Laserfiche WebLink
`�°��. <br /> a��� <br /> Financial Managemeirt <br /> DATE: 11/24/2019 <br /> MEMO: Letter to the Decatur City Council Financial Management Letter 2019- 14 <br /> TO: Honorable Mayor Moore Wolfe and City Council Members <br /> FROM: Scot Wrighton,City Manager <br /> Gregg D.Zientara,City Treasurer&Director of Finance <br /> SUBJECT: Property Tax Levy for AV Year 2019 Pay Tax Year 2020 <br /> SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: <br /> City Staff recommends City Council approval of the Property Tax Levy Ordinance and the series of Property Tax Abatement <br /> Ordinances that follow. The taac levy presented herewith,is the same talc levy as presented to and approved by City Council in <br /> Council Resolution R2019-169,Resolution Estimatix►g Amounts Necessary to be Raised by the 2019 Tax Levy,adopted by City <br /> Council on November 4,2019. <br /> BACKGROUND: <br /> The proposed tax levy ordinance reflects the previously adopted November 2019 resolution on the tax levy,as well as direction <br /> from the City Council during their August study session where property tax strategies were discussed.Although the city's <br /> aggregate equalized assessed valuation continues to change,the goal of the City Council tlus year was to adjust the property tax <br /> rate sufficiently to capture tax revenue from new consttuction,higher valuations and new anne�rion---and not increase taxes on <br /> properties where there were no changes in valuation and no new construction since the previous year. <br /> Of course,the City Council's actions to"hold-the-line"on the properiy tax levy only pertains only to the 16 to 17 percent of the <br /> total tax levy that the city controls. Because of the large number of overlapping local taxing jurisdictions in Macon County,the <br /> overall property tax burden(from all taJcing jurisdictions together)remains high, <br /> The nine(9)tax abatement ordinances on the agenda following the tax levy ordinance are further evidence of the City Council's <br /> efforts to limit the negative impact of high property taxes.Many of the debt instruments issued by the city since 2010 have been <br /> "alternarive revenue bonds.°This means that they are General Obligation(GO)bonds that pledge the full faith and credit of the <br /> city to pay(if necessary by tax levy),but for which the City Council identified an"alternative"revenue source. So long as there <br /> is an alternative revenue source,the tax levy required to service the bonds is not extended. But the City Council must act every <br /> year to abate the taxes that would otherwise be e�ended to the tax levy. It is worth the extra effort for the council to annually <br /> abate these levies because if the city had issued non GO bonds pledging only the alternative revenue source,the bonds would <br /> attract a higher irrterest rate. <br /> ATTACHMENTS: <br /> Description Type <br /> Council Letter Cover Memo <br /> Ordinance C'over A�lcmo <br />