Laserfiche WebLink
residents. Therefurc, <br />THE. AMM REQUEST:) THAT THE LEGISLATURE ENACT A PROVISION IN Ti <br />LEVY LIMIT STATUTES TO PROVIDE A LEVY LIMIT BASE INCREASE TO <br />REPLACE ANY FUNDS LOST THROUGH REDUCTION 0P DISCONTINUANCE Or <br />FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING TO CITIES. <br />B-9 SPECIAL LEVY - NATURAL. DISASTER A14D LAWFUL Qfi'iE;i <br />The 1977 LeEislaturc eiimiriated number of socuial levies, <br />including those for x�xpend i tur•e:; c funds as a result of natural <br />disasters arid lawfu' oraers, neither --f which a city car. plan for <br />or has any control over. Lawful ordFrs are a result of not being <br />able to implement some sfi::te o.• federal regulation. Natural <br />disasters, such as the 1977 and 1978 heavy rains which caused <br />severe flooding in the ;metropolitan area, can ccruse unnatural <br />large expenditures for emergency repair to city facilities. <br />Neither of these are used often, but when r;eeded are absolutely <br />nece:.:,ary. <br />THE AMM URGE^ THE LEGISLATURE TO REINSTAT, THE SPECIAL LEVIES FCR <br />LAWFUL ORDERS AND NATURAL DISASTERS. <br />B-10 FICA BASE ADJUSTMENTS <br />Normally FICA - Social Security Withholding - is directly <br />proportional to payroll. However, in recent years the employer <br />contribution percentage and amount of salary FICA is paid on, has <br />Increased drastically, well abov^ inflaticn rates. <br />THE AMM REQUESTS THE LEGISLATURE ENACT A LEVY BASE INCREASE <br />PROVISION TO ALLOW FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NORMAL LEVY BASE <br />INCREASE A:. OWED BY THE LEVY LIMITATION LAW AND THE FICA INCREASE <br />MANDATED BY THE. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. <br />I -C LOCAL GG'. ERNMF.NT A I D <br />Local Quvernment Aid distribution from the State to 411AAI-es,Aas <br />been a much debated issue the past several years in the <br />legislature and amung varicus city groups. In the past 16 years <br />the distribution has ranged from a pure per capita formula to a <br />need formula ba;:ed on valuation and service expenditure leve'. <br />Possibly because of the distribution debate or because aids tc <br />local government are easy target3, the legislature significantly <br />reduced it-- commitment to the aid programs and property tax relief <br />in the early 1980's to sole, a major portion of the :,evere <br />economic rece3sirn in the +te. Thus for a period of time, <br />property taxe7 increased ;ignif,,caritly to replace diminished state <br />revenue to local units of government without corresponding local <br />service increase:-. Now that the recession has ended, economic <br />rerovury in occuring and state revenues area increasing, it is tiros <br />