Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
09 At Large Candidate Raymond Truelson
Hear why Raymond wants to be elected this November for the City Council At-Large seat.
09 At Large Candidate Roger Wacek
Hear why Roger wants to be elected this November for the City Council At-Large seat.
09 At Large Candidate Kurt Welker
Hear why Kurt wants to be elected this November for the City Council At-Large seat.
09 At Large Candidate Fred Ventura
Hear why Fred wants to be elected this November for the City Council At-Large seat.
09 At Large Candidate David Thul
Hear why David wants to be elected this November for the City Council At-Large seat.
09 At Large Candidate Chuck Schuler
Hear why Chuck wants to be elected this November for the City Council At Large seat.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Talk of the Town-June 2009
Chamber President Brad Meier discusses the Pohlad Grants and other updates.
Also, member guest Aminur Rahman, Owatonna Curry House describes his new restaurant.
MP3 File
Also, member guest Aminur Rahman, Owatonna Curry House describes his new restaurant.
MP3 File
Talk of the Town-June 2009
Chamber President Brad Meier discusses the Pohlad Grants and other updates.
Also, member guest Aminur Rahman, Owatonna Curry House describes his new restaurant.
MP3 File
Also, member guest Aminur Rahman, Owatonna Curry House describes his new restaurant.
MP3 File
Friday, May 08, 2009
Owatonna City Council Update-May 6th, 2009
City Council Meeting: May 6, 2009; 7 PM
Reported: Stephen O’Connor, Owatonna Public Schools-OACCT Public Policy Committee
Agenda Items of Business Interest:
3.2B-Proposal for Intersection Studies by Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. at St. Paul Road and 26th Street NE and at CSAH 23 and 46th Street NW.
--Approved to enter an intersection study agreement with Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. at the intersection of 26th St. NE and St. Paul Rd. due to the new aquatic center activity.
3.3E- Award Engineering Services for Option 8 storm sewer trunkline.
--Approved and awarded to low bid. After considerable discussion regarding the two bids submitted, the mayor read a letter to council from a resident offering to compensate the city for the difference between the bids in an effort to encourage the council to award the work to the firm providing the higher bid. In the end the council voted to award contract to low bid.
3.4A-Final consideration of Proposed Ordinance No. 8/09 (1444) – Amending Chapter VIII of the City Charter pertaining to limiting appointments to city boards and commissions to city residents.
--Approved amending chapter VII of the city chapter pertaining to limiting appointments to city board and commissions to city residents
3.5B-Resolution No. 27-09 – Approving plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids for 2009 storm water treatment and detention ponds project.
--Approved to send bids for the construction of a federally mandated treatment facility be constructed to treat stormwater watershed from the reconstruction of 26th St. NE from N Cedar Ave. to Keyon Rd this summer. Two treatment and detention ponds are planned for construction this summer at he intersection of 26th St. NE and St. Paul Rd.
3.5c-Resolution No. 28-09 – Accepting bid and awarding contract for 2009 Wastewater Treatment Facility expansion and upgrade project.
--Approved to give bid to lowest bidder, Magney Construction from Chanhassen, MN. Bid is 22.9% under estimated budget costs.
Reported: Stephen O’Connor, Owatonna Public Schools-OACCT Public Policy Committee
Agenda Items of Business Interest:
3.2B-Proposal for Intersection Studies by Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. at St. Paul Road and 26th Street NE and at CSAH 23 and 46th Street NW.
--Approved to enter an intersection study agreement with Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. at the intersection of 26th St. NE and St. Paul Rd. due to the new aquatic center activity.
3.3E- Award Engineering Services for Option 8 storm sewer trunkline.
--Approved and awarded to low bid. After considerable discussion regarding the two bids submitted, the mayor read a letter to council from a resident offering to compensate the city for the difference between the bids in an effort to encourage the council to award the work to the firm providing the higher bid. In the end the council voted to award contract to low bid.
3.4A-Final consideration of Proposed Ordinance No. 8/09 (1444) – Amending Chapter VIII of the City Charter pertaining to limiting appointments to city boards and commissions to city residents.
--Approved amending chapter VII of the city chapter pertaining to limiting appointments to city board and commissions to city residents
3.5B-Resolution No. 27-09 – Approving plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids for 2009 storm water treatment and detention ponds project.
--Approved to send bids for the construction of a federally mandated treatment facility be constructed to treat stormwater watershed from the reconstruction of 26th St. NE from N Cedar Ave. to Keyon Rd this summer. Two treatment and detention ponds are planned for construction this summer at he intersection of 26th St. NE and St. Paul Rd.
3.5c-Resolution No. 28-09 – Accepting bid and awarding contract for 2009 Wastewater Treatment Facility expansion and upgrade project.
--Approved to give bid to lowest bidder, Magney Construction from Chanhassen, MN. Bid is 22.9% under estimated budget costs.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
State Board of Equalization (SBE) and Sales Ratio Study Process of Commercial Property Valuations
Timeframe: Why a 12-Month Study?
The SBE utilizes a 12-month sales ratio study in reviewing the level of assessment of properties in each county. This means sales that occurred between October 1 and September 30 are considered as one study period. For the 2009 SBEs that are coming up, the Minnesota Department of Revenue will review sales that occurred between October 1, 2007 and September 30, 2008. This study period is required by law (MS 270.12, subdivision 2).
The value of utilizing a 12-month study is that it allows for a reasonable sample size without including sales that happened so long ago that they no longer reflect the market for the jurisdiction. It is also a consistent standard that can be applied throughout the state. It should be noted that not all sales are included; they are to be verified by the county to be sure they are valid sales and were representative of open-market, arm’s-length transactions. The department also reviews and verifies sales before they are included.
Sample Size: Six Property Sales
The Department of Revenue’s policy requires six sales per property type per jurisdiction to constitute a valid sample. This determination is provided by state law (MS 270.12, subdivision 2) and is consistent with the standards established by the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO). In fact, the IAAO has recently stated as few as five sales can constitute a valid sample.
The six sale minimum provides a sound statistical base that the SBE has deemed to provide reliable information, but it is also cognizant of the fact that many parts of the state struggle to reach the six sale minimum. If this minimum was increased, even fewer counties/jurisdictions would be able meet the minimum requirements. It should also be noted that the six sale minimum is a factor, but it is not a bright line test. The SBE does take into account previous year actions by the county, results of previous assessments, and looks at the larger picture before ordering any changes. The SBE’s goal is equalization, so it considers any and all information to ensure this; the six sale minimum is just a starting point.
Formula for Taxes: Four Components
There is a common misunderstanding that increases in value cause increases in tax. Valuation is only one of the four main components that affect the taxes a property pays. The other three components:
The SBE utilizes a 12-month sales ratio study in reviewing the level of assessment of properties in each county. This means sales that occurred between October 1 and September 30 are considered as one study period. For the 2009 SBEs that are coming up, the Minnesota Department of Revenue will review sales that occurred between October 1, 2007 and September 30, 2008. This study period is required by law (MS 270.12, subdivision 2).
The value of utilizing a 12-month study is that it allows for a reasonable sample size without including sales that happened so long ago that they no longer reflect the market for the jurisdiction. It is also a consistent standard that can be applied throughout the state. It should be noted that not all sales are included; they are to be verified by the county to be sure they are valid sales and were representative of open-market, arm’s-length transactions. The department also reviews and verifies sales before they are included.
Sample Size: Six Property Sales
The Department of Revenue’s policy requires six sales per property type per jurisdiction to constitute a valid sample. This determination is provided by state law (MS 270.12, subdivision 2) and is consistent with the standards established by the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO). In fact, the IAAO has recently stated as few as five sales can constitute a valid sample.
The six sale minimum provides a sound statistical base that the SBE has deemed to provide reliable information, but it is also cognizant of the fact that many parts of the state struggle to reach the six sale minimum. If this minimum was increased, even fewer counties/jurisdictions would be able meet the minimum requirements. It should also be noted that the six sale minimum is a factor, but it is not a bright line test. The SBE does take into account previous year actions by the county, results of previous assessments, and looks at the larger picture before ordering any changes. The SBE’s goal is equalization, so it considers any and all information to ensure this; the six sale minimum is just a starting point.
Formula for Taxes: Four Components
There is a common misunderstanding that increases in value cause increases in tax. Valuation is only one of the four main components that affect the taxes a property pays. The other three components:
- The classification of the property affects the tax liability. Commercial property, for example, has a higher classification rate, so it pays more of the tax liability.
- The percentage of value of each property compared to all other properties determines part of its tax liability as well. If one property type is going up in value while all others are going down, the increased properties are going to shoulder more of the total tax liability.
- The fourth component is the local tax levy rate. If the school, city, or county (for example) requires more revenue to provide services, each property’s tax liability will likely increase to provide this revenue.
The State Board of Equalization works diligently to treat all property types and jurisdictions fairly, using all information available to it to make sound decisions that are statistically-supported and representative of market. It works to equalize values so all properties are valued as close to their market values as possible so they all pay their fair share of taxes.
If you have any additional questions, please contact the County Assessor’s Office at 507-444-7435. The Assessor’s staff should be able to answer your questions or direct you to someone who can.
Friday, April 24, 2009
April 2009-Talk of the Town
Chamber President Brad Meier discusses current legislative issues, as well as announces grant dollars available for business.
Chamber member guest is Radzoo.
Appx. 16 min.
MP3 File
Chamber member guest is Radzoo.
Appx. 16 min.
MP3 File
Tax Bill Vote Today-Contact Legislators
The Minnesota House and Senate have unveiled their plans for solving the budget deficit. The House Omnibus Tax Bill includes a net tax increase of $1.5 billion and the Senate Omnibus Tax Bill proposes a net tax increase of $2.2 billion. It is anticipated that the Senate bill will be on the floor tomorrow and the House bill on Saturday. We urge you to contact your legislators today to let them know how the tax increases in HF 2323 and SF 2074 will negatively impact your business (see below).
Rep. Kory Kath
Email: rep.kory.kath@house.mn
Phone: 651-296-5368
Sen. Dick Day
Email: sen.dick.day@senate.mn
Phone: 651-296-9457
Here is a short list of the tax proposals that will affect Minnesota employers:
House Ombnibus Tax Bill – $1.5 Billion Tax Increases
Lodging Tax
We oppose giving cities the authority to use local lodging tax revenue for general purposes. This money is intended to promote the local community and diverting this revenue to other purposes risks losing tourism to locations in other states.
Creation of a 4th Tier Income Tax Rate at 9%
Most small-business owners report business income on their personal income tax return, so a personal income tax increase would hurt small employers – and their employees. The substantial increase would also make it more difficult and more expensive for employers to recruit top talent to work in Minnesota, creating an incentive to locate those positions elsewhere.
Street Improvement Fee
The street improvement “fee” gives cities the authority to impose an additional tax to fund a laundry list of transportation-related projects. These districts could be drawn arbitrarily, taxes apportioned inequitably – without any requirement to establish a benefit to the property owners being taxed.
Senate Omnibus Tax Bill – $2.2 Billion Tax Increases
Income Tax Increases and the Creation of a 4th Tier at 9.25%
Minnesota already has the sixth highest per capita income tax burden in the nation. The Senate legislation will increase income taxes across all brackets AND create a 4th tier at 9.25% for joint filers with income above $250,000. As a result, Minnesota would have the fourth highest tax rate in the nation.
Statewide Property Tax Increase
Minnesota employers continue to pay high property taxes. In some areas of the state, the business property tax burden is among the heaviest in the nation.
Halting the Sales-Only Apportionment
In 2005, state lawmakers recognized that allocating corporate income taxes based on Minnesota sales, property and employment actually penalizes companies for investing and creating jobs in Minnesota. Lawmakers committed to moving Minnesota’s corporate income tax apportionment to a sales only factor by 2014. Rather than freeze the phase-in of sales-only apportionment, the Senate should follow the House’s lead and move immediately to a 100 percent sales factor in 2009.
____________________________
TEXT OF LETTER
Dear [Representative/Senator],
I oppose the tax increases in HF 2323 and SF 2074 and I urge you to not support any tax increase on job providers to solve the budget deficit. The state government is not the only one facing financial difficulties.
[optional personalized paragraph]
Minnesota businesses are doing everything we can to cut costs and keep our workers employed. We don't have the option of simply increasing our revenue. If you try to solve the deficit by adding to our already high tax burden, you will only be adding to our financial difficulties.
Please do not raise taxes. As one of your constituents, I will look forward to your leadership and voting support on this issue.
Sincerely,
Constituent Name
Address
Rep. Kory Kath
Email: rep.kory.kath@house.mn
Phone: 651-296-5368
Sen. Dick Day
Email: sen.dick.day@senate.mn
Phone: 651-296-9457
Here is a short list of the tax proposals that will affect Minnesota employers:
House Ombnibus Tax Bill – $1.5 Billion Tax Increases
Lodging Tax
We oppose giving cities the authority to use local lodging tax revenue for general purposes. This money is intended to promote the local community and diverting this revenue to other purposes risks losing tourism to locations in other states.
Creation of a 4th Tier Income Tax Rate at 9%
Most small-business owners report business income on their personal income tax return, so a personal income tax increase would hurt small employers – and their employees. The substantial increase would also make it more difficult and more expensive for employers to recruit top talent to work in Minnesota, creating an incentive to locate those positions elsewhere.
Street Improvement Fee
The street improvement “fee” gives cities the authority to impose an additional tax to fund a laundry list of transportation-related projects. These districts could be drawn arbitrarily, taxes apportioned inequitably – without any requirement to establish a benefit to the property owners being taxed.
Senate Omnibus Tax Bill – $2.2 Billion Tax Increases
Income Tax Increases and the Creation of a 4th Tier at 9.25%
Minnesota already has the sixth highest per capita income tax burden in the nation. The Senate legislation will increase income taxes across all brackets AND create a 4th tier at 9.25% for joint filers with income above $250,000. As a result, Minnesota would have the fourth highest tax rate in the nation.
Statewide Property Tax Increase
Minnesota employers continue to pay high property taxes. In some areas of the state, the business property tax burden is among the heaviest in the nation.
Halting the Sales-Only Apportionment
In 2005, state lawmakers recognized that allocating corporate income taxes based on Minnesota sales, property and employment actually penalizes companies for investing and creating jobs in Minnesota. Lawmakers committed to moving Minnesota’s corporate income tax apportionment to a sales only factor by 2014. Rather than freeze the phase-in of sales-only apportionment, the Senate should follow the House’s lead and move immediately to a 100 percent sales factor in 2009.
____________________________
TEXT OF LETTER
Dear [Representative/Senator],
I oppose the tax increases in HF 2323 and SF 2074 and I urge you to not support any tax increase on job providers to solve the budget deficit. The state government is not the only one facing financial difficulties.
[optional personalized paragraph]
Minnesota businesses are doing everything we can to cut costs and keep our workers employed. We don't have the option of simply increasing our revenue. If you try to solve the deficit by adding to our already high tax burden, you will only be adding to our financial difficulties.
Please do not raise taxes. As one of your constituents, I will look forward to your leadership and voting support on this issue.
Sincerely,
Constituent Name
Address
Thursday, April 02, 2009
CO2 Carbon Legislation Impacts Business
By: Steve Shurts, General Manager Owatonna Public Utilities
(Permission given to post this email)
Dear OPU Customer:
This blind copy email is being sent to several of OPU’s customers to advise you of a recent report issued by a group of Midwestern utilities, including the Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (our supplier). It analyzed the economic impacts of a federal cap-and-trade program. The study is reported in a story which I have copied below. The salient point is that we do not want to see a carbon tax or true auction. While I personally am opposed to any CO2 program, the only one that makes a modicum of sense is the one mentioned by Raj Rao of the Indiana Municipal Power Agency. The type of program he mentions allocates credits to current producers of CO2 and then they are capped at that rate. If a utility (or any producer) wants to produce more CO2, for example, by building a coal-fired plant, they must buy credits from others or find means to reduce the production of the CO2 in their system. This is a way to spur technological improvements without immediately penalizing those utilities that use a lot of coal to generate electricity.
Please understand that SMMPA’s electric generation is heavily weighted with coal, so a CO2 tax or auction will hit us very hard. SMMPA and OPU have been and will continue to do what we can to lobby our congressional delegation and to take proactive measures to keep your costs down. However, I urge you to also contact our senator(s) and representatives in Washington DC. Your voices are important.
I must take a minute to tell you about another point I have been telling our politicians in St. Paul and DC. I’ve heard from some of them that the rising tide will lift all boats; i.e. every utility will get hit with higher costs under a tax or auction. Here are the two points I make:
§ First, if an Owatonna business competes with a company in the Pacific Northwest where a huge portion of the generation is from hydro plants, your competitor’s electric rates will not be affected nearly as much. There are pockets of low-carbon generation and high-carbon generation. So Owatonna loses.
§ Second, if an Owatonna business competes with a company in a foreign country, particularly China, your competitor will likely not even get hit with a carbon tax. Owatonna loses again.
My point is that the tide will lift boats to various levels; some much higher than others. Sorry for the long email, but thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Steve Shurts General Manager
Owatonna Public Utilities 208 S Walnut Ave Owatonna MN 55060 507.446.5402 http://www.owatonnautilities.com/
Federal cap-and-trade program for CO2 could 'devastate' Midwestern economy, study findsMidwestern consumers can expect significantly higher energy costs under a federal greenhouse gas (GHG) cap-and-trade regime, and "could face alarming economic impacts" under some program designs, a group of utilities said yesterday. A study conducted by the group, called the Midwest Consumer Utilities, said a cap-and-trade program that auctions all allowances would have the most severe impacts. The utilities include Indiana Municipal Power Agency, Madison Gas and Electric Co., Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission, Missouri River Energy Services, Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency and WPPI Energy. The study projects the potential rate impact of various legislative approaches on the utilities' customers, including businesses and industry, and on the economies in their respective states. It shows that, depending on the auction price of allowances, the average rate increases for consumers in the seven Midwestern states studied could be up to 79% from 2012 to 2030 under a cap-and-trade program that uses a 100% auction method that does not refund auction revenues back to those customers. Some states would experience even larger annual average increases, the study said. Even if the cap-and-trade program were designed using a method that allocates 100% of allowances at no cost for rate mitigation purposes, rates could still rise an average of up to 37% for this same period, the analysis found. "Under any new carbon legislation, a no-cost allocation process with a cap on total emissions is the best way to keep electricity cost increases to a minimum and to limit greenhouse gas emissions" said Raj Rao, CEO of the Indiana Municipal Power Agency. "An auction or carbon tax will cause electricity prices to go up significantly and hurt all customers in the Midwest region," he said. "Congress is about to embark on an important national debate," said Roy Thilly, CEO of WPPI Energy. "We hope the sober results we present today help guide the outcome." The method chosen to distribute allowances and recycle auction revenues will dramatically affect the cost of compliance borne by consumers and the general economy, particularly in coal-intensive states in the Midwest, the utilities said. "The results may be much more extreme if cost-effective new technologies do not materialize or are delayed," they said. "Unless new electric technologies can be deployed first, the Midwest is where cap-and-trade will really turn out the lights on the job market," said Duncan Kinchloe, general manager and CEO of the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission. Cap-and-trade programs limit the amount of pollutant emissions produced by some sectors of the national economy, while offering flexibility in how those targets are met. In theory, they are intended to achieve emissions targets in the least cost manner and mitigate substantial wealth transfers, between and among customers and regions, that can accompany the introduction of GHG reduction strategies. "The no-cost allocation of allowances is essential to help those states that face the greatest challenges in moving to a low carbon economy," the Midwestern utilities said.
(Permission given to post this email)
Dear OPU Customer:
This blind copy email is being sent to several of OPU’s customers to advise you of a recent report issued by a group of Midwestern utilities, including the Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (our supplier). It analyzed the economic impacts of a federal cap-and-trade program. The study is reported in a story which I have copied below. The salient point is that we do not want to see a carbon tax or true auction. While I personally am opposed to any CO2 program, the only one that makes a modicum of sense is the one mentioned by Raj Rao of the Indiana Municipal Power Agency. The type of program he mentions allocates credits to current producers of CO2 and then they are capped at that rate. If a utility (or any producer) wants to produce more CO2, for example, by building a coal-fired plant, they must buy credits from others or find means to reduce the production of the CO2 in their system. This is a way to spur technological improvements without immediately penalizing those utilities that use a lot of coal to generate electricity.
Please understand that SMMPA’s electric generation is heavily weighted with coal, so a CO2 tax or auction will hit us very hard. SMMPA and OPU have been and will continue to do what we can to lobby our congressional delegation and to take proactive measures to keep your costs down. However, I urge you to also contact our senator(s) and representatives in Washington DC. Your voices are important.
I must take a minute to tell you about another point I have been telling our politicians in St. Paul and DC. I’ve heard from some of them that the rising tide will lift all boats; i.e. every utility will get hit with higher costs under a tax or auction. Here are the two points I make:
§ First, if an Owatonna business competes with a company in the Pacific Northwest where a huge portion of the generation is from hydro plants, your competitor’s electric rates will not be affected nearly as much. There are pockets of low-carbon generation and high-carbon generation. So Owatonna loses.
§ Second, if an Owatonna business competes with a company in a foreign country, particularly China, your competitor will likely not even get hit with a carbon tax. Owatonna loses again.
My point is that the tide will lift boats to various levels; some much higher than others. Sorry for the long email, but thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Steve Shurts General Manager
Owatonna Public Utilities 208 S Walnut Ave Owatonna MN 55060 507.446.5402 http://www.owatonnautilities.com/
Federal cap-and-trade program for CO2 could 'devastate' Midwestern economy, study findsMidwestern consumers can expect significantly higher energy costs under a federal greenhouse gas (GHG) cap-and-trade regime, and "could face alarming economic impacts" under some program designs, a group of utilities said yesterday. A study conducted by the group, called the Midwest Consumer Utilities, said a cap-and-trade program that auctions all allowances would have the most severe impacts. The utilities include Indiana Municipal Power Agency, Madison Gas and Electric Co., Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission, Missouri River Energy Services, Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency and WPPI Energy. The study projects the potential rate impact of various legislative approaches on the utilities' customers, including businesses and industry, and on the economies in their respective states. It shows that, depending on the auction price of allowances, the average rate increases for consumers in the seven Midwestern states studied could be up to 79% from 2012 to 2030 under a cap-and-trade program that uses a 100% auction method that does not refund auction revenues back to those customers. Some states would experience even larger annual average increases, the study said. Even if the cap-and-trade program were designed using a method that allocates 100% of allowances at no cost for rate mitigation purposes, rates could still rise an average of up to 37% for this same period, the analysis found. "Under any new carbon legislation, a no-cost allocation process with a cap on total emissions is the best way to keep electricity cost increases to a minimum and to limit greenhouse gas emissions" said Raj Rao, CEO of the Indiana Municipal Power Agency. "An auction or carbon tax will cause electricity prices to go up significantly and hurt all customers in the Midwest region," he said. "Congress is about to embark on an important national debate," said Roy Thilly, CEO of WPPI Energy. "We hope the sober results we present today help guide the outcome." The method chosen to distribute allowances and recycle auction revenues will dramatically affect the cost of compliance borne by consumers and the general economy, particularly in coal-intensive states in the Midwest, the utilities said. "The results may be much more extreme if cost-effective new technologies do not materialize or are delayed," they said. "Unless new electric technologies can be deployed first, the Midwest is where cap-and-trade will really turn out the lights on the job market," said Duncan Kinchloe, general manager and CEO of the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission. Cap-and-trade programs limit the amount of pollutant emissions produced by some sectors of the national economy, while offering flexibility in how those targets are met. In theory, they are intended to achieve emissions targets in the least cost manner and mitigate substantial wealth transfers, between and among customers and regions, that can accompany the introduction of GHG reduction strategies. "The no-cost allocation of allowances is essential to help those states that face the greatest challenges in moving to a low carbon economy," the Midwestern utilities said.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Flower Baskets to Increased Owatonna Visitors
Just over five years ago the Owatonna Area Chamber of Commerce & Tourism (OACCT) in partnership with the Owatonna Economic Development Authority, and Owatonna Public Utilities conducted a Business Retention and Expansion Program, surveying 102 businesses in Owatonna. Of those businesses visited, 83% rated beautification of the community as “important” or “very important.” This response helped to launch the hanging flower basket program that now originally consisted of 55 baskets and has grown today to 175 baskets!
It is difficult to measure the impact hanging flower baskets have on a community. We continually evaluate the Owatonna program and ask ourselves questions such as, “how many people visit Owatonna because we have added flower baskets?” or “how can we determine if the flower baskets bring consumer traffic to our businesses?” or “what is the impact of the flower baskets, period?”
And the answer we continually come back to is the old adage of – you don’t get a second chance to make a first impression. And the hanging flower baskets certainly add to this notion.
For more information, contact Lisa Havelka (lhavelka@owatonna.org) or 507.451.7970.
Tourism Conventions Bring in Dollars to Locals
Things really get moving this month in Owatonna as three of the largest conventions in Owatonna return to the Four Season Center.
The Farm & Power Show returns for their fifth year after moving the show from downtown Minneapolis. The outstate setting has created easier access for show exhibitors and participants. However, there is a continual challenge they face in Owatonna, not enough space. Each year show organizers tell us they could fill another building full of exhibitors.
On March 13-15 the Deer & Turkey Expo returns for their third year in Owatonna. This show is for all those outdoor enthusiasts that hunt whitetail deer, turkey, other big game, waterfowl and upland birds and small game.
To round out the month, the KOWZ Home & Recreation show fills the former ice rink and brings close to 8,000 people through their doors.
This year in June, Owatonna will host the Firefighters Convention. This event typically brings 500+ firefighters from across the state to town for training and fun. It will fill hotels here and in surrounding communities.
Each of these events are big boosters to the local economy. They fill the hotels, increase restaurant patrons, utilize the convenience stores and more. Be ready to great our guests and encourage their return to Owatonna to Discover our Faces and Places.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Employee Free Choice Act-Not Good for Employees
By: Brad Meier, President/CEO, Owatonna Area Chamber of Commerce & Tourism
Now that Congress has passed a stimulus package, one of the next pieces of legislation could drastically change the way businesses operate and interact with their employees. You might have heard about Card Check, otherwise known as the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). It’s legislation that would take away an employee’s right to a secret ballot when voting for or against a union.
The concerns about taking away a secret ballot are many, but most importantly because it puts the employee in an awkward position where both the business and the union will know how he or she votes. During Card Check organizing drives, workers have to publicly declare their support or opposition to union representation, exposing them to intimidation, harassment and coercion. Although current law permits use of card check procedures in certain circumstances, the federal courts have explicitly said that card checks are inferior to secret ballot elections as a method for discerning the true wishes of employees.
In addition, the legislation does not take away secret ballot for decertification votes.
This legislation, if proposed as it was in 2007, would not only take away secret ballot, but would also create a binding arbitration scenario after 120 days. This would allow federal government arbitrators to dictate wages, benefits and all other terms and conditions of the workplace under a union contract, and then deprive workers of the chance to vote on that contract. Under normal contract negotiations employees have the opportunity to ratify a contract. This expansion of government power takes away the direct relationship between the worker and employer and puts the determination of a workers contract in a third party’s hands.
Finally, the Employee Free Choice Act imposes dramatic new penalties on employers for violations of the National Labor Relations Act, but not a single new penalty on unions or labor organizers. Under one provision of the new penalty structure, employers would be vulnerable to an injunction reinstating a dismissed employee if that employee, or the union seeking to represent him or her, merely alleges that the dismissal was because of union activity. Such a low threshold goes against all traditional labor law due process.
The Owatonna Area Chamber of Commerce & Tourism, on behalf of its members, is opposed to this legislation because of the ramifications it would have on workers and businesses. It is a fundamentally flawed bill that will negatively change the way America does business.
In 2007, Card Check passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 241-185. The bill had a slim majority of support in the Senate, but fell to a filibuster on a 51-48 vote. 60 votes are needed to end a filibuster (known as cloture).
The political dynamics have changed as a result of the 2008 elections. Card Check advocates have expanded their majority in the House and in the Senate. However, the economy has worsened, labor is winning elections, and there is a real possibility this legislation could pass.
Consideration by the House is expected soon followed by the Senate debate. 60 votes is a significant but reachable goal for the bill’s proponents.
Congressman Tim Walz voted for this legislation in 2007; however, at a recent meeting in Owatonna stated he had not made a decision about his vote this time around. We encourage employees and business leaders to contact their Congressional representatives to voice concern and opposition to this legislation. Let’s position the economy for future success.
For a sample letter and our Congressional contact information, go to www.owatonna.org.
The concerns about taking away a secret ballot are many, but most importantly because it puts the employee in an awkward position where both the business and the union will know how he or she votes. During Card Check organizing drives, workers have to publicly declare their support or opposition to union representation, exposing them to intimidation, harassment and coercion. Although current law permits use of card check procedures in certain circumstances, the federal courts have explicitly said that card checks are inferior to secret ballot elections as a method for discerning the true wishes of employees.
In addition, the legislation does not take away secret ballot for decertification votes.
This legislation, if proposed as it was in 2007, would not only take away secret ballot, but would also create a binding arbitration scenario after 120 days. This would allow federal government arbitrators to dictate wages, benefits and all other terms and conditions of the workplace under a union contract, and then deprive workers of the chance to vote on that contract. Under normal contract negotiations employees have the opportunity to ratify a contract. This expansion of government power takes away the direct relationship between the worker and employer and puts the determination of a workers contract in a third party’s hands.
Finally, the Employee Free Choice Act imposes dramatic new penalties on employers for violations of the National Labor Relations Act, but not a single new penalty on unions or labor organizers. Under one provision of the new penalty structure, employers would be vulnerable to an injunction reinstating a dismissed employee if that employee, or the union seeking to represent him or her, merely alleges that the dismissal was because of union activity. Such a low threshold goes against all traditional labor law due process.
The Owatonna Area Chamber of Commerce & Tourism, on behalf of its members, is opposed to this legislation because of the ramifications it would have on workers and businesses. It is a fundamentally flawed bill that will negatively change the way America does business.
In 2007, Card Check passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 241-185. The bill had a slim majority of support in the Senate, but fell to a filibuster on a 51-48 vote. 60 votes are needed to end a filibuster (known as cloture).
The political dynamics have changed as a result of the 2008 elections. Card Check advocates have expanded their majority in the House and in the Senate. However, the economy has worsened, labor is winning elections, and there is a real possibility this legislation could pass.
Consideration by the House is expected soon followed by the Senate debate. 60 votes is a significant but reachable goal for the bill’s proponents.
Congressman Tim Walz voted for this legislation in 2007; however, at a recent meeting in Owatonna stated he had not made a decision about his vote this time around. We encourage employees and business leaders to contact their Congressional representatives to voice concern and opposition to this legislation. Let’s position the economy for future success.
For a sample letter and our Congressional contact information, go to www.owatonna.org.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
February Talk of the Town
Chamber President Brad Meier discusses current happenings at the Chamber. Also, member Nagel Sod is featured in the business spotlight.
Appx. 19 min. MP3 File
Appx. 19 min. MP3 File
Friday, February 27, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
EFCA Op-Ed
EFCA Op-Ed
Tom Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
WASHINGTON, D.C. — By now, many people know that the so-called Employee Free Choice Act — also known as "Card Check" — would strip workers of the protection of a secret ballot vote in union organizing elections. This inherently undemocratic proposal would make it cheap and easy for unions to corral new members — and the union dues that come with them.
What most people don't realize is that the Card Check bill would also give the federal government the power to set wages, benefits, and work rules for employers in a wide variety of industries throughout the economy.
Under this bill, once a union is formed, employers would be under a strict deadline to reach an agreement on all of the union's demands. If no agreement is reached after just 120 days, the matter would go to a federal arbitration panel, which would then write and hand down the union contract. That contract would bind both parties for two years with the same force as if it had been agreed to through full and fair negotiations.
For the first time a federal authority would set private sector wages, specific work rules and other work place restrictions, including forcing employees into underfunded and unsustainable pension plans.
This one provision would overturn more than seven decades of American labor law, all built on the principle that the government's proper role is to ensure fairness and protect workers — not to dictate outcomes.
The practical result of this radical change would be to incentivize unions to take extreme positions in collective bargaining and then stonewall, expecting the government arbitration panel to at least "split the difference" on their list of demands. Once the government steps in, the employer would lose all control of the workplace.
This would also create an opportunity for unions to force provisions into contracts that they could never get at the bargaining table, such as productivity-killing work rules, union approval of restructuring, and restrictions on the use of new technologies at the workplace.
In addition to employers losing in this scheme workers lose too. Under current law, workers often get the chance to vote on their contract — and they sometimes reject the deal. But when government bureaucrats are dictating the contract, melding together widely divergent positions taken by labor and management, it doesn't matter what the workers want — the Employee Free Choice Act denies them a chance to vote.
Unions say that radical action is necessary because employers and unions don't always reach a first contract despite prolonged bargaining. However, this possibility was understood when the National Labor Relations Act was enacted 72 years ago. The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the government has no role as blunt instrument of coercion principle in 1970, noting:
"… it was recognized from the beginning that agreement might in some cases be impossible, and it was never intended that the Government would in such cases step in, become a party to the negotiations and impose its own views of a desirable settlement."
The process isn't perfect, but the reason it works is that neither side holds all the cards, there are rules of fair-play, no side is compelled to accept terms that could result in its demise, and the government acts only as referee not dictator.
Perhaps some of those rules could be strengthened and the government could be a better referee. But the Card Check bill sets a time limit for the process and then transforms the government from referee to dictator.
Seventy-five percent of respondents in a recent poll said negotiating is the preferred method for developing contracts rather than allowing government arbitrators to impose a contract.
It's not labor law reform to permit government arbitrators who don't know the business or the employees or the market to write labor contracts — it's a prescription for disaster.
Tom Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
WASHINGTON, D.C. — By now, many people know that the so-called Employee Free Choice Act — also known as "Card Check" — would strip workers of the protection of a secret ballot vote in union organizing elections. This inherently undemocratic proposal would make it cheap and easy for unions to corral new members — and the union dues that come with them.
What most people don't realize is that the Card Check bill would also give the federal government the power to set wages, benefits, and work rules for employers in a wide variety of industries throughout the economy.
Under this bill, once a union is formed, employers would be under a strict deadline to reach an agreement on all of the union's demands. If no agreement is reached after just 120 days, the matter would go to a federal arbitration panel, which would then write and hand down the union contract. That contract would bind both parties for two years with the same force as if it had been agreed to through full and fair negotiations.
For the first time a federal authority would set private sector wages, specific work rules and other work place restrictions, including forcing employees into underfunded and unsustainable pension plans.
This one provision would overturn more than seven decades of American labor law, all built on the principle that the government's proper role is to ensure fairness and protect workers — not to dictate outcomes.
The practical result of this radical change would be to incentivize unions to take extreme positions in collective bargaining and then stonewall, expecting the government arbitration panel to at least "split the difference" on their list of demands. Once the government steps in, the employer would lose all control of the workplace.
This would also create an opportunity for unions to force provisions into contracts that they could never get at the bargaining table, such as productivity-killing work rules, union approval of restructuring, and restrictions on the use of new technologies at the workplace.
In addition to employers losing in this scheme workers lose too. Under current law, workers often get the chance to vote on their contract — and they sometimes reject the deal. But when government bureaucrats are dictating the contract, melding together widely divergent positions taken by labor and management, it doesn't matter what the workers want — the Employee Free Choice Act denies them a chance to vote.
Unions say that radical action is necessary because employers and unions don't always reach a first contract despite prolonged bargaining. However, this possibility was understood when the National Labor Relations Act was enacted 72 years ago. The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the government has no role as blunt instrument of coercion principle in 1970, noting:
"… it was recognized from the beginning that agreement might in some cases be impossible, and it was never intended that the Government would in such cases step in, become a party to the negotiations and impose its own views of a desirable settlement."
The process isn't perfect, but the reason it works is that neither side holds all the cards, there are rules of fair-play, no side is compelled to accept terms that could result in its demise, and the government acts only as referee not dictator.
Perhaps some of those rules could be strengthened and the government could be a better referee. But the Card Check bill sets a time limit for the process and then transforms the government from referee to dictator.
Seventy-five percent of respondents in a recent poll said negotiating is the preferred method for developing contracts rather than allowing government arbitrators to impose a contract.
It's not labor law reform to permit government arbitrators who don't know the business or the employees or the market to write labor contracts — it's a prescription for disaster.
Get ready for impact of state budget cuts
By David C. Olson
By David C. Olson
Death, taxes and budget cuts. When asked about the things in life that are certain, the first two are the most common response. It’s time to add “budget cuts” to the list at least for 2009.
By this June, Minnesota will have a new biennial budget. The ledger must be balanced as required by our State Constitution. Right now the shortfall between expected revenues and spending in current law is $4.8 billion. After the February forecast, the gap will likely grow to at least $6 billion or almost 20 percent of the state’s general fund.
Budget cuts are as certain as the sunrise. Even if the state’s big-spenders have their way and we require our state’s job-producers to pay higher taxes, it won’t close a $6 billion hole. Reductions in expected state spending are inevitable.
Let me make it very clear that this will be painful. It is a lot more fun to increase spending than it is to make cuts. Given this reality, what should business leaders and chamber of commerce executives do? It is time to tell the public sector, including and especially its “vendors,” to start immediately to figure out how to get the job done with reduced resources.
This is not a license to tell government to “run like a business.” Its responsibilities are too broad. But some common-sense practices do apply. And, the sooner we share them, the better.
First, protect the customers. When a business faces trouble, its last resorts are reducing services and raising prices. Governments and their vendors apparently don’t understand. How many times do we have to hear that the first cuts will be police and fire protection, classroom teachers and plowing our streets? Far too often public officials go right to areas they know will scare their constituents. What are these officials thinking about? Politics, not their customers.
Second, protect your workforce. More often than not, layoffs mean good workers are permanently lost to the enterprise, and the affected workers and their dependents face chaotic, desperate times. When business improves – and it will – firms have to recruit and train all over again. A better route for all is for employers and employees to agree on reduced wages and benefits, sufficient to make it through “the night.” The enterprise keeps and continues to serve its customers. The trauma of job loss is minimized. And the organization is ready to rebound with the economy. There is still plenty of pain, but it need not be fatal.
Third, start now. The new budget in June and the accompanying cuts are around the corner. Every organization that receives a state check – whether it is school aid, local government aid or Medicaid reimbursement – should act immediately to reduce personnel costs, and, if possible, other overhead expenses. The negotiations won’t be easy. Those who represent workers will predict dire consequences to customer service and offer tax increases as the only solution. Everyone should resist this public drumbeat and instead follow the example at thousands of businesses competing for private-sector business by protecting customers and keeping their employees even though it means lower wages and benefits
Budget cuts are inevitable. But, this time, government customers and the customers of organizations supported by state and local governments need not be victims.
Local chambers and their private for-profit members can make this happen. We should gather our elected officials and the executives who manage tax-supported institutions. We should make our expectations clear: Maintain services by retaining workers at reduced expenses. The old way that holds customers hostage to tax increases is history. Period. No excuses. No exceptions.
David Olson is president of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. For more information, visit the Web at www.mnchamber.com
By this June, Minnesota will have a new biennial budget. The ledger must be balanced as required by our State Constitution. Right now the shortfall between expected revenues and spending in current law is $4.8 billion. After the February forecast, the gap will likely grow to at least $6 billion or almost 20 percent of the state’s general fund.
Budget cuts are as certain as the sunrise. Even if the state’s big-spenders have their way and we require our state’s job-producers to pay higher taxes, it won’t close a $6 billion hole. Reductions in expected state spending are inevitable.
Let me make it very clear that this will be painful. It is a lot more fun to increase spending than it is to make cuts. Given this reality, what should business leaders and chamber of commerce executives do? It is time to tell the public sector, including and especially its “vendors,” to start immediately to figure out how to get the job done with reduced resources.
This is not a license to tell government to “run like a business.” Its responsibilities are too broad. But some common-sense practices do apply. And, the sooner we share them, the better.
First, protect the customers. When a business faces trouble, its last resorts are reducing services and raising prices. Governments and their vendors apparently don’t understand. How many times do we have to hear that the first cuts will be police and fire protection, classroom teachers and plowing our streets? Far too often public officials go right to areas they know will scare their constituents. What are these officials thinking about? Politics, not their customers.
Second, protect your workforce. More often than not, layoffs mean good workers are permanently lost to the enterprise, and the affected workers and their dependents face chaotic, desperate times. When business improves – and it will – firms have to recruit and train all over again. A better route for all is for employers and employees to agree on reduced wages and benefits, sufficient to make it through “the night.” The enterprise keeps and continues to serve its customers. The trauma of job loss is minimized. And the organization is ready to rebound with the economy. There is still plenty of pain, but it need not be fatal.
Third, start now. The new budget in June and the accompanying cuts are around the corner. Every organization that receives a state check – whether it is school aid, local government aid or Medicaid reimbursement – should act immediately to reduce personnel costs, and, if possible, other overhead expenses. The negotiations won’t be easy. Those who represent workers will predict dire consequences to customer service and offer tax increases as the only solution. Everyone should resist this public drumbeat and instead follow the example at thousands of businesses competing for private-sector business by protecting customers and keeping their employees even though it means lower wages and benefits
Budget cuts are inevitable. But, this time, government customers and the customers of organizations supported by state and local governments need not be victims.
Local chambers and their private for-profit members can make this happen. We should gather our elected officials and the executives who manage tax-supported institutions. We should make our expectations clear: Maintain services by retaining workers at reduced expenses. The old way that holds customers hostage to tax increases is history. Period. No excuses. No exceptions.
David Olson is president of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. For more information, visit the Web at www.mnchamber.com
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Card Check Legislation-Eisman Shares View
My name is Elliott Eisman. My wife Mary and I own and operate the McDonald’s in Owatonna, Medford and Waseca. We have been members of the Owatonna Chamber of Commerce for many years and appreciate the opportunity Brad has given me to make our members aware of possible legislation that could be devastating to all of our businesses. I’m speaking about the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) or "Card Check."
Trade unions and their allies are pushing for changes in federal law that would make it easier to unionize a workforce. They want to eliminate secret ballots from the process. Instead, the will of employees would be determined by "card check"—signed cards indicating a wish to be represented by a particular union. Unions say that "card check" would protect employees from intimidation, but the opposite is true. It would make it easier to organize a workforce because it would eliminate long-standing employee protections against coercion, peer pressure, misrepresentation, and improper inducements. The proposed card check legislation also calls for mandatory third-party arbitration in some cases and would potentially deny employees the right to vote on a contract and deny both them and employers a remedy for contracts with harmful economic terms.
Here are the key messages to convey when you contact your Representatives and Senators:
Card check is a misguided attempt to fix a system that isn’t broken.
Card check would eliminate current protections against intimidation.
Card check cannot adequately ensure employee free choice.
Card check would eliminate current protections against intimidation.
Card check cannot adequately ensure employee free choice.
The current union authorization process reflects our common understanding of the principles of democracy. The current card check bill would undermine the collective bargaining process. Card check is not the way to improve conditions for working people.
Trade unions have been struggling to reverse declining memberships for at least 20 years. Card check is payback for their support of the new administration. The new administration has targeted card check as one of their first priorities. I will leave sample letters at the Chamber of Commerce to use to contact your congressmen. Please let them know how you feel and talk with other business people and get them involved. To call your Senators, use 202-224-3121 and for the House dial 202-225-3121.
Thank you for your interest and your support.
Elliott Eisman
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Friday, January 09, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)