HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 3, 2001 RegularCITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 (763) 706-3600 TDD (763) 706-3692
Visit Our Website at: www. ci. columbia-heights, mn. us
ADMINISTRATION
November 30, 2001
Mayor
Gary L. Peterson
Councilmembers
Marlaine Szurek
Julienne Wyckoff
Bruce Nawrocki
Robert A. Williams
City Manager
Walter R. Fehst
The following is the agenda for the regular meeting of the City Council to be held at 7:00 p.m. on Monday,
December 3, 2001 in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN
The City of Cohmtbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or
employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with
disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights' services, programs, and activities. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are
available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the Deputy City Clerk at 763-706-3611,
to make arrangements. (TDD/706-3692 for deaf or hearing impaired only)
e
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO MEETING AGENDA
(The Council, upon majority vote of its members, may make additions and deletions to the agenda. These
may be items brought to the attention of the Council under the Citizen Forum or items submitted after the
agenda preparation deadline.)
2002 BUDGET MEETING
A) 2002 Budget Tax Levy Information
Presentation by the City Manager
B)
Establishing 2002 Rental License Fees
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2001-76, there being ample copies available to
the public.
c)
MOTION: Move to approve Resolution #2001-76, being a Resolution Establishing Fees for Housing
Inspections as authorized by Chapter 5A of City Code of 1977.
Adopt the Budget for 2002, set total City Levy. collectable for 2002, and approve HRA levy
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2001-79, there being ample copies available to
the public.
MOTION: Move to adopt resolution 2001-79, being a Resolution adopting a budget for the year 2002
and setting the total City levy collectable for the year 2002, and approving the HRA levy.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Walter R. Fehst,
WF/pvm
THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Meeting of December 3, 2001
AGENDA
SECTION: L[_/~ ORIGINATING CITY
DEPARTMENT: MANAGER
NO: Fire APPROVAL
NO: DATE: November 26, 2001 DATE:
Background
In 1989 the City of Columbia Heights established a licensing and inspection program for rental property.
The Fire Department began assisting with inspections relating to this program in 1992 and was assigned
responsibility for administering the program in 1994. There currently are 558 licensed rental properties in
Columbia Heights, totaling 2,044 individual rental units. Each rental property is required by Ordinance to be
licensed to operate and must renew their license annually. The Fire Department conducts inspections of each
individual unit, interior common areas and exteriors on a regular schedule as well as responding to
complaints received. The rental inspection program is a part of the Fire Department budget.
Analysis
Revenue received fi.om annual rental licenses under the current fee structure is approximately $20,000. This
revenue does not cover the cost of the program and the Fire Department budget has absorbed the remainder
of the cost since 1994. The Fire Chief was asked to make significant cuts to the budget for 2002. With the
required cuts, the Fire Department budget is no longer able to absorb the same cost of the rental-licensing
program. As a part of the 2002 fire department budget proposal, the department is requesting that the rental
license fees be increased substantially; revenue from licenses under the proposed fee structure would total
approximately $40,000. Information is attached regarding the specifics of current rental license fees,
proposed license fees and costs associated with the program.
Recommended Action
MOVE to waive the reading of Resolution #2001-76, there being ample copies available to the public.
MOVE to approve Resolution #2001-76, Being a Resolution Establishing Fees for Housing Inspections as
Authorized by Chapter 5A of City Code of 1977.
Council Action:
I
Current (2001) Rental License Fees
Adopted by Resolution #2000-11 on February 14, 2000
Item
Rental License- 1 or 2 rental units
Rental License - 3 or 4 rental units
Rental License - 5 or more rental units
Reinspection Fee- 1-3 units
Reinspection Fee- 4+ units
License Reinstatement after Revocation or 4% times the annual license fee
Suspension
Fees shall not be charged for the initial inspection concerning any violation and for any
inspection in which all violations are found to be corrected.
Fee
$15.00 per unit
$50.00 per building
$50.00 for the first 4 rental units, plus$5.00
per unit over 4.
$50.00 for 1't and 2nd Reinspections
$100.00 for 3r~ and subsequent
Reinspections
$70.00 for 1'~ and 2nd Reinspections
$140.00 for 3r~ and subsequent
Reinspections
Proposed 2002 Rental License Fees
Item
Rental License - 1 or 2 rental units
Rental License - 3 or 4 rental units
Rental License - 5 or more rental units
Reinspection Fee - 1-3 units
Reinspection Fee - 4+ units
License Reinstatement after Revocation or 4~ times the annual license fee
Suspension
Fees shall not be charged for the initial inspection concerning any violation and for any
inspection in which all violations are found to be corrected.
Fee
$30.00 per unit
$100.00 per building
$100.00 for the first 4 rental units,
plus$10.00 per unit over 4.
$50.00 for l't and 2nd Reinspections
$100.00 for 3r~ and subsequent
Reinspections
$70.00 for l't and 2nd Reinspections
$140.00 for 3~ and subsequent
Reinspections
Rental Licensing Program Costs
Direct Expenses
Salary and Fringe-Rental Licensing Clerk~
Office Supplies
Postage
Copier Maintenance and Supplies2
Total Direct Expenses
$41,772.00
254.00
1,226.00
1,104.00
$44,356.00
Indirect Expenses
Salary and Fringe-Assistant Fire ChieP
Salary and Fringe-6 Full Time Inspectors4
Total Indirect Expenses
$39,579.00
21,527.00
$61,106.00
Total Rental Licensing Program Expenses $105,462.00
Notes:
1 2002 budgeted salary and fringe for this position.
2 Volume of paper copies is significantly higher with the rental-licensing program than without it. Without the
program there would be no justification of a copier within the fire department offices.
3 Salary and fringe listed is 50% of 2002 budget for this position. The Assistant Fire Chief is also the Housing
Enforcement Official and spends approximately 50% of staff time on aspects of the inspection program.
4 The figure listed is extrapolated from total salary and fringe for 6 full time employees, which is $443,552
according to 2002 budget. They spend 70% of their shift hours working on weekdays. Of those shifts,
approximately ]/3 of the hours occur during the normal 'workday' of 8-4. Inspections occur on 80% of
weekdays. Based on 2000 statistics, rental-licensing inspections comprise 26% of total inspections.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-76
BEING A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES FOR
HOUSING INSPECTIONS AS AUTHORIZED BY
CHAPTER 5A OF CITY CODE OF 1977
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 853, City Code of 1977, pertaining to rental property licensing
regulations provides for the establishing of annual license fees; and
and
WHEREAS, the City has authorized changes to rental property licensing fees from time to time;
WHEREAS, the City finds there is a financial need to modify the rental property licensing fee at
this time; and
WHEREAS, modifying the rental property licensing fee will not cause the City to realize a profit
from the rental property licensing program;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the rental property licensing fee structure listed below
shall be adopted and effective January 1, 2002.
Rental property license - 1 or 2 units
Rental property license - 3 or 4 units
Rental property license - 5 or more units
Reinspection fee - 1 to 3 units
Reinspection fee - 4 or more units
License Reinstatement after Revocation/Suspension
$30.00 per unit
$100.00 per building
$100.00 for tn'st 4 units, plus
$10.00 per unit over 4
$50.00 for 1st and 2ad reinspections
$100.00 for 34 and subsequent reinspections
$70.00 for 1st and 2aa reinspections
$140.00 for 3ra and subsequent reinspections
4 ½ times annual license fee
Passed this
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
day of December, 2001.
PaWicia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
CITY COUNCIL LETTER
Special Meeting off December 3 2001
AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS ORIGINATING DEgT:. CITY MANAGER
NO: FINANCE ~ ,~ ~/,~r'--'-' APPROVAL
ITEM: BEING A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A BY: WILLIAM-ELRITE BY:
BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 2002, SETTING THE DATE: NOV. 30, 2001 DATE:
TOTAL CITY LEVY COLLECTABLE FOR THE
YEAR 2002, APPROVING THE HRA LEVY,
AND APPROVING A TAX RATE INCREASE
FOR THE YEAR 2002
On November 19, 2001, the City Council met at a work session for a final review of the 2002 budget,
the 2002 levy, and to hopefully come to a consensus regarding final changes and modifications to the
budget and levy. At that meeting, the City Manager and Finance Director presented a summary of
the original budget and a summary of the City Manager's cuts and recommendations based on
previous council work sessions for add-backs and cuts to the levy. That information is attached in a
worksheet showing the City Manager's cuts and the proposed add-backs. These proposed add-backs
have been included in the attached resolution. At the meeting of December 3rd it is proposed for the
city council to adopt the budget and the final levy along with a tax rate increase.
The following are recommended motions. If the first motion adopting the resolution is adopted it
adopts the resolution in the format as presented. The alternate motion is listed here to give the
council the option to make additional additions or deletions to the recommended resolution.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2001-79 there being ample
copies available to the public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2001-79 being a resolution adopting a
budget for the year 2002, setting the total City levy collectable for the year 2002, approving the HRA
levy, and approving a tax rate increase.
ALTERNATE MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2001-79 being a resolution adopting a budget
for the year 2002, setting the total City levy collectable for the year 2002, approving the HRA levy,
and a tax rate increase with the following changes.
WE:sms
0111302COUNCIL
Attachment
COUNCIL ACTION:
RESOLUTION 2001-79
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 2002, SETTING THE CITY LEVY, APPROVING THE HRA
LEVY. AND APPROVING A TAX RATE INCREASE FOR PROPERTY TAXES PAYABLE IN 2002
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS,
MINNESOTA: that the following is hereby adopted by the City of Columbia Heights.
Section A. The proposed budget for the City of Columbia Heights for the year 2002 is hereby approved and
adopted with aoorooriations for each of the funds listed below.
Expense
General Fund 7,726,800
Community Development Fund 317,463
Economic Development Fund 137,015
Anoka County CDBG 377,787
Parkview Villa North 383,072
Parkview Villa South 218,587
Rental Jousing 18,481
JRA Administration 111,702
State Aid 96,713
Cable Television 212,896
Library 557,002
DARE Project 8,825
Infrastructure 144,500
Capital Improvement 289,138
Capital Equipment Replacement Funds 2,398,500
Central Garage Fund 508,803
Liquor 6,437,192
Water Utility Fund 1,586,491
Sewer Utility Fund 1,374,986
Refuse Fund 1,512,083
Storm Sewer Fund 251,114
Energy Management 101,209
Data Processing 274,592
Debt Service Fund 2,820,649
Total Expense Including Interfund Transfers 27,865,600
Section B. The estimated gross revenue to fund the budget of the City of Columbia Heights for all funds,
including general ad valorem tax levies and use of fund balances, as hereinafter set forth for the year 2002:
Revenue
General Fund 7,826,334
Community Development Fund 317,463
Economic Development Fund 137,015
Anoka County CDBG 377,787
Parkview Villa North 383,072
Parkview Villa South 218,587
Rental Jousing 18,481
JRA Administration 111,702
State Aid 96,713
Cable Television 212,896
Library 557,002
DARE Project 8,825
Infrastructure 144,500
Capital Improvement 289,138
Capital Equipment Replacement Funds 2,398,500
Central Garage Fund 508,803
Liquor 6,437,192
Water Utility Fund 1,586.491
Sewer Utility Fund 1,374.986
Refuse Fund 1,512,083
Storm Sewer Fund 251,114
Energy Management 101,209
Data Processing 274,592
Debt Service Fund 2,820,649
Total Revenue Including Interfund Transfers 28,875,087
RESOLUTION 2001-79
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 2002, SETTING THE CITY LEVY, APPROVING THE HRA
LEVY. AND APPROVING A TAX RATE INCREASE FOR PROPERTY TAXES PAYABLE IN 2002
Section C. The following proposed sums of money are levied for the current year, collectable in 2002, upon
the taxable property in said City of Columbia Heights, for the following purposes:
Estimated Area-Wide
Estimated General
Estimated Library Levy
Estimated EDA Fund Levy
Total Proposed General Levy
Special Levy for PERA Increase
Capital Equipment Debt Levy
Total Proposed Levy
930,000
3,206,911
565,388
137O15
4,839,314
12,033
0
4,851,347
Section D. The City Council of the City of Columbia Heights hereby approves the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Tax Levy for the fiscal year 2002 in the amount of $111,702.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, COUNTY OF
ANOKA, MINNESOTA: That the county auditor is authorized to fix a property tax rate for taxes payable in the
year 2002 that is higher than the tax rate calculated pursuant to Minnesota Statutes '275.078 for the city for
taxes levied in 2000, collectable in 2001.
The City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Anoka
County, Minnesota.
Approved this 3rd day of December 2001
Offered By:
Seconded By:
Roll Call:
Ayes:
Nays:
Mayor Gary L. Peterson
Patricia Muscovilz, Deputy City Clerk
c
0
3
0
U)
m
m
L
U
N
W
m
L
.r
O
Y
U
m
.O
m
O
C
m
m
L
m
N
L
C
a)
T
L
D)
cN
C
m
m
0
Z
co
rn
co
co
O
c")
N
N
+
m L
co
L
0-• ) en
C� of
O
L
.-.
w
Q
o 0)
N
E Y
U
C
N C C O
C
a)
03
.0
O
w
r O N T
ER 03
C E
G
qw
O
O 0
t+ L
4) co
0
X
X
Q 0 p
U
" 0 0 0
0
dQ'D E
a) ca c
►ry
W
> U C " 2
m o
of
lL C
c 5 W co
w c �
�,
U °> >
c Ix o- �
c E N
° cc Z° r-
>—
7 o 0
~ d Q
E Y
7 ca O�
F—
>+ 0) :_ 0)
E o c co
'c
U c°� coo
coo o coo a >
ca o a E >
0 ELQ
00 0 L W H
WOW O
O 0 co m
0 U co c C
c C 7 7 7 7
0)
- 3 (n
>,� c E E'D
E
c a)
ca = U O _ 4) aD
ZU cUW2Of
• • (D a) (D 4) W
W Wwwofwof
3 rn '�
c o
0 0 cn0
000
O� to
O
to
O O
A o
�N00N
(17
C cc
H
0
W
Z
Z
O
O
U N
H
2�n c
0 r V
W T 0
Q 4) o
m c
Q. Q
Z) N d
0
U N m
LL F- r-
0 W
H 0
U m U
L
0) — 7
c m )
Q
0)
CD
ca 0
CU
QO
O N
v
� � v
cu
C C
.. a >
U W 0
C �
0)
V O O
dO CL a
N
a) a
0
C
LL
d
C
0
Q
O
r
T N V) l r N Mqr Lo 0 I--
cn000 0000000
x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ocnrn0 ocnaaaLoa
CO N 00 N L cM r N N
c
O
.N
�_ °
m 0 a0i
7+ U : C
N : UO
C fo O) O_
O 0 N d (n
C O /
O
O «� �+ N O a)
•� 0 0— C2 LL Q a O
U a o- 06
U a (n O (D .0 Q L >+
0 r U W
c > °E=c EcLwo> - cc
N U a'D d) ., � Eo (n co W
N v7 vW Q E cU� a)
cu
Q c� c (n Q in c
LL CU L
(D > 0 W W° c 0 3 fA o
co a) co co ° m c�`o
�Lu E coaior aci
W Q WH U W WUJU C9
N � N
cli M N
co r r N M N ce) qt cn c0
cu N
C C
Fl- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
It Lo co O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl Cl
0 (A NIt O 000000co O
06 r MMO 00000cd0 O
r N I r N CN N r r N Lo
i o
t c
rn
o
co
M
c")
N Nt
N
r
co
L
c0
r
v
O
L
M
w
O E
Lo
r
N
N
00
04
r
1-i t
D1
N
M
G
qw
O
EA
�
M
r M
r
r
N
�
i o
t c
rn
ti
U
(
o
u°'•)_
0
Oo
r 00
00
r
co
L
c0
r
v
O
L
U
C
0
0
2
0
cu
E�
U
co
U
a)
O)
a)
U
cu
c
LL
CD
a)
>
L
M
w
O E
Lo
r
N
N
00
04
a
r
co
cg
000
Go
N d
r
N
co
0o
U
C
0
0
2
0
cu
E�
U
0)
(n
a)
O
a-i
U
a)
O)
a)
U
cu
c
LL
CD
a)
>
L
O
r
T
N
M
r
O E
Lo
r
O
c0
r
O
N
r
N O
N
N N
C14
C) U')_
a
(°n_
O
U
0
to
r
.i
O
N
cc0Q
cr
r
v
e.r
O
c
C C
CO3
Q
Q >
c
ca
t3w�
Z
O
7.
Cl
O N
(o
O
H
=
� �r
N
O N
C
a] M
( L
C
rZ3Da
_
•o m
w
O
L
�
C
m
CU a
L 0.
o
LL
N a L
L
y
:3
U
72 L
o
ai
5
U^
ca
0
N
-sue
0
3
L c
L
~
a
4Ei 0
=
(6
L t
o
C U
C Q
coi
c
C ti
c
fa
a)
N �
cc o
., N a)
o E
V.
cu
N
U
.0 0j
X
y 0.
a) c0 Cl) U
r O
C
o ca
w
c
O
Er-cZ
O N
ccE °
O
cu
2
M
'C N
' C d4
U w
"'
W
N
N O
to ` co �
O 3
N U
m
y N
E
C d
o
�
a% L
o
N 7 L L
>, �
G c=
�, c � a
C
� as
E
L U
w
00
a
,ai �° o
° a° J c'
N m
Y
v
U� o ca
L
a
a
E E
E� o a °'ii
a v7
E rn�
a cv
= aai
w
m
m °o o m
w
o
Cl)
O O cu
0)
L
cu
o
06
��
C
Q
cc V Q%
0
cO
>
c
c
L)—
'a n>0
apv
5) -0 :3 v, E
�
0
0 a)
a
cc
m
ca co L
amm
d a (L) x c
w wWQ
—
a) a)
a)
3
°o
00_
m
CU c
C)
c°
c~
v cOn
0
L
r
N
M
M f.
®
5 U m
N M V
N
r c0 � (o
N N N N
N mt � N
00 O
t
O
I
�
C
m
O (o O It
O
O
O O O O
N O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0
O O
(— 7
co N co M
O
O
O O O O
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
O O
0
0) u (�
0 0 0
O
O N 00 O
M LO N 0 0 0
v O ►n O OD
LO r
C
C N
1- M I'- O
O
L Lo Lo
M O O
M P- 1�
n3 ��
to 't ►ntn
r
N
N
g
Q
N
00
It O
N
00
C
LO
0 CD
N
cl�
O
M
0
m
CL O
co
�
p
r
O
00
(o
Z
O N
2
0
M
N
N
(o
C14
C) U')_
a
(°n_
O
U
0
to
r
.i
O
f�
cc0Q
cr
r
v
e.r
O
c
C C
CO3
Q
Q >
W
t3w�
Z
O
7.
Cl
O N
(o
O
H
=
� �r
N
O N
!A
r U
( L
W
rZ3Da
_
•o m
Q
2 o
C
m
CU a
L 0.
o
LL
N a L
L
C14
C) U')_
O
(°n_
O
t-
0
to
r
.i
O
f�
O
cr
r
v
e.r
I
W
C7
}�
—J 0
0
tm
c,c?
O
U N
LO
M
O
ti
�
r Ul
O
Nt
O
I
W
C7
}�
g
CD ti
Q
O
7.
000
(o
N
N
M
O
coi
—J 0
0
tm
c,c?
O
U N
d
O
LL W
d
O
C7
}�
g
O
7.
OO
�
Nv
U m
L)
cc
a-
a>
o cu
cu o c
O
w m 2
LO LO UD
v lqr v
m
c
a>
C
co
C
w
O
O_
M
t
a)
N
N_
M
d-
cc
c
cm
U)
U
H
O
M
O
O
y cn �
Q
0o c0 O co 0 0 0 m I` M M O O
O
7
O
.c
L
O
m
r+
'2 c
>1 a >
Z
E
U W
0 0
= J
••
C
o O
$
—
.0 cu
L
cow
c) n
0) 0j .c
E 0 c
N
N
'a O X
W
UT
�
o En
Eo
W
Q
2 o
c CN
®w
—
o
.- cu
c
E N
p
:1
0
E rn
le
Y
U
0
U
U N
LL F
c
y
a
Q
U
m
m�
r
3
00
vo,
0 m
3
m w
,it Lo
E
c 0
mcv
>
c
2
6�.
O
m
�Uca
C
>
w
c a� 0 0_ c (�
m a� .c °� O O c 0 m `L°
_
i
F
L
O
C
m
WC9000�:�- <>- co
®
N
L Ln
-�
�
O O O O O r (M � LO O O O O
a)
O
O
C N N
O
r T 0 0 0 O O O O CM � 0 O
0B
0)
r
�
E
-.4t O I— T N O O O O O O O M
a
LO
co
co
w+
r r N M M LO Ln Ln Ln Ln LO LO O
O
It
qqt
O .0
®
v qt It It lqt qt It It 14,
a U) N
0
co
d O
O N
� d
O
O
y cn �
M
0o c0 O co 0 0 0 m I` M M O O
ccccUQ
Go
LO
M
O
m
� r LO 00 LO M O (O O O M O O
'2 c
>1 a >
Z
O
U W
0 0
= J
••
C
1-
_
Cl
O 0
F
=
y
N
C O O
(II O_ O
0) 0j .c
E 0 c
T V
Q O N
w f1
UT
�
o En
Eo
Q LL
Q
2 o
=
>, o E F -o
o a W
co £1.
O
7
{L
.- cu
N
IL
�
N
a
I.
O 0o
c6
c
U N
LL F
c
y
a
O (W7
c
0
r
O
00
E
0 m
U
O
O
M
M
0o c0 O co 0 0 0 m I` M M O O
c"
Go
LO
M
0
� r LO 00 LO M O (O O O M O O
O
C
jcu
U
O
r
0 0
= J
••
C
1-
_
0)
E
N
CU
0)
C d
L
O
0) 0j .c
E 0 c
cc
::::
a
=
0)
cn CD ca
o En
Eo
c
rn L c
a) >, . Co
U
0
ca
>, o E F -o
o a W
m 'r-
00
.- cu
to
�
U
�oWC90
I.
WW� c 0)
c6
c
co
L- e c
L cc 'D a)
U o U
cu
c
O 8 C
cn m
c
w w w w w�i
W w w
W
00
E
cNa
,it Lo
E
M
cn >U °'OIL C•-OV »=- �
c J U W Q_
1L
rco(oa -i LnI-00co
r T r T r N N
c(i °0 00 00 00 00 LOO 00 00 00
I.t Ln Ln 0 M LO O Ln Ln 0
M (O N d N r 0
r r r
O
LO
N
r
T
M•
Ax
0
03
.0
m
0
0)
C L
O o O
E
a� m o
o
o LO
U cm
N
E a, a
o w:
'rr L L �
c F U c
CD 0
W H W
°o
LO
M N
O
C
N
a
c
m
U)
0)
F
0
CD
7
..
E o o o o o o o o o o o o o
J Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
T �
cr0 co N co N
0 0 o O O
Cl) O Ln u) O
T N N T
N T
0
V
to
f`
co
O
M
M
0o c0 O co 0 0 0 m I` M M O O
c"
Go
LO
M
O
� r LO 00 LO M O (O O O M O O
@0
N
O
r
o
LO N T O M 0 N r LO 0 N T o
1-
r
In
N
Ln
O N (O 00 Ln O n N N M O N O
O
LOtn
Nt
M
r
W T N r T N N N M I,- LO Co
00
(0
r r
00
I.
LO
O
O
O
00 O O 00 0 0 0 0 I- M 00 O O
co
Ln
M
C
-t T LO M Ln M O O O O M O O
000
L0(')
O
0
LO
M
N
r
In
LO
v
a N 0 M Ln ai 0 N 0o c0 N a
N
ti
LO
.Ni
.ri
m
LO
M
M
00 O O 00 0 0 0 0 I- M 00 O O
M
Ln
M
(D
-t T LO M Ln M O O O O M O O
w
Lon
O
LO N r 0 0 (O N T Ln CO N r 0
"t
LO
ai
co
a N 0 M Ln ai 0 N 0o c0 N a
N
LO
N
r N r r N N N M I- LO O
m
0
c
co
0
a)
m o v) - o cn E v 0 c
E
E
E
cn >U °'OIL C•-OV »=- �
c J U W Q_
1L
c
W
L
W
L
O Q Q c�
° C9 a .. a� o o cn
E o cn c
i
cc
c a� 0 0_ c (�
m a� .c °� O O c 0 m `L°
(D
d
d
F
U
0
WC9000�:�- <>- co
O
N
M
It
O O O O O r (M � LO O O O O
O
O
O
O
r T 0 0 0 O O O O CM � 0 O
�
r
T
T
-.4t O I— T N O O O O O O O M
a+
LO
co
co
co
r r N M M LO Ln Ln Ln Ln LO LO O
O
It
qqt
v
l�lqr
v qt It It lqt qt It It 14,
F
c
0
y..r
O
N
m
a
m
L
U
m
O
Y
U
f0
a
N
a
a
C
m
m
m
l0
1
m�m
AW
CD
C
N
C
m
m
O
Z
Q1I ��•,
•� O
y L
611
E o 0
'' ca
a =tea
a) 0 X
Co Ul) W
a64
c E
O
C? o cc
co
a) O
3 US
a) t
cc o
c
ca c
L r�
c U
ca
0
m
w
z
z_ _
O
O
c/j N
H ti may.
= N_ O
(7 T U
W T a1
Q � O
m °
N 0
�Na
Ooo a
U N eC
LL
Um U
L (A
a)
cu 0a
Q
ca N
QO
O N
a-
N
�UQ
Cc U) c
c
V W a>i
C Q
a)
E in 04
O_ O N
-a
N
Co
N
M
co
►[1
O
O
ao
coo
N
O
O
ao
Id-
co
c
3
LL
as �
c
m �
� J
O
CD LO
r U)
T N M IW LO O ti
N O O O O O O
O T Cl 0 0 0 0
M O LO L[) O
N N N T N T
O
rn
N
C
w
L
J
C
cts
m
c
O
`O
r
O O O O O M FI-
N M O 0 M I,- T
O P- N cct O C0 V
� O M1-* w m w
O O N 0 ao LO N
IRt CO LO Cn N M
7o
a)
a3
O
m
C
L
m
� �
O
c
>
LL.
LL. U
o
O U �
D'
a)
O m
m
cn
c
cn 'a
0 a �
Q
cC L co 0
.v
(n
a)
c a) > c
O L O
;
rn
u1 c o , O
a d a) Cl) U
c
m
O a) p) cu
E o
d cu @ U u)
a
w O
J m m L 0
CL
E m
O
co m o 0 0
U
C c c c w a
�v
CL Es
ai a)
a.ww
x - — m cu o
W w-j
aT°
r-
CNO
O
N
M
a?
N
T
N
617
N
T N M IW LO O ti
N O O O O O O
O T Cl 0 0 0 0
M O LO L[) O
N N N T N T
O
rn
N
C
w
L
J
C
cts
m
c
O
`O
r
O O O O O M FI-
N M O 0 M I,- T
O P- N cct O C0 V
� O M1-* w m w
O O N 0 ao LO N
IRt CO LO Cn N M
7o
O IM
0
m
c
c�
U
ai
c
q�
L.L
w
a
0
a)
c N
c ca
o L
U
CLC�LO 7
a) d
O U
c �
O aS
U �
CD .0
i
c
a)
E
to a)
L
ca
cn
CU c N >
Cc
� L
w
� C
Cn '0
O C
ca
> O O
E
O_
a) c
a)
7 a)
CD
O
cc
OM C:)
cn > O
c �
� c
o•
E
ca
a) �
.L+ L O
cn cc O
ca C O
E T
a) m
c
0 r+
CD U) Q)
E a> a
c0 Q
c o) w
sz
CU
0 o U
O
O O N
O a) 04
L L _
M
a
U)
CL
O
a
L ca
cc
U t L
C6
Cc °� U
C Co
Co a)
C1 �
-L
I5 a- a)
E w '
0 cc
T G T
T N M
T
O
O O Y7
CD _-
N
N N
c0
O
L
LO
LO
It
M
U')
of
LO
O
O
T
LL
Q
a-
W
cc
CL
ca
U
N
M
U
a3
O
m
co CO
CD co
m
� �
O
c
>
Qm
LL. U
o
O
D'
W c
m
U
c
-0
c n
0 a �
° O
cu
� Q
�°L LL
LL
C fL6
CL6 � �
C ;-- U
c c
97
O
7 N a) 0.0 p 'O m
U U' U :zi C- m
2
d
O IM
0
m
c
c�
U
ai
c
q�
L.L
w
a
0
a)
c N
c ca
o L
U
CLC�LO 7
a) d
O U
c �
O aS
U �
CD .0
i
c
a)
E
to a)
L
ca
cn
CU c N >
Cc
� L
w
� C
Cn '0
O C
ca
> O O
E
O_
a) c
a)
7 a)
CD
O
cc
OM C:)
cn > O
c �
� c
o•
E
ca
a) �
.L+ L O
cn cc O
ca C O
E T
a) m
c
0 r+
CD U) Q)
E a> a
c0 Q
c o) w
sz
CU
0 o U
O
O O N
O a) 04
L L _
M
a
U)
CL
O
a
L ca
cc
U t L
C6
Cc °� U
C Co
Co a)
C1 �
-L
I5 a- a)
E w '
0 cc
T G T
T N M
T
O
O O Y7
CD _-
N
N N
c0
O
L
LO
LO
It
M
U')
of
LO
O
O
T
LL
Q
a-
W
cc
CL
ca
U
N
M
CDCity of Columbia
Heights
Meeting on the
2002 Proposed Budget
and Property Taxes
December 3, 2001
PUBLIC MEETING ON THE 2002 PROPOSED BUDGET
AND PROPERTY TAXES
Table of Contents
2002 Budget Message ............................................................................. ............................1 -1
2002 Revenues by Source ...................................................................... ...........................1 -12
2002 All Budgetary Funds Expenditures By Functional Area ............... ...........................1 -13
2002 All Budgetary Funds Expenditures By Classification ................... ...........................1 -14
2002 Sources of General Fund, Library Fund, and EDA Revenue ........ ...........................1 -15
2002 General and Library Fund Expenditures by Functional Area ....... ..... ......................1 -16
Major Expenditure Increases ...... ........................................................... ...........................1 -17
Class Rate Percentages By Real Property Type .................................................... ............ 1 -18
Changesin State Aid .............................................................................. ...........................1 -19
ProposedProperty Taxes ....................................................................... ...........................1 -20
Changesin Tax Levy 2000 -2002 ............ ............................................... ...........................1 -21
Columbia Heights 2002 Property Tax Levy .......................................... ...........................1 -22
Where Your Property Taxes Go ......................................................... ............................... 1 -23
Whatwill $27 a Month Buy? ................................................................. ...........................1 -24
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
2002 BUDGET MESSAGE
This budget message accompanies the 2002 budget document distributed to the City Council and
available to the public.
Budget Format
Several years ago the budget format was revised in an attempt to provide more useful information
to the City Council and the public in a summarized, user - friendly format. Under the new format,
the budget was broken down into ten functional areas and is prepared with a summary for each of
these functional areas along with a detailed budget workbook for the City Council to utilize during
their budget review. The summary budget book is then again summarized into a public document
that is used for the City's public budget adoption meeting and for any required truth in taxation
hearings. The budget message follows the format of the overall budget and provides a narrative
section summarizing each of the functional areas along with overall summary information on the
budget document, total budget, property taxes, and other revenue sources.
Budget Overview
Budget Highlights
Expenditures: As is reflected in the budget, the City Manager's overall proposed budget for tax -
supported funds is down slightly for 2002 from 2001. For 2001 the total General Fund, Library
Fund and EDA budgets equaled $8,674,001. For 2002 the City Manager's proposed budget is
$8,660,490. The principal reason for the reduction in the budget is the new state legislation that
reduced state aid to the city by $800,566. It was the state legislature's recommendation that this
aid reduction be passed on to residents in the form of a property tax levy along with a property tax
increase to cover inflationary costs. With these changes and reductions in state aid together with
inflation and the additional financial needs of the City, it was necessary to take a hard look at all
departmental budgets and make some significant reductions. As you will see in the following
explanations for each functional area, these budget reductions range from the elimination of a
police officer position to significant cutbacks in capital equipment purchases. To dramatize the
difference in the budget preparation from 2001 to 2002, we have included the following two
charts. The first chart is a reprint from last year's budget book showing the departments with the
highest budgetary increases from 2000 to 2001. The second chart reflects the major budget
increases from 2001 to 2002.
Page 1 -1
As mentioned above, the state legislature significantly reduced state aid to the City. The
following chart reflects what the City received in state aid for the years 2000 through 2002. As
you can see, there was an $800,566 reduction in 2002.
2000 Budget
2001 Budget
Increase /Decrease
from 2000
Fire
769,507
805,299
35,792
Parks
638,648
655,869
17,221
Weed Control
8,981
24,237
15,256
Finance
549,621
563,138
13,517
Streets
638,438
643,549
5,111
Recognition /Special Events
47,528
52,220
4,692
General Government Building
125,900
130,000
4,100
Tree Trimming
42,940
46,948
4,008
Street Lighting
121,875
125,489
3,614
City Manager
388,852
391,945
3,093
Traffic Signs & Signals
67,375
70,452
3,077
Murzyn Hall
243,692
246,1661
2,474
As mentioned above, the state legislature significantly reduced state aid to the City. The
following chart reflects what the City received in state aid for the years 2000 through 2002. As
you can see, there was an $800,566 reduction in 2002.
2001 Budget
2002 Budget
Increase /Decrease
from 2001
Elections
6,823
40,548
33,725
Streets
642,019
670,812
28,793
Police
2,417,842
2,442,873
25,030
Administration & General
189,556
204,934
15,378
General Government Building
130,000
142,216
12,216
Parks
644,403
650,283
5,880
Senior Citizens
72,121
76,238
4,117
Street Lighting
124,989
128,088
3,099
City Manager
391,9451
394,341
2,396
Civil Defense
32,352
33,836
1,484
Trips & Outings
37,530
38,603
1,073
Weed Control
14,953
15,9591
1,006
As mentioned above, the state legislature significantly reduced state aid to the City. The
following chart reflects what the City received in state aid for the years 2000 through 2002. As
you can see, there was an $800,566 reduction in 2002.
Page 1 -2
2000 Actual
2001 Budget
2002 Budget
HA ',A
1,004,122
1,004,368
0
LGA
2,325,029
2,385,618
2,589,420
Total
3,329,151
3,389,986
2,589,420
Change from Prior Year
75,600
60,835
(800,566)
Page 1 -2
As was recommended by the state legislature, this aid reduction was passed on to residents in
the form of a property tax levy increase. It should be noted that although the city and county are
having property tax levy increases as a result of state legislation, there is a significant offset to
this in the fact that the state has drastically increased aid to school districts and the levy reduction
by school districts should be greater than the levy increase from the city and county. The net
result as projected by the state is that homes valued at approximately $120,000 should see a
total property tax levy reduction of approximately $100. The following chart shows the breakdown
of the city's levy for the years 1999 through 2001 and the proposed levy for 2002. As the chart
reflects, the City's levy increase for the years 1999 and 2000 was very minimal. To finance
expenses in these years the City relied heavily on reserves that were accumulated in the City's
General Fund balance. The levy for 2001 was increased to cover expenses without using fund
balance reserves, and as is reflected in the chart, the levy for 2002 has some considerable
increases, primarily to cover the reduction in state aid.
PROPOSED PROPERTY TAXES, 1999 - 2001
Proposed Property Taxes
1999
2000
2001
2002
Library
467,518
500,244
547,767
591,588
EDA
111,048
119,296
119,295
137,015
General Fund
2,660,059
2,676,416
2,958,490
4,110,711
Total Levy
3,238,625 3,295,956
3,6915 552
4, 839, 314
Levy Increase from Prior Year
57,331
329,596
1,213,762
Percent of Increase
1.8%
10.0%
45.0%
The next major factor in the property tax formula is the state legislature's restructuring of class
rate percentages for real property taxes payable in 1998 through 2002. The class rate changes
made in these years will affect property taxes paid for the current and all future years. The major
change was a significant shift in the tax capacity value from commercial industrial and residential
non - homestead to residential homesteaded property. As you can see from the following chart,
there is a slight reduction in tax capacity rates for homes over $76,000. The reduction is from 2%
in 1997 to 1.65% in 2002. However, there is a more significant reduction for commercial
industrial property and residential non - homestead property. The net result is that a large amount
of the tq� reya0ue previously paid by commercial industrial properties and residential non -
homestead properties is now picked up by homesteaded residential property.
Page 1 -3
CLASS RATE PERCENTAGES BY REAL PROPERTY TYPE
TAXES PAYABLE 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002
Real Property
Payable
Payable
Payable
Payable
Payable
Description
1997
1998
1999
2000 and 2001
2002
Class Rate
Class Rate
Class Rate
Class Rate
Class Rate
Residential homestead
First $72,000
1.00%
Over $72,000
2.00%
First $75,000
1.00%
1.00%
Over $75,000
1.85%
1.70%
First $76,000
1.00%
1.00%
$76,000 - $500,000
1.65%
1.00%
Over $500,000
1.25%
Commercial - Industrial
and public utility
First $100,000
Over $100,000
First $150,000
2.70%
2.45%
2.40%
1.50%
Over $150,000
4.00%
3.50%
3.40%
2.00%
Residential non - homestead, 1
unit
First $72,000
2.30%
Over $72,000
2.30%
First $75,000
1.90%
1.25%
Over $75,000
2.10%
1.70%
First $76,000
1.20%
1.00%
$76,000 - $500,000
1.65%
1.00%
Over $500,000
1.25%
Residential non - homestead, 2 -3
units and undeveloped land
2.30%
2.10%
1.70%
1.65%
1.50%
Residential non - homestead
4 or more units
3.40%
2.90%
2.50%
2.40%
1.80%
Low Income
1.00%
0.90%
Economic Environment
As indicated in the Moody's Municipal Credit Report for the City of Columbia Heights, our
finances remain satisfactory with reasonable General Fund reserves. As a result, the City has
maintained an Al bond rating. Our revenue structure is somewhat vulnerable to economic
pressure since approximately 30% of our General Fund revenue base comes from state aid and
48% of our General Fund revenue base is from local property taxes. As these aids and the City's
property tax revenue are received in the last six months of the year, the City has been
maintaining a cash flow fund balance equal to 40% of the General Fund operating budget.
Subsequently, although it may appear that we have a significant fund balance reserve, it is
actually dedicated to cash flow purposes.
Page 1.4
The City's primary source for increased revenue is through property tax levies. Over the past
several years, the City Council has maintained a very conservative profile in increasing taxes by
minimal percentages. To maintain the quality of services provided to the residents of Columbia
Heights, it may be necessary to develop a policy of a slightly higher property tax increase.
However, due to state imposed levy limits for the years 1998 through 2000, the City was
restricted from implementing minimal property tax increases. These levy limits were removed for
the year 2001 but are back in place for the year 2002. As a result of this legislative restriction, the
City was forced to look at severe budget cuts and a reduction of services in the 2002 budget
preparation process. At the present time it is anticipated that the property tax legislation passed
in the last legislative session will only worsen the future property tax burden on cities. As part of
the City's property tax revenue, the City does receive an area wide fiscal disparities tax
distribution from commercial property in other communities. The basis of this area wide fiscal
disparities tax distribution is to collect property taxes on commercial property throughout the
metropolitan area and then redistribute this area wide property tax to communities such as
Columbia Heights which has a limited commercial property tax base. Under the fiscal disparities
area wide tax system, the City of Columbia Heights benefits significantly. It is projected that the
City will receive over $930,000 in property taxes from the tax on commercial property in other
communities. As part of the recent legislation, the City will be looking at a significant reduction in
this area wide tax revenue in future years that will mean the residents of Columbia Heights will
need to pick up even a larger portion of the property taxes.
Page 1 -5
Significant Highlights on Expenditures by
Functional Area
Administration
The Administration function includes Mayor, City Council, ADMINISTRATION
City Manager, Assessing, and Legal budgets. The total
proposed 2002 budget for this functional area is $922,698. EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
This is down $37,262 from the adopted 2001 budget. The
most significant areas of reduction in the budget are
reductions in the Mayor /Council budget of $8,015 for
contingencies, $2,500 for a facilitator on goal setting, $8,900
for membership dues in the North Metro Mayors Association,
and $2,000 in advertising. The City Manager budget
included reductions of $4,000 for training and education,
$2,500 for membership fees, $2,000 for travel and expenses,
$4,000 for staff training, and $5,000 for the reduction in
employment advertising. In the Assessing budget it is 1� 2" 2W1
proposed to eliminate the Assessing Clerk position mid -year
Q Personal Services ®st,pglee
when the current employee retires. This will result in a ■Oftr&Mm &Charges 8CapltelOutlay
partial year savings of approximately $19,000. Another ■CwtwWncm&TransWs
significant area of reduction was $21,500 in projected legal
fees. The most significant area of cost increases in these budgets is in the area of personnel
expenses. Cost of living pay increases have required an increase to these areas. The net result
of the increases and reductions is a decrease to this functional area budget of $37,261.
Community Development
This functional area covers all services previously provided
by the Housing & Redevelopment Authority in addition to
expanded services. The specific departments covered by
this functional area are Building Inspections, Administration,
Community Development Block Grant Parkview Villa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
I I z ow,000
Economic Development Authority, Housing Redevelopment
Authority, multi -use redevelopment, and some miscellaneous 1.500.000
housing programs. This functional area of the City was 1,W0,0W
created in 1996 with the establishment of the EDA and the
transfer of previous HRA staff to the EDA as a City 500'00°
department. In recent years this budget has seen several
changes and modifications with the increases and decreases
to the Community Development Block Grant Housing
programs, along with significant changes in the Section 8
Housing program. During the year 2000 the Section 8
program was transferred back to Metro HRA, freeing the City
of any and all responsibilities for the administration of that program
loan program was contracted to an outside agency to manage.
Page 1 -6
1999 2000 2001 2002
Personal Services V" Supplies
■ Other Services and Charges • Capital Outlay
■ aes &Trarrrars
In addition to this, the MHFA
Finance Department
This functional area covers Elections, Finance, Information FINALE
Systems, and Utility Billing Administration for the water, EXPBDI1 URE SLKV MRY
sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and refuse departments. The
total budget for 2002 is $43,025 over the adopted 2001
budget. The most significant changes in this budget are in 1'200'0°0
the area of personnel. First being the cost of living increases 1,000,0m "
and second being some restructuring in the Finance 800,om
Department staffing. Over the years accounting and eoo,000
reporting requirements have changed significantly. a00000
However, the department has seen no restructuring since -
the mid 1980's. With the current structure in the Finance 20Q00°
Department it has been very difficult to maintain the level of 0
1980 71100 2001 2702
accounting and reporting that is required under current
standards. Subsequently, the 2002 budget does include :m aw s a
E (7(;nd11pB11o098 TI95(HS
minor restructuring in the department to eliminate two current
positions and create two new positions that will give the
department a slightly higher level of expertise to enable us to comply with all current state and
federal accounting and reporting requirements. The portion of this department that relates to
information systems has seen some growth and improvement over the past two years, with
greater efficiency in software, e-mail, and the expansion and improvement of the City's Web site,
which is utilized as another means of providing information to the public. The most significant
budget increase item for 2002 over 2001 is in the Elections Department. As the City has gone to
even year elections, we no longer have odd year elections. This has resulted in a savings of
approximately $30,000 to the City budget every other year. However, as 2002 is an election
year, we do see an Election Department budget increase of approximately $34,000.
Fire
This functional area is comprised of the Fire and Civil Defense FIRE
departments. The overall department proposed expenditures EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
in this functional area increased by $209,000 from the
adopted 2001 budget. This increase was broken down into
three major areas. First, in the area of personnel, it was
proposed to upgrade one position and increase part-time
hours for the secretarial position. This, combined with cost of
living and step increases, resulted in an additional personal
services expense increase of $68,800. The next major area
of increase was in capital equipment with the proposed
replacement of the generator in City Hall for $50,000 and the
replacement of the ambulance for $74,000. The third 1989 2000 200+ 2002
significant item was upgrading the software program in the Perso Fire Department to CityView software at a projected cost of •Others° vices& 11 Capital y
■Other Services 8 Charges !Capital Outlay
$20,000 and the installation of new lockers for the firefighters ' t[ anclas&Transfers
at a cost of $26,000. In the City Manager's review of this — -
budget, he cut the staffing upgrades by $10,000, eliminated the purchase of new lockers for a
cost savings of $26,000, delayed the purchase of the new generator for a savings of $50,000,
moved the cost of purchasing new software to the Cable TV budget in the amount of $20,000,
and moved the cost of the ambulance to the PERA Capital Equipment fund. Although these are
reasonably significant reductions in the budget, they will not impair the services the Fire
Department provides.
Page 1 -7
General Government
This functional area as a grouping was created new for the GENERAL
1998 budget process. It is a collection of all the departmental GOVERNMENT
areas that are not specifically assigned to one division head. EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
This functional area includes the following departments:
General Government Buildings, Recognition /Special Events,
Contingencies and Transfers, Cable Television, Refuse and
3,500,000
Hazardous Waste funds. The most significant item of note in
3,000,000
this functional area budget is under General Government
2,5W,000
Buildings. The total budget is down by $15,314 from the actual
2'000,000
expenditures in 2000. The 2002 budget also includes $25,000
1 00,0000
for additional alarm and other security items at City Hall.
500,0
Likewise, the Cable Television budget decreased by $29,500
0
from 2001 to 2002. The Refuse budgets also saw a cost
' 2000 2°°'
increase. The disposal portion of the budget increased by SPers 31&rvice 13swPks
$8,000 in anticipation of a 1.5% contract increase by the Trmrt£b�s •CaPRal Outlay
hauler. Internal administrative and management costs of the
Refuse fund increased by $6,300 and the recycling portion of
the budget increased by $6,100. The Hazardous Waste disposal budget remains the same.
2002
Library
The City's library is located at 820 40th Avenue. The library's
main goal is to provide free access to informational and LIBRARY
recreational materials for the patrons in a pleasant environment EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
conducive to the acquisition of knowledge. A variety of library-
related programs (e.g. storytimes, reading clubs, filmtimes, 70x000 _ -
homebound delivery, etc.) are offered for patrons of all ages
from preschool through senior citizen. As a city - supported 500.000
library, Columbia Heights participates in the MELSA regional 500°000
system through a contract with the Anoka County library ,O 0
3W°00
system, State -wide Borrowers Compact, and METRONET. 3W, OW
This enables Columbia Heights patrons to gain access to 200,0°o
special services and scholarly materials available to other 100'°00
participating libraries. For 2002, the department proposed 0
1999 2000 2001 2002
library budget is up from $597,234 to $648,002. The major a ,SwAces ®s4olw
highlights of the 2002 budget are a reduction in part -time hours 8WCm*V 1a9&Tmns� '°"" Y
■ Cmtingendes &Transfers
by 922 with the reduction of the Page /Choreperson job class.
The supplies section includes $3,950 of computer equipment
and software upgrades for the PC's used by staff. Other service charges include $3,960 for the
T -1 line used by the automated circulation system and increases for other utilities. Capital
requests include replacement of the ballast in the adult reading room and a new circulation desk
for the main floor lobby. In the City Manager's review of this budget, he recommended reducing
expert and professional services by $2,600, eliminating the budget for vandalism by $500 and
delaying the replacement of the lights and the circulation desk until 2003 for a savings of $35,500.
It is felt that these cuts will not impair the high level of services that the library provides to patrons.
Page 1 -8
Liquor
The liquor function is comprised of three liquor stores, LIQUOR
Top Valu I, Top Valu II, and Heights Liquor, along with a EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
capital equipment replacement fund for each of the three
stores. Top Valu I is located at 4340 Central Avenue. This
store opened in November of 1984 and was the City's first 9,000.000
endeavor into a large volume discount liquor operation. Since
7,000,000
it's opening it has been very successful. The City's second S0oo0m
endeavor along this line was Top Valu II at 2241 37th Avenue. 5,00,000
This store follows the same concept as Top Valu I and 4,000,000
opened in April of 1994. As this store is located in a lower 3,000,000
traffic area, its growth has been slower but very steady. Each 2,000,°°°
0
year it shows a progressive increase in sales and profitability. ,,000,00 0
Heights Liquor is the third store and is located at 5225 1999 2000 200' 2002
University Avenue. This store was opened in 1964 and has tPersonalSernces 0Supplies
d Other Services & charges ! Capital Outlay
remained a very small, traditional liquor store. It does not a arrawem
operate on a high volume discount basis. Markups are higher
at this store, along with profitability, which is due primarily to taking advantage of high volume
purchasing discounts based on the volume purchased at Top Valu and the lower overhead
expenses of a city -owned operation. The net result is that for several years this was the most
profitable liquor store in the Heights. However, with the opening of the large, new Fridley store
just north of the freeway in 2000, we have seen a significant decrease in sales and profitability at
this store. With this is in mind, and the fact that the store is located adjacent to a residential
neighborhood, we have undertaken the project of looking for a new location for the store at 5225
University Avenue in addition to looking for a location on Central Avenue where we could build
our own store. Currently we are renting on Central Avenue and the lease expires in three years.
It would be highly beneficial and profitable to the City and the liquor operation to own our own
store on Central Avenue and to build a new store on University Avenue. For this purpose, we
have included $2,000,000 in the 2002 budget to purchase property and build a new store at one
of these locations.
Police
This functional area is comprised of the Police Department,
Animal Control, DARE, and Capital Equipment Replacement.
The most significant item in this budget is personnel costs.
Over the past several years department staffing has been
increased from 22 sworn officers to 26 through the addition of
three officers by federal grants, and one additional officer over
and above the grant requirements. In 1999 all grant funding
and the requirement to maintain this staffing level ended. The
City Council needs to address the increased staffing level in
the Police Department. Without the continued grant revenue,
the addition of four sworn officers is a significant increase in
the Police Department budget. The proposed Police
Department budget for 2002 increased by $182,216 from the
adopted 2001 budget of $2,417,842. The major portion of this
increase is $151,770 in personnel costs, primarily for
Page 1 -9
3,000,000
2,500.000
2.000.000
1.500.OW
1.000.000
500,000
POLICE
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
1999 2000 2001 2002
■ Personal Services O Supplies Ii
M Other Services and Charges ■ Capital Outlay
■Canton enaes&jmn&Wis
employees progressing through the wage plan and cost of living increases. The other significant
item in the Police Department is the capital equipment budget. The proposed 2002 capital
equipment budget is for $115,100 which includes two full -sized marked squad cars, one mid -size
administrative car, two replacement light bars, two laptop computers with modems and stands,
and two in -squad video systems. Also included in the capital equipment budget is the third
payment for the Visions Records Management system. In the Police Department the City
Manager proposed cutting one CSO and one police officer position and delaying the purchase of
three new police vehicles and equipment for one year. These cuts are a first level step in
reducing staff in the Police Department back to the normal level prior to receiving the federal
grant officers.
Public Works
This functional area is comprised of several departments PUBLIC WORKS
crossing several funds. One of the significant advantages of EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
the functional area budget format adopted in 1998 is that it
shows the entire Public Works function in one area. Areas 8.000A0
covered are engineering, streets, weed control, parks, tree 7.000.000
programs, water utility, sanitary sewer utility, storm sewer
utility, garage, and capital equipment replacement funds for 50°°'0°°
the Public Works operation. Significant budget items in Public °°°°.°°°
Works are as follows. In the area of personnel the 2002 U00A°
department proposed budget for salaries and benefits is 2.000000
$1,967,449, which is an increase of $187,769 over the 2001 1.000.000
budget. This increase iS due to cost of living pay increases ° 7999 2000 2007 2002
and employees progressing through the pay scale. The ■Pers elSeNces orpoles
engineering budget is down by $44,000 primarily because oOther 5erocesandCherges .ceaneioueey
e CuMingenGos & Trene
engineering costs have been allocated to the infrastructure
fund for street projects. Although this is a cost savings to
engineering, if these costs are not passed on through assessments as an administrative charge,
it will have a detrimental effect on the infrastructure /street replacement fund. In the tree budget
there was a proposal to eliminate the City picking up 50% of the cost on the removal of diseased
trees. This would result in a savings of approximately $22,500. However, in discussions, it
appears that for 2002 a better alternative would be for the City to pick up 25% of the cost of
diseased tree removal, which would still result in a budget savings of $11,250. In the Parks
Department a major item of consideration is eliminating from one -third to one -half of our skating
rinks. In recent years several of the rinks have received minimal usage. A reduction or closing of
these rinks could result in a cost savings of approximately $16,500 in seasonal employees and
another $30,000 in repair, maintenance and utilities of warming houses. In the Water Department
it is projected that the cost of water purchased from Minneapolis will increase by approximately
$100,000 from 2001. With this increase, it will be essential to have a water rate increase in the
water fund. In the sewer fund we are not anticipating any sewer disposal charge increases and
subsequently may be able to forestall any sewer rate increases. In the central garage fund there
is minimal change from 2001. The major goal here is to continue funding the capital outlay fund
for future building improvements to the municipal service center building. In summary, several
other areas of the Public Works budget saw changes that are presented in more detail in the
Public Works budget document.
Page 1 -10
Recreation
Recreation is comprised of several departments including -- --
administration, youth athletics, youth enrichment, adult RECREATION
athletics, traveling teams, Back to the Parks program, trips EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
and outings, senior citizens, CHASE, and Murzyn Hall
management. Over the years the recreation program has -
increased in several areas. One of the most notable areas is ° °°°
the Senior Citizen program due to its tremendous growth. 60.000. '
While several senior programs in other communities are 500.000.
stagnant, through the excellent management of our Senior 400000
Coordinator, Karen Moeller, the program in Columbia Heights 300
has grown consistently and is well received by all seniors. z°°.°°°
Other items of notable mention in the Recreation budget are 100.000
that the administrative component of the budget has °r
increased by $16,878 primarily due to step and cost of living 1999 2000 2001 2002
Personal
personnel increases. In the area of youth athletics the budget ■OtherServi Services ean ®Supplies
■ Other Services and Charges a Capital Outlay
is relatively the same as it was in 2001. Adult Athletics has !Contingencies B Transfers
seen a slight decrease of $1,187 due to the elimination of the
Open Sundays program. Youth Enrichment and Traveling Athletics are essentially the same as
the 2001 budget. The Back to the Parks program was designed to set $10,000 aside each year
as matching money for any entity or community group that wanted to come in with matching
money to do a park project. Due to virtually no activity in this area, the program has been
eliminated from the 2002 budget. The Trips and Outings program that provides one day and
extended trips for senior citizens, and has been very successful, saw a slight budget increase of
$1,073 due to transportation costs and higher gas prices. It should be noted that this department
is a fully self- sustaining department in that all of the costs for trips and outings are charged back
to the participants. The Senior Citizen program has increased slightly in cost primarily due to
increases in personnel services. The Murzyn Hall budget has increased by $1,306 which is
primarily due to the budget for building improvements.
Conclusion
The above narrative should give an overview of the most salient changes and assumptions
included in the budget. As much as feasible, this is a hold- the -line budget. The property tax
format in the state has seen significant changes for the 2002 tax levy. With state legislation
shifting local government aids from cities to school districts, taxpayers should receive a significant
reduction in their school property tax levy. However, as the state significantly reduced aid to
cities, there will be a slight increase in city property taxes. The net result, as projected by the
state, is that a $100,000 home should see a total property tax reduction of approximately $100.
However, with these changes and with the severe levy limits imposed by the state, the City's
actual revenue increase is roughly equivalent to cost of living salary increases for tax - supported
funds, which leaves the City with no additional funding for other areas of inflation.
The budget process is a major undertaking by City staff and the City Council, which requires a
great deal of work performed by all involved to bring the process to a successful conclusion. I
extend my appreciation in this endeavor to all department directors and their staff, and a special
thanks to Barb Kelzenberg and Sue Schmidtbauer for their time in compiling the budget and their
extensive efforts in ensuring the accuracy of the entire document. This is a very trying and
exhausting endeavor, and their extensive efforts are greatly appreciated.
Page 1 -11
L
2002 REVENUES BY SOURCE
ALL FUNDS
Transfers In & Non- Taxes
Rev Receipts $4,839,314
$3,060,114
Net Sales- Liquor
ti
Allocations $1,171,743
$80,000
Sales & Related
Charges
$4,045,646
Miscellaneous
$1,389,950
Fines & Forfeits f L Charges For Services
$115,000 $426,100
Page 1 -12
Debt Service Funds
and HRA
$1,287,701
Licenses & Permits
$274,500
Intergovernmental
$6,519,288
2002 ALL BUDGETARY F U N DS
EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTIONAL AREA
Public Works
$6,030,293
Administration
$922,698
Recreation
$619,633
i
Liquor
$3,378,000
Page 1 -13
Library
$583,202
Debt Service
$2,820,649
Community
Development
$1,564,107
Finance
$1,144,113
Fire
$880,469
General Government
$2,370,504
Capital
$4,87
2002 All Budgetary Funds
Expenditures by Classification
Contingencies &
Transfers
$2,747,874
l
& Charges
$3,808,623
Page 1 -14
Personal
Services
$7,639,258
5
$3,767,392
SOURCES OF GENERAL FUND,
LIBRARY FUND AND EDA REVENUE
2002 BUDGET
Other
$599,800
0 Inter-
- govemmental
$2,834,820 $4,839,314
Page 1 -15
2001 GENERAL FUND AND
LIBRARY FUND EXPENDITURES
Expenditures By Classification
Contingencies and
Page 1 -16
Capital Outlay
W
X
Q
F-
I--
W
a,
0
CL
D
W
O
a
O
a
N
Q
Q
N
TOM
0
N
N
tm
N
a
00
�+
�
C)
N
Lo
_U
O
M
c)
M
ti
N
Q
T-
0)
f`
M
0
M
O
M
C�
O
M
r
�,
m
N
M
r
CD�
LO
(0
M
N
0)
I`
N_
�
to
M
ill
r
ti
d)
00
w
_
O
m
Lt7
m
m
N
N
M
N
v
C0
CO
c0
(D
(D
V
0)
�
ILO
0')
W
N
N
�
0)
(D
N
[3
0
O��
0)
N
ti
M
CD
U-)
V--
co
N
C3)
M
N
N
M
N
co
IT
U')
N
0p
Re
C�
U')
O
O
to
d)
U7
r
c%
P.
T-
O
00
1.
M
1`
(o
r-
(D
M
0)
qe
M
qt
�
Cfl
N
00
M
N
M
CV
E
0
N
y-
.m
C
N
OL
A
w
0
N
N
tm
N
a
Changes In Tax Levy
2000 - 2002
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
2000
* GENERAL FUND 2,676,416
❑ LIBRARY FUND 500,244
EDA FUND 119,296
Page 1 -21
2001
2002
4,110,711
591,588
2,958,490
547,767
119,295
137,015
Columbia Heights
2002 Property Tax Levy $4,839,314
City 2001 Property
Tax Levy
$3,626,552
Page 1 -22
Growth
$177,264
State Aid Reduction
$800,566
tion
,933
WHERE YOUR PROPERTY TAXES GO
Payable 2001
Miscellaneous
5%
County
21%
City
School 23%
51%
Page 1 -23
WHAT WILL $27 A MONTH BUY?
(Based on 2002 Property Tax)
$27 a Month Buys Quality and Quantity
in the City of Columbia Heights
Telephone ,� A =� `►�
C�
'll f
Garbage Pick -Up 9
Columbia Heights City Services
Parks
Streets
Dinner for 4
rr
Ju
Police Fire
Basic Cable TV
Library
The average home in Columbia Heights pays $27 per month in city real estate taxes. The average Columbia Heights'
resident will spend $27 every month on various services and pleasures, i.e., pizza and pop for four at a local restaurant,
basic cable TV for the family, monthly phone services, etc. The best value for your money in Columbia Heights is still all
of the city services that $27 of your monthly property tax will buy! (Based on a $94,300 home in Columbia Heights.)
CITYSERV Page 1 -24
Major Expenditure Increases
Page 1 -17
2001
Budget
2002
Budget
Increase /Decrease
from 2001
Elections
6,823
40,548
33,725
Streets
642,019
670,812 I
28,793
Police
2,417,842
2,442,873
25,030
Administration &
General
189,556
204,934
15,378
General
Government
Building
130,000
142,216
12,216
Parks
I 644,403
650,283
5,880
Senior Citizens
72,121
76,238
4,117
Street Lighting
124,989
128,088
3,099
City Manager
391,945
394,341
21396
Civil Defense
32,352
33,836
1,484
Trips & Outings
37,530
38,603
1,073
Weed Control
14,953
15,959
1,006
Page 1 -17
CLASS RATE PERCENTAGES BY REAL PROPERTY TYPE
TAXES PAYABLE 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002
Real Property
Payable
Payable
Payable
Payable
Payable
Description
1997
1998
1999
2000 and 2001
2002
Class Rate
Class Rate
Class Rate
Class Rate
Class Rate
Residential homestead
First $72,000
1.00%
Over $72,000
2.00%
First $75,000
1.00%
1.00%
Over $75,000
1.85%
1.70%
First $76,000
1.00%
1.00%
$76,000 - $500,000
1.65%
1.00%
Over $500,000
1.25%
Commercial - Industrial
and public utility
First $100,000
Over $100,000
First $150,000
2.70%
2.45%
2.40%
1.50%
Over $150,000
4.00%
3.50%
3.40%
2.00%
Residential non - homestead, 1
unit
First $72,000
2.30%
Over $72,000
2.30%
First $75,000
1.90%
1.25%
Over $75,000
2.10%
1.70%
First $76,000
1.20%
1.00%
$76,000 - $500,000
1.65%
1.00%
Over $500,000
1.25%
Residential non - homestead, 2 -3
J
units and undeveloped land
2.30%
2.10%
1.70%
1.65%
1.50%.
Residential non - homestead
4 or more units
3.40%
2.90%
2.50%
2.40%
1.80%
Low Income
1.00%
0.90%
Page 1 -18
W
H
Q
Fm
N
Z
Cl)
w
0
z
Q
2
U
a�
0
a
Q
CD
--.
CN
C4
N co
vm
°
v
N D
In 00
00
Le)
o
OD
Go
N
N
av
w
to
Le)
M
r
to
tC
W
CD
Ift
0
oft
CD
CD
cm
C7
co
co
w
rM
N
t'h
N
N
La
CD
Q
r
CD
r
to
N
N
Q
N
N
1%-
�
C7
M
M
r
N
M
Low
tai
Lm
a
CL
E
Q
_
...I
H
a�
0
a
~000 0000000 ~ ~ ~ O0 0000000 0
~000 0000000 ~ ~ ~00 ~000000 0
~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~0 00000~ 0
0 '~ " U- LL
0 0 0 0 0 0
0~0~ 0 0 0000 ~00000 00000 O0
o o oooo ~ooooo ooooo oo
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
2002 BUDGET MESSAGE
This budget message accompanies the 2002 budget document distributed to the City Council and
available to the public.
Budget Format
Several years ago the budget format was revised in an attempt to provide more useful information
to the City Council and the public in a summarized, user-friendly format. Under the new format,
the budget was broken down into ten functional areas and is prepared with a summary for each of
these functional areas along with a detailed budget workbook for the City Council to utilize during
their budget review. The summary budget book is then again summarized into a public document
that is used for the City's public budget adoption meeting and for any required truth in taxation
hearings. The budget message follows the format of the overall budget and provides a narrative
section summarizing each of the functional areas along with overall summary information on the
budget document, total budget, property taxes, and other revenue sources.
Budget Overview
Budget Highlights
Expenditures: As is reflected in the budget, the City Manager's overall proposed budget for tax-
supported funds is down slightly for 2002 from 2001. For 2001 the total General Fund, Library
Fund and EDA budgets equaled $8,674,001. For 2002 the City Manager's proposed budget is
$8,660,490. The principal reason for the reduction in the budget is the new state legislation that
reduced state aid to the city by $800,566. It was the state legislature's recommendation that this
aid reduction be passed on to residents in the form of a property tax levy along with a property tax
increase to cover inflationary costs. With these changes and reductions in state aid together with
inflation and the additional financial needs of the City, it was necessary to take a hard look at all
departmental budgets and make some significant reductions. As you will see in the following
explanations for each functional area, these budget reductions range from the elimination of a
police officer position to significant cutbacks in capital equipment purchases. To dramatize the
difference in the budget preparation from 2001 to 2002, we have included the following two
charts. The first chart is a reprint from last year's budget book showing the departments with the
highest budgetary increases from 2000 to 2001. The second chart reflects the major budget
increases from 2001 to 2002.
Page 1-!
Increase/Decrease
2000 Budget 2001 Budget from 2000
Fire 769,507 805,299 35,792
Parks 638,648 655,869 17,221
Weed Control 8,981 24,237 15,256
Finance 549,621 563,138 13,517
Streets 638,438 643,549 5,111
Recognition/Special Events 47,528 52,220 4,692
General Government Building 125,900 130,000 4,100
Tree Trimming 42,940 46,948 4,008
Street Lighting 121,875 125,489 3,614
City Manager 388,852 391,945 3,093
Traffic Signs & Signals 67,375 70,452 3,077
Murzyn Hall 243,692 246,166 2,474
Increase/Decrease
2001 Budget 2002 Budget from 2001
Elections 6,823 40,548 33,725
Streets 642,019 670,812 28,793
Police 2,417,842 2,442,873 25,030
Administration & General 189,556 204,934 15,378
General Government Build ing 130,000 142,216 12,216
Parks 644,403 650,283 5,880
Senior Citizens 72,121 76,238 4,117
Street Lighting 124,989 128,088 3,099
City Manager 391,945 394,341 2,396
Civil Defense 32,352 33,836 1,484
Trips & Outings 37,530 38,603 1,073
Weed Control 14,953 15,959 1,006
As mentioned above, the state legislature significantly reduced state aid to the City. The
following chart reflects what the City received in state aid for the years 2000 through 2002. As
you can see, there was an $800,566 reduction in 2002.
2000 Actual 2001 Budget 2002 Budget
HACA 1,004,122 1,004,368 0
LGA 2,325,029 2,385,618 2,589,420
Total 3,329,151 3,389,986 2,589,420
Change from Prior Year 75,600 60,835 (800,566)
Page 1-2
As was recommended by the state legislature, this aid reduction was passed on to residents in
the form of a property tax levy increase. It should be noted that although the city and county are
having property tax levy increases as a result of state legislation, there is a significant offset to
this in the fact that the state has drastically increased aid to school districts and the levy reduction
by school districts should be greater than the levy increase from the city and county. The net
result as projected by the state is that homes valued at approximately $120,000 should see a
total property tax levy reduction of approximately $100. The following chart shows the breakdown
of the city's levy for the years 1999 through 2001 and the proposed levy for 2002. As the chart
reflects, the City's levy increase for the years 1999 and 2000 was very minimal. To finance
expenses in these years the City relied heavily on reserves that were accumulated in the City's
General Fund balance. The levy for 2001 was increased to cover expenses without using fund
balance reserves, and as is reflected in the chart, the levy for 2002 has some considerable
increases, primarily to cover the reduction in state aid.
PROPOSED PROPERTY TAXES, 1999 - 2001
Proposed Property Taxes 1999 2000 2001 2002
Library 467,518 500,244 547,767 591,588
EDA 111,048 119,296 119,295 137,015
General Fund 2,660,059 2,676,416 2,958,490 4,110,711
Total Levy 3,238,625 3,295,956 3,625,552 4,839,314
Levy Increase from Prior Year I 57,331 329,596 1,213,762
The next major factor in the property tax formula is the state legislature's restructuring of class
rate percentages for real property taxes payable in 1998 through 2002. The class rate changes
made in these years will affect property taxes paid for the current and all future years. The major
change was a significant shift in the tax capacity value from commercial industrial and residential
non-homestead to residential homesteaded property. As you can see from the following chart,
there is a slight reduction in tax capacity rates for homes over $76,000. The reduction is from 2%
in 1997 to 1.65% in 2002. However, there is a more significant reduction for commercial
industrial property and residential non-homestead property. The net result is that a large amount
of the tax revenue previously paid by commercial industrial properties and residential non-
homestead properties is now picked up by homesteaded residential property.
Page 1-3
CLASS RATE PERCENTAGES BY REAL PROPERTY TYPE
TAXES PAYABLE 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002
Real Property Payable Payable Payable Payable Payable
Description 1997 1998 1999 2000 and 2001 2002
Class Rate Class Rate Class Rate Class Rate Class Rate
Residential homestead
First $72,000 1.00%
Over $72,000 2.00%
First $75,000 1.00% 1.00%
Over $75,000 1.85% 1.70%
First $76,000 1.00% 1.00%
$76,000 - $500,000 1.65% 1.00%
Over $500,000 1.25%
Commercial-I ndustrial
and public utility
First $100,000
Over $100,000
First $150,000 2.70% 2.45% 2.40% 1.50%
Over $150,000 4.00% 3.50% 3.40% 2.00%
Residential non-homestead, 1
unit
First $72,000 2.30%
Over $72,000 2.30%
First $75,000 1.90% 1.25%
Over $75,000 2.10% 1.70%
First $76,000 1.20% 1.00%
$76,000 - $500,000 1.65% 1.00%
Over $500,000 1.25%
Residential non-homestead, 2-3
units and undeveloped land 2.30% 2.10% 1.70% 1.65% 1.50%
Residential non-homestead
4 or more units 3.40% 2.90% 2.50% 2.40% 1.80%
Low Income 1.00% 0.90%
Economic Environment
As indicated in the Moody's Municipal Credit Report for the City of Columbia Heights, our
finances remain satisfactory with reasonable General Fund reserves. As a result, the City has
maintained an A1 bond rating. Our revenue structure is somewhat vulnerable to economic
pressure since approximately 30% of our General Fund revenue base comes from state aid and
48% of our General Fund revenue base is from local property taxes. As these aids and the City's
property tax revenue are received in the last six months of the year, the City has been
maintaining a cash flow fund balance equal to 40% of the General Fund operating budget.
Subsequently, although it may appear that we have a significant fund balance reserve, it is
actually dedicated to cash flow purposes.
Page 1-4
The City's primary source for increased revenue is through property tax levies. Over the past
several years, the City Council has maintained a very conservative profile in increasing taxes by
minimal percentages. To maintain the quality of services provided to the residents of Columbia
Heights, it may be necessary to develop a policy of a slightly higher property tax increase.
However, due to state imposed levy limits for the years 1998 through 2000, the City was
restricted from implementing minimal property tax increases. These levy limits were removed for
the year 2001 but are back in place for the year 2002. As a result of this legislative restriction, the
City was forced to look at severe budget cuts and a reduction of services in the 2002 budget
preparation process. At the present time it is anticipated that the property tax legislation passed
in the last legislative session will only worsen the future property tax burden on cities. As part of
the City's property tax revenue, the City does receive an area wide fiscal disparities tax
distribution from commercial property in other communities. The basis of this area wide fiscal
disparities tax distribution is to collect property taxes on commercial property throughout the
metropolitan area and then redistribute this area wide property tax to communities such as
Columbia Heights which has a limited commercial property tax base. Under the fiscal disparities
area wide tax system, the City of Columbia Heights benefits significantly. It is projected that the
City will receive over $930,000 in property taxes from the tax on commercial property in other
communities. As part of the recent legislation, the City will be looking at a significant reduction in
this area wide tax revenue in future years that will mean the residents of Columbia Heights will
need to pick up even a larger portion of the property taxes.
Page 1-5
Significant Highlights on Expenditures by
Functional Area
Administration
The Administration function includes Mayor, City Council,
City Manager, Assessing, and Legal budgets. The total
proposed 2002 budget for this functional area is $922,698.
This is down $37,262 from the adopted 2001 budget. The
most significant areas of reduction in the budget are
reductions in the Mayor/Council budget of $8,015 for
contingencies, $2,500 for a facilitator on goal setting, $8,900
for membership dues in the North Metro Mayors Association,
and $2,000 in advertising. The City Manager budget
included reductions of $4,000 for training and education,
$2,500 for membership fees, $2,000 for travel and expenses,
$4,000 for staff training, and $5,000 for the reduction in
employment advertising. In the Assessing budget it is
proposed to eliminate the Assessing Clerk position mid-year
when the current employee retires. This will result in a
partial year savings of approximately $19,000. Another
significant area of reduction was $21,500 in projected legal
ADMINISTRATION
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
1999 2000 2001 2002
Ia Pemor~ Services B Supplies
i O~ Sewices & Chages I Capital Ou~y
I C_~nfi nge~:ies & Transfas
fees. The most significant area of cost increases in these budgets is in the area of personnel
expenses. Cost of living pay increases have required an increase to these areas. The net result
of the increases and reductions is a decrease to this functional area budget of $37,261.
Community Development
This functional area covers all services previously provided
by the Housing & Redevelopment Authority in addition to
expanded services. The specific departments covered by
this functional area are Building Inspections, Administration,
Community Development Block Grant, Parkview Villa,
Economic Development Authority, Housing Redevelopment
Authority, multi-use redevelopment, and some miscellaneous
housing programs. This functional area of the City was
created in 1996 with the establishment of the EDA and the
transfer of previous HRA staff to the EDA as a City
department. In recent years this budget has seen several
changes and modifications with the increases and decreases
to the Community Development Block Grant Housing
programs, along with significant changes in the Section 8
Housing program. During the year 2000 the Section 8
program was transferred back to Metro HRA, freeing the City
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
1999 2(X)O 2001 2002
of any and all responsibilities for the administration of that program. In addition to this, the MHFA
loan program was contracted to an outside agency to manage.
Page 1-6
Finance Department
This functional area covers Elections, Finance, Information
Systems, and Utility Billing Administration for the water,
sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and refuse departments. The
total budget for 2002 is $43,025 over the adopted 2001
budget. The most significant changes in this budget are in
the area of personnel. First being the cost of living increases
and second being some restructuring in the Finance
Department staffing. Over the years accounting and
reporting requirements have changed significantly.
However, the department has seen no restructuring since
the mid 1980's. With the current structure in the Finance
Department it has been very difficult to maintain the level of
accounting and reporting that is required under current
standards. Subsequently, the 2002 budget does include
minor restructuring in the department to eliminate two current
positions and create two new positions that will give the
RNANCE
department a slightly higher level of expertise to enable us to comply with all current state and
federal accounting and reporting requirements. The portion of this department that relates to
information systems has seen some growth and improvement over the past two years, with
greater efficiency in software, e-mail, and the expansion and improvement of the City's Web site,
which is utilized as another means of providing information to the public. The most significant
budget increase item for 2002 over 2001 is in the Elections Department. As the City has gone to
even year elections, we no longer have odd year elections. This has resulted in a savings of
approximately $30,000 to the City budget every other year. However, as 2002 is an election
year, we do see an Election Department budget increase of approximately $34,000.
Fire
This functional area is comprised of the Fire and Civil Defense
departments. The overall department proposed expenditures
in this functional area increased by $209,000 from the
adopted 2001 budget. This increase was broken down into
three major areas. FirSt, in the area of personnel, it was
proposed to upgrade one position and increase part-time
hours for the secretarial position. This, combined with cost of
living and step increases, resulted in an additional personal
services expense increase of $68,800. The next major area
of increase was in capital equipment with the proposed
replacement of the generator in City Hall for $50,000 and the
replacement of the ambulance for $74,000. The third
significant item was upgrading the software program in the
Fire Department to CityView software at a projected cost of
$20,000 and the installation of new lockers for the firefighters
at a cost of $26,000. In the City Manager's review of this
FIRE
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
1900 2000 2001
[] Personal Services [] Supplies
[]Other:Services &Charges ICapitalOuUay
· Contlngenc es & Transfers
2002
budget, he cut the staffing upgrades by $10,000, eliminated the purchase of new lockers for a
cost savings of $26,000, delayed the purchase of the new generator for a savings of $50,000,
moved the cost of purchasing new software to the Cable TV budget in the amount of $20,000,
and moved the cost of the ambulance to the PERA Capital Equipment fund. Although these are
reasonably significant reductions in the budget, they will not impair the services the Fire
Department provides.
Page 1-7
General Government
This functional area as a grouping was created new for the
1998 budget process. It is a collection of all the departmental
areas that are not specifically assigned to one division head.
This functional area includes the following departments:
General Government Buildings, Recognition/Special Events,
Contingencies and Transfers, Cable Television, Refuse and
Hazardous Waste funds. The most significant item of note in
this functional area budget is under General Government
Buildings. The total budget is down by $15,314 from the actual
expenditures in 2000. The 2002 budget also includes $25,000
for additional alarm and other security items at City Hall.
Likewise, the Cable Television budget decreased by $29,500
from 2001 to 2002. The Refuse budgets also saw a cost
increase. The disposal portion of the budget increased by
$8,000 in anticipation of a 1.5% contract increase by the
hauler. Internal administrative and management costs of the
Refuse fund increased by $6,300 and the recycling portion of
GENERAL
GOVERNMENT
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
1999 2000 2001 2002
i Other Sen,,Ices & Clmrges m Capltat O~
the budget increased by $6,100. The Hazardous Waste disposal budget remains the same.
Library
The City's library is located at 820 40th Avenue. The library's
main goal is to provide free access to informational and
recreational materials for the patrons in a pleasant environment
conducive to the acquisition of knowledge. A variety of library-
related programs (e.g. storytimes, reading clubs, filmtimes,
homebound delivery, etc.) are offered for patrons of all ages
from preschool through senior citizen. As a city-supported
library, Columbia Heights participates in the MELSA regional
system through a contract with the Anoka County library
system, State-wide Borrowers Compact, and METRONET.
This enables Columbia Heights patrons to gain access to
special services and scholarly materials available to other
participating libraries. For 2002, the department proposed
library budget is up from $597,234 to $648,002. The major
highlights of the 2002 budget are a reduction in part-time hours
by 922 with the reduction of the Page/Choreperson job class.
The supplies section includes $3,950 of computer equipment
UBRARY
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
i O~er Se~c.~ & Or, arg~ i Capital Ou~y
and software upgrades for the PC's used by staff. Other service charges include $3,960 for the
T-1 line used by the automated circulation system and increases for other utilities. Capital
requests include replacement of the ballast in the adult reading room and a new circulation desk
for the main floor lobby. In the City Manager's review of this budget, he recommended reducing
expert and professional services by $2,600, eliminating the budget for vandalism by $500 and
delaying the replacement of the lights and the circulation desk until 2003 for a savings of $35,500.
It is felt that these cuts will not impair the high level of services that the library provides to patrons.
Page 1-8
Liquor
The liquor function is comprised of three liquor stores,
Top Valu I, Top Yalu II, and Heights Liquor, along with a
capital equipment replacement fund for each of the three
stores. Top Valu I is located at 4340 Central Avenue. This
store opened in November of 1984 and was the City's first
endeavor into a large volume discount liquor operation. Since
it's opening it has been very successful. The City's second
endeavor along this line was Top Valu II at 2241 37th Avenue.
This store follows the same concept as Top Valu I and
opened in April of 1994. As this store is located in a lower
traffic area, its growth has been slower but very steady. Each
year it shows a progressive increase in sales and profitability.
Heights Liquor is the third store and is located at 5225
University Avenue. This store was opened in 1964 and has
remained a very small, traditional liquor store. It does not
operate on a high volume discount basis. Markups are higher
LIQUOR
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
B Pe~onal Sen~ces ~ S~pplies
B O~her Services & Charges · Capital Outlay
· ContJn~lencies & Transfers
at this store, along with profitability, which is due primarily to taking advantage of high volume
purchasing discounts based on the volume purchased at Top Valu and the lower overhead
expenses of a city-owned operation. The net result is that for several years this was the most
profitable liquor store in the Heights. However, with the opening of the large, new Fridley store
just north of the freeway in 2000, we have seen a significant decrease in sales and profitability at
this store. With this is in mind, and the fact that the store is located adjacent to a residential
neighborhood, we have undertaken the project of looking for a new location for the store at 5225
University Avenue in addition to looking for a location on Central Avenue where we could build
our own store. Currently we are renting on Central Avenue and the lease expires in three years.
It would be highly beneficial and profitable to the City and the liquor operation to own our own
store on Central Avenue and to build a new store on University Avenue. For this purpose, we
have included $2,000,000 in the 2002 budget to purchase property and build a new store at one
of these locations.
Police
This functional area is comprised of the Police Department,
Animal Control, DARE, and Capital Equipment Replacement.
The most significant item in this budget is personnel costs.
Over the past several years department staffing has been
increased from 22 sworn officers to 26 through the addition of
three officers by federal grants, and one additional officer over
and above the grant requirements. In 1999 all grant funding
and the requirement to maintain this staffing level ended. The
City Council needs to address the increased staffing level in
the Police Department. Without the continued grant revenue,
the addition of four sworn officers is a significant increase in
the Police Department budget. The proposed Police
Department budget for 2002 increased by $182,216 from the
adopted 2001 budget of $2,417,842. The major portion of this
increase is $151,770 in personnel costs, primarily for
POLICE
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
19~9 2OOO 2001
· Other Se~ices and Charges · Capital Ou~ay
· Contingencies & Transfers
Page 1-9
employees progressing through the wage plan and cost of living increases. The other significant
item in the Police Department is the capital equipment budget. The proposed 2002 capital
equipment budget is for $115,100 which includes two full-sized marked squad cars, one mid-size
administrative car, two replacement light bars, two laptop computers with modems and stands,
and two in-squad video systems. Also included in the capital equipment budget is the third
payment for the Visions Records Management system. In the Police Department the City
Manager proposed cutting one CSO and one police officer position and delaying the purchase of
three new police vehicles and equipment for one year. These cuts are a first level step in
reducing staff in the Police Department back to the normal level prior to receiving the federal
grant officers.
Public Works
This functional area is comprised of several departments
crossing several funds. One of the significant advantages of
the functional area budget format adopted in 1998 is that it
shows the entire Public Works function in one area. Areas
covered are engineering, streets, weed control, parks, tree
programs, water utility, sanitary sewer utility, storm sewer
utility, garage, and capital equipment replacement funds for
the Public Works operation. Significant budget items in Public
Works are as follows. In the area of personnel the 2002
department proposed budget for salaries and benefits is
$1,967,449, which is an increase of $187,769 over the 2001
budget. This increase is due to cost of living pay increases
and employees progressing through the pay scale. The
engineering budget is down by $44,000 primarily because
engineering costs have been allocated to the infrastructure
fund for street projects. Although this is a cost savings to
PUBLIC WORKS
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
1999 2000 2001 2002
· Personal ~ El Supplies
engineering, if these costs are not passed on through assessments as an administrative charge,
it will have a detrimental effect on the infrastructure/street replacement fund. In the tree budget
there was a proposal to eliminate the City picking up 50% of the cost on the removal of diseased
trees. This would result in a savings of approximately $22,500. However, in discussions, it
appears that for 2002 a better alternative would be for the City to pick up 25% of the cost of
diseased tree removal, which would still result in a budget savings of $11,250. In the Parks
Department a major item of consideration is eliminating from one-third to one-half of our skating
rinks. In recent years several of the rinks have received minimal usage. A reduction or closing of
these rinks could result in a cost savings of approximately $16,500 in seasonal employees and
another $30,000 in repair, maintenance and utilities of warming houses. In the Water Department
it is projected that the cost of water purchased from Minneapolis will increase by approximately
$100,000 from 2001. With this increase, it will be essential to have a water rate increase in the
water fund. In the sewer fund we are not anticipating any sewer disposal charge increases and
subsequently may be able to forestall any sewer rate increases. In the central garage fund there
is minimal change from 2001. The major goal here is to continue funding the capital outlay fund
for future building improvements to the municipal service center building. In summary, several
other areas of the Public Works budget saw changes that are presented in more detail in the
Public Works budget document.
Page 1-10
Recreation
Recreation is comprised of several departments including
administration, youth athletics, youth enrichment, adult
athletics, traveling teams, Back to the Parks pregram, trips
and outings, senior citizens, CHASE, and Murzyn Hall
management. Over the years the recreation pregram has
increased in several areas. One of the most notable areas is
the Senior Citizen program due to its tremendous growth.
While several senior programs in other communities are
stagnant, through the excellent management of our Senior
Coordinator, Karen Moeller, the program in Columbia Heights
has grown consistently and is well received by all seniors.
Other items of notable mention in the Recreation budget are
that the administrative component of the budget has
increased by $16,878 primarily due to step and cost of living
personnel increases. In the area of youth athletics the budget
is relatively the same as it was in 2001. Adult Athletics has
seen a slight decrease of $1,187 due to the elimination of the
RECREATION
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
1999 2O0O 2001 2OO2
· Personal Se~ices · Supplies
· Olha' Sen~ces and Charges · Capital Outlay
· Contingencies & Transfem
Open Sundays program. Youth Enrichment and Traveling Athletics are essentially the same as
the 2001 budget. The Back to the Parks program was designed to set $10,000 aside each year
as matching money for any entity or community group that wanted to come in with matching
money to do a park project. Due to virtually no activity in this area, the program has been
eliminated from the 2002 budget. The Trips and Outings program that provides one day and
extended trips for senior citizens, and has been very successful, saw a slight budget increase of
$1,073 due to transportation costs and higher gas prices. It should be noted that this department
is a fully self-sustaining department in that all of the costs for trips and outings are charged back
to the participants. The Senior Citizen program has increased slightly in cost primarily due to
increases in personnel services. The Murzyn Hall budget has increased by $1,306 which is
primarily due to the budget for building improvements.
Conclusion
The above narrative should give an overview of the most salient changes and assumptions
included in the budget. As much as feasible, this is a hold-the-line budget. The property tax
format in the state has seen significant changes for the 2002 tax levy. With state legislation
shifting local government aids from cities to school districts, taxpayers should receive a significant
reduction in their school property tax levy. However, as the state significantly reduced aid to
cities, there will be a slight increase in city property taxes. The net result, as projected by the
state, is that a $100,000 home should see a total property tax reduction of approximately $100.
However, with these changes and with the severe levy limits imposed by the state, the City's
actual revenue increase is roughly equivalent to cost of living salary increases for tax-supported
funds, which leaves the City with no additional funding for other areas of inflation.
The budget process is a major undertaking by City staff and the City Council, which requires a
great deal of work performed by all involved to bring the process to a successful conclusion. I
extend my appreciation in this endeavor to all department directors and their staff, and a special
thanks to Barb Kelzenberg and Sue Schmidtbauer for their time in compiling the budget and their
extensive efforts in ensuring the accuracy of the entire document. This is a very trying and
exhausting endeavor, and their extensive efforts are greatly appreciated.
Page1-11
2002 REVENUES BY SOURCE
ALL FUNDS
Allocations
$80,000
Transfers In & Non- Taxes
Rev Receipts $4,839,314
$3,060,114
Net Sales-Liquor
$1,171,743
Debt Service Funds
and HRA
$1,287,701
Sales &
Charges
$4,045,646
Miscellaneous
$1,389,950
Fines & Forfeits
$115,000
Charges For Services
$426,100
Licenses & Permits
$274,500
Intergovernmental
$6,519,288
Page 1-12
2002 ALL BUDGETARY FUNDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTIONAL AREA
Public Works
$6,O3O,293
Recreation
$619,633
Administration
$922,698
/
Debt Service
$2,82O,649
Community
,pment
$1,564,107
Finance
,144,113
Police
$2,523,413
Liquor
$3,378,OOO
Library
$583,202
Fire
$880,469
General Government
$2,370,504
Page 1-13
2002 All Budgetary Funds
Expenditures by Classification
Contingencies &
Transfers
$2,747,874
Personal
Services
$7,639,258
Capital Outlay
$4,873,934
Other Services
& Charges
$3,808,623
Supplies
$3,767,392
Page 1-14
SOURCES OF GENERAL FUND,
LIBRARY FUND AND EDA REVENUE
2002 BUDGET
Other
$599,800
Services Transfers
$426,100 $459,548
Inter-
governmental
$2,834,82O
Taxes
$4,839,3J4
Page 1-15
2001 GENERAL FUND AND
LIBRARY FUND EXPENDITURES
Expenditures By Classification
Other Services and
Charges
27.3%
Capital Outlay Contingencies and
2.7% Transfers
2.1%
Supplies
5.5%
Personal Services
62.5%
Page 1-16
Major Expenditure Increases
2001 2002 Increase/Decrease
Budget Budget from 2001
Elections 6,823 40,548 33,725
Streets 642,019 670,812 28,793
Police 2,417,842 2,442,873 25,030
Administration & 189,556 204,934 15,378
General
General 130,000 142,216 12,216
Government
Building
Parks 644,403 650,283 5,880
Senior Citizens 72,121 76,238 4,117
Street Lighting 124,989 128,088 3,099
City Manager 391,945 394,341 2,396
Civil Defense 32,352 33,836 1,484
Trips & Outings 37,530 38,603 1,073
Weed Control 14,953 15,959 1,006
Page 1-17
CLASS RATE PERCENTAGES BY REAL PROPERTY TYPE
TAXES PAYABLE 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002
Real Property Payable Payable Payable Payable Payable
Description 1997 1998 1999 2000 and 2001 2002
Class Rate Class Rate Class Rate Class Rate Class Rate
Residential homestead
First $72,000 1.00%
Over $72,000 2.00%
First $75,000 1.00% 1.00%
Over $75,000 1.85% 1.70%
First $76,000 1.00% 1.00%
$76,000 - $500,000 1.65% 1.00%
Over $500,000 1.25%
Commercial-Industrial
and public utility
First $100,000
Over $100,000
First $150,000 2.70% 2.45% 2.40% 1.50%
Over $150,000 4.00% 3.50% 3.40% 2.00%
Residential non-homestead, 1
unit
First $72,000 2.30%
Over $72,000 2.30%
First $75,000 1.90% 1.25%
Over $75,000 2.10% 1.70%
First $76,000 1.20% 1.00%
$76,000 - $500,000 1.65% 1.00%
Over $500,000 1.25%
Residential non-homestead, 2-3
units and undeveloped land 2.30% 2.10% 1.70% 1.65% 1.50%
Residential non-homestead
4 or more units 3.40% 2.90% 2.50% 2.40% 1.80%
Low Income 1.00% 0.90%
Page 1-18
LLI
LLI
Changes In Tax Levy
2OOO - 2OO2
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
· GENERAL FUND
[] LIBRARY FUND
!· EDA FUND
119,296
119,295
137,015
Page 1-21
Columbia Heights
2002 Property Tax Levy $4,839,314
State Aid Reduction
$800,566
Inflation
~235,933
City 2001 Property
Tax Levy
$3,626,552
Household &
Construction
Growth
$177,264
Page 1-22
WHERE YOUR PROPERTY TAXES GO
Payable 2001
Miscellaneous
5%
County
21%
City
School 23%
51%
Page 1-23
WHAT WILL $27 A MONTH BUY?
(Based on 2002 Property Tax)
Telephone
$27 a Month Buys Quality and Quantity
in the City of Columbia Heights
Dinner for 4
Garbage Pick-Up
Columbia Heights City Services
Basic Cable TV
Parks Streets Police Fire Library
The average home in Columbia Heights pays $27 per month in city real estate taxes. The average Columbia Heights'
resident will spend $27 every month on various services and pleasures, i.e., pizza and pop for four at a local restaurant,
basic cable TV for the family, monthly phone services, etc. The best value for your money in Columbia Heights is still all
of the city services that $27 of your monthly property tax will buy! (Based on a $94,300 home in Columbia Heights.)
CITYSERV Page 1-24