My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2017_0613_FC_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Finance Commission
>
Packet
>
2017_0613_FC_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2017 1:46:53 PM
Creation date
7/14/2017 1:41:17 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
281
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
Roseville Finance Commission <br />Agenda Item <br /> <br />Page 10 of 11 <br /> <br />If we factor in all planned levy increases referenced in Resolution #11027, the impact would be as <br />follows: <br /> <br /> <br />Under this scenario, the impact would rise from the current $9.88 per month to $11.29 in 2019 before it <br />starts to level off. Again, this assumes that all other factors remain constant, and no additional tax levies <br />are enacted. In all likelihood, additional repurposing of expired debt levies will be a consideration in <br />future years to address remaining funding shortfalls. <br /> <br />Final Comments <br />From time to time, it has been suggested that the city consider alternative revenue sources to help bridge <br />the funding gaps described above. State or regional grants, local option sales tax, street utility, increased <br />special assessments, and issuing bonds have all been discussed over the past several years. <br /> <br />While any of these avenues may prove viable in the future, only special assessments and the local <br />bonding options are currently within the City’s control. Special Assessments could potentially be utilized <br />to a greater extent, however under State Law the amount of the assessment must be equal to or greater <br />than the property’s market value increase that results from the associated public improvements. This has <br />proven to be problematic at times as it is sometimes difficult to demonstrate this nexus. <br /> <br />The bonding option can provide a significant revenue source especially as a means of financing <br />improvements that have been deferred due to lack of funding. However, these bonds need to be repaid <br />over time. As a result, the tax burden on property owners is not avoided and in fact is larger due the <br />interest that has to be paid on the bonds. <br /> <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Not applicable. <br /> <br />Requested Commission Action <br />For review purposes only. No formal Commission action is necessary. <br /> <br /> $9.00 <br /> $9.50 <br /> $10.00 <br /> $10.50 <br /> $11.00 <br /> $11.50 <br />2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 <br />CIP Taxpayer Impact (monthly)
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.