Oshkosh. You think our roads are bad now, just wait. You don't think this will affect police and fire service, just wait and see, it will affect EVERY aspect of government services. This is a terrible idea, ask someone who lives in Colorado.
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Mark L. Harris on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 05:00 PM MST
The serious defect in TPA that I identified regarding the treatment of bonding (essentially counting it twice against the limits) has know been acknowledged by the Americans For Prosperity and several members of the legislature. They promise that it will be corrected and I received the legislative bureau's draft of a possible amendment today. Other serious defects remain. It is simply unrealistic to expect voters in Oshkosh to know if a road project in Menasha or Winneconne or Nepeuskun is necessary or for people in those areas to know what is needed in Oshkosh. By the way the county operates with less employees today than at any time in the last 10 years. The equalized tax rate was reduced last year and the budget was held to a 2.75% increase. It would have been only 1.5% but for a new state mandate regarding moving some nursing hore residents to group homes that was both required by the state and funded by the state. The 1.8 million provided by the state shows as both revenue and expense in our budget. I wonder if any of the prior posters have even read the current TPA proposal.
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 05:53 PM MST
Mr. Harris, don't you know you can't convince most of the people who post on this site by using FACTS. That is just dismissed, you need to use misinformation or mistatement of facts, that is much more accepted here. (That was sarcasm).
It really is too bad that the facts don't matter, we keep hearing how this or that level of government is "spending money like drunken sailors" but I just don't see the proof of that. Also, I think the posters on this site think that because they believe something "EVERYONE" thinks/believes what they do. Thankfully that is NOT true.
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 22 2006 @ 11:01 AM MST
Mr. Harris wrote:
"It is simply unrealistic to expect voters in Oshkosh to know if a road project in Menasha or Winneconne or Nepeuskun is necessary or for people in those areas to know what is needed in Oshkosh. "
Does this mean that you are agreeing with the point that you feel the people are not capable of making these decisions? That the people of Oshkosh (or any other area) are so petty and/or uninformed that they simply don't understand the need to develop other areas of the county? That only an informed Government official has the abilitiy to make these decisions, and that the residents of the county should stand there and trust the Government to have open access to their wallets? (Ask the residents of the City of Oshkosh about the cost of the Giant Sundial)
Another question: you seem to be making the argument that if the Taxpayer Protection Act goes through the roads of the county will deteriorate due to lack of funds. Doesn't the county budget include road repairs in it right now? Will all road repair stop if this bill is passed?
The argument you are giving against the Taxpayers Protection Act appears to be simply a scare tactic. The Taxpayer Protection Act does not block the raising of taxes beyond its limits it just requires voter approval to do so, and it seems to me that you lack the faith in the residents of Winnebago County to do what is in the best interest of the county.
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Mark L. Harris on Wednesday, March 22 2006 @ 05:17 PM MST
The following associated press article by J R Ross appeared in Monday's Post Crescent:
Analysis: Profits outpace tax bills
Study counters state's reputation as being unfriendly to businesses
By JR ROSS
The Associated Press
MADISON — Wisconsin companies saw their profits grow more than twice as fast as their state and local tax bills over a two-decade period, helping produce a business tax climate that compares favorably to other states, according to an Associated Press analysis.
The AP study estimates Wisconsin businesses paid more than $2.9 billion in state and local taxes in 1982, more than 85 percent of the profits they earned in Wisconsin.
By 2000, that tax bill increased to $7.5 billion, roughly 33 percent of profits, according to the AP review.
A separate analysis by a vice president of the Federal Reserve, who created the formula the AP used for its study, found Wisconsin ranked among the bottom one-third of states in 2000 when calculating state and local taxes paid as a percentage of business profits.
Harold Schaefer said Wisconsin is mistakenly perceived as a high-tax state for businesses. The chief executive officer of Schaefer Brush Manufacturing Co. Inc. in Waukesha said he has a harder time keeping up with his health-care costs and his fuel bill than paying his taxes.
Schaefer, who said his business has doubled in size since 1990, said he has a bigger problem with individual income taxes, which he believes are helping to create a dwindling talent pool that will make it hard to find quality workers by the next decade.
"I don't feel like we're held over the coals," Schaefer said of his tax bill.
The drop in taxes as a percentage of profits is not necessarily due to anything state or local officials have done.
There have been few significant changes to the state's tax codes affecting businesses over the time period the AP reviewed. Business groups, academics and tax experts said that suggests several factors at play: more aggressive use of tax shelters, more profitable companies and a relatively constant tax burden.
The analysis comes amid an ongoing debate among lawmakers on whether Wisconsin's business tax climate is competitive and if tax cuts are needed to attract and retain companies.
Mari Ann Larsen, vice president of Chem-Tech International in Random Lake, said Wisconsin's business taxes are high by any measure.
The company, which Larsen's husband owns, has grown from two customers in 1986 to some 600 now. Larsen said the company's profits have nothing to do with the taxes they pay in Wisconsin. Rather, they're due to the hard work of themselves and their employees.
"Taxes are what's killing us," Larsen said. "If we didn't have all these taxes, we'd be a very highly profitable company."
The AP based its analysis on a formula created by Robert Tannenwald, a vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank in Boston. Tannenwald devised the methodology as lawmakers in his home state of Massachusetts debated whether the business tax climate there was fair. He applied it nationwide for 2000 and found Wisconsin ranked among the bottom third of the states when comparing taxes to profits.
Tannenwald argues that estimating state and local taxes as a percentage of business profits is a good measure of a state's competitiveness because firms trying to maximize their profits are influenced by how taxes affect their bottom lines.
— The Associated Press
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 24 2006 @ 10:19 AM MST
So your saying that is someone works hard to make more money that they should be punished for this by being forced to pay higher taxes, right? Just because businesses are profitable that does not mean that they should be "CASH COWS" for tax happy government officials.
If a business is profitable what exactly happens to those profits (if they are not taxed away)? Does the business take the profits and bury them in a hole in the ground out back? No, businesses do one of two things with profits:
1. Reinvest them into their company. When they do this they are attempting to build their business even farther, possibly by purchasing more equipment or hiring more employees. Both hiring more employees and purchasing more cause economic growth in a community. Purcahsing new equipment helps other people in the comunity grow their business and possibly hire more employees. And when employees are hired they help the entire community because the new jobs help to add to the overall taxbase and thus causing a net gain in tax revenue for the community.
2. Pay out dividends to shareholders / owners. These dividends then become taxable income which once again helps the State Tax base. Also when these people get these dividends what do they do with the? (Hint: its not burying it in the back yard). People take these additional profits and they either invest them (either directly in or inderectly by putting them in the bank (savings)). Or they spend them, in either case it helps put the money back into the economy and helps the economy to grow. If they invest them now other companies will have a chance to expand and hire more employees. If they spend them it puts the money back directly into the local economy and the business that they spend their money with can then grow themselves.
Just because businesses are profitable does not mean that they should be punativly taxed. Government is set up to service the people, not the other way around. There are very few if any Government agencies that actually do any form or productivity in our country (produce products). When the Government starts seeing the businesses and citizens of its communities as simple revenue sources then there is definately something wrong. In this case it appears that you are attempting to argue that because business have grown their profit margins that the Government is suddenly entitled to a greater cut of the businesses profits.
Here is a simple question for you, if these business have grown their profit margins that would mean that the taxes that they pay in should also have grown as well, right?
As a matter of fact in the article you posted it states that the business 1n 1982 paid in 2.9 billion in taxes and in 2000 they paid in 7.5 billion. That is an increase in Tax Reveunues of 38.67% over those 18 years. Using an inflation calculator that can be found at: [inflation calculator]
We found that 2.9 billion in 1982 would have been equivelent to 5.29 Billion in 2000. And the taxes that were paid in were (according to your article) 7.5 Billion. That is a net increase in tax revenue of 2.21 Billion in and that is adjusted for inflation.
In other words the taxation (and thus spending) in the state of Wisconsin has risen by 1.4% Above the rate of inflation over the 18 year period that is listed in the article you produced. and yet we have Government officials demanding more and more money, they want to increase fees, they want to raise taxes, they want to create new taxes, such as a county sales tax. How much money is enough for these Government officials, and when will the taxpayers stop being seen as nothing but a revenue source for their big spending?
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Mark L. Harris on Wednesday, March 22 2006 @ 05:29 PM MST
Major road repairs and improvements are normally bonded for and repaid over ten years. Under the current TPA language this would likely require a referendum.
Most people do not want to be involved in every government decision but prefer to rely on representative democracy. They do expect to recieve good value for their taxes and rightly so.
The sun dial was not paid for by the city it was a gift from a group of donors. Many people did not realize that. Perhaps you mean other spending on Opera House Square. I hope this addresses some of your questions.
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 07:00 PM MST
Has the original poster actually read the Legislation ?? Read and then discuss it.
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Mark L. Harris on Monday, March 20 2006 @ 08:28 PM MST
A second troubling aspect of the TPA is that the allowed increase in revenue is applied to property taxes, fees, fines and other revenues but not to transfers from Wisconsin or the Federal Government. These intergovernmental transfers are nearly half of the County's budget. These revenues have not been growing anywhere near the rate of inflation. If for instance inflation is 3% and population growth 1% then half of the County revenue could increase 4% under the TPA. A 4% increase on half of the budget is only 2%. As the inflation rate increases the County revenue would fall further and further behind.
I apologize for the typing in my prior post. I was in a hurry.
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 21 2006 @ 11:30 PM MST
Can someone tell us where to find the bill?
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: admin on Wednesday, March 22 2006 @ 09:59 AM MST
Dear Anonymous, in answer to your question about where to find the bill, Winnebago County Executive Mark Harris was kind enough to email me a PDF version of it. Because PDF versions might not display accurately here, I converted it into a more "displayable" version. It is posted below for everyone's convenience. It may have lost something in the conversion process, so I am also providing a direct link to where you can find it as posted by the Wheeler Report.
That link is as follows:
http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/Feb06/Feb9/0209grothmanresolution.pdf
And following is the converted file (be forewarned, it's long):
I hope this helps everyone.
- Cheryl Hentz
2005 SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION
To create section 11 of article VIII of the constitution; relating to: creating a
revenue limit for the state and local governmental units, depositing excess
revenue into an emergency reserve, returning excess revenue to taxpayers,
elector approval for exceeding the revenue limit, state and local governmental
approval for reducing the revenue limit, allowing local governmental units to
raise revenue to compensate for reductions in state aid, requiring the state to
reduce its revenue limit in conjunction with reduction in state aid, reimbursing
the reasonable costs of imposing state mandates, standing to bring a suit to
enforce the revenue limits, and requiring the approval of only one legislature
to amend the revenue limit provisions (first consideration).
Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
This proposed constitutional amendment, proposed to the 2005 legislature on
first consideration, limits the amount of revenue from taxes and fees that the state
or a special purpose district, school district, technical college district, county, city,
village, or town may receive in any year to the amount it received in the previous
year, for the year in which the limit takes effect, or the maximum amount it could
have received in the previous year, for subsequent years, increased by the percentage
that is the average of the annual percentage increases, if any, in the consumer price
index for each of the three years preceding the previous year, but not to exceed the
annual percentage increase, if any, in state personal income for the year preceding
the previous year, plus the percentage increase in population for the state, a special
purpose district, a county, or a technical college district; the percentage that is the
average of the annual percentage increases, if any, in student enrollment for a school
district in each of the three years preceding the previous year; and 60 percent of the
percentage increase from the first to the second of the two previous years in property
values related to new construction for a city, village, or town.
Under the proposed amendment, a “special purpose district” is defined as any
entity other than the state, a school district, a technical college district, a county, a
city, a village, or a town that is authorized to collect taxes or fees.
The proposed amendment defines “revenue,” generally, as all moneys received
from taxes, fees, licenses, permits, assessments, fines, and forfeitures imposed by the
state or a special purpose district, school district, technical college district, county,
city, village, or town, lottery proceeds less the amount of any prizes, tribal gaming
proceeds, and all moneys received from bonds not including moneys generated from
municipal economic development bonds, from the refinancing of bonds, or from
short−term cash flow borrowing. However, for the base year upon which the revenue
limit is calculated, “revenue” does not include moneys generated from bonds.
Generally, all revenue from taxes and fees that the state receives in excess of
the limit must be placed in an emergency reserve fund. Any remaining excess
revenue must be returned to the taxpayers. In addition, all revenue from taxes and
fees that a special purpose district, school district, technical college district, county,
city, village, or town receives in excess of the entity’s limit must be returned to the
taxpayers.
Under the proposed amendment, generally, if a special purpose district, school
district, technical college district, county, city, village, or town receives state aid in
any year in an amount that is less than the amount of state aid that the entity
received in any previous year beginning, generally, after the ratification of the
proposed amendment, the entity may collect additional revenue in the current year
in an amount not to exceed the greatest amount of state aid received by the entity
in any previous year beginning, generally, after the ratification of the proposed
amendment, minus the current year’s state aid. The additional revenue is not
included in determining the entity’s revenue limit. Furthermore, the state must
reduce its revenue limit by the amount of any aggregate reduction in state aid.
However, if a program or function for which the state aid is provided is eliminated
or commensurately reduced in scope or applicability, as determined by the
legislature, the state is not required to reduce its revenue limit by the amount of the
reduction in state aid, and an entity may not collect additional revenue to
compensate for the reduction in state aid.
The state may make expenditures from its emergency reserve fund with the
approval of a majority of the members of each house of the legislature for tax relief
or in a year in which the amount of the state’s revenue limit is greater than the
amount of its revenue. The expenditures are included in the calculation of the state’s
revenue limit.
Under the proposed amendment, the state, or a special purpose district, school
district, technical college district, county, city, village, or town may reduce the
revenue limit imposed under this section by a majority vote of the governing body of
the entity or, in the case of the state, by the vote of a majority of the members elected
to each house of the legislature; and may exceed the revenue limit only with the
approval of the electors of the state, county, special purpose district, school district,
technical college district, city, village, or town, respectively, at a referendum as
prescribed by the legislature by law. The referendum must specify whether the
increase in the revenue limit is on a recurring or nonrecurring basis.
Under the proposed amendment, the legislature may, by law, adjust the
revenue limit for any governmental unit to accommodate the transfer of services
from one governmental unit to another. In addition, generally, a state law or
administrative rule that requires a special purpose district, school district, technical
college district, county, city, village, or town to expend money may not be enacted or
adopted after the ratification of this proposed amendment unless the state provides
for the payment to the entity of an amount that is equal to the reasonable costs
incurred by the entity to comply with the law or rule, as determined by the
legislature.
The proposed amendment allows any individual or class of individuals residing
in this state to bring a suit to enforce the revenue limits imposed on the state or on
the local governmental unit where the individual or class of individuals resides or
pays property taxes. In addition, the provisions created in the amendment may be
amended with the approval of one legislature, rather than two, and ratification by
the people.
A proposed constitutional amendment requires adoption by two successive
legislatures, and ratification by the people, before it can become effective.
Resolved by the senate, the assembly concurring, That:
Section 11 of article VIII of the constitution is created to read:
[Article VIII] Section 11 (1) In this section:
(a) “Calendar year entity” means a local governmental unit that has a calendar
year as its fiscal year.
(b) “Fiscal year entity” means the state or a local governmental unit that has
a fiscal year that is not a calendar year.
(c) “Local governmental unit” means a county, municipality, special purpose
district, school district, or technical college district.
(d) “Municipal economic development bond” means a bond issued to finance
real property improvement that is directly related to economic developments, as
defined by the legislature by law.
(e) “Municipality” means a city, village, or town, not including a town whose
budgeted revenue is less than $1,000,000 for the 2009 calendar year or, in
subsequent calendar years, less than $1,000,000 increased by the percentage
increase, if any, in the consumer price index for Milwaukee−Racine or its successor
index from the 2007 calendar year to the calendar year preceding the previous
calendar year. “Municipality” includes a district, utility, or other entity that receives
moneys from taxes or fees and that is authorized, created, or established by a city,
village, or town, regardless of whether the governing body of the city, village, or town
retains any authority or control over the district, utility, or other entity. For purposes
of this section, the moneys received by such a district, utility, or other entity from
taxes or fees shall be considered revenue of the city, village, or town that authorized,
created, or established the district, utility, or other entity, unless such moneys would
not be revenue under this section if received by the city, village, or town or unless
considering them revenue would result in the inclusion of such moneys twice in
revenue.
(f) “Population” means annual population estimates adjusted by the most
recent federal decennial census, as determined by the state.
(g) “Revenue” means all moneys received from taxes, fees, licenses, permits,
assessments, fines, and forfeitures imposed by the state or a local governmental unit,
lottery proceeds net of prizes, tribal gaming proceeds, and all moneys received from
bonds, but not including moneys generated from municipal economic development
bonds, from the refinancing of bonds, or from short−term cash flow borrowing.
“Revenue” includes revenue transferred or spent from a fund under sub. (3), not
including moneys transferred or spent for refunds or relief from taxes imposed by the
state, and, in the case of the state, the amount of any tax credit enacted into law after
December 31, 2008, if the credit percentage exceeds the applicable highest marginal
tax rate. “Revenue” does not include excess revenue deposited into a fund under sub.
(3), moneys used for debt service on a municipal economic development bond, moneys
used to pay a damage award, or moneys received from the federal government, from
the state or a local governmental unit providing governmental services to
governmental entities, from gifts, from damage awards, or from real property sales
to taxable entities, moneys received for the operation of a telephone, gas, electric, or
water utility, or moneys received for medical care provided by hospitals, nursing
homes, assisted living facilities, or other medical facilities operated by any entity
that is subject to the limits imposed under this section, from unemployment
insurance taxes, from insurance assessments or premiums, from employee
payments for fringe benefits, from governmental property insurance, from
investment trusts, from private purpose trusts, from college savings programs, from
fees imposed for airport or mass transportation systems, or from tuition or fees
imposed on students to support university or technical college functions. The
legislature, by law, may exclude from “revenue” moneys generated by a local
governmental unit from any source other than taxes, except that the legislature may
not exclude any amount of money generated from licenses that exceeds the cost of
issuing the license or any amount of money generated by a fee that exceeds the cost
of providing the service associated with the fee. For the 2008 calendar year, for
calendar year entities, and for the 2009 fiscal year, for fiscal year entities, “revenue”
does not include moneys generated from bonds.
(h) “Special purpose district” means any entity other than the state, a school
district, a technical college district, a county, or a municipality that is authorized to
collect taxes or fees.
(i) “State aid” means all of the following, as defined by the legislature by law,
but does not include a one−time grant:
1. Shared revenue.
2. Equalization aids.
3. Community aids that are used to provide social services.
4. General transportation aids.
5. Categorical school aids.
6. Aid to technical college districts.
(2) (a) Subject to subs. (3), (4), and (6) to (8), for the 2009 calendar year, for
calendar year entities, and for the 2010 fiscal year, for fiscal year entities, the state
or a local governmental unit may not collect more in revenue than the amount it
collected in the previous calendar year, for calendar year entities, or in the previous
fiscal year, for fiscal year entities, increased by the percentage that is the average of
the annual percentage increases, if any, in the consumer price index for
Milwaukee−Racine, or its successor index, for each of the 3 calendar years preceding
the previous calendar year, for calendar year entities, or for each of the 3 fiscal years
preceding the previous fiscal year, for fiscal year entities, but not to exceed the
annual percentage increase, if any, in state personal income from the 2006 calendar
year to the 2007 calendar year, for calendar year entities, or from the 2007 calendar
year to the 2008 calendar year, for fiscal year entities, plus:
1. For the state, a special purpose district, a county, or a technical college
district, the percentage increase from the first to the 2nd of the 2 years preceding the
previous year in the population of the state, special purpose district, county, or
technical college district, respectively.
2. For a school district, the percentage that is the average of the annual
percentage increases, if any, for each of the 3 years preceding the previous year in
enrollment of students in 5−year−old kindergarten through the 12th grade.
3. For a municipality, 60 percent of the percentage increase from the first to the
2nd of the 2 previous years in property values attributable to new construction, less
the value of any property removed or demolished, in the municipality.
(b) Subject to subs. (3), (4), and (6) to (8), for calendar years beginning in 2010,
for calendar year entities, and for fiscal years beginning in 2011, for fiscal year
entities, the state or a local governmental unit may not, in any calendar year or in
any fiscal year, as applicable, collect more in revenue than the maximum amount
that it was permitted to collect in the previous calendar year, for calendar year
entities, or in the previous fiscal year, for fiscal year entities, under this subsection,
increased by the percentage that is the average of the annual percentage increases,
if any, in the consumer price index for Milwaukee−Racine, or its successor index, for
each of the 3 calendar years preceding the previous calendar year, for calendar year
entities, or for each of the 3 fiscal years preceding the previous fiscal year, for fiscal
year entities, but not to exceed the annual percentage increase, if any, in state
personal income from the 3rd calendar year preceding the current calendar year, for
calendar year entities, or preceding the end of the current fiscal year, for fiscal year
entities, to the 2nd calendar year preceding the current calendar year, for calendar
year entities, or preceding the end of the current fiscal year, for fiscal year entities,
plus the applicable percentage increase under par. (a) 1., 2., or 3.
(3) (a) If the revenue received by the state in any state fiscal year exceeds its
limit under this section, the state shall deposit into an emergency reserve fund all
of the excess revenue, except that the total amount in the emergency reserve fund
may not exceed an amount that is equal to 8 percent of the state’s total revenue in
the previous state fiscal year.
(b) The state may make expenditures from its emergency reserve fund only by
a majority vote of the members of each house of the legislature, and only for relief
from taxes imposed by the state or in a fiscal year in which the amount of the state’s
limit determined under this section is greater than the amount of the state’s revenue.
(4) If a local governmental unit receives state aid in any calendar year, in the
case of calendar year entities, or in any fiscal year, in the case of fiscal year entities,
in an amount that is less than the amount of state aid that it received in or after the
2008 calendar year, for calendar year entities, or in or after the 2009 fiscal year, for
fiscal year entities, the local governmental unit may collect additional revenue in the
current calendar year or current fiscal year, as applicable, in an amount not to exceed
the greatest amount of state aid received by the local governmental unit in or after
the 2008 calendar year, for calendar years entities, or in or after the 2009 fiscal year,
for fiscal year entities, minus the current year’s state aid. Any additional revenue
collected under this paragraph shall not be included in determining the local
governmental unit’s limit under this section. A local governmental unit may not
collect additional revenue under this paragraph for a reduction in state aid if a
program or function for which the state aid is provided is eliminated or
commensurately reduced in scope or applicability, as determined by the legislature.
(5) (a) The state shall return to the taxpayers the amount of any excess revenue
received in any fiscal year that is not deposited into an emergency reserve fund under
sub. (3) (a).
(b) If the revenue received by a local governmental unit in any calendar year,
for calendar year entities, or in any fiscal year, for fiscal year entities, exceeds the
local governmental unit’s limit under this section, it shall return to the taxpayers the
amount of the excess revenue received in that calendar year or fiscal year, as
applicable.
(c) A refund made under this subsection shall be made in the calendar year, for
calendar year entities, or in the fiscal year, for fiscal year entities, immediately
following the calendar or fiscal year in which the state or the local governmental unit
has the excess revenue.
(6) The state or a local governmental unit may reduce the revenue limit
imposed under this section by a majority vote of the governing body of the local
governmental unit or, in the case of the state, by the vote of a majority of the members
elected to each house of the legislature; and may exceed the revenue limit imposed
under this section only with the approval of the electors of the state or local
governmental unit, respectively, at a referendum. The referendum shall be held in
such manner and at such time as the legislature shall prescribe and shall specify
whether the increase in the revenue limit is on a recurring or nonrecurring basis.
The revenue limit imposed under this section may not be increased on a recurring
basis by referendum in any year by more than the greater of $50,000 or 15 percent
of the amount of the revenue limit that is in effect prior to the increase.
(7) The legislature may, by law, adjust any limit imposed under this section to
accommodate the transfer of services from any entity subject to a limit under this
section to any other such entity, including the transfer of services that results from
annexation. Any increase to a entity’s limit under this subsection shall be offset with
a corresponding decrease to the limit of other entities affected by the transfer of
services.
(8) The state revenue limit under this section for a fiscal year shall be reduced
by the amount of any reduction in that fiscal year in the aggregate amount of state
aid to local governmental units, as compared to the previous fiscal year. This
subsection does not apply to a reduction in state aid if a program or function for which
the state aid is provided is eliminated or commensurately reduced in scope or
applicability, as determined by the legislature.
(9) A state law or administrative rule that requires the expenditure of money
by a local governmental unit may not be enacted or adopted on or after the
ratification of this subsection unless the state provides for the payment to the local
governmental unit of an amount that is equal to the reasonable costs incurred by the
local governmental unit to comply with the law or rule. For purposes of this
subsection, the legislature shall be the sole determiner of the reasonable costs
incurred by a local governmental unit to comply with any law or administrative rule.
This subsection does not apply to any state law or administrative rule that is enacted
or adopted in order to comply with a requirement of federal law, including a
requirement related to receiving federal aid.
(10) Any individual or class of individuals residing in this state has standing
to bring a suit to enforce this section as it relates to the state or to the local
governmental unit in which the individual or class of individuals resides or pays
property taxes. A court of record shall award a successful plaintiff costs and
reasonable attorney fees in the suit, but may not allow the state or a local
governmental unit to recover costs and reasonable attorney fees unless a suit against
it is ruled frivolous.
(11) Any amendment or amendments to this section that are directly related
to the revenue limits under this section may be proposed in either house of the
legislature, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected
to each of the two houses, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered
on their journals, with the yeas and nays taken thereon; notwithstanding section 1
of article XII, it shall then be the duty of the legislature to submit such proposed
amendment or amendments to the people in such manner and at such time as the
legislature shall prescribe; and if the people shall approve and ratify such
amendment or amendments by a majority of the electors voting thereon, such
amendment or amendments shall become part to the constitution; provided, that if
more than one amendment be submitted, they shall be submitted in such manner
that the people may vote for or against such amendments separately.
2. Numbering of new provision. The new section 11 of article VIII
of the constitution created in this joint resolution shall be designated by the next
higher open whole section number in that article if, before the ratification by the
people of the amendment proposed in this joint resolution, any other ratified
amendment has created a section 11 of article VIII of the constitution of this state.
If one or more joint resolutions create a section 11 of article VIII simultaneously with
the ratification by the people of the amendment proposed in this joint resolution, the
sections created shall be numbered and placed in a sequence so that the sections
created by the joint resolution having the lowest enrolled joint resolution number
have the numbers designated in that joint resolution and the sections created by the
other joint resolutions have numbers that are in the same ascending order as are the
numbers of the enrolled joint resolutions creating the sections.
Be it further resolved, That this proposed amendment be referred to the
legislature to be chosen at the next general election and that it be published for 3
months previous to the time of holding such election.
(END)
[ Reply to This | Delete ]
Opposition to the Taxpayer Protection Act is Revealing
Authored by: admin on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 12:03 PM MDT
SUBJECT: Summary of Revenue Limits Under SJR 63, as Modified by SSA ___ (LRBs0669/1)
SJR 63 would create a constitutional limitation on certain revenues of the state and local
governments, effective with budgets adopted for either the 2009 calendar year (for those
governments with calendar year budgets) or the 2009-10 fiscal year (for those governments with
fiscal year budgets). In addition, SJR 63 would create a constitutional restriction on unfunded
mandates on local governments and would establish a procedure to amend the constitutional
revenue limits by passing a resolution in only one session of the Legislature before submitting the
proposed amendment to the electorate. Currently, all proposed constitutional amendments must be
passed in identical form by two successive sessions of the Legislature before submitting the
proposed amendment to the electorate.
Each section of this memorandum first summarizes the provisions of SJR 63 and then
describes how those provisions would be modified by SSA ___ (LRBs0669/1).
Applicability of the Proposed Limit
The limit would apply to the state and to counties, municipalities, school districts, technical
college districts, and special purpose districts (collectively referred to as "local governments"). The
joint resolution would define "special purpose district" as any entity other than the state, a county, a
municipality, a school district, or a technical college district that is authorized to collect taxes or
fees. This definition would include metropolitan sewerage districts, sanitary districts, public inland
lake protection districts, local exposition districts, and local professional baseball park and football
stadium districts, since these districts have been authorized to collect taxes. The definition would
also include any entity that has been authorized to collect fees.
Page 2
"Municipality" would be defined to include cities, villages, and towns. However, towns that
have budgeted revenue (as defined for purposes of the limit) of less than $1,000,000 for 2009
would not be subject to the limit in that year. The $1,000,000 threshold would be increased in
subsequent years based on increases in the consumer price index for the Milwaukee-Racine area
(the "Milwaukee-Racine CPI") from 2007 to the year two years before the year in question. For
example, the threshold for 2011 would equal $1,000,000 increased by the change in the
Milwaukee-Racine CPI from 2007 to 2009.
The term "municipality" would include a district, utility, or other entity that receives money
from taxes or fees and that is authorized, created, or established by a city, village, or town,
regardless of whether the governing body of the city, village, or town retains any authority or
control over the district, utility, or other entity. Revenue of the district, utility, or other entity would
be included as revenue of the associated city, village, or town, unless the revenue is of a type that
would not be treated as revenue if received by the city, village, or town. In addition, such revenue
would not be included if doing so would result in double counting the revenue.
Modifications Under SSA ___ (LRBs0669/1). The substitute amendment would modify
the definition of "special purpose district" to include entities that are authorized to collect
assessments. The definition of "municipality" would be modified, as it relates to districts, utilities,
or other entities authorized, created, or established by a city, village, or town, to include such
entities that receive money from assessments.
Revenue Subject to the Proposed Limit
The joint resolution would create a definition of revenue that includes the following items:
(a) moneys received from taxes, fees, licenses, permits, assessments, fines, and forfeitures imposed
by the state or a local government; (b) lottery proceeds net of prizes; (c) tribal gaming proceeds; (d)
all moneys received from bonds, except from municipal economic development bonds (defined as
bonds issued to finance real property improvement that is directly related to economic
developments, as defined by law), from the refinancing of bonds, or from short-term cash flow
borrowing; (e) revenue transferred or spent from a state emergency reserve fund, except for moneys
transferred or spent for refunds or relief from state taxes; and (f) for the state, the amount of any tax
credit enacted after December 31, 2008, if the credit percentage exceeds the applicable highest
marginal tax rate.
The definition of revenue created by the joint resolution would specifically exclude excess
revenue that the state must deposit into an emergency reserve fund and moneys used for debt
service on a municipal economic development bond or to pay a damage award. In addition, moneys
received from the following would be excluded from the definition of revenue: (a) the federal
government; (b) the provision of governmental services by the state or a local government to
governmental entities; (c) gifts; (d) damage awards; (e) real property sales to taxable entities; (f) the
operation of a telephone, gas, electric, or water utility; (g) for medical care provided by hospitals,
nursing homes, assisted living facilities, or other medical facilities operated by the state or a local
Page 3
government; (h) unemployment insurance taxes; (i) insurance assessments or premiums; (j)
employee payments for fringe benefits; (k) governmental property insurance; (l) investment trusts;
(m) private purpose trusts; (n) college savings programs; (o) fees imposed for airport or mass
transportation systems; and (p) tuition or fees imposed on students to support university or technical
college functions. Revenue for the base year for the limit (either calendar year 2008 or fiscal year
2008-09) would not include any moneys generated from bonds.
The joint resolution would allow the Legislature to exclude, for local governments only,
revenue from any source other than taxes. However, the Legislature could not exclude any money
generated from licenses that exceeds the cost of issuing the license or any money generated from a
fee that exceeds the cost of providing the service associated with the fee.
Modifications Under SSA ___ (LRBs0669/1). The substitute amendment would modify
the definition of "revenue" to include the following items: (a) interest and penalties on late or
delinquent payments; (b) payments in lieu of taxes; (c) money retained by a trustee for the purpose
of issuing or paying debt service on revenue bonds; (d) charges for services; (e) moneys used to pay
a damage award; and (f) insurance assessments (moneys received from insurance premiums would
remain excluded). The following items would be excluded from the definition of "revenues": (a)
real or personal property sales (the joint resolution specifically excludes real property sales only to
taxable entities); and (b) fees paid by or on behalf of students to support University of Wisconsin or
Wisconsin Technical College System functions (the joint resolution only excludes fees imposed on
students).
The substitute amendment would specify that "revenue" includes any amount of taxes, fees,
or assessments, including penalties and interest, retained by the state or a local government
regardless of whether they are the entity that initially imposed these amounts (this clarifies that the
portion of a revenue source such as the real estate transfer fee that is retained by an entity -- in this
case the counties -- other than that imposing the fee would be included as revenue for that entity).
The substitute amendment would also specify that all local general property taxes retained by a
local government are considered their revenue, regardless of who pays the taxes (this clarifies that
the portion of property taxes paid through state credits on behalf of taxpayers would be included
under the revenue limit). Finally, the substitute amendment would allow the Legislature to exclude,
from both the state and local government limits, that portion of a charge for services used to fund
the cost of providing the service associated with the charge.
Structure of the Proposed Limit
The limit under the joint resolution would first apply to the 2009 calendar year (for local
governments with a calendar year budget) or to the 2009-10 fiscal year (for the state and local
governments with a fiscal year budget). For the 2009 calendar year or 2009-10 fiscal year, the state
and local governments would be prohibited from collecting and retaining (other than in a state
emergency reserve fund) more in revenue than they did in the 2008 calendar year or 2008-09 fiscal
year, plus their allowable percentage increase under the limit.
Page 4
For each subsequent calendar year or fiscal year, the state and local governments would be
prohibited from collecting and retaining (other than in a state emergency reserve fund) more in
revenues than they were allowed to collect and retain under the limit in the previous calendar year
or fiscal year, plus their allowable percentage increase under the limit. Since this provision uses the
allowable revenue from the previous year rather than the actual revenue, the state and local
governments would be allowed to carry forward 100% of their unused revenue limit authority.
Modifications Under SSA ___ (LRBs0669/1). The substitute amendment would establish
the base year revenue for a town that first exceeds the threshold for having revenue limits apply as
$1,000,000 increased by the percentage increase, if any, in the Milwaukee-Racine CPI from 2007
through the third preceding calendar year. For example, CPI increases from 2007 through 2009
would be used to establish a 2011 base revenue figure for a town that first exceeds the revenue
threshold in 2012.
Allowable Revenue Growth Under the Proposed Limit
The joint resolution would allow two types of growth under the revenue limit, one that
applies to all affected governments and a second that varies both by type of government and
between governments of the same type. All affected governments would be allowed to increase
their revenues by the lesser of the following two percentages: (a) the average of the annual
percentage increases, if any, in the Milwaukee-Racine CPI (or a successor index) for each of the
three years preceding the previous year (calendar years would be used for those governments with
calendar year budgets and fiscal years would be used for those governments with fiscal year
budgets); and (b) the annual percentage increase, if any, in state personal income from the third
preceding calendar year to the second preceding calendar year (for those governments with fiscal
year budgets, this would be counted from the calendar year in which their fiscal year ends).
Therefore, for determining allowable growth for 2009-10 fiscal year budgets, the lesser of the
average of the 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08 fiscal year increases in the Milwaukee-Racine CPI
and the 2007 to 2008 calendar year increase in state personal income would be used. For 2009
calendar year budgets, the lesser of the average of the 2005, 2006, and 2007 calendar year increases
in the Milwaukee-Racine CPI and the 2006 to 2007 calendar year increase in state personal income
would be used.
In addition to the growth based on either the Milwaukee-Racine CPI or state personal
income, each type of government would be allowed additional revenue growth as follows:
1. State government, counties, technical college districts, and special purpose districts
would be allowed a percentage increase equal to the percentage increase in their respective
populations from the first to the second of the two years preceding the previous year. Therefore, for
budgets for calendar year 2009 or fiscal year 2009-10, the change in population between 2006 and
2007 would be used. Population would be defined as annual population estimates adjusted by the
most recent federal, decennial census, as determined by the state.
Page 5
2. School districts would be allowed a percentage increase equal to the average of the
annual percentage increases, if any, in their five-year-old kindergarten through 12th grade
enrollment for each of the three years preceding the previous year. Therefore, for school districts'
2009-10 budgets, the average of enrollment growth, if any, for the 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08
school years would be used.
3. Municipalities would be allowed a percentage increase equal to 60% of the percentage
increase in their property values attributable to new construction (net of the value of any property
removed or demolished) from the first to the second of the two previous years. Therefore, for
municipalities' 2009 budgets, growth in values due to net new construction from 2007 to 2008
would be used.
Modifications Under SSA ___ (LRBs0669/1). The substitute amendment would base the
general allowable revenue growth percentage on the lesser of the three-year average increases, if
any, in the Milwaukee-Racine CPI (this is the same as under SJR 63) and the three-year average
increases, if any, in state personal income (compared to using only one year under SJR 63). For the
population and net new construction adjustments, the substitute amendment would add the phrase
"if any" to the increases used. For the net new construction adjustment, it would be specified that
this applies to taxable value changes.
Adjustments to the Proposed Limit
The joint resolution would create the following adjustments to the revenue limit:
1. Transfer of Services. The Legislature would be allowed, by law, to adjust the revenue
limit for the state or local governments to accommodate the transfer of services from any affected
government to any other affected government. The authority would include the transfer of services
resulting from an annexation. An increase to one government's revenue limit due to this provision
would have to be offset by a corresponding decrease to the revenue limit of other governments
affected by the transfer of services.
Modifications Under SSA ___ (LRBs0669/1). The substitute amendment would require
the revenue limit for the state or local governments to be reduced by the amount used in the
previous year to support a service that is transferred to either a revenue source that is not subject to
the revenue limit or to a unit of government, or an entity established by a unit of government, that is
not subject to the revenue limit.
2. Reduction in Total State Aid. The state's revenue limit for a fiscal year would be
reduced by the amount of any reduction in the aggregate amount of state aid provided to local
governments, as compared to the previous fiscal year. This reduction would not apply if a program
or function for which the state aid is provided is either eliminated or commensurately reduced in
scope or applicability, as determined by the Legislature. The joint resolution would define "state
aid" to mean all of the following, as defined by the Legislature by law, but not to include a one-time
Page 6
grant: (a) shared revenue; (b) equalization aids; (c) community aids that are used to provide social
services; (d) general transportation aids; (e) categorical school aids; and (f) aid to technical college
districts.
3. Reduction in State Aid to an Individual Local Government. A local government
would be allowed to collect additional revenue in the current year (calendar year or fiscal year, as
applicable) if it receives less state aid (as defined above) in that year than it received in any previous
year beginning with either the 2008 calendar year or 2008-09 fiscal year, as applicable. The amount
of additional revenue would be limited to an amount equal to the highest level of state aid received
in any year beginning with either the 2008 calendar year or 2008-09 fiscal year, as applicable,
minus the current year's state aid. The additional revenue would not be included in determining the
local government's revenue limit. Therefore, this would be an allowable adjustment that would be
recalculated each year, based on that year's aid levels, and would not be added to the revenue limit
base. A local government could not use this adjustment for a state aid reduction if a program or
function for which the state aid is provided is either eliminated or commensurately reduced in scope
or applicability, as determined by the Legislature.
4. Reduction in the Limit by a Governing Body. The revenue limit for the state could be
reduced by a majority vote of the members of each house of the Legislature. Similarly, the revenue
limit for a local government could be reduced by a majority vote of the local government's
governing body. Since the limit for subsequent years is based on the allowable revenues for the
prior year, a reduction under this authority would permanently lower allowable revenues.
Modifications Under SSA ___ (LRBs0669/1). The substitute amendment would modify
the procedure used to lower the state's revenue limit to specify that it would have to be lowered by
the Legislature by law, which would extend the process of making such an adjustment to include
the Governor.
5. Increase in the Limit by Referendum. The revenue limit for the state or a local
government could be exceeded only with the approval of the electors of the state or local
government at a referendum. The referendum would have to be held in such manner and at such
time as the Legislature prescribes. The referendum question would have to specify whether the
increase in the revenue limit is on a recurring or nonrecurring basis. Recurring increases in any one
year would be limited to the greater of $50,000 or 15% of the revenue limit that is in effect prior to
the increase.
Modifications Under SSA ___ (LRBs0669/1). The substitute amendment would change
the limit on recurring increases in any one year to the greater of $100,000 or 15% of the revenue
limit that is in effect prior to the increase.
The substitute amendment would also create a new adjustment, as follows:
Page 7
6. Increase in the Limit to Retire Stadium District Debt. A local professional baseball
park or football stadium district would be allowed to exceed the revenue limit by a majority vote of
the district's governing body in order to retire or defease debt incurred by the district prior to
January 1, 2008.
Disposition of Excess Revenue
The joint resolution would specify that any revenue received by the state in excess of the
state's revenue limit must be deposited into an emergency reserve fund. However, the total amount
in the emergency reserve fund could not exceed 8% of the state's total revenue in the previous fiscal
year. Any excess revenue that is not deposited into the emergency reserve fund would have to be
returned to the taxpayers in the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the state has the excess
revenue. Expenditures from the emergency reserve fund could only be made by a majority vote of
the members of each house of the Legislature. Such expenditures could only be made for relief
from taxes imposed by the state or to substitute for current revenues in a fiscal year in which the
state's current revenues are less than the state's allowable revenues.
If a local government receives revenue in a year (calendar year or fiscal year, as applicable)
that exceeds its revenue limit for that year, the local government would have to return the excess
revenue to its taxpayers in the following year.
Modifications Under SSA ___ (LRBs0669/1). The substitute amendment would modify
the procedure used to make expenditures from the state's emergency reserve fund to specify that this
would have to be done by the Legislature by law, which would extend the process of approving
such expenditures to include the Governor.
Prohibition on Unfunded State Mandates
The joint resolution would specify that a state law or administrative rule that requires the
expenditure of funds by a local government could not be enacted or adopted after the resolution are
ratified unless the state provides for the payment to the local government of an amount equal to the
reasonable costs that the local government incurs to comply with the law or rule. This prohibition
would not apply to a state law or administrative rule enacted or adopted to comply with a
requirement of federal law, including a requirement related to the receipt of federal aid. The
Legislature would be the sole determiner of "reasonable costs" under this provision.
Standing to Sue to Enforce These Provisions
The joint resolution would specify that any individual or class of individuals residing in the
state would have standing to bring a suit to enforce the new constitutional provisions as they relate
to the state or to the local government in which the individual or class of individuals resides or pays
property taxes. A court would be required to award a successful plaintiff costs and reasonable
Page 8
attorney fees, but could not allow the state or a local government to recover costs and reasonable
attorney fees unless a suit against it is ruled frivolous.
Modification to Constitutional Amendment Process
The joint resolution would create a new, shorter process to amend the constitutional revenue
limits that the resolution would establish. Currently, either house of the Legislature may initiate a
proposed constitutional amendment. If both houses of the Legislature agree to the proposal by
majority votes, the proposal is to be referred to the next Legislature and is to be published for three
months prior to the time of the election of that Legislature. If a majority of the members of each
house of the next Legislature agree to the proposed amendment in the same form, the Legislature
must submit the proposed amendment to the people in such manner and at such time as the
Legislature provides. If a majority of the people voting on the question approve the proposed
amendment, the constitution is amended.
Under the joint resolution, a proposed amendment to the newly-created constitutional section
that directly relates to the revenue limits created by that section would only have to pass each house
of the Legislature once, rather than twice, before being submitted to a vote of the people. This
would allow the revenue limit provision to be amended without an intervening vote by the people
for a second Legislature, which would accelerate the amendment process. However, an affirmative
vote of the people would still be required.
Relationship to Other Constitutional Provisions
Modifications Under SSA ___ (LRBs0669/1). The substitute amendment would specify
that the proposed revenue limits section of the Constitution would take precedence over any other
provision of the Constitution that conflicts with the new section.
BL/FA/lah
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 10:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home