The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council - 11/29/2005 Sp ecial Budget Workshop November 29 , 2005 How did we get here tonight? ■ April 22, 2005 ■ August 9, 2005 ■ Distributed memo #2005-015 ■ Distributed proposed budget on budget philosophy, for 2006-07 historical financial trends and ■ August 16, 2005 budget policies ■ Council reviews City ■ April 25-29, 2005 Manager's proposed 2006- ■ Sue Kotchevar and Scott Neal 07 budget; asks for more held individual meetings with budget alternatives Councilmembers on 2006 ■ August 26, 2005 budget process ■ Seven new budget ■ May 3, 2005 alternatives distributed ■ Council workshop discussed to Council 2006-07 budget process, budget and financial policies, and reviewed 2004 financial performance here How did we get ■ September 6, 2005 ■ November 15, 2005 ■ Council approves ■ Staff responds to questions, preliminary 2006-07 budget concerns and ideas from and certifies maximum tax Councilmembers levies for 2006 TNT Public ■ November 29, 2005 Hearing ■ Council and staff work ■ September 20, 2005 together in special budget ■ Mayor asks workshop Councilmembers to share ■ December 5, 2005 budget questions, concerns ■ TNT Public Hearing and ideas with staff by ■ CIP Public Hearing October 4 (later postponed December 13, 2005 to October 18) ■ Council approves 2006 budget, tax levy and CIP City budget Where have we been? Total % Incr/ Year Budget (Decr) 1996 $ 231116,869 1997 243,16%808 4.6% 1998 25,967,449 7.4% 1999 26,141,131 0.7% 2000 273676,086 5.9% 2001 2%51%332 6.7% 2002 31,9421977 8.2% 2003 31,50%348 (1.4%) 2004 323,238,933 2.3% 2005 33,9181601 5.2% City budget history: Where have we been? Total Tax % Incr/ Levy Year Levy (Decr) Limits 1996 $14,922,910 1997 16,681,884 11.8% No 1998 17,8783,492 7.2% No 1999 18,611,991 4.1% Yes 2000 1%733,603 6.0% Yes 2001 21,09%283 6.9% No 2002 243527,284 16.2% Yes 2003 24,3663,351 (0.7%) Yes 2004 24,807,656 1.8% Yes 2005 25,692,822 3.6% No City budget history: Where have we been? Implicit % Incr/ No. % Incr/ Price Year Pop. (Decr) Households (Decr) Deflator 1996 50,215 5.2% 19,291 4.1% 1997 51,974 3.5% 20,113 4.3% 1.7% 1998 53,644 3.2% 205759 3.2% 1.5% 1999 54,438 1.5% 20,844 0.4% 2.7% 2000 54,901 0.9% 20,955 0.5% 4.3% 2001 573513 4.8% 21,900 4.5% 2.9% 2002 58,793 2.2% 22,349 2.1% 2.6% 2003 60,981 3.7% 23,262 4.1% 3.9% 2004 62,603 2.7% 23,956 3.0% 3.7% 2005 5.1% Value changes vs . homestead tax changes in Eden Prairie i IAssessment/ 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 04 05 vs. Tax Year pay 97 pay 98 pay 99 pay 00 pay 01 pay 02 pay 03 :pa:y04] pay 05 97 Median Mkt. Value/ Homestead $161,000 $168,000 $177,000 $186,000 $204,700 $230,600 $258,700 $287,500 $310,100 Prop. Value Change 4.35% 5.36% 5.08% 10.05% 12.65% 12.19% 11.13% 7.86% 92.61% Total Tax $3,318 $3,325 $3,308 $3,460 $3,851 $2,740 $3,256 $3,376 $3,615 Tax Change 0.21% -0.51% 4.59% 11.30% -28.85% 18.83% 3.69% 7.08% 8.95% What are our neighbors Chanhassen -0.8% decrease Chaska +13.7% increase According to a Star Tribune Minnetonka +9.8% increase article on November 24, Plymouth +9.1% increase 2005) by Dane Smith, the Maple Grove +8.0% increase state is projecting statewide Eden Prairie +7.4% increase property tax levy increases Average tax levy increase of the 31 Of. cities profiled in the Star Tribune West . 18.4%for schools (excluding Greenfield) is 11.08% • 9.2%for cities Median increase (including Greenfield) . 6.8/f or counties is 9.8% Source: Star Tribune West, Ben Steverman, 11.23.05 Scenarios ■ Scenario 1 a: The scenario used in our 2006 TNT notice. ■ Scenario lb: Scenario la, except it does not include debt service levy for Fire Station 4 project. ■ Scenario 2: Scenario lb, except: ■ Reduces General Fund spending by $200,000 ■ Reduces CIP levy by $252,709 ■ Includes General Fund transfer in of $215,000 from Budget Stabilization Fund Scenarios ■ Scenario 3: Scenario lb, except: ■ Reduces General Fund spending by $552,658 ■ Reduces CIP levy by $252,709 ■ Includes General Fund transfer in of $215,000 from Budget Stabilization Fund ■ Scenario 4: Scenario 1 b, except: ■ Reduces General Fund spending by $717,458 ■ Reduces CIP levy by $252,709 ■ Includes General Fund transfer in of $215,000 from Budget Stabilization Fund What' s in the ro osed 2006 budget?p p 2006 % Inc. over Percent 2005 budget of inc. Wages and benefits 829,580 2.76% 35% Facilities 306,239 1.02% 13% Fire 158,257 0.53% 7% Fire — pension 107,000 0.36% 4% (Reimbursed by state aid) Fuel 152,000 0.51% 6% Electric 127,000 0.42% 5% Gas 24,913 0.08% 1% Waste disposal 45,074 0.15% 2% Elections 109,000 0.36% 5% Guide Plan update 100,000 0.33% 4% Inspections program 88,000 0.29% 4% (Reimbursed by fees) Workers comp insurance 66,000 0.22% 3% Legal fees 40,000 0.13% 2% Police — other assets 40,000 0.13% 2% Police overtime 75,000 0.25% 3% Communications room 30,000 0.10% 1% Human Resources software 20,000 0.07% 1% Total 2,320,069 7.71% 96.9% Provides secure funding stream to the City's Capital Improvement Program until 2019. What are budget compromises in alternate scenarios? Scenario 2 ■ Decreases CIP funding back to 2016 ■ Decreases flexibility, but no major operational changes What are budget compromises in alternate scenarios? Scenario 3 ■ Decreases CIP funding back to 2016 ■ Caps Fire staffing at 90 vs. 95 needed ■ Reduces Finance Division staffing ■ Delays purchase of new fire engine for Station 4 ■ Limits Human Services grant funding to 3% vs. 5% ■ Cuts $100k for Comp Plan ■ No new street light installations ■ Eliminates GPS and Night Vision equipment for Police ■ Reduces contingency from $100k to $50k g Y What abudgetre in alternate scenarios? Scenario 4 l Includes all reductions in Scenario 3, pus the followin g: ■ Caps Fire staffing at 87 vs. 95 needed ■ Reduces Human Services grants to 2005 levels ■ Eliminates $1 Ok for outside engineering design assistance ■ Reduces final budget by $25k ■ Eliminates 1.0 FTE in Streets — saves $60k -$90k ■ Reduces asphalt overlay street repairs by $94k ■ Eliminates 1.0 FTE in Police Department Proposed 2006 % Increase Proposed 2007 % Increase Scenario Spending Over 2005 Spending Over 2006 la 36,764,537 8.4% 38,005,819 3.4% lb 36,474,537 7.5% 38,005,819 4.2% 37,551,261 (w/rej) 10.7% 39,08Z543 (w/rej) 4.1% 2 36,021,828 6.2% 37,503,002 4.1% 37,098,552 (w/rej) 9.4% 38,579,726 (w/reJ) 4.0% 3 35,669,170 5.2% 37,703,002 5.7% 36,745,894 (w/rej) 8.3% 38,779,726 Wref) 5.5% 4 35,504,370 4.7% 37,703,002 6.2% 36,581,094 (w/rej) 7.8% 38,779,726 Wref) 6.0% Proposed Total % Increase Proposed Total % Increase Scenario Tax Levy 2006 Over 2005 Tax Levy 2007 Over 2006 la 27,893,924 8.6% 29,025,390 4.1% lb 27,603,924 7.4% 29,025,390 5.1% 28,680,684 (w/rej) 11.6% 30,102,114 Wref) 5.0% 2 26,936,214 4.8% 28,297,573 5.1% 28,012,938 (w/rej) 9.0% 29,374,297 (w/rej) 4.9% 3 26,583,556 3.5% 28,297,573 6.4% 27,660,280 (w/rej) 7.7% 29,374,297 (w/rej) 6.2% 4 26,418,753 2.8% 28,297,573 7.1% 27,495,480 (w/reJ) 7.0% 29,374,297 (w/rej) 6.8% Proposed Proposed 2006 Proposed Proposed 2007 2006 % Spending Total Tax Levy % 2007 % Spending Total Tax Levy % Scenario Increase Over Increase Over Increase Over Increase Over 2005 2005 2006 2006 la 8.4% 8.6% 3.4% 4.1% lb 7.5% 7.4% 4.2% 5.1% 10.7% (w/rej) 11.6% 4.1% (w/rej) 5.0% 2 6.2% 4.8% 4.1% 5.1% 9.4% (w/refi 9.0% 4.0% (w/rej) 4.9% 3 5.2% 3.5% 5.7% 6.4% 8.3% (w/rej) 7.7% 5.5% (w/ref) 6.2% 4 4.7% 2.8% 6.2% 7.1% 7.8% (w/rej) 7.0% 6.0% (w/rej) 6.8% Proposed 2006 Proposed 2006 % % Change in 2006 Net Tax/ % Spending Total Tax Levy Median Res. Prop. Scenario Increase Increase (3393,200) la 8.4% 8.6% 7.59% lb 7.5% 7.4% 8.31% 10.7% (w/rej) 11.6% 10.92% (w/rej) 2 6.2% 4.8% 5.68% 9.4% (w/ref) 9.0% 8.29% (w/rej) 3 5.2% 3.5% 4.31% 8.3% (w/ref) 7.7% 6.91% (w/rej) 4 4.7% 2.8% 3.68% 7.8% (w/rej) 7.0% 6.16% (w/ref)