Peeking behind the firewall at the Post Bulletin article, Fiery floor debate erupts over Roch sales tax proposal, one can learn more about the details on the vote sketched out in the free, publicly-accessible online headnote boxed at the top of the article:
How they voted
How area lawmakers voted on an amendment to restore $58.5 million in cuts made to Rochester's city sales tax proposal.
Voting yes: Rep. Tina Liebling, DFL-Rochester; Rep. Kim Norton, DFL-Rochester.
Voting no: Rep. Mike Benson, R-Rochester; Rep. Greg Davids, R-Preston; Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa; Rep. Duane Quam, R-Byron.
The vote came on an amendment offered by Liebling:
An effort to restore $58.5 million in cuts to a Rochester city sales tax proposal failed in the Minnesota House, highlighting a divide between local Democrats and Republicans.
Rep. Tina Liebling, DFL-Rochester, supported an amendment to restore those reductions, which included eliminating funding for a senior center, a Boys and Girls Club youth center, library expansion and some economic development proposals. The city needs the legislature’s authorization before it can put the tax before the voters.
The paper reports that her amendment provked House Tax Chair Greg Davids, R-Preston, who backed the tax proposal cuts, to offer an amendment, later withdrawn, to strip the Rochester sales tax entirely from the bill, as well as one--also withdrawn--that would require Rochester citizens to vote on each project, not simply the tax itself.
Davids objected to the size of the tax package Rochester would raise from local sales, and the impact of the tax on non-Rochester residents, according to the PB:
. . .He said residents living outside Rochester would be stuck paying a major portion of the tax.
“When I can get somebody else to pay my bills, what the heck? Why not? You are going to have all the surrounding communities, Winona, Austin, Owatonna and others playing for your Boys and Girls Club,” Davids said.
While Rochester's projects may be large, the Mayo City is Minnesota's third largest metropolis, which draws people from throughout Southeastern Minnesota to enjoy its facilities, and so Davids' objections seem a bit peevish from this distance.
However, a split between Main Street, Chamber of Commerce Republicans and Tea Party Republicans may have stoked his ire.
Davids' move ran counter to implied help proposed by Rep. Keith Downey and Majority Leader Matt Dean at a meeting on Friday sponsored by the Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce, which supported the original bill submitted by Representative Quam. Local Tea Party Patriots had testified against the Quam-Senjem bills at a joint tax committee hearing on March 9, while Chamber and city spokesters testified in support of the legislation.
Tea Party Republicans objected to Downey's suggestion that the cuts could be worked out in a closed-door meeting with the city.
According to Monday's online report at the PB, city officials are hoping for the best to emerge from conference committee, as the full request remains in the Senate version of the request:
Rochester’s Assistant City Administrator Gary Neumann sent out an email to members of the Rochester delegation asking them not to seek to restore the project funding because the Senate version of the bill has the entire $160 million proposal and the differences could be worked out in conference committee. . . .
Rep. Kim Norton responded by saying the city officials sent that email not because they don’t want to see the sales tax proposal restored, but because they were afraid after hearing a rumor Davids would seek to kill the proposal.
She added, “They are scared to death that partisan politics is acting out on this floor today, and I was shocked and ashamed to see that their biggest fears are going to be realized.”
Will the Tea Party Patriot Republicans launch a full-tilt campaign to influence the conference committee report?
Related post: Boiling over in Rochester: Downey promises closed-door meeting; Tea Party Patriots steamed
Photo: State Representative Tina Liebling
I'm from Minneapolis, so I won't really have to pay any of this tax unless I decide to head down to Rochester. As far as I'm concerned, the local residents should get to decide this issue at the polls.
But, I have to say, I saw part of this discussion on TV in the late afternoon, and I heard Rep. Davids talking about how he doesn't want to have to make his constituents pay this tax without getting a vote on it. Trouble is, Rep. Davids voted in 2006 to allow Hennepin County to impose a Stadium sales tax with NO referendum at all. This proposal for Rochester has a referendum. So if he thinks a county should be able to impose a tax with no referendum, why is it such a problem for Davids to have a City council assemble their own proposal for consideration by voters without his meddling? But maybe he just makes it up as he goes along. After all, in the debate, he even admitted that he had "evolved," because he claime that jn his first election in a special election in 1991, he promised to get rid of the Rochester sales tax. So he's saying that city fathers should be lucky that "Uncle Greg"--and yes he did refer to himself as Uncle Greg--decided to support any tax at all. Sigh. Well, elections have consequences. Remember that in November 2012 , ok?
Posted by: Chris David | Mar 29, 2011 at 01:27 AM