My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1989/02/06
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
Agenda Packets - 1989/02/06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/15/2025 4:15:08 PM
Creation date
4/15/2025 4:15:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
2/6/1989
Description
Regular Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
139
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Q <br />,))C,- I ;� <br />MEMO TO: Mayor 6 Council <br />FROM: Finance Director -Treasurer Brager <br />DATE: February 1, 1989 <br />RE: 1989 LONG TERM FINANCIAL PLAN (LTFP) AND <br />1990 BUDGET CALENDARS <br />Attached is a proposed resolution adopting the 1989 LTFP and 1990 <br />Budget Calendars. Due to compliance with recently enacted Truth <br />In Taxation legislation by the State of Minnesota the budget <br />process will start much earlier this year. work or. the LTFP is <br />proposed to begin March 10 and work on the Budget is proposed to <br />begin April 24. <br />Truth In Taxation legislation requires that the City certify its <br />proposed property tax levy to the County Auditor by August 1. <br />The County Auditor calculates our property tax levy and sends <br />notice to all taxpayers of the proposed levy and the date of our <br />public hearing on the Budget. In addition, the City is required <br />to place an advertisement in either the Minneapolis or St. Paul <br />papers. The notices to taxpayers and the notice in the newspaper <br />are to disclose it taxes are proposed to increase. The method <br />prescribed to calculate whether taxes are the same or have <br />increased will, in most Cities, result in tax increases. If the <br />total dollar amount levied City wide increases it is considered a <br />tax increase. Increases in valuations due to new construction <br />and revaluation of properties is not to be considered. In my <br />opinion, that method is just plain stupid. Over the past ten <br />years the dollar amount of our overall levy has increased but the <br />mill rate has decreased each year (and consequently individual <br />tax bills) because of increases in valuations from new <br />construction and revaluations. The part that is stupid is to <br />send a notice saying there is a tax increase and if the trend <br />continues, send a tax bill that is lower than the previous year. <br />Should you 1^ave any questions please de not hesitate to contact <br />me. <br />RECOMMENDATION: Consider adopting Resolution No. 2445, ADOPTING <br />THE 1989 LONG TERM FINANCIAL PLAN AND 1990 <br />BUDGET CALENDARS" <br />DB/ds <br />Attachment <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.