08/31/92 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

DATE: TO: Augtlst 31, 1992 MEMORANDUM Mayo? and City Council A ~ FROM: l~yan' Schroeder, City Administrato~~'- SUBJECT: i993[Budget Recommendation As promised, th[e: at~ched are 12 separate exhibits which, in total, bring to you a balanced budget proposal for 1'9~3. ~,t includes budgeted revenues of $2,392,714 which is a 6.17% increase over the 1992 appr, ~vedibudgeted revenues of $2,253,727 and is 3.83% above the 1991 approved revenues of $2 [04,,503. It includes projected tax capacity increase from 15.215% to 16.676%. I would like to lirex~.t your attention to the various exhibits attached herein. The f'nrst exhibit is the 1992 Tax Capa"--iityi (2omparison of 20 Area Cities. What is shown is that in 1992, Ramsey had the second lowest ax rapacity of its neighbors which was 25% below the average and almost 27% below the avo~ ge t~x capacity of its immediate neighbors of Andover, Anoka, Blaine, Champlin, Coon Rapids, myron and Elk River. At the same time, according to 1990 census data, Ramsey had a median ~usehold income of over 13% above the average for this area. Exhibit two is {he f. D92 Tax Capacity Comparison showing all Minnesota cities with populations between 10,000 arid 20,000. This exhibit shows that Ramsey is the fourth lowest taxing jurisdiction of ~he 35 cities in the State in our population group. A review of this document shows that had our ta~capDcity for 1992 been as much as 14% higher than it was for the year, we would have continual!to b~ the fourth lowest taxing city amongst this group. '-The third exhibit shows two different pieces of data. The first is full-time equivalent employees by population bct~vee~ 1989 and 1993. It shows that our full-time compliment on Staff has been increasing as Itas our population. Recommended in this document is a full-time equivalent of 37.42 position~ which is down from the 1992 level of 39.61. Further, because of our estimated growth, it is pr~je¢ied that there are just over 374 persons in Ramsey for each employee which is an increase from the 1992 levels of just about 337 persons. This exhibit also shows our historical new home con~tmction and projects that we will have 175 new homes constructed in 1993. The fourth exh!bit:~hows the impact on the typical household of the levy increase proposed within this budget. The p.i'ojected tax capacity change results in an overall levy increase of 5.45% for 1993 as comp~redlto 4.8% for 1992. The actual increase to property taxes, and the percent published in ~.-' public hearing notice, will be 8.84%. This is considerably lower than the 21.1% published for 1;~992~ Exhibit five is .~ sunhmary of expenditure reductions identified to balance the 1993 budget proposal. In this exhibit, ~ou ~ill see that we eliminated any funding for a Public Works facility. In addition to that, there a~ seIbarate exhibits for personal service and capital outlay reductions, both of which deal with thoS[ isSUes in greater detail so I'll eliminate the discussion here. Regarding capital improvement rgqadsts, this budget assumes that for new subdivisions, parks will be constructed as the park dedi ~dati0fl funds become available from that subdivision. In addition, with the cut identified her~in the amount of $67,400, a contribution from the General Fund in the amount of $50,000 rema",ms, i Further, the Gambling Fund which is dedicated towards park improvements currently has afu: d balance of $9,700 and the Park Improvement Trust Fund has a balance of about $100,000. T ais General Fund reduction in expenditure assumes that some portion of these two funds wtI[~belt~tilized to recover the difference. The last expenditure item is the Equipment