Laserfiche WebLink
ALBERT H. QUIE <br /> <br />STATE O1" ,N'IINNESOTA ~ / <br />.~'r. l~,ku1- ~.~1.~ <br /> <br />February 1981 <br /> <br />Dear Friend: <br />Local government officials in Minnesota have been doing a tremendous job in meeting <br />the needs of our State residents at the local level. But, as you know, sometimes <br />running local government can be difficult because your budget is a combination of <br />federal, state and local funds. On the average our latest figures show city, township <br />and county governments receive 11.7 percent of their funds from the federal government, <br />36.9 percent from the State, 28.2 percent from local property taxes and 23.2 percent <br />from other local funding, such as fees. <br /> Because of the significant portion of your budget that comes from the State you may <br /> be interested in knowing how my 1981-83 Budget Message to the Minnesota Legislature <br /> will affect local government. <br /> First of all, you should know that I was able to reduce expenditures for State agencies <br /> while maintaining funding for local governments to keep down local property taxes. <br /> CONTROLLING STATE SPENDING <br /> In the current year, when we exclude the expenditures for education, health, welfare <br /> and corrections, the remaining total general fund budget for the rest of the State <br /> agencies is $312 million. <br /> When we exclude the legislative, judicial and constitutional officers, the budget of <br /> the remaining State agencies in the current year is $254 million or 6.7 percent of <br /> the total general fund. ! am recommending that those budgets be reduced by $25.7 <br /> million or by more than 10 percent in fiscal year 1982 and recommend they be allowed <br /> to grow by less than 2½ percent in fiscal year 1983. These reductions are after <br /> adjustments for inflation. <br /> CONTROLLING STATE EMPLOYHENT <br /> A major element in my effort to reduce the cost of State government is a substantial <br /> reduction in the number of positions on the State payroll. <br /> The reductions I am recommending are not the result of an arbitrary, across-the-board <br /> cut in payroll. They are based on careful review of minimal budget plans prepared <br /> by each State agency head and will be implemented in a manner which minimizes impact <br /> on State employees and the recipients of State services. Wherever possible, the <br /> reductions will be made through attrition. <br /> <br />AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER <br /> <br /> <br />