On the heels of our virtual debate about fees, I spent some time speaking with Betsy Gladfelter, the chair of the conservation commission, and Jenn McKay, the Conservation Administrator. Both were good enough to explain why the commission is recommending increases to its fees and why.
Some departments have - incrementally and over time - raised the fees they charge, but the Conservation Department has not changed many of its fees in many years. This is not being used as justification for increasing the fees, but rather is offered as an explanation for why there is such a big jump (100 percent) in the recommended fees this year.
Note that I say "recommended". Remember that the conservation commission simply recommends the fees; it is the selectmen who approve the fees, and the conservation department which implements what the selectmen approve. As I noted in a prior post, anyone who has a problem with any fees - conservation or otherwise - should look to the Board.
The fees charged by the Conservation Department have not kept pace with the cost of administering the wetlands regulations, and so the department collects only about $60,000/year on average - less than half of the $160,000/year it costs to fund the department.
In prior years, the conservation department has made no change to the recommended fees because it had no time to justify any change. This year, a serious effort was made to compare the fees charged by Falmouth with the fees charged by other, similar towns (see the chart above).
Clearly, 1) increasing the fees will not put Falmouth out of line with what other towns are charging, 2) there has been no increase in fees in many years, and 3) an increase in the fees will bring the department closer to the full funding of its operations.
All good reasons for increases, right?
But is any of this enough to justify increasing fees, or even charging fees in the first place?
Some of my constituents don't think so, and after some mulling over it for several days, I tend to agree.
Some services can be used by anyone, not just Falmouth citizens. Knowing that, we need some way to make sure that Falmouth taxpayers are not paying taxes so that the residents of other towns can benefit. For this reason, asking someone to pay for a dump sticker makes some sense.
However, the only reason anyone would request a permit from the conservation department is because they own property here and wish to make a change to it; someone visiting for a week from New Jersey won't be requesting a Notice of Intent.
And then there is the state fee. In addition to a local fee, every permit application requires a state fee. That fee is divided almost equally between the state and town, with the town getting $25 more than the state.
Moreover, properties which lie within the jurisdiction of the commission are always near some body of water. Property values are enhanced by proximity to water, and water access or views. A four-bedroom house near the water will fetch a lot more money than a four-bedroom house miles from the shore. Likewise, the former will contribute more (sometimes much more) in property tax than the latter - a premium that should more than cover the cost of administering the wetlands regulations.
And that doesn't even include the taxes generated by a dock.
Which leads me to believe that - regarding conservation fees - there's some serious over taxing going on here. Not only does the owner of property near the water pay significantly more in property taxes, they must also pay a fee to the state (of which the town gets more than half) and to the town. In my humble opinion, that's not just double taxation - that's triple taxation.
I don't know if these fees have ever been challenged in court, but that doesn't mean the fees are justified, it just means that no one has ever challenged them.
Until now.
My inclination is to not only disapprove of any increase in conservation fees, but to abolish them altogether.
What are your thoughts?
All that said; I will remind our readers that this is all about conservation fees. I've not done any research on the fees charged by other departments and so cannot speak with any authority about them. However, I'll be doing more research. As Constituent #1 stated, "Nobody should be required to pay one penny beyond the value of any regulatory service provided by any town organization."
4 comments:
Brent,
Double Taxation? We pay federal income taxes on money we earn. We also pay state income tax on the same earnings. Double taxation? Does this mean you support proposition #1 on Tuesday's ballot to repeal the state income tax?
We also pay sales tax when we spend what earnings are left after income taxes. Is this triple taxation?
If you don't support Town user fees (for concom and building department permits) how do you propose to fund the work these departments perform? Or are you proposing the departments be eliminated?
The two departments generated close to $900,000 in revenue to the Town in fiscal '08. Propositon 2 and 1/2 limits the Town's ability to raise property taxes to compensate. If you want to eliminate the user fees you have no choice but to eliminate the departments.
Is that what you really want? Think it through! It defies reason!
Perplexed Constituent
Somebody wiser than I (was it Mark Twain?) once said the only thing for certain in life is death and taxes!
Perplexed,
At the bottom of this post, I offered the disclaimer, "I will remind our readers that this is all about conservation fees. I've not done any research on the fees charged by other departments and so cannot speak with any authority about them." My comments about double taxation were in reference to conservation fees. I never said that I don't support building department fees, and I was elected selectman, not governor or president, so let's stick to a discussion about local conservation fees.
Eliminating fees or reducing taxes does not automatically correspond to the elimination of a department. Simply because I have a problem with the fees levied for conservation permits does not mean I think the conservation department should be eliminated. Anyone familiar with my philosophy of governance knows that I don't mince my words. If I wanted to eliminate the conservation department, I would say so.
It is fair to say that no service provided by the government - conservation or otherwise - is expected to fund itself. If that were the case, then our taxes would be 'a la carte' based on those services we decide to use. Rather, our taxes are typically exacted via a single source. Locally, they are in the form of property taxes.
Due to the value we place on waterfront, the owners of property near the water pay significantly more in taxes. With very few exceptions, it is only these properties which fall under the jurisdiction of the conservation commission.
The selectmen levy fees for conservation permits to offset the cost of administering the wetlands regulations, and with very few exceptions the persons applying for conservation permits will be those who own property near the water.
This is where the concept of double taxation comes into play. The premium paid by the owners of property near the water could be called a "wetland premium," since it exists only because of the proximity of wetlands. I argue that this premium more than covers the cost of administering the wetlands regulations and funding the conservation department.
If the premium covers that cost, why must these property owners also pay fees to the commission? I argue that they shouldn't because doing so amounts to double taxation. After all, have they not already paid their fair share via the premium placed on their property?
One member of the commission suggests that fees are justified because they are site specific and "the general public rarely benefits" from permitting activities in or near wetlands. This might be true if we were talking about development of an undeveloped parcel, but the vast majority of the projects before the commission relate to redevelopment. In these cases, the commission exacts mitigation that almost always improves the environment, to the benefit of all of Falmouth's citizens.
Moreover, eliminating conservation fees would eliminate only $60,000 in revenue - not nearly enough to justify raising property taxes. Applying a microscope to the town budget could easily net this kind of savings.
Perplexed,
It only occurred to me after posting my reply that we had a similar discussion about the per bag fee recommended by DPW Superintendent Ray Jack. Those persons who visit the dump already pay $60 for a dump sticker, so why must they also pay for every bag of trash they take to the dump?
This is yet another double taxation scenario. If we are going to implement a per bag fee, then we need to consider eliminating the dump sticker. After all, what is the point of having a dump sticker?
Post a Comment