Showing posts with label Springfield legislative policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Springfield legislative policy. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Local Food Support/Industrial Hemp Among Springfield City Council Legislative Priorities

Springfield, MO - At the December 14, Springfield City Council meeting, a bill to adopt the bullet-point and sub-point legislative priorities of the City was approved. According to the City's summary of the Council meeting,

"Councilman Stephens made a motion to adopt Exhibit A, which summarizes the top priorities, while remanding the rest of the package back to Plans & Policies to review some of the language of the full policy."


Exhibit A included these topics: Maintain local control and avoid unfunded mandates; Red-light cameras and efficient traffic enforcement; Protect the natural environment and; Economic development and fighting poverty.

"Well-Fed Neighbor" readers will be interested to know, included in the language remanded back to the Plans and Policies Committee as the last entry in the category, "Economic Development and Fighting Poverty" are the words, "Support development of a stronger local food supply."

The language, which, again, will be reviewed by the Plans & Policies Committee, regarding support for the development of a stronger local food supply reads:


"Support local food

Local agriculture is key to providing a safe, secure, and reliable food supply for the citizens of Missouri.

We support farmers in our city limits and farmers nearby and we encourage legislation that will provide a stronger local food supply and remove barriers to the development of local food supplies or eliminate legislation that provides barriers."


Also of interest to "Well-Fed Neighbors" should be the information found in Tuesday's "Springfield News-Leader." Reporter Kary Booher recapped the Council meeting, reporting the City Council, "kicked back the body of the text -- including a suggestion for the state to remove restrictions on hemp in order to create new industries."

The language regarding the removal of restrictions on growing hemp, also remanded to be reviewed by the Plans & Policies Committee, read:


"Enhance The Economy By Removing Restrictions On Hemp to Create New Industries:

With the stroke of the pen, Missouri could create several new industries overnight. Agriculture, textiles, construction, alternative fuels, and many other areas would see an immediate boon in their markets. The cost of this type of government "investment" would be zero dollars. In fact, the savings that this could generate would be able to fund critical needs in other areas."


Support for a local food supply was proposed by Councilman Dan Chiles.

The proposal regarding removal of restrictions on growing hemp was brought by Councilman Doug Burlison.

For more information about what the Springfield City Council will be lobbying state and federal legislators about in 2010, and to read the bill, click here. If you would like to watch a video of the City Council meeting, it is available at "CityView."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Friday, January 30, 2009

A "Carlsonism" on the City's Legislative Priority Policy

After Councilwoman Mary Collette compared the City's legislative priority list to a "play book," Mayor Carlson made the following comment:

"You (Collette) talk about a play book but, think of the comment attributed to Mike Tyson, which was, 'Everybody has a plan till he gets hit.'" - January 26, City Council meeting


The resolution passed: Carlson, Whayne, Rushefsky, Deaver, Collette, Chiles, Wylie and Manley supported; Burlison opposed due to his reservations concerning red light camera provisions.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

More on Springfield's 2009 Legislative Priorities

The Council will be asked to approve Resolution 2009-015 on Monday night, January 26, after hearing from the public.

What the legislative priority list does is establish what the City's lobbyists will be lobbying for at the state and federal level in the upcoming year. Normally, the City likes to have this list approved by the City Council earlier in the fiscal year but this year's legislative priority list hit a road block when the City Council was faced with a very large number of speakers, drawn out by the Park board's submission the City take a position favoring a ban on guns in open park spaces. Another member or two of the City Council didn't like the idea of opposing collective bargaining on the part of the City's employees either. The resolution was tabled and sent back to the Council's Finance and Administration Committee earlier this year, where it was decided to remove the words "collective bargaining" and the gun ban issue. The rest of Council, later, agreed with the omissions and now, it is again on the agenda for approval at the next meeting.

JackeHammer is looking at the 24 page document in an effort to outline a few of the issues held within it.

Yesterday, we looked at Section C.4, today we will look at Section C.5, pertaining to E-Commerce and Other Interstate Sales Activities.

This legislative priority is not a new addition, except for the inclusion of "parks" as a "needed service" of the citizens of Springfield.

Subsection a, paragraph 2 of Section C.5 states:

"The City of Springfield urges Congress to recommend that all sales and use tax on sales of tangible property be treated fairly and equitably whether the sales take place over the counter, by phone, mail order or by Internet. The City urges Congress to enact legislation that redefines nexus to include economic nexus as well as physical nexus so that out-of-state mail order sales and Internet sales are treated the same as sales within the same state. The City supports efforts by the State of Missouri to work with other states in studying the issue."


Continuing to C.5, subsection b, the City gives its argument as to why it feels E-Commerce, phone, mail order and Internet sales should be treated the same as local over the counter sales:

"b. Other Interstate Sales Activities. The loss of local tax revenues to out-of-state companies that do not pay local taxes threatens to undercut the ability of local government to provide needed services to its citizens. When a customer visits a store, services are provided to him/her during the sale and before and after as they travel through the City. The same is true for Internet sales. The customer still uses services of the City while purchasing and before and after at his/her location. These revenues are needed to pay for the infrastructure (roads, streets and easements) upon which these services are delivered. Local merchants are at a competitive disadvantage when out-of-state merchants can avoid collecting and paying taxes. The federal government should exercise its power under the Commerce Clause to protect the local tax base, which is used to provide needed services and protect local merchants from out-of-state merchants who do not pay state and local taxes, so that there is a level playing field."


For more information on the fairness of Internet sales tax and debatable points of consideration, I'd refer readers to this link.

I think support or non-support for the City's lobbying to collect local sales tax on sales generated by phone, mail order or by Internet, might depend on each individual's ideology regarding taxes.

One argument might be that finding new ways to tax consumers works against all consumers because it raises the price on goods. It does strike me, in some ways, that it is a penalty on the consumer. One might ask, "is, as the City has claimed in its argument, the citizen still using services of the City while purchasing something over the Internet and before and after?" Probably not related to any particular purchase, is my thought. Perhaps those citizens continue to use City services prior to and after they have made a phone or Internet purchase but no more than the citizen would be using those services anyway. How does the everyday use of City services change when a purchase is made by phone or over the Internet? It strikes me, the only changes would be: less gasoline usage; less road usage; less red light camera surveillance; and less required, traffic related service. Remember, the purchase is made while the customer is sitting in their home, breathing free air and minding their own business. They aren't driving over city pavement to get to the store and they aren't stopping off at the park for a picnic lunch on their way to or back from the store. Further, citizens are already being taxed by the City on phone calls and are already taxed on cable use.

It isn't my place, or at least I don't intend to make it my place, to tell citizens what should be an issue to them or not. It's each person's decision as to whether their elected City Council representatives should represent them by asking for taxation on mail order, phone or Internet, interstate sales to provide services such as highway infrastructure or City parks (etc.). It's each person's decision as to whether their elected City Council representatives should represent them by striking the City government's legislative priority to find new and creative ways to bring in more money through taxation, particularly for services which the public is already paying taxes. And, I should note, another City argument is the "level playing field" argument on behalf of merchants within the City. It's up to those merchants whether they believe mail order, phone and internet sales signify a loss in sales at a local level. The City's argument does not state whether any of the local Springfield merchants are up in arms about the issue or not.

Everyone has to make decisions every day as to what is more important to them. We do it at home, we do it at the grocery store when weighing whether peanut butter would be a more economical and nutritious purchase than a can of tuna, we do it when weighing whether our time would be better spent in one activity or another activity. Life's all about choices and choices are based, most usually, on our own opinions or ideology about what is important in life and our circumstances from day to day, week to week, month to month, effect our opinions and ideology as we face choices we might not have faced before in our lives.

To me, a factor in all of this discussion about taxing Internet sales (I hope you do refer to that link above for more information about the issue) by making the argument that the taxes are needed for infrastructure and road improvements doesn't take into account gasoline taxes which already exist for road maintenance and taxes already collected on phone and cable services. The City, recently, accepted a settlement from Sprint-Nextel for payment of back taxes and is involved in other litigation to force other telecommunication companies to pay taxes on cell phone usage. The City Manager has promised and the City Council has pledged to put any further telecommunication settlement money into the police and fire pension plan to help bring it to a full funding level as quickly as possible.

The Obama administration is looking at the possibility of raising the federal gas tax and in this article there are claims that a "Federal Gas Tax Would Lead To Myriad Benefits."

I don't know, it just seems like the government is raking in, or trying to rake in, more and more of our money from every direction and, while I don't doubt there might be a myriad of benefits there are other considerations in the debate.

Traffic World On Line recently published an article in which they cited the latest Manufacturing Report on Business from the Institute for Supply Management. The report indicated most manufacturers are decreasing their capacity due to declining activity. The Traffic World article also reported the lowest order activity since mid-2002 for Class 8 trucks, in December 2008. Sales declined 45 percent compared to December 2007. For some interesting highway history, this is a good link.

Another, entirely different issue, unrelated to the sales tax is the City's new inclusion of the "parks" as a "needed service." Are the City's parks "needed services" or are they welcomed luxuries? Will this inclusion set a precedent? Will "parks" now be considered a "core" City service and should they be considered a "core" City service?

I think most people understand the difference between a "necessity" and a "luxury" but maybe the City doesn't, and since they read this blog regularly, maybe I should add those definitions for their benefit:

Necessity: 1: the quality or state of being necessary

Luxury: 3 a: something adding to pleasure or comfort but not absolutely necessary b: an indulgence in something that provides pleasure, satisfaction, or ease.

And again, I think it would depend on an individual's personal ideology whether nice parks are a need or necessity to the residents of a city. I don't think of them as a necessity, myself, at least not like oxygen, clean water, food, and the assurance of having a safe environment to raise families and make a living.

Have fun determining your own opinion about the City's legislative priority to collect taxes on mail order, phone and Internet sales and whether you agree with the definition of parks as a needed service.

There will be an opportunity for the public to address the City Council on this and every other item listed in the City of Springfield's 2009 Legislative Priorities on Monday night at the regularly scheduled City Council meeting. It starts at 7:00 p.m. and will be held in the City Council chambers on the third floor of City Hall.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Friday, January 23, 2009

Good for the Goose?

I was just looking over the "resolution adopting the City of Springfield's Legislative Policy for 2009," and noticed something I thought readers might find interesting.

Some time ago, City Council candidate Tom Martz opposed the restaurant fees imposed on food establishments in Springfield with a statement I found particularly succinct.

Martz said:

"To require businesses and consumers to pay for a government mandated inspection, by government, runs counter-productive for the services we are already paying for via taxation.” (CFP, 07-02-08 Issue)


The meeting minutes of the June 16, 2008 Council meeting tell us:

"Mr. Burlison moved to table the restaurant inspection portion of the proposed ordinance. Ms. Rushefsky seconded the motion. Mayor Carlson asked Council to vote on the proposed motion. The motion failed as follows:

Ayes: Collette, Chiles, Wylie, Manley, Whayne, Deaver, and Carlson. Nays: Rushefsky and Burlison. Abstain: None. Absent: None.

Mayor Carlson expressed his belief that the fee is fair and should be assessed. He also noted the proposed fees had been discussed during budget discussions and previous meetings.

Ms. Rushefsky noted she is not opposed to the fee but expressed concerns that local restaurants may not understand the proposed fee. She expressed her belief that more education is needed for local restaurants.

Mr. Whayne expressed concern regarding the timing of the fees due to the deficit in regards to the budget.

Mr. Deaver expressed his support of the proposed council bill.

Ms. Collette expressed her support of the proposed. She noted she would like to see the proposed in use and then amend if necessary.

Council Bill 2008-153. General Ordinance 5762 was approved by the following vote: Ayes: Collette, Chiles, Wylie, Manley, Whayne, Rushefsky, Burlison, Deaver, and Carlson. Nays: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None"


The reason the action on the restaurant fees has bearing on what Council will decide on Monday night regarding the legislative priorities they will be asked to approve should become clear to you when you read this section of the legislative priorities of the City for 2009:

Section C.4 Mandates

a. STATE. In recent years the state government has by law established mandates for certain local government which have been unfunded. This creates an unreasonable economic burden and is in violation of the principles established in the Constitution of the State of Missouri. The City government strongly opposes any state mandates which are unfunded.

b. FEDERAL. The federal government should refrain from establishing new programs which shift the burden of federal programs to local government without being accompanied by funding to pay for the costs of such programs. The application of the FLSA to city personnel also acts as a mandate by imposing unwarranted costs on local government, particularly in the area of police and fire service. The City government strongly opposes any federal mandates that are unfunded.

Just in case it isn't as clear to you as it is to me, let's have a little fun and pretend we are a restaurant owner using the city's own arguments:

In 2008, the city government has by law established mandates for local food service establishments which have been unfunded.This creates an unreasonable economic burden and is in violation of the principles established in the Constitution of the State of Missouri. The food establishments strongly oppose any city mandates which are unfunded.

Further, the city government should refrain from establishing new fees which shift the burden of city programs (or services) to food establishments without being accompanied by funding to pay for the costs of such programs (or services). Such a mandate imposes unwarranted costs on food establishments. The food establishments of the city of Springfield strongly oppose any city mandates that are unfunded.


Just as a little extra aside, notice how the city appears to be admitting in their own argument that such government mandates unaccompanied by funding "is in violation of the principles established in the Constitution of the State of Missouri?" Oh my.