8.5. SR 04-17-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

League of Minnesota Cities Cities Bulletin Number 14 ~~ Apri17, 1995 Senate puts property taxes on ice Gary Carlson One Senator described it as the dumb part of dumb and dumber. Another asked if cities would rather be hung or shot. One major daily newspa- per refetred to the proposal as non- sense. City officials recited a long list of negative consequences if the bill became law. Sut despite it all, the Senate passed S.F. 1570, Senate Majority Leader Roger Mce's bill that would put a hard freeze on property taxes throughout the state. The Senate approved the measure late Thursday morning, shortly before this issue of Cities Bulletin went to press. The bill would have the greatest impact on cities and counties. School levies would be frozen but schools would generally be held harmless because state aid would offset the levy reduction. The bill was amended to include a provision that would prohibit unfunded mandates during the freeze proposal. In addition, the HACA sunset was removed. The balance of the sunset including local government aid and the property tax classification is entirely sunset in 1998. We will provide full details on the amendments to the bill in next week's Cities Bulletin. in an increase in taxes paid by taxpay- ers, the state would provide an aid payment to the city to offset the levy increases. The bill would also impose strict levy limits on cities for taxes payable in 1997. These levy limits would restrict the overall growth in local government levies to the lesser of three percent or the implicit price deflator for The bill that went to the Senate floor would prohibit levy increases for taxes payable in 1996. The bill would also freeze market values for individual property owners unless improvements aze made or new structures are built. The combination of the levy freeze and the market value freeze means that the bills of taxpayers in 1996 would not :` increase. Tn fact, in growing communi- ties where substantial new construction is occurring, the tax bills of existing property owners could actually decrease. To assure that levies could not increase, the bill would severe) limit the issuance of new general obligation debt or any t i twat would increase the property tax levy. The bill presum- ab y woul~ect the issuance of special assessment supported debt or debt supported entirely by dedicated enterprise fund revenue, or any other debt that would not have a property tax impact in 1996. Any debt issued prior to Mamh 30 that would require additional 1996 levy would be permis- sible. If the levy increase would result For more information on the proposed property tax freeze, contact Senator Roger Moe at (612) 296-2577. See Freeze, page 8