“Just ask them, what are your fears” was what Merger Study Committee Co-chairperson and Town Chairman Kris Hampton proposed as a coverall question for the Cottage Grove merger study resident questionnaire.
 |
|---|
| Kris Hampton |
While Hampton’s question was jokingly proposed, it did seem to hold some truth for what the Merger Study Committee was looking for from residents on the questionnaire to be disseminated to Town and Village residents, asking their thoughts regarding a Cottage Grove consolidation. Knowing any fears, questions, concerns apprehensions and uncertainties that residents felt and had about a potential merger are what Committee members hope to gather from questionnaire responses.
Compiling the Questions
Committee Co-chairperson and Village President Diane Wiedenbeck came to the October 24 meeting with a rough draft questionnaire to use as a starting point for the Committee to work from. The committee spent a good portion of the meeting ironing out language on the document. Wiedenbeck said that the agreed on changes from the meeting will be made and a new draft would be brought to the Committee for review at its November 7 meeting. The plan is to have an approved document ready to be mailed to Town and Village residents with their December tax bills with a deadline to get responses back by January 27. This, Hampton said, would give the Committee two weeks to compile the information and have it ready for the February 13 meeting.
Committee members were careful to craft language in a way that kept the message on point and clear without being too specific in any one area. One area that they spent a good portion of time on, because of the attention it is expected to garner from Town residents, was language about preserving the Town’s rural lifestyle under a consolidated village. This included language that recommended that burning, hunting and animal rights currently in place under Town ordinances would remain unchanged post merger.
Attention was also paid to language concerning whether Village taxes might increase even through the Phase 1 fiscal analysis study by Baker Tilly showed they would not. Town Clerk Kim Banigan questioned whether this was true seeing that adjusting and transferring fees might cause some payments to increase. Committee member and Village Trustee Micah Zielke explained that much of it would be transferring of Village-specific charges from Village taxes to direct fees to keep the Town taxes from increasing. For instance, Baker Tilly suggested in its analysis that the Village transfer a hydrant fee that Village residents pay for as part of their property tax bill to a usage fee to be paid by the individual property owners who benefit from those services. That way it would be removed as a direct tax so when Town residents (who don’t have hydrants) became part of the Village they would not be paying for this fee.
 |
|---|
| Diane Wiedenbeck |
But while the town taxes would remain unchanged as long as these transfers and other savings were found, there was still concern with a potential Village tax increase. Hampton said the issue was the existence of “urban service areas” within the Village which do not have hydrant services like the rest of the Village. The thing is, he said, is that these residents still pay for the Village’s water services on their property tax bill. But if the $100,000 hydrant fee is transferred from the Village taxes to a user fee that would target only those benefiting from the hydrants, this redistribution would exclude the urban service area residents from payment. The hydrant fee would then be distributed over fewer residents and as a result it would cost more per resident.
Wiedenbeck and Zielke seemed unfamiliar with the urban service areas. After understanding the issue, Zielke said that with disproportionately small number of residents living in these service areas there would be maybe a dollar or two tax increase needed per resident to offset those few residents who would no longer pay for the hydrant fee.
Forming Subcommittees
Feeling some pressure to begin ramping up work on topics directly related to the merger, the Committee decided that it would begin forming subcommittees at its November 7 meeting. “I say we start getting to work on some of this stuff,” said Committee member Dave Muehl, when asked whether they should wait until questionnaires were returned in January. It was decided that these groups would start with a skeleton crew composed of Merger Committee members and bring on additional members from the community as volunteers became available.
 |
|---|
| Dave Muehl |
Zielke agreed with Muehl’s sense of urgency, saying, “If we have any intent of having a November 2012 referendum with the highest possible voter turnout and the highest possible voices to be heard, we need to move much faster than what we’ve done already.” The Committee’s intention has been for the past few months to have the referendum on next November’s ballot to take advantage of the expected high voter turnout due to the presidential election.
“We need to make a lot of progress in this Committee between now and the end of this year,” said Zielke. “We really have three months to reach a consensus on the majority of topics.” Waiting for returning questionnaires before getting started, he said was unnecessary. “I think what we’ll find is when we get these questionnaires, we’ll see if there are any gaps and holes in what we prioritized as topics."
For now the subcommittees will use questions and concerns that the Committee pulled together back in May as a basis for topics to discuss within the groups. Among those expected to be named as subcommittees are rural affairs, law enforcement, infrastructure, ordinance, finance, governance and personnel.
What About Renters?
There was also discussion brought up by Wiedenbeck about how to reach renters and others who would not receive a questionnaire via a tax bill. Zielke said that this was unnecessary since they were not property tax payers and therefore would not be impacted. “It’s not that we don’t want their input,” said Zielke. “I am not trying to purposely exclude; I’m just not trying to bend over backwards.” Wiedenbeck said that they were indirect taxpayers as they paid rent to a landlord who would in turn pay taxes on the property, and since some renters pay their own utility bills, she felt this could be seen as an indirect tax. Zielke and Hampton disagreed with Wiedenbeck's rental payment argument saying that there was no direct correlation between rent payments and tax payments.
MORE MERGER NEWS
Merger Study Money Request Sparks Criticism
Boards To Decide Fate Of Merger Study Phase 2
Merger Group Members See Promise In Baker Tilly Report
Merger Group Prepares For 2 Public Presentations
Verona Chairman Shares Merger Experience
Merger Study Report Delivery Date Set
Report To Focus On Merger's Tax Impact
Merger Study Funding Decision On Hold
Merger Study RFP Sent To Financial Firms
Taxes Top Concern Of Merger Study Group
Merger Study Committee Lists Research Issues