Fargo in the next 10 years??

[TAILG8R]

In my opinion a vote shouldn’t be weighted so it’s decided before ballots are cast. When a vote of citizens and property owners wouldn’t pass without setting it up that way it certainly doesn’t seem right.

I have no problems with new schools. Can’t remember the last time I voted against one. Not sure what your point is as it’s a poor comparison.

I have no idea what your point is. Is it about property owners being able to vote or that the vote was stacked to win before the election? If so how?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Grizzled]

I have no idea what your point is. Is it about property owners being able to vote or that the vote was stacked to win before the election? If so how?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Actually, Its property owners vote not counting. If I remember correctly govt cast votes made up 2/3 of the votes that needed a simple majority to pass. It was set to pass before even being on the ballot. If non govt cast votes were counted like every other election, it didn’t get a majority.

Using your analogy it would give school districts the votes to build schools whenever they want. At least for those my yes votes count for something.

[TAILG8R]

Actually, Its property owners vote not counting. If I remember correctly govt cast votes made up 2/3 of the votes that needed a simple majority to pass. It was set to pass before even being on the ballot. If non govt cast votes were counted like every other election, it didn’t get a majority.

Using your analogy it would give school districts the votes to build schools whenever they want. At least for those my yes votes count for something.

I see what you're saying the reason it didn't make sense was I don't remember it being that way.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Hammersmith]

I see what you're saying the reason it didn't make sense was I don't remember it being that way.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

I remember the vote he's talking about, but he's ignoring the several other votes that were standard and overwhelmingly supported the diversion.


What he's talking about:
Several years ago, there was a decision to be made that had to do with the financing of FM's share of the diversion. Not the payment of it, but the literal financing of it. If the Diversion Authority could guarantee the loan in some way, they could get a better rating on the bonds that the sales tax was going to pay for. Since sales tax revenues are variable in nature, bonds based off of them are rated a little lower, and the interest is a little higher. In a multi-billion project like this, a couple points adds up to some serious money. The solution was a little legal/accounting switcheroo.

The different governing bodies and property owners in FM were asked to vote on a special assessment to back the project. By doing so, the bonds would be rated higher and have the lower interest rate because they'd be backed by real property and not just sales tax projections. The agreement between the property holders and the Diversion Authority is that the specials will never actually be assessed; instead, the loans will be paid by the sales tax. Effectively, it's acting like a co-signed loan where the primary signer is good for the loan, but the second signer allows for a lower interest rate.

As for the vote being a forgone conclusion, he was correct in this one case. The way this vote worked was that the values of the individual votes were based on the level of theoretical assessments on your property. So if, on paper, your assessment was going to be responsible for 0.00001% of the bond, then you would get 0.00001% of the vote. The city and school governments chose to assess their own properties at a higher rate than that of private property owners. On top of that, the cities and schools own a whole lot of property; including improvements like infrastructure. So when all the city and school district shares of the assessment were tallied, they made up something like 2/3 of the total votes. Since they all voted in favor of it(though there were some tense meetings over it), it didn't actually matter how the private property owners voted.

(I remember all this because I happened to attend the WF school board meeting where this was presented and discussed. I believe it was voted on the following meeting. I was there for an unrelated matter, but this was early in the agenda and dominated the meeting.)


That all being said, this vote was only made up of a portion of the citizens of FM. The community has also voted on multiple sales taxes to pay for the diversion, and those were able to be voted on by everyone in the community and they all passed by large margins, including at least one vote that happened AFTER the special assessment vote. So basically Grizzled's argument fails on its face.

[HerdBot]

http://fmmetrocog.org/AgassizGreenway

Here is the website with a video and survey that ends July 10th. I chose camping, fishing, hiking trails and snowmobile trails and cross country skiing as my top priorities. Baseball and softball diamonds would be awesome but we already have plenty of them. Didn't we just build a new softball park in north Fargo?

https://youtu.be/nJFt6zu1kpA

[1998braves64]

http://fmmetrocog.org/AgassizGreenway

Here is the website with a video and survey that ends July 10th. I chose camping, fishing, hiking trails and snowmobile trails and cross country skiing as my top priorities. Baseball and softball diamonds would be awesome but we already have plenty of them. Didn't we just build a new softball park in north Fargo?

https://youtu.be/nJFt6zu1kpA

Yes but in 20 years there could be a need for more. I think they have room for quite a few more out there. 15 years ago there was a huge lack of decent softball diamonds.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL on a bullet train from Hillsboro.

[El_Chapo]

IF there isn't a new NDSU football stadium in the next 10 years, then just shut down the city.

[tony]

Two words: World's Largest Cowbell.

[kab1one]

I remember the vote he's talking about, but he's ignoring the several other votes that were standard and overwhelmingly supported the diversion.


What he's talking about:
Several years ago, there was a decision to be made that had to do with the financing of FM's share of the diversion. Not the payment of it, but the literal financing of it. If the Diversion Authority could guarantee the loan in some way, they could get a better rating on the bonds that the sales tax was going to pay for. Since sales tax revenues are variable in nature, bonds based off of them are rated a little lower, and the interest is a little higher. In a multi-billion project like this, a couple points adds up to some serious money. The solution was a little legal/accounting switcheroo.

The different governing bodies and property owners in FM were asked to vote on a special assessment to back the project. By doing so, the bonds would be rated higher and have the lower interest rate because they'd be backed by real property and not just sales tax projections. The agreement between the property holders and the Diversion Authority is that the specials will never actually be assessed; instead, the loans will be paid by the sales tax. Effectively, it's acting like a co-signed loan where the primary signer is good for the loan, but the second signer allows for a lower interest rate.

As for the vote being a forgone conclusion, he was correct in this one case. The way this vote worked was that the values of the individual votes were based on the level of theoretical assessments on your property. So if, on paper, your assessment was going to be responsible for 0.00001% of the bond, then you would get 0.00001% of the vote. The city and school governments chose to assess their own properties at a higher rate than that of private property owners. On top of that, the cities and schools own a whole lot of property; including improvements like infrastructure. So when all the city and school district shares of the assessment were tallied, they made up something like 2/3 of the total votes. Since they all voted in favor of it(though there were some tense meetings over it), it didn't actually matter how the private property owners voted.

(I remember all this because I happened to attend the WF school board meeting where this was presented and discussed. I believe it was voted on the following meeting. I was there for an unrelated matter, but this was early in the agenda and dominated the meeting.)


That all being said, this vote was only made up of a portion of the citizens of FM. The community has also voted on multiple sales taxes to pay for the diversion, and those were able to be voted on by everyone in the community and they all passed by large margins, including at least one vote that happened AFTER the special assessment vote. So basically Grizzled's argument fails on its face.

Summary of the special assessment district vote

http://fmdam.org/fargo-moorhead-floo...-be-dissolved/


The fraud of the special assessment district was the diversion authority was that the specials would not be assessed, but used to help with the bond rating. That is far from truth, as soon as sales tax did not meet revenues to meet the bond funding, the specials in fact would kick in. As such the sales tax projections counted on a 3% annual growth in sales tax forever to meet bond obligations. In none of the years since this vote has Fargo had a 3% sales tax growth. Revenues have been plat. So the specials would then be assessed to the properties. As Hammer, noted its like co-signing for a car. But any good financial advisor would tell you, NEVER CO SIGN.

The other dirty little secret is the diversion doesn't remove you from flood insurance requirements. If your lot is to low, you need flood insurance with or without the diversion.

[Grizzled]

I remember the vote he's talking about, but he's ignoring the several other votes that were standard and overwhelmingly supported the diversion.


What he's talking about:
Several years ago, there was a decision to be made that had to do with the financing of FM's share of the diversion. Not the payment of it, but the literal financing of it. If the Diversion Authority could guarantee the loan in some way, they could get a better rating on the bonds that the sales tax was going to pay for. Since sales tax revenues are variable in nature, bonds based off of them are rated a little lower, and the interest is a little higher. In a multi-billion project like this, a couple points adds up to some serious money. The solution was a little legal/accounting switcheroo.

The different governing bodies and property owners in FM were asked to vote on a special assessment to back the project. By doing so, the bonds would be rated higher and have the lower interest rate because they'd be backed by real property and not just sales tax projections. The agreement between the property holders and the Diversion Authority is that the specials will never actually be assessed; instead, the loans will be paid by the sales tax. Effectively, it's acting like a co-signed loan where the primary signer is good for the loan, but the second signer allows for a lower interest rate.

As for the vote being a forgone conclusion, he was correct in this one case. The way this vote worked was that the values of the individual votes were based on the level of theoretical assessments on your property. So if, on paper, your assessment was going to be responsible for 0.00001% of the bond, then you would get 0.00001% of the vote. The city and school governments chose to assess their own properties at a higher rate than that of private property owners. On top of that, the cities and schools own a whole lot of property; including improvements like infrastructure. So when all the city and school district shares of the assessment were tallied, they made up something like 2/3 of the total votes. Since they all voted in favor of it(though there were some tense meetings over it), it didn't actually matter how the private property owners voted.

(I remember all this because I happened to attend the WF school board meeting where this was presented and discussed. I believe it was voted on the following meeting. I was there for an unrelated matter, but this was early in the agenda and dominated the meeting.)


That all being said, this vote was only made up of a portion of the citizens of FM. The community has also voted on multiple sales taxes to pay for the diversion, and those were able to be voted on by everyone in the community and they all passed by large margins, including at least one vote that happened AFTER the special assessment vote. So basically Grizzled's argument fails on its face.

Comparing forcing a dollar value on someone’s home to choosing to add or extend a sales tax is laughable. One of the sales taxes that was overwhelming supported was one that was set to expire. The commission stated the specials would not be imposed but no where is it in writing or could one of them guarantee it. When the dollar value of the diversion comes in well above the estimate (which it will) and if any federal or state funding falls short or the sales tax estimate falls short, where do you suppose they turn? Also, the portion that was allowed to vote is the portion the in Cass county that were deemed affected. It actually makes up a really good chunk of the area. Why should someone who would not have specials assessed be allowed to vote??