7.3. SR 10-11-1999
rll ---\)
( );
till
.
.
Item #7.3.
MEMORANDUM
RiverTO:
Mayor & City Council
FROM:
Pat Klaers, City Administrator
DATE:
October 11, 1999
SUBJECT: Budget Public Hearing
A new state law was adopted in 1999, which requires municipalities to hold a
public hearing and to pass a resolution if their tax levy will result in a tax
rate increase. The city's public hearing on the proposed tax rate increase is
scheduled for Monday. The attached October 6, 1999, Star Tribune article
provides an interesting discussion of the local government tax revenue versus
tax rate issue.
The tax system is very complex and often uses confusing terms. The state
legislature wants accountability at the local government level and, as noted
in the attached article, does not want cities to "play games" with technical
terms. It is not unusual for a city or county to say "if your property value did
not change. . . then you will see no change or only see a modest increase in our
share of your tax bill." This type of statement has resulted in some
frustrations at the state legislature because, if a municipality or county is
experiencing growth, then the municipality or county is usually receiving
additional tax revenues for services without this being clearly stated.
Additionally, at least in Elk River, the truth is that every other year or so, in
order to keep up with the market, the homeowner sees a certain increase in
their property value (and, accordingly, their taxes).
This public hearing is another requirement by the state legislature for cities
to discuss tax revenues. (The other public hearing requirement is the
December Truth in Taxation hearing.) Additionally, the state has created
another complex tax formula. This formula is discussed in the attachment
from the League of Minnesota Cities and the figures for Elk River are shown
in the county auditor's attachment dated September 8, 1999. Essentially, the
previous year's non-debt levy is applied against the current year's net tax
capacity in order to create a new base tax rate. This new rate is applied
against the current year's non-debt levy and if more tax revenue is being
generated, then the city has to adopt a tax rate resolution after a public
hearing and certify this resolution to the county.
At the October 11, 1999, City Council meeting the Mayor should open the
public hearing on the tax rate. Staff can answer questions on the proposed
13065 Orono Parkway. P.O. Box 490. Elk River, MN 55330. TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420. Fax: (612) 441-7425
.
.
.
Budget Public Hearing
Page Two
budget, the tax rate, and why additional tax revenues are being requested.
Following the closure of the public hearing, the City Council is requested to
adopt the attached resolution as prepared by the finance director.
Action Reauested
Following a public hearing the City Council is requested to adopt the
attached tax rate increase resolution.
Attachments
. Tax Rate Resolution
. October 6, 1999, Star Tribune article
. League of Minnesota Cities Tax Rate Certification Information Page
. Sherburne County Auditor/Treasurer Data for Taxes Payable in 2000
. Budget Information:
. 2000 Sources of Funds
. 2000 Expenditures
. 1999 Tax Levy Resolution
. Proposed 2000 Maximum Tax Levy Resolution
.
.
.
RESOLUTION 99-_
A RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF ELK RIVER
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A TAX RATE INCREASE FOR THE
1999 TAX LEVY, COLLECTIBLE IN 2000
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Elk River has reviewed the 1999
tax levy for taxes payable in 2000 and determined that a tax
rate increase is necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Elk River as follows: The City Council of the City of Elk River proposes that
the Sherburne County Auditor is authorized to fix a property tax rate for
taxes payable in 2000 that is higher than the tax rate calculated pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes 204B.135 for the City for taxes levied in 1998, payable in
1999.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the adoption of this resolution does not
prohibit the City from certifying a final levy that will result in no tax rate
increase or a tax rate decrease.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Elk River, Minnesota
this 11th day of October, 1999.
Stephanie A. Klinzing, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandra A. Peine, City Clerk
s: \document \resoluti\99taxlev.doc
Metro/State
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6 · 1999
'>:~mm~m1:!~'Nma8 IIWe.don't s~t here and
> Tax levy: The '. >:'r~x rate: Setb}!' ,> Tax cap~Ity:' calculate howto pull a bUdget
, alT)ountof property- the unit of government Calculated as a per~ . .. together that.doesn'ttell folks
. tax dollars a local in conjurictionwith its,' centage of a prop~<j:; -
unit,of govern!llen( levy, this number ..' .' arty's estimate~ ioi>;:; ;,hpwt"eir'mo."eyis spent."
. ''':- citY; county or .. becomes part of a , market value, this,,;,: " . ,
school district - . formula under which " dollar amount IS the,;.,' . ...,... Dan Erhart, chairman, An9ka County Board of
;'J)ro'po$est~,collec;t ... .' ,taXeS on indMdual; other factor in deter ~~' r,';"3.::tj~.jj~;~{~~~~~.. ..... ..:L:~.: ..m..'. ;.... ...~tL..:;'.r.
" ;'t;r;';;{!.~~ii!l\ . ...;~~e~",,;: ';~'f":'~j~!f;~ :.L ,. "C' '>"'" , 'i~il!';' .:";.
.,.., '.' " . ..".t';? :,"FAt a'mid-Septe~ber.board auditorso that no more property
. 'HoW, County taxes 'are calculated on a $106,000 hom~ In Anoka County:~; ;.(meeting, Washington, County's' taxes are raised than the year
:0 {The fjrst$76,OOO of Ule estimateg. market value ($10e",OOO) ;':t;. .,:, . . five comrilissioners voted fora rise before, in ~rder to raise more, any
: .. '.,;. .... ..""Ismultiplied by: ~e tax-classificatlon rate of 1 percent (F 60h;:);;;~' ;rill, the property~taX levy after mal<:..,'. local government 'Yill first have to
: . :},: '.',; {gnd the.r~.maining $30,000 is multiplied by a second-t1er~las)::W\/,. mg'cuts that liinited the' maximum';' pass a resolution and hold a public
, },\t~:Jt;sifica~i6n ra~e'of 1.65 percent ($495). The two,'added to?)A",'VVct.',,+ increase to 5.8 percent. "I thi~it;. hearing. The resolution must be
:!l,'i~:'-'getheJ',colTlpriseJhe'property's taxeapacity ($1,255).\.,;;.~. '~";)i::;''': ,.. shows' ouicitizensthat we are try- ,'adopted by Oct.' 20 of each year."
.:. ,Q.~~~~:~~~~~:ib~~~i~d:~~~ ~6~~~~~:~eih~1p;:p~,!ft~'r' {i; ~~I~'~~aThk,st;:;;:i;~:r~~~"'t;~th~~:xri~~~~~~: ~e;l~y~~
.. .'.'::;"."',: rty' j 't" b"ll'($391')' ..... ,,;' ".;" . . ". ........././ :>.",,:'i. ......~tafford. .::!.... .:'. ..'. ..... 'tern and take advantage of It to slip
,"'''' .e s ax I '.' " . , '. ..' ...... . ".'.'" . '. . B . C ,. '.' ,. B'll Pulkr . ball . "'d R
)~"'::";" ..... '.',1' . C',,,:','';','":'! '.. ut ()mmISSIOner I a- a curve past voters, sm ep.
jO';'A.pr~perty's tota! tax bl,IlIS !.he ~um of the, county, clty~schpoV;:",')'~ "/bek, the' 'only board member to' Dail McElroy, R-Bumsville, l!-uthor
::, ,:"dl~trICt and speCial ta~mg~lstrIC! calculations. . . .,'1:" :r,'~!';~ '; vote against the proposed budget, ,'of the new.law. Too many times,
. j,;;",Y';' :'" .' . .,',.,: ,: . ,.' "", '" .:..':.',...."; ?'said the countywas not going far' :saidMcElroy, local government
;'1,~?:~;,%'Aro~a County and M~nneso~ Taxpayers AsSOCiation '/'")>1.," enough.;'We don't have. much, I... officials will tell taxpayers that "we
I 7,':<"z:,)r\'.?' woUld'say, direct control.". .as fari didn't do' anything to raise your
:"as market values and groWiliand" taxes.",:" .': ..... .. ',. .,'
[Consumer Price Index] and other' . Rick Neumann, Dakota Coull-
things," he said. "But wed() have ty's financial services director, ac~
direct control over spending. knowledged that taxpayers can
> ....The reality of the situation is easily' be' confused. ,.. In ' Dakota
. we're hardly tightening our belts," ,. County, he said, officials try to use
, hesaid:" .'. ":""; . aseriesofcomparisonswhenpre~
.. -. .. sentingthe countY budget request
.' What new law does~' , because a county's t~levy or tax'
In an, attempt to make local rate; by itself,often does not pre..
.governments more. accountable,:' ~ent a full picture of what's hap-
the state law that coines into play.' 'pening. \.' .'
this month will change howcities,'(; " "We try to be very open," he
counties and school districts por- said. II [But] anyone chart can
. tI:ay their property- tax decisions. "probably mislead folks."
. Under the law, the tax rate for a
. local unit of govemtnentwill auto-
matically be' se~ by" the. co~ty
.ill be up $12' per' year on a., percent increase in the amount of
100,000 home. In Scott County,'. property taxes it collects next year,
le owner of a $142,~00 home Will. .. even though the county has a $4
~e the county's share decrease by million reserve, And while the
14., ,,' .' county plans to drop its tax rate by
What most' taxpayers. don't' 2.5 percent, property valuations
now, according to critics, is that. are expected to increase. by. an
lere waS plentyof oPPOJ;tunity to ,. average of 5.3 percent;. . .
lve taxpayers mo~e reliefhad the . . Washington 'County has an~'
ounties chosen not to increase nounced' it" will increase the
lei. bU.. dgets. Few taxpay~rs amount of property tax:s it col-
tte the, annual Truth-m- lects next year bya maxImum of
ax hearings tha't.. cities, ,5.8 percent. And while the county
Junties and school districts are announced a 6.2 percenfdecrease
~,quired to hold each December. ' in the tax rate, average property
Meanwhile, Dakota County last values are expected to increase by,
lon,th proposed a maximum 4.4 7 percent.' ','
,/
,
i:
-\ I
l i
~
J
to.
r,.
hi '~.
: ;
~ :.\
~ -;
,I
'I
11'
H.
11 I
.( 1
~ I'
t I '
'\.i.... . .
. I.; .
I.
I
: I,
I. :'.."
~ J,
t]:,
i .
~'.. .
k! '
~-: ~
fl,
:~.. !
..;.~I.. '.
t' .
i i
i,
f"
r
~ .
~
f
r,
f
~,t
t
,
t
..,
f,'
r
l~
~ .
~i
l
;,.
~
~.
:if
U
.
t
It.
I{
C. '0'., u"n.ty.:" ,.;j
t.::.,:c,.;:::.....,.......'!\,.,{d,t,.,::<:,;}i:.,.....:..:.....~;..;
ax'~':ra es~'"
"m'{ . \a-1~:\~y~\{~.C:~f;:'~a;~'\;:'I: 'I......~\::.'i;..'
~. : 0', -..' ',",
~_' ,_ '~i~ ''(-':f~..,:I~.''". .:g::,-:..... f~:-*,.~~_~~~~ _~ ~<-:~ ~-i/:.~>\'_::_
Jj.1.\'."..t.".,".....li'?,.;i.l. 'I";~ ;,.....'.' ",...'....
. .T.U" ~';;:I ...i'....':~~":/:..
-~ " - .' -'" -. .,
. .i.1~ ,~,jt:i,/.1;~;1;f}!:
"stlll~~ris, ,
~~~~~~.::~ffi'I~.:,;.{~.!.:
'say.same.Q lClwS<"':":"
ar~;'p"'J~YJRg:g'~;fune~'::V';:;X' .
. ," ," .... . . .,. '.. ,.. .'
~-<,.;' .,,7 't.' .,' . - ,_ J' !, 'Y"" "_ ". . ..
\ . 'ill"'\.' : ''''be' . . ..!..'",'d "',"
- ~\!.:.:~~j,;:[~~i.:>\;,.~~,;: ,
By !VIlke~~~~ V""". '.' ....~...." .
Star Jr1~,!,~,e'~tajfW17:ter:.'~ ~',,~; \:~ ;i\
.~ i~~~'i~.;h~~if#~~tf':~e.~:j~ ,',
cently' setit$ptoposedtax leVy.::.. ",
for;iieXty~~r,,~oardChairma.n,.;' 'i.':
Darf:Er1ia~.;had,this...iQ.essage\,..":,
fo~'(\' .'. y~tW:~l'he\.Countf;::.
, Bo~riiin'roumgback the'"
, 1.,.~, .; ~.ft,r ~ ",... ,r
. . 'r~'Ht f
; , , . 'YI.sQoQ...;~ '>in
Ii < '. ~ Git<;' ,
'.' , ~"'~, ". ,!'Il",,,
Ie . i'! ,'1Iltact; 'IS- qi ~
sue-~'staten,ien~ iriSeptember..:.:" "
stressirigtIieir financialpru.~;" .'
defi~e~in,~ett"Ilgp'wpem~~~lI)(,. '.
levies for 2000.' ::".',:;.."..' ',..: i:';, i.,
B'ut'nane> o( those';state::'
ments traiislates.intoaholding' ,
of.,the line on' spending by
coUnties, let'alone a reduction. .
critics argue th(lt local govem-
ments'- <;:ounties, muriicipal-
ities and school districts-- of-:
ten ; make statements that ate .
technicany.' accUrate but mis-
lead. t;ixpayers Who are not fa-'
mUra{with, the complexities of..
the property-taX'system. ".;' i...
"They play this game,7 said '
Rep. Bob Milbert, DFL-South
St. Paul, the coauthor of a law '
that, starting this month; at-
temptsto hold local officials "
more accountable, "The poor
sap that is reading the paper
will saYi 'Gee, my taxes won't.
goup."". '.' .
. It's easy to see how taxpay-
erscan be confused..,' .
As Washington County's
board 01 commissioners voted
last month..to'increase the
amount of properly tax the'
. county will collect)y a maxi-
mum of5.8 percen!, one com-
missio'ner publicly' .' thanked
'. couniy.of~~ials f~~ their bud ~ .
ge~ Al~~;J~~~,i'J;;p.j:~k{:i:'~ ~~. ;:.;..
TAXES COntInues on 84:'" "",' .'
-A.lobk 4t properly taxterms'
and how cOunties haVe ',; " "
inCreased revenue. n'. : ",
PAGE B4- STAR TRIBuNE *
! ~ '... ,; >~:' :~j~~~:',
'."':..' .,
i: .... ~ from 81
1 ',it: ;1.i. .,',.'..'.... ;,.' 0" :'.-1" . ." .... '. . .
.' "~,'.While sOrne:,county fax, rates.. ..'
l '<<7,la1i~;~fjit/fi'}taxQill$ still . 0 U .. .
';"', . .l~"~i~~1:~'~;~:':J;;;.;/~<g~"'r<;}"<"':.:J}" ,,', f! ..... ...n,
.;.;'....,';;~;,;..The:6.its'{as ittutIiedour,'yvere,f"county touted ma press release is'.
",;:'}'ahri~~t~t'keepmgptoposedspend-;: :that it wiIlhold down the amount'
. . \; ':);<mgfu~eaSes.froni!ex'ceeilingJhe';::. of the increase the county will g~t
l:'\:..'G:~~,~it~rtjm=iiri~)"tifi~i~~~,;:inp~op~~~~~:;,'.,:::':, '. '.' . ,.,,:.y'
. 1""':;/ pointed, proudly Jast'month ,to:;' Understanding nd. , . .
! ;':.<how},'W:e"c?uhtts:'!ax;fa!e'wa~:\"";::;Erhart' d~fended his actions. .
i,:,~;'.aIIl;Ol1g_;~~'lo~est\1n.th!l.;~e~o:t:'."'Ye don't SIt here and calculate
j.'(' "~~;;; area~;'~d, at the samelp.eeting~: how to pull a budget together that
!<.~'j7::';; votedC'io;'ihcie~e~the' amount of'i, doesn't tell folks how their money'
j :i;~)i~Y prop~nytaxestheywillcolle~tm"~~'jsspent/" hesaid.!'This is'il very
;}.',:7i;':) 2Q9~;"l?y.'~5ina~miu1i(p!;~}p~~:{',:well-ri1n~opntY goyeriiment here. .'
1....~i:'.::,..' ceIltik<.'Ji:I~!r~~lt'~~~iA:~)'A"';,',';;.I.:'l'}'.we understand the word ,'no.' We
"i,"";:,:':}~}~~~rm;?alway{coiif;rnedwhen>WiderstaD.d thew-ord 'efflcient.'/': .
. .t: ..':;{~th~J!S~y)ve:iel ad~irig: this~'and<J:;~', County pfficials' in', the metro
.. i'f.,<:addffigtliat," said Sue.Voelker,.an..... . area said they often.ar~forced to'.
'. . f: J~.';'Arioka. :Count}t'resident;wholast '.' faise budgets' because of factors.
\ L'.)' year'attendedtl1e cojmtY'S'ahilUal;d 'beyond their control; such as sal:
~.' ;;c':".:i~..publicbearing pn prope~taxes. , ary inCJ;eases for union employees
~l \. ~i"';'Altha~glfsb,E; s3.id'she~liassome'and rising heath care costs;"Iri
}t i;,~(/uitdeistindin'g: 'of ,ho~r.property... Anoka County, salaries and bene-
HL(:t\; ~es ,are ca1culatea,'~it's"stil1hard ...., fitS Will account for ,$98.5 million
i;I:.,,:::,..'~:to khow~hattheiinpactis:-",...:~'k")" of the county's proposed $17.4.4
;\,";';;"'("';"<,''; . ;,,,';~: \ qmillionbudgetfor2000.' ,
JiIL,..;...J~~ur~ebutc9nf~Slng<. ,.~~thersdisagree as .to what's
.'.1!.'.,;....:!'~' In AIioka.County,\V'hlchtradi~ .i.: taking place. "You're gomg to look
"L'~. .'':':~.. tiQIially!has 'had'a'cOIiservative::' for ways to:iilise levies 'without'
,>~:\/?appr~ach':'to" property~~ax: .... in-~'J raising taxpayer ire;" Lynn Reed;
df;;i:'.,creases;}, Brhart'ss~atementJast'; the research director of the Min:'
'.lk ;X::>,'molitllwas'accura:te,lbecouniy's .'nesotaTaxpayers Association: said
h~kr.;,.::taxr~te\Yil.1 decr~ase, by 3.35 per: :: IIi eXplaining' what he thought
.:'(y\..,'cent; from 32:26 percent in, 1999 to'" . local governments are doing. "So..
:j':,: ~.: '31~18 percerit'nexryear~ Thld~ they're goirtg to blame valua-
'i'~'7S"~^"rate is multiplied by another fig~ nons.". '..' -,: '. ."
. 'lq}Y',.':~~e;a propelty'S'tax.capacity,in a . '.' IfAno~a County were totn,lly.'
; +r'>~;::.o; fOrmul~tha~detemunes \Vhat thati, hol~ the li~e on property-tax m-
Il :~'f".'property:S,-:owner,paY'~to, th~. creases, sllld Reed, the county
:1 ;;;:r:d.county.in taXes.;.".".<<.,,,.',' would have cut the tax rate by 6
'f;.',\tj::.:>:jWh~t E~hart did not mention is} percent -,-an amoun~ that wou~d'
li;;;.h.;,:mOreslgnifi.ccmt. Next year, even offset. the expected mcrease m
; r\;~~:'{~: after,' re4uc~g::.th~ . rate;. .Anoka.~. .property values -:-- .aIld not by 3.35 '
!}):;f': COunty,Will.~'conecti $3' .:million L percent.:; '..~'~~;.i t.';.
.;ij'ri""mor~inpropertytaxesthanitdidc,,' .'.,'. ", ",;::,...: "';."
j :., (1 ',.theyea(before.The county's total.: B~low the radar" .'
li, .:,~.;' revenue fro.inproperty,taxeswill,'~';.The phenomenon is not con-
1 ;)' reach $63.1millioa: '.; " ;" . fined to cOunties. And although
'. j f;,:;::That;llhe~au~,epr<>.pe~YaIues,. '. coun,ties..account ~or ~ywhere
'I ",,;,' m ~oka: County are; on average,' .from a fourthto a third of a home-
: !i."'expect~d ~oincreaseby6percent ..0Wllei:'s'. total' property-tax bill",
,'1,:/:,and;1iecause})h~'to'groWth;" theyOft,eIi,do not rank as high on a
..' j ...., ,.:;there\~ 'be morffpropertles to" taxpayer'sty radar..as . cities arid
. ; L;,;",tax;Ahomevaluedat $150,000 in. school districts~ '.: ..' ,
:1<: 1999','Will~'iIkrease:iiFvalue .to,:;:,jbi'IDost' metro' counties the
) .:; ;':,"'~159~9~OnextYeClri So theamOUrifi.,;:'c()i1fusionis compounded by offi-
'~..;~;~l;~,orpi:op~rtYtaXes'(:ollecte~ fiom:;:~dals Who stress that the impact on
,';~Y'~!!1op!e'\VoUld increase' even if"itaxpayers next year Will be mini-
~fi;', the.~c~untydoes'nothingto raise';,' mal. ' In ,< Dakota. County, the
.1-::: ;: ;,:;~'i'a~~;IA~!=:' i~;~!,~~ '~~:';;::;A:.;'t:Y~i~':1.~i countY's share :of the property-tax
,1<,.,';';.',;:vThe'reaI 'effect of the tax~rate:;;'hill on a $150,000 home Will go up.
. H'h~..!;:i;:redtiCtiOri:,.that '.Erhart 'and:the" by $8 a year: In AD.oka County, it
r-.~ ":"<~:~/~::::~,~~'i~~~!!~.~~:~.~'.~' ~;.:~~_i'-';:,:;.>~'.'t~:.-~:.. . .:'.: ~';-l_-:,\-.L-;-,: "\i-,',' ':-. '
" ~~ .l.::,~~} ~:.:~: ,t '1-',
......:,',
1999 Laws
Chapter 243, Art.
6, See. 2 adding
Minn. Stat. A
204B.135, subd. 5
(as amended by
1999 Laws Ch 249
See. 21)
~
A sample
resolution can be
found In
Appendix J
Tax rate certification
A new law requires that all cities aver 500 populatian and all counties
. The pravision is based an a Missauri law and was
passed by the Legislature in response to cancerns that cities and counties
were claiming they were freezing taxes when, in fact, the levy was
increasing but being affset by tax base grawth.
Under the law, the caunty auditar is required to. pravide infarmatian to.
affected cities and the caunty baard that will, allaw the lacal gavernment
to. calculate \ [ r ~ I U ~ ~_ JI Jll L JJ~I]! ~dH J tilE IL. J IIf'
1m l' II t. Essentially, .1
. The caunty auditar is .
required to. pravide this infarmatian by October 1 af each year.
The city cauncil ar cauIlo/ board must"
.','><'mr' :0- :"I.~'J.J llLJ~.d1 JI JI r rI J Jt. l L ' IITllllmJIT
11'<,{ :1rhe, resalutian must be fIled with the caunty auditar by Octaber
20 af each year. If a city ar caunty fails to. file this resalutian by Octaber
20, the caunty auditar is~ prahibited fram spreading a levy that wauld
result in a higher tax rate, unless the increased rate is due to. either a
change in the general abligation debt levy,ar a reduction in tax capacity
due to. a classificatian change, praperty exemptian, court judgment, ar
caunty errar. The levy and tax rate are adjusted to. exclude levy far
general abligatian bands and fiscal disparities, if applicable.
If a city files the resalutian:'it may still certify a fmallevy that results in a
canstant ar decreased tax rate. It may therefare be prudent to. fIle the
resolutian by the Octaber 20 deadline if yaur preliminary levy wauld
cause a tax rate increase even if yau plan to. certify a lower final levy in
, December.'
Guidelines for Preparing City Budgets 2000
21
SEP- 8-99 WED 14:42
SHERBURNE COUNTY ADMIN,
FAX NO. 6124418567
Post-it"' Fax Note
7671 Date
From
Co.
Fax'
P,Ol
Sherbu,ne County
A UDITORITREA SURER
RAMONA DOEBLER
Levy Certification Tax Rate
Taxes Payable in 2000
A calculation of the "levy certification tax rate" for t1..AL. jJ ~
as required by 1999 laws of the State of Minnesota.
1. Payable 1999 Certified Net Tax Capacity Levy
2. Payable 1999 Certified Market Value Levy
.
3. Payable 1999 Total Certified Levy (1+2)
4. Payable 1999 Certified Levy for G. O. Bonds
5. Payable 1999 Total Certified Non-Debt Levy (3-4)
6. Payable 2000 Fiscal Disparity Distribution Tax
7. Payable 2000 HACA Net Tax Capacity Adjustment
8. Payable 2000 HACA Fiscal Disparity Adjustment
9. "Net Levy" (5-6-7-8)
10. Payable 2000 Taxable Net Tax Capacity
11. Levy Certification Tax Rate (9;10)
, Minnesota,
$ ~ /, r?.. ~ ';;"1 'I
$
D
$ 4 t.~tj .tJ~
,
$ /51,' i/-t
$ ~ 1b ~ .:;-" i
$ II/A
$
III-
$ N/ IJ
$ ~ 4b~ ".s-~
$ /.{ .2~.z" "~7
c2. (, . :2:;"'%
Dated at Elk River, Minnesota, this J 7;;L day of ~. 1999.
sb r;<Y~
S erbume County AuditorlTreasurer
.
13880 Highway 10
Elk River, MN 55330.4601
~.." ""'.... ",.,,,,...,-,., .. ""'^- .-- ----,..... - -. - -.. ----
.
.
.
SOURCE OF FUNDS
GENERAL PROPERTY TAX
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
FINES & FORFEITS
LICENSES & PERMITS
OTHER REVENUES
TRANSFERS
USE OF RESERVES
TOTAL
1997
ACTUAL
$2,470,418
1,041,805
509,976
84,221
492,321
122,621
270,169
. $4,991,531
1998
ACTUAL
$2,632,140
1,169,775
516,794
115,753
540,826
147,091
295,000
$5,417,379
1999
ADOPTED
$2,993,950
1,028,800
436,500
95,000
351,150
78,250
354,800
25,000
$5,363,450
2000
PROPOSED
$3,311,100
1,065,000
482,400
115,700
478,100
92,700
317,500
$5,862,500
GENERAL PROPERTY TAX
Ad Valorem Tax
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES
Local Government Aid
HACA
PERA Aid
Police Relief
Gravel Tax
Urban Street Maintenance
Cops Fast Grant
Police Training Reimbursement
Other Grants (Safe & Sober)
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Administrative Project Fees
Plan Check Fees
Planning & Zoning Fees
Contractor License Surcharge
Sewer Inspection Fees
Miscellaneous Sales
Assessment Searches
PUBLIC SAFETY
School Liaison
Police Contract
Impound Fees
Fire Calls & Contracts
PUBLIC WORKS
Street Services
RECREA TION
Recreation Fe.es
........................................... $3,311,100 $3,311,100
280,900
498,250
11,500
114,900
45,000
28,000
71,450
7,500
7,500
50,000
201,650
17,500
5,200
1,000
1,500
5,000
43,000
7,000
2,300
76,000
3,000
69,250
1,065,000
482,400
.
.
.
FINES & FORFEITS
Court Fines
Parking Rnes
LICENSES & PERMITS
PERMITS
Building Permits
Building Permit Surcharge
Plumbing & Heating Permits
Other Non-Business
LICENSES
Dog/Cat
Cigarette
Liquor
Amusement
Gas Fitters
Garbage Haulers
Mineral Extraction
Apartment Licenses
Other Business
OTHER REVENUE
Interest
Landfill Surcharge
Contribution-Guardian Angels
Refunds & Reimbursements
TRANSFERS
Liquor
Equipment & Program Reserve
Street Reserve
Landfill
NSP/RDF Reserve
Sewer
Utilities
Development
Economic Development Authority
Housing & Redevelopment Authority
Undesignated Fund Balance
TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS
SOURCE OF FUNDS
, ...........................................
110,700
5,000
339,200
800
63,250
1,000
1,900
2,500
35,000
2,250
1,800
750
10,800
11,850
7,000
80,000
9,000
3,700
110,000
20,000
45,000
19,750
19,750
10,000
90,000
2,000
1,000
115,700
478,100
92,700
317,500
o
$5,862,500
PROPOSED GENERAL FUND BUDGET
. . 2000 PROPOSED
Personal other Svcs. Capital
Services Supplies & Charges Outlay Total
General Government
City Council 34,600 3,500 43,800 81,900
Cable TV 16,700 3,400 3,900 24,000
Administration 254,600 7,800 38,950 10,650 312,000
Finance 239,600 4,000 51,850 3,500 298,950
Economic Development 46,350 46,350
Elections 18,000 7,900 3,800 29,700
Legal 72,600 72,600
Energy City 18,500 1,800 20,300
Planning 203,000 3,100 24,400 230,500
Planning Commission 1,500 5,900 7,400
Government Buildings 38,650 7,300 42,800 88,750
Council Contingency 130,000 130,000
Total General Government 871,500 37,000 419,800 14,150 1,342,450
Public Safety
BuildinglZoning 403,150 12,600 24,200 7,600 447,550
Police
-4,ci"linistration 222,550 12,450 104,700 10,600 350,300
. II 1,048,400 70,750 32,350 1,151,500
Investigations 188,700 8,000 4,100 2,050 202,850
DARE 150,300 1,050 2,700 154,050
Support Services 258,100 8,350 9,300 275,750
Building Maintenance 2,000 14,150 16,150
Total Police 1,868,050 102,600 167,300 12,650 2, 150,600
Police Reserves 10,850 8,900 4,900 4,500 29,150
Fire
Fire Fighting! Administration 184,900 29,550 52,750 267,200
Fire Inspections 57,250 1,350 1,850 60,450
Total Fire 242, 150 30,900 54,600 327,650
Emergency Preparedness 7,800 2,050 6,000 15,850
Total Public Safety 2,532,000 157,050 257,000 24,750 2,970,800
Public Works'
Streets 351,050 78,500 148,050 577,600
Snow Removal 119,550 27,600 13,600 160,750
Equipment Repair 95,850 57,100 3,500 156,450
Street Lighting
Engineering 42,000 42,000
Total Public Works 566,450 163,200 207,150 936,800
.
9/9!99
DEPT SUMM Sept. 2Elq>sunm
PROPOSED GENERAL FUND BUDGET
. 2000 PROPOSED
Personal other Svcs. Capital
Services Supplies & Charges Outlay Total
Culture and Recreation
Shade Tree 1,250 4,700 2,000 7,950
Parks.
Grounds/Facility Maintenance 91,000 31,500 35,950 10,650 169,100
Athletic Fields 32,150 7,300 6,000 45,450
Ice Rinks 11,300 500 3,800 15,600
Total Parks 134,450 39,300 45,750 10,650 230, 150
Recreation
Administration 10,800 69,500 80,300
Adult Recreation 2,700 10,000 12,700
Youth Recreation 40,450 12,300 29,100 81,850
Youth Initiatives 28.100 1,000 20,550 49,650
Total Recreation 82,050 13,300 129,150 224,500
Sr. Citizen Programs 54,300 1,000 6,950 62,250
Total Recreation 272,050 58,300 183,850 10,650 524,850
Transfers Out
Capital Outlay Reserve 21,000 21,000
City Hall Debt Service 66,000 66,600
Total Transfers Out 87,000 87,600
. 3ENERAL FUND 4,242,000 415,550 1,067,800 136,550 5.862,500
.
9/9/99
DEPT SUMM Sept. 2Expamn
/
.
.
.
RESOLUTION 98-
A RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF ELK RIVER
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE 1998 PROPERTY TAX LEVY
FOR COLLECTION IN 1999
WHEREAS, the Elk River City Council has review the City's anticipated
revenues and expenditures for all funds in 1999; and,
WHEREAS, revenues from sources other than property taxes are not sufficient
to meet anticipated expenditures of all funds; and,
WHEREAS, the Elk River City Council has received public input and comment
on the Tax Levy and Budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Elk River that
the following amounts are to be levied as property taxes
payable in 1999:
General Fund
Lake Orono
Library
Dam Loan
Development Fund
Surface Water Management
City Special Assessments
1989 Fire Equipment
1994 Storm Sewer Bonds
1995 Certificate of Indebtedness
1996 Certificate of Indebtedness
1997 Certificate of Indebtedness
1998 Certificate of Indebtedness
1999 Certificate of Indebtedness
TOTAL
Gross Levy
$ 3,489,800
100,000
62,500
32,572
135,000
59,500
17,868
71,862
114,225
23,631
22,857
28,978
31,500
40,000
$ 4,230,293
HACA
Reduction
$ 495,862
14,209
8,881
4,628
19,182
8,454
2,539
10,211
16,230
3,358
3,248
4,117
4,476
5,684
$ 601,079
Net Levy
$2,993,938
85,791
53,619
27,944
115,818
51 ,046
15,329
61,651
97,995
20,273
19,609
24,861
27,024
34,316
$3,629,214
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Elk River this 21 st
day of December, 1998.
ATTEST:
Sandra A. Peine, City Clerk
Henry A. Duitsman, Mayor
.
.
.
RESOLUTION 99 -
A RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF ELK RIVER
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE 1999 PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX LEVY
FOR COLLECTION IN 2000
WHEREAS, the Elk River City Council has review the City's anticipated
expenditures for all funds in 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the Elk River City Council has considered projected revenues for
all funds in 2000; and,
WHEREAS, revenues from sources other than property taxes are not sufficient
to meet anticipated expendituf~s of all funds.
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Elk River that
the following amounts are the maximum to be levied as property taxes
payable in 2000:
General Fund
Lake Orono
Library
Dam Loan
Development Fund
Surface Water Management
City Special Assessments
1989 Fire Equipment
1994 Storm Sewer Bonds
2000 Certificate of Indebtedness
1999 Certificate of Indebtedness
1998 Certificate of Indebtedness
1997 Certificate of Indebtedness
1996 Certificate of Indebtedness
TOTAL
Gross Levy
$ 3,809,355
100,000
66,650
32,572
145,000
57,500
28,926
72,891
116,073
57,500
40,000
23,150
25,283
21,794
$ 4,596,694
HACA
Reduction
$ 498,244
13,080
8,717
4,260
18,965
7,521
3,783
9,534
15,182
7,521
2,851
3,307
3,028
5,232
$ 601,225
Net Levy
$3,311,111
86,920
57,933
28,312
126,035
49,979
25,143
63,357
100,891
49,979
'37,149
19,843
22,255
16,562
$3,995,469
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Elk River this 13th .
day of September, 1999.
ATTEST:
Sandra A. Peine, City Clerk
Stephanie Klinzing, Mayor
I