HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-05-1999 Council Work Session PacketCITY OF ORONO
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
NOTICE is hereby given that the Orono City Council wll meet in a work session at 7:30
a.m, on Thursday, August 5, 1999 in the Orono City Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway,
Orono, Minnesota. The purpose of the work session is to review the preliminary overview of the
year 2000 budget, and to discuss other issues of current interest.
/s/ Linda S. Vee
City Clerk
Posted at:
City Hall
Navarre Post Office
Long Lake Post Office
Crystal Bay Post Office
J
IMPROVEMENT & EQUIPMENT OUTLAY FUND
LONG LAKE FIRE SPECIAL ACCOUNT
Contribution Balance
Service Year December 31 Exoenditures Interest Earned December 3 1
1993 30,000 0 0 30,000
1994 20,000 0 1,729 51,729
1995 20,000 0 3,119 74,848
1996 20,000 0 4,633 99,481
1997 20,000 augll 28,074 5,328 96,736
1998 20,000 juII3 19,725 5,073 102,084
1999 20,000 40,000 4,720 86,804
2000 30,000 16,800 4,508 104,512
2001 35,000 70,000 3,997 73,509
2002 40,000 122,500 705 (8,286)
2003 45,000 0 (476)36,238
2004 50,000 245,000 (4,960)(163,722)
2005 55,000 0 (9,414) (118,137)
2006 60,000 56,000 (8,403) (122,539)
2007 65,000
0 (7,046)(64,585)
2008 70,000 0 (3,714)1,701
2009 70,000 0 98 71,799
2010 70,000 0 4,128 145,927
2011 70,000 35,000 7,385 188,312
2012 70,000 0 10,828 269,140
2013 70,000 0 15,476 354,615
2014 70,000 0 20,390 445,006
2015 70,000 0 25,588 540,593
Total Contrib 1,090,000
2004 245,000
2005 1 259,700
2006 2 275,282
2007 3 291,799
2008 4 309,307
2009 5 327,865
2010 6
347,537
2011 7 368,389
2012 8 390,493
2013 9 413,922
2014 10 438,758 •
TOMVMISCVLLFIRE 2015 11 465,083
\
V
\
A
►
TOTALS
LOAN AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT $700,000
ANNUAL INTEREST RATE 6.00%
AMORTIZED @ LEVEL ANNUAL PAYMENT FORMAT
TOM\AMORTlZE\Amort2.123
S38L100 $700,000 $1.081.100
nent
iber
begin of year
outstanding
principal
annual
interest
payment
annual
principal
payment
total
annual
payment
end of year
outstanding
principal
1 700,000 42,000 30,075 72,075 669,925
2 669,925 40,196 31,880 72,075 638,046
3 638,046 38,283 33,792 72,075 604,253
4 604,253 36,255 35,820 72,075 568,433
5 568,433 34,106 37,969 72,075 530,464
6 530,464 31,828 40,247 72,075 490,217
7 490,217 29,413 42,662 72,075 447,555
8 447,555 26,853 45,222 72,075 402,334
9 402,334 24,140 47,935 72,075 354,399
10 354,399 21,264 50,811 72,075 303,588
11 303,588 18,215 53,860 72,075 249,728
12 249,728 14,984 57,091 72,075 192,637
13 192,637 11,558 60,517 72,075 132,120
14 132,120 7,927 64,148 72,075 67,972
15 67,972 4,078 67,972 72,050 0
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:
DATE:
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
August 3, 1999
SUBJECT: August 5, 1999 Budget Work Session
The Council will meet at 7:30 a.m. on Thursday, August 5,1999 to review the preliminary overview
of the 2000 budget. The purpose of the preliminary overview is to provide the Council with an
outline of the proposed budget, and the major short-term and long-term needs facing the City, to
assist the Council on focusing on the key issues to be addressed during the budget review process.
The overview focuses on the proposed General Fund budget because it has the greatest impact on
the tax levy. The Enterprise Fund budgets (Sewer, Water and Golf Cours'') and the Capital Outlay
Fimd budgets will be provided for review at the August 19 work session.
The budget overview is staffs proposal for addressing priority needs while holding the tax levy at
a reasonable level and within the State-imposed levy limit.
Proposed Work Session Agenda
A proposed agenda for the work session is as follows:
1.Staff presents an overview of the General Fund budget, including major expenditure
items, major revenue changes, tax levy, tax capacity rate, and the impact of the tax
levy on properties of various values.
I *■.,2.The Council asks questions and provides comments regarding the proposed budget,
tax levy, and tax capacity rate.
3.The Council discusses the short-term and long-term needs it wants to address in the
2000 budget.
4.The Council discusses the tax levy amount and tax capacity rate that is acceptable for
the 2000 budget.
1 - n. .wan . ■■ ‘
i
i'
8. A
I ^
PRELIMINARY 2000 BUDGET OVERVIEW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Budget Overview Memo
General Fund Budget Expenditures
Sununary of Major General Fund Expenditure Increases
Tax Levy, Tax Capacity, and Impact on Property Owners
Levy Limit
General Fund Revenue Highlights
Medium and Long-Term Needs
Attachments
Tax Levies
Tax Capacity. Local Levy, and Tax Capacity Rates
Tax Levy Limit Calculation for 2000
Effect of2000 Tax Levy and Budget on Homes
Effect of 2000 Tax Levy and Budget on Commercial/Industrial Property
General Fund Budget Expenditure Summary
General Fund Expenditures by Function
General Fund Revenues
Page
1
1-2
3
3
3- 4
4- 5
A-I
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
I
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Ron Moorse, City Administrator
DATE:July 29, 1999
SUBJECT: Preliminary 2000 Budget Overview
The preliminary 2000 budget reflects a significant increase in expenditures and tax levy to address
increased service needs - particularly in the public safety area, to accommodate increases in costs
from other agencies, and to adjust the City's compensation schedule to be competitive with the
market.
General Fund Budget Expenditures
The preliminary budget overview focuses on General Fund expenditures because they have the
greatest impact cn the tax levy. The proposed 2000 Gener^ Fund budget expenditures are
$4,033,480. This is an increase of $ 183,480 or 4.8% over the 1999 budget.
The General Fund budget reflects an effort to address a number of significant needs, including
increased police staffing, upgraded police records capabilities, additional funding for fire equipment
replacement, and market-Kased pay adjustments.
A summary of the major General Fund expenditure increases is as follows:
1. Increased LMCD dues $ 7,000
2. Increased expenses related to maintaining the City facilities
3. Annual compensation adjustments (pay and benefits)
4. Market-based pay adjustments
5.
6.
7.
Increased fire service operating costs
Increased fimding for fire equipment replacement
$11,500
$76,470
$30,000
$ 5,500
$10,000
New expenditures related to the hiring of an additional
police officer $52,000
7.Increased operating costs related to upgrading to the
LOGIS police records system $14,500
i
8. One-time costs related to the installation of the LOGIS
police records system $ 4,300
9. Increased election expenditures related to the presidential
election and the potential special election regarding
consolidation of Long Lake and Orono
10. Increase in the cost of assessing services
$ 9,740
$ 5,400
11. Increase in Hennepin County jail charges for booking
and holding prisoners $ 4,350
12, Increased expenditures related to special police services
(These are special services requested by private businesses
or individuals provided by off-duty police officers, and are
fiillv paid by those requesting the service.’i $ 7,000
Market Adjustments to Pav Levels
Staff is currently conducting an analysis of market p.iy levels for a number of positions. A
preliminary analysis of the Building Inspector and Public Works Maintenance positions shows both
appear to be 10% or more below the market. Final analysis regarding these positions and an analysis
of a number of additional positions will be completed prior to the adoption of the proposed budget
and tax levy in mid-September.
At this time, the amount of $30,000 is included in the General Fund, and additional funding will be
included in the Sewer and Water Funds for potential market-based pay adjustments. It is important
that the pay levels of City positions be competitive with the market to enable the City to recruit and
retain qualified persons for all City positions.
Additional Police Officer and COPS Grant
The City received a COPS grant in 1997 in the amount of $75,000 to be used over a three-year
period to partially offset the costs of hiring a sbcteenth officer. Because of delays in receiving the
grant proceeds, the grant is being allocated on an annual basis as follows:
1997 $30,000
1998 $ 0
1999 $20,000
2000 $25,000
The City has also been awarded a second COPS grant in the amount of $75,000 to partially offset
the cost of adding a seventeenth officer. The proposed allocation of this grant is $30,000 in 2000,
$25,000 in 2001, and $20,000 in 2002.
Tax Levy, Tax Capacity Rate, and Impact of Tax Levy on Property Owners
The total tax levy required to fund the proposed 2000 budget is $2,363,560. This is an increase of
$71,680 or 3.13% over the 1999 levy. The breakout of the use of tax levy revenues by fund is shown
in Attachment A-1.
The estimated tax capacity for taxes payable in the year 2000 is $15 750,937. This is an increase of
$1,035,89^ or 7.04% over the 1999 tax capacity. Based on the City's tax capacity and the proposed
tax levy, the tax capacity rate would be 14.637. This is a 3.55% reduction from the 1999 tax capacity
rate.
Impact of Budget and Tax Lev\^ on Property Owners
After two years of substantial reductions in property class tax rates, that shifted the property tax
burden from commercial/industrial properties and higher-valued residential properties to lower
valued residential properties, the 1999 legislature made only minor property class tax rate changes.
The impact of the City's 2000 budget and tax levy is fairly similar across property types.
Attachments A-4 and A-5 show the calculation of the impact of the City's tax levy on homes valued
at $100,000, $200,000, and $400,000, and on a commercial property valued at $500,000.
For a home valued at $100,000, assuming no change in property value, the City's share of the
property tax bill would decrease by $9.19 or 5.1 %. For a home valued at $400,000, the City's share
of the property tax bill would decrease by $59.09 or 6.1%.
Levy Limit
The 1999 legislature failed to remove levy limits on cities for year 2000 budget. The levy limit is
tied to the implicit price deflator and household growth. The City's levy limit for 2000 is
$2,363,566. The proposed levy is at the levy limit.
General Fund Revenue Highlights
A table showing the proposed 2000 General Fund revenues has been provided as Attachment A-8.
The major revenue changes are as follows:
1.
2.
Licenses and permits revenue has increased from $240,000 to $264,000 - an increase
of $24,000 or 10% over 1999. The increase is due to the 10% increase in permit fees
adopted by the Council in June of 1999 as part of its adoption of the iqxlated Uniform
Building Code.
Revenue from the federal COPS grant program has increase i from $20,000 to
$30,000 due to a new COPS grant for the years 2000 - 2002. In addition, $25,000 of
COPS grant funding carried over from 1998 is proposed to be used as an additional
offset to the costs of adding the seventeenth officer in the year 2000. The $25,000
amount is shown as a use of fund balance because the amount carried over from 1998
was placed into the fund balance of the General Fund.
3.Revenues from contracted police services have increased from $662,400 to $686,000
- an incica:- of 3>2i,600 or 3.6% over the 1999 amount.
4.Interest income has increased from $72,000 to $100,000 - an increase of $28,000 or
38.9%. This increase reflects a conservative interest income estimate for 1999 and
an increase in interest rates.
Medium to Long-Term Needs
The preliminary budget does noi include additional funding for a number of medium to long-term
needs. These are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Additional funding for street overlays
Additional frmding for stormwater management improvements
Additional funding for parkland acquisition and park improvements
Funding for the City's share of the Long Lake Fire Station
Funding for Public Works land acquisition
Streets. Stormwater and Parks
A multi-year budget projection prepared for the 1999 budget review process suggested the following
levels of additional funding for streets, stormwater and parks:
Budget Year
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Street Overlays $10,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $100,000
Parks Development $10,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000
$100,000 $110,000
Stormwater Projects $10,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $110,000
Fire Station
Although Mn/DOT will pay a significant portion of the cost of replacing the Long Lake Fire Station,
a substantial portion of the cost will remain to be funded by the City of Long Lake and the cities who
receive fire service from Long Lake. It would be prudent to begin to plan for the additional
expenditure level this will require.
,
>
y
*•
^ *TV-
N ■'•>.P'
* 1^
f
Public Works Land Acquisition
Staff has been in contact with the owners of the property to the east of the current Public Works site.
The owners have authorized the City to enter the property to conduct wetland delineation, and have
requested a meeting with the City to discuss the City's plans for land acquisition. The next step is
to obtain an appraisal of the property. Depending on the amount of property needed, the cost could
be well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Prior to moving much further ahead with the
acquisition process, the method and source of funding for the acquisition needs to be determined.
Tax Levies
General
PIR Infrastructure-Storm Sewer
PIR Infmstructure-Roads
Parks - Land Acquisition and Development
Sewer & Water Bonds
1995 (1989) Water Refunding Bonds
1992 G.O. Bonds
1995 (1985) Refunding Bonds
1997 G.O. Bonds
1991 Public Facilities Bonds
1999 Improvement Bonds
Total
City of Orono
Tax Levies
Actual 1999 vs Proposed 2000
Tax Levy Collectible
1999 2000
$1,771,430
45,000
35,450
5,000
$1,858,410
45,000
35,450
5,000
100,000
45.000
30.000
10.000
250,000
0
75.000
45.000
15.000
15,000
250,000
19,700
$2,291,880 $2,363,560
The tax levies are shown as reduced by HACA aid from the State, but have not been reduced by Fiscal Disparities Credit.
1999 2000
Tax Levy Net of HACA
State Paid HACA
Total Tax Levy Including HACA
$2,291,880
302,528
$2,363,560
309,551
$2,594,408 $2,673,111
Increase
(Decrease)
$86,980
0
0
0
(25.000)
0
(15.000)
5,000
0
19,700
$71,680
Increase
(Decrease)
$71,680
7,023
$78,703
Percent
Chanee
4.91%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
-25.00%
0.00%
-50.00%
0.00%
0.00%
N/A
3.13%
Percent
Chance
3.13%
2.32%
3.03%
1
A-1
City of OronoTax Capacity, Local Levy, & Tax Capacity Rates 2000 Over (Under) 1999TAX CAPACITYReal Estate
?^onal Property
l> .^iuct Tax Increments
iK^duct Contrib Fiscal Disp
Net Tax Capacity (To calculate rate)
LOCAL LEVY
Gross Levy
Deduct HACA
TOTAL LEVY NET OF HACA
Deduct Fiscal Disparities
Net Local Levy
TAX CAPACITY RATES
General Revenue
PIR Infirastucture-Storm Sewer
PIR Infrastructure>Roads
Parks • Land Acquisition & Development
Debt Service
HRA Building Bonds
Total Local Tax Capacity Rate
Actual Estimated19992000 Amount Percent$14,715,042 $15,750,937 $1,035,895 7.04%
163,936 165,000 1,064 0.65%
0 0 0 0.00%
(261,649)(270,000)(8,351)3.19%
$14,617,329 $15,645,937 $1,028,608 7.04%
$2,527,810 $2,673,111 $145,301 5.75%
(302,528)(309,551)(7,023)2.32%
$2,225,282 $2,363,560 $138,278 6.21%
(41,806)(42,000)(194)0.46%
$2,183,476 $2,321,560 $138,084 6.32%
11.887%11.667%-0.220%-1.85%
0.302%0.283»/'o -0.020%-6.47%
0.238% 0.223%
-0.015%-6.49%
0.034% 0.031%
-0.003%—
1.241%1.06.5%-0.176%-14.15%
1.678%1.569%-0.109%-6.47%
15.380%14.838%-0.542%-3.52%
. I
TAX CAPACITY • The real estate and personal property tax capacity amounts arc reduced by any tax increments and the contribution amount to the
fiscal disparities to arrive at the total value of tax capacity used for calculating the tax capacity rate.
LOCAL LEVY - The amount of gross tax is reduced by the state paid HACA (Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid), and by the Fiscal Disparities
distributed through the county.
TAX CAPACITY RATE - The net local levy amount is divided by the tax capacity to arrive at a percentage or tax capacity rate.
A-2
h
City of Orono
Tax Levy Limit Calculation
For 2000
Tax Levies 1999 2000
Adjusted Levy Limit Base for Payable 2000
> Implicit Price DeOator [Mar.99/Mar.98]
+ Household Growth Index [I998/I997J
+ Adj for Pay 1999 M.V. of new C/I constr
Adjusted Levy Limit Base for Payable 2000
(I.0I5)
(1.006)
(1.0)
$2,215,959
33,239
13,495
0
2,262,694
• 2000HACA
• 2000 Local Performance Aid (LPA)
Payable 2000 Overall Levy Limitation
+ Tax Levy for Bonded Debt for Budgeted Year
Total Tax Levy Limit for Budget Year 2000
(309,551)
(9,277)
1,943,866
419,700
$2,363,566
Total Levy (under) Levy Limit for 2000
Comments.
Increase
(Decrease)
$$ Increase
$147,607
* Based on National Estimates, as provided by MN Department of Revenue-Aud’tor and Treasury Services (Rich Gardner 296-3155).
** based on (Unadjusted Tax Levy Base * Implicit Price Deflator) * Household Growth Index.
A-3
Percent
Change
General $1,771,430 $1,858,410 $86,980 4.91%
PIR Infrastructure-Storm Sewer 45,000 45,000 0 0.00%
PIR Infrastructure-Roads 35,450 35,450 0 0.00%
Parks - Land Acquisition and Development 5,000 5,000 0 ~
Sewer & Water Bonds •
1995 (1989) Water Refunding Bonds 100,000 75,000 (25,000)-25.00%
1992 G.O. Bonds 45,000 45,000 0 0.00%
1995 (1985) Refunding Bonds 30,000 15,000 (15,000)-50.00%
1997 G.O. Bonds 10,000 15,000 5,000 50.00%
1991 Public Facilities Bonds 250,000 250,000 0 0.00%
1999 Improvement Bonds 0 19,700 19,700 N/A
Total $2,291,880_$2,363^560 $71,680 3.13%
% Increase
6.66%
r. h
City of Orono
Effect of2000 Tax Levy & Budget on Homes
Market Value for 1999 Taxes SI 00.000 $200^00
1999 2000
0% incr
I • ^
1 »
Estimated Market Value
For 1999 Taxw*s
Tax Capacity (Net) *
Tax Capacity Rate
Net Tax
$$ Increase (Decrease) from 1999
% Increase (Decrease) from 1999
$100.000 $100.000
2000
5% incr
$105.000
I 1
1999 2000
0% incr
1,175 1,156
15.380% 14.838%
$180.72 $171.53
($9.19)
-5.1%
1,239
14.838%
$183.77
$3.05
1.7%
• I
2,875 2,806
y
....1
$442.18 $416.35
($25.82)
-5.8%
* 1999 Tax Capacity (net) = 1 % of first $75,000 market value, plus 1.70% of all value over $75,000
2000 Tax Capacity (net) = 1% of first $76,000 market value, plus 1.65% of all value over $76,000
IT
V
> .i
A-4
c-j
2000
5% incrj' I i-'J
$200.000 $200.000 $210.000
2,971
15.380% 14.838% 14.838%
i
■ I
■1
( «
$440.84 I
($1.34)* I
-0.3%
wCr-
1999
‘ n.-
$400,000
2000 2000
0% incr 5% incr
$400.000 $400.(
-6.1%
$420,000
6,275 6,106 6,436
15.380% 14.838% 14.838%
$965.10 $906.01 $954.97
($59.09) ($10.12)
-1.0%
City of Orono
Effect of 2000 Tax Levy & Budget on Commercial Property
For Market Value of $500,000
* 1999 Tax Capacity (net) = 2.45% of first $150,000 market value, plus 3.5% of all value over $150,000
2000 Tax Capacity (net)» 2.40% of first $150,000 market value, plus 3.4% of all value over $150,000
A-5
1999 2000 2000
0% Incr.5% Incr.
Estimated Market Value
For 1999 Taxes $500,000 $500,000 $525,000
Tax Capacity (Net) *15,925 15,500 16,350
Tax Capacity Rate 15.380%14.838%14.838%
Net Tax $2,449.27 $2,299.89 $2,426.01
$$ Increase (Decrease) from 1999 ($149.38)($23.25)
% Increase (Decrease) from 1999 -6.1%-0.9%
i
E)eDartinent
City Council
Administration
Elections
Assessing
Finance
Legal
Central Services
Human Services
Police
Fire
Planning A Zoning
Engineering
Street Maintenance
Parks A Recreation
Recycling
Special Services*Consulting A Police
Special Projects A Contingency
•
Transfers to Other Funds
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
I-
City of Orono
2000 General Fund Expenditures
1998
Actual
$56,984
213,831
7,144
83,300
152,771
109,514
194,985
14,537
1,413,542
236,058
340,301
6,547
480,072
53,792
70,840
97,526
26,229
128,338
$3,686,311
1999
Budget
$53,560
208.500
400
90,000
157,750
85,450
182.500
16,980
1,492,470
256,950
410,250
14,560
515,730
63,080
74,520
48,510
83,830
95,000
$3,850,040
A-6
2000
Budget
$60,650
216,230
10,140
95,400
167,550
91,200
188,770
17,490
1,618,640
266,810
373,960
9,150
519,040
65,820
79,580
56,050
92,000
105,000
$4,033,480
Dollar
Increase
(Decrease)
$7,090
7,730
9.740
5,400
9,800
5,750
6,270
510
126,170
9,860
(36,290)
(5,410)
3,310
2.740
5,060
7,540
8,170
10,000
183,440
%
Increase
(Decrease)
13.24%
3.71%
2435.00%
6.00%
6.21%
6.73%
3.44%
3.00%
8.45%
3.84%
•8.85%
•37.16%
0.64%
4J4%
6.79%
15.54%
9.75%
10.53%
4.76%
Personal Services
Supplies & Maintenance
Professional Services
Insurances
Other Expenses
Capital Outlay
Transfers to Other Funds
Total
City of Orono
2000 General Fund Expenditure
Budget Summary
A-7
1998 1999 2000
Dollar
Increase
%
Increase
Actual Budeet Budeet (Decrease)(Decrease)
2,176,968 2,283,700 2,381,710 98,010 4.29%
396,695 408,000 422,630 14,630 3.59%
611,484 619,460 643,440 23,980 3.87%
65,584 62,100 65,990 3,890 6.26%
243,654 282,380 302,500 20,120 7.13%
85,889 99,400 112,210 12,810 12.89%
128,338 95,000 105,000 10,000 10.53%
3,708.613 3,850,040 4,033.480 183.440 4.76%
• A
i
f
* #
City of Orono
2000 General Fund Revenues
Dollar
1998 1999 2000 Increase Increase
Actual Budeet Budset (Decrease)(Decrease)
TAXES
General Property Taxes $1,736,021 $1,771,430 $1,858,410 $86,980 4.9%
LICENSES ft PERMITS 275J8I 240,000 264,000 24,000 10.0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE
Federal Grant-Emergency Preparedness 4,000 4,500 4,000 (500)-11.1%
Homestead ft Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA)259.594 302,530 309,550 7,020 2.3%
Local Government Aid (LGA), formerly LPA 10,043 9,290 9,280 (10)-0.1%
Payroll Aid PERA 7.219 7,220 7,220 0 0.0%
State Grants ft Aids - Other 19 0 0 0 0.0%
Police Town Aid 95,206 84,000 90,000 6,000 7.1%
Police Training Reimbursement 5,380 5,200 5,200 0 0.0%
Federal COPS Grant 0 20,000 30,000 10,000 0.0%
Municipal State Aid-Streets 86,080 85,000 89,000 4,000 4.7%
County Grant-Recycling Program 24,669 15,200 19,530 4430 28.5%
Metropolitan Council Grant • Comprehensive Plan 10,647 0 0 0 0.0%
TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES 502,857 532,940 563,780 30,840 5.8%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
Plan Check ft Site Exam Fees 107,183 100,000 105,000 5.000 5.0%
Conditional Use-Variance ft Subdivision Fees 19,107 35,000 35,000 0 0.0%
On-Site Septic Program Fees 55,508 55,000 55,500 500 0.9%
Contracted Police Services 641,171 662,400 686,000 23,600 3.6%
Contracted Inspection Services 20,249 20,000 20,000 0 0.0%
Contracted Animal Control 29,719 28,650 29,500 850 3.0%
Contracted Public Works Services 7,874 25,000 10,000 (15,000)-60.0%
Police Special Services 92,968 27,000 30,000 3,000 11.1%
Adminbarative Charges to Other Funds 39,760 50,000 54,190 4,190 8.4%
Recycling Program Fees 66,246 65,600 68,200 2,600 4.0%
Other Charges 23,335 11,560 15,000 3,440 29.8%
TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,103,120 1,080,210 1.108J90 28,180 2.6%
FINES ft FORFEITS
Court Fines 72,631 72,000 80,000 8,000 11.1%
Animal Impound Fees 3,990 3,500 4,000 500 14.3%
TOTAL FINES ft FORFEITS 76,621 75,500 84,000 8.500 113%
MISCELLANEOUS
Interest Income 116,715 72,000 100,000 28.000 38.9%
Operating Transfer In 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Other 70,046 31,000 29,900 (1.100)-3.5%
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS INCOME 186,761 103,000 129,900 26,900 26.1%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES $3,880,761 S3 803,080 $4,008,480 $205,400 5.40%
Fund Balance Used 0 46,920 25,000
Total Gen Fund Revenues and Fund Bal Used 3,880,761 3,850,000 4,033,480
Total Gen Fund Expenditures 3,708,619 3,850,000 4,033,480
Increase to Fund Balance $172,142 $0 $0
f\
r ■1!
Miscellaneous
Information
i
3
A
>'•
r ♦
♦ .
i
b
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Ron Moorse, City Administrator
DATE:July 26, 1999
SUBJECT: Metropolitan Council Survey
Attached is a survey regarding Metropolitan Council relations and performance in relation to cities,
counties and townships located within the Seven County Metro Area. The survey is being conducted
by the House Committee on Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs. The Committee wants
each city to complete one anonymous form and return it by August 23. Please review the survey and
provide comments to me regarding your thoughts about the City's responses. I will then summarize
the responses, and either reflect them in a completed survey or provide them to the Council for
discussion at a work :ssion.
• i
Peg Larsen
state Representative
\t-r nt; y
District 56B
Washington County
Minnesota
House of
Representatives
CHAIR: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND METROPOLITAN AFFAIRS
COMMITTEES: CRIME PREVENTION: JUDICIARY FINANCE
July 21,1999 J'l: ^ o \yil
TO: Metropolitan Area Local Government Officials
SUBJECT: Questionnaire regarding Metropolitan Council relations and performance
Earlier in the 1999 session of the Legislature, I appointed a subcommittee on Metropolitan
Council and Agencies; Rep. Barb Haake from Mounds View is the chair. Its assignments
include obtaining information and developing a report and recommendations to the Committee
regarding the Metropolitan Council, its effectiveness at this time, and possible alternative means
by which metropolitan area planning and systems can be administered.
Your help is requested to ensure that the enclosed questionnaire is reviewed and completed by a
responsible official in your local government. Responses may be the result of discussions among
officials. The information returned to the subcommittee should be limited to one per local unit.
The information from the responses will assist the subcommittee as it pursues its assignment and
develops conclusions and reconunendations for the Conunittee and the Legislature.
Please return the completed questionnaires BY MONDAY, AUGUST 23. Responses may be
returned by mail or by fax to Committee Administrator Blair Tremere at the adtfress or fax
number below.
Individual replies will be treated anonymously and it will be the respondent’s option whether
fonns are returned without identification. The subcommittee will receive aggregate data.
Of course, your comments and suggestions are always welcome regarding this and other topics
about local and metropolitan government.
Thank you for your cooperation!
Rep. PegLarsen, Chair
’
409 Quixote Ave. N., Lakeland. Minnesota 55043 (651) 436>5073
551 State Office Building, 100 Constitution Ave., St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1298
FAX (651) 297-2668 TTY (651) 296-9896 email: rep.peg.larsenOhouse.leg.state.mn.us
(651)296-4244
2.
Minnesota House of Representatives Committee on Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs
Rep. Peg Larsen, Chair
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR METROPOLITAN LOCAL G0VT:RNMENTS
RETITIN RESPONSE BY MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 1999 BY .\LAIL OR FAX TO:
Blair Tremere, 572 State Office Building, 100 Constitution Avenue, St. Paul. MN 55155-1298
Fax: 651-297-2668
Comments and expanded responses on a separate sheet are welcome.
Responses will be recorded anonymously.
1. Does your community participate in the Liveable Communities program?
Yes. How do you rate your experiences working with the Council?
1 HighA^ery satisfled 2 Adequate/Satisfled 3 Poor/Unsatisfled
No. What considerations led to the decision to not participate?
Should the Legislature continue, discontinue, or modify the current Council organization
(16 members and a chair appointed by the Governor) including Planning, Environmental
Services, and Transit Divisions?
Continue
Discontinue with some or all of the functions transferred to other agencies or
restructured as freestanding state operating agencies
Modify (please read the options first, then check all that apply)
□
□
□
□
Modify with Transit and Environmental Services becoming separate agencies.
Modify with Transit becoming a separate agency.
Modify with Environmental Services becoming a separate agency.
Modify with Planning transferred to the Stale Ofrice of Strategic and Long
Range Planning
Modify by including the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Sports
Facilities Commission
Modify by including the Metropolitan Airports Commission
r
3.
5.
6.
9.
10.
Modify by including the Sports Facilities Commission
Modify so that members are appointed elected officials
Modify so that membership is elected to the Council
If you indicated above that the Council should consist of elected officials, would your
response be different if the Council had no authority to levy property taxes?
□ Yes □ No
4. Did your community have a comprehensive plan prior to 1976?
□ Yes □ No
a. When did your community first AND last submit a Plan or Element to the Council?
Should so-called Minnesota “collar counties” and “edge commonities” on the periphery
of the seven-county area be included in the Council’s jurisdiction?
□ Yes □ No
How would you rate the Council’s growth management tools (the “Regional Blueprint’
and Metropolitan Urban Service Area [MUSA])? Please explain.
1 HigbA^ery satisfied 2 Adequate/Satisfied .3 Poor/Unsatisfied
7. Are you familiar with the statute known as “The Metropolitan Land Planning Act?’
□ Yes □ No
8. a. How would you rate your community’s relationship with the Council staff?
1 HighA^ery satisfied 2 Adequate/Satisfied 3 Poor/Unsatisfied
b. How would you rate your community’s relationship with the Council itself?
1 HighA^ery satisfied 2 Adequate/Satisfied 3 Poor/Unsatisfied
Cite a positive attribute and a negative attribute of the Council fi-om your experience.
List up to three actions you would recommend to the Legislature as priorities regarding
the Metropolitan Council.
i