Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.a. Adoption of Preliminary 2012 Budget, Tax Levies, and Public Hearing Date4ROSEMOUNTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Regular Meeting September 6, 2011 AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of Preliminary 2012 Budget, AGENDA SECTION: Tax Levies, and Public Hearing Date New Business PREPARED BY: Dwight Johnson, City Administrator AGENDA NO. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Budget Summary, County APPROVED BY: Budget Forms I mi RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt A Resolution Setting the Preliminary 2012 General Fund Operating Budget, the Preliminary 2012 C.I.P. Budgets, the Preliminary 2012 Insurance Budget, the Preliminary 2012 Port Authority Operating Levy, the Preliminary 2011 Levy, and the Budget Hearing Date (Tuesday, December 6, 2011) Required by the City of Rosemount. INTRODUCTION Each year the City Council must approve a preliminary budget and tax levy by September 15`h. We are also required to set a date and time for a public hearing at this time. The City Council has met several times on the budget so far this year. State law says that the tax levy adopted in September may be reduced when the final budget is approved in December, but may not be increased. This year's numbers are unusual in some respects because of the repeal in the State's Market Value Homestead Credit program. This program was replaced with a new market value exclusion program that will change a lot of the residential tax values significantly from previous years. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The recommended budget for 2012 proposes an estimated reduction of $38 in the City taxes assessed to a median value home after the new state laws are applied. The City tax levy would decline by 5.75% and the overall increase in City funding needs would be 0.26 %. With reductions of $33 in City taxes for the median home in 2009, $77 in 2010, $56 in 2011 and the projected $38 decrease for 2012, the four year property tax decline for the median home is estimated to be $204 or 19.3 %. The median family home paid $1,058 in City taxes in 2008 and would pay an estimated $854 in 2012 with this proposed budget. The levy is proposed to decline by $630,325 mostly because of the repeal of the State Market Value Homestead Credit program (see "State Budget and Legislative Impacts" below). In our original budgets we had planned for a health insurance increase of 20% but were able to reduce the increase after we got the final cost on August 17`h which reflected a 5% increase. With all bargaining contracts up at the end of 2011, salaries are another unknown that require some contingency planning. Finally, fuel costs are projected to increase substantially over the current budgeted levels. Offsetting these headwinds, debt levies will decrease by $225,842 due to a wise use of 2010 General Fund surplus funds to further reduce our debt levy requirements. Other important factors benefitting us include the proposal to not fill two currently vacant positions (building inspector and GIS Coordinator). We will not save the full salary and benefits of either position, because the building inspector was only budgeted for six months in 2011 and it is expected that a portion of the GIS work will have to be contracted with WSB, our engineering consultants. Finally, SKB funds have increased notably which directly helps our CIP funds (Capital Improvement Program funds) and indirectly provides an opportunity to benefit the General Fund by moving a capital expenditure currently in the General Fund to the CIP. The principal changes in the 2012 budget are a new proposal to increase pay for the Fire Department, the movement of funding for new trail construction from the General Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund and the reduction of bond levy requirements. These items are discussed in more detail below. A summary of key characteristics of the proposed 2012 budget are shown in the following table: Budget Facts at a Glance Estimated Loss of property tax base from 2011 Average reduction in residential values General fund spending change: Total funding change — all funds Total funding change — all tax impacted funds Change in overall tax levy from 2010 City share of tax impact on median value home Percentage tax reduction on median value home Change in estimated tax rate (City share only) BUDGET PROCESS -8.27% (reflects MV exclusion) - 14.44% (reflects MV exclusion) +0.49% +$42,982 - $171,218 - $630,325 (reflects MV exclusion) -$38 (estimated with MV exclusion) -4.26% (estimated with MV exclusion) +4.83% (from .44661 to .46819) The annual budget process begins with the adoption of goals and work plans by the City Council early in the year. The City Council officially adopted goals for 2011 -2012 on April 5, 2011. This draft budget was initially developed by the Department Directors and the Finance Director. I met with each Department Director and reviewed every line item with them. Revenues were generally estimated by the Finance Director with input from the Departments. In addition, as a part of the budget review, we have looked again at 10 year needs projections for street improvements, equipment replacement, buildings and the Ice Arena. We have also reviewed our long term needs for parking lot maintenance for the first time. By request of the Council, we also looked at the financial impact of possibly closing the Ice Arena during summer months. Finally, we looked at the overall budget strategically one more time for its overall balance, consistency, impact on taxpayers, and long term impacts on finances for 2012 and beyond. Our hope was to develop the most conservative budget possible that: (1) is consistent with council goals (2) is consistent with previous council direction on levels of service, (3) does not weaken the City's long range financial outlook. (4) is balanced not only between revenues and expenditures, but also is well balanced internally between personnel, equipment, technology, operating needs and capital expenditures. The City continues to look for new savings and efficiencies. The savings from new boilers in the Steeple Center are noticeable in the 2012 budget. We also benefitted from using our insurance reserves to help us move to a higher deductible plan in the last year. In 2012, we plan to have an ongoing plan for the use of improved technology or software in such areas as utility billing, building permits, a web portal for VA Cartegraph information, internal document circulation through Laserfiche, and customer service tracking. These items are consistent with the Council's adopted goal to "embrace technology initiatives that improve citizen access to City services." According to state law, the preliminary budget and levy must be adopted by September 15th and the final budget must be adopted by December 20th after a public hearing. GENERAL FACTORS AFFECTING THE BUDGET Tax Base For the third consecutive year, the overall tax base in the community has declined. The overall tax capacity value within the City is estimated to be 2.98% lower in 2012 that it was in 2011 before the new market value exclusion program implementation. The County has done a preliminary analysis and estimates with the market value exclusion implementation the City's tax capacity value will be reduced by 8.27% for taxing purposes. This is on top of a 4.35% decline for 2010 and a 5.12% decline for 2011. The decline in market value of the median home in Rosemount is even higher, with an average decrease in market value of 5.48 % before the market value exclusion and 14.44% after. The overall tax base did not decline by that much because new growth in the community offset some of the decline in existing property values. State Budget and Legislative Impacts During the recent special legislative session that ended the shutdown of the State government, an important change was made in state law affecting property taxes. The Legislature repealed the entire Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) program and replaced it with a new market value exclusion program. Under the old MVHC, most homeowners received a calculated credit on their property tax bills. Since this had the effect of diminishing the actual tax receipts of cities, the Legislature had a reimbursement program for cities to offset the loss of revenue. Cities would actually not receive the full amount that they levied through property tax collections but rather with a combination of property tax collections and reimbursements from the State (MVHC). Over time, the MVHC program was seen by the Legislature to be another general state aid to cities program and was cut during recessionary times. Rosemount has not received any Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) Funds from the State of Minnesota since October, 2008. We have budgeted assuming that we would not receive any MVHC in each budget since 2008. Instead, we have been levying additional taxes to offset the loss of MVHC dollars in the last few years. The new replacement market value exclusion program excludes some of the residential value from taxes rather than give a credit for taxes paid. This means that while the City's tax base will be made artificially smaller than it otherwise would be, the City does not actually lose any dollars. If we levy $10 million dollars under the new system, we can expect to receive that much. However, levying the same amount on an artificially reduced tax base would lead to higher tax rates. However, the prospect of higher tax rates can be offset by the fact that we no longer have to levy for the loss of MVHC credits paid out of our levy amount. In a City like Rosemount that has been levying the full amount of lost MVHC dollars on the assumption that we would not receive any, the lower tax levy should offset the higher tax rate and result in no change in actual taxes paid by a homeowner. In other cities where they have assumed that at least some MVHC dollars would be received, the higher tax rates will not be able to be offset by reduced levies, leading to tax increases in those cities. In the June draft budget for 2012, we showed an overall levy that included that included $509,790 to offset the loss of tax credits paid under the old MVHC program, similar to what we have done the past several years. However, under the new law, we have proposed in this budget to remove the $509,790 from the preliminary levy because a tax increase on our residents would likely occur if we cannot use this money to 3 offset the higher tax rates resulting from the lower overall tax base. REVENUES Property taxes fund 79% of the General Fund budget and 65% of the overall City Budget. As noted above, our tax base is decreased by 2.98% (8.27% with the market value exclusion) for 2012. However, there are several other categories of General Fund revenues that are also important to the City. The chart below compares budgeted revenue for 2011 with estimated revenue in 2012 for several key categories of revenues. Licenses & Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services (no SKB) Fines & Forfeits Recreational Revenues Miscellaneous Revenues SKB revenue (General Fund portion) 2011 Budget 2012 Estimated Chi 360,100 362,300 +2,200 624,700 634,500 +9,800 233,400 243,400 +10,000 125,000 125,000 -0- 252,300 254,900 +2,600 181,300 186,300 +5,000 425,000 425,000 -0- Non -tax revenues are relatively stable overall, although projected interest on our balances is projected to fall another $10,000 due to very low investment and bank rates. Two of the most important non -tax revenues are building permit revenues and SKB fees. Building Permit Revenues During 2010, about 80 new dwelling units were built in Rosemount. We are anticipating that the final results for 2011 and 2012 will be about the same, and have budgeted building permit revenues to be about the same as in 2011. New construction by D.R. Horton and Lennar in Prestwick Place on Akron Avenue should help offset the expected completion of Glendalough in Evermoor. SKB Revenues The City approved a new agreement with SKB, inc. in 2008 that has been increasing our percentage of revenues from SKB's operations in Rosemount. In addition, SKB has had significant new contracts with 3M and Xcel Energy. Consequently, current revenue collections have exceeded our estimates for 2010 and 2011 to date. The draft budget for 2012 continues to designate $425,000 of SKB funds to support the operating budgets. We estimate that up to $500,000 will be available for capital budgeting purposes in 2011 and $400,000 for 2012. These funds will help fund council goals relating to senior housing and a senior center and a possible partnership with DCTC and the Y for new indoor recreation facilities. The capital improvement budgets will be presented for review later this year. EXPENDITURES Salaries Rosemount currently employs 77 full time employees. This number does not include two positions currently budgeted which we do not plan to fill in 2012: Building Inspector and GIS Coordinator. The Building Inspection employee was laid off in 2010 and we do not project that we will need to recall or refill that position in 2012. However, whenever permit numbers and revenues increase, staff anticipates requesting reinstatement of that position. One -half of the building inspector position was budgeted in 2011. In place of hiring a new GIS Coordinator, the plan is to promote the current GIS Technician to a full time position from the current 30 hour position and also budget for contractual GIS work from WSB. Once the GIS Technician is made full-time we will have 78 full-time employees, down from 80 a year ago. 4 Union contracts with all four of our bargaining units expire on December 31, 2011. Negotiations are expected to begin later this summer or early fall. There is no established trend for metro area wage settlements for 2012 at this early date. The trend for settlements in 2011 appears to be about 1.1% for public safety personnel and about 0.6% for all other employees, union and non - union. Just over one -half of all cities in our survey gave wage increases in 2011. Under State law, state arbitrators have the power to set City wages for the police officers and sergeants. It is too soon to determine whether or not we should consider an increase in wages for 2012, but given current trend and future uncertainties, we are not comfortable without any contingency for wages at this early date and have therefore included a contingency for wages in the Council designated account. Health Insurance In our original budgets we had planned for a health insurance increase of 20% but were able to reduce the budgets after we got the final cost on August 17th which reflected a 5% increase. The assumption of a 20% increase in health insurance added about $120,000 to the General Fund (taxes) and $142,000 city- wide. The decrease to 5% saved approximately $90,000 for the General Fund (taxes) and $108,000 city- wide. Fire Department Pay The current very low cost of our paid -on -call Fire Department (2nd lowest cost per capita expenditure among 225 cities compared by the State Auditor) is not sustainable. While we believe our fire pension is reasonably competitive, our pay for calls and our support for the management capacity of the department are well under other area departments. A recent survey showed that no other department pays less than $10 per hour, while our pay is currently $2 per call. While most of our calls are one hour or less, a few calls such as the Akron Avenue house fire can last many hours. On the management side, we are the only area department with no full-time staff. The current combined stipends of all of our officers, including the Chief, Assistant Chief, four Captains, four Lieutenants, two Training Officers and the Secretary is less than $25,000. Meanwhile, the complexity of managing a modern Fire Department keeps increasing over time. The ISO update of our Fire Insurance Rating last month took many hours of work. The task of buying the new pumper truck that the Council recently approved also takes many hours. Our east Rosemount industrial base requires us to train on many different types of hazards. Medical calls keep increasing. Recruiting new firefighters is an ongoing effort, and we have not yet met our goal of having 50 firefighters after Station 2 was opened. While we do not have a specific proposal to offer at this writing, the 2012 budget proposes to allocate $67,000 for improving the pay of firefighters and building our Fire Department management capacity. If this proposal eventually forestalls by even one year the need to hire full-time professional firefighters such as several other area cities, it will be a good investment. Fuel cost assumptions Fuel costs for 2012 will not be very predictable until December when we will sign a new fuel consortium agreement with the State. In this draft budget, we are increasing the expected price of fuel based on current market conditions. The increase shows up in the Fleet Maintenance budget where the motor fuel line item is increased by $45,000. Ice Arena The Council specifically asked that the staff review the possibilities for cost savings by closing the City's Ice Arena for several months in the summer. After earlier discussions with the Council the preliminary budgets have been left intact with a 12 -month operation for the Ice Arena. Notable other cost increases or decreases Other cost increases in the General Fund include Equipment Parts ($20,000) and Sidewalk Repairs ($12,000) in the Street Maintenance Division. The increase in equipment parts is based on past expenditure trends, extending the life of some items of equipment, and a difficult winter this year. A Sidewalk repairs have also been under budgeted in recent years, and funds were taken from the new construction fund at times to make the repairs. $15,000 has also been added to the Park Maintenance fund to allow for the reasonable probability that the City will enter into a partnership for use of the new DCTC east baseball field in 2012. It is not known yet whether we would contract for this work or add part -time staff and equipment. Two cost decreases are natural gas costs for our Government Buildings budget ($18,000) which is partially due to our new efficient boilers in the Steeple Center and a reduction of our Dakota Communications Center (DCC) costs (- $14,400). The DCC cost is based on usage and Rosemount's calls are down. Capital Budgets The City currently has three capital improvement program (CIP) funds: Equipment, Streets, and Buildings. Staff has not yet done a detailed review of the CIP and plans to bring a proposed 10 year CIP to the Council later this year. At this time, a review of the trends for the purpose of setting CIP levies for 2012 has been done. The forecast for the Equipment CIP last year showed a need to increase the levy for 2012 to $460,000, an increase of $21,000. This levy is recommended for the long term replacement of the fleet and is not based on expenditures in 2012 or any other particular year. This strategy allowed us to buy a $520,000 fire pumper this year without issuing debt. Actual recommendations for equipment replacement will come later this year. A new federal mandate on street sign retro- reflectivity goes into effect next year and requires the change out of most of our 750 regulatory and warning signs by January 2015. Guide signs and street name signs must be replaced by January 2018. We have a total of about 2,200 signs. Accordingly, $100,000 will be placed in the Equipment CIP for this purpose to be used over the next several years. Surplus SKB funds from 2011 will be allocated to the Equipment CIP to offset this expenditure. The Street CIP is proposed to have a levy of $720,000 for 2012. The low inflation rate and the minimal construction of new streets over the last year and the current high pavement management ratings indicate that no major increase is needed at this time. However, it is recommended that the trail and sidewalk construction appropriation of $125,000 per year in the General Fund be transferred to the Street CIP account to relieve the General Fund tax of this burden and to also segregate capital construction projects from the General Fund which is intended primarily for the City's operational costs. It is proposed that $125,000 of SKB revenue per year be allocated to the Street CIP to fund the ongoing trail and sidewalk construction projects. The Building CIP has an ongoing levy of $24,000 for 2012 which is for the repayment of an internal loan for the current Public Works facility. The Building CIP fund is intended to fund the City's share of a planned senior housing /senior center redevelopment project north of the Steeple Center and also may provide some funds for a possible partnership on an indoor recreational facility on DCTC property. It will also fund some improvements and updates planned for the Community Center. No tax levy above the current $24,000 is proposed. Additional SKB funds in the future along with proceeds from past General Fund surpluses will provide the funds for these projects. Enterprise Fund Budgets The City's Enterprise Funds include the Water Fund, Sewer Fund and Stormwater Fund. The Water Fund includes $154,000 for the interior painting of the Chippendale water tower next year. The Sewer Fund shows an increase in the Met Council sewer charges due to an increase in those charges to us for 2011. The staff and the Utility Commission are updating our 10 year rate model for these funds and plan to present proposed rate adjustments in December. Preliminary numbers show a rate increase of 5 to 5.5% will be needed for the water and sewer funds. A Debt Service Funds The City ended 2010 with a General Fund surplus. The Council approved a strategy that committed most of the surplus to continuing to offset existing debt levies, similar to what was approved for the previous two years. Enough funds were available from the 2010 surplus to make all of the remaining debt service payments on two debt issues, saving $225,842 in tax levies for 2012. Implementation of this strategy is once again a major reason why we have been able to propose an overall reduced tax levy for 2012. CONCLUSION Cities have some of the same issues with expenses beyond our control that many families experience. This year, we have to prepare for higher fuel costs, increases in health insurance, new federal mandates (street sign replacement) and even salaries are in some cases not within our final control under state law. We also should not indefinitely postpone our need to properly fund our very efficient Fire Department so that it can continue its fine service well into the future. At the same time, we benefit from a continuing reduction in debt levy requirements due to good management of past surplus funds, and we will benefit significantly from increased SKB revenues. We also are getting continually more efficient with new energy saving measures, new technology, and reallocation of personnel. We are pleased that we can present a responsible, sustainable budget and levy to you for your consideration that lowers the actual overall City tax levy for the third consecutive year, is projected to reduce taxes on the median home by an additional $38, and addresses the Council's goals. Accordingly, we recommend approval of the preliminary 2012 budget and tax levy as presented and establishing a public hearing date for the budget on December 6, 2011, at 7:30 p.m. 7 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2011 - A RESOLUTION SETTING THE PRELIMINARY 2012 GENERAL FUND OPERATING BUDGET, THE PRELIMINARY 2012 C.I.P. BUDGETS, THE PRELIMINARY 2012 INSURANCE BUDGET, THE PRELIMINARY 2012 PORT AUTHORITY OPERATING LEVY AND THE PRELIMINARY 2011 LEVY AND BUDGET HEARING DATE REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rosemount has determined that budgets and special needs for the year 2012 will be in the amount of $16,141,100 for the General Operating Fund, the three CIP Funds, the Insurance Fund, the Port Authority Fund and the Enterprise Funds; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that special levies for Bonded Indebtedness and the Armory Project total $527,326; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that actual incomes, fund transfers and anticipated aids will total $6,336,600. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the total Preliminary Levy certified to the Dakota County Auditor shall be $10,331,826; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Rosemount will conduct a Public Hearing for the purpose of presenting the proposed budget and levy to the general public and to comply with Truth in Taxation laws as set by the Minnesota State Legislature, and that the hearing shall take place on Tuesday, December 6, 2011, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at the City Hall. ADOPTED this 6th day of September. 2011. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk RESOLUTION 2011 - CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of Rosemount at a duly authorized meeting thereof, held on the 6t" day of September, 2011, as disclosed by the records of said City in my possession. (SEAL) Amy Domeier, Rosemount City Clerk FUNDING REQUIREMENTS - USES (INCLUDING FIRE STATION LEVY) September 6, 2011 Departments Council Budget Administration Budget Elections Budget Finance Budget General Government Budget Community Development Budget Police Budget Fire Budget Public Works Operating Budgets: Government Buildings Budget Fleet Maintenance Budget Street Maintenance Budget Parks Maintenance Budget Park & Rec Budget - General Operating Park & Rec Budget - Steeple Ctr. Operations Park & Rec Budget - Special Programs Transfers - Arena Assistance Total Operating Budgets - General Fund Transfers - Debt Service Levies Total Of All Budgets - General Fund Building CIP Requirements Street CIP Requirements Equipment CIP Requirements Insurance Budget Requirements Port Authority Operating Levy Bonded Indebtedness Bonded Indebtedness - Fire Station Levy Armory Anticipatory Levy (Value 2/18/10) "$2,060,560,350 x.00798% _ $164,433*" Water Enterprise Fund Sewer Enterprise Fund Storm Water Enterprise Fund Arena Enterprise Fund Total Funding Requirements 2011 2012 Adopted Proposed +!- Budget --- -------- ------- Budget ---- -- --- ------ -- Difference ----------- - - - --- Percentage --------------- - $237,100 $280,800 $43,700 18.43% 516,600 510,200 (6,400) -1.24% 22,000 42,000 20,000 90.91% 422,400 421,600 (800) -0.19% 385,100 378,500 (6,600) -1.71% 929,500 898,400 (31,100) - 3.35% 3,118,500 3,061,700 (56,800) -1.82% 303,600 377,500 73,900 24.34% 491,900 484,400 (7,500) -1.52% 569,800 635,900 66,100 11.60% 1,370,100 1,315,300 (54,800) -4.00% 736,200 764,700 28,500 3.87% 1,072,700 1,085,300 12,600 1.17% 87,500 58,900 (28,600) - 32.69% 102,400 101,600 (800) - 0.78% 115,000 - ---- --- ---- - - - - -- 115,000 -------- -- ---- - -- 0 -------- 0.00% $10,480,400 $10,531,800 ---- --- -- $51,400 --------------- 0.49% 362,376 ------------ - - - - -- 0 ------ ------ - -- - -- (362,376) ------- ------- - - -- n/a --------------- $10,842,776 $10,531,800 ($310,976) - -2.87% 44,000 24,000 (20,000) - 45.45% 710,000 720,000 10,000 1.41% 439,000 460,000 21,000 4.78% 245,000 245,000 0 0.00% 58,600 58,600 0 0.00% 168,914 441,326 272,412 161.27% 143,654 0 (143,654) - 100.00% 86,000 86,000 0 0.00% 1,173,000 1,261,900 88,900 7.58% 1,678,100 1,780,400 102,300 6.10% 610,000 607,800 (2,200) -0.36% 426,400 ------ ------ - - ---- 451,600 ---------- --- ----- 25,200 --- ------- 5.91% $16,625,444 $16,668,426 --- - ---- $42,982 --------------- 0.26% NOTE: Special Levies include (1)Bonded Indebtedness, (2)Fire Station Levy and (3)Armory Anticipatory Levies. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS -SOURCES (INCLUDING FIRE STATION LEVY) September 6, 2011 Types Internal Revenue Generated: Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Fines & Forfeits Recreational Fees Miscellaneous Revenues Transfers In Enterprise Revenues Total Internal Revenues MVHC Cuts Made Later To Include in Levy Levy Sources: Special Levies General Levy Total Levy Loss of MVHC from State Funding Total Revenue Sources 2011 2012 128,758 32.31% Adopted Proposed (759,083) +/- Budget -- ---- -------- Budget ------- -- ---- -- - --- Difference -- --- ------- - - - - -- Percentage --------------- 360,100 362,300 2,200 0.61% 624,700 634,500 9,800 1.57% 658,400 668,400 10,000 1.52% 125,000 125,000 0 0.00% 252,300 254,900 2,600 1.03% 181,300 186,300 5,000 2.76% 3,500 3,500 0 0.00% 3,887,500 4,101,700 214,200 5.51% ---------- - - - --- 6,092,800 ----- ----- --- - - - - -- 6,336,600 ------- -- -- - - - - - -- 243,800 --------------- 4.00% 429,507 0 398,568 527,326 128,758 32.31% 10,563,583 9,804,500 (759,083) -7.19% --------- ----- --- $10,962,151 ------------- - - - --- ---- $10,331,826 --------- - - - --- --------------- ($630,325) -5.75% $429,507 $0 ($429,507) - 100.00% --------- -------- -- $16,625,444 ------------- - - - - -- ------------- $16,668,426 - - ---- --------------- $42,982 0.26% NOTE: Special Levies include (1)Bonded Indebtedness, (2)Fire Station Levy and (3)Armory Anticipatory Levies. 2011 GENERAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY PAYABLE 2012 GENERAL LEVY GENERAL FUND $8,296,900 BUILDING CIP FUND $24,000 STREET CIP FUND $720,000 EQUIPMENT CIP FUND $460,000 INSURANCE FUND $245,000 PORT AUTHORITY OPERATING LEVY $58,600 TOTAL GENERAL LEVY $9,804,500 BONDEDINDEBTEDNESS G.O. PUBLIC FACILITY BONDS 2001C (Port Authority) (Authorized - $169,675) $0 G.O. COMMUNITY CENTER REFUNDING BONDS 2001 E (Authorized - $93,311) $0 G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS 2003A (Authorized - $86,354) (City Assumed Special Assessments) $0 G.O. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) BONDS 2005A (Authorized - $211,486) $211,486 G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS 2006B (Authorized - $267,642) $0 G.O. EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES 2007B (Authorized - $108,780) $0 PUBLIC SAFETY REVENUE BONDS 2007 (Dakota Communications Center) (Authorized - $62,948) $62,948 G.O. EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES 2008A (Authorized - $90,913) $0 G.O. PUBLIC FACILITY REFUNDING BONDS 2010B (Old 2001C) (Port Authority) (Authorized - $166,892) $166,892 TOTAL BONDED INDEBTEDNESS $441,326 MARKET VALUE BASED REFERENDUMS G.O. FIRE STATION REFUNDING BONDS, 2005D (Authorized - $139,488) $0 ------------------- - - - - -- TOTAL FIRE STATION LEVY $0 ------------------- - - - - -- PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON ARMORY BONDS ARMORY ANTICIPATORY LEVIES ($2,034,727,200 x.00798% = $162,372) (As of 1/8/11) $86,000 (Authorized - $162,372 - Only Levy Amount Due MSABC) ------------------- - - - - -• TOTAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON ARMORY BONDS $86,000 GRAND TOTAL 2011 PROPERTY TAX LEVY $10,331,826 -------- - - - - -- -------------- Last Updated 8124111 SPREAD LEVY COMPUTATIONAL WORKSHEET (INCLUDING FIRE STATION LEVY) Total Funding Requirements Less: Internal Revenues Less: Market Value Based Levy - Fire Station (See Below) Equals: Revenues Needed Add Back in State MVHC Cuts to Reflect Actual Levy Levy Certified by City to County Auditor County Auditor Adjustments (All Subtractions) Fiscal Disparities Distribution Levy (Metro Area) 1,141,159 1,195,913 1,299,717 (Proposed) Spread Levy Used to Compute Local Tax Rate 2009 ----- ---- ------- 2010 ----- --- ---- - - --- 2011 -- ---- -- --- - - - - -- 2012 --------------- -- -3.34% 17,288,034 17,059,244 16,625,444 16,668,426 143,654 6,210,900 6,332,500 6,092,800 6,336,600 146,084 142,273 143,654 0 3) 10,931,050 10,584,471 10,388,990 10,331,826 350,330 412,575 429,507 0 11,281,380 10,997,046 10,818,497 10,331,826 Fiscal Disparities Distribution Levy (Metro Area) 1,141,159 1,195,913 1,299,717 1,252,954 (2) Spread Levy Used to Compute Local Tax Rate --- ----- --- -- - --- --- ------ ---- - --- 10,140,221 (1) 9,801,133 (1) - ----- ----- - - ---- 9,518,780 (1) --------------- -- 9,078,872 Increase /(Decrease) from Previous Year in Spread Levy -3.34% -2.88% -4.62% Market Value Based Referendum Levy - Fire Station 146,084 142,273 143,654 0 (3) (1) Actual Spread Levy Based on Numbers from Dakota County (2) 2012 Number Provided by Dakota County as of 8/18/11 (3) Market Value Based Levy for Fire Station - Based on $139,488 Levy Spread to Taxable Market Value on 1/8/11 Last Update from Dakota County 1/8/11 Shows the Levy of $139,488 / $2,034,727,200 = $.0686 per $1,000 as our Estimate (For 2012 No Levy Needed so No Impact on the Taxpayers) Last Updated - 8124/11 S d5,2m xx d d i do Z° 3 m0.7 ° xx ° nZ A � m :°c x3 3 ° n a ;1 ;tn 0?O's gC�OODaOa O 0c �c c7 A n - ) � w cZ] G i' c . n G 4. m ° �2 m 13.e. d m o imp �O Z� a w 3 3 3 3 00 o00 IS it n u n it 8 o. o p I $ o + o 0 0 o N N!pp II 8� ANtpN�� W A O �1 N � N (p� O N!Q4p! II 8O NIJ A N O o. I I U I N U U fJi f v O 1 V W S m N U S m p° Ip A O { 11 ' O O O O O O 11 II II II I I O O O O N j I 11 ,goo r +p ! Qy� O II i p 11 . !Do O O N N IIII N A i + ++ S N8 II OI i t +�pp NP OI WAW mpW II P N +ONO I +mN�Op� N S II U UIU° A W O A oR V NftO.)N OWO �jpNp> U°I Ol II U I DIO tO+ O O II O N W UU I NNtOA W o I t�pp II + NU10U 1 UU01U V °+v V +V II U I See— d + i S II I II II I t II 000 �� i i II O O o Nis 11 H O S O I I 1t 1 l N N N W U O V + U U II IOC I ( GS p o N w I I H O S I I+ I O G U N o O Ibm Sl U ♦1 N O A 2 8 O O Q� 6 .� II 11 II II II j ' 11 II II II I It II � 1 II 000 II II O 00 II pv QV S II II 8S 11 O poNIJA N II N SS II + oOoO C 1 w II II + ++ N O N pOp II + I eA�pp U V W O1 +O 11 N " IV s II L U N W N p T o O(b' II + II W W W + rOUOO+ NN01 Ii S UfWO QNI (WO/�� mN1 II V +V+V tD �A�pp W A OI IV �j II S t0 W N(WN� Nlp � V +� II U 11 ODU W NJAO � mN II U � V +tp 00 O II A +UAA V 01 W V oSN II U r�dm W N N C K a p II II �V . 6 A T ° m S 9T A ° m 7N 7 . IIII I I W IIII I I NO0OIII N W tO 08 v 0S 0 V I11 I 1 O0p0 � I�Op O btAO O O {� U ppO 1 11I1 I 1 H dOm0 � i �NUN O i NNfON V 0$ W N 0O O O R n 8 N mlo. + 1 m 0 O Q�lO j I�I1III � I 1 I I 11 J+ V II U t0 U�D+ W O H p j T II II 11 tl I i II G. an d a 1 m w C II 11 0 0 0 11 I 11 0 0 0 II j 7 N f 3 o an d n u n o00 o II o0o + 0000 !.f c n O T II y II NOIO U U U NOI W O S 11 p+1 Olp+tb N 11 Cp I A W i V N b� C 11 OO 11 U t N N O 11 IIpp U °I �O °1 111 11 N Npp N S II pOp t(�jpl N N a' ! ? O w j m O 11 11 W U( NUN N U1 O1 11 U S +NO W S I Sf01O 10 W 11 rD U 11 m mJ+ p f0 tD �O �O O II i+ U N Ip V 0 II U ° w o p r z u n o 0 N o pV 1 gN NO p NN N N P S V IIt H + O it R m O O O O II I O NUfiI O IN J o .m O 0 N (1 ° W A O I 8 o j I + m m 00 e +7 a c m BeS 3 pm cn 3 m< •°. of Q it x u ii 3 ° ii 1g m =`, Goo ii o 0000 N o II °p °° 11 I I O d ?5 x 0 °pIO 3 A ONS II W NNP 8 'c II N + SqN 11 o poNayo N _ 63 °., CI S+p II dVI i �t�pp W + +N OAI UU �q+ m 3 m m S m me +ANWOI 11 U j OI Ol� O II S +Ol AtAT N NNO J v I� m t0 b� 000+111 U X CCO m Q DQ V ON n w 11 C II 1 O I to E m ? m V .. It Y II II N f W !0 V 3 000 II y II pop 11 O O 6 a N (NN� OQpy S QQOy �I 4 A +l mmN1 N X II N pp N O N S II S N S INO m N m d m N O V W W 11 U fO p+p N N m II q♦ OP1 m I O A m A U U II N t0 N P� O i Q� ` ,O p p O G j3 t0 ( N 0N� N t0 N'� 000 It II I 000 O 6 m Iv A m V Z d+ j O O O II + O O O O o C 11 U I pp p 8 11 + Popp + N U 14d01I QOp1 8U (pW.fY ++ O NpO II �OpNN 8101Q 11 O �pNNA o +U A OA U1S NNOI II S i CC (WOUfWII m 11 pp1 I +U I AAJ f�Nbj 11 S lltlbQ W N O v nN m N II U I V +b U y II W �p N N i m� +N o m N 11 U J %S U _ _ O II I II I i 11 +m m + O O O II II 11 W N M m n O O O II + O O O o N q 11 qO O ggg Og II u + ,v,S ii o o`02 yaoya + + O ON ° II U I N �1+A G � II �+ A V AAJ N II U +�pml+q O U ° u rO S ii on wrn "i mJi N v�� ii UUU Oo I O II U 10 Sb tDm tAO+ U A aov av w ,1 D II I it mpm 9m °. 000 II j 'I 000 II G,a O tmi 0 m o S j tj� fop ot0+ K m 1 3 3 J N 11 H 80 0 II o poN O + N( m ITI II �Np + 1 (� 8pN1 pO II U (U_p OpIU OOiI (11 m V OO II S I StU0 tA0m II S' ONO W' NNNA V S8 II U tO tNO fAO ID a i m m 3�m m m — —^'� = o ... O O 7 m m m 6 v N v d V d d d d O m N m C a O D O 4 o m 3'm m a m m < m I J N U V I IN N HU I OHO N m A O A I n I � 1O !A Q N M i0 iz I 1 DAKOTA COUNTY City of Rosemount PROPERTY TAXATION & RECORDS TAXING DISTRICT NAME PAYABLE 2012 PROPOSED LEVY CERTIFICATION FORM FORM B Expendritre Gateg ©ry Budges Requirement Local Gumi Ald Otherert�f>ed Leuy Resources . v+,„yi;aw4 General Revenue $ 16,141,100 $ -0- $ 6,336,600 $ 9,804,500 Debt - General Obligation* 527,326 -0- -0- 527,326 Debt - Other* Road and Bridge Other (identify) Total Based Levy $ 16y,, 6,68y, 426 $ -0- $ 6,336,600 $ 10, 331, 826 YTt scrap 1t7tARKETF�EEET1DlM S �i - S Ni N m mk x.Er.., Debt - General Obligation* -0- -0- Debt- Other* Other Total Mkt Referendum Levy $ -0- $ $ $ -0- Total of °alliLevres s i6,668,.4Z'fi. . $ -G s ;`33&,t,6_01_&,, $ 10, 31„$26 * Provide a breakdown of the certified levy by individual bond on the reverse side or attach an additional sheet. A- Budget Requirement .............................................. ............................... Amount needed to fund services. (See Attached) B -LGA (Local Government Aid) ................................. ............................... These aids are certified to the taxing district by the Department of Revenue. This can be used to reduce any budget item levy requirement, combination of items or be deducted proportionally from all levies. C -Other Resources ................................................... ............................... All other resources that will be used to finance your taxing districts budget. Including but not limited to other aids, interest income, prior year reserves, grants, etc. D- Cartified Levy ......................................................... ............................... Levy certified to the County Treasurer- Auditor. ROUND TO THE NEAREST WHOLE DOLLAR. DO NOT CERTIFY PENNIES. The Treasurer - Auditor's office will deduct Fiscal Disparities from all certified levies. Before signing, please verify the following: -MAKE SURE THAT ALL LINES ADD ACROSS AND ALL COLUMNS ADD UP TO THE TOTAL LINE - BREAKDOWN OF DEBT SERVICE LEVY BY INDIVIDUAL BOND HAS BEEN PROVIDED - AMOUNTS REPOD MATCH ANY OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION INCLUDED e (i rtifi jLeTf on t h' form matches amount on your taxing district's resolution, etc.) 651- 322 -2031 Signature of er mpleting form Phone number (including area -code) Finance trector 9 -9 -11 Title Date LEVY CERTIFICATION Debt Service Schedule PLEASE NOTE: All debt must be accounted for in your resolution whether it is a part of your levy or not. If the amount levied is less than the required amount from the payment schedule for the bond, you must pass a resolution stating that you have sufficient funds for that bond. This can be included in the same resolution with your levy. Dakota County will be verifying the levy requirements based on the payment schedule in our Bond Register (see attached, if applicable). You must submit your resolution with this certification form. Required payment per Bond Description Debt Schedule (See Attached) is Local Amount Funded Gvmt by Other Aid Sources (B) (C) $ Is Certified Levy A -B -C =D Debt Service Total ** Is is Is 1$ ** This must match the totals for Debt Service reported on the front. List other funding sources I DAKOTA COUNTY OFFICE OF PROPERTY TAXATION & RECORDS PAYABLE 2012 TRUTH IN TAXATION PUBLIC BUDGET MEETING DATE CERTIFICATION FORM A Taxing District Name: City of Rosemount Public Meeting Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 Time of meeting: 7:30 P.M. Place of meeting: Rosemount City Hall (including address) 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 PLEASE PROVIDE CONTACT INFORMATION, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER AS YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO APPEAR ON THE TNT NOTICES (Five lines only - 36 characters per line including spaces.) Name and/or Title: Finance Director Address: City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West Phone number Website or E -mail Address: No personal (home) e-mail addresses please. Signature of person completing this form Title: Phone number Rosemount, MN 55068 (651) 423 -4411 www.ci.rosemount.mn.us If you would like an e-mail contact or your websiie iisted on the notice, please complete. Note7jL �ot required to provide this information. Finance Director / (651) 322 -2031 Date: September 9, 2011 * ** *Please include area code when identifying phone numbers * * ** CITIES AND COUNTY: This form must be returned to PT &R by September 15, 2011. SCHOOL DISTRICTS: This form must be returned to PT &R by October 7,2011.