Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />The components of revenue in the governmental funds by class is useful to ci^mpare the reliance t>n <br />Certain revenue sources. <br />SlainftMic fi«r Year Eadmf December M. <br />mo lo.orm 20 (mn 2.500 10 turn 2.(5m 2.5<m l..Vm-2 fHio <br />Proper^ tixet 25 6 I 21 1 «22 7 %25 0 f 19 « % <br />lOJ 9 9 7 7 4 X 4 0 <br />Otfirr ttxei 2 •10 0 <0 2 0 1 <br />Special nifMmrnli 11 7 11 5 10 9 5 2 6 4 <br />LKcnees and prnmis 5.2 24 2 5 1 H 1 0 <br />25 I 55 9 57 X n 1 49 X <br />ClMif es for am Kcs 6 S 6 1 6 9 9 4 7 5 <br />Otfier 14 7 14 I 11 5 12 5 12 1 <br />ToUl re\ enuc |00 0 %100 0 %100 0 %100 0 %urn 0 9 <br />Cit> of (N^tao <br />IW <br />42 * % <br />11.7 <br />ZOJ <br />!!.• <br />lb ? % <br />24.? <br />I7.i <br />II ? <br />100 0 ^100.0 % <br />T ax Rates <br />Sluggish growth in real estate market values was one ot the most significant highlights for property taxes <br />in 1994. Much of the problem can be an outed to actual declines in the market values for apartments <br />and commercial and indu.strial properties. The.se declines were coupled with growing residential <br />homestead values and. as a result, many communities experienced significant shifting of the property tax <br />burdens to their homeowners. <br />Although it is impossible to ctmsider every aspect and variable of local government spending, average <br />tax rates are often u.sed as a benchmark. <br />Rates expressed as a percentage of tax capacity <br />Average <br />City <br />Tax Rate <br />Average <br />County <br />Tax Rate <br />Average <br />School <br />Tax Rate <br />Average <br />Special <br />Tax Rate <br />Taxes collectible in 1994 <br />All cities statewide 26 4 37 6 62.6 4.2 <br />Metro area cities 23 2 36.3 64.2 5 6 <br />City of Orono 16.3 37.4 65.0 <br />7.4