11-23-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

allocation is workable. This saved $1,532 for the General Fund and $3,111 in total. • If the Council approves the internal planner/code enforcement officer position, staff feels it is not possible to implement the full impact on January 1St. By going to the internal planner/code enforcement position, we also need to hire a part time utility billing clerk. Given we do utility billing by mid-January it is doubtful we could have someone on board by that date. Therefore, we feel we could start the new position on March 28t1i to better tie in to the full functioning of a utility billing cycle. If we follow this approach, we would save about I/ of the Utility billing position and we would also only transfer about 3/ of the Water/Sewer Fund costs (the $29,600 discussed earlier.) As a result, we reduced expenditures in the General Fund by $7,230. It should be noted that this is not a true savings, but rather a postponement of the total expense. In 2017, we will need to account for the amount avoided in 2016 given the full year impact. Please note that staff recommends we implement the planner position on 1/1 so she can commence learning the responsibilities. However, she will need to continue her utility billing responsibilities until a replacement is found. • We also eliminated heat (gas) at 65 South Owasso (Public Works West or the former Roseville Plumbing Building. Given the new PW building is now in use, any items still being stored there do not require heat. This saved $2,400. With these changes, the total levy increase falls to 3.52%. (Levy Sheet 3) If any of these items are not acceptable, please advise and we will make the appropriate adjustments. Levy Impact on Residents: At the last meeting, Council Member Torkelson asked what the various levy percentages meant in terms of dollar impact to home owners. The attached 2016 Tax Rate Impact Sheet gives some indication of the dollar impact relative to the City's levy impact. Two scenarios are shown. The first deals with no increase in a homeowner's estimated market value (EMV). It shows that even though we are dealing with a 3.52 percent levy increase, our tax base growth of 4.12% effectively negates the impact of that increase. The net impact is only .02%. It is important to keep in mind that our tax base growth can come from new development or increases in value from existing properties. If the latter occurs, a levy increase is magnified by that fact. In the second scenario, a 5% value increase is depicted. For residential properties under $500,000 in value, this adds that 5% to the levy impact noted in scenario #1 or a 5.02% impact. Again, this is only the City's tax. It does not include the school district, county, or other jurisdictions. Historically, we have emphasized our levy change as the factor we control in impacting property taxes. That number is reflective of how we are managing expenses. We have not dealt with the tax rate other than to show how we compare to others. That is because there have been years we have had small percentage increases in the levy but values have changed dramatically, and as a result, so have property taxes.