HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. Budget DiscussionCITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUb[MARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:November 24, 1992
AGENDA ITEM: 1993 Budget review
AGENDA SECTION:
COUNCIL ACTION:
PREPARED BY: Stephan Jilk
AGENDI
� �r +
Vj •/
ATTACM0NTS: Memo
APP
Y:
The purpose of this evenings meeting is to continue discus
General Fund Operating budget, 1993 1997 CIP budget, and
for 1993. The Council has had several discussions on the
and has set the preliminary levy for 1993.
But much of the Councils time has involved direct input fx
citizenry,on the format of the budget and suggestions on E
proposed expenditures.
This input has been valuable and I will assure the Council
City staff will provide several changes in the way the bud
drafted and presented to make fora more readable product.
V
ion of the 1993
proposed levies
'oposed budget
the general
of the
that I and the
et document is
The Council will be holding a. public hearing on the proposed budget and the
prposed levy on December 10, 1992. At that hearing, or on the date it is
to be continued to which is December 17th, 1992 the Council must approve
the 1993 operating and CIP budgets and adopt the 1993 le
So that city staff may develop the final draft of the bud et for
consideration at the public hearing it is essential that Ne City Council
and City staff work together to set this final document.
I have provided an additional overview of the budget in i s present form
and what it reflects as far as changes from 1992 in the meas of service,
personnel and costs.
I have also outlined the type of changes I have asked Jeff May, our Finance
Director to make in the manner in which the budget docume t is put together
and presented.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action - consensus on fin1
budget for the public hearing on De
draft of
ember 10, 1992
COUNCIL ACTION:
eity of (Rosemouni
PHONE (612) 423.4411 2875 - 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota
FAX (612) 423-5203 Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 510, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068-0510
TO: Mayor McMenomy
Council Members: Rlassen, Staats, Willcox,
FROM: Stephan Jilk, City Administrato
DATE: November 20, 1992
RE: Budget Review/Discussion
November 24, 1992
The purpose for discussing the 1993 budgets on Tuesc
will be to gain,consensus for developing a final dra
document for consideration at our public hearing on
1992.
MAYOR
Edward B. McMenomy
COUNCILMEMBERS
Sheila Kiassen
James (Red) $tests
Harry Willcox
Dennis Wippennann
ADMINISTRATOR
Stephan Jilk
Wippermann
ay, November 24,
ft of the
December 10,
Following is a brief review of the work -conducted or. the proposed
budget to this date. Additionally, we are attempting to make
significant changes in the format of the budget document to make
it more "user" friendly.
On August 11, 1992, the 1993 Operating and CIP Budgets were
presented to you for your consideration. Following that initial
discussion Council direction was to work with city staff to
reduce the proposed budget to a level not to exceed a 100
increase from 1992 to 1993.
At that meeting the Council also gave direction to make some
$155,000 in cuts in the proposed CIP. Staff was to return on
September 9th with recommended changes at the given direction of
the Council.
On September 9th I provided to you a revised budget which
reflected the changes requested. The resulting budet provided
for:
1. $216,359 in Operating Budget reductions as proposed for
1993.
2. $231,200 in CIP Budget reductions as proposed for 1993.
This figure included the $155,000 cuts the Cou cil directed.
3. The total reductions amounted to $447,379 (1.
6verylhing s coming (Up RoseinouvdY
`.� ecvoea Dane..
2.)
This second draft of the budget provided for:
A.
A 1993 Operating Budget of.......
$3,566,878
B.
A 1993 CIP Budget of .............
$
269,535
C.
Retirement/Severance Cost of.....
$
60,000
D.
Debt Service of ...............
$
388,587
E.
Armory/Community Center Cost of..
$
223,713
TOTAL .......
$4.508,683
This proposed budget caused a levy need of $2,996,096
increase over 1992.
or a 9.021
On September 9th, 1992, after considerable review and minor
changes the Council approved a preliminary budget of 3,585,878
and a preliminary levy of $3,015,096 for 1993.
Since September 9 Council has considered input from the general
public at two Council meetings. At these meetings the public
voiced concerns about the format of the budget document and about
proposed salary adjustments. The Council then took a vote on
October 27, 1992, considering a wage freeze, for City employees in
1993. This motion was defeated and the Council directed that
City staff was to draft a work program to complete a review of
the current salary/benefit compensation program with
recommendation on developing a revised compensation program. A
proposal from Mr. Cy Smythe of Labor Relations, Inc. ill be
presented on December 15, 1992 for completions of thi s work.
The proposed budget contains appropriations for 3%� in reases in
salaries across the board as a cost of living adjustor nt,
increases for employees who are working through their salary
structure based on agreements at the times of hiring 9.nd/or
promotion and satisfactory performance.
The City is currently considering proposals from the wo existing
employee unions. A third union representing an addit'onal 19
city employees, is now being voted on by those employ es. If
that third union is voted in, the City will have to n gotiate
with those employees through the bargaining process.
Notice of Hearing for the Truth in Taxation have been
Dakota County. As required by law, these notices ind
several items in regard to the property being taxed.
these items indicates the change in City tax from 199
If a change is indicated it can be caused by one or n
factors.
2
sent out by
icate
One of
2 to 1993.
ore of many
Some of these are:
1. An increase in the City's levy greater than the tax capacity
as calculated by Dakota County. This tax rate capacity
would be increased or decreased by several factors but the
single greatest is the increase of the City's levy.
2. Tax rate classification changes as determined by State law
on the property taxed.
3. Market value of the property taxed.
In developing the 1993 budgets and associated levy it was my
suggestion that because of the increase in market value in the
City and with a proposed levy increase of some 10.016, taxpayers
as a whole, would not, experience an increase in taxes due to the
City levy.
In reviewing the Hearing Notices sent out last week and in
contacting Dakota County and receiving data from them recently
compiled, I would suggest that the increase in tax capacity rate,
overall, will be approximately 5.516.
This increase will not cause a tax increase for all property
owners. Some will actually experience a decline in City tax,
others may see no change at all. The fact that the effect of the
City's levy is different on almost every parcel is due to the
fact that tax rate classifications, market values and fiscal
disparities distribution all have an effect on the final tax
rates and taxes paid.
This increase is greater than I had suggested even though the
market value in the City's tax base has increased approximately
9.516. I wanted this known prior to the adoption of the final
levy at the hearing on December 10th in case any further
reduction of the levy would be considered. I would not recommend
further reduction in the proposed levy at this time.
In regards to discussion on the format of the budget document and
suggestions made by the representatives of the Taxpayers group
and the Council I have worked with Finance Director Jeff May and
directed that the final budget will be presented with the
following changes made to its format:
1. An attempt will be made to make the budget more "readable."
This will include a "presentation letter" from me outlining
significant factors in the proposed budget such as personnel
increases, service levels, levy information and the process
followed in development of the 1993 Budget.
3
I '�
2. A "Council Action" section providing all officia actions
taken by the Council in approving the budget suc as the
required resolutions and public hearing documents-
3.
ocument .
3. A new "Total" Budget sheet which will provide do
which can be "read" more easily.
4. A Revenue Section which will provide a narrative
the different revenue sources for the general fu
representations of this information will also be
It is our hope that this will provide a more and
way of seeing the information. This will be sup
with the numerical, line by line, representation
information in the existing (1992) format.
is
describing
d. Graphic
provided.
rstandable
lemented
of the
A comparison of revenue sources for 1991, 1992, and 1993
will be provided. As we move into 1994 and 1995 and beyond
a 5 year comparison will be provided. It is oux hope that
this will provide a "tracking" of revenue.
5. A complete budget spreadsheet which provides a "total" for
each type of expenditure such as fuels, repairs,
travel/conference, office supplies. This was recommended by
the citizens to provide a better picture_on specific costs
on individual items.
We will also provide a three year comparison of expenditures
in each department and line items. An "expenditure by
function" (General Government, Public Safety, Recreation,
Public Works, Retirement, Debt Service and CIP) fact sheet,
with graphic display, will be provided. The gr uping of
departments in these general areas follows the presentation
of our financial audit format and can be used for effective
comparison of how the City spends the tax dollar and can
more easily compared to how other cities spend their funds.
Individual department budget sheets will have the three year
comparisons. Individual department budget sheets will also
note where salary costs are shared by other funds to clarify
the total cost of position salaries.
6. An introduction narrative will be added to each department
giving a brief discussion on the "program" provided by the
proposed budget. A "tax levy" section will be rovided to
indicate:
a. A comparison of tax levies for three years.
b. A comparison of tax levy as a proportion tb total
revenue for a three year period.
4
C. The City's share of the total tax bill for a three year
period.
d. An expenditure per capita for the general fund budget
for a three year period.
These comparative values reflect items brought out in the
discussions presented by the citizens and the Council.
The final document will, for the first time, include the Water,
Sewer and Stormwater Budgets and the Port Authority Budget.
Again, this will provide a more complete budget "package" so that
the Council and the public may track through the overall budget
and its management.
All of these changes will be part of the final draft of the
budget document as presented at the Public Hearing on December
10, 1992.
In preparation for the hearing on December 10, I would ask that
we receive your approval on Tuesday, November 24, 1992 to draft
the final budget.
At this time I would recommend no additional changes in the
budget amounts as now amended and that we leave all expenditures,
as proposed, in tact. With respect to hiring and promotions for
employees and salary adjustments we would leave budgeted funds in
the budget and consider specific approvals on December 15 and
later as negotiations continue.
lj
5