HomeMy WebLinkAbout13.F.3. 2012 Budget Discussions August 12, 2011
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Julie A. Linnihan, Finance Director
Topic: 2012 Budget Discussions
Introduction:
August 16 City Council meeting- Continuation of discussion regarding the 2012 Operating Budget
Background:
Since June, City staff and Council have addressed many budget issues specific to the 2012 budget and
property tax levy. This budget process has been unique in light of the state budget shutdown,
uncertainty in the financial, housing, employment and federal government arenas.
The Council has reviewed the departmental budgets, request for specific improvement packages as well
as adjustments to operational budgets. The Capital Improvement Plans and updates to the equipment,
buildings, facility and information technology programs have also been discussed, as these are
significant areas of budget requests.
As data specific to the 2012 budget become available, more defined adjustments were made to the
initial 2012 budget, which was developed during mid -2010, as a component of the two year budget
cycle. Early in the 2012 budget process, it was determined that the budget process would focus on the
one year budget preparation, allowing staff to prepare a more concise document. The uncertainty of the
pending state and federal government shutdowns, as well as the variables in many budgeted costs, such
as fuel, chemicals and labor contracts indicated that the two year cycle may not result in an effective
planning tool.
As the 2012 budgets were reviewed, the following areas were reduced for the upcoming year, providing
the City with a potential reduction in anticipated expenditures:
• Decreased property and liability insurance, through the League of MN Cities Insurance Trust
(LMCIT), based on the current trends and claims history (reduction of $45,785)
• Reduction in the Shakopee Fire Relief Association pension requirement, based on market results
and status of paid on -call staff (reduction of $199,300). This reduction was largely due to the
favorable investment arena and market performance
• A smaller than originally anticipated increase in health care cost estimates, as early indicators in
2010 resulted in a higher initial estimate than the actual increase used in the 2012 budget
preparation. This has not resulted in an actual budget reduction in 2012, only a reduction from
early estimates
• Freezing the 2012 rates for equipment and building rent at the 2011 level, eliminating
anticipated increases as staff is reviewing many of the policies related to this program.
I
These few examples of reductions in early budget planning are encouraging, but are also tempered with
the recognition that these types of downward adjustments cannot be relied upon to occur each year.
They have provided the City with some stability in the budget planning process, but cannot be used as a
base for future budget decisions.
During 2012 budget discussions, Council has been notified that there is only limited information
available regarding development of initial tax rates and tax impacts. Cindy Geis, Scott County, has just
received the fiscal disparities information on August 12th and will be routing this data to Scott County
cities, as soon as data is confirmed. This will provide a major component of the tax levy calculation
needed for the September Council action.
In addition, the Minnesota Department of Revenue has not yet provided the annual "levy limitation
notice" to the City, (see attached for prior year), which also is critical in developing the levy. This data
may be available next week.
As Council prepares to adopt a preliminary levy in September, discussion has involved the creation of a
levy specific to the Capital Improvement Road program. This initial amount requested was $200,000
with anticipation of annual increases, or spending reductions, allowing the City to plan and fund the
road projects defined in the pavement management plan that drives the annual Capital project list. The
annual amount that will eventually be needed to maintain the local road structure in future years could
be approximately $1 M.
Attached for your review is the very preliminary information from Scott County that provides early tax
and levy estimates for the City of Shakopee for 2012, comparison to 2011. As indicated on this work
paper, the tax rate reflects a slight increase which is the result of slightly declining market values,
causing a slight increase in the tax rate. Taxes are anticipated to be fairly flat, but without the
information needed from other sources, at this point, estimates are only estimates. As fiscal disparity
numbers are confirmed, this will also impact the work paper, and these adjustments will be reviewed in
the final preliminary calculation numbers. This information does not include a levy increase for the
proposed capital levy.
This work paper also provides insight into which areas of the market value ranges would see
adjustments to their market values. As this form indicates, 9,501 properties (of 11,362 total properties)
will see minimal adjustments to their value, of between .01% increase to a 5.0 % decrease.
Staff will be working with both State and County entities to obtain the information needed to provide a
preliminary levy amount, property tax rate, and estimated impact to properties in the City. As this
information is calculated, this will be routed to Council for their information and study, allowing for the
preparation of the preliminary budget and levy to be presented on Tuesday, September 6 2011. After
this information if reviewed and approved, it will be routed to Scott County and the State for the
preparation of the Truth in Taxation process
Discussion Items:
Final issues that will require Council action for the 2012 budget process include the following:
• Establishment of the preliminary levy amount for 2012
o Maintain levy at level similar to prior year
o Provide for additional levy for capital request
o Reduce levy for 2012 from prior year amount
• Staffing determinations:
o Further cost savings through review of facilities staffing options
o Maintaining the 47 patrol position in the Police department, as this budgeted position
has not been filled in prior budget years
• Further discussion of Fire department requests specific to duty shifts, performance pay as well
as future Fire Department station construction, tentatively planned for 2014 (work session will
be set in the fall of 2011 to expand information currently being developed)
• Transit issues will need to be further discussed and reviewed, pending additional information
and updates as received through Metropolitan Council and impacted local parties
The levy that will be established in September is the levy amount that cannot be increased, but can be
decreased prior to the adoption of the final levy and budget, on December 6 2011.
As Council proceeds with decisions on the above issues, the following summary is provided for the
General fund revenues and expenditures as presented by City staff, indicating the updates and changes
that have been brought forward to the document to date:
2011 2012 Change
Revenues:
(including transfers) $19,970,620 $20,341,210 $370,590
Expenditures: $20,175,640 $20,347,761 $172,121
The attached work paper provides details specific to the categories of revenues and expenditures and
transfers.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Budget Report
2012 Proposed Budget
2009 2010 7/31/2011 2011 2012
Proposed
Actual Amount Actual Amount YTD Actual Final Budget Budget
Description
1000 GENERAL FUND REVENUES
4005 TAXES (13,758,019) (13,557,007) (8,068,213) (13,383,820) (13,407,920)
4100 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT (14,900) (28,988) 32,427 (13,000) (13,000)
4200 LICENSES AND PERMITS (1,122,619) (1,303,896) (728,242) (1,246,750) (1,275,300)
4400 INTERGOVERNMENTAL (593,647) (828,906) (434,712) (737,560) (749,560)
4500 CHARGES FOR SERVICE (805,637) (1,855,276) (1,180,262) (1,699,490) (1,792,030)
4820 FINES & FORFEITS (364,896) (423,746) (204,465) (436,000) (436,000)
4830 MISCELLANEOUS (414,923) (420,697) 50,186 (340,800) (345,000)
01000 GENERAL FUND (17,074,640) (18,418,516) (10,533,280) (17,857,420) (18,018,810)
Description
1000 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
11 MAYOR & COUNCIL 123,440 151,991 93,101 202,240 195,689
12 ADMINISTRATION 537,590 697,307 381,837 793,030 1,021,195
13 CITY CLERK 290,216 313,342 173,471 327,180 361,566
15 FINANCE 762,861 794,863 586,398 794,600 840,085
16 LEGAL COUNSEL 422,045
17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 474,592 458,199 237,302 495,800 452,659
18 FACILITIES 214,261 190,739 110,192 214,610 460,193
20 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 374,458 364,170 119,263 207,240
31 POLICE DEPARTMENT 5,952,777 6,324,409 3,779,574 6,969,270 7,247,787
32 FIRE 1,809,935 1,866,038 932,053 1,945,360 1,842,987
33 INSPECTION- BLDG - PLMBG -HTG 769,881 784,909 420,085 801,100 723,101
41 ENGINEERING 551,153 551,691 365,419 661,630 662,799
42 STREET MAINTENANCE 1,835,690 1,958,904 1,313,436 2,059,700 2,121,374
44 FLEET 97,192 122,330 69,511 122,330 113,759
46 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,414,353 1,483,288 731,054 1,576,910 1,590,142
65 LIBRARY 284,482 297,744 140,990 304,330
66 NATURAL RESOURCES 40,458 29,029 7,759 58,400 45,214
67 RECREATION 2,265,859 1,250,106 2,421,910 2,443,921
91 UNALLOCATED 75,306 70,019 1,038 220,000 225,000
01000 GENERAL FUND 16,030,689 18,724,830 10,712,589 20,175,640 20,347,471
1000 GENERAL FUND TRANSFERS
8005 TOTAL TRANSFERS IN (2,248,302) (2,233,806) (1,205,719) (2,113,200) (2,322,400)
8050 TOTAL TRANSFERS OUT 1,649,572 4,390,000
GENERAL FUND IMPACT (1,642,681) 2,462,508 (1,026,410) 205,020 6,261
i
I
MINNESOTA- REVENUE
Payable 2010 Final Overall Levy Limitation Notice
SHAKOPEE 8/18/2009
FINANCE DIRECTOR
CITY HALL c r e Z
129 S HOLMES ST
SHAKOPEE, MN 55379
The following is a listing of the factors used in determining your city's payable 2010 overall levy limitation.
1. PAYBALE 2009 ADJUSTED LEVY LIMIT BASE 13,858,115
2. INFLATION ADJUSTMENT (0.8337 %) 1.008337
3A. 2007 HOUSEHOLD POPULATION 12,121
3B. 2008 HOUSEHOLD POPULATION 12,327
3C. 50 PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLD INCREASE ((3B - 3A) x.5) 103
3D. HOUSEHOLD ADJUSTMENT FACTOR - GREATER OF 1 OR (1 + 3C /3A) 1.008498
4A. PAYABLE 2008 TOTAL TAXABLE MARKET VALUE 3,800,795,500
4B. PAYABLE 2009 MARKET VALUE - NEW INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCT 2,755,400
4C. PAYABLE 2009 MARKET VALUE - NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCT 31,625,600
4D. PAYABLE 2009 MARKET VALUE - NEW C/I CONSTRUCT (413 + 4C) 34,381,000
4E. 50 PERCENT OF MARKET VALUE OF NEW CA CONSTRUCT (41) x.5) 17,190,500
4F. NEW C/I ADJUSTMENT FACTOR - GREATER OF 1 OR (1 + 4E /4A) 1.004523
5. PAYBALE 2010 ADJUSTED LEVY LIMIT BASE (1 x 2 x 3D x 4F) 14,156,138
6A. 2010 CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID 0
6B. 2010 ESTIMIATED TACONTIE AIDS 0
6C. 2010 ESTIMATED WIND ENERGY PRODUCTION TAX 0
6D. 2010 CERTIFIED UTILITY VALUATION TRANSITION AID 0
6E. 2010 TOTAL CITY AID (6A + 6B + 6C + 6D) 0
7. PAYABLE 2010 FINAL OVERALL LEVY LIMIT (5 - 6E) 14,156,138
Property Tax Division Tel: 651 -556 -6095
Mail Station 3340 Far: 651 -556 -3128
St. Paul, MN 55146 -3340 TTY: Call 711 for Minnesota
An equal opportunity employer
WHAT IF TAX COMPARISON PAY 2011 vs Pay 2012 Shakopee
FISCAL YEAR 2011 MARKET VALUE TAX
44,446,655 TAX CAPACITY $ 14,717,438 FINAL CERTIFIED LEVY $ 3,511,809,400 Referendum Market Value
(161,430) TIF ( -) $ 1,630,522 FISCAL DISPARITY ( -) $ 120,000 FINAL CERTIFIED LEVY
(6,604,638) FISCAL DISPARITY ( -) $ 13,086,916 TAX LEVY OR SPREAD LEVY $ - FISCAL DISPARITY(-)
37,680,587 NET TAX CAPACITY $ 120,000 SPREAD LEVY
Tax Rate 34.731% 0.00342% Tax Rate
FISCAL YEAR 2012 MARKET VALUE TAX
43,906,340 Gross Tax Capacity $ 14,717,438 PROPOSED LEVY OR CERTIFIED LE $ 3,354,295,900 Taxable Market Value
(1,806,793) Excluded NTC $ 1,630,522 FISCAL DISPARITY ( -) $ 3,485,489,900 Referendum Market Value
(155,318) TIF ( -) $ 13,086,916 TAX LEVY OR SPREAD LEVY $ 120,000 PROPOSED LEVY
(6,431,235) FISCAL DISPARITY ( -) $ - FISCAL DISPARITY
35,512,994 NET TAX CAPACITY $ 120,000 SPREAD LEVY
Tax Rate 36.851% 0.00344% ITax Rate
RESIDENTIAL IMPACTS
Median & Average Values
% EMV Value # of Avg Market Avg Market Value Taxable Taxable % Net Net Net Net 2011 2012 2012 2012
Range affected Value Value Exclusion Value Change Payable Payable Inc /Dec Difference Median Median Average Value
Inc /Dec Properties 2011 2012 2012 2012 11 vs 12 2011 2012 11 vs 12 % Change Values Values Values % Change
Shakopee +15.01 + / 45 0% $ 246,200 $ 283,130 $ 11,758 $ 271,372 10.22% $ 819.76 $ 1,009.78 $ 190.02 22.2"r, $ 192,600 $ 190,200 $ 211,700 -1.2%
+10.01 - 15.00% 10 0% $ 246,200 $ 276,975 $ 12,312 $ 264,663 7.50% $ 819.76 $ 984.85 $ 165.09 19.3"%
+5.01 - 10.00% 116 1% $ 246,200 $ 264,665 $ 13,420 $ 251,245 2.05% $ 819.76 $ 934.98 $ 115.22 13.5`',%
+0.01 -5.00% 637 6% $ 246,200 $ 252,355 $ 14,528 $ 237,827 -3.40% $ 819.76 $ 885.11 $ 65.35 7.6
No Change 4,497 40% $ 246,200 $ 246,200 $ 15,082 $ 231,118 -6.13% $ 819.76 $ 860.17 $ 40.41 4.7
- 0.01 - 5.00% 4,367 38% $ 246,200 $ 240,045 $ 15,636 $ 224,409 -8.85% $ 819.76 $ 835.24 $ 15.48 1_8 %
-5.01 - 10.00% 1,204 11% $ 246,200 $ 227,735 $ 16,744 $ 210,991 - 14.30% $ 819.76 $ 785.37 $ (34.39) -4.0%
-10.00 - 15.00% 207 2% $ 246,200 $ 215,425 $ 17,852 $ 197,573 - 19.75% $ 819.76 $ 735.50 $ (84.26) -9.9%
- 15.01%+ 279 1 2% $ 246,200 $ 209,270 $ 18,406 $ 190,864 - 22.48% $ 819.76 $ 710.56 1 $ ( 109.20) -12.8%
11,362 100%
2012 CITY TAX IMPACTS with Leg Changes (6) 8/12/2011
Shakopee 10:46 AM
i
Building Internal Service Fund Fund 7810
2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
Est.
Annual revenues
rent 1,204,956 1,282,080 1,079,675 917,340 863,928 839,820 783,936
Other charges 0 150,751 0 0 0 0 0
G ra nts 45,500
Interest 25,000 136,444 78,899 116,118 119,137 67,471 6,037
Capital contribution 36,734
Disposal of Cap. Asset 0 33,530
Expenditures
operational 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital * 60,000 (251,941) (99,137) (813,466) (669,138) (156,867) (5,484)
Loss on capital asset (22,572)
Transfers
In 0 2,271,000 1,094,988 0 0 0
Out 0 (901,000) (415,497) (606,112) 0 0 (1,725,907)
Depreciation 800,000 791,241 785,197 754,737 729,129 696,540
Annual allocation - not paid out or impacting cash....
H: \BUDGET \Budgetl2 \Building IS fund analysis
I
* Capital Expense Historical Overview: (Per capital asset records)
2006/2007 Aqautic Building 1,009,807 (prev. recorded in Jiff. fund)
2007 HVAC City Hall 92,900
2007 City Hall Card Security System 27,216
2007 HVAC Engineering Bldg. 48,500
2008 HVAC City Hall 108,500
2008 Comm. Center Drainage Upgrade 179,565
2008 Lighting Upgrade -Comm. Center 31,666
2008 Water Slide Replacement 504,449 Recreation Expenditures 1,833,367
2009 Cooling Tower - Rec. Center 34,180 City Hall 228,616
2010 Chiller Replacement - Ice Arena 73,700 Engineering 48,500
2010 Energy Grant costs - Police 88,238
Police 88,238
Public Works 5,081
2011 Lake Country Doors -PW 5,081 2,203,802
2,203,802
Transfers Overview:
2009 Transfer in to close Rec. Fund 383,968
Transfer in to close Telecom Fund 701,487
Transfer to close Rec. Fund 9,553
2010 Transfer in from General fund for building 671,000
Transfer in from General fund for building 1,600,000
Transfer out to Park Reserve fund (475,000)
Annual transfers out to pay 2004 DS (460,000)
H: \BUDGET \Budgetl2 \Building IS fund analysis
CITY OF SHAKOPEE. MINNESOTA
2011 -12 BUDGET
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Fire Public Works
Issue Amount: $4,225,000 $2,275,000 $2,570,000 $6,000,000 $3,440,000 $1,370,000 $1,445,000 $2,170,000 $1,555,000
2004A 20048 2004C 2004D 2006A 2007A 20078 2008A 2010A
Improve Bldg Ref Improve Bldg Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve Total
Fund # 3034 3035 3036 3037 3038 3039 3040 3041 3042
Cash Balance 12/31/10 $ 475,411 $ 343,181 $ 878,182 $ 441,596 $ 1,232,064 $ 154,439 $ 562,715 $ 381,383 $ 140,673 $ 4,609,644
2011 Activity:
Revenues 515,000 740,000
Taxes 120,000 - 137,440 257,440
Special Assessments 224,990 113,450 72,080 141,530 18,000 113,180 46,950 730,180
Interest 8,000 4,000 5,000 12,000 1,000 7,000 7,000 44,000
Transfer 460,000 460,000
Total Revenues 232,990 124,000 118,450 460,000 84,080 142,530 25,000 120,180 184,390 1,491,620
Expenditures
Principal 185,000 185,000 250,000 250,000 330,000 110,000 145,000 190,000 30,000 1,675,000
Interest 81,660 51,890 42,180 200,400 93,000 39,400 44,500 65,010 25,415 643,455
Fiscal Agent 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 11,000
Transfers
Total Expenditures 267,660 237,890 293,180 451,400 424,000 150,400 190,500 256,010 56,415 2,329,455
Cash Balance 12/31111 $ 440,741 $ 229,291 $ 703,452 $ 450,196 $ 892,144 $ 146,569 $ 397,215 $ 245,553 $ 268,648 $ 3,771,809
Anticipated 2012 Activity
Revenues
Taxes 15,000 203,528 CNX CNX CNX 80,504 87853 16,900 66,507 573,939
Special Assessments 218,016 - 108,728 - 69,043 135,476 17,297 90,000 62,781 701,341
Interest 4,000 2,000 6,000
Transfer 440,000 440,000
Total Revenues 233,016 207,528 110,728 440,000 69,043 215,980 17,297 106,900 129 288 1,721,280
Expenditures
Principal 285,000 190,000 250,000 255,000 340,000 105,000 145,000 190,000 190,06CU 1,950,000
Interest 73,710 45,020 33,580 184,550 79,600 35,100 38,700 58,360 24,870 573,490
Fiscal Agent 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 9,000
Transfers
Total Expenditures 359,710 236,020 284,580 440,550 420,600 141,100 184,700 249,360 215 2,532,490
Cash Balance 12/31112 $ 314,047 $ 200,799 $ 529,600 $ 449,646 $ 540,587 $ 221,449 $ 229,812 $ 103,093 $ 182,066 $ 2,960,599
Anticipated 2013 Activity
Revenues
Taxes $ 100,000 CNX $ 250,000 $ 50,000 $ 91,213 $ 149,000 $ 137,000 $ 777,213
Special Assessments $ 215,000 $ - $ 1,000 $ 33,000 $ 70,000 $ 18,000 $ 9,000 $ 80,000 $ 426,000
Interest $ 5,000 $ 3,000 $ - $ 500 $ 500 $ 9,000
Transfer $ 445,000 $ 445,000
Total Revenues $ 220,000 $ 3,000 $ 101,000 $ 445,000 $ 283,000 $ 120,500 $ 109,713 $ 158.000 $ 217,000 $ 1,657,213
Expenditures
Principal $ 280,000 $ 195,000 $ 255,000 $ 265,000 $ 350,000 fffiNIRM $ 140,000 $ 195,000 $ 185,000 $ 2,070,000
Interest $ 68,723 $ 42,000 $ 29,000 $ 181,000 $ 66,000 $ 28,900 $ 33,000 $ 55,038 $ 24,390 $ 528,051
Fiscal Agent $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 9,000
Transfers
Total Expenditures $ 349,723 $ 238,000 $ 285,000 $ 447,000 $ 417,000 $ 234.900 $ 174,000 $ 251,038 $ 210 390 $ 2,607,051
Cash Balance 12/31/13 $ 184,324 $ 235,000 $ 345,600 $ 447,646 $ 406,587 $ 107,049 $ 165,525 $ 10,055 $ 188,676
Debt Retires: 02/01/25 02/01/17 02/01115 02/01/25 02/01/17 02/01/17 02/01/18 02/01/19 02/01/21
1. F S.
•MME
DATE: August 11, 2011
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FRONT: Jeff Tate, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Sworn Officer Information
The police department appreciates the continued support of the City Council and understands the
difficult financial decisions that lay ahead. If the City Council elects not to fund the current vacant
police officer position, potential effects include:
The City has seen slight increases in our calls for service over the last two years. The City's
population also continues to grow. Keeping pace with population growth and service demands
is necessary to prevent the reduction in effectiveness of the individual patrol officer. If
appropriate staffing levels are not maintained, each officer will carry a larger caseload and will
be responsible for a larger percentage of the daily calls for service. This may reduce the
officer's ability to perform follow -up investigations and could lead to a reduction in clearance
rates.
The department will not meet adequate minimum staffing levels as prescribed by independent
consultants, the IACP, the Police Services Master Planning Task force, and internal department
work analysis studies. Choosing to reduce patrol - staffing levels below the prescribed levels
may negatively impact the police department's ability to meet established City goals and
adversely affect service levels. The last internal staffing analysis showed a need for 52 sworn
officers.
• May affect case management and clearance rates for the investigation division.
Reduction in patrol numbers may limit the number of emergency service providers that respond
to an emergency and could have an adverse impact on a growing community during a time of
crisis.
• Proactive patrol programs may need to be eliminated or adjusted. At present time, the
department's street crimes unit only works during the summer months due to current staffing
levels. Programs like D.A.R.E., crime free multi- housing, and school resource officer positions
will need to be reevaluated to make sure adequate patrol numbers are available for street duty.
As always, the police department prides itself on providing a high level of service to the community
and will continue working towards the goals set forth by the Police Services Master Planning Task
Force and City Council. The items requested in the police department's 2012 budget are made after
careful consideration of the needs of the community and our ability to deliver the quality level of
service that the community deserves and has come to expect.