08/16/82 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I '1 I I I I I I I I I i I b, ' 1.9~2 Levy Limit Law ~ For 1982, the levy limit law was substantially changed. Under ~ thee new law, all communities including those under 2,500 popula- ~ tiQn are subject to levy limits. Like the previous law, the levy li.~it is allowed to increase by 8% with an adjustment for growth. ~ Unlike the previous law, the levy limit base is the amount of taxes actually levied in 1981 rather than the previous year's le?Y limit plus local aid. Also, unlike the previous law, the growth adjustment is based on homesteads rather than population. As the law reads at this point, the 1983 levy limit will be deter- mi~ed in the same manner as the 1982 levy limit which is as follows: 1982 general levy ~. 1981 homesteads = levy per homestead I~vy per homestead X 1982 homesteads X 1.08 = 1982 levy limits .At ithis point the number of 1982 homesteads is not known. For · projection purposes, it is assumed that the number of homesteads ~will increase in proportion to population growth. Using the high, ~medium and low projection assumptions, the levy limit has been ~prqjected for 1983 to 1986. The high property t~x revenue projec- tiOn was calculated by the 1981 method of adding 8% to the 1982 !ba~e. The low projection was calculated by adding 8% to the actual 19~2 levy, the medium projection represents the midpoint between the two. -The! property tax levies not subject to the levy limit (special levies) are the same as previously, except that shade tree and 3.enterprise fund levies are no longer exempt. Levies for bond pay- men~s are still exempt, which is an important feature to be taken into consideration when developing the capital improvement program. .The property tax projections assume that the City does not hold a ~referendum to allow it to exceed its levy limit during this pro- ~ec~lon period, although that may indeed be necessary, as will be .shown later. Lo,at G6vernment Aid Projections LoCal government aid from the State of Minnesota is the second largest soUrce ~f revenue for Ramsey. Compared to other communities, however, RamSey'~ share of this aid is far less than the average. Figure 4 il!u~tr~tes this comparison. There are several reasons for this that must! be lexplained by examining how the formula has worked in previous year~. ~Initially, local aid amounts were based upon how much the com- munity Was receiving from various forms of specialized aid (e.g., exempt prOp~rt~ reimbursement, sales tax per capita aid, cigarette and liquor tax aid!. Increases after that have been based on two main factors: the lawithree years' average equalized mill rate '(AEMR) and population.