Loading...
CC 2015 12 07 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 7, 2015 Mayor Laufenburger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Laufenburger, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Tjornhom, and Councilwoman Ryan COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Campion STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Greg Sticha and Chelsea Petersen TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING: PUBLIC MEETING ON THE PROPOSED 2016 BUDGET. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you and welcome to this council meeting. Those of you that are present in the chamber here with us as well as those of you watching at home on Mediacom Cable Channel 8 or 107.2. For the record let it be noted that 4 council members are present. All are present with exception of Mr. Councilman Campion who was unable to be with us this evening. We have essentially one item on the agenda tonight. This is our annual Truth in Taxation hearing. This is a meeting that is noticed on the property tax estimates that are sent to all Chanhassen residents about a month ago if I’m not mistaken, is that correct? And it is our custom to begin with a staff report and we will follow that with a public comment period so Mr. Sticha, do you have a staff report? Greg Sticha: I do. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you very much. Greg Sticha: Good evening Mayor and City Council members. As the Mayor said it will be kind of reviewing, our start with the entire budget process the City Council went through the last 4 or 5 months to kind of give our residents a feel for what we’ve already been through. The decisions that have been discussed and reached to this point and then what’s left to have happen at next week’s meeting so we started the budget process in June and July. We had one meeting with the City Council in June, a preliminary meeting and then the department directors in early July submitted their proposals to the City Manager and myself for review. We reviewed those and it culminated in a budget document that we presented to City Council in August. Those detailed budgets were reviewed with the City Council by department I believe at the first meeting in August. At the first meeting in September the City Council set a preliminary tax levy which was the number that was then used for the Truth in Taxation statements the mayor just mentioned a few minutes ago. Those are used and sent out to the residents in early to mid- City Council Truth in Taxation Hearing – December 7, 2015 November and it offers a date of a public hearing for each of the jurisdictions, taxing jurisdictions. Our’s is this evening. The school districts and counties are at different dates the th first 2 weeks of December. Next week the City Council on the 14 will adopt a final budget and levy for the City of Chanhassen taking any input into account tonight as well as any other final pieces of information that they may receive between now and next week. So taking a look at the general fund expenditures comparing 2015 to the preliminary budget that was set in September as compared by division on this spreadsheet. In total a total increase in expenditures in the general fund of just over 3 percent. No one significant division seeing a larger increase than any others. Law enforcement, the contract with the sheriff’s office probably the largest one particular dollar item that was the largest increase from the previous year’s budget but in general no particular line item saw anything significant relating just to one item. Wages and salaries and health care costs are all included within all of these divisions and we’ll be going over those numbers a little later. On the revenue side comparing 2015 to 16, again you’re seeing a balanced budget so you’re seeing the exact same budgeted revenue number as you saw budgeted expenditure number. We budgeted license and permit numbers at the same number as the previous year. All other revenues relatively flat as compared to the previous year. The property tax number then essentially becomes the number needed to balance the budget between whatever revenues you see here, taking into account the expenditures that you saw on the previous page. Taking a look at the general fund expenditure history, and this would be final levy over the last 10 years it shows, this bar graph shows where we’ve come from, from year to year and the change from year to year. You can see over the 10 or 11 year history about a 25 percent increase in the general fund spending. If you average that per year it’s a little less than 2 ½ percent. I did the math so spending for the general fund pretty consistent from year to year. As you look at the changes in year to year you can see that they’re right around that 2, 2 ½ percent difference on an annual basis. So what factors changed the budget for 2016 as compared to 2015? Like I said earlier most expenditure line items remain flat. We did include wage increases of 2.5 percent. Staff has found a way to possibly make the 2.7 percent originally budgeted for. We’ll be discussing that in the work session later this evening. Budgeted permit revenue, we have a small increase of $20,000. This is to help offset some increasing costs within the building department as well as we have not increased our building permit fee since 2009. And health care costs increased at 11 percent. One item of note new growth for taxes payable in 2016 is 1.87 percent. This includes the decertification of TIF #4. The downtown TIF district. So taking a look at each of the individual levies that the City has, the City has a total levy of just over $10 million dollars. 2015’s total levy was $10,334,000 as compared to the preliminary levy in 2016 of $10,697,000. This breaks out the levies by each of the various funding sources so we’re discussing the general fund in the slides previous to this and so that shows the $8,017,000 as part of the preliminary levy for the general fund with most of the other levies remaining flat. One of the City’s debt service levies is eliminated in 2016. The final bond repayment for Audubon Road reconstruction was made in 2015 so a very small decrease in that debt levy but in total you’ll notice a 1.87 percent increase in the levy matching the amount of new growth we were signified by the county earlier this year. So getting to that, taking a look at the City’s final levy as compared to new growth the last decade you’ll notice in every year but one year the City Council has set the final levy either at or below, and in most cases below the amount of new growth for the year. The 2 City Council Truth in Taxation Hearing – December 7, 2015 purple bar would depict the new growth for the city and the green bar would depict the levy, the final levy that was set by the City Council in that particular year. 2016 the preliminary was the 1.87 percent and that’s what we’ll be discussing with City Council for setting a final levy here later this evening and next week. So what’s the impact on an average homeowner based on the levy that the City Council set back in September? The information we had received from the County had indicated that the average home would, had increased in value, taxable market value by about 1.4 percent. I surveyed literally dozens, actually I think I went through about 40 or 50 Truth in Taxation statements trying to find an exact match to some of the numbers that we would consider as average homes in the city of Chanhassen. Average home value in Chanhassen is in the $340,000 to $350,000 range so I tried to pick at least one home in that range and taking, and trying to find homes that saw a value change of the 1.4 percent average that we were indicated by the County. What I found was that for a zero percent change in the property tax dollars, the City portion of the property tax dollars it was equating to a little closer to about a 1.2 percent change in taxable market value. A little bit different than what we had been indicated by the County. There are a number of reasons why that could be. .2 percent is certainly not a significant variance from what we would have projected. A lot of years it’s around .1 percent I see the difference between what the taxable market value was indicated to us from the County based on what I’m seeing on some of the statements. You also have to realize the statements, the Truth in Taxation statements that were sent out are also not final. There are a number of variables that can still change those very slightly between now and the final statements that the residents will receive in 2016 so I think we’re certainly within the margin of error by .2 percent but as you can see, taking a look at let’s say parcel number 2 for example being the closest to an average home in Chanhassen. It saw 1.2 percent increase in it’s taxable market value and it has the exact same property tax bill from the city’s portion of it’s property taxes as the previous year. Mayor Laufenburger: So Mr. Sticha just to clarify for people who are watching at home or seeing this in chambers. It sounds like what you’re saying is that, in the example of number 2, this is a home that in 2015 it’s property tax, it’s taxable value was listed at $347,000. In 2016 it’s taxable value is $352,000 but the portion that that property tax, or that that taxable value is of the total tax base in Chanhassen, I realize there may be some nuances but that portion remained the same. Therefore it’s property tax essentially remained the same for 2016. So if a, if somebody looks at their property tax statement and sees a taxable market value of their home that went up less than approximately 1.2 or even went down, then it’s likely that their city portion of the property taxes would go down in 2016. And if their taxable market value went, increased by more than 1.2 percent then they will likely see a higher property tax statement from the City than they did in 2015. So 1.2 seems to be the break even, is that what you’re saying? Though the County told us 1.4, what you’re observing through your multiple dozen of looks at the different statements that you have copies of, it looks like that 1.2 is the kind of the, base water level. Greg Sticha: Pretty close. 3 City Council Truth in Taxation Hearing – December 7, 2015 Mayor Laufenburger: If you go higher than that anticipate higher property taxes. If you’re lower than that anticipate lower property taxes from the City. Greg Sticha: Yep, that’s exactly right. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Thank you very much. Greg Sticha: So what does an actual property tax statement look like in total for a home in the city of Chanhassen? And this would be in School District 112. 44 percent of your property tax bill would be actually for the school district levy, 31 percent for the county levy and then 20 percent for the city levy so the city’s portion of the pie, if you will based on this graph is one- fifth of your total property tax statement. It’s important to keep that in mind as you’re reviewing your property tax statement and if you have significant changes in the statement from the previous year and your value is near the 1.2 percent we were discussing earlier it’s highly likely that one of the other taxing jurisdictions may have had a change that had an impact on it and you may or may not want to attend those public budget meetings to discuss what those changes were about. One of the things that we do on annual basis is compare our budgeted expenditures to the previous year to our comparable cities. Our KFS cities as we call them at the City of Chanhassen. Those are listed on the left in this graph. If you take a look at our 2014 to 2015 budgeted expenditures, 2016 data is still not available. Our increase from 14 to 15 was 2.47 percent with the average being 3.97 percent. As you scroll through the list you’ll notice some numbers for some of the cities were either zero or less than zero and some had double digit increases. It’s kind of been the approach of this City Council and previous City Councils to attempt to keep the levy and expenditures consistent from year to year. If you take a look at Lino Lakes for example that saw 10.3 percent increase in their budgeted expenditures. It was probably followed the previous year by maybe a zero percent increase or maybe even a minus. To avoid that rollercoaster feeling for the taxpayers this council has taken the approach of a very steady moderate approach to any expenditure and levy increases from a year to year basis and again that number certainly indicates that as you look at our budgeted expenditure amount from 14 to 15 as compared to our KFS cities. And then taking a look at the same statistic as compared to other cities within Carver County, again with the average being 4.6 percent and us at the 2.47. Now taking a look at it factoring into it population and getting a per capita spending comparison. First of our KFS cities per capita spending in 2015 we compare very favorably. Second lowest in per capita spending with the average being 504 and us at 422 per population, per person within the city. And looking at Carver County’s per capita spending comparison again the lowest within Carver County with the average being 478. Taking a look at our Carver, at the Carver County tax rates. The tax rates of each of the cities within Carver County, the 2015 tax rate of 24.633 being the lowest within Carver County and based on the preliminary levies that were set within Carver County I can tell you we’ve gotten the preliminary information on that and our estimated tax rate for 2016, assuming a final levy either at or below our preliminary levy, we once again will have the lowest tax rate within the county. Very close to this 24.633 number. I think it’s calculated or estimated change of one one hundredth of a percent so. So at this point I would certainly take any questions from City Council. Staff will be meeting with the council 4 City Council Truth in Taxation Hearing – December 7, 2015 this evening and next week to finalize all the 2016 budget and tax levy numbers so there’ll still be some time to discuss any changes from what the preliminary levy was set but next Monday evening the City Council will then set a final budget and levy for taxes payable in 2016. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Mr. Sticha. Are there any questions for Mr. Sticha from council members? Okay just a reminder to those that are watching at home, as Mr. Sticha mentioned in one of his first slides we have looked at this budget repeatedly over the last 5 months so what you’re seeing tonight we are not, we as council members are not seeing this for the first time. We’ve been very active participants in the development of all of this information and consequently it’s not unusual for us to not have any questions. At this time I would open the meeting for a public hearing and just so those of you at home understand, with exception of the editor of the Chanhassen Villager and the Assistant City Manager and Mr. Sticha, the council is sitting all alone here this evening and we take that as generally good news in that people who have been following this budget process for the last several months find no reason to come forward and bring their property tax statement so I don’t want to say that there are no questions because certainly any residents that have any questions about their property tax statement or their estimate as delivered they’re welcomed to come to City Hall and raise any questions with Mr. Sticha or any staff members and we’d be happy to answer those questions. I do, did want to make one question Mr. Sticha. You said, go the coin where you show the different, or the pie. Actual property tax statements. Recently both in Eastern Carver County schools and also in Minnetonka public schools there were referendums that were passed. Do the property tax estimates that people received in early November, did they have the financial impact of the results of those elections? Mr. Gerhardt do you know? Greg Sticha: I don’t think so. Mayor Laufenburger: And will the property tax statements that they receive after the levies are all complete, will they be, will they include those levy comments? Greg Sticha: My assumption would be that those passed levies would be included in their 2016 property taxes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alrighty. Thank you very much. Mr. Crawford, just state your name and address please and your comment. Richard Crawford: Richard Crawford, 123 Second Street, Chaska. That’s my business address. Mayor Laufenburger: That’s fine. That’s a nice business address. Richard Crawford: Can you explain on the, you had mentioned going from 2.5 to 2.75 on the city salaries. How are you doing that? 5 City Council Truth in Taxation Hearing – December 7, 2015 Greg Sticha: We’re going to be discussing that in work session this evening but we hadn’t received all of the employee election forms for health care. Health care elections until just this last week. We had a couple employees, a few employees that came in and elected single coverage rather than family coverage to the tune of saving the City about $14,000. To go from 2.5 to 2.7 we needed $8,000. We discussed this item last week in work session and so we’re going to be presenting that to council this evening as a possibility or an opportunity to put that $8,000 back in. No decision has been made on that but there is the possibility or the opportunity for council to do that. Mayor Laufenburger: Sure, and in fairness Mr. Sticha the 2.7 percent salary item that was originally part of the staff recommendation was essentially part of what we described as scenario 1, is that correct? Greg Sticha: Yes. Yes it was. Mayor Laufenburger: And to get to scenario 2, which was the scenario that was approved by City Council for preliminary one of the recommendations to achieve that was to drop the salary from 2.7 to 2.5. Greg Sticha: That’s exactly right, yep. Mayor Laufenburger: Is that right, okay. But as you said that decision has not been made. The only decision that we know is that Minnesota State Statute prevents us from establishing a levy th higher than that which we established as a preliminary levy on September 14, is that correct? Greg Sticha: That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. Any other comment from the public? There being none let’s bring it back to council. Any questions or comments for Mr. Sticha or anybody? Okay. With that I will pronounce this Truth in Taxation hearing closed. May I have a motion for adjournment. Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The Truth in Taxation hearing was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 6