Laserfiche WebLink
taxed types of properties and does not create an unfair tax burden <br /> among taxpayers of various property classes or regions. (1989-90 <br /> Policy I-D-3 and 4, page 6 and 7) . Specifically the AMM is <br /> concerned about maintaining the status quo for 1991 until the <br /> Legislative Commission on Planning and Fiscal Policy has completed <br /> its detailed study of Local Government Aid programs. Therefore, <br /> the AMM opposes the extension of the Tax Base Equalization (TBE) <br /> aid formula to 1991 or making that formula permanent at this time. <br /> The AMM does support moving the 1990 TBE aid dollars into the LGA <br /> base thus grandfathering that distribution for future years. (1990 <br /> Board of Director Policy for TBE) <br /> 4. Tax Increment Financing. (TIF) This is the only development tool <br /> available to cities to implement the state priority to foster <br /> economic development for job creation. The AMM believes the <br /> changes made in 1988 and 1989 are correcting the alleged problems <br /> identified by TIF critics. The AMM does not believe it is prudent <br /> to make further changes until the impact of the 1988 and 1989 <br /> changes can be assessed as well as the overall impact of 1989 <br /> property tax changes can be assessed. (Policy 90-30, page 9) . <br /> 5. Solid Waste Management. Substantial changes were made to the <br /> statutes governing Solid Waste Management both during the regular <br /> 1989 Legislative Session and also in the 1989 Special Session Tax <br /> • Bill. The AMM does not expect that major change will be made during <br /> the 1990 Session but there are likely to be proposals concerning <br /> 'over ride' of local zoning ordinance for siting certain solid <br /> waste processing facilities, hauler compensation, and <br /> plastics/packaging pre-emption of local ordinances. (Policy 90-43, <br /> pages 17-23) . <br /> 6. State Budget Deficit for the current biennium. The AMM opposes any <br /> reduction of LGA or HACA from cities to reduce the budget deficit. <br /> Cities have been subjected to severe levy limits of 3% increases in <br /> the past two years as well as next year. Labor contract settlement <br /> by the state for over 5% and many schools in excess of that have <br /> driven city wage settlements above the 3% level forcing very tight <br /> budgets. To further reduce certified budget levels by withholding <br /> state funds will most certainly cause personnel cuts. Cities <br /> already have a very low ten year employment increase rate as <br /> compared to the state of Minnesota the counties, and the national <br /> average. The budget shortfall should be solved through other state <br /> expenditure cuts or the state $550 million budget reserve account <br /> which was established for just this sort of problem. <br /> • <br /> -2- <br />