"Where Fillmore County News Comes First"
Online Edition
Tuesday, June 18th, 2013
Volume ∞ Issue ∞
- 7:10:46, Jun 13th 2013 - chipperlee - Seems to be a well written article, except maybe Silica Sand is used in ... [Read More]
- 12:02:15, Jun 9th 2013 - getthefacts - The problem here lies in the fact that girls were repeatedly told "if y ... [Read More]
- 10:45:32, Jun 7th 2013 - Jo mom for 6yrs - Mr. Ehler hit the nail on the head. I agree with the religious con ... [Read More]
- 2:47:58, Jun 7th 2013 - hello - Hello, it's time you wake up. There isn't a community nearby that doesn't offe ... [Read More]
- 9:06:21, Jun 6th 2013 - hello - Hello, it's time you wake up. There isn't a community nearby that doesn't offe ... [Read More]
- 2:05:29, Jun 6th 2013 - Kim Wentworth - The number one rule in a debate: 1) if the person from the opposite si ... [Read More]
- 12:42:18, Jun 4th 2013 - EW - For someone that is always spouting religious rhetoric, you try to come off as a ... [Read More]
- 11:32:18, May 31st 2013 - JO PLAYER - This is unfair to us girls. Morrie Miller is not getting canceled but J ... [Read More]
- 8:25:34, May 29th 2013 - RP - Why is Mr. Ehler involving himself with non-school activities? Is he going after ... [Read More]
- 6:40:49, May 29th 2013 - Doc - You are a cartoon character! If I see you in person I will burst out laughing. ... [Read More]
33
Do you think the use of all fireworks should be legal in the state of Minnesota for all consumers?
Rushford Library concerns
Mon, Mar 26th, 2012
Posted in Rushford All
Posted in Rushford All
Comments
Ms. Fergison and Ms. Tesch, I want to thank you for your concern for the Rushford Library. Ms. Fergison you made the statement, “I may not have all the facts...” to which I would like to offer some financial information regarding the City of Rushford, which I hope will bring an understanding to the Library issue. The information involves a considerable amount of financial information and analysis. I have learned over my years, without good information decisions tend to be emotional, and emotional decisions tend to be costly. With that I will give you the City’s financial information which I have, and along with that information I will give you my bias as well.
Entering the calendar year 2012, the City of Rushford had debt obligations of $10,509,326.00. How cities are able to go in debt was in a sense to mortgage all the real estate within the city limits. Within the city limits there are 523 residential properties and 78 commercial properties. The Taxable Market Value of all properties for 2012 was $78,863,200, which is determined by the Fillmore County Assessor’s office. If I were to divide the value of the city, $78,863,200 by $100,000 it would equal 788 units of value. To assign debt per unit I would then take the city’s debt of $10,509326 and divide it by 788, and the result would tell us how much debt per $100,000 of property value; $10,509,326/788= $13,336. So what is that telling us? In simple terms, if you own a property valued at $100,000 in Rushford, the city’s debt against your house is $13,336. If your property’s value is $200,000 you have $26,672 against it, and that debt is paid by the property owner through taxation at varying rates of interest and term. At the present time, Rushford uses approximately $890,000 of its operating budget to service the existing debt, roughly $260,000 of the $890,000 is the cost of interest.
We know we are obligated to borrow $1.4 million in two years to pay for the Hwy 43 project which is an additional $1,776 per $100,000 of property value. If we assume the City of Rushford would need to borrow $1,800,000 for a new library that debt per $100,000 of property value would be $2,284.
I know the Library Board and Staff have worked long and hard on this and I appreciate it very much. However, at this time in our City’s financial history, I consider a new library a want, not a need. I do feel our existing Library needs some remodeling provided we don’t go into debt to do that.
One of my responsibilities as councilman is to make decisions associated to city debt. When any city goes into debt it presumes on its property owners for the perceived benefit of all residents. I do my best to sort those decisions into “needs” and “wants” categories; if it’s “wants,” I have to proceed as if the property owners can afford the debt. Debt obligates a future resource, which dictates future decisions as well. In the case of the Library, at this time my determination is “No.” I realize not everyone agrees with my approach to decision making, however, it is consistent with my election campaign.
Ms. Tesch, you raised a good question regarding the swimming pool. Last year, the pool had an operational loss of $14,041, which is a regular occurrence. My predecessors on the council understood this and made the decision to offer Rushford residents an annual membership lower than non-residents. That decision makes sense to me because the short fall was/is made up from real estate taxation on owners of properties in the City of Rushford. If it were equal to everyone, resident and non-resident, it would not be fair to property owners of Rushford.
What you may not be aware of is residents in the “City of Rushford Village” will be reimbursed by the Village council in part or in whole for the pool memberships purchased for the Rushford Pool. With this information, I hope you will reconsider and enroll your family in the Rushford Pool Programs. In addition, I’m sure your children would enjoy a summer of fun with their friends from school, and it would be my hope that you would want to patronize our fine businesses who pay a large percentage of our real estate tax.
Councilman
Roger Colbenson
Rushford, MN
Entering the calendar year 2012, the City of Rushford had debt obligations of $10,509,326.00. How cities are able to go in debt was in a sense to mortgage all the real estate within the city limits. Within the city limits there are 523 residential properties and 78 commercial properties. The Taxable Market Value of all properties for 2012 was $78,863,200, which is determined by the Fillmore County Assessor’s office. If I were to divide the value of the city, $78,863,200 by $100,000 it would equal 788 units of value. To assign debt per unit I would then take the city’s debt of $10,509326 and divide it by 788, and the result would tell us how much debt per $100,000 of property value; $10,509,326/788= $13,336. So what is that telling us? In simple terms, if you own a property valued at $100,000 in Rushford, the city’s debt against your house is $13,336. If your property’s value is $200,000 you have $26,672 against it, and that debt is paid by the property owner through taxation at varying rates of interest and term. At the present time, Rushford uses approximately $890,000 of its operating budget to service the existing debt, roughly $260,000 of the $890,000 is the cost of interest.
We know we are obligated to borrow $1.4 million in two years to pay for the Hwy 43 project which is an additional $1,776 per $100,000 of property value. If we assume the City of Rushford would need to borrow $1,800,000 for a new library that debt per $100,000 of property value would be $2,284.
I know the Library Board and Staff have worked long and hard on this and I appreciate it very much. However, at this time in our City’s financial history, I consider a new library a want, not a need. I do feel our existing Library needs some remodeling provided we don’t go into debt to do that.
One of my responsibilities as councilman is to make decisions associated to city debt. When any city goes into debt it presumes on its property owners for the perceived benefit of all residents. I do my best to sort those decisions into “needs” and “wants” categories; if it’s “wants,” I have to proceed as if the property owners can afford the debt. Debt obligates a future resource, which dictates future decisions as well. In the case of the Library, at this time my determination is “No.” I realize not everyone agrees with my approach to decision making, however, it is consistent with my election campaign.
Ms. Tesch, you raised a good question regarding the swimming pool. Last year, the pool had an operational loss of $14,041, which is a regular occurrence. My predecessors on the council understood this and made the decision to offer Rushford residents an annual membership lower than non-residents. That decision makes sense to me because the short fall was/is made up from real estate taxation on owners of properties in the City of Rushford. If it were equal to everyone, resident and non-resident, it would not be fair to property owners of Rushford.
What you may not be aware of is residents in the “City of Rushford Village” will be reimbursed by the Village council in part or in whole for the pool memberships purchased for the Rushford Pool. With this information, I hope you will reconsider and enroll your family in the Rushford Pool Programs. In addition, I’m sure your children would enjoy a summer of fun with their friends from school, and it would be my hope that you would want to patronize our fine businesses who pay a large percentage of our real estate tax.
Councilman
Roger Colbenson
Rushford, MN
No Comments Yet. Be the first to comment!
