My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-26-2003 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
11-26-2003 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/12/2012 1:08:10 PM
Creation date
6/12/2012 1:00:55 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
106
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MEMORANDUM <br />TO: Mayor Fahey & Members of the City Council <br />FROM: Joel Hanson, City Administrator <br />DATE: September 5, 2003 <br />RE: Suburban HRA Levy <br />Attached is correspondence from the Ramsey County Board /HRA dealing with the possible enactment of <br />an $805,800 levy over suburban communities to generate funds for economic development /housing <br />initiatives within each community. The proposed distribution of the levy dollars is also attached. To that <br />end, Little Canada would get $35,000. <br />I believe this issue has gained increased attention by the County due to an initiative this past legislative <br />session by members of the I -35W Corridor Coalition. It is my understanding they attempted to gain levy <br />authority to address the needs of their group. Some members of the County Board felt the County HRA <br />could better serve that role by addressing the needs of all suburban communities. <br />In reading the minutes from the August 4th meeting, it appears consensus has not been attained. From our <br />perspective, we would appear to be a slight gainer in terms of the $35,000 we would receive versus what <br />would be collected from our property taxpayers ($35,000 is 4.34% of the suburban tax capacity while our <br />tax base is 3.82% of the suburban total.) I feel the concerns with this concept are as follows: <br />• Impact to taxpayers, especially in today's environment. <br />• Each jurisdiction has the ability to do this on their own. <br />• The County is proposing 4.34% administrative fees on the money collected that would be <br />avoided if we did this on our own. ($35,000 of the $805,000 collected.) <br />• 2000 population figures are being used. We are very close to the 10,000- population <br />figure and should exceed it in the next couple of years yet we will likely not receive an <br />adjustment in the formula. A growing city will contribute more in terms of taxable value <br />as time goes on but may not see a corresponding increase in the funding level. <br />• The per capita allocation seems to penalize us a bit when compared to the group of cities <br />in the next largest category. (See hand written figures on distribution sheet attached.) <br />It appears the County is going to include this levy in their preliminary certification and then continue <br />discussions before deciding if they will certify it as part of the final levy process. I thought we should <br />have an initial discussion so I know how you would like me to react to this concept. <br />cc: Commissioner Wiessner <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.