Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />Figure 3. Comparison of Financing Alternatives <br />City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota <br />Comparison of Financing Alternative At 5% Growth In Tax Base <br />25.000% <br />20.000% <br />15.800% <br />10.000% <br />0.000% <br />../.".111' — <br />-- <br />2005 2006 2007 2000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 <br />t Annual Property Tax Levy Only <br />— - Annual Tax Levy For G.O. Bonds For Reconstruction (no special assessments) <br />-* Annual Tax Levy For C.O. improvement Bonds For Reconstruction (Inc. special assessments) <br />— Annual Tax Levy For G.O. Improvement Bonds For Reconstruction and Storm Water Utility <br />7 <br />ap: trIgct E (1 <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 />5 <br />