The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8. 2000 Tax Rate Increase Authorization CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 21, 1999 AGENDA lTEM: Public Hearing for 2000 Tax Rate Increase AGENDA SECTION: Authorization Public Hearing PREPARED BY: Jeff May, Finance Director AGEND O. �� ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Memo from Dakota County, APPROVED BY: Memo from Minnesota Department of Revenue ' c The public hearing this evening is for the new 1999 legislation that was passed mandating all cities and counties approve a resolution to levy a dollar amount higher than that ca(culated by#he County Treasurer-Auditor which would result in a higher levy certification tax rate for the year 2000. The resolution must be adopted at a "public hearing". It is not completely clear if the "hearing" has to be a public hearing as we think of them or just as an agenda item as part of a regularfy scheduled council meeting. After talking to the Department of Revenue and the League of Minnesota Cities, it was decided to conduct a "public hearing" as we do for other items(iike special assessments) but that there is no specia! notification requirements as there are for other items. Holding the public hearing will sufficiently meet all of the legislation's requirements. The resolution before you this evening is general in nature just stating that the levy certification rate will increase. There will be no amount listed and there is none required. This is confusing because we anticipate that our tax capacity rate wifl be actually decreasing for 2000 because of our growth, but with the guidelines that the County received from the new legislation for these purposes our levy amount and levy rate show an increase. This resolution needs to be approved by the City council and delivered to the County prior to October 20th or our levy will be frozen at the 1999 level. At this time most cities and counties are approving the resolution regardless if they think they will have an increase or not to protect themselves in the event that they will. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TAX RATE 1NCREASE FOR THE 1999 TAX LEVY, COLLECTiBLE IN 2000. COUNCIL AGTION: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 1999 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TAX RATE tNCREASE . FOR THE 1999 TAX LEVY, COLLECTIBLE IN 200Q BE IT RESOLVED by the council of the City of Rosemount, County of Dakota, Minnesota, that the County Auditor is authorized to fix a property tax rate for taxes payable in the year 2000 that is higher than the tax rate calculated pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 204B.135 for the City far taxes levied in 1998, collectible in 1999. Adoption of this resolution does not prohibit the City from certifying a final Isvy that will result in no tax rate increase or a tax rate decrease. ADOPTED this 21 st day of September, 1999. Cathy Busho, Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk CERTIFICATION I certifyr that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of Rosemount, Minnesota at a duly authorize� meeting thereof, held on the 21 st day of September, 1999, as disclosed by the records of said City in my possession. (SEAL) Susan M. Walsh, Rosemount City Clerk Motion by: Seconded by: Voted in favor: Voted Against: T J C O U N T Y DAKOTA COUNTY TREASURER-AUDITOR Dakota County Administration Center 1590 Highway 55 Hastings MN 55033 651.438.4576 Fax 651.438.4391 www.co.dakota.mn.us MEMORANDUM DATE: September 9, 1999 TO: City Finance Directors & County Board FROM: Amy Koethe,Dakota County Tauation Dept. SUBJECT: Rate Certification This memo is in regards to the levy certification rate that needs to be sent to all Cities,over S00 population,and Counties. The certification is part of the 19991egislation that was passed mandating that al1 Cities& Counties need a resolution to levy a dollar amount higher than that calculated by the County Treasurer-Auditor which would result in a higher levy certification tax rate. The resolution must be adopted at a public hearing. The `hearing' may be handled as an item on the agenda of a regularly scheduled city counciUcounty boazd meeting. No published notice is required unless the `hearing' is scheduled as a special meeting to adopt such resolution. The resolution only has to state that the `levy certification rate will increase'. It does not need to state the amount of the increase. I am sending you the calculation Qf the leyy certification tax rate that the citylcaunty ma�t levy without the passage of the resolution. A resolution must be returned to our o�ce on or before October 20`�. Please review the attached worksheet. You will need to compare your proposed levy, after HACA, after general obligation debt, and after the reduction of the payable 2000 fiscal disparity distribution tag(Line 6 of the worksheet),to Line 9 of the worksheet. If this levy is greater than Line 9, a resolution must be adopted approving this increase. If the resolution is not received by October 20�`, our office cannot levy a dollar amount that would result in a levy certification t�rate higher than the one that I am certifying at this time. If you have any questions regazding this information,please feel free to contact me at . (651).438-4370. 49tevycertificationzateletter.doc � - MINNESOTA Department of Revenue : Property Tax Division Mail Station 3340 St.Paul,MI�'S5146-3340 Phone(651)296-315� Fax(651)297-2166 June 11, 1999 To: Count�• Auditors and Cit�• Finance Officials � Re: Ne�`• La��• Regarding Tax Rate Increase Hearings and Resolution A provision in the 1999 Omnibus Tax Bill requires counties and cities to hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution before a"le�y certification tax rate" increase may be allo«•ed. This public hearing is in addition to and earlier than the Truth in Taxation hearinQ required for courities and for cities o��er 500 population. (La«�s 1999, Chapter 243, Article 6, Section 2) Under this new la«�, the county auditor is required to certify the follo«�ing information to the county board and to the go��eming bod}�of each city«�ithin the county, on or before October 1, 1999, and on or before October 1 each year thereafter. The certification to a citv that is located in more than one county is to be made b}�the"home"county auditor. (1) The taxing authority's final total certified le�y under M.S. 275.08 for the current taxes payable year (net taa capacity based taxes and market valne based taxes combined), minus (a) The total amount le��ied for general obli�ation bonds for the current taxes payable year(net tah capacity based and market value based taxes combined); (b) The fiscal disparit}�contribution lei•��. if any, under M.S. 276A.06, Subd. 3 (Iron Range counties and cities) or 1�4.S. 473F.08, Subd. 3 (counties and cities within the 7-count}�metropolitan area) for the follo�ti•in�taxes�avable vear; and (c) The sum of the net tax capacit}� adjustment amount and the fiscaI disparity adjustment amount for the determination of the homestead and aQricultural credit aid (HACA)pavable in the follo�1�ine vear. (The Property Tax Di�-ision af the Department of Revenue will certify these amounts to the county auditor later this summer.) (2) The taain� authority's taxable net tax capacity for the current assessment year, for ta�es payable in the following year. This is the total net tax capacity minus the pow�er line, tax increment, and fiscal disparity contribution net tax capacities. This is the same definition of"taxable net tax capacit}"that is used for the taxable net tax capacit�� used in determinin� local tax rates. (3) The "te��y certification tax rate"obtained bv di�•iding (]) abo��e by(2) abo��e, rounded to the nearest hundredth percent (000.00°o). � Conti�rtied... A�r eyiral opportuniti•enrpl�i�cr- ?Tf�?DD.�(6�1/'!.i-0069 If the county board or the governing body of a city intends to impose a"levy certification • tax rate" for all purposes other than general obligation bonds at a rate higher than the rate certified by the county auditor above, the county board or the governing body of the city must first hold a public hearing on the tax rate increase, adopt a resolution approving the tax rate increase, and file a copy of the iesolution with the county auditor on or before October 20, 1999,or on or before October 20 of each year thereafter. The resolution does not ha��e to specifj�the amount of increase in the rate. It only has to affirm that the rate will increase. � The county auditor is prohibited from extending a levy for the county or for a city for purposes other than general obligation bonds that would produce a"le�y certification tax rate"that is higher than the rate that was certified by the county auditor in accordance �vith the procedures described above unless the required resolution has been recei��ed from the county board or from the governing body of the city. A"levy certification tax rate" increase without a resolution is allowable if the tax rate increase is due solely to a reduction in the taxing authority's final taxable net tax capacity from the taxable net ta� capacity that was certified on October l,resulting from property tax classification provision changes, tax exemptions, tax court judgments, or clerical or administrative errors made by the county. All cities are subject to this neu• la�z�, including the cities of 500 population or less that are exempt from the Truth in Taxation hearing requirements. School districts and special taxing districts are exempt from this ne«• la«�. "General obliQation bonds"means regular GO bonds, general obligation spzcial assessment bonds payable in part by a property tax le��y, and GO revenue bonds that require a propem�tax le�-y to co�•er a shortage in the non-tax re�-enues pledged to pay the debt sen�ice an the bonds. "General obligation bonds" includes bonds payable by a property tax le��}�on referendum market ��alue as «�ell as bonds payable by a property tax le�•v on taxable net tax capacit}'. "General obligation bonds"does not include capital notes, certificates of indebtedness, or certificates of participation. It does not include pa}ments made to the State Armory Building Commission to pay the principal and interest on armory construction bonds. It also does not include the bonds of another political subdivision. For example,payments by a county under a lease/purchase agreement �;�ith a county HRA that are used by the HRA to pay the debt service on bonds issued by the HRA to construct the facilities leased by the county v��ould not be deducted from the county's final total certified le�y for payable 1999 in determining its "le�y certification tax rate." � For the purpose of this ne�� la��, "public hearing"includes, but is not limited to,regularly scheduled city council hearings and county board meetings. This means that the required hearing under this la�� does not ha�•e to be a special hearing scheduled solely for the purpose of discussing a proposed tax rate increase and for adopting the required resolution. An exarliple of ho«'the county auditor is to determine a`'le��}� certification tax rate"is enclosed. 2 . If you have any questions concerning this letter,please contact me. Sincerely, � � �/�E'/�---- Richard B. Gardner • Research Analyst Supervisor Senior Enclosure 3 r 85 E.SEVENTH PLACE,SUITE 100 SAINT PAUL,MN 55101-2887 '' 651-223-3000 FAX:651-223-3002 �� . SPRINGSTED Public Finance Advisors $4,395,000 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLlGATlON IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1999B (BOOK ENTRY ONLY) AWARD: NORWEST INVESTMENT SERVICES, lNC. _ And Associate SALE: September 21, 1999 Moody's Rating: Aaa MBIA Insured interest Net Interest True Interest Bidder Rates Price Cost Rate NORWEST INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC. 4.15% 2002 $4,357,642.50 $1,237,158.33 4.8151% John G. Kinnard&Company 4.30% 2003 4.40% 2004 4.50% 2005 4.60% 2006 4.70% 2007 4.80% 2008 4.90% 2009 5.00% 2010 5.05% 2011 U.S. BANCORP PIPER JAFFRAY INC. 4.20% 2002 $4,354,502.43 $i,237,397.57 4.8221% First Union Capital Markets Corporation 4.50% 2003-2005 4.60% 2006-2007 4.70% 2008 4.80% 2009 4.90% 2010 5.00% 2011 PAINEWEBBER INCORPORATED 4.40% 2002-2005 $4,348,196.20 $1,238,918.80 4.8311% MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER 4.50% 2006 CIBC OPPENHEIMER CORPORATlON 4.60% 2007 EVEREN SECURITIES, INC. 4.70% 2008 4.90% 2009 5.00% 2010-2011 (Continued) SAINT PAUL,MN • MINNEAPOLIS,MN • MILWAUKEE,WI • OVERLAND PARK,KS • WASNINGTON,DC • DES MOINES,IA c Interest Net Interest True Interest Bidder Rates Price Cost Rate � SALOMON SMITH BARNEY 4.20% 2001 $4,355,696.75 $1,244,549.92 4.8452% CRONfN &COMPANY, INCORPORATED 4.30°l0 2003 4.40% 2004 4.50% 2005 4.60% 2006 4.70% 2007 5.00% 2008-2011 MILLER, JOHNSON & KUEHN, INC. 4.20% 2002 $4,349,306.40 $1,246,165.27 4.8566% DOUGNERTY SUMM4T SECURITIES LLC 4.30% 2003 4.40% 2004 4.50% 2005 4.60% 2006 4.70% 2007 4.80% 20Q8 4.90°l0 2009 5.00% 2010 5.05% 2011 HARRIS TRUST& SAVINGS BANK 4.25% 2002 $4,354,785.00 $1,250,125.83 4.8708% FIRST TENNESEE CAPITAL MARKETS 4.375% 2003 WACHOVIA SECURlTIES, INC. 4.50% 2004 Kinin Securities, Inc. 4.60% 2005 Southwest Securities, Inc. 4.65% 2006 4.75°!0 2007 4.85°!0 2008 4.90% 2009 4.95°to 2010 5.00°Io 2011 DAIN RAUSCHER INCORPORATED 4.20% 2002 $4,348,772.50 $1,252,383.75 4.$814°l0 4.35% 2003 4.40% 2004 4.50% 2005 4.625% 2006 4.75% 2007 4.90% 2008 5.00% 2009-2011 ROBERT W.$AIRD 8�COMPANY, 4.45% 2002 $4,370,255.35 $1,258,122.15 4.8924% INCORPORATED 4.55°l0 2003 4.65% 2004-2005 4.75°10 2006 4.85% 2007 4.90% 2008-2009 5.00% 2010 5.10% 2011 J.C. BRADFORD 8�CO. 4.50% 2002-2005 $4,346,655.00 $1,256,273.75 4.9025% 4.625°l0 2006 4.65% 2007 4.75% 2008 4.85% 2009 4.95% 2010 5.05°10 2011 (Continued) � Jnterest Netlnterest True Interest ' Bidder Rates Price Cost Rate GRIFFIN, KUBIK, STEPHENS& 4.40% 2002 $4,356,000.00 $1,259,495.00 4.9085% THOMPSON, INC. 4.50% 2003 4.60% 2004-2005 4.70% 2006 4.80% 2007-2008 4.90% 2009 5.00% 2010-2011 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Bonds are being reoffered at par. BBI: 5.69% Average Maturiry: 5.85 Years