Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-12-01 PACKET 06.C.C OUNCIL A GENDA MEETING ITEM # oO' DATE 1 - 6.C PR .*I� .� COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Hold public informational hearing for the 2010 tax levy collectible in 2011 and the 2011 budget. Consider adoption of the tax levy collectible and the 2011 budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt resolution 2010 tax levy collectible in 2011 for the City of Cottage Grove. 2. Adopt resolution approving the 2011 budget for the City of Cottage Grove. BUDGET IMPLICATION: BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ❑ PLANNING ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS w ❑� � � 69 .Y `2....- .✓4'tiv_ ��..,." y =� � O ,.. ate... �,,,....� � ,$ ,,.,. City Adiistrator .� % Date Z, H: \Council items \City Council Action Form.doc Z A D DR OVED El DENIED & 191C City of Cottage Grove Finance Department TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator FROM: Robin Roland, Finance Director DATE: November 23, 2010 RE: Adoption of Property Tax Levy for Taxes Payable in 201 Adoption of 2011 Budget � il� The City is required to adopt a property tax levy each year by the end of December. The preliminary tax levy for 201 and the proposed 201 budget were adopted at the regular council meeting on September 1, 2010. The preliminary levy may not be increased but can be reduced prior to December 28 th when the final levy is required to be adopted. The proposed levy was used by Washington County to prepare the notices of estimated property taxes that were mailed to property tax owners in November. Those notices included the date of this tax levy and budget meeting to be held. There will be a presentation of the levy and budget at the Council meeting. Since the changes to the "Truth in Taxation" statute, this is not a public hearing, but rather a time for Council to receive public comment on the levy and budget. As was discussed in September, staff believes the preliminary 2011 tax levy will result in the two goals stated by the City Council at their Budget goals workshop on May 5, 2010: that the City taxes paid by the owner of an "average" property would be no more in 2011 than in 2010 and that the City's tax extension rate would continue to be at the "mean" tax extension rate of the 36 cities to whom we compare ourselves. 11P �I The proposed tax levy includes a total increase of 0.71 %, or approximately $86,250. Adopted Amended Adopted Proposed Proposed 00; 009 2010 2011 2012 General Levies General Fund $ 9,620,000 $ 10,338,000 $ 10,213,300 $ 10,345,100 $ 10,358,800 MVHC unallotment Park shelter replacement/Landscape initiative 100,000 Future Public Safety /City Hall 450,000 Economic development 106,000 119,000 Grey Cloud Bridge 7,300 Debt reduction 20,400 20,400 Future Pavement Mgmt 80,000 80,000 Ice Arena 230,000 584,000 584,000 584,000 20,000 20,000 106,000 106,000 106,000 Total levy subject to limit 10,513,700 10,657,400 10,903,300 11,035,100 11,088,800 Debt Levies EDA public project 275,800 140,000 Ice Arena expansion bonds 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 Debt service mitigation 407,000 127,500 346,400 Public Safety /City Hall building bonds 670,400 Pavement Mgmt 2008 290,000 180,000 175,050 175,660 Pavement Mgmt 1998 225,100 215,300 Pavement Mgmt 2000 18,300 19,200 29,306 41,000 43,200 Pavement Mgmt 2002c 202,400 274,200 334,894 403,700 Pavement Mgmt 2003b 236,500 234,500 232,300 Pavement Mgmt 2002b 305,200 248,400 235,200 Total debt levy 1,670,300 1,789,100 1,251,700 1,206,150 1,129,260 Total Gross levy 12,184,000 12,446,500 12,155,000 12,241,250 12,218,060 Change in Gross levy 3.06% 2.15% -2.34% 0.71% -0.19% The chart below reflects the proposed levies (over $1 million) for other Washington County cities as adopted in September. Note that the 8Ve[8gO Ch8Dg8 i3 an iOC[e@Se Of3.61% VYhe[8 Cottage GPDV8'S iDCF888e i00.71%. The two year (2009-2011) average change is an iDCFe88e Of5.71% where Cottage Grove has decreased by1.65% over the same period. city Newport St. Paul Park Bayport Oak Park Heights Soandia K8uhtomedi Woodbury Afton Oakdale Lake Elmo Cottage Grove Stillwater Forest Lake Hugo 0,895.550 -1.92% 4.838.778 -7.20% ].6l0 Based On e9tnD8f8d taxable DnJnerh/ tax V@!Ues and the l8VV 8DlOUDtG presented the f8X extension [8t8 for 2011 will be 38.24% /dOVVD slightly from the September estimate of 38.90%\. After discussions with COUDt« Staff, we believe the final rate will be closer to 38.10% due to the expiration of 8 T|F district which is included in the CU[[eOt COOODUt8fiOn but which will not be included in the final tax rate formula. Pay 2010 Pay 2009 Levy Levy $ 1 $ 1.072.300 1.470.584 1.405.333 1.022.533 1.041.975 3.057.865 3.754.704 1.860.892 1.828.647 3.174.854 3.262.288 28.304.482 27.142.990 1.457.080 1.516.258 9.727.488 9.787.508 2.788.203 2.743.346 12.446.500 12.155.000 10.090.769 10.110.190 7.114.054 7.030.723 5.329.096 5.217.322 Average Change 0,895.550 -1.92% 4.838.778 -7.20% ].6l0 Based On e9tnD8f8d taxable DnJnerh/ tax V@!Ues and the l8VV 8DlOUDtG presented the f8X extension [8t8 for 2011 will be 38.24% /dOVVD slightly from the September estimate of 38.90%\. After discussions with COUDt« Staff, we believe the final rate will be closer to 38.10% due to the expiration of 8 T|F district which is included in the CU[[eOt COOODUt8fiOn but which will not be included in the final tax rate formula. % increase. Proposed Pay (decrease) in 2011 Levy rate $ 2.317.342 17.40% 1.855.427 1071% 1.113.798 0.8996 3.964.704 5.5096 2.013.051 4.41% 3.386.000 3.82% 27.958.800 3.00% 1.580.838 2.94% 9.980.088 1.97% 2.789.550 1.68% 12.241.250 0J1% 10.158.367 0.4896 0,895.550 -1.92% 4.838.778 -7.20% ].6l0 Based On e9tnD8f8d taxable DnJnerh/ tax V@!Ues and the l8VV 8DlOUDtG presented the f8X extension [8t8 for 2011 will be 38.24% /dOVVD slightly from the September estimate of 38.90%\. After discussions with COUDt« Staff, we believe the final rate will be closer to 38.10% due to the expiration of 8 T|F district which is included in the CU[[eOt COOODUt8fiOn but which will not be included in the final tax rate formula. The following table is from Washington County and reflects the City tax on the "average" property for the last ten years. Although the "CAMA Market Value" is different than valuations presented in September, it still reflects the affect of valuation and tax rate changes on Cottage Grove properties. (CAMA Market Value is Average Residential Market Value based on Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal) This chart reflects that an 'average' valued home in Cottage Grove would see effectively no increase in actual dollars paid in City taxes in 2011, meeting Council's first "goal". Council's second goal was that the City tax extension rate remains at the "mean" of the tax rates of all 36 cities to whom Cottage Grove compares itself. Early this year staff had asserted that although our slight increase in levy coupled with our expected decline in market value would increase our tax rate, it was our belief that other cities would increase their levies and have the same market value declines, resulting in Cottage Grove's tax rate remaining "in the middle of the pack." At this time, staff has compared proposed tax rates of those cities in Washington, Ramsey and Dakota Counties and has discovered (so far) that our assumptions hold true. Cities 2011 rate Apple Valley Hastings Inver Grove Heights Lakeville Maplewood New Brighton Oakdale Rosemount Roseville Shoreview So St Paul White Bear Lake Woodbury Average Cottage Grove 42.39% 55.19% 43.16% 38.27% 38.87% 37.69% 35.79% 44,64% 30,24% 30.93% 48,66% 18.11% 34.98% 38.38% 38.24% CAMA Market Tax Urban Tax Year Value % Change Capacity Rate City Tax % Change 2002 145,900 13.72% 1,459 0.4752 693.27 55.27% 2004 187,700 9.38% 1,877 0.4366 819.44 13.49% 2006 222,000 4.82% 2,220 0.3793 841.94 1.48% 2008 244,300 1.83% 2,443 0.3519 859.67 0.06% 2010 228,000 -6.52% 2,280 0.3542 807.47 -4.40% This chart reflects that an 'average' valued home in Cottage Grove would see effectively no increase in actual dollars paid in City taxes in 2011, meeting Council's first "goal". Council's second goal was that the City tax extension rate remains at the "mean" of the tax rates of all 36 cities to whom Cottage Grove compares itself. Early this year staff had asserted that although our slight increase in levy coupled with our expected decline in market value would increase our tax rate, it was our belief that other cities would increase their levies and have the same market value declines, resulting in Cottage Grove's tax rate remaining "in the middle of the pack." At this time, staff has compared proposed tax rates of those cities in Washington, Ramsey and Dakota Counties and has discovered (so far) that our assumptions hold true. Cities 2011 rate Apple Valley Hastings Inver Grove Heights Lakeville Maplewood New Brighton Oakdale Rosemount Roseville Shoreview So St Paul White Bear Lake Woodbury Average Cottage Grove 42.39% 55.19% 43.16% 38.27% 38.87% 37.69% 35.79% 44,64% 30,24% 30.93% 48,66% 18.11% 34.98% 38.38% 38.24% General Fund As presented in September the general fund budget is in a "balanced state" - revenues equal expenses. AdJustments have been made to the employee benefits expense to reflect the health insurance changes which will take effect in 2011. This reduced the total general fund expenditures for 2011 from $13,177,301 to $13,047,501 or by $129,800. All other revenue and expenditure highlights from September remain the same: • Council Contingency-the preliminary budget includes an expenditure line item for council contingency of $55,000 for 2011 and 2012. • State Aids (Local Government Aid) The levy and the preliminary budget reflects no Local Government Aid or Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC). As in 2010, the City had to levy for the MVHC aid so that it could be un-allotted (retained by the state). • Cost of Living Increases — The cost of living increase is 2% for 2011 and 2012. • Admin Charge to Enterprise Funds — The admin charge to the enterprise funds (water, sewer, storm water and street light utilities) was not increased for 2011 or 2012; it totals $495,600 in the general fund. • Charges for services — both 2011 and 2012 reflect a $100,000 reduction in engineering, administration and financing fees collected on developments due to the lack of anticipated development activity. • Investment earnings— Investment earnings have been calculated at 1.5% for 2011 and 2012. • PERA Changes budget amounts include an addition for the increase in the PERA rates for 2011. Based on adopted legislation the PERA rate went from 7.0% to 7.25% for Coordinated members and the rate for Police & Fire went from 14.1% to 14.4%. The history of these mandated increases is detailed below: Table of PERA Employer Contribution Rates effective date Coordinated Plan Police & Fire 1/1/2006 6.00% 10,50% 1/1/2007 6.25% 11.70% 1/1/2008 6.50% 12.90% 1/1/2009 6.75% 14.10% 1/1/2010 7.00% 14.10% 1/1/2011 7.25% 14.40% Equipment Replacement Fund The budget includes a five year equipment replacement plan totaling $4.1 Million, along with the funding source. A summary list of purchases by year is included totaling $551,100 for 201 and $635,500 for 2012. The 201 equipment purchases include: Four (4) marked squads (Police) Specialty vehicle (CSO) (Police) Hybrid sedan (Inspections) Pumper Truck: first half — balance in 2012 (Fire) 16 foot rotary mower (Parks) Bucket Truck (Street Light Utility) Seal Coating Fund After the Franchise fee increase in 201 and the switch to a seven year program, expenditures in this fund increase by 4% in 2011 and an additional 8.7% in 2012. Ice Arena Staff is requesting that a portion of current year income be designated for future equipment replacement. $10,000 is being designated in 201 and 2012 for this purpose. Charitable Gambling Fund The budget includes budget appropriations of $5,000 to the Fireworks display. Celebration Fund No activity is included in this fund for either 201 or 2012 Forfeiture Fund The expenditures include purchase of new FOSS scheduling software for the police department and a $25,000 payment for the squad camera loan repayment to the Equipment Replacement Fund. Recycling The revenue is the recycling grant amount expected to be received from Washington County. Expenditures include purchase of shelving and promotional display in 201 EDA and Economic Development Trust Funds T'itg, EQ& *rol;ert\ ,� IevX rptu2jis 9t tiie 201 IevX 2nowit of 1106,000, Utility and Enterprise Funds No rate increases are currently proposed for any of the utility funds in 201 and 201 for Water Utility Fund The rates remain at the level of $48 per residential customer for 201 and are consistent with the storm water utility plan presented in 2008 which included scaled back storm water utility projects to match the revenue source. Water Fund The 2011 capital outlay includes design development for Well #12 and painting the 1 MG tank. The fund is projected to have a net income of $359,485 in 2011. Sewer Fund The largest expenditure increase anticipated is the Met Council sewer services charge (6.7%). The 2011 capital outlay includes sewer access trails of $25,500. The fund is projected to have a net loss of $289,145. Street Light Fund The rates decreased in 2010 to help mitigate the increases in the franchise fee. There is a small projected net loss in the fund of $38,520 in 2011. Other Enterprise Funds Golf Course Fund Despite fund revenues in both 2011 and 2012 reflecting a preliminary assumption of $65,000 "additional revenue", this fund breaks even in 2011 and loses $28,150 in 2012. Discussions continue about goals for and strategies to handle this operation. Ambulance Fund The budgeted revenue includes an increase of 8% in the rates. The fund is projected to have a loss of close to $100,000 each year in 2011 and 2012. Rates would have to increase by 25% for the fund to break even. Population and call trends indicate more than 68% Medicaid and Medicare. Recap of fees and taxes. Based on a $184,834 average (2011) value home charged for 9,000 gallons of water and 5,000 units of sanitary sewer in a month would pay on a monthly basis approximately $100 in property taxes, franchise fees and utility charges per month. Action Requested Adopt the attached resolutions • Resolution adopting the final 2010 tax levy collectible in 2011 • Resolution adopting the 2011 budget for the City of Cottage Grove. Per Month 2010 2011 % increase Property Taxes (City Portion only) $ 60.58 $ 60.08 -0.8% Franchise Fees 3.30 3.30 0.0% Water Charge 13.20 13.20 0.0% Sewer Charge 16.65 16.65 0.0% Streetlight Fee w/maintenance 330 3.30 0.0% Stormwater Fee 4.00 4.00 0.0% $ 101.03 100.53 -0.5% Action Requested Adopt the attached resolutions • Resolution adopting the final 2010 tax levy collectible in 2011 • Resolution adopting the 2011 budget for the City of Cottage Grove. ADOPT •' • • ADOPTING 1 1 i'w LETT COLLECTIBLE 1 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that the following amounts are the proposed to be levied for the current year, collectible in 2011, upon the taxable property in the City of Cottage Grove for the following purposes: General Levy General Fund MVHC unallotment Economic Development Subtotal General Levy Debt Levies Ice Arena Expansion Pavement Management - 08 Pavement Mgmt — 02 Refunding ( 95/96) Pavement Management — 00 Pavement Management — 02 Pavement Management — 03 Subtotal Debt Levy Total Property Tax Levy Passed this 1 st day of December, 2010. $ 10,345,100 584,000 106,000 11,035,100 240,000 175,050 403,700 41,000 173,200 173,200 1,206,150 $ 12,241,250 al 8 04*4101061mil • Till I M MS] I W&SI &OL61 a fATCJ:&Ci' .401VI WHEREAS, The City of Cottage Grove provides a variety of services to the residents of Cottage Grove; and WHEREAS, the funds to provide services are reviewed and appropriated by the City Council at public hearings, and WHEREAS, it is necessary to generate sufficient revenues to meet the financial obligations, and WHEREAS, existing law requires certification of the budget to the County Auditor by December 28, 2010. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, hereby certifies the proposed 2011 budget, and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Finance Director is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Washington County, Minnesota by December 28, 2010, Revenues and Transfers In $ 13,047,501 553,100 371,715 5,000 52,400 51,000 1,114,500 205,800 77,000 Expenditure or Expense and Transfers Out T37,1 7# 50,000 634,000 361,100 5,000 58,500 56,500 1,094,900 130,100 430,000 Revenues and Transfers In Water Operating Sewer Operating Ambulance Storm Water Utility Street Lighting River Oaks Golf Self Insurance Fleet Service 2,630,700 2,321,600 1,121,900 631,200 607,975 1,653,300 1,404,400 1,000,300 $ 26,716,970 Passed this 1 st day of December, 2010. Expenditure or Expense and Transfers Out 3,069,515 2,662,245 1,208,955 657,845 755,195 2,015,600 1,502,585 973,250 $ 28,577,490 Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Caron Stransky, City Clerk