My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-26-1995 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1995
>
06-26-1995 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2023 10:48:39 AM
Creation date
10/6/2023 10:46:03 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
287
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Issues for discussion <br />1. Property Tax Rcfonn/LGA-HACA <br />For sevenl years the Governor and Ugislatute have been discussing major chan^ in the <br />property tax - local government funding sys^ with the g^ of providing more funding for <br />educatioD ynrf property tax reduction. Just in diis last session: <br />- A property tax freeze passed the Senate <br />- A ^^tutional amendment to eliminate school funding from local property taxes passed <br />the House . u <br />- Bills io eliminate city HACA were heard in committees of both houses <br />- Major tax refonn bills were heard in both houses <br />TTie Governor and various commissions he has established during his tenure as governor have <br />recommended total eliinination or major reductions in LG A The busi^ss conMnumty <br />through its main associations (Minnesota Chamber, Business Partnership and the Minnesota <br />Taxpayers Association) has tended to support the Governor ’s thrust Now that tte bus^ss <br />community has accompUshed major changes in workers compensation, its major legislative <br />focus wiU be to reduce C/I property taxes. <br />1996 could well be a watershed year for property tax - local government [“"***"8 <br />modirications. Sweeping changes can be used as campaign rhetoric and the eff^of <br />such changes (some which may have negative political implications) would not be felt <br />until after the 1996 election. <br />Please think about how cities and the AMM can best position ourselves to be a meaningful <br />participant during these discussions in the 1996 session. <br />2. Transportation/Transit Funding <br />has u give and soon! Major highway projects state-wide and in the m^ area <br />such as 1-495,1-35W and Hwy. 100 North have been shelv^ for the foreseeable <br />Transit in the metro area, both regular route and metro mobility, is being pared b^ Many <br />regular transit routes have been eliminated and many more are scheduled <br />There is even serious discussion of eliminating all regular route transit outsi^ of the 1-494- <br />696 beltway. Fares will have to be raised which will lead to less bus ridership and more <br />congestion on the main highways. Reduced public transportation could also negauvely unpact <br />the region’s efforts to provide more affordable housing in the developmg suburbs since lower <br />income people tend to be more public transit dependent <br />Again, please give some thought as to the role metro dty ollldals and the A^ can <br />play in trying to break the funding "log jam" which has dominated discussions during
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.