Laserfiche WebLink
Figure 3. Comparison of Financing Alternatives <br />City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota <br />Comparison of Financing Alternative At 5% Growth In Tax Base <br />25.000Y. <br />20.000% <br />15.000'/. <br />10.000% <br />::::.. <br />— <br />2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 <br />4—Annual Property Tax Levy Only <br />#F Annual Tax Levy For G.O. Bonds For Reconstruction (no special assessments) <br />- — Annual Tax Levy For G.O. Improvement Bonds For Reconstruction (inc. special assessments) <br />—0—Annual Tax Levy For G.O. Improvement Bonds For Reconstruction and Storni Water Utility <br />17 <br />5p`ingstEd <br />Another option that would avoid a citywide vote would be to specially assess <br />100% of the cost of a reconstruction project against the property owners who <br />benefit. That option presents two problems. It would be too expensive for <br />property owners and the city would need to show that the value of the property <br />increased by the amount of the assessment. That is difficult to do and may be <br />subject to expensive litigation. <br />The recommended financing plan as presented in the Lino Lakes Pavement <br />Management Plan is the most cost-effective and tax -friendly financing method <br />available. It takes into account Lino Lakes citizens' sensitivity to increased taxes <br />by spreading costs evenly among all taxpayers, assigning specific costs to the <br />property owners who would benefit the most, and minimizing the use of city <br />property taxes. <br />Figure 4 on the following page shows the projected annual tax increase that the <br />PMP's financing plan would have on a $228,000 house. For tax impacts on <br />additional home values, see Appendix D. <br />