2.0. SR 12-02-2002MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Mayor and City Council
Pat Klaers, City Administr
December 2, 2002
SUBJECT: Truth in Taxation Public Hearing
The City of Elk River tax levy and budget public hearing is scheduled for 6:00 p.m., Monday,
December 2, 2002, at the Elk River City Hall. This public hearing is required by the Truth in
Taxation state law. The purpose of this public hearing is to receive citizen and property
owner input on the proposed 2003 city budget and tax levy.
A news article on this budget and tax levy public hearing was in the November 20, 2002,
tO'vet oCtar News. A public hearing notice for this meeting was published in the November 27,
2002, E//e Po'~er Star News. Notification was also given by way of information being presented
on the cable TV schedule of upcoming events and on the city website.
In compliance with the Truth in Taxation state law, the county has sent out notice of this
public hearing to each property owner in the city. The notice included information on the
property owner's proposed city, school district, and county taxes for 2003.
This is the first budget public hearing that the city has held for awhile. No public hearing
was held last year for the 2002 budget. The state legislature advised municipalities that a
budget and tax levy public hearing was not necessary last year due to all of the changes that it
made in the state tax law. Essentially, the state legislature said that tax comparisons to
previous years were too difficult to make and too confusing, so it dispensed with the annual
budget and tax levy public hearing requirement.
The City Council is familiar with the 2003 budget and tax levy issues, as it has held a series of
worksessions on these financial issues over the last four months. Accordingly, this
presentation is mainly for the public in attendance at the meeting and for the viewing public
at home watching on cable TV. The challenge for this meeting is to present budget and tax
leW information in a clear, concise, and understandable manner to the citizens and property
December 2, 2002
Page 2 of 3
o~vners that have not had the benefit of the worksessions over the last four months; and
therefore, are not familiar with all of the revenues, projects, programs, functions, services,
etc. of the city.
The state legislature has imposed levy limits on municipalities and this is one of the reasons
why the city budget is seeing its smallest percentage increase in over ten years. The 2003
budget is proposed to increase 6.5 percent over the adopted 2002 budget. While this increase
far exceeds inflation rates, it is still smaller than requested by department heads.
The city general fund budget is proposed in the amount of $7,687,900 for 2003. This is a
$472,400 or 6.5 percent increase over the adopted 2002 budget. Just over 59 percent of the
general fund revenues come from taxes. The largest expenditure category in the general fund
budget is personnel services. About 74 percent of the total general fund expenditures for the
city are for employees and employee related benefits.
The most remarkable thing about the 2003 budget is how unremarkable it is. For example,
there is only one capital outlay item (for under $40,000) in the general fund budget in 2003.
Also, there are only a few part time and seasonal employee additions in the 2003 budget.
Most of the increase in the personnel services category is due to the typical wage increase for
cost of living purposes, employee step increases in the wage plan, and due to the new
employees (or added hours for part dme employees) that were approved in 2002, which were
not in the adopted budget and now need to be included. The increases in the supplies and
the other services/charges budget categories have been made to better reflect the history of
actual expenditures. In the 2003 budget the city is still adjusting to the new city attorney
program and the new city recreation program. Finally, as it relates to the 2003 budget, the
building maintenance/custodial program is evolving as we look at contracting for some
services and will continue to evolve for the next few years as the city completes its building
expansion program.
One of the concerns that the city had in putting together the 2003 budget relates to the
possibility of reductions in local government aid (LGA) in 2003 after the budget has been
approved. The state legislature can and may reduce promised 2003 LGA funds to
municipalities in order to balance the state budget. This could cause anywhere from a minor
to a very severe budget problem for the city. It is almost a certainty that LGA cuts ~vill be
made for 2004 but this issue can be dealt with during the budget preparation and adoption
process.
Even if the state legislature does not reduce local government aids to municipalities in 2003
or 2004, cities will still feel the impact of the budget shortfall. For example, if state agencies
are cut back due to a lack of funds, then either their work/responsibilities ~vill be passed on
to municipalities or their work will not be done in a timely fashion. If the work is passed on
to municipalities it means more pressure for more and new services without funding being
available.
On September 9, 2002, the City Council adopted a resolution establishing the proposed
maximum 2003 tax levy for the city. This resolution is attached for your reference.
The maximum 2003 levy is set at $5,980,161.
S /Finance /Budget / truthntaxHearing
December 2, 2002
Page 3 of 3
The city tax rate in 2003 is proposed to increase from 43.6 to 44.513. This is a 2.1 percent
increase. This is the increase property owners will see in the city's taxes i__f their property
value did not increase. On the other hand, if their property value did increase, then the city
share of their tax bill will increase more than this 2.1 percent and it is very likely most city
properties increased in value for taxes payable in 2003.
According to Sherburne County information that was provided to the city in September
2002, the city net tax capacity (NTC) increased by 14.44 percent. This citywide increase in
the NTC is the reason why the city tax revenue can increase substantially and yet the tax rate
only increases moderately. The levy for the public safety bonds, ~vhich is new for the 2003
taxes payable year, is $634,000 and without these bonds the city tax rate would have
decreased. This public safety bond is the most significant change in the tax levy resolution
and this issue has already been decided by the City Council. The city added this additional
levy to the tax role and is seeing a very small increase in the 2003 city tax rate.
The Truth in Taxation presentation by staff will be somewhat brief and similar to the last
one held in December 2000. The presentation on December 2, 2002, will include a review of
revenues and expenditures by categories and will not include a discussion of individual
departments or line item details unless requested by the City Council or the public.
Previously, very few people have attended this public hearing and the presentation of
information has, more than anything else, been for the public at home. In this regard, the
numbers in the budget are often times less meaningful than charts and graphs that can
display percentages and increases/decreases, and show relationships and trends.
Attached for your information is the proposed 2003 general fund budget revenues and
expenditures summary. Also attached are the overheads that will be used for the
presentation during the public hearing. This information will be available to the public at the
December 2, 2002, public hearing.
According to the Truth in Taxation law, the city cannot adopt the tax levy or budget at the
December 2, 2002, meeting. The tax levy and budget cannot be adopted at any meeting
where a public hearing is held. If the December 2, 2002 public hearing is closed, then the
City Council must announce that the budget and tax levy issue will be continued for
consideration and adopted at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, December 9, 2002. Consideration of the
budget and tax levy at this follow up meeting will provide the Council with an opportunity to
consider the input it receives at the December 2, 2002, public hearing. However, if the
public hearing is continued, the continuation date must be December 9, 2002, and then
consideration and adoption of the tax levy and budget will have to take place at the
following meeting, which is scheduled for December 16, 2002.
Attachments · Resolution 02-83
· General Fund Revenues
· General Fund Expenditure Summary Pages
· 2003 Personnel Services Addition
· 2003 Capital Outlay
· Overheads
S /Finance /Budget / truthntaxHearing
RESOLUTION 02- 83
A RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF ELK RIVER
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX LEVY
FOR COLLECTION IN 2003
WHEREAS, the Elk River City Council has reviewed the City's anticipated
expenditures for all funds in 2003; and,
WHEREAS, the Elk River City Council has considered projected revenues for
all funds in 2003; and,
WHEREAS, revenues from sources other than property taxes are not sufficient
to meet anticipated expenditures 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 2003:
General Fund
Street Replacement
Library
Surface Water Management
City Special Assessments
1994 Storm Sewer Bonds
2003 Certificate of Indebtedness
2000 Certificate of Indebtedness
1999 Certificate of Indebtedness
PERA Employer Rate Increase
Public Safety Lease Revenue Bonds
Economic Development Tax Abatement
TOTAL
Levy
$4,580,083
150,000
69,000
175,000
25,298
115,233
140,000
41,088
35,032
9,713
634,000
5,714
$5,980,161
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Etk River this 9th
day of September, 2002.
~teph~ie Klinzing,
AT~T.~.E ST:,
Sandra A. Peine, City Clerk
CITY OF ELK RZVER
N
DECEMBER 2, 2002
,~ resentation Overview
.... ~':::: · Summary of Budget Process
· Proposed Tax Levy
· Proposed Budget
· General Fund
· Special Revenue Funds
· Enterprise Funds
I~resentation Overview
· PUBliC HEAR~TNG - Receive
comments from public
· Announce date of next budget
meeting
The Budget Process
· Staff prepares draft budget and
tax levy for Council discussion
· Council discusses tax levy and
budget at several at Council
meetings
I~The Budget Process
· Council adopts maximum levy
before September
· Truth in Taxation Hearing held to
get public input
· Council adopts 2003 levy and
budget
003 Tax Levy by Use
2
F~Tax Levy Comparison
I~Tax Levy Comparison
Payable 2002
Tax Rate - 43.600%
Proposed 2003
Tax Rate - 44.513%
Levy Comparison
Payable 2002
Total Levy - $5,118,288
Prormsed 2003
Total Levy - $5,980,161
I~Tax Levy Comparison
Payable 2002
Total Taxable Tax Capacity
11,739,030
Proposed 2003
Total Taxable Tax Capacity
13,434,639
much does the City get?
· Tn 2002 the City of Elk River
will receive approximately
29.5% of the property tax on
a residential property and
21.6% of the property tax on
a commercial/industrial
property.
rroposed2003 General Fund
~roposed 2003 General Fund
-~"'~:~:::~xpemlitures by Activity
xrOposed General Fund
2O03
pendi~ures by Type
[~pecial Revenue Funds
· Library $ 63,750
·Tce Arena 688,400
· Equipment Cert. 357,100
_oe¢ialRevenue Funds
· Equipment Reserve $107,500
· Sanitary Landfill 48,500
· Safety 16,900
· Storm Sewer 290,250
I~nterprise Funds
· Sewer $1,468,300
· Liquor Store
· Operating 937,000
· Cost of Sales 3,090,250
· Garbage 839,700
I~ublic :[nput
· Open Public Hearing
· Opportunity for citizens to address
the Council
· Announce date and time of
continuation hearing, if
necessary
I~onclusion
· City Council will adopt the
2003 tax levy and budget at
the next meeting (December
9th, unless the hearing is
continued)
SOURCE OF FUNDS
2000 2001 2002 2003
ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED PROPOSED
GENERAL PROPERTY TAX
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
FINES & FORFEITS
LICENSES & PERMITS
OTHER REVENUES
TRANSFERS
TOTAL
3,288,976 $ 3,784,690 $ 4,163,150 $ 4,588,800
1,109,078 1,284,155 1,190,400 1,188,250
596,203 693,374 599,750 644,700
119,421 89,221 237,500 156,000
749,888 989,052 566,600 621,950
180,155 127,420 111,100 107,200
276,400 273,274 347,000 381,000
6,320,121 $ 7,241,086 $ 7,215,500 $ 7,687,900
GENERAL PROPERTY TAX
Ad Valorem Tax
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES
Local Government Aid
PERA Aid
Low Income Housing Aid
Police Relief
Gravel Tax
Urban Street Maintenance
Police Training Reimbursement
Other Grants (Safe & Sober)
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Administrative Project Fees
Planning & Zoning Fees
Plan Check Fees
Contractor License Surcharge
Sewer Inspection Fees
Miscellaneous Sales
Assessment Searches
PUBLIC SAFETY
School Liaison
Police Contract
Lockout Fees
Impound Fees
Fire Calls & Contracts
PUBLIC WORKS
Street Services
RECREATION
Recreation Fees
Concessions
Bulilding Rent
Park\Facility Fees
$ 4,588,800 $ 4,588,800
937,150
11,500
132,000
54,000
33,350
10,500
9,750
25,000
20,000
252,300
2,000
7,000
4,500
1,800
21,500
4,000
20,000
2,500
86,000
30,000
95,000
52,000
3,600
17,500
1,188,250
644,700
FINES & FORFEITS
SOURCE OF FUNDS
Court Fines
Parking Fines
150,000
6,000
156,000
LICENSES & PERMITS
PERMITS
Building Permits
Building Permit Surcharge
Plumbing & Heating Permits
Other Non-Business
LICENSES
Animal
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
Landfill
Street Reserve
NSP/RDF Reserve
Sewer
Utilities
Development
Drug Forfeiture Reserve
Economic Development Authority
Housing & Redevelopment Authority
419,550
1,200
90,000
6,000
1,500
3,000
53,450
1,400
3,000
850
13,500
13,500
15,000
90,000
9,000
3,700
4,500
145,000
30,000
45,0OO
39,500
10,000
105,000
5,000
1,500
621,950
107,200
381,000
TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS $ 7,687,900
APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY
2000 2001 2002 2003
Actual Actual Adopted Proposed
$ $
MAYOR & COUNCIL
CABLE TV
ADMINISTRATION
ELECTIONS
FINANCE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
LEGAL
PLANNING (Includes Plan.Comm.)
GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS
CONTINGENCY
POLICE (Includes Police Reserve)
FIRE
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
BUILDING & ENVIRONMENTAL
STREETS
SNOW REMOVAL
EQUIPMENT SERVICES
ENGINEERING
PARKS
SHADE TREE
RECREATION
SR. CITIZEN PROGRAMS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ENERGY CITY
TRANSFERS
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
122
32
314
23
3O9
067 $ 153,458 162,100
777 53,916 63,750
061 322,966 325,450
375 10,680 49,150
899 325,016 364,950
172,300
97,900
350,900
345,550
97,500
76,752 54,695 220,000 213,750
230,800 241,991 271,300 290,550
103,684 146,130 141,300 138,300
47,082 140,882 95,000 75,000
2,241,084 2,441,444 2,501,950 2,665,950
345,208 361,092 378,950 418,500
14,848 19,183 20,200 23,450
476,293 515,174 591,700 567,900
566,775 776,801 697,600 763,500
94,435 113,055 174,000 167,050
163,011 205,239 236,100 265,450
44,206 177,816 53,000 75,000
298,337 273,596 300,600 300,300
15,746 8,659 13,050 2,000
182,233 236,303 306,700 440,800
63,105 68,297 81,200 82,200
33,850 19,183 26,700 -
5,131 11,386 20,650 20,850
132,637 197,570 120,100 113,200
$ 5,937,396 $ 6,874,532 $ 7,215,500 $ 7,687,900
General Fund Expenditure Summary Data
Proposed 2003 and Adopted 2002
2003 Proposed
2002 Adopted
Personal Other Svcs. C.O. Personal Other Svcs. Capital
Services Supplies & Charges Transfers Total Services Supplies & Charges Outlay Total
General Government
CabJ~'~*:V .......................................................... 8~;~6 ..................... ~;'i'~)0 ........................ ~¢;~4'~0 ......................... : ............................... ~;9'0'~'I ................... ~;~'(~6 ............... ~;~6 ........................ ~;'~56 .................... : ...............................
Dollar Change 3 f, 850 350 1,950 - 34,150 ! 6, 400 2,100 1,300 , 9, 800
Percent Change 56.37% 7.37% 78.00% 53.57%l 12. 77% 79.25% 108.33% 18.16%I
Fina~
Finance 294,900 6,250 44,400 345,550 281,600 9,950 69,400 4,000 364,950
information Technology 74,600 18,000 4,900 97,500
Total Finance 369,500 24,250 49,300 . 443,050 281, 600 9,950 69,400 4,000 364,950
Dollar Change 87, 900 14, 300 (20,100) (4, 000) 78,100 20, 100 5, 200 2, 700 4, 000 32,000
...... ~ ..... ~ ~.e**r.c***e.~'::~.e. .............. 31..2..~ 143.72% -28.96% -100.00% 21 40%, 7.69% 109.47% 4 05% 9 61%,
Elections . ' -' ..... - .................. : ................................. :'""! ................... ~:6~ ............. ~i'~i) ........................ ~i'S~ .................... : ...............................
Dollar Change (26,000) (16 500) (6,650) - (49,150)~ 26 000 16 500 5 150 (7 500) 40 150
Percent Change - 100 00% - fO0 00% - 100 00% - 100 00% ! ' ' ' ~nn'nnez **~' ~ ~ ~ I
Energy City .......................... i'i'i;i~ ........................ L ........................... 91~'~0 ........................ : ............................... :~i~'~'! ................... i'~i~0 ................................................. ~)L'f'~ ....................................................
Dollar Change 200 - - - 200 ! (1 200) - (fO 300) - ( f f 500)!
Percent Change 1.83% 0 00% 0 97%1 · -9'88% 5 f'.~n~ ;;'??~z l
uovernment Buildings 66,850 10,750 60,700 - 138,300 62,450 10,750 '~;'i'~ .................... : .............................
Dollar Change 4,400 - (7,400) - (3,000J 3,100 3,250 12,650 (15,000) 4,000
Percent Change 7.05% 0.00% -f0.87% -2. f2% 5.22% 43.33% 22.81% -100 00% 2
Total General Government $ 1,274,150 $ 65,250 $ 463,200 $ $ 1,802,600 $ 1,153,700 $ 61,450 $ 507,950 $ 17,250 $ 1,740,350
Percent of General Government
Percent of Total General Fund
Pement of Expend. Category
Percent Increase
Amount of Increase (Decrease)
3.62%
0.85%
10.20%
6.18%
$ $ 3,800 $ $
70.68%
16.57%
22.33%
10.44%
120,450
I
25.70% 0.00% 100.00%1 66.29% 3.53% 29.19% 0.99% 100.00%
6.03% 0.00% 23.45% ~ 15.99% 0.85% 7.04% 0.24% 24.12 %
38.90% 0.00% 23.45%~ 21.72% 11.06% 44.59% 8.26% 24.12%
-8.81% -100.00% 3.58%~ 23.67% 121.04% -2.25% -50.64% 14.85%
(44,750) $ (17,250) $ 62,250~ 220,800 $ 33,650 $ (11,700) $ (17,700) $ 225,050
I
Finance
11/22/02:Expsumm.xls
Personal
General Fund Expenditure Summary Data
Proposed 2003 and Adopted 2002
2003 Proposed
Other Svcs. C.O.
2002 Adopted .
I Personal Other Svcs. Capital
Services Supplies & Charges Transfers Total Services Supplies & Charges Outlay Total
Public Safety
Administration 262,650 12,200 112,600 387,450
Patrol 1,311,800 110,200 44,550 1,466,550
Investigations 405,750 11,600 6,700 - 424,050
Support Services 281,600 15,1 50 9,100 37,400 343,250
Safe & Sober _
Building Maintenance 10,000 1,000 15,600 26,600
Total Police 2,27f, 800 f 50,150 f88,550 37,400 2,647,900
Dollar Change 124, 450 22, 650 20, 550 (6, 900) 160, 750
Percent Change 5 80% ~ ? ~o/ .... o
......................... · ~ [. /070 7Z Z~l _ · o
.... I~1 ................................................................................................................................. ' % 15.58% 6 46~
:::: · . ~ ~S~ :: ::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::;:::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::: :.:.: ............................. -.. ..................
~ ..................... ,,................,..,...............,................,,,:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.::,:,:....~....,. : ================================ ============================================================================================================= .: ~
Fire Fighting/Administration 205 4~ 43 400 78 950 - 327 7~
Fire Inspections 83,6~ 3,3~ 3,8~ ~,7~
Total Fire 289,050 4~, 7~ 82, 750 4 f 8,5~
Do/lar Change 10, 400 10, 900 18, 2~ 39, 5~
Percent Change 3. 73~ 30. 45~ 28. 29~ 10. 44~
........................... ,........ ........ .......,.................,.. ~ .: .....::::,:,:.,...... ........ ..:.:.::::::: ...... ::::::::::::::::::::::: ...... ,,,,/:.....: ..:
Total Public Safety 3,094,300 226,600 317,500 37,400 3,675,800
Percent of Public Safety
Percent of Total General Fund
Percent of Expend. Category
Percent Increase
Amount of Increase (Decrease)
84.18% 6.16% 8.64% 1.02% 100.00%
40.25% 2.95% 4.13% 0.49% 47.81%
54.22% 35.43% 26.66% 24.83% 47.81%
4.62% 13.64% 17.81% -43.59% 5.24%
$ 136,700 $ 27,200 $ 48,000 $ (28,900) $ 183,000
250,450 11,950 95,550 7,200
1,194,800 98,800 30,850 33,800
434,750 7,450 5,050
259,350 8,300 12,400 3,300
8,000
1,000 24,150
2, f47,350 f27,500 f 68,000 44,300
172,650 (8,650) 8,550 (45,400)
365,150
1,358,250
447,250
283,350
8,000
25,150
2, 48 7, ~ ~0
127, 150
198,550 33,650 61,050 293,250
80,100 2,150 3,450 85,700
278,650 35,800 64,500 378,950
15, 700 2, 700 6, 750 25,150
5.97% 8.16% 11.69% 7.11%
2,957,600 199,400 289,500 66,300 3,492,800
84.68% 5.71% 7.72% 1.90% 100.00%
40.99% 2.76% 3.74% 0.92% 48.41%
55.68% 35.90% 23.66% 31.75% 48.41%
9.90% -1.24% 4.05% -28.17% 7.65%
266,350 $ (2,500) $ 10,500 $ (26,000)$ 248,350
Finance
11/22/02:Expsumm.xls
General Fund Expenditure Summary Data
Proposed 2003 and Adopted 2002
2003 Proposed
Personal Other Svcs. C.O.
Services Supplies & Charges Transfers Total
Personal
2002 Adopted
Other Svcs. Capital
Services Supplies & Charges Outlay
Total
Public Works I
Dollar Change (3,400) (950) (2,600) - r6,95o)/ ............ ~','a~b ......................... ~'~:~a .......................................... ~'~;~aa ............ ~ ............................... : ...... ~::=:::~410:~;~:
fa, 800) 7,~50 (f, ooo) (1, 850)
Percent Change -2.72% -2.61% -20.63% -3 99%~ -6.58% 27.89% -7.35% -I.05%
53,000 53,000
' 8,000 8,000
17.78% 17.78%
719,050 205,450 231,000 5,200 1,160,700
61.95% 17.70% 19.90% 0.45% 100.00%
9.97% 2.85% 3.20% 0.07% 16.09%
13.54% 36.99% 20.28% 2.49% 16.09%
18.67% 16.20% 10.53% 0.00% 13.05%
113,150 $ 28,650 $ 22,000 $ (29,800) $ 134,000
Engineering 75,000 75,000
Dollar Change . 22,000
Percent Change 4 I. 51%
Total Public Works 781,200 236,300 253,500
61.46% 18.59% 19.94% 0.00%
10.16% 3.07% 3.30% 0.00%
13.69% 36.94% 21.29% 0.00%
8.64% 15.02% 9.74% 0.00%
$ 62,150 $ 30,850 $ 22,500 $ (5,200) $
Percent of Public Works
Percent of Total General Fund
Percent of Expend. Category
Percent Increase
Amount of Increase (Decrease)+A
22,000
41.51%
1,271,000
100.00%
16.53%
16.53%~
Finance
11/22/02:Expsumm.xls
General Fund Expenditure Summary Data
Proposed 2003 and Adopted 2002
2003 Proposed 2002 Adopted
Personal Other Svcs. C.O.
I Personal Other Svcs. Capital I
Services Supplies & Charges Transfers Total I Services Supplies & Charges Outlay Total
I
Culture and Recreation I
Park Maintenance 212,200 47,000 41,100
Dollar Change (3, 250) I, 550 I, 400
Percent Change - f. 51% 3. 41% 3. 53%
Sr. Citizen Programs 71,700 3,000 7,500 82,200
300,300 I 215,450 45,450 39,700 - 300,500
- (300) I 42, 200 2, 950 1,050 46, 200
-0. ~0% ' 24.36% 6.94% 2.72% rS. 16%
70,950 3,250 7,000 81,200
Dollar Change 750 (250) 500 1,000
Percent Change 1.06% - 7. 69% 7.14% 1.23%
Total Recreation 557,150 111,500
Percent of Recreation
Percent of Total General Fund
Percent of Expend. Category
Percent Increase
Amount of Increase (Decrease)
(30O) ~5, 900
O. 00% -4.11% 24. 35%
156,650 825,300 481,750 89,150 130,650 701,550
67.51% 13.51% 18.98% 0.00% 100.00%
7.25% 1.45% 2.04% 0.00% 10.74%
9.76% 17.43% 13.15% 0.00% 10.74%
15.65% 25.07% 19.90% 0.00% 17.64°/0
$ 75,400 $ 22,350 $ 26,000 $ - $ 123,750
16, 200
29.59%
68.67% 12.71% 18.62% 0.00% 100.00%
6.68% 1.24% 1.81% 0.00% 9.72%
9.07% 16.05% 11.47% 0.00% 9.72%
58.84% 2.77% -26.77% 0.00% 23.41%
$ 178,450 $ 2,400 $ (47,750) $ - $ 133,100
Finance
11/22/02:Expsumm.xls
Transfers Out
Capital Outlay Reserve
Ice Arena Operating
Gov't Buildings Reserve
City Hall Debt Service
Total Transfers Out
Percent of Transfers Out
Percent of Total General Fund
Percent of Expend. Category
Percent Increase
Amount of Increase (Decrease)
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
Percent of Total General Fund
Percent Increase
Amount of Increase (Decrease)
General Fund Expenditure Summary Data
Proposed 2003 and Adopted 2002
2003 Proposed 2002 Adopted
Personal Other Svcs. C.O. Personal Other Svcs. Capital
Services Supplies & Charges Transfers Total Services Supplies & Charges Outlay Total
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
$ - $ -
18,000 18,000
28,600 28,600
66,600 66,600
11:3,200
100.00%
1.47%
75.17%
-5.75%
$ (6,900)
5,706,800 639,650 1,190,850 150,600
74.23% 8.32%
7.43% 15.16%
394,700 $ 84,200
15.49%
4.54%
51,750
1.96%
-27.89%
$ (58,250) $
113,200
100.00%
1.47%
1.47%
-5.75%
(6,900) $
7,687,900
100.00%
6.55%
472,400 $
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
8,000
17,500
15,000
79,600
120,100
0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
0.00% 0.00% 1.66%
0.00% 0.00% 57.51%
0.00% 0.00% 4.34%
$ - $ $ 5,0o0
5,312,100 555,450 1,139,100 208,850
73.62% 7.70% 15.79% 2.89%
17.18% 12.61% -2.31% -24.70%
778,750 $ 62,200 $ (26,950) $ (68,500)
8,000
17,500
15,000
79,600
120,100
100.00%
1.66%
1.66%
4.34%
5,000
7,215,600
100.00%
11.52%
745,500
Finance
11/22,/02:Expsumm.xls
NEW POSITIONS REQUESTED
2003
Department Position
Cable TV Assist Cable Producer
Legal Secretarial Support
Police Pa~'ol Officer - Truck Enforcement
Police Secretary/Receptionist
Police CSO
Police Bldg Maintenance
Fire Fire Prevention Specialist
Streets Maintenance 1
Recreation Office Assistant
Recreation Office Asst./Bldg
Senior Center Receptionist
SUBTOTAL NEW POSITIONS
Requested
increase 15 hrs/wk
20 hrs/wk
40 hrs/wk
40 hrs/wk
40 hrs/wk
20-24 hrs/wk
40 hrs/wk
20-24 hrs/wk
26 hrs/wk
20 hrs/wk
Included in Included in
Cost of Draft Proposed
Request Bud~let Budget
15,302 $ 17,297 $ 17,297
14,125 3,532 3,532
46,521 23,259
32,468 8,117 8,117
32,468 - -
10,000 10,000
19,775 19,775
42,559 8,589 8,589
15,619 15,619
17,997 17,997 17,997
11,771 11,771
$ 248,605 $ 135,956 $ 65,532
Notes: 1. October I start date
2. Seasonal (20 hrs/wk for 6 months) position for parks
11/25/02
2003 CAPITAL OUTLAY
Funding Source
General Equipment Equipment Departmen[
Department item Fund Certificate Reserve Total
Mayor & Council
Cable TV
Administration
Finance
Elections
Planning
Govt. Building
Police Police Vehicles (marked) - 4 including setup 119,200
Police Vehicles (unmarked) - 1 including setup 23,600
Truck Enforcement Truck, Equip., Scales 57,200
Voice Playall System
Police Reserve
Fire
Emergency Prep.
Building & Environ.
Streets
Snow Removal
Equipment Services
Parks
Recreation
Subtotal
37,400 237,400
Vehicle for Fire Inspector 32,000 32,000
Siren 14,300 14,300
Front End Loader with snowplow 145,000
Pickup Truck 25,050
Snowplow 10,650 180,700
Brake Lathe 7,600
Truck Lift & Jack Stands 30,000 37,600
$ 37,400 $ 357,100 $ 107,500 $ 502,000
One Time
Revenue
I/' 8/23/02
Capitalo:o3 Cap Outlay
State crisis could '
., Minnesota's biggeSt local government aid recipients
JiE ' .;'"iMiN N ES 0 TX i
screws to big cities
Aid programs may be targets in budget cuts
BY TIM NELSON
Pioneer Press
Double-digit property tax
hikes were landing with a thud
on front porches all over St. Paul
and Minneapolis last week.
And that's the good news.
There may be even tougher
times on the horizon because of
shifting state politics and Min-
nesota's looming budget gap.
Local officials say they're wor-
ried that the state's central
cities may wind up being in the
cross hairs as the Legislature
tries to solve its financial prob-
lems next year. Here's why:
· Minnesota's biggest cities
are heavily dependent on aid
from the state the 20 largest
get more than $800 million in
subsidies a year. St. Paul, for
..... ~'i i..[~. ~ ~,~' 1. Minneapo s$111,567,143 39.4 Moe
!. ....... ~: ~...~ .j 3. Du uth $29 635 152 76 6 Moe
i:i:/::: i::;'::;~ 5. R'0~t~este~ ..... $i0 ~00 664. 32 2 paw en['~
localg ore rnment a 'd
........... 9 Austin $7 567 420 76 7 Penny
Source: League of Minnesota Cities, Minnesota secretaw of state's office
JANET ROBERTS. PIONEER PRE55
instance, gets 15 percent more
in state aid than it collects in
property taxes. Minneapolis got
$111 million this year alone.
· The state is facing a $3 bil-
lion deficit, and Gov.-elect Tim
Pawlenty has committed to pro-
tecting K-12 education, the
biggest-ticket item in Minnesota.
It's more than a third of what
BUDGET CRISIS, 1SA
BUdget crisis
(con tinued)
Director Matt Smith, who was
the state revenue commissioner
until last month.
And that money is a key ele-
ment of municipal finance. In St.
Paul, it amounts to a quarter of
the general-fund budget, and
the only real alternatives city
officials have are layoffs or
steep tax increases.
ff the state simply passed
down its approximately 10 per-
cent budget deficit to St. Paul, for
instance, the cut could translate
into a 12 percent property tax
hike on the city portion of prop-
erty taxes or scores of layoffs.
Such a hike, with market-
value increases, ~echnical
changes to property taxes, the
mayor's proposed right-of-way
assessments and about $5 mil-
lion in annual inflation, could
easily combine to push the city's
charges to homeowners up by
nearly 40 percent for 2004 if
state-mandated levy limits don't
cap the increase.
But it isn't just a matter of
dollars and cents.
As telling as Minnesota's
sagging balance sheet are the
results of the Nov. 5 elections: Of
the 185 cities in the metro area,
Pawlenty won more than 90 per-
cent of them -- and most of
them were suburbs that get less
than 5 percent of their revenue
from the state, according to
League of Minnesota Cities
financial data.
In fact, a Pioneer Press study
of 2002 election returns shows
that the cities Pawlenty won got
less than half the direct state
subsidy that goes to the cities
that Democratic-Farmer-Labor
Sen. Roger Moe won in his bid
for governor.
And while no one is suggest-
ing an electoral quid pro quo
when it comes time to balance
the state budget, there is no
mistaking the political changes
afoot in Minnesota: The sub:
urbs, where state subsidies are
lowest, delivered the election to
the Republican governor-elect
on Nov. 5.-Moe won Minneapolis
sor and proponent of so-called
"smart growth."
"I think there's a notion out
there in the suburbs a false
one -- that every ship floats on
its own bottom, or at least ought
to," Adams adds. "I think that
promises real trouble to core
cities that rely on state aid to
local government."
But Rep. Dan McElroy, a for-
mer suburban mayor and Paw-
lenty's choice to be the new
director of state finance, sound-
ed a cautious tone Wednesday:
"It's still way too early to be
talking about outcomes," he
said.
Many cities count on local
government aid, he points out,
and some of them, like
Rochester and Moorhead, are
Republican · strongholds
important [o haft of the GOP
House majority that hails from
outstate. In addition the sub-
urbs aren't as unified as the
gubernatorial results might
make them appear, and
Also, changes to intergov-
ernmental aid, whatever their
aim, aren't easy.
Gev. Arne Carlson faced a
,$1.1 billion deficit when he took
office in 1991 and repeatedly
proposed cuts to local govern-
ment aid. He couldn't get them
through the DFL-controlled
Legislature.
Gev. Jesse Ventura took up
the cause last spring, proposing
targeted trims to local govern-
ment aid about $10 million for
Minneapolis and $4 million for
St. Paul as part of his "Big
Fix" plan. But even with a sub-
urban Republican majority
leader in the House -- Pawlenty
-- cities were mostly spared.
But the political landscape
has changed even since then:
Minneapolis and Duluth both
lost ~ House seat to redistrict-
ing, while the edges of the Twin
Cities, like W0odbury and Cot-
tage Grove, plcked up seats.
The suburbs are stronger than
ever.
And the fiscal landscape has
changed as well: the state is
facing a i~large shortfall, the
easy cuts were made at the
and St. Paul by 'about '80,000 Capitol last session and Paw-
votes; Pawlenty took outstate by lenty's campaign pledges make
about the same margin, but he a sales tax hike -- or any other
won the seven-county Twin
Cities suburbs -- and the elec-
tion by more than 170,000
votes.
"With Minneapolis and St.
Paul making up less than 10 per-
cent of the population, it's get,
ting harder and harder to make
a politically potent argument,"
says John Adams, a University
of Minnesota geography profes-
- tax hike -- a hard sell· A half-
cent "local option" sales tax is
what spared cities during the
Carlson administration.
y
Gary Carlson, a lobbyist with
the League of Minnesota Cities,
says cutting a different 'subsidy
like the so-called "homestead
market value credit" could dis-
tribute cuts more evenly across
the state.
"There can be a balanced
perspective here, and I believe
there is every incentive for
either party to try and make
gains in the future and not be
retributionist," Carlson said. "I
also think (House Speaker)
Steve Sviggum takes a very
broad perspective on this, and
even Pawlenty emphasized that
he wasn't just a Republican gov-
ernor, but a governor for the
whole state."
St. Paul Ma~,or Randy Kelly
says he has worked with Paw-
lenty in the Legislature and
believes the new governor will
try to be fair and hear all sides.
But Kelly is stiff apprehensive
about the fiscal reality ahead,
saying St. Paul needs to keep a
tight lid on its budget.
, ,,~a--.~ .... ~.~mntinrr to
Tim Nelson can be reached at
tnelson@pioneerpress.com or
(651) 292-1159.
ll-21-oz_