County Program Aid

Just as there is Local Government Aid (LGA) for cities, so there is County Program Aid. We have already reviewed the LGA for the ten cities in Chisago County. Now consider the state aid to Chisago County government. Statewide, for 2009 there is $42 million LGA and $28 million County Program Aid, for a grand total of $70 million for all 87 counties and 853 cities in the state.

Here are the historical amounts of state aid received by Chisago County. Data is taken from here and here.

Chisago County will receive $367,597 more County Program Aid in 2009 than in 2008 ($2,251,681 - $1,884,084). However, some of that was a projected increase under the old law. The County will receive a $259,826 increase in County Program Aid over the projected amount under the old law ($2,251,681 - $1,991,855).

The 2003 aid allocated to Chisago County under a 2002 Democrat controlled House was cut by the Republicans in 2003 to balance the $4.2 billion state deficit. It was reduced the following two years before it was increased.

The Dems controlled the House in 2007 and 2008, but provided only modest increases for the County. The projected increase for 2009 was significant, but greatly increased by the Democrats under new law.

They want you to believe they are very generous and the Republicans are stingy, but compare the current numbers to previous numbers. The 2009 amount of $2,251,681 still does not rise to the level of the certified aid in 2003 and just tops the level of what was paid in 2003.

Rep. Jeremy Kalin reports, ". . . the legislature increased state aid to Chisago County and area cities more than $425,000 to reduce property tax bills. We also added $25 million more for direct homeowner property tax rebates." So I take it he is saying there is a combined $450,000 more state aid to Chisago County government and its ten cities. Look at Chart 1.

If Kalin is using the 2008 aid figures, then he understated the amount of new aid by $217,000 ($667,000 - $450,000).

If Kalin is using the 2009 projected figures under the old law as a starting point, then he overstated the amount of new aid by $68,000 ($450,000 - $382,000), as illustrated in Chart 2.

In either case, combined, the County and cities receive more state aid. I point out the above disparity with Kalin’s stated figure to draw attention to the imprecision and lack of documentation in Kalin’s reports to his constituents. (I may be missing some aid numbers, but I do not know what they are.)

Undoubtedly, many of his readers are not interested in supporting details. However, many of us are. Simple footnotes or additional explanations would serve him well to provide supporting documentation for his assertions. There is plenty of space on his web site to do just that.

It appears he has understated the amount of new dollars in the case above. On the other hand, he may not want us to know about some of the details, as we have noted previously, because the new LGA law actually hurts several cities in the county.

Lack of Documentation

Rep. Jeremy Kalin (D-17B) wrote his most recent editorial, taking an earlier letter writer to task. In it he appealed to an editorial by the Pioneer Press, attempting to refute that writer. However, he did not provide any documentation so his readers could examine that Pioneer Press piece.

He talked about ". . . $1.6 billion in property taxes spent last year on state highway projects." He has mentioned this figure several times, but has never offered documentation. He failed to point his constituents to the source for this assertion so we can study it for ourselves.

He wrote, "Without the new funding in the Transportation Bill, North Branch would have been forced to ask city residents to pay the $4.5 million (earlier he said $4.2 million) funding gap from property taxes. . ." Again, Kalin failed to give his source for this claim. Certainly the taxpayers of North Branch would benefit by looking at the numbers for themselves.

Kalin defended himself, claiming, "But to say that a bill was drafted to take advantage of the tragedy is mere mud-throwing not supported by facts." He didn’t offer any facts to disprove this just as he claimed the letter writer ". . . relied on personal attacks and absurd exaggerations of fact" without offering any proof of his charge. His mere pronouncement is apparently sufficient in his mind.

In previous pieces he has written about $15 million coming to Chisago County for roads and bridges, but never provides his source for his postulate. He claims to have secured property tax relief, but never gives the numbers or the documentation for those numbers.

Some time ago he claimed, "According to MnDOT's own projections, Minnesota is $2.4 billion behind every year in keeping up our current system." We looked at that here. He threw it out there without directing us to any source. If Mn/DOT truly made those projections, then he should be able to link to documents on their web site.

Some time ago, he declared, "HF2800 [the recently passed transportation bill] will allow MnDOT to repair or replace all of the 13 bridges in worse structural condition than the I35W Bridge." We looked at that statement here and asked for documentation. He did not identify those 13 bridges nor provide his sources.

Examples could be multiplied, but this is sufficient to show he doesn’t think his readers need anything more than his word.

Kalin wants us to work with the ". . . real facts. . ." But he has little or no interest in giving the sources of those "facts." As a representative of Chisago County downtown, he needs to tell us the facts and provide the Internet links and documentation to support his claims. While many readers are unconcerned about evidence and are willing to accept his claims without proof, many of us are not. My high school teachers would have given him a failing grade on a report that did not provide documentation. I hereby give him an F for his failure to document his assertions in his communications with us.