Laserfiche WebLink
III · <br /> <br /> Pro~eeted Surplus or Deficit Revenu~ <br /> A comparison of the projected revenues and expenditures, as <br /> shown in Figures 4 and 5 indicates that levy limits will <br /> have significant impact on the City of Ramsey. Since the <br /> levy limit base per capita is p6rmitted to increase only 8% <br /> per year, there is no allowance for the improvement or <br /> expansion of services that and urbanizing community such as <br /> Ramsey may find necessary. What this will mean is that the <br /> city will have to do one of the following to balance future <br /> revenues and expenditures: <br /> <br /> o mainitain city services at the current level rather <br /> than expanding or improving them. If inflation exceeds <br /> 8%, the levels of service would have to be cut back <br /> to maintain a balance. <br /> <br /> o obtain authorization by whatever means provided by law <br /> to exceed the levy limit, such as a referendum. <br /> Under the high projections, the gap between revenues and <br /> expenditures is the greatest. This may be due to the <br /> assumption that the expansion of such services as public <br /> safety and parks operation and maintenance will continue at <br /> the same rate as in the past. The revenue shortfall under <br /> the medium and low projections is not as great, because the <br /> need to expand and improve services under the slower growth <br /> rate would not be as great. <br /> <br /> Ail of the foregoing discussion assumes that the future <br /> inflation rate will he 8%. If this rate is actually greater <br /> than 8%, and the levy limit percentage is not increased, <br /> then the city may have to actually reduce levels of service <br /> in order to balance revenues and expenditures. <br /> <br /> As far as the impact of this analysis on capital improvement <br /> programming is concerned, it appears that the city will not <br /> be likely to have surplus revenues available to finance <br /> capital improvements on a "pay as you go" basis. <br /> <br />Capital Improvements Pinancin~ Methods <br />Previous Methods and Policies <br /> <br /> The city has used several means of financing capital <br /> improvements in the past that would seem to establish <br /> certain precedents or policies for its capital improvement <br /> program up to 1986. Revenue sharing funds have been used <br /> primarily for parks capital improvements and the equipment <br /> revolving fund. Park dedication fees are to be used for' <br /> park capital improvements, and landfill fees and dedicated <br /> to restoring the land to a'recreation area. State road <br /> construction aid is u~ed to build and improve state aid <br /> highways. Pour bond issues since 1978 have been used to <br /> finance local street improvementS, and the bond payments are <br /> <br /> <br />