Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, December 10, 2012 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />  <br />  Page 2 of 15    <br />   <br />(1. 2013 Budget Hearing – 2013 Budget and Tax Levy, Continued) <br /> <br />To determine someone’s taxes, the county assessor will take an individual property’s net tax capacity <br />times the City’s tax capacity rate, which is the 17.55 percent, to arrive at the net tax on an individual <br />property. If a residential property is worth $500,000, the tax capacity would be $5,000 times 17.55 <br />percent. Olson noted it is possible for a person’s property value to increase while their city tax decreases. <br />It is also possible that a person’s property value will decrease while their city tax increases. Olson <br />indicated it all depends on how your property valuation changes in comparison to the other properties in <br />the city. <br /> <br />Olson noted the City’s tax levy will remain at the same level as 2012 and 2011. The cities of Shorewood <br />and Spring Park are also proposing a zero percent increase in their tax levy. The cities of Long Lake and <br />Minnetonka Beach are proposing increases. <br /> <br />Olson stated in 2012, Hennepin County received almost 44 percent of the taxes collected, school districts <br />received 31.82 percent, and the City’s share was 15.25 percent. The remaining portion goes to the <br />Metropolitan Council, the Hennepin County Railroad Authority, and some other small entities. <br />In addition, the average property tax distributions in Minnesota for 2012 were at 28 percent, which means <br />that in an average city in Minnesota, 28 cents out of every dollar went to the city. In Orono, only 15 <br />percent went to the City. Olson stated the Orono City Council has done a good job at holding City taxes <br />in line over the years, which has allowed Orono to remain towards the bottom for city taxes collected. <br /> <br />Olson stated a person’s city tax dollars pays for a number of things. The General Fund receives $3.9 <br />million, which pays for plowing the streets, police and fire protection, and general city functions. <br />Another $755,000 goes to pay down the city’s debt service. The total tax levy required to fund the 2013 <br />budget is $4,701,760. This is the same amount that was levied in 2011 and 2012. The budget does <br />include a 1 percent increase in wages, a $50 per month contribution for each employee’s family health <br />insurance, which results in approximately a $51,000 increase. Olson noted the City was able to keep the <br />budget and the tax levy at the same level as 2012 even though inflation increased at 2.2 percent. <br /> <br />The addition of Mound to the City’s police service area has had a major impact on the General Fund <br />budget. The proposed 2013 General Fund expenditures are $7,348,630, which is an increase of 27 <br />percent from the 2011 budget. This increase is fully funded by an increase in police service contract <br />revenues and no tax dollars will be used to fund the services provided to Mound. <br /> <br />The total levy for debt service has decreased by $14,000 for 2013. This levy is used to pay the debt <br />service on the City’s outstanding bonds. Based on the existing debt, the levy needed for debt service will <br />decrease in future years and the City’s total debt service will be paid off by 2026. <br /> <br />The Water, Sewer, Stormwater, and Recycling Funds are designed to account for the business type <br />activities of the City. These funds do not receive any property tax revenue. 2013 is the second year that <br />the City will adopt formal budgets for the enterprise funds. As part of the 2013 fee schedule, the <br />following rates increases are proposed: Water by 6.5 percent; sewer by 2 percent, stormwater by 5 <br />percent, and recycling by 5 percent. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 01/14/2013 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 12/10/2012 [Page 2 of 15]