Replying to a post about the principles for the next round of the budget, Barbara Nelson asked:
"One question, though: what does it mean that "unexpected revenue sources go through the same budget process as other revenue"? Here's what I intended when I said it: Let's say a new business moves to Minneapolis, or one expands, and they build a building. This creates a tax windfall for the city. In the past, too often the response from the political community was to grab the new taxes off this building and put it into a tax increment district so we could build something else....instead of assuming this would go to the general fund. (And the schools, etc. to boot.) Considering how challenged we are with city finances, I don't think we can automatically assume this "new money" is a windfall. Instead we have to ask if that "new money" isn't better spent for our general purposes, ie. more police, better snow plowing, etc. It's like a person who has big credit card debts who gets a bonus. That person can spend the bonus on a new stereo, but it would better to first pay off the debt. The city has some monster debts so we shouldn't run off to assume we can blow our bonus on "stereos" or shopping centers or anything else without first asking whether it wouldn't be better in the general fund. R.T.Rybak East Harriet. _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
