Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> I <br />'1 <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> ! <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> i <br /> I <br /> <br />PrOjeCting Ramsey's local aid for 1983-1986 is very difficult because <br />~tl~de~ends so much on the formula that tends to change from year to <br />~e~r, ;and how much the State appropriates for local aid. Under the <br />pr~ese~t formula, the amount Ramsey may receive in 1983 beyond the <br />mi~imu~ will depend on whether there are any funds left after calcu- <br />latin~ all the other communities' minimums. Due to this uncertainty, <br />the lqcal aid projection for Ramsey is based on the assumption that <br />its local aid will increase by 7.~% per year from 1982-1986, which is <br />the percentage that the Statewide appropriation for local aid will <br />increase from 1982-1983. <br /> <br />3. Other Revenue <br /> <br />The other revenue categories show no trends as to whether they are <br />in~rea~ing or decreasing, so for projection purposes, they are assumed <br />t0 remain at a constant level over the next five years. Since Ramsey <br />is abo6t to begin to provide sewer and water services, the revenue <br />de~ive~ from the user charges will be a new category to be added to <br />the~:op~rating budget. For projection purposes, however, it has been <br />assume~ that the user charge revenue will equal the operating expen- <br />ditures, and will have no impact on the projected revenue surplus or <br />deficit. <br /> <br />4. Sun~,ar~ of Operating Revenue Projections ; <br /> <br /> The leg. y limit base and other revenue projections are added to get <br /> thelopgrating revenue projections by year for each of the population <br /> growth Tassu~ptions. <br /> <br /> Ope ra.t.i~ . ~xpen di t ure Projections <br /> <br />The opeNati~ng expenditures by category from 1978-1981 were analyzed to <br />determihe ~he rate of growth. During the period when population was <br />growing. 7.4% per year, expenditures grew by 20% per year. Some of this <br />growthr Was idue to inflation, some due to the greater numbers of people <br />to rec~ve iCity eel-vices, and some was due to the expansion and improvement <br />of ser~lce~ as Ramsey was becom~ing more ur'ban in character. The two budget <br />categories [that increased fasted were public safety averaging 30% per year <br />and Partes c~eration and maintenance at 65.3%. The large percentage for <br />parks is sc~. ewhat due to the small base from which it started. <br /> <br />The high, m~dium, and low expenditure projections were made in the follow- <br />ing man~er~!i It was assumed that 8% of the annual increase had been and <br />would COntiDue to be due to inflation, the rest of the increase was assu!n, ed <br />to be due t.~ population growth and the increased service levels that an <br />urbanizing populatxon demands. For the high projections, the same rate <br />of increase~ from 1978-1981 for each budget category was continued for <br />1983-1986, ~ince the inflation rate and population growth rate, and ex- <br />pansion ~of ~ervices would also continue. For the medium and low projec- <br />tions, t~ne growth rate for each category was reduced proportionately, after <br />allowing for an 8% inflation rate. <br /> <br /> <br />