|
<br />of the City's total revenue in this current year. City Council also controls the rates
<br />to be charged on such items as licenses and permits, the City's utility tax and several
<br />miscellaneous sources of revenue, representing together about 8 per cent of the City's
<br />total revenue. This means that, surprisingly enough, about 30 per cent of the City's
<br />revenue comes from sources over which City Council has no rate setting authority,
<br />since these determinations are made either on the State or Federal level.
<br />
<br />It would seem to be misleading to make a calculation and come up with a general per-
<br />centage of increase as represented by the proposed $2.00 per $100 tax rate, for the
<br />tax on an individual piece of property would reflect the increased ratio as well as
<br />inflation and, in some cases, improvements to existing property. And, the total tax
<br />levy figures reflect va lue of new cons truction.
<br />
<br /><--
<br />
<br />The proposed $2.00 tax rate, in combination with those categories to be taxed at $2.25,
<br />would mean that local taxpayers would pay to the City a total of $1,940,000 in the
<br />regular course of payment, and the proposed budget will presuppose that, in the Spring
<br />of 1912, citizens will make their first "split billing" payment, for half the year, in
<br />amounts totaling $830,000. The regular tax billing this Fall, combined with the pay-
<br />ment to be made next Spring, will thus total about $2,110,000. Expenditures (for all
<br />funds) to be proposed for the new budget will total apprOXimately $10,165,000. Of this
<br />total, a little more than 8 million will represent General Fund expenditures, up approxi-
<br />mately 1.5 million from this year.
<br />
<br />Looking at the expenditure side of the picture, the City's single most expensive govern-
<br />mental function is its school system, and its operating budget (not including debt re-
<br />tirement and certain self-sustaining funds) for the next fiscal year will be $2,992,000.
<br />Thus, without taking advantage of the postponed extra one-half year's real estate tax,
<br />to be collected only once, in the next fisca I year, the tota I taxes would come up
<br />$1,051,000 short of providing enough money for school operation during the next year,
<br />and by including the "windfall" tax payment, the hypothetical school fund shortage
<br />would still be about $221,000. When we add to school costs the other General Fund
<br />obligations, such as provision of a street system, public safety, debt service, and the
<br />various other categories, the question resolves itself into one of either taxation or
<br />reduced services.
<br />
<br />The citizen naturally wonders what all this money, especially the tax windfall, is to
<br />be used for, a logical and serious question. At the end of this year, June 30, approxi-
<br />mately $350,000 will have been earmarked and set aside for use in financing highway
<br />improvements. This is the adjusted figure, after it became necessary to postpone the
<br />extra tax billing for one fiscal yetlr.
<br />
<br />Even at the proposed $2.00 tax rate it is painfully evident that without the planned
<br />accelerated tax payment during the next fiscal year, there would still be a deficit of
<br />about $390,000 end there would not be an additional dollar available for our highway
<br />program. But, with the accelerated tax payment, for the next fiscal year, there will
<br />be no deficit and approximately $440,000 will be added to the $350,000, for provision
<br />of new or improved streets.
<br />
<br />- 2 -
<br />
|