Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190903 CCM WS - PACKET AGENDA City Council Work Session Tuesday, September 3, 2019 5:00 p.m. City Hall Conference Room 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. DISCUSSION a. Review Draft Street Light Utility b. Review Draft 2020 Budget c. Recreation Center Update 3. UPDATES a. OpenGov 2.0 implementation 4. ADJOURNMENT FOLLOWING THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING: The Council may choose to reconvene the work session in the City Hall Conference Room after the adjournment of the regular meeting if the business of the work session is unable to be completed in the allotted time. E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y City Council Work Session: September 3, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Discuss Street Light Utility Ordinance AGENDA SECTION: Discussion PREPARED BY: Logan Martin, City Administrator Jeff May, Finance Director AGENDA NO. 2.a. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Street Light Utility ordinance APPROVED BY: LJM RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss draft Street Light Utility ordinance and provide direction. BACKGROUND As previously discussed at the July and August work sessions, the 2020 Budget includes the establishment of a Street Light Utility. If established, a Street Light Utility fee would be charged to each business and homeowner, allowing the City to recover its costs for electricity and maintenance on the street light system. Final rates are still be solidified, however the City would aim to simply recover its costs and prepare for any current or future maintenance needs. The 2020 Budget shows a revenue generation of $220,000, which fully offsets electrical costs and maintenance funds for the street light system. This amount is generated by charging approximately $7.50 per quarter, per single-family property, with some multiple of that for lager multi-family, commercial and industrial properties. The exact amount will be determined by staff within the next few weeks, once more analysis is completed. Rosemount is currently one of the only cities in Dakota County without a Street Light Utility. Apple Valley, Burnsville, Lakeville, Farmington and Eagan all have streetlight utility fees ranging from $5.38 to $9.60 per quarter. As with the other utility funds (water, storm, and sewer), utility rate payers would see a new line item on their quarterly utility bills that delineates the amount owed for the street light network. Attached is a draft ordinance establishing this utility, drafted by City Attorney Tietjen. Staff will provide further detail to facilitate a discussion at the work session. It is recommended that the City discusses this issue in an upcoming public meeting, along with hosting a public informational session prior to formally adopting a Street Light Utility. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests the City Council provide direction on any needed modifications to the draft Street Light Utility ordinance. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ORDINANCE NO. ____ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4 OF THE CITY CODE, ADDING NEW CHAPTER 6 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Rosemount City Code is amended by adding a new Chapter 6 to Title 4 as follows: CHAPTER 6 ARTICLE A. STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM 4-6A-1: POLICY AND PURPOSE: The City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the residents of the City to operate a Street Lighting System in the City to promote the general safety and welfare of the residents pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 412. 221, Subdivision 7. In order to pay the costs of the establishment, construction, repair, replacement, maintenance, enlargement, and improvement of the Street Lighting System, it is hereby determined by the City Council that every parcel of property, whether residential, commercial, institutional, or industrial, benefiting from the safety and convenience of the Street Lighting System shall pay a street light utility charge. It is further determined to be the policy of the City that payment for said services shall be established and collected in a fair, reasonable, and equitable basis. 4-6A-2: ESTABLISHMENT OF STREET LIGHTING UTILITY: There is hereby established a street light utility for the purpose of paying the costs of the establishment, construction, repair, replacement, maintenance, enlargement, and improvement of the Street Lighting System and to charge for and collect the costs thereof from the Benefiting Properties pursuant to authority in Minnesota Statutes § 429.101. 4-6A-3: LIABILITY: The City shall not be liable for injury or damage to persons or property caused by any deficiency or failure in supply of electricity for the Street Lighting System whether occasioned by shutting off the system for the purpose of making repairs or connections, weather - related incidents, or from any other cause whatsoever. 4-6A-4: APPLICATION: No statement contained in this Chapter shall be construed to interfere with any additional requirements that may be imposed by any other entity. In addition, no statement in this Chapter shall be construed as preventing any special agreement or arrangement between the City and an individual User. 4-6A-5: DEFINITIONS: Unless otherwise provided here, the definitions in Title 1, Chapter 3 of this Code apply to the terms in this Chapter. BENEFITING PROPERTY: Any property located within 150 feet of a City street light excluding property described in Title 4, Chapter 6, Article B, Section 6. STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM: All systems, works, instrumentalities, equipment, materials, supplies, lights, poles, wires, cables, conduits, and all other parts and appurtenances of the foregoing which are useful or used in connection with the operation and maintenance of the street lights. USER: The owner and occupant of any Benefiting Property. 4-6A-6: SUPERVISION BY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER: The Public Works Director/City Engineer, or designee, shall have control and gen eral supervision of the Street Lighting System including service connectors in the City. The Public Works Director/City Engineer shall be responsible for administering the provisions of this Chapter to the end such that a proper and efficient Street Lighting System is maintained. 4-6A-7: AUTHORITY: A. Access: The Public Works Director/City Engineer, or other duly authorized employees of the City bearing proper credentials and identification, shall be permitted to enter all properties for the purposes of, but not limited to, inspection, observations, measurement, sampling, repair, and maintenance of any portion of the City’s Street Lighting System in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. B. Tampering: No person shall maliciously, willfully, or negligently break, damage, destroy, uncover, deface, or tamper with any structure, appurtenance, or equipment which is part of the Street Lighting System. C. Safety: While performing necessary work on the Street Lighting System the Public Works Director/City Engineer, or duly authorized employees of the City, shall observe all safety rules applicable to the premises. 4-6A-8: PENALTY: Any person violating any of the provisions of this Chapter shall become liable to the City for any expense, loss, or damage sustained by the City by reason of that violation. In addition, any person found to be violating any provisions of this Chapter shall be served by the City with written notice stating the nature of the violation and providing a reasonable time limit for the satisfactory correction thereof. The offender shall, within the period stated in the notice, permanently cease all violations. Any person who shall continue any violation beyond the specified time limit shall be punished as provided in Title 1, Chapter 4. Each day in which any violation occurs shall be deemed as a separate offense. ARTICLE B. STREET LIGHTING CHARGE SYSTEM AND STREET LIGHT UTILITY FUND 4-6B-1: FUND ESTABLISHED: A. The City hereby establishes a Street Lighting Charge System to recover costs associated with the operation, maintenance, and replacement of the Street Lighting System. The Street Lighting Charge System will be administered in accordance with Title 4, Chapter 6, Article B, Section 2. B. The City hereby establishes the Street Light Utility Fund as a separate and dedicated income fund to receive all revenues generated by the Street Lighting Charge System, and all other income dedicated to the operation, maintenance, and replacement of the Street Lighting System. The Street Light Utility Fund will be administered in accordance with the provisions of Title 4, Chapter 6, Article B, Section 2. 4-6B-2: ADMINISTRATION: A. In accordance with federal and state requirements, the City Finance Director, or designee, shall maintain records necessary to document compliance with the Street Lighting Charge System. The City Finance Director shall be responsible for maintaining a proper system of accounts suitable for determining the operation, maintenance, and replacement costs of the Street Lighting System. B. All revenue collected from Users of the Street Lighting System will be used to off-set all expenditures incurred for annual operation, maintenance, and replacement of the Street Lighting System. C. All revenue generated by the Street Lighting Charge System, and all other income pertinent to the Street Lighting System, shall be deposited in the Street Light Utility Fund. D. The City Council shall annually determine whether or not sufficient revenue is being generated for the effective operation, maintenance, replacement, and management of the Street Lighting System. The City Council shall also determine whether the User charges are distributed proportionally to each User in accordance with Title 4, Chapter 6, Article B, Section 3. The City shall thereafter, but not later than the end of the year, reassess and as necessary revise the Street Lighting Charge System then in use to ensure the proportionality of the User charges and to ensure the sufficiency of funds to maintain the City and performance to which the facilities were constructed. 4-6B-3: RATES AND CHARGES: A. Each User shall pay its proportionate share of operation, maintenance, and replacement costs of the Street Lighting System. B. Street lighting charges shall be determined and fixed according to the provisions of this Chapter and established in the City’s Fee Schedule. The Fee Schedule may be amended from time to time to include subsequent changes in street lighting rates and charges. C. Any additional costs caused by intentional, willful, or malicious damage to the Street Lighting System, shall be borne by the offender, at no expense to the City. D. Installation Costs: The City may pay such portion of the costs of installation of the Street Lighting System as the City Council may determine from general ad valorem tax levies or from other revenues or funds of the City available for that purpose. In the event the City Council elects not to pay all of the installation costs, the remaining unpaid portion shall be assessed against the Benefiting Property owners as a public improvement following a public hearing and in full accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. E. SFR Unit Basic Charge: The City Council shall set a monthly basic service charge to be applied to all single family resident accounts (the SFR Unit Basic Charge). Each account that is not a single family resident account shall pay a basic service charge that is a multiple of the SFR Unit Basic Service Charge. The multiple will be based on the linear feet adjacent to a Benefiting Property’s property boundary that benefits from a street light within 150 feet divided by 80 feet which represents the minimum lot width of a single family residence. The multiple will be rounded to the nearest whole number with (.5’s rounded to the next whole number and a minimum unit assignment of 1). F. Appeal of SFR Unit Basic Charge Multiplier: The City Administrator or designee may increase or decrease the units applied if it is determined the units are based on inaccurate linear feet data. Decisions on units made by the City Administrator may be appealed to the City Council by written notice of appeal to the City Administrator. Notice of appeal must be in writing and received by the City Administrator by the date prescribed in the notice of determination. The date prescribed by the City Administrator shall be no less than twenty- one (21) days following the date the City Administrator mails the notice to the User. G. Rates due and payable by Users, if any, located beyond the territorial boundaries of the City shall be determined by special contract. 4-6B-4: BILLING: A. Bills for street lighting charges shall be issued on a monthly basis, in conjunction with water and sewer billings, to all Benefiting Properties. Bills are due and payable on or before the 20th day of the month following the month in which the bill is sent. B. All payments received after the close of business on the 20th day of the month will be assessed a penalty as defined by ordinance. Any prepayment or overpayment of charges may be retained by the City and applied on subsequent charges. C. All bills and notices shall be mailed or delivered to the address of the Benefiting Property’s owner. If a Benefiting Property’s owner is not the occupant of the Benefiting Property, the owner may provide notice to the City that bills and notices should be sent to the non-owner occupant at the address where service is provided. 4-6B-5: NON PAYMENT: Any street lighting charges unpaid shall be certified when deemed appropriate by the City and assessed against the Benefiting Property on which the charges have incurred, and forwarded to the County Auditor for collection with propert y taxes. 4-6B-6: EXEMPTIONS: All public right of way, City-owned property and vacant land parcels shall be exempt from street light utility charges. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in effect following its passage and publication. ADOPTED this _______ day of _______________, 2019, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ____________________________________ William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Erin Fasbender, City Clerk E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y City Council Work Session: September 3, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Preliminary Review of Draft 2020 Budget AGENDA SECTION: Discussion PREPARED BY: Logan Martin, City Administrator Jeff May, Finance Director AGENDA NO. 2.b. ATTACHMENTS: Summary pages of 2020 Budget (refer to July 2 work sess. packet for full Budget) APPROVED BY: LJM RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss draft 2020 Budget and provide staff direction on needed modifications. BACKGROUND Based on feedback received from the Council at its August work session, staff has made a few modifications to the preliminary 2020 Budget. As Council will recall, the preliminary “ceiling” for the Tax Levy will be established at the September 17 meeting, with the ability to reduce the levy prior to final authorization in December. The purpose of the discussion at the September 3 work session will be to do a final check-in on the preliminary budget. Two major changes were made to the preliminary budget that staff would like to call attention to. The remainder of the items listed for each department from prior memos remain unchanged. •Utilization of SKB landfill fees in the General Fund has been reduced by an additional $200,000. Previously, $100,000 was removed from the General Fund, so a total of $300,000 of revenue has been removed from the General Fund. This means that $375,000 of revenue from the SKB landfill is utilized by the General Fund and $125,000 remains in the Street CIP for trails. The remainder collected is saved for future municipal building projects. In the last five years, the City has been averaging $2,144,000 in annual revenues from this source. •Based on preliminary estimates from our insurance advisors, we have added an additional 4% to all health insurance line items. The previous increase shown was 4%, so this resulted in a $31,500 increase to the General Fund and will better prepare us for the bids we get for health insurance later this fall. Any increases beyond the 8% shown will be funded via the assigned health insurance account. These changes plus the previous factors discussed result in a net levy increase of 6.04% ($744,405), as compared to 4.5% ($555,004) shown in August. This increase results in a $58 increase in City taxes to the median-valued home owner. Prior to these changes, the anticipated increase was $39. This levy increase still results in a 1.97% decrease in our tax rate, thanks to the City’s growth in value via new construction and existing properties. The City’s tax base (tax capacity value) is preliminarily increasing by 7.91% for 2020, or a total increase of 2 $2,510,001 to the City’s taxable value. In 2019, the City’s tax base increased by 7.32%. Historically, from 2008-2020, the City’s tax capacity value has grown by 28.45% ($7,582,306), which is the 2nd largest value growth in Dakota County. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests the City Council provide direction on any needed modifications to the draft 2020 Budget. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS - USES September 17, 2019 2019 2020 Adopted Proposed +/- Departments Budget Budget Difference Percentage --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Council Budget $325,000 $341,600 $16,600 5.11% Administration Budget 680,300 722,600 42,300 6.22% Elections Budget 20,000 62,300 42,300 211.50% Finance Budget 631,700 666,900 35,200 5.57% General Government Budget 353,400 373,900 20,500 5.80% Community Development Budget 1,090,000 1,253,600 163,600 15.01% Police Budget 4,433,300 4,689,200 255,900 5.77% Fire Budget 453,000 484,500 31,500 6.95% Public Works Operating Budgets: Government Buildings Budget 668,600 653,800 (14,800)-2.21% Fleet Maintenance Budget 644,500 635,000 (9,500)-1.47% Street Maintenance Budget 1,517,800 1,484,700 (33,100)-2.18% Parks Maintenance Budget 1,119,800 1,180,400 60,600 5.41% Park & Rec Budget - General Operating 1,410,500 1,469,500 59,000 4.18% Park & Rec Budget - Steeple Ctr. Operations 140,400 149,200 8,800 6.27% Park & Rec Budget - Special Programs 84,400 87,600 3,200 3.79% Transfers - Arena Assistance 130,000 130,000 0 0.00% -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Operating Budgets - General Fund $13,702,700 $14,384,800 $682,100 4.98% Building CIP Requirements 0 0 0 0.00% Street CIP Requirements 852,327 877,897 25,570 3.00% Equipment CIP Requirements 620,000 640,000 20,000 3.23% Insurance Budget Requirements 380,000 425,000 45,000 11.84% Port Authority Operating Levy 105,000 112,000 7,000 6.67% Bonded Indebtedness 282,507 180,942 (101,565)-35.95% Water Enterprise Fund 2,481,600 1,682,800 (798,800)-32.19% Sewer Enterprise Fund 2,531,400 2,630,200 98,800 3.90% Storm Water Enterprise Fund 1,093,700 1,325,300 231,600 21.18% Street Light Utility Fund 0 250,000 250,000 100.00% Arena Enterprise Fund 610,400 649,300 38,900 6.37% -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Funding Requirements $22,659,634 $23,158,239 $498,605 2.20% ======================================= FUNDING REQUIREMENTS - SOURCES September 17, 2019 2019 2020 Adopted Proposed +/- Types Budget Budget Difference Percentage ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Internal Revenue Generated: Licenses and Permits 749,800 780,300 30,500 4.07% Intergovernmental 1,066,500 1,104,800 38,300 3.59% Charges for Services 1,258,100 1,058,800 (199,300)-15.84% Fines & Forfeits 115,000 95,000 (20,000)-17.39% Recreational Fees 256,500 298,400 41,900 16.34% Miscellaneous Revenues 172,700 215,000 42,300 24.49% Transfers In 3,500 3,500 0 0.00% Enterprise Revenues 6,717,100 6,537,600 (179,500)-2.67% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Internal Revenues 10,339,200 10,093,400 (245,800)-2.38% Levy Sources: Special Levies 282,507 180,942 (101,565)-35.95% General Levy 12,037,927 12,883,897 845,970 7.03% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Levy $12,320,434 $13,064,839 $744,405 6.04% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Revenue Sources $22,659,634 $23,158,239 $498,605 2.20% ====================================== 2019 GENERAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY PAYABLE 2020 GENERAL LEVY GENERAL FUND $10,829,000 BUILDING CIP FUND $0 STREET CIP FUND $877,897 EQUIPMENT CIP FUND $640,000 INSURANCE FUND $425,000 PORT AUTHORITY OPERATING LEVY $112,000 ------------------------- TOTAL GENERAL LEVY $12,883,897 BONDED INDEBTEDNESS G.O. PUBLIC FACILITY REFUNDING BONDS 2010B (Old 2001C) (Port Authority) (Authorized - $163,443)$0 G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS 2014A (Authorized - $0) $0 G.O. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) REFUNDING BONDS 2015B (Authorized - $180,941)$180,941 G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS 2017A (Authorized - $7,470) $0 G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS 2018A (Authorized - $0) $0 ------------------------- TOTAL BONDED INDEBTEDNESS $180,941 ------------------------- GRAND TOTAL 2019 PROPERTY TAX LEVY $13,064,838 ============== Last Updated 8/23/19 SPREAD LEVY COMPUTATIONAL WORKSHEET (INCLUDING FIRE STATION LEVY) (Proposed) 2017 2018 2019 2020 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Funding Requirements 20,223,056 21,775,081 22,659,634 23,158,239 Less: Internal Revenues 8,795,600 9,900,300 10,339,200 10,093,400 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Equals: Revenues Needed 11,427,456 11,874,781 12,320,434 13,064,839 County Auditor Adjustments (All Subtractions): Fiscal Disparities Distribution Levy (Metro Area)1,175,131 1,236,215 1,305,333 1,361,991 (2) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Spread Levy Used to Compute Local Tax Rate 10,252,325 (1)10,638,566 (1)11,015,101 (1)11,702,848 Increase/(Decrease) from Previous Year in Spread Levy 3.77%3.54%6.24% (1) Actual Spread Levy Based on Numbers from Dakota County (2) 2020 Number Provided by Dakota County as of 8/12/19 Last Updated - 8/23/19 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT WORKSHEET FOR ESTIMATING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAXES (ISD #196 FIGURES) (Rates Based on Proposed Preliminary Levy Numbers) 245,942 (Value After M/V Exclusion)265,017 (Value After M/V Exclusion)285,291 (Value After M/V Exclusion)(+7.67%)289,760 (Value After M/V Exclusion) Market Value 259,800 (Payable 2018 Median)277,300 (Payable 2019 Median)295,900 (Est. Payable 2019 Median)(+6.71%)300,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Year 2018 2019 2020 Est. 2018 2019 2020 Est.2018 2019 2020 Est. 2018 2019 2020 Est. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tax Capacity 2,459 2,459 2,459 2,650 2,650 2,650 2,853 2,853 2,853 2,898 2,898 2,898 Tax Capacity Rates: City 0.40961 0.39355 0.38582 0.40961 0.39355 0.38582 0.40961 0.39355 0.38582 0.40961 0.39355 0.38582 County 0.26580 0.25386 0.25386 0.26580 0.25386 0.25386 0.26580 0.25386 0.25386 0.26580 0.25386 0.25386 School District 0.21352 0.20613 0.20613 0.21352 0.20613 0.20613 0.21352 0.20613 0.20613 0.21352 0.20613 0.20613 Miscellaneous 0.04307 0.04227 0.04227 0.04307 0.04227 0.04227 0.04307 0.04227 0.04227 0.04307 0.04227 0.04227 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Totals 0.93200 0.89581 0.88808 0.93200 0.89581 0.88808 0.93200 0.89581 0.88808 0.93200 0.89581 0.88808 ======================================================================================================================== City Market Referendum 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 ISD #196 Market Ref 0.0026715 0.0026715 0.0026144 0.0026715 0.0026715 0.0026144 0.0026715 0.0026715 0.0026144 0.0026715 0.0026715 0.0026144 Dakota County Ref 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 2019 2020 Property Taxes: City 1,007 968 949 1,086 1,043 1,022 1,169 1,123 1,101 1,187 1,140 1,118 City Taxes $1,043 $1,101 County 654 624 624 704 673 673 758 724 724 770 736 736 City Market Ref.$0 $0 School District 525 507 507 566 546 546 609 588 588 619 597 597 ---------------------------- Miscellaneous 106 104 104 114 112 112 123 121 121 125 122 122 Total Taxes - Median $1,043 $1,101 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Property Taxes 2,292 2,203 2,184 2,470 2,374 2,354 2,659 2,556 2,534 2,701 2,596 2,573 Increase / (Decrease)$58 City Market Referendum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ISD #196 Market Ref 694 694 679 741 741 725 790 790 774 801 801 784 Dakota County Ref 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Grand Total All Taxes $2,986 $2,897 $2,863 $3,211 $3,115 $3,079 $3,449 $3,346 $3,307 $3,502 $3,397 $3,358 ======================================================================================================================== 344,260 (Value After M/V Exclusion)414,000 (Value After M/V Exclusion) Market Value 350,000 414,000 History of Actual Tax Capacity Rates (Using ISD #196 Rates) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Year 2018 2019 2020 Est. 2018 2019 2020 Est.2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Est. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tax Capacity 3,443 3,443 3,443 4,140 4,140 4,140 (1.97% Decrease) Tax Capacity Rates: City 0.40961 0.39355 0.38582 0.40961 0.39355 0.38582 0.45152 0.43149 0.41832 0.40961 0.39355 0.38582 (1), (2) County 0.26580 0.25386 0.25386 0.26580 0.25386 0.25386 0.29633 0.28570 0.28004 0.26580 0.25386 0.25386 (2) School District 0.21352 0.20613 0.20613 0.21352 0.20613 0.20613 0.23271 0.24317 0.23336 0.21352 0.20613 0.20613 (2) Miscellaneous 0.04307 0.04227 0.04227 0.04307 0.04227 0.04227 0.05033 0.05063 0.04907 0.04307 0.04227 0.04227 (2) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Totals 0.93200 0.89581 0.88808 0.93200 0.89581 0.88808 1.03089 1.01099 0.98079 0.93200 0.89581 0.88808 ======================================================================================================================== City Market Referendum 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 (2) ISD #196 Market Ref 0.0026715 0.0026715 0.0026144 0.0026715 0.0026715 0.0026144 0.0025484 0.0026999 0.0027380 0.0026715 0.0026715 0.0026144 (2) Dakota County Ref 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 (2) Property Taxes: City 1,410 1,355 1,328 1,696 1,629 1,597 Net Tax Capacity Percentages County 915 874 874 1,100 1,051 1,051 For Residential Homesteads: School District 735 710 710 884 853 853 Miscellaneous 148 146 146 178 175 175 Equal to or Less Than $500,000 1.00%1.00%1.00% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Over $500,000 1.25%1.25%1.25% Total Property Taxes 3,209 3,084 3,057 3,858 3,709 3,677 City Market Referendum 0 0 0 0 0 0 ISD #196 Market Ref 935 935 915 1,106 1,106 1,082 (For 2002 Through 2011 Credit Applied to All Organizations Proportionately) Dakota County Ref 0 0 0 0 0 0 (For 2012 and On Credit Eliminated-Replaced with Market Value Adjustment) ------------------------------------------------------============================== Grand Total All Taxes $4,144 $4,019 $3,972 $4,964 $4,815 $4,759 ============================================================ (1) This Figure Derived Using Figures Provided by Dakota County: (a) 2019 Projected Levy Less Fiscal Disparities as of 8/23/19 11,702,848 /30,332,367 =0.38582 (b) Preliminary Net Tax Capacity Figure as of 8/5/19 (With M/V Exclusion)34,206,164 (7.83% Increase from Final Pay 2019) (c) Captured Tax Increment Tax Capacity as of 7/31/19 (973,095) (0.01% Increase from Final Pay 2019) (d) Contribution to Fiscal Disparities as of 6/10/19 (2,900,702) (5.09% Increase from Final Pay 2019) ------------------ Last Updated - 8/23/19 (2) These Figures Provided by Dakota County as of 10/xx/19 30,332,367 (For 2013 and on the City of Rosemount does not have a Referendum Levy) E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y City Council Work Session Meeting: September 3, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Recreation Center Discussion AGENDA SECTION: Discussion PREPARED BY: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director AGENDA NO. 2.c. ATTACHMENTS: None APPROVED BY: LJM RECOMMENDED ACTION: None, discussion only. BACKGROUND City staff recently met with potential partners to discuss the operations and possible partnerships with regards to the proposed recreation center. One topic that came up during our meetings was the size of the facility. One potential partner with significant experience operating recreation centers felt that the original design was too large for our community. Another potential partner is very eager to use the aquatic facility should it be built to a competition level, but does not have funds to invest in the construction of the additional improvements. Staff would like to discuss these thoughts with the City Council. Staff also recently met with the owner and a broker of the parcel at the north-east corner of County Road 42 and Akron Avenue. The meeting was productive, and the land owners conveyed their support for seeing a rec center constructed on a portion of the property. We will be working in the next couple of weeks to help the landowner and broker come up with some best-case scenarios for site planning. RECOMMENDATION Staff would like to discuss the items mentioned above with the City Council and discuss next steps.