Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2022/02/18DOCSOPEN\MU210\4\780315.v1-2/15/22 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL NOTICE OF SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Friday, February 18, 2022 10:00 a.m. THIS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING IS VIRTUAL Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82896257611?pwd=WTFuMkZ3Q0twZVl6YVVpTDlRclRwUT09 Passcode: 238914 Or One tap mobile: US: +16465588656, 82896257611# or +13017158592, 82896257611# Or Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 646 558 8656 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 669 900 9128 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or 833 548 0282 (Toll Free) or 877 853 5247 (Toll Free) or 888 788 0099 (Toll Free) or 833 548 0276 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 828 9625 7611 International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/ketxCoQEFk NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mounds View City Council will hold a virtual special City Council meeting on Friday, February 18, 2022, commencing at 10:00 a.m. at City Hall, 2401 Mounds View Boulevard, Mounds View, Minnesota for the following purpose: 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: Mueller, Hull, Meehlhause, Bergeron, Cermak 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. CITY BUSINESS DOCSOPEN\MU210\4\780315.v1-2/15/22 A. Review and consideration of petitioner’s letter regarding referendum petition submitted February 14, 2022, regarding Ordinance No. 984; B. Presentation of certificate regarding petition; C. Resolution regarding petition and certificate; D. General discussion regarding above agenda items. 6. ADJOURNMENT ______________________________________________ Nyle Zikmund City Administrator Dated: February 15, 2022. FINANCE DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION FOR THE MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2021 VISION AND MISSION STATEMENT VISION A T HRIVING DESIRABLE COMMUNITY MISSION PROVIDE HIGH QUALITY PUBLIC SERVICES IN A FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE MANOR OVERVIEW OF CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW FUND STRUCTURE General Special Revenue Debt Service Capital Projects Enterprise General Fund Cable 2017A Debt Service Park Dedication Water Police Forfeiture Vehicle & Equipment Sewer EDA Special Projects Street Light Community Center Street Improvement Storm Water Lakeside Park Recycling TIF District No. 5 TIF District No. 6 Bold –Tax Supported GENERAL FUND Departments City Council Advisory Commissions City Administrator Elections Finance Central Services Community Development Police Fire Park Maintenance Forestry Public Works Administration Building and Grounds Maintenance Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance Street Pavement management Snow and Ice Control Street Sign Maintenance Convention and Visitors Bureau Miscellaneous Debt Service 50% 11% 13% 7% 6% 10% 2%1% Expenditure by Function Public Safety Streets & Highways General Government Park & Recreation Community Development Transfers Debt Service Other GENERAL FUND 70% 13% 6% 5%3%3% Revenue Budget by Source Property Taxes Intergovernmental Other Revenues Other Taxes Licenses & Permits Transfers 62% 22% 4% 2% 10% Expenditure Budget by Type Personnel Contractual Services Supplies Debt Service Transfers HOW DID WE GET HERE? THE RECESSION OF 2001/2002 CAUSED THE STATE TO SLASH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID TO CITIES STARTING IN 2003. MOUNDS VIEW AID DECLINED FROM $790,000 IN 2002 TO $0 IN 2006, THIS REPRESENTED 16.5% OF THE 2002 BUDGET. THE CITY COUNCIL WAS FORCED TO INCREASE PROPERTY TAXES TO REPLACE SOME OF THE LOST AID (2004 –19%, 2005 –25%) FUND BALANCE DECLINED BY 36% IN 2003 TO ABSORB THE AID REDUCTION THAT WAS PASSED ON TO CITIES AFTER THEIR BUDGETS WERE SET. (NOT THE LAST TIME THIS HAPPENED) CHALLENGES INFLATION AT THE CITY LEVEL IS NOT THE SAME AS WHAT WE EXPERIENCE ON A PERSONAL LEVEL –LABOR, CONTRACTUAL SERVICES, ENERGY, AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS ARE THE COST DRIVERS AT THE CITY LEVEL. THESE COSTS TEND TO INCREASE AT A HIGHER RATE THEN THE PUBLISHED RATE OF INFLATION. CHALLENGES THE CITY IS ASKED TO DO MORE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THESTATEGOVERNMENT, THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT, THEMETROPOLITANCOUNCIL, RESIDENTS, AND BUSINESSES. CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS AND AN INCREASING POPULATION ALSO REQUIRE MORE SERVICES. (2010 –12,155, 2020 –13,513) THIS HAS BEEN DONE WITH ESSENTIALLY THE SAME SIZED STAFF FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS. WE HAVE AVERAGED ABOUT 50 FTE’S DURING THAT PERIOD WITH 2021 BUDGETED AT 52.5. IT HAS BECOME MORE DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN THE SAME LEVEL OF SERVICES AND RESPOND TO INCREASING GOVERNMENTAL REQUIREMENTS AND AN INCREASING POPULATION. CHALLENGES FUND BALANCE WILL DECLINE AS A PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE, WHICH WILL MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO RESPOND TO FUTURE CHALLENGES SHOULD THEY OCCUR. FUND BALANCE THE MINNESOTA STATE AUDITOR AND THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION RECOMMEND MAINTAINING A GENERAL FUND BALANCE OF BETWEEN 35% AND 50% OF FUND OPERATING REVENUES DUE TO THE TIMING OF TAX COLLECTIONS (JULY AND DECEMBER) (REVIEW MULTI -YEAR GENERAL FUND BUDGET) City of Mounds View Five Year Financial Plan General Fund Multi-year Operating Budget 2022 thru 2026 4.00%4.00%3.50%3.50%3.50%3.50%3.50%3.50%3.50%3.50% 2018 2019 2020 2021 Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Actual Actual Actual Budget 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Interest 0.50%0.50%1.00%1.00%1.25%1.25%1.25%1.25%1.25%1.25% Other revenues 2.25%2.25%2.25%2.25%2.25%2.25%2.25%2.25%2.25%2.25% Revenues:Levy 3.50%4.00%4.00%4.00%4.00%4.00%4.00%4.00%4.00%4.00% Property taxes - Base levy 4,082,924$ 4,245,901$ 4,516,708$ 4,666,859$ 4,848,939$ 5,064,713$ 5,287,748$ 5,518,702$ 5,759,555$ 6,017,281$ 6,282,015$ 6,558,047$ 6,845,858$ 7,145,950$ Property taxes - Special levies (not subject to cap)244,145 349,145 369,145 369,145 374,145 379,145 394,311 410,083 426,487 443,546 461,288 479,739 498,929 518,886 Property taxes - debt levies (not subject to cap)90,835 165,800 171,190 166,291 171,268 132,014 91,778 92,534 257,131 157,500 157,500 157,500 157,500 157,500 Total taxes 4,417,904 4,760,846 5,057,043 5,202,295 5,394,352 5,575,873 5,773,838 6,021,319 6,443,173 6,618,328 6,900,802 7,195,286 7,502,287 7,822,336 Franchise tax 338,919 308,835 301,756 305,000 311,863 318,879 326,054 333,390 340,892 348,562 356,404 364,423 372,623 381,007 Other taxes 23,046 26,477 29,309 26,000 26,585 27,183 27,795 28,420 29,060 29,713 30,382 31,066 31,765 32,479 Hotel/motel tax 77,115 71,957 29,264 50,000 51,125 52,275 53,452 54,654 55,884 57,141 58,427 59,742 61,086 62,460 Licenses and permits 312,047 348,201 269,446 245,872 251,404 257,061 262,845 268,759 274,806 280,989 287,311 293,776 300,385 307,144 Intergovernmental 1,229,019 1,303,053 2,419,722 956,075 1,226,189 1,253,778 1,281,988 1,310,833 1,340,326 1,370,484 1,401,319 1,432,849 1,465,088 1,498,053 Charges for services 23,736 38,007 60,385 24,625 33,517 34,271 35,042 35,831 36,637 37,461 38,304 39,166 40,047 40,948 Fines & forfeitures 35,800 46,098 25,596 33,750 34,509 35,286 36,080 36,892 37,722 38,570 39,438 40,326 41,233 42,161 Interest 157,074 316,381 196,579 60,000 60,300 60,602 61,208 61,820 62,592 63,375 64,167 64,969 65,781 66,603 Miscellaneous 304,719 323,497 310,601 298,162 304,871 311,730 318,744 325,916 333,249 340,747 348,414 356,253 364,269 372,465 Transfers:3%3%3%3%3%3%3%3%3%3%3%3%3%3% Water Fund (3%)78,103 80,446 82,859 85,345 87,905 90,542 93,259 96,056 98,938 101,906 104,963 108,112 111,356 114,696 Sewer Fund (3%)61,860 80,446 82,859 85,345 87,905 90,542 93,259 96,056 98,938 101,906 104,963 108,112 111,356 114,696 Street Light Fund (3%)2,771 2,854 2,940 3,028 3,119 3,213 3,309 3,408 3,511 3,616 3,724 3,836 3,951 4,070 Storm Water Fund (3%)8,067 8,309 8,558 8,815 9,079 9,352 9,632 9,921 10,219 10,525 10,841 11,166 11,501 11,846 Vehicle & Equipment Fund - - - 25,000 26,000 27,000 28,000 29,000 30,000 31,000 32,000 33,000 34,000 35,000 Debt issued (bonds, certificates or leases)175,191 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total revenues 7,245,371 7,715,407 8,876,917 7,409,312 7,908,723 8,147,587 8,404,502 8,712,275 9,195,945 9,434,323 9,781,461 10,142,082 10,516,728 10,905,965 6.92%6.49%15.05%-16.53%6.74%3.02%3.15%3.66%5.55%2.59%3.68%3.69%3.69%3.70% Operating Expenditures: Legislative Services: City Council 58,903 58,013 50,168 62,239 64,729 67,318 69,674 72,112 74,636 77,249 79,952 82,751 85,647 88,645 Advisory Commissions 15,352 39,379 3,900 26,000 27,040 28,122 29,106 30,125 31,179 32,270 33,400 34,569 35,779 37,031 Subtotal 74,255 97,392 54,068 88,239 91,769 95,439 98,780 102,237 105,815 109,519 113,352 117,319 121,425 125,675 Administrative Services: City Administrator 286,882 305,115 307,051 310,722 323,151 336,077 347,840 360,014 372,614 385,656 399,154 413,124 427,584 442,549 Elections 33,460 26,954 27,023 36,265 37,716 39,224 40,597 42,018 43,489 45,011 46,586 48,217 49,904 51,651 Finance 268,325 274,866 282,535 294,777 306,568 318,831 329,990 341,540 353,493 365,866 378,671 391,924 405,642 419,839 Central Services 261,610 298,124 252,162 312,459 324,957 337,956 349,784 362,027 374,697 387,812 401,385 415,434 429,974 445,023 Subtotal 850,277 905,059 868,771 954,223 992,392 1,032,088 1,068,211 1,105,598 1,144,294 1,184,344 1,225,796 1,268,699 1,313,104 1,359,062 Community Development 435,152 441,676 417,362 477,040 496,122 515,966 534,025 552,716 572,061 592,083 612,806 634,255 656,453 679,429 Police 2,969,790 3,325,570 3,258,674 3,442,885 3,580,600 3,723,824 3,854,158 3,989,054 4,128,671 4,273,174 4,422,735 4,577,531 4,737,745 4,903,566 Fire 431,873 467,982 470,990 469,289 488,061 507,583 525,348 543,736 562,766 582,463 602,849 623,949 645,787 668,390 Public Works Administration 149,353 153,706 118,975 123,606 128,550 133,692 138,371 143,214 148,227 153,415 158,784 164,342 170,094 176,047 Operating Expenditures: (continued) Parks, Recreation & Forestry: Recreation 123,961 125,940 96,795 - - - - - - - - - - - Parks 286,911 342,429 399,410 467,094 485,778 505,209 522,891 541,192 560,134 579,739 600,030 621,031 642,767 665,264 Forestry 36,836 44,185 64,092 54,213 56,382 58,637 60,689 62,813 65,012 67,287 69,642 72,080 74,602 77,213 Subtotal 447,708 512,554 560,297 521,307 542,159 563,846 583,580 604,006 625,146 647,026 669,672 693,110 717,369 742,477 Public Works Building & Grounds Mtnce 144,415 143,343 171,070 153,709 159,857 166,252 172,070 178,093 184,326 190,778 197,455 204,366 211,519 218,922 Vehicle & Equipment Mtnce 124,811 113,381 136,104 132,526 137,827 143,340 148,357 153,550 158,924 164,486 170,243 176,202 182,369 188,752 Subtotal 269,226 256,724 307,174 286,235 297,684 309,592 320,427 331,642 343,250 355,264 367,698 380,567 393,887 407,673 Streets: Pavement Management 205,269 234,368 218,180 226,268 235,319 244,731 253,297 262,162 271,338 280,835 290,664 300,837 311,367 322,265 Snow & Ice Control 168,529 177,992 161,346 154,884 161,079 167,523 173,386 179,454 185,735 192,236 198,964 205,928 213,135 220,595 Sign Maintenance 47,325 47,318 42,676 68,283 71,014 73,855 76,440 79,115 81,884 84,750 87,716 90,787 93,964 97,253 Subtotal 421,123 459,678 422,202 449,435 467,412 486,109 503,123 520,732 538,958 557,821 577,345 597,552 618,466 640,113 Other Convention & Visitor's Bureau 73,260 65,455 29,314 47,500 48,569 49,662 50,779 51,921 53,090 54,284 55,506 56,754 58,031 59,337 Social Service Coordination 20,748 35,329 57,054 51,656 53,722 55,871 57,827 59,851 61,945 64,113 66,357 68,680 71,084 73,572 Miscellaneous/contingency 3,766 3,662 3,577 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 Transfers to EDA 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Transfers to Comm Ctr fund 190,000 190,000 550,000 350,000 350,000 360,000 360,000 370,000 370,000 380,000 380,000 390,000 390,000 400,000 Transfers to Vehicle fund 300,000 325,000 299,000 299,000 325,000 325,000 325,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 375,000 375,000 375,000 Transfers to Special Projects fund 100,000 125,000 475,000 75,000 80,000 85,000 90,000 95,000 100,000 105,000 110,000 115,000 120,000 125,000 Debt service - Fire Bonds 130,123 166,112 163,036 158,372 163,112 125,728 87,408 88,128 244,887 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 Debt service - Lease (ESP)24,495 24,495 166,468 - - - - - - - - - - - Subtotal 892,392 985,053 1,793,449 1,038,028 1,076,903 1,057,761 1,027,514 1,071,400 1,236,422 1,159,898 1,168,363 1,211,934 1,220,615 1,239,409 Total operating expenditures 6,941,149 7,605,394 8,271,962 7,850,287 8,161,652 8,425,900 8,653,538 8,964,335 9,405,610 9,615,007 9,919,401 10,269,259 10,594,946 10,941,841 Percent increase(decrease) over PY 6.25%9.57%8.76%-5.10%3.97%3.24%2.70%3.59%4.92%2.23%3.17%3.53%3.17%3.27% Capital Expenditures: Fire 240,227 59,761 51,194 7,560 150,000 125,000 200,000 175,000 87,750 75,160 162,500 162,500 162,500 162,500 Subtotal 240,227 59,761 51,194 7,560 150,000 125,000 200,000 175,000 87,750 75,160 162,500 162,500 162,500 162,500 Total expenditures 7,181,376 7,665,155 8,323,156 7,857,847 8,311,652 8,550,900 8,853,538 9,139,335 9,493,360 9,690,167 10,081,901 10,431,759 10,757,446 11,104,341 venue over (under) expenditures 63,995 50,252 553,761 (448,535) (402,930) (403,313) (449,036) (427,060) (297,415) (255,844) (300,440) (289,677) (240,718) (198,377) ginning Fund Balance 9,476,539 9,540,534 9,590,786 10,144,547 9,696,012 9,293,082 8,889,769 8,440,733 8,013,673 7,716,258 7,460,414 7,159,974 6,870,297 6,629,579 ding Fund Balance 9,540,534$ 9,590,786$ 10,144,547$ 9,696,012$ 9,293,082$ 8,889,769$ 8,440,733$ 8,013,673$ 7,716,258$ 7,460,414$ 7,159,974$ 6,870,297$ 6,629,579$ 6,431,202$ 246,000 242,000 238,000 234,000 230,000 226,000 222,000 218,000 214,000 210,000 206,000 202,000 signed for Levy Reduction by Council Res.5,337,607 5,217,724 4,971,724 4729724 4,515,372.62 4,303,949 4,116,989 3,932,159 3,759,310.85 3,588,302.24 3,419,156.02 3,251,895.47 3,086,544.16 2,923,125.96 signed for Balancing Subsequent Budget (50,252) (553,761) 448,535 402,930 403,313 449,036 427,060 297,415 255,844 300,440 289,677 240,718 198,377 142,455 assigned Fund Balance 4,253,179 4,926,823 4,724,288 4,563,358 4,374,396 4,136,784 3,896,684 3,784,099 3,701,103 3,571,672 3,451,141 3,377,683 3,344,658 3,365,621 Total Fund Balance 9,540,534 9,590,786 10,144,547 9,696,012 9,293,082 8,889,769 8,440,733 8,013,673 7,716,258 7,460,414 7,159,974 6,870,297 6,629,579 6,431,202 Unassigned Fund Balance % of subsequent years revenues 55.13%55.50%63.76%57.70%53.69%49.22%44.73%41.15%39.23%36.51%34.03%32.12%30.67%29.76% QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION THE CITY COUNCIL IS ASKING THE CHARTER COMMISSION TO CONSIDER MODIFYING THE CHARTER CAP. THIS WILL PROVIDE NEEDED FLEXIBILITY TO ADDRESS THE STRUCTURAL ISSUES THAT THE CITY WILL FACE . THE CITY IS PROPOSING THAT THE CAP BE MODIFIED TO THE GREATER OF 8% OR INFLATION. (THE CHARTER COMMISSION HAD ORIGINALLY PROPOSED 8% IN 2006 BUT WAS LOWERED TO 5% TO GET A UNANIMOUS VOTE FROM THE CITY COUNCIL) SECTION 7.02 SUBDIVISION 1. THE CITY'S ANNUAL RESOLUTION TO LEVY AD VALOREM TAXES (RAISING MONEY AGAINST REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY) SHALL NOT EXCEED THE LESSER OF THE FOLLOWING FORMULAS; EITHER THE PRIOR YEAR TAX LEVY DOLLAR AMOUNT INCREASED BY A MAXIMUM OF 5%, OR CPI (CONSUMER PRICE INDEX) PLUS 2%. THE CPI SHALL BE THE 12 MONTH AVERAGE OF THE MOST RECENTLY PUBLISHED DATA FOR ALL URBAN CONSUMERS IN THE MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL METROPOLITAN AREA, AS DEFINED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS. City Tax Levy last 26 years amended from Charter Commission Chart from April 27, 2021 Meeting Tax capacity for Local Levy Year Description local rate tax rate Tax Levy % Change 1996 6,585,123 24.686 2,311,326 -1.40% 1997 6,314,853 25.062 2,361,848 2.19% 1998 6,372,131 25.908 2,413,158 2.17% 1999 6,767,588 26.855 2,485,814 3.01% 2000 7,618,232 25.551 2,547,930 2.50% 2001 6,099,446 29.568 2,556,151 0.32% 2002 6,749,582 41.273 2,641,215 3.33% 2003 7,247,907 37.923 2,608,948 -1.22% 2004 15.40% (Gen Fund 11.33%, Police Ref 3.97%, Fire equip Cert 0.10%) LGA cut $366,174 8,327,600 42.550 3,010,749 15.40% 2005 27.49% (Gen Fund 22.43%, Police Ref -1.11%, 2004 Street Imp Debt Service 6.17%) LGA cut $301,075 6,679,189 46.966 3,838,334 27.49% 2006 LGA cut $122,217 7,533,462 39.939 3,838,334 0.00% 2007 8,364,245 37.328 3,838,334 0.00% 2008 8,574,618 34.962 3,838,334 0.00% 2009 State levy cap 8,475,755 32.351 3,799,393 -1.01% 2010 7.9% levy increase (Streets)7,580,259 40.968 4,099,393 7.90% 2011 2% levy increase (Gen Fund)7,039,380 41.172 4,181,381 2.00% 2012 6,421,849 48.893 4,181,381 0.00% 2013 6,026,790 50.422 4,181,381 0.00% 2014 2% levy increase (Gen Fund)6,985,345 44.301 4,265,010 2.00%General Fund Only 2015 2% levy increase (Gen Fund)7,642,870 42.886 4,350,310 2.00% 2016 1% levy increase (Gen Fund)8,236,495 40.105 4,393,813 1.00%4,093,813 2017 3.99 (1.71% Gen Fund, 2.28% HRA/EDA)8,930,973 37.980 4,568,947 3.99%4,168,947 2018 8.87% (4.2% Gen Fund, 9.27% Debt Service, 1.97% Police Officer, -6.57% Street levy)9,772,018 37.742 4,973,985 8.87%4,458,951 2019 9.12% (4.4% Gen Fund, 1.40% Debt Service, 0.30% Police Officer, 3.02% Street levy)10,770,483 38.009 5,427,676 9.12%4,759,230 2020 4.63% (4.2% Gen Fund, 0.06% Debt Service, 0.37% Police Officer 11,798,037 36.795 5,678,877 4.63%5,012,583 2021 3.30% (3.43% Gen Fund, -.13 Debt Service)12,668,518 34.053 5,866,280 3.30%5,202,295 2022 5.33% (4.35% Gen Fund, .94% Police Officer, .04% Deb Service)13,361,649 35.173 6,178,871 5.33%5,512,104 Average 3.81% Average less 2 outlier years 2.40% - 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022City Levy Last 26 Years DOCSOPEN\MU210\4\780657.v4-2/17/22 Kennedy Fifth Street Towers 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 700 Minneapolis MN 55402-1299 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www.kennedy-graven.com Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employer Graven C H A R T E R E D MEMORANDUM DATE: February 17, 2022 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members CC: Nyle Zikmund, City Administrator Rayla Ewald, Human Resource Director/City Clerk FROM: Scott J. Riggs, City Attorney Joseph L. Sathe, Assistant City Attorney RE: Update Regarding Charter Amendment Petition Process and Review This memorandum is being provided to the City Council in response to City staff’s request for an update to the process and any changes to the process regarding a charter amendment proposed under Minnesota Statutes, section 410.12. The City received a letter on February 14, 2022 from attorney Jack Y. Perry representing Brian and Valerie Amundsen (“Petitioners”) asserting that the City has not followed the process for reviewing petitions submitted under Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, subdivision 7 (“Perry Letter”). I. Background A detailed document outlining the history and background of the charter amendment process was prepared by City Administrator Nyle Zikmund and is attached to this memorandum as Exhibit A. The City is the ultimate determiner of the sufficiency of the petition under Minnesota Statutes. The City also relies on the election expertise of Ramsey County and has consulted with appropriate County officials in reviewing the submitted petition. Ramsey County also does provide guidance to potential petitioners,1 and there is evidence of extensive interaction by Petitioners with County election staff.2 The City did in fact take the necessary steps required by Minnesota Statutes and Minnesota Rules in previously determining the insufficiency of the petition submitted by Petitioners on January 25, 2022. As was succinctly stated in the notice certificate previously provided by the City Clerk, the petition failed to meet the requisite requirements of Minnesota Rules Chapter 8205 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12 as to form. Both of these provisions note certain requirements that must be contained in a submitted petition. The County also reached this same conclusion and previously provided notice of such conclusion 1 Petitioners also have extensive resources available to them to draft a sufficient petition and are publicly available on the Ramsey County website: ramseycounty.us/residents/elections-voting/information-reference/petitions. 2 Petitioners claim to have reached out to the Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office when putting together the petition. The Secretary of State’s office confirmed that in any conversation about the applicability of Minnesota Rules or Minnesota Statutes to any petition, the caller is provided with information referencing publicly available documents. Offices in Minneapolis Saint Paul St. Cloud & Honorable Mayor and City Council Members February 17, 2022 Page 2 DOCSOPEN\MU210\4\780657.v4-2/17/22 to the City, including a reference to the appropriate form for a petition that is to be circulated. This information was shared with the Petitioners on February 4, 2022. In addition, the submitted petition signatures were determined to be unverifiable by the City Clerk, as verification could not be made as to valid petition signators under Minnesota Rules Chapter 8205, when no birth year for each signature to the petition was provided. The City Clerk’s certificate provided notice of these deficiencies and the insufficiency of the petition on February 4, 2022 to the Petitioners as required by Minnesota law. Upon further review of the petition after receipt of the Perry Letter, it also appears that the petition circulated and submitted by Petitioners failed to meet the requisite requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, subdivision 1, as Ordinance 984 was not attached to the petition3 to be reviewed by signators at the time of circulation of the petition for signatures.4 II. Perry Letter It is difficult to determine the purpose of the Perry letter in light of the Minnesota Legislature’s statutory process set forth in both Minnesota Statutes and Minnesota Rules for submitted petitions. The Perry Letter does not follow the Minnesota statutory process regarding petitions, and as such, it is unclear what the City should do with the Perry Letter. In attempting to give deference to Petitioners’ intent, the City attempted to process the Perry Letter (essentially, asking reconsideration of the originally-submitted petition) as an amended petition as was previously referenced in the City Clerk’s certificate dated February 4, 2022. However, it must be clearly stated that there was no amended nor new petition submitted to the City with the Perry Letter; thus, such review attempts appear to be without merit. The Perry Letter is lengthy and makes many allegations about the City’s process, including that the Petitioners object to, seek reconsideration of, and otherwise appeal the notice of insufficiency; however, the only request made in the Perry Letter is for the City Clerk to “immediately reverse the February 4, 2022 Insufficiency Letter and accept the Citizens’ Petition as sufficient.” Perry Letter, page 11. The Perry Letter includes references to cases to support the purported argument that the City acted improperly. Exhibit B to this memorandum is included in an effort to provide some additional information on what each of these cases addresses using less legal terminology, along with providing a brief overview of the basic facts and outcomes of each case. Only one of the cases cited in the Perry Letter involves a petition that was similarly deficient to the Petitioner’s submission and lacked the necessary information used to validate signatures. In that case, the district court provided the petitioner two days to amend the petition and the petitioner was able to do so. The main issue in that case was that the petitioner was not given time to amend the petition, the city’s clerk missed a response deadline altogether which resulted in the response to the petitioners after the deadline to submit a petition, and the statute under which the petition was brought did not include any mechanism or 3 Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, subdivision 1 requires that any amendment that is less than 1,000 words shall include the text of the proposed amendment. Based upon the petition received January 25, 2022, no evidence exists that the text of the proposed ordinance amendment was attached to the petition in full. Providing any written summary of the charter amendment is improper. Opinion of the Attorney General 58-C, May 7, 1946. 4 In addition to the required information in the affidavit in the Petition, the Petitioners have also added the phrase “and each signed did see the full subject of the petition.” This is unnecessary and not required under Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, but is still part of their affidavits submitted by the Petitioners. It is unclear why this additional language has been added by Petitioners. Honorable Mayor and City Council Members February 17, 2022 Page 3 DOCSOPEN\MU210\4\780657.v4-2/17/22 timelines under which the city or petitioners were required to respond. This is significantly different than the petition submitted by the Petitioners under Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, as Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12 includes timelines under which a city and any petitioners are to respond and submit amended materials. The Petitioners have had ample opportunity since February 4, 2022, to amend the petition and have chosen not to do so. The other cases involve disputes over: 1) whether using the State Voter Registration System to verify whether signatures were valid is appropriate; 2) whether one petition was sufficient to affect two ordinances; and 3) whether the summary provided in a petition was sufficient. None of the cases cited state that a City must accept a petition that only includes signatures and addresses as sufficient when a petitioner has time to amend a deficient petition or submit an entirely new petition. In fact, the cases cited either involved petitions that followed Minnesota Statute and Minnesota Rules or the petitioner remedied the deficiencies and submitted a petition in the proper form with the required information. The Petitioners have not utilized the time they have had to submit a petition that meets all of the requirements of Minnesota Statutes and Rules and which is in the proper form. III. Petitioners’ Decision Not to Submit an Amended or a New Petition The issue before the City Council and City Clerk simply comes down to the reality that the petition submitted by Petitioners on January 25, 2022, was deficient and did not include all the required information. The Petitioners had time to amend or submit a new petition. Instead, the Petitioners chose to first argue that Minnesota Rules Chapter 8205 does not apply to the submitted petition, and then alternatively argued that Minnesota Rules Chapter 8205 in fact does apply to the submitted petition, but that the City did not follow the required process. Petitioners have now requested that the City determine that their petition is sufficient, without submitting any of the additional information required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 8205. As the cases cited in the Perry letter provide, Minnesota Courts give great deference to petitions as they are usually put together by laypersons and not attorneys. Minnesota Courts have generally held that minor technicalities, such as an error in the summary or a petition asking two questions in one petition should not be used to establish the insufficiency of a petition. However, the Petitioners’ recent submission via the Perry Letter does not include information that the Minnesota Secretary of State has determined and established through the rulemaking process as being required for petitions. Instead of correcting this fatal error, the Petitioners argue that the City must accept the petition as sufficient without the information required by both Minnesota Statutes and Minnesota Rules and have made no effort to fix such error.5 5 Petitioners have requested that the City calculate the number of signatures required to meet the 5% of registered voters threshold in Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12. The City has requested this information from the Ramsey County Elections Office and will provide the response to Petitioners. Honorable Mayor and City Council Members February 17, 2022 Page 4 DOCSOPEN\MU210\4\780657.v4-2/17/22 IV. Next Steps for City Council Consideration As previously stated above, Petitioners have not submitted an amendment nor a new petition, only an argumentative letter. While not required under nor consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, the City could choose to consider the following actions in response to the Perry Letter: A. Consider the Perry Letter as an amended petition as described in Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, subd. 3;6 B. Consider the Perry Letter as a new petition; C. Reaffirm Resolution No. 9547 adopted on February 4, 2022 by adopting a new resolution; D. Take no action since the Petitioners submitted no new or amended petition with the Perry Letter and as such have missed the deadline by which to submit an amended petition. The City then would wait to see if the Petitioners submit a new petition by Tuesday, February 22, 2022. Considering the information available to City staff and the City Council, including the Petitioners’ failure to submit an amended or new petition, or to follow applicable Minnesota Statutes or Minnesota Rules regarding the petition, all as set forth above, it is recommended that the City Council proceed with option IV.C. above and adopt a resolution reaffirming the Council’s actions in adopting Resolution No. 9547 adopted on February 4, 2022. Resolution No. 9553 is provided for City Council consideration regarding this matter. 6 Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, subd. 3 provides that: “The city clerk shall within five days after such amendment is filed, make examination of the amended petition, and if the certificate shall show the petition still to be insufficient, the city clerk shall file it in the city clerk's office and notify the committee of the petitioners of the findings and no further action shall be had on such insufficient petition.” A-1 DOCSOPEN\MU210\4\780657.v4-2/17/22 Exhibit A Background Information Provided by City Administrator Nyle Zikmund. For more than a decade the City has been unable to meet the service demands of our residents due to its charter levy provision. Of the 853 cities in the State of Minnesota, just over 100 have charters and of those, only 2 have a charter cap levy provision; Mounds View and Fridley. The Mounds View provision is so restrictive that the City is and has been unable to hire a full-time employee absent a voter approved referendum, no other city in the State of Minnesota operates under this restriction. Further, increasing regulatory costs, aging infrastructure, and contractual services have increased greater than the rate of inflation. Our sanitary sewer fee to the Met Council is just over $1 million per year. The city is in the midst of a $6 million upgrade to its municipal drinking water plants, all of it related to treatment as more contaminants find their way into our groundwater supplies needing additional cleaning and treatment to ensure safe drinking water. For more than a decade the City has been challenged with using reserves to balance the budget, undertaking the elimination of programs or termination of staff. The challenges are significant as evidenced by the annual reserve contribution is equal to a 4-5% levy amount. Measured in impact it would be a 20% reduction of Public Works staff, 15% reduction in Police Staff, or elimination of the Park and Recreation Programs and Community Center. Since January of 2021, the Charter Commission has been discussing easing of the levy provision contained in Chapter 7, and discussed it in depth at their March 23rd meeting and again at their April 27th meeting where Finance Director Mark Beer provided substantive detail on the looming challenge. In June of 2021, the Commission met with the Council in a workshop setting to discuss their progress and obtain feedback from the council. After further discussion at their September and November meetings, the Commission passed a resolution on a 6-3 vote to amend the levy language and move it forward via the ordinance process, which is one of multiple ways detailed in State Statute to amend a local charter. Once the resolution was adopted and presented to the City, a timeline is set forth in state statue requiring notification of a required hearing and publication of the Ordinance. The public hearing occurred on December 13, 2021, and subsequently the Council adopted the ordinance by a unanimous vote, a required component of the statute when amending the charter by ordinance. The ordinance was published on December 21, 2021, and this publication started the timeline for a petition to be submitted. Those wishing to have the ordinance put to a vote have the right to file a petition by a date certain with a requisite number of signatures detailed in statute. In this case, that day is February 22, 2022. Upon receipt the City must determine sufficiency. When a petition is submitted, if determined insufficient, petitioners have time to file an amended petition and may have the opportunity to submit an entirely new petition. If a sufficient petition is filed in accordance with statutory timelines, the ordinance is returned to the Council for further action which includes placing it on the ballot at the next general election, calling for a special election, or they could determine to go in a different direction which includes the option of abandoning the effort. If no valid petition is received, the ordinance then becomes effective 90 days after publication. That day is March 21, 2022. If a new petition is not received by February 22, 2022, and the ordinance becomes effective March 21, 2022, those who still would like to pose the question related to the levy increases still have the opportunity A-2 DOCSOPEN\MU210\4\780657.v4-2/17/22 and the right to file a petition in future elections based on statutory guidelines that set forth the timing, number of signatures, and details required. Timeline of Important Events January 26, 2021 – Charter Commission minutes – consensus to take up Chapter 7. Set February 23rd and March 23rd meetings to talk about. April 27, 2021 – Discussion on Chapter 7 and three motions on levy modifications. First motion passed 7- 2, second motion passed 8-1, and third motion passed 6-2. June 2021 – Informal workshop between Council and Commission with consensus on easing levy up to 8% with 4/5 majority – modeling what the City of Fridley had done. August 17, 2021 – Discussion on Chapter 7 with motion that was tabled until next meeting. September 21, 2021 – Discussion and numerous motions resulting in final language proposed in Ordinance 984. Final vote was 6-3. November 16, 2021 - Chair reports Council will hear Ordinance 984 at their December 13, 2021 Council meeting. B-1 DOCSOPEN\MU210\4\780657.v4-2/17/22 Exhibit B The following is a list of the primary cases cited in the Perry Letter and includes a brief summary of the case, the outcome, and how the case relates to the Petitioner’s submission. Specific legal citations within the summaries have been omitted for readability. In re Referendum to Amend City of Grand Rapids Minnesota Mun. Elections Ordinance No. 04-08-22, No. A05-2350, 2006 WL 1985595 at*2 (Minn. App. July 18, 2006). The city of Grand Forks adopted an ordinance moving the municipal election year from odd to even numbered years. The process for changing election years and the process for petitioners to request a referendum is outlined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 205.07. The petition submitted did not include the requirements outlined in Minnesota Rules part 8205.1010. Grand Rapids missed a deadline in responding to the petitioners resulting in the petitioners not being provided time to amend the petition. When challenged in district court, the Itasca County district court allowed two additional days to fix the petition, which the petitioner was able to do. - The Mounds View petition is brought under Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, which, unlike the statute the Grand Rapids petition was brought under, provides a process through which the petitioners have time to amend their petition. Additionally, the deadline to submit a petition still has not passed and is February 22, 2022. Bauman v. City of New Brighton, Bauman v. City of New Brighton, No. 62-CV-16-4804, 2016 WL 4581497, at *2 (Minn. 2nd Jud. Dist., August 25, 2016 Order). Citizens of the city of New Brighton submitted a petition under Minnesota Statutes, Section 205.07 to put the question of moving the City’s election year to even numbered years to a vote at the general election. New Brighton claimed the petition was deficient because the summary of the purpose of the petition was not included on each page and did not allow the petitioners time to correct the deficiency. The district court determined that the city did not provide the time for the petitioners to correct the petition, the summary provided in the petition was sufficient, and determined that New Brighton needed to adopt the ordinance prior to June 1 of the previous year for it to be valid. - In Mounds View, the petition is submitted under Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12 not Minnesota Statutes, Section 205.07. The timelines provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12 provide an opportunity to the Petitioners to submit an amended petition. Additionally, the time to submit any petition has not passed and Petitioners have until February 22, 2022 to submit a new petition. Bogen v. Sheedy, 229 N.W.2d.19 (Minn. 1975). The city of Duluth enacted two ordinances that were debated together, considered together, and passed at the same time regarding adult uses. Petitioners submitted one petition to rescind both ordinances which was rejected by Duluth. Duluth claimed there must be two separate petitions. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the single petition was sufficient since one could very reasonably assume the two provisions were one ordinance and there was very little chance that the public was either deceived or that logrolling in securing of the petition took place. The petition submitted was otherwise accepted by Duluth as being sufficient. - In Mounds View, the petition is deficient due to not being in the proper form which means that specific information required to be included in that form that is used to validate the petition’s signatures as valid. Butler v. St. Paul. Citizens of St. Paul, 936 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. 2019). Citizens of Saint Paul submitted a petition to move the city elections from odd to even numbered years. The petition followed the B-2 DOCSOPEN\MU210\4\780657.v4-2/17/22 requirements of Minnesota Rules and was submitted on the form similar to the sample provided by the Minnesota Secretary of State. The Ramsey County Elections Office reviewed the petition to verify the signatures on the petition for the city of St. Paul and found that a number of signatures was insufficient and certain signatures were invalid because “(1) the signer did not provide all of the required information; (2) the signer was not eligible to vote in St. Paul; (3) the signer’s information was illegible; and (4) the same person signed more than one line on the petition.” The petitioner challenged the City’s use of SVRS to verify the petition and the Minnesota Court of Appeals found that using SVRS to verify petitions is appropriate. - It should also be noted that both the Petitioners and the Perry Letter refer to the fact that the City applies Minnesota Rules to determine sufficiency as a “legal loophole”. In a footnote to the Butler decision the Court of Appeals notes that “[d]uring oral argument, Butler's counsel argued that Minn. Stat. § 204B.071 grants the secretary of state authority to adopt rules only relating to nominating and referendum petitions and therefore Minn. R. 8205.1050 does not apply to charter-amendment petitions. This assertion is incorrect.” Only In Re Grand Rapids involves a petition that was similarly deficient to the petition submitted by the Petitioners and lacked the necessary information used to validate signatures. As is mentioned above, the relief granted by the district court was to give the petitioner two days to amend the petition and he was able to do so. The main issue in that case was that the petitioner was not given time to amend the petition to fix the errors and the statute under which the petition was brought did not include any mechanism or timelines under which the city or petitioners were required to respond. This is significantly different than the petition submitted by the committee of petitioners under Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12 because Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12 includes timelines under which the city and petitioners are to respond and submit amended materials. CITY CHARTER – LEVY CAP Section 7.03 Subdivision 1. The City's annual resolution to levy ad valorem taxes (raising money against real and personal property) shall not exceed the lesser of the following formulas; either the prior year tax levy dollar amount increased by a maximum of 5%, or CPI (Consumer Price Index) plus 2%. The CPI shall be the 12 month average of the most recently published data for all Urban Consumers in the Minneapolis, St. Paul metropolitan area, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. HOW DID WE GET HERE? The Recession of 2001/2002 caused the State to Slash Local Government Aid to Cities starting in 2003. Mounds View aid declined from $790,000 in 2002 to $0 in 2006, this represented 16.5% of the 2002 budget. The City Council was forced to increase property taxes to replace some of the lost Aid (2004 – 15.4%, 2005 – 27.5%) Fund Balance declined by 36% in 2003 to absorb the aid reduction that was passed on to cities after their budgets were set. (Not the last time this happened) CHALLENGES Inflation at the City level is not the same as what we experience on a personal level – Labor, contractual services, energy, and construction costs are the cost drivers at the City level. These costs tend to increase at a higher rate than the published rate of inflation. The City is asked to do more by the Federal Government, the State Government, the County Government, The Metropolitan Council, Residents, and Businesses. Changing demographics and an increasing population also require more services. (2010 – 12,155, 2020 – 13,513) This has been done with essentially the same sized staff for the last 20 years. We have averaged about 50 FTE’s during that period with 2021 budgeted at 52.5. It has become more difficult to maintain the same level of services and respond to increasing governmental requirements and an increasing population. Fund balance will decline as a percentage of revenue, which will make it more difficult to respond to future challenges should they occur. Modifying the charter cap will provide needed flexibility to address the structural issues that the City will face in the future. DOCSOPEN\MU210\4\780902.v2-2/17/22 RESOLUTION NO. 9553 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 9547 REGARDING A PETITION FILED UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 410.12, SUBDIVISION 7 WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, subd. 7, the Mounds View Charter Commission presented to the Mounds View City Council a proposed ordinance amending section 7.03 of the Mounds View City Charter; and WHEREAS, on December 13, 2021 the Mounds View City Council passed Ordinance No. 984 to enact the proposed amendment to section 7.03 of the Mounds View City Charter and Ordinance No. 984 was published on December 21, 2021; and WHEREAS, the amendment to the Mounds View City Charter becomes effective on March 21, 2022 unless a petition requesting a referendum on the ordinance is filed by February 22, 2022; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2022 a petition was filed with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, on February 4, 2022, the City Council called a special meeting regarding the petition and passed Resolution No. 9547 accepting the findings of the City Clerk that the petition was deficient; and WHEREAS, petitioners were provided with a notice of insufficiency on February 4, 2022, which provided that February 14, 2022, was the 10-day statutory deadline for submitting an amended petition; and WHEREAS, petitioners submitted a letter through their attorney on February 14, 2022, objecting to, seeking reconsideration of, and otherwise appealing the notice of insufficiency and stating that the City Clerk must immediately reverse the notice of insufficiency and accept the petition as sufficient; and WHEREAS, the letter did not explicitly state that the letter constituted the submission of an amended or new petition nor was an amended or new version of the petition submitted with the letter; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk may respond to the letter using the process for an amended petition as described in Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12 even though no actual petition has been submitted; and DOCSOPEN\MU210\4\780902.v2-2/17/22 WHEREAS, under Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, subdivision 3, the City Clerk is required to review the amended petition within five days and if the petition is still deficient, the City Clerk is not required to present the findings to the City Council, but must notify the petitioners and file the certificate of insufficiency in the office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that no amended or new petition or supplemental information to the original petition submitted on January 25, 2022, has been provided to the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that since no new or amended petition has been provided to the City, Resolution No. 9547 is still valid along with the City Clerk’s findings provided therein. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View hereby reaffirms Resolution No. 9547 adopted on February 4, 2022, in its entirety and acknowledges that the City Clerk may provide notice thereof to the Petitioners consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 18th day of February 2022. Carol A. Mueller, Mayor Attest: ______________________________ Nyle Zikmund City Administrator (SEAL) DOCSOPEN\MU210\4\780902.v2-2/17/22 City of Mounds View Truth in Taxation Meeting December 6, 2021 6:00 pm Vision and Mission Statement Vision A Thriving Desirable Community Mission Provide High Quality Public Services in a Fiscally Responsible Manor Truth in Taxation The Truth in Taxation meeting covers those City and Economic Development Authority (EDA) funds that get a portion of the City-wide tax levy. Those funds are as follows: General ($4,961,188) Police officer referendums ($385,000)(Part of General Fund) Fire Bonds ($165,916)(Part of General Fund) GO Capital Improvement Plan Bonds ($416,766)(Public Works Facility) Street Improvement Capital Projects ($150,000) EDA ($100,000) The General Fund is the City’s operating fund and accounts for most city- wide activities, the GO CIP Plan Bond Debt Service Fund accounts for debt service for the PW facility. The Street Improvement Capital Projects Fund accounts for construction and major maintenance of City streets, parking lots, and trails. The EDA fund is the economic development fund of the City. Expenditures by Type Personnel 62% Supplies 4% Contractual services 21% Contingency 0% Debt service 2% Capital outlays 1%Transfers 10% 2022 General Fund Expenditures by Type General Government 13% Economic Development 6% Public Safety 51% Streets & Highways 11% Park & Recreation 7% Debt service 2% Other 1% Transfers 9% 2022 General Fund Expenditures by Function Expenditures by Function - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 General Government Community Development Public Safety Streets & Highways Park & Recreation Debt service Other Transfers General Fund Expenditures 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Proposed Expenditure Bar Graph General Fund Expenditure Changes 2022 General Fund operating expenditures are proposed to increase by $367,221 or 5.31%,this includes personnel services, materials and supplies, contractual services, and contingency. Personnel services are the primary driver of the increase. 2022 General Fund capital expenditures, debt service and transfers are proposed to increaseby $77,714 or 8.27%. Capital Outlays for fire equipment is the primary driver of the increase. Total 2022 General Fund expenditures are proposed to increase by $444,935 or 5.66%over 2021. Revenue Pie Chart General property taxes 68% Other taxes 5% Licenses & permits 3% Intergovernmental 16%Other revenues 5% Transfers from other funds 3% General Fund Revenues 2022 Proposed Budget $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 General Fund Revenues 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Proposed Revenue Bar Graph Budget Summary 2022 General Fund significant budget items •The City proposes a 5.66% increase in General Fund spending which includes increases in operational spending of $367,221 and an increase in non-operational spending (debt service, capital outlay, transfers) of $77,714 for an overall increase of $444,935. •Estimated LGA in 2022 is $850,373, the City included only 90% of this in the budget as a precaution from future uncertainty at the state level. This represents 9.22% of the General Fund budget. •Other non-property tax revenues are projected to increase $387,068, this excludes transfers. •Fund Balance will be reduced by $238,000 with $238,000 coming from Levy Reduction Assigned Fund Balance. Proposed Property Tax Levy 2021 2022 Property tax base levy 4,666,859$ 4,922,043$ Special levy - Police Referendum 220,000 255,000 Special levy - Police Referendum 110,000 130,000 Special levy - PERA rate increase 39,145 39,145 Debt service levy - Fire bonds 166,291 165,916 Debt service levy - PW Building 413,984 416,766 Capital Project Street Imp.150,000 150,000 EDA/HRA levy 100,000 100,000 Total Levy 5,866,279$ 6,178,870$ 5.33%312,591$ What Your Tax Dollars Buy Median Market Valued Home in Mounds View 270,500$ City Tax on Median Valued Home 979.24$ Police 440.10 44.94% Public Works 109.76 11.21% Fire 100.14 10.23% Parks and Recreation 84.44 8.62% Administration 73.12 7.47% PW Building Debt Service levy 57.08 5.83% Community Development 46.11 4.71% Community Center 47.94 4.90% Street Construction 20.55 2.10% 979.24$ 100.00% Sample Home Tax Impact 2021 Home 2021 2022 Home 2022 Taxable City Taxable City Value Tax Value Tax Difference 50,125$ 198 56,955 224 26 137,450 528 151,210 579 51 224,773 858 245,463 934 76 312,098 1,188 339,717 1,288 100 399,423 1,519 432,272 1,637 118 480,748 1,828 518,727 1,965 137 560,871 2,132 605,180 2,292 160 640,996 2,437 691,635 2,620 183 City of Mounds View 26.26 cents Ramsey County 35.81 cents School District 33.88 cents Other taxing districts 4.05 cents Tax Bill Breakdown Tax Levy Per Capita Arden Hills $446.91 Mounds View $466.37 New Brighton $489.28 Blaine $508.39 Spring Lake Park $522.61 Shoreview $522.89 Fridley $608.30 Roseville $698.08 $0.00 $100.00 $200.00 $300.00 $400.00 $500.00 $600.00 $700.00 $800.00 1 Spending per Capita In the most recent data available from the Office of State Auditor, For cities over 2500 in population the City spending per capita ranked. 187 out of 226 The City net tax levy per capita ranked 195 out of 226 The state-wide average per capita levy is $489 for cities between 10,000 and 20,000. The City compares favorably at $426 per capita. Prior Year’s Tax Levy Tax Levy General Fund in 2021 3.43%, Debt Service -.130% General Fund in 2020 4.20%, Debt Service 0.06%, Police Officer 0.37% General Fund in 2019 4.40%, Debt Service 1.40%, Police Officer 0.30%, Street levy 3.02% General Fund in 2018 4.30%, Debt Service 9.08%, Police Officer 1.86%, Street levy -6.57% General Fund in 2017 1.71%, EDA 2.28% General Fund in 2016 1% General Fund in 2015 2% General Fund in 2014 2% No levy increase 2013, 2012 General Fund in 2011 2% Street levy in 2010 7.9% No levy increase 2009,2008,2007,2006 Summary The City strives to be a good steward of public resources by considering the following: •Thoughtful Expenditures, linked to mission and priorities, aimed at sufficiency, and attentive to total cost and value. •Maintenance and conservation •Commitment to ongoing improvement City of Mounds View Questions?