My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 10-28-2002
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
CCP 10-28-2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:17:31 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 4:06:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
142
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
<br />1 Response: The state should maintain current law and not change the city fiscal year . <br />2 to coincide with the state fiscal year. <br />3 <br />4 FF-IO. Payments for Services to Tax-Exempt Property (GC) <br />5 <br />6 Issue: Taxable property in many cities is being acquired by nonprofit and government <br />7 entities. Converting the property to tax-exempt status can lead to serious tax base erosion without <br />8 any corresponding reduction in the service needs created by the property. <br />9 <br />10 Response: Cities should have the authority to collect payments from statutorily <br />11 exempt property owners to cover costs of service as cities have with special assessments. <br />12 <br />13 FF-l1. Truth-in-Taxation Process (GC) <br />14 <br />15 Issue: Cities must set a preliminary levy by Sept. 15, which, by law, becomes the <br />16 maximum that cities can levy the following year. In recent years, cities have not received <br />17 complete tax base and aid information in a timely manner. As a result, cities often either set a <br />18 preliminary levy that is artificially high or they are unable to budget for unforeseen needs that <br />19 arise after Sept. 15. <br />20 <br />21 Response: The League supports changes to the Truth-in-Taxation process to provide <br />22 more meaningful information to citizens, including the exemptions enacted in 2001 for <br />23 cities that propose levy increases less than the implicit price deflators. However, this . <br />24 calculation should account for the impact of state aid cuts on proposed levies. Cities should <br />25 have the authority to increase the final levy from the preliminary levy to meet unforeseen <br />26 and uncontrollable needs. <br />27 <br />28 FF-12. State Administrative Deductions from State Aid (GC) <br />29 <br />30 Issue: State administrative costs are deducted from the LGA appropriation. This reduces <br />31 the property tax relief provided by LGA and creates hidden appropriations for state agencies. <br />32 <br />33 Response: All appropriations from LGA resources that fund state operations <br />34 should be repealed. <br />35 <br />36 FF-13. Reporting Requirements (GC) <br />37 <br />38 Issue: Budget and financial reporting requirements imposed on cities by the state often <br />39 result in duplication and additional costs. <br />40 <br />41 Response: Requirements for reporting and advertising [mancial and budget <br />42 information should be carefully weighed to balance the validity of the state's need for <br />43 additional information with the costs and burdens of compiling and submitting this <br />44 information. In addition, all state agencies should be aware of the information already . <br />45 required by others to avoid duplication of reporting requirements. <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.