Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />NOVEMBER 30, 1994 <br />Circuit Breaker through the State for household incomes <br />up to $60,000. Property owners can call the Minnesota <br />Department of Revenue at 296-3781 for a Form M1-PR. <br />There is also a refund available with no income <br />limitations should property values increase by 12% and <br />at least $100. Again, call 296-3781 for Form M1-PR <br />Schedule A. <br />The Administrator pointed out that the City is only one <br />of the entities which affect the property tax bill. <br />Others include the School District, County, <br />Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Mosquito Control, <br />Regional Transit Board, and Metropolitan Watershed <br />District. The Administrator also noted that the City <br />is responsible for approximately 14% of the property <br />tax bill, while the 5chool District is responsible for <br />50%, the County 31%, and Miscellaneous jurisdictions <br />4%. The Administrator presented graphs showing the tax <br />capacity rates of these jurisdictions comparing the <br />years 1992 through 1995. <br />The City Administrator reported that historically <br />Little Canada~s elected officials have held the line on <br />property tax increases. The Administrator reviewed a <br />graph comparing gross tax levies and net tax levies for <br />the years 1986 through 1996. The Administrator pointed <br />out that these levies have been relatively flat except <br />for 1989 when the State shifted Local Government Aids <br />from cities to school districts. Cities were then <br />forced to increase their levies to make up for this <br />shift. <br />The Administrator pointed out that Little Canada is at <br />a 0% net levy increase for the third year. Therefore, <br />the City is doing nothing to increase property taxes in <br />1995. However, there are other factors at work which <br />could cause taxes to increase. The Administrator <br />stated that in 1995 the gross levy will decline by <br />1.3%. The Administrator checked with ten other cities <br />in the surroundinq area, and the average gross levy <br />increase is 2.3%. Only one other city is proposing a <br />decrease in their gross levy. <br />The Administrator presented a graph comparing gross tax <br />levies for the City's General Fund, Bonded Debt and <br />Capital Improvements from 1986 through 1995. The <br />General Fund portion of the levy consists of <br />approximate 65% of the total gross levy, while Bonded <br />3 <br />