Laserfiche WebLink
® We could levy as we normally would, essentially ignoring the receipt of LGA dollars <br />for 2008. This would give as more time to evaluate the continued receipt of this money <br />and no dependency would be created. The problem with this option is it may be hard to <br />justify to the public why we are increasing a levy after the receipt of $225,000. <br />I must again emphasize that LGA has not been a stable source of revenue for cities for the past number <br />of years. (See the City of St. Paul for an example.) It is my opinion that the LGA formula needs to be <br />totally retooled to distribute dollars based on "need" rather than grandfathered formulas and /or past <br />spending practices. If formula modifications were to occur, we may receive more money or be back to <br />zero dollars, depending on the criteria used. I also think it is likely formula modifications will be <br />forthcoming given the inequities in the current system. <br />In the meantime, we will be getting some cash we hadn't planned on, but I would urge caution in terms <br />of thinking these dollars will be permanent. Therefore, we should talk about our course of action <br />relative to preparation of the 2008 budget. <br />cc. Representative Scalze <br />