Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DRAFT LETTER TO EDITOR <br />FOR CITIES OVER 2,500 GAINING LGA IN 2002 <br /> <br />Dear Editor: <br /> <br />The 2001 tax bill passed last spring dramatically changed how many government services <br />are funded. Under the new law, much of the cost for K-12 education will now be paid <br />directly by the state rather than from local property taxes. That means that your school <br />property taxes likely will go down. To help pay for this new education responsibility, the <br />state reduced or eliminated the amount of money it historically gave many cities to share <br />in the cost of providing public services like police, fire, street maintenance, parks and <br />recreation programs. <br /> <br />While some cities lost state aid, some cities, like ours, received an increase in state aid. In <br />our case, this new aid translates directly into property tax reduction because the state also <br />limits the combined amount of revenue from property taxes and aids that a city can <br />spend. So, while positive for our taxpayers, the new aids are not a windfall of new money <br />available for new or ongoing city services. <br /> <br />This increase in aid may also mean the city budget is more vulnerable to downturns in the <br />state's economy. Right now, the state appears to be facing a budget shortfall. Given that <br />our city budget is now more reliant on state aids, a cut in these aid programs to balance <br />the state budget could mean difficult decisions about community priorities in coming <br />years. <br /> <br />While we might have temporarily come out ahead, city officials realize that we must be <br />prudent in how we budget for future years. We ask for your support in requesting that our <br />state legislative delegation insist that the new state commitment to property tax relief be <br />maintained into the future. Otherwise, your property taxes will be artificially increased. <br /> <br />, Mayor <br /> <br />City of <br />