Laserfiche WebLink
. !V <br />% <br />t^- <br />■li'' <br />rf-,' <br />i- <br />Hr. <br />i: ": ■.*- <br />f-. <br />.•jpV <br />I^'’'p.7 <br />v< <br />f <br />' ^^ <br />i;.t <br />:viF <br />nr\ <br />^Vf <br />Lf-,. <br />h' <br />h'r: <br />L <br />.,*■■■ <br />■V ■ <br />! <br />\t.r, . : <br />H4._> <br />I’ <br />^=r., <br />impact locally. The AMM absolutely does not want to get into a <br />battle among cities but pointing out that schools, counties, and <br />towns are held harmless is appropriate. <br />POINTS TO STRESS: <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />Cities have already done their part. Local government, through <br />aid cuts and support of sales tax increase, solved 41% of the <br />state's $1.2 billion problem in 1991 while accounting for only <br />10% of the state budget. Likewise, we solved over 35% of the <br />problem in 1990. For the past 3 years, cities have taken cuts, <br />held levies down, spent tax dollars wisely, reduced employees, <br />and this is our reward. <br />The administration says this is a 1.1% cut of base. This is <br />very misleading. The cut is 1.1% of all County, City, Town, and <br />Special District Revenue but only cities are cut. The cut <br />becomes 3.5% of all city revenue but 7% of operating budgets <br />when non-cuttable special assessment revenue is eliminated. <br />Finally, the cut becomes about 8% after non-LGA cities are <br />removed. When one gets beyond smoke and mirrors, this is a 23% <br />cut of all city LGA and ~n 8% cut of city revenue base. <br />Cities need to communicate the impact of these cuts to their <br />legislators. Remind them of the cutbacks already taken. <br />Register indignation. Think about use of city newsletters and <br />local media to get the unfairness story out. It is about time <br />the state stops solving its problems on the back of cities. <br />Minnesota cities spend at about the national average, but when <br />all Minnesota state and local governments are added together, <br />spending is much greater than the national average. We aren't <br />the problem and shouldn't be the solution. <br />NOTE 1: THE ATTACHED RUN IS BASED ON ALL $71.6 MILLION AID CUT <br />COMING FROM CITIES AID NOT INCLUDING HACA. THE REVENUE BASE <br />USED WAS 1991 WHICH SHOULD BE SIMILAR TO 1992. THE ACTUAL <br />CUTS MAY VARY BY A FEW DOLIARS. <br />NOTE 2: THE AMM HAS JUST LEARNED THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS <br />DELAYED RELEASING THE ACTUAL PLAN AND BILL, THUS THEY MAY BE <br />WORKING ON CHANGES TO THEIR PROPOSAL? <br />II. STATUS OF KEY METRO BILLS: <br />A.HF 1778 (REP. ORFIELD)~SF 1666 (SEN. MONDALE) WASTEWATER <br />TREATMENT FINANCING: <br />The AMM opposes this bill as noted in the AMM Legislative <br />Contact Alert, dated February 27th. The bill was heard in <br />the House Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs <br />Committee on Thursday, March 5th. and was held over. It <br />-2-