My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council Work Session - 01/23/2012 - Stretegic Planning
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council Work Session
>
2012
>
Agenda - Council Work Session - 01/23/2012 - Stretegic Planning
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2025 12:04:52 PM
Creation date
1/27/2012 8:53:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council Work Session
Document Title
Stretegic Planning
Document Date
01/23/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
120
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).
View images
View plain text
Tax Rate <br />1 2009 1 2010 1 2011 1 2012* 2013 I 2014 2015 1 2016 <br />40.547% 37.811% 39.808% 44.154% <br />*Market Value Homestead Credit Exclusion Legislative Change. <br />NOTE: If the City was to keep the tax rate the same as 2011, factoring in the additional <br />Muni Center Debt Levy for 2013, the City would need to cut an additional $1,275,000 <br />From General Levy <br />MVHC is under review at 2012 Legislative session. Looking at restoring Market <br />Value Homestead Credit and getting nd ettin rid of the exclusion. See. League Memo. <br />HF 1775 (Rep. Paul Marquart, D-Dilworth): Restoration of market value homestead credit <br />g <br />(MVHC). Thirty -five DFLers <br />authored legislation that would restore the MVHC program that was <br />repealed and replaced with the homestead market value exclusion program. Elimination of the <br />MVHC was one of the most controversial issues to come out of the 2011 legislative session, and it <br />continues to be hotly <br />debated in state and Iocal media. The former homestead credit system <br />reduced taxes paid by homeowners to cities and other Iocal units of government by roughly $280 <br />million p <br />• per year. The state was supposed then su osed to reimburse local units of government for the loss <br />. of tax revenue. The proposal does not identify a funding source nor does the bill guarantee the <br />full payment reimbursement ayment to local units of government. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.