11-26-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

facility energy audits which are basica'ly paid for through energy grant,. However, facility changes and capital expenditures, some required and others that make sense, must be implemented using local revenues. In many case; these revenues are not available because of levy limitations. Therefore, THE AMM URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO ENACT A SPECIAL LEVY TO PAY FOR COSTS INCURRED FOR ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING REPAIRS AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES. B-7 SE W CE SHIFTS -LEVY LIMIT REVIEW BOARD Doe to aiminishing state funding of county ;ard city services and ; 1gUening levy limits. all units of local governm%;nt have been modifying service procedures and increasing revenues where possible. For many years some counties have provided services to cities on a contract basis for police, prosecution, jailing, assessing, etc. In order to free up funds for other services, sore counties have been shifting a much larger burden: of cost for these services to the city at a much greater increase than ; or K. An actual prime example of this is as follows: One county nE s done the assessing for all units within the county on a contract basis for one dollar per year. This cost has been funded within the county levy base. However, for 1983 the county charter a:tual costs to the local units, as high as $23,000 for one city. .ne city has the option, to pay or hire its can assessor. It car, neither because its base does not include any funds fur this p.rpc:e. Because of the law the county can free ap, that base levy __ be used for other purposes. This type of activity is more canno% where cities contract with the county sheriff for police service and have no control over cost increases. THE AMM STRONGLY UF+GES THE LEGISLATURE TO RE-ESTABLISH A LEVY !:MIT BASE REVIEW BOARD AND AUTHORIZE THE BOARD TO ADJUST CITY LEVY BASES FOR SERVICE SHIFTS AND EXCESS COST INCREASES FOR CITY/COUNTY CONTRACT SERVICES SUCH AS POLICE, PROSECUTION, JAILING ASSESSING, ETC. WHEN IT CAN BE WN THAT IT IS A NEW -COST TO THE CITY OR A COST INCREASE IN E. S OF THE STANDARD LEVY BASE INCREASE. B-8 FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING REPLACEMENT FUNDS Zince 472 the cities in Minnesota have become more and more ceper.vent upon Federal Revenue Sharing. Currently almost all cities are using some or all of their revenue sharing allocation for normal general operating expense::, and many of these same cities are at, or near, levy limits. If Federal Revenue Sharing is eitter discontinued or reduced, carrvU ly these is no alternative method to raise revenue to replace the !Ssn. In some cases the resulting, cuts in novice will Le a def;nice threat to tr.e general, healtr, welfare, an! c'Ir -ty ' f rany _f )ur city