Laserfiche WebLink
comparison of Funding Sources <br />41) <br />a <br />33 <br />18.000% <br />16.000% <br />14.000% <br />12.000% <br />10.000% <br />8.000% <br />6.000% <br />4.000% <br />2.000% - <br />0.000% <br />City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota <br />Comparison of Financing Alternative At 10% Growth In Tax Base <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />-4- Annual Property Tax Levy Only <br />-'*-Annual Tax Levy For Maintenance, G.O. Bonds For Reconstruction <br />-is- Annual Tax Levy For Maintenance, G.O. Improvement Bonds For Reconstruction <br />-e- Annual Tax Levy For Maintenance, G.O. Improvement Bonds For Reconstruction and Storm Water Utility <br />The charts illustrate that: <br />• Funding the PMR with on an annual basis with a property tax levy only <br />result in volatile changes with spikes from 2006 through 2010 <br />• Funding the PMR with bonding options results in less of a property tax <br />rate impact and provides a more stable property tax rate. The projected <br />impacts result in a gradual increases until 2010 and then level out as a <br />result of: <br />o Increases in the City's tax base <br />o Impact of special assessment revenues <br />o Impact of storm water utility fees <br />Springsted - 2 0 3 - <br />City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Repoil <br />