HomeMy WebLinkAbout1C, 2010 Proposed Final Budget OverviewEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 16, 2009 Item LC
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM: Sue Iverson, Finance Director/Treasurer
SUBJECT: 2010 Proposed Final Budget Overview
BackLyround
On August 17, 2009, the Council discussed the preliminary budget as presented by staff.
The memo from that work session is attached for your reference as Attachment A. At
this work session, Council directed staff to make cuts and additions to the budget as
outlined below:
■ Eliminate the Assistant City Administrator position and move the savings in the
General Fund to "Other Professional Services" under the Administration
Department.
■ Reduce costs for the Recording Secretary by $3,000.
■ Reduce the budgeted contribution amount for NYFS from $10,000 to $7,000 and
reduce the annual meeting contribution from $1,000 to $250.
■ Add costs for Celebrating Arden Hills in the amount of $10,000. ($25,000 budget
and $10,000 in donation revenues)
■ Employee Insurance was reduced from a 6% increase to 1 % increase as we have
now received the 2010 rates from our insurance providers. This decreased the
budgeted contribution per employee by $35.35 per month (new increase is
$10.15).
Attachment B includes budget analysis sheets for all departments and funds reflecting the
budget adjustments listed above.
On September 14, 2009 the City Council adopted an operating levy of $3,057,666. This
levy equates to a 3.7% increase over the 2009 levy. Staff has estimated that the overall
estimated levy limit was $3,152,235. This proposed levy equates to a $615.34 tax bill on
the median valued home in Arden Hills of $278,800. This is an annual increase of
$24.61 or 4.2%. Attachment C is the Proposed Pay 2010 Property Tax Impact Worksheet
giving comparisons from 2009 to 2010.
City Council Meeting
\\Metro-inet\ardenhills\Admin\Council\Agendas & Packet Information\2009\11-16-09 Worksession\Packet
Information\1 C 2010_Budget_Overview.doc
Page 1 of 2
The proposed levy is 3.7%
MVHC cut 1.1 % of the proposed levy
Public Safety increase 2.1 % of the proposed levy
Total increase less
PS & MVHC cut 0.5% levy without Public Safety increase or MVHC cuts.
For discussion purposes, a reduction of $30,500 equates to a 1 % reduction in the current
proposed levy.
Council Direction Requested
Direction regarding finalizing the 2010 budget and tax levy for adoption at the December
14 Council meeting.
City Council Meeting
\\Metro-inet\ardenhills\Admin\Council\Agendas & Packet Information\2009\1 1- 16-09 Worksession\Packet
Information\ 1 C 2010_Budget_Overview. doc
Page 2 of 2
Attachment A
Memo dated August 13, 2009
2010 Budget Preliminary Overview
� EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 13, 2009
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Ron Moorse, City Administrator
Sue Iverson, Finance Director/Treasurer
SUBJECT: 2010 Budget Preliminary Overview
The proposed 2010 operating budget reflects an effort to manage expenditures in a way that
maintains current municipal service levels while reflecting the current fiscal environment,
including the general economic conditions and the State budget deficit.
General Fund Budget
General Fund Expenditures
The proposed 2010 General Fund expenditures are $3,901,506. This is an increase of $75,534,
or 1.97 % over the 2009 amended budget. (No contingency has been included in this budget).
Based on the overall levy limit the Council does have an additional $61,764 that it could levy if
it so chooses.
The General Fund budget reflects an effort to limit discretionary expenditures in all areas.
Numerous expenditure items are at a zero increase. The budget reflects no adjustment to the pay
schedule for non -union staff. (There is a contract in place for the Public Works staff that
provides fora 3%cost of living adjustment for 2010).
The key expenditure items affecting the General Fund budget are listed below. In addition, there
are two areas of expenditure increase that relate to necessary amendments to the 2009 budget.
One is an amendment to the contract policing budget in the amount of $44,000. The second
amendment is related to the contracted fire service budget in the amount of $13,348. A memo
from the Finance Director providing additional information regarding the budget amendments is
attached.
An additional expenditure item that requires discussion is funding for TCAAP-related consultant
and legal services. While it is not clear what the amount of TCAAP-related expenditures may
Memo
City Council
2010 Budget Preliminary Overview
2
be, there is a continuing expenditure amount in the Planning budget for consulting services in the
amount of $66,000. This amount is currently related to consultant services required for a small
area plan process for the Red Fox/Grey Fox area. All or a portion of these funds could be used
for TCAAP-related expenses, depending on the priority the Council places on moving forward
with the Red Fox/Grey Fox area plan in 2010.
A summary of the major items causing the General Fund expenditure increase is as follows:
Annual pay adjustments: (The proposed budget reflects a 0% increase
$1,822
in pay schedules for non -union and 3% for union employees). The
annual pay adjustments include scheduled pay steps. (Due to salary
allocation changes, the impact on the general fund was minimal.)
Group Insurance contribution increase: The proposed expenditures
$4,460
reflect a $45.50 per month increase in the City's contribution toward
employee health insurance and other benefit options in the cafeteria
benefit plan. ($717.50 per month, per employee)
Increased costs for Recording Secretary
$500
Increased budgeted contribution for NYFS by $5,000. (currently have
$55000
been budgeting a $4,000 contribution and $1,000 for annual luncheon.)
Newsletter "Arden Notes" increased costs have not been finalized at
$55000
this point. The budget currently reflects an increase of $5,000.
Elections increased as there were no elections in 2009.
$1155 90
Contract Policing costs have increased 1.06% over 2009.
K556
Contracted Fire Service costs: The budget reflects a 5.6% increase in
$18,905
costs for contracted fire service. This increase is due mainly to funding
for a full year of the Assistant Fire Chief position, and the first year of
the phase -in of the duty crew staffing plan.
911 Dispatch costs have increased 17.35%. There was no increase in
$5,325
these services for 2009.
Property and Liability insurance increased as a result of previous
$831920
claims (mainly due to Clear Channel)
Increase intern in the Finance and Support Services department to a full
$600
year.
Memo
City Council
2010 Budget Preliminary Overview
3
General Fund Revenue Highlights
General Fund revenues are generally flat, particularly construction -related revenues. The key
item affecting revenues is the elimination of the Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC)
revenue through the Governor's unallotment process. The amount that will be unalloted in 2010
is $61,774.
Tax Levy, Levy Limit, and Impact on Property Owners
The proposed 2010 budget reflects a levy of $3,090,471 or a 4.8% levy increase over 2009.
Without the loss of the MVHC revenue, the levy increase would be 2.7%. The City has not yet
received communication from the Department of Revenue on an initial overall levy limit; as per
statute this is not due to cities until September 1, 2009. Staff has estimated the allowable levy
limit for the City of Arden Hills based on instructions received from the League of Minnesota
Cities which incorporates any law changes. The overall estimated levy limit is $3,152,235.
We have not yet received all the information from Ramsey County to calculate the tax rate or
impacts to property owners, but staff has completed estimates based on last year's values. The
proposed budget equates to a $581.88 tax bill per year on an average value residential property
based on Pay 2009 values. This is a $30.38 increase from 2009. Of this increase, $13.24 is due
to the loss of MVHC revenue. Actual data will be available in the next week from Ramsey
County in time to set the Preliminary Levy.
Attachment B
2010 Budget Analysis
General Fund
SpecIs
ial Revenue Funds
Debt Service Fund
Capital Funds
EDA Funds
Enterprise Funds
2010 BudEret Analysis — General Fund
Mayor & Council — 9.51 %
Other Professional Services — increase $2,000 (Timesavers for Council minutes)
Newsletter — increase $51000
Miscellaneous —increase $1,550 (NYFS contribution increase to $7,250)
Elections — 1147.52%
No election in 20091 only maintenance costs of $1,010. Increase over 2009 $111590.
Administration — (9.25%)
Reduced salaries and benefits as a result of adjusted salary allocations and the elimination
of the Assistant City Administrator position $ 71,162.
Eliminated Assistant City Administrator position and reassigned general fund dollars to
"Other Professional Services" $26,287.
Other Services and Charges increased $8,920 primarily due to the increase in liability and
property insurance costs as a result of our experience rating and claims history $8,920.
Finance and Support Services — 1.13 %
Reduced salaries and benefits as a result of adjusted salary allocations $4,3 84.
Increase $6,000 for intern.
Increased supplies $1,500.
Increased Financial Consultant $2,000 — GASB45 requirements.
Planning & Zoning — 1.85%
Increase due to salary step and benefit increases.
Government Buildings — 0.25%
Increase due to salary step and benefit increases.
Public Safety — 2.65%
Contract Policing up 1.06% or $9,556
911 Dispatch up 17.35%0 or $5,325 (but there was no increase from 2008-2009)
Fire Contract up 5.6% or $18,905
Emergency Management — 0.53%
Increase due to salary step and benefit increases.
Protective -In ctions — 3.30%
Increase due to salary step and benefit increases $85100.
Decrease in materials and supplies $1,000.
Increase in software support (Permit Works) $1, 600.
Street Maintenance — 1.34%
Increase due to salary step and benefit increases.
Union salaries COLA 3%.
Park Maintenance — 1.93 %
Increase due to salary step and benefit increases.
Union salaries COLA 3 %.
Park Equipment increase - $3,000.
Recreation — 0.3 8%
Other professional services increase - $1,000.
Rentals increase - $15000.
Celebrating Arden Hills — 100.0%
Department created and added to fund Celebrating Arden Hills. The cost is $25,000 and
offset by $15,000 in donations under General Fund revenues.
Transfers — (0.94%)
Decrease in EDA transfer $21400.
Contingency/Reserves — (100.0%)
No contingency or reserves
2010 Budtet Analysis -- Special Revenue Funds
Community Services
Revenue is estimated to remain the same as the 2009 budget.
Transfer to Public Safety Capital Fund is estimated to be $25,000 vs. $501000 in 2009.
At the end of 2008 the fund had a deficit balance of approximately $20,000.
Park Fund
Revenues and Expenditures are based on current CI' projections.
Cable Fund. — (2.34%)
Revenues are estimated to remain the same from 2009.
Decrease in salary steps and benefits as a result of salary allocation adjustments —
(16.93%) or $6,228.
Other Services and Charges also increased as a result of the salary allocation adjustments
and $2,000 increase in Other Professional Services for a total increase of — 12.47% or
$55284.
Equipment decreased $1,000.
Total Operating budget change — (2.34%) or ($944).
TCAAP
Grant Revenue estimated to offset professional services.
Risk Management
No changes since 2009 budget except the addition of Dividend revenue.
2010 Budget Analysis — Debt Service Fund
GO Tax Increment Bonds
No changes from 2009 budget.
2010 Budget Analysis — Capital Funds
Capital Improvement Fund
Based on CIP projections. $200,000 transfer from General Fund still in the budget.
Equipment, Building and Replacement Fund
Based on CIP-Equipment replacement projections.
$40,000 transfer from General Fund
$43,000 transfer from Water Fund
$62,000 transfer from Sewer Fund
$38,000 transfer from Surface Water Fund
Public Safety Capital Equipment
Reduced transfer from the Community Service Fund from $50,000 to $25,000.
Expenditures based on Fire Dept Capital Budget.
2010 Budget Analysis — EDA Finds
EDA General Fund
Reduced transfer from General Fund from $25,000 to $12,600.
Operating Budget increased $1,200. — Primarily due to Recording Secretary Fees.
EDA Revolving Fund
No expenditures, interest revenue.
EDA TIF District #2 Round Lake Office Park
Revenues and expenditures based on 2009 numbers and bond payments.
EDA TIF District #3 Cottage Villas
District is set to expire on 12/31/09. No budget was prepared except County admin costs.
Council will need to decide if they want to extend the district or decertify by December.
2010 Budtet Analysis -- Enterprise Funds
Water Fund
Water Utility revenues are up 16.06%
Operating expenditures are down 0.47%, Overall expenditures are up 0.54%.
Sanitary Sewer Fund
Sanitary Sewer revenues are up 3 3.5 7 %
Operating expenditures are up 1.97%, Overall expenditures are up 6.64%
Recyc,lin,g Fund
Recycling revenues are up 44.72%
Operating expenditures are up 45.85% primarily due to Recycling Processing Fees
($48,000) and salary and benefit reallocations ($2,953).
Surface Water Management Fund
Revenues are up 22.13 %
Operating expenditures are up 25.35% due to salary allocation changes and
administrative charges based on salary allocations. Overall expenditures are up 6.3 7%.
Attachment C
Proposed Pay 2010 Property Tax
Impact Worksheet
Proposed Pay 2010 Property Tax Impact Worksheet
Is
i.O
en:*':'H�'i1:.I.Pre':�l:",
Taxing District: L'
..............
STEP 1 - Calculate the Taxing District's Tax Rate:
1.
Levy before reduction for state aids
$2,948,646
$3,057,666
3.7%
2.
State Aids
..... .
.................
....
............. Ow'.
$
0.0%
I
Certifed Property Tax Levy
............ ........... .......... ............ .......................... .......... I ..........
............ ................................
........ ........... M
.A is
. ....
.. 66
3.7%
4.
Fiscal Disparity Portion of Levy
. . . . ... . ... ........ .... . .
.....
.3..*--.'
3.6%
5.
Local Portion of Le
=
$2,693,125
$2,792,928
3.7%
6.
Local Taxable Value
..............................
. ................. . ....
............. ........... ....
.................. ... . ... ...... . ......... .......
..........................
.......
................
..................
............. .......... ............
. .......
-7.4%
7.
Local Tax Rate
=
20.520
1
22.986%1
12.00/61
8. Market Value Referenda Levy
............ - ... ...... ....... ...................... .
................... ..........
........... ........
....... .................. ....... .......
............
................ ............. ............
...........
............... .......
........... --- .............. ............... ....
..................
.........
........
....... ........ -
0.0%
9.
Fiscal Disparity Portion of Levy (SDs only)
.............. ........... ...........
.. ........ ..................
.....................................................
............. ....................... ............ .
...............
...............
........ ..... . . ............... .
......
....... .....
...........................
0.0-/0
10.
Local Le
$0
$0
0.0%
11.
Referenda Market Value
................. ........... - ... -... -- ......................... ---- ......
........... ....... -- ......... ........... .......... .................
............... ....... ..-
............. ....... ...
.........................
............................... ....... ....
......... ..................
............ ......... ......... ....................
...........
....... ......
...............................
............................
.. ..................
........... ........ ............ .
........... ...................
........................
....... ............ ............. ...
.. ...... ........ :..-, I
. .................
..........................
0.0%
12.
Market Value Referenda Rate
=
0.00000%,
O.00OOn/O
0.0%
STEP 2 - Calculate the Impact of the Taxing District's Rate on Residential Homestead Taxes:
13. Assumes a -6.6% increase in market value from 2009 to 2010, which is the countywide median increase.
in% 19:1 IM IM [WI III
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
.................
............ . ..........
.............. ............. ......... 11 11 .
.............. ............. ...............................
...........................
............... . ..........
................... .. .........
................. .......
.................. ........ : ......... ............
.........
................ V..... ............... .0I
. .................... ..L ..... 'T
. ..............
..............
.... ..............
. ..............
..............
.............
.............
...............
. ........ ......
. ..........
.... ....
500,000@1.0%
rem @ 1.25%
(A7 x E) +
(Al2 X D)
76,000@.40%
rem@.09%
(G) x %
(F) - (H)
Estimated Tax District rate as % of total rate:
......... -- ................. ..........
........... ... ........
....... ..... WO
...............
... ..............
....... . . .. - ........... ......
160,600
1,606
$329.55
$227.86
$47.85
$281.70
298,500
2,985
$612.52
$103.75
$21.79
$590.73
374,700
3,747
$768.88
$35.17
$7.39
$761.49
535,300
5,441
$ 1,116.49
$0.00
$0.00
$1,116.49
803,000
8,788-::$
:1,803.30
E--::: $0.00
$0.00
$1,803.30
.......
.........
............
............
.......... . 'I"
..........
..........
..........
..........
. .. . .. .
Pay 2005 MV
500,000@1.0%
(137 x E) +
76,000@.40%
X 1.060
rem @ 1.25%
(1312 x D)
- rem@.09%
(G) x %
(F) - (H)
Estimated Tax District rate as % of total rate:
............. .............
........ .........
................... ....... ............. ......
1,500
$344.79
$237.40
$49.85
$294.94
............... . ...........
2788
$640.85
$121.48
$25.51
$615.34
............... ................. ..........o.....;...
o:,::
3,500
$804.51
$57.40
$12.05
$792.46
5,000
1149. 30
$0.00
$0.00
1149.GOff
30
. ..........
8,125
$1,867.61
$0.00
$0.00
$1,867.61
......................
11 ......................
... ......... ........................................................
. .............. ..............
.......................
.. ....
....... ..
-6.6%
-6.6%
4.6%
4.2%
.
4.2%
4.7%
-6.6%
-6.6%
4.6%
17.1%
17.1%
4.2%
-6.6%
-6.6%
4.6%
63.2%
63.1%
4.1%
-6.6%
-8.1%
2.9%
0.0%
0.0%
2.9%
-6.6%
-7,5%
3.6%
0.0%
0.0%
3.6%
Increase
$13.24
$24.61
$30.97
$32.81
$64.31
Instructions for Calculating a Residential Homestead Property Tax:
D. Taxable Market Value of Residential Homestead
Assumes that the Pay 2010 market value increased over Pay 2009 by -6.6%.
Countywide, the median increase in taxable market value from Pay 2009 to Pay 2010 is -6.7%.
E. Calculate the Net Tax Capacity of a Residential Homestead
Pay 2009: 1 st 500,000 of Market Value @ 1.00%, remainder @ 1.25%
Pay 2010: 1 st 500,000 of Market Value @ 1.00%, remainder @ 1.25%
F. Calculate the taxing district's portion of the Gross Tax
Pay 2009: multiply the Pay 2009 net tax capacity (E) by the Pay 2009 tax capacity local tax rate (A7), plus
multiply the Pay 2009 market value (D) by the Pay 2009 market value local tax rate (Al2)
Pay 2010: multiply the Pay 2010 net tax capacity (E) by the Pay 2010 tax capacity local tax rate (137) , plus
multiply the Pay 2010 market value (D) by the Pay 2010 market value local tax rate (1312)
G. Calculate the total market value homestead credit
0.40% of the first 76,000 of market value (D), reduced by 0 .09% on the market value over 76,000
The credit decreases as the market value over 76,000 increases, until a 414,000 home receives 0 credit.
H. Calculate the taxing district's estimated share of market value homestead credit
The credit is apportioned to all taxing districts based on their share of the total tax rate.
Example of 150,000 home: (76,000 x .40% = $304) - (74,000 x .09% = $66.60) = $237.40
Assume the city is 30% of the total tax, then the city receives 30% of the Credit $237.40 x 30% = $71.22
The actual percentage will vary depending on the combination of county, city/town, school, and special taxing
districts.
I. Calculate the taxing district's portion of the Net Tax
Gross Tax (F) minus the taxing district's share of credit (H)
26-30. Calculate the % increase/decrease from 2009 to 2010
(2010 -2009) / 2009