|
fanded,, would provide $,261 million per year in state-paid homeowner tax reductions. That $,261
<br />million is being eliminated to balance the state's deficit, and the tax relief provided to
<br />homeowners under the new market value exclusion is in part due to shifts in property taxes that
<br />will occur.
<br />In Roseville,, following the MVHC unallottment actions by the Governor & Legislature in 2008
<br />& 200 9,, we reduced our annual city budget by over $,4�74�,000 in the spring of 2009. These
<br />budget cuts were spread across all tax supported operations. For FY 2010, a "MVHC
<br />Replacement Levy"' of approximately $,450,000 was included to offset the lack of MVHC
<br />reimbursement by the state (this was increased to $,475,000 in FY 2011). Financially however,
<br />the "MVHC Replacement Levy"' merely reinstated the previous years' reduced equipment
<br />replacement levy of $,4�25,000 that had been eliminated during the final FY 2009 budget approval
<br />process. In effect,, these combined actions resulted in a shift of $,4�25,000 from operating budgets
<br />to fund the equipment replacement program. As you know, this is still inadequate to properly
<br />fund our asset replacement needs. As a result of this new legislation and change in MVHC
<br />program, the City will have an amount of levy that I'll refer to as "MVHC Replacement Levy"'
<br />available for the upcoming biennial budget because the state will no longer have it taken from
<br />our levy amount..
<br />To date,, the 2012-2013 preliminary budget has been developed to focus on finally funding the
<br />Capital Investment Plan (CIP), to an adequate level with a $,500,000 increase in the levy (3.4%)
<br />and a $,387,,000 reduction in expenses.
<br />With approximately $,475,000 in "MVHC Replacement Levy"' available, there is the opportunity
<br />that this budget approach can be modified. There are a few basic approaches that the City
<br />Council could consider.-
<br />1. Use the "MVHC Replacement Levy"' to reduce the budget reductions and/or new levy
<br />amount.
<br />2. Dedicate the "MVHC Replacement Levy"' to future debt service payments (Fire, Parks &
<br />Rec.),
<br />3. Keep the "MVHC Replacement Levy"' amount and current budget plan intact, and
<br />replenish the General Fund reserves
<br />In reviewing the preliminary budget and proposed program/service reductions and CIP needs, I
<br />would recommend the following.-
<br />1. Use 1/2 of the "MVHC Replacement Levy"' ($,237,500), to mitigate the program/service
<br />reductions
<br />2. Direct the other 1/2 of the "MVHC Replacement Levy" to the CIP, thereby reducing the
<br />((new" levy needed to $,263,500.
<br />With these changes,, we can restore the proposed FTE reductions and other programs like.- the
<br />Parks & Rec. special events, Police Community Relations, Streets & bldg. maintenance. Some
<br />The resulting tax increase would be about 1.8%.
<br />
|