City Council Minutes 1992 11 25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

couple of months you wanted to lower your sales tax so that you wouldn't overflow, would that mean that you would have to go to a vote of the people to raise it again? Griffiths: The Amendment does not specify how you go about avoiding the additional revenue. What it requires you to do is to refund it in some fashion in future years. It doesn't tell you how you must refund it. I think, again you should be very cautious about reducing any kind of a rate under Amendment No. 1, because returning that rate may be considered a rate increase and require an election. You ought to look at other methods of refunding money to citizens based on excess revenue, than reducing a rate. In the property tax area you have a separate limit on the property tax revenue that you can receive. Asti-Caranci explained the "Quick Model For Amendment 1" (SEE AT~?ACHED). She calculated that if Louisville's growth rate was 3% plus the 3.4%, in other words Louisville had a 6.4% growth rate, Louisville's '93 spending limit would be $18,668,490.00. At this point Louisville is at $16 million, so Louisville still has $2.5 million difference there. She also calculated it another way using the CPI, that Louisville only increased by the 3.4%, Louisville's '93 spending limit would be $18,230,000.00, so there is still the $2..15 million there. Griffiths: The importance of the number of $16 million in comparison to the spending limit is that how much you spend in reserve in 1993, then becomes your base for 1994. What this is showing is that this budget does not spend or reserve the maximum amount that is permitted to the City under the 1993 spending limit. Consequently, you would see a further reduction in 1994. Mayer: This does not include the purchase of either raw water or the pipeline? Is any of that figured in this? Asti-Caranci: Yes, it is. The figures that were