Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2008-04-25 CC Packet Special Meeting
i1hva ter. THE NINTN EIACE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA CITY OF STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL MEETING NO. 08 -09 Council Chambers, 216 North Fourth Street Friday, April 25, 2008 SPECIAL MEETING CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OTHER BUSINESS 1. Budget Discussions ADJOURNMENT Page 1 of 1 Larry Hansen From: Ken Harycki [ken ©payrollcps.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:35 AM To: Larry Hansen Subject: Draft Agenda Larry: Here are my thoughts for the budget meeting on Friday: Overview of property tax situation Overview of LGA impact (I'll check with Senator Saltzman on the status of her bill) Bonding Capacity and impact on CIP Review of City Priorities from the Survey we took Challenge to Depts to reinvent themselves council priorities Discussion on Street Assessment Policy Specific Council Areas to work on Ken 4/22/2008 NGTON COUNTY 2009 TMV CHANGE DUE TO OTHER o O 89 0 V 89 0 N 89 0 M o O 89 0 N 89 0 0 89 V 0 N 89 0 r- 89 0 .- o 0 0 o. - o co 0 N 0 N 0 O 0 = 0 N 0 co 0 = 0 N 89 0 = D N- o 0 — 0 N 0 O: , o X0000000 Z,- N= 0 0 .- ,- 00000000000000000000000000 N O ,- O N N O N r ,- O N- r N O O= O N N N- N- Op 0 N 2009 EMV CHANGE DUE TO W W • 0 0000000000000000 to N ,-= LO O CO N M U) = CO CO I- V LO 0 �. 0000 M= N �) 0000 0 N•. �- 000 M O N- 0000 0 1- 1- N 0 �_ 0 0 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 o O O 0 o �- N 0 0 N 0 0 0 M N 0 N 0 0 �- 0 0 0 O O 0 0 �- 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O N O 0 O 0 0 0 N 0 0 O O 0 N 0 0 0 O N CHANGE FROM 2008 TO PRELIMI- NARY 2009 e O O o o O o o G o 0 0 0 0 0 o G V. N CO i- N M In M 0 0 O) O1 CO N O CO Z i I� r M 00 i coo N G 'Cr Cr o O o o e CO O CO 00 CO M CO 0 0 0 0 (O CO 00 CO - 1 CO o o O o o G o V O CO (n I? CO O 1 N' C'7 N 0 O 0 0 00 CO > O O O O O O O O G O O O O O O O O O O O O N (n co M O N V 00 co co CO LO CO r O .- O O O O O O s7 CO N <- O O O O N Cr CO .- O O O O O O O O O O O = .- CO M N N O O O O O CO >0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o o O 0 0 0 0 0 I- V O N V O M O M In N O O V r W o M o' 89 0 0 V N N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (. N N M N O N 0 O O N _IMINARY PAY 2009 New Construc- tion 4,936,400 6,946,100 6,218,400 126,500 907,500 5,179,200 6,429,200 4,999,500 82,600 3,460,600 1,582,600 33,478,800 50,356,700 26,154,400 151,300 21,369,000 981,900 3,092,500 4,080,500 12,884,100 302,800 11,148,300 127,000 312,300 783,900 286,700 49,804,700 184,726,000 24,353,500 4,562,600 469,825,600 Taxable Market Value 323, 263, 500 375,976,300 657,747,500 46,027,500 426,698,800 646,961,900 572,875,900 264,450,100 165,965,200 617,945,400 356,411,200 2,223,024,200 1,472,444,300 1,213,144,200 66,726,000 1, 053, 743, 300 0 0 0)) r- (0 348,680,800 398,733,000 7,322,900 2,136,576,800 44,303,800 697,535,200 81,012,600 239,717,500 108,995,800 60,024,900 3,074,597,700 7,626,037,800 2,634,030,100 839,135,700 1,909,400 35,888,900 1 28,977,705,900 1 W Ce CL Estimated Market Value 339,375,000 479,835,900 763,488,900 46,397,200 458, 790, 900 658, 903,100 634,048,000 265,376,400 171,668,900 689,020,300 373,685,400 2,315,275,800 1,574,605,400 1,307,945,500 68,867,400 1,082,683,300 r- 0) co- co 351,684,500 405,837,100 7,322,900 2,156,511,300 44,536,300 700,239,900 82,533,200 241,236,000 109,350,400 60,334,300 3,167,566,600 7,741,224,900 2,641,063,800 888, 269, 500 1,937,300 35, 888, 900 0 0 0 0) N 0 O M FINAL PAY 2008 New Construc- tion 4,961,800 7,911,700 7,403,600 546,600 3,230,000 7,737,300 3,483,600 5,152, 800 407,300 10,135,400 1,742,300 28,147,600 106,036,800 26,731,600 68,900 19,707,000 1,749,900 1,093,300 6,521,900 40,508,400 1,283,200 16,623,400 585,300 1,143, 900 1,410,800 67,020,000 337,985,200 38,379,100 3,701,500 1,047,200 I 752,457,400 Taxable Market Value 343, 329, 300 336, 798, 000 627,560,100 44,850,200 439,574,400 643, 930, 500 576,749,500 258,142,800 159,400,700 642, 618, 900 330,186,700 2,167,397,000 1,436,386,500 1,146,659,500 63,461,300 994,033,200 161,216,300 334,001,400 387,820,600 6,536,700 2,122,221,200 43,598,200 673,570,600 78,533,600 237,258,600 110,385,100 59,322,600 2,986,391,700 7,393,125,700 2,574,370,300 819,541,700 1,902,000 35,964,400 I 28,236,839,300 Estimated Market Value 364,280,300 421,427,000 764,778,700 45,595,700 479,565,400 656,179,500 650,347,000 265,503,800 177,644,400 723,129,300 334,735,600 2, 346, 079, 000 1,568,574,700 1,196,047,100 66,145,700 1,013,406,400 168,890,600 338,878,400 398,346,800 6,536,700 2,152,996,700 44,093,000 675,234,300 83,327,200 242,888,800 111,781,200 59, 995, 800 3,091,610,400 7,534,374,700 2,582,226,000 889,285,100 1,966,900 35,964,500 29,491,836,700 Municipality 0002 Baytown 0004 Denmark 0009 May 0011 Grey Cloud Island 0014 Stillwater Township 0017 West Lakeland 0100 Afton 0200 Bayport 0300 Birchwood 0400 Scandia 0500 Dellwood 0600 Forest Lake 0700 Hugo 0800 Lake Elmo 0900 Lakeland Shores 1000 Mahtomedi 1100 Marine on St Croix 1200 Newport 1300 St Paul Park 1400 Landfall 1500 Stillwater City 1600 Willernie 1700 Oak Park Heights 1800 St Mary's Point 1900 Lakeland 2000 Lake St Croix Beach 2100 Pine Springs 2200 Cottage Grove 2500 Woodbury 2600 Oakdale 2700 Grant 7500 Hastings 1 9400 White Bear Lake County Total 3/28/2008 Department of Property Records and Taxpayer Services - Taxation Division code city 2008Iga 2009LGA est chg % chg $ Pat 3 -13 -08 baseline 771500 WEST UNION 5,099 5,040 -1% -59 779300 STAPLES 1,025,933 1,029,937 0% 4004 780100 BROWNS VALLEY 258,116 250,130 -3% -7986 780300 DUMONT 20,173 18,815 -7% -1358 780400 TINTAH 11,763 11,549 -2% -214 780500 WHEATON 610,374 602,440 -1% -7934 790100 ELGIN 246,306 266,267 8% 19961 790200 HAMMOND 31,832 34,312 8% 2480 790300 KELLOGG 79,562 79,331 0% -231 790500 MAZEPPA 155,179 154,201 -1% -978 790600 MILLVILLE 19,032 18,671 -2% -361 790800 PLAINVIEW 644,525 639,471 -1% -5054 791100 WABASHA 668,851 665,703 0% -3148 791300 ZUMBRO FALLS 34,887 34,543 -1% -344 797700 LAKE CITY 784,069 772,272 -2% -11797 797800 MINNEISKA 6,759 6,270 -7% -489 800100 ALDRICH 4,835 5,335 10% 500 800200 MENAHGA 311,187 311,657 0% 470 800300 NIMROD 2,712 2,627 -3% -85 800400 SEBEKA 167,328 166,732 0% -596 800500 VERNDALE 129,142 127,502 -1% -1640 809500 WADENA 1,225,463 1,229,192 0% 3729 810200 JANESVILLE 674,961 738,326 9% 63365 810400 NEW RICHLAND 345,983 351,844 2% 5861 810700 WALDORF 46,081 42,862 -7% -3219 810800 WASECA 2,447,542 2,438,301 0% -9241 820100 AFTON 17,538 17,562 0% 24 820200 BAYPORT 444,051 433,951 -2% -10100 820300 BIRCHWOOD 5,702 5,686 0% -16 820400 SCANDIA 25,134 25,770 3% 636 820500 DELLWOOD 6,720 6,822 2% 102 820600 FOREST LAKE - 0 820700 HUGO 0 820800 LAKE ELMO - - 0 820900 LAKELAND SHORES 2,166 2,166 0% 0 821000 MAHTOMEDI - - 0 821100 MARINE ON SAINT CROIX 4,170 4,266 2% 96 821200 NEWPORT 684,156 776,770 14% 92614 821300 ST PAUL PARK 214,219 231,397 8% 17178 821400 LANDFALL 134,852 132,965 -1% -1887 821500 STILLWATER 455,942 775,428 70% 319486 821600 WILLERNIE 66,583 67,127 1% 544 821700 OAK PARK HEIGHTS 28,056 28,242 1% 186 821800 ST MARY'S POINT 2,520 2,520 0% 0 821900 LAKELAND 119,351 115,184 -3% -4167 822000 LAKE SAINT CROIX BEACH 35,470 39,968 13% 4498 822100 PINE SPRINGS 2,472 2,445 -1% -27 822200 COTTAGE GROVE 0 822500 WOODBURY 0 822600 OAKDALE 0 I DEBT LIMIT PROJECTIONS (a) 2008 thru 2027 Growth Estimated Market Value (EMV) (b) 1 Legal Debt Limit (2% of EMV) Outstanding Debt (as of Janaury 1): Principal on Existing Debt Principal on Debt Issued after 2007 (c) Total Outstanding Debt Estimated Legal Debt Margin Minimum Recommended Reserve Level (d) Margin over Minimum Payable 2008 2,152,996,700 43,059,934 Payable 2009 2,156,511,300 43,130,226 Payable 2010 2,178,076,413 43,561,528 Payable 2011 2,199,857,177 43, 997,144 Payable 2012 2,221,855,749 44,437,115 17,925,000 17,925,000 16, 055,000 14,160,000 12,320,000 0 1,445,000 2,834,000 4,068,600 5,077,600 17,925,000 19,370,000 18, 889,000 18,228,600 17,397,600 25,134,934 23,760,226 24,672,528 25,768,544 27,039,515 8,611,987 8,626,045 8,712,306 8,799,429 8,887,423 16,522,947 15,134,181 15,960,222 16,969,115 18,152,092 Growth Estimated Market Value (EMV) (b) 1% Legal Debt Limit (2% of EMV) Outstanding Debt (as of Janaury 1): Principal on Existing Debt Principal on Debt Issued after 2007 (c) Total Outstanding Debt Estimated Legal Debt Margin Minimum Recommended Reserve Level (d) Margin over Minimum Payable 2013 1,762,668,127 35,253,363 Payable 2014 1,780,294,808 35,605,896 Payable 2015 1,798,097,756 35,961,955 Payable 2016 1,816,078,734 36,321,575 Payable 2017 1,834,239,521 36,684,789 10,605,000 9,260,000 8,095,000 7,100,000 6,265,000 5,603,200 5,968,700 6,166,700 6,192,200 6,050,200 16,208,200 15,228,700 14,261, 700 13,292,200 12,315,200 19,045,163 20,377,196 21,700,255 23,029,375 24,369,589 7,050,673 7,121,179 7,192,391 7,264,315 7,336,958 11,994,490 13,256,017 14,507,864 15,765,060 17,032,631 Growth Estimated Market Value (EMV) (b) 1% Legal Debt Limit (2% of EMV) Outstanding Debt (as of Janaury 1): Principal on Existing Debt Principal on Debt Issued after 2007 (c) Total Outstanding Debt Estimated Legal Debt Margin Minimum Recommended Reserve Level (d) Margin over Minimum Payable 2018 2,249,660,831 44,993,217 Payable 2019 2,272,157,438 45,443,149 Payable 2020 2,294,879,012 45,897,580 Payable 2021 2,317,827,802 46,356,556 Payable 2022 2,341,006,080 46,820,122 5,405,000 4,525,000 3,615,000 2,790,000 1,950,000 5,950,900 5,881,700 5,849,600 5,851,400 5,851,400 11,355,900 10,406,700 9,464,600 8,641,400 7,801,400 33,637,317 35,036,449 36,432,980 37,715,156 39,018,722 8,998,643 9,088,630 9,179,516 9,271,311 9,364,024 24,638,674 25,947,819 27,253,464 28,443,845 29,654,698 11 f DEBT LIMIT PROJECTIONS (a) 2008 thru 2027 Payable Growth 2023 Estimated Market Value (EMV) (b) 1% 2,871,200,640 Legal Debt Limit (2% of EMV) 57,424,013 Outstanding Debt (as of Janaury 1): Principal on Existing Debt Principal on Debt Issued after 2007 (c) Total Outstanding Debt 1,350,000 5,851,400 7,201,400 Estimated Legal Debt Margin 50,222,613 Minimum Recommended Reserve Level (d) 11,484,803 Margin over Minimum 38,737,810 Payable 2024 2,899,912,646 57,998,253 Payable 2025 2,928,911,772 58,578,235 Payable 2026 2,958,200,890 59,164,018 Payable 2027 2,987,782,899 59,755,658 1,035,000 705,000 360,000 0 5,851,400 5,851,400 5,851,400 5,851,400 6,886,400 6,556,400 6,211,400 5,851,400 51,111,853 52,021,835 52,952,618 53,904,258 11,599,651 11,715,647 11,832,804 11,951,132 39,512,202 40,306,188 41,119,814 41,953,126 (a) lnclues debt for funding of Annual GO Debt - Current Year projects (b) Payable 2008 actual EMV is a proposed value provided by Washington County. (c) 2008 Capital Outlay projects are not included in existing debt. (d) 20% of Legal Debt Limit 12 City of Stillwater, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan 2008 thru 2012 TAX IMPACT ON UNFUNDED MAJOR PURCHASES PROJECT NAME Recreation/ Training Center Fire Station/ Public Safety Facility Arts & Cultural Center Downtown Parking Ramp 2nd & Olive Terra Terminal Park Improvement Total Projected Project Cost $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 Year in CIP 2010 & 2011 2009 2009 2009 2012 Sources of Funding: Unfunded $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $3,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 Contributions from other sources $1,000,000 Unfunded Amount - Debt Service Impact Bond Issue (only one issuance in 2007): Amount of Issue (includes issuance fees): $10,300,000 $5,150,000 $3,090,000 $5,150,000 $4,120,000 Interest Rate: 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% Term (years): 25 20 20 20 20 Yearly Principal & Interest (P & I) Payment $659,323 $378,946 $227,368 $378,946 $303,157 Yearly Debt Levy Impact (Yearly P & I Payment plus the required 5% over levy $692,289 $397,893 $238,736 $397,893 $318,315 Calculation of Tax Rate (Debt Service only): Debt Service Impact $692,289 $397,893 $238,736 $397,893 $318,315 City Taxable Tax Capacity (1 % increase) 20,988,222 21,198,104 21,410,085 21,410,085 21,624,186 Tax Rate 3.30% 1.88% 1.12% 1.86% 1.47% Tax Impact: Taxable Tax Market Value Capacity 100,000 1,000 $33.00 $18.80 $11.20 $18.60 $14.70 200,000 2,000 $66.00 $37.60 $22.40 $37.20 $29.40 246,900 2,469 $81.48 $46.42 $27.65 $45.92 $36.29 300,000 3,000 $99.00 $56.40 $33.60 $55.80 $44.10 400,000 4,000 $132.00 $75.20 $44.80 $74.40 $58.80 500,000 5,000 $165.00 $94.00 $56.00 $93.00 $73.50 750,000 8,125 $268.13 $152.75 $91.00 $151.13 $119.44 Median House Value for Stillwater in 2008 Assumptions: (1) The tax impact on residential homestead properties does not include reduction for homestead credit. (2) The tax impact is calculated on the first year of the issuance (bond) only. (3) Issuance costs are 3% of the funding amount. 43 City of Stillwater, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan 2008 thru 2012 TAX IMPACT ON ANNUAL CAPITAL PURCHASES Total Projected Project Cost Year in CIP Debt Service Impact $1,405,050 2008 $1,445,000 $1,494,600 2009 $1,539,000 $1,550,900 2010 $1,597,000 $1,525,100 2011 $1,571,000 $1,251,900 2012 $1,289,000 Bond Issue: Amount of Issue (includes issuance fees): Interest Rate: 2.8% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% Term (years): 8 8 8 8 8 Yearly Principal & Interest (P & I) Payment: $204,376 $228,584 $237,199 $233,337 $191,452 Yearly Debt Levy Impact (Yearly P & I Payment plus the required 5% over levy) $214,595 $240,013 $249,059 $245,004 $201,025 Calculation of Tax Rate (Debt Service only): Debt Service Impact $214,595 $240,013 $249,059 $245,004 $201,025 City Taxable Tax Capacity (1% increase) 20,780,418 20,988,222 21,198,104 21,410,085 21,624,186 Tax Rate 1.03% 1.14% 1.17% 1.14% 0.93% Tax Impact: Taxable Tax Market Value Capacity 100,000 1,000 $10.30 $11.40 $11.70 $11.40 $9.30 200,000 2,000 $20.60 $22.80 $23.40 $22.80 $18.60 246,900 2,469 $25.43 $28.15 $28.89 $28.15 $22.96 300,000 3,000 $30.90 $34.20 $35.10 $34.20 $27.90 400,000 4,000 $41.20 $45.60 $46.80 $45.60 $37.20 500,000 5,000 $51.50 $57.00 $58.50 $57.00 $46.50 750,000 8,125 $83.69 $92.63 $95.06 $92.63 $75.56 Median House Value for Stillwater in 2008 Assumptions: (1) The tax impact on residential homestead properties does not include reduction for homestead credit. (2) The tax impact is calculated on the first year of the issuance (bond) only. (3) Issuance costs are 3% of the project cost. 45 Possible Pay 2009 Property Tax Impact Worksheet Certified Levy increase of 6.2% (increase same as 2008) Taxing District: City of Stillwater STEP 1 - Calculate the Taxing District's Tax Rate: Required Levy -Levy may be reduced if there is sufficient funding elsewhere (besides property taxes * - Assumes a 1% increase in Net Tax Capacity (Current assumption by County is a 1% increase in Taxable Market Value) STEP 2 - Calculate the Impact of the Taxing District's Rate on Residential Homestead Taxes: 13. Assumes a 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. (D) 1.0% increase in market value from 2008 to 2009. (E) (F) (G) H Item Taxing Actual Pay 2008 (A) Proposed Pay 2009 (B) Change (C) 1. Operating Levy District $6,775,809 $6,810,809 0.5% 2. Debt Service Levy Gross $3,192,158 $3,777,192 18.3% 3. Certifed Property Tax Levy = $9,967,967 $10,588,001 6.2% 4. Fiscal Disparity Portion of Levy - $909,059 $909,059 0.0% 5. Local Portion of Levy = $9,058,908 $9,678,942 6.8% 6. Local Taxable Value - 18,799,868 18,987,867 1.0% 7. Local Tax Rate = 48.186% 50.974% 5.8% 8. Market Value Referenda Levy $0 $0 0.0% 9. Fiscal Disparity Portion of Levy (SDs only) - $0 $0 0.0% 10. Local Levy = $0 $0 0.0% 11. Referenda Market Value - 0 0 0.0% 12. Market Value Referenda Rate = 0.00000% 0.00000% 0.0% * - Assumes a 1% increase in Net Tax Capacity (Current assumption by County is a 1% increase in Taxable Market Value) STEP 2 - Calculate the Impact of the Taxing District's Rate on Residential Homestead Taxes: 13. Assumes a 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. (D) 1.0% increase in market value from 2008 to 2009. (E) (F) (G) H Actua Pay 2008 Pay 2004 MV X 1.010 Taxing Total Taxing Taxing Taxable Estimated Tax District ate as % of total rate: District Mkt Value District District Market Tax Gross Hstd share of Net Value Capacity Tax Credit Credit Tax Actua Pay 2008 Pay 2004 MV X 1.010 500,000©1.0% rem @ 1.25% (A7 x E) + (Al2 X D) 76,000©.40% - rem @.09 % (G) x % (F) - (H) Estimated Tax District ate as % of total rate: 50% $33.15 99,000 990 $477.04 $283.30 $141.65 $335.39 148,500 1,485 $715.56 $238.75 $119.38 $596.18 247,500 2,475 $1,192.60 $149.65 $74.83 $1,117.77 495,000 4,950 $2,385.21 $0.00 $0.00 $2,385.21 742,600 8,033 $3,870.78 $0.00 $0.00 $3,870.78 Proposed Pay 2009 Pay 2004 MV X 1.010 500,000 @1.0% rem © 1.25% (B7 x E) + (B12 x D) 76,000@.40% - rem©.09% (G) x % (F) - (H) Estimated Tax District ate as % of total rate: 50% $33.15 100,000 1,000 $509.74 $282.40 $141.20 $368.54 150,000 1,500 $764.61 $237.40 $118.70 $645.91 250,000 2,500 $1,274.35 $147.40 $73.70 $1,200.65 500,000 5,000 $2,548.70 $0.00 $0.00 $2,548.70 750,000 8,125 $4,141.64 $0.00 $0.00 $4,141.64 $ Change from 2008 to 2009 Percentage Change from 2008 to 2009 1.0% 1.0% 6.9% -0.3% -0.3% 9.9% $33.15 1.0% 1.0% 6.9% -0.6% -0.6% 8.3% $49.73 1.0% 1.0% 6.9% -1.5% -1.5% 7.4% $82.88 1.0% 1.0% 6.9% 0.0% 0.0% 6.9% $163.49 1.0% 1.1% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.0% $270.86 Possible Pay 2009 Property Tax Impact Worksheet 0% Increase in Tax Rate Taxing District: City of Stillwater STEP 1 - Calculate the Taxing District's Tax Rate: Required Levy -Levy may be reduced if there is sufficient funding elsewhere (besides property taxes) - Assumes a 1% increase in Net Tax Capacity (Current assumption by County is a 1% increase in Taxable Market Value) STEP 2 - Calculate the Impact of the Taxing District's Rate on Residential Homestead Taxes: 13. Assumes a 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. (D) 1.0% increase in market value from 2008 to 2009. (E) (F) (G) H Item Taxing Actual Pay 2008 (A) Proposed Pay 2009 (B) % Change (C) 1. Operating Levy District $6,775,809 $6,281,309 -7.3% 2. Debt Service Levy Gross $3,192,158 $3,777,192 18.3% 3. Certifed Property Tax Levy = $9,967,967 $10,058,501 0.9% 4. Fiscal Disparity Portion of Levy - $909,059 $909,059 0.0% 5. Local Portion of Levy = $9,058,908 $9,149,442 1.0% 6. Local Taxable Value - 18,799,868 18,987,867 1.0% 7. Local Tax Rate = 48.186% 48.186% 8. Market Value Referenda Levy $0 $0 0.0% 9. Fiscal Disparity Portion of Levy (SDs only) - $0 $0 0.0% 10. Local Levy = $0 $0 0.0% 11. Referenda Market Value - 0 0 0.0% 12. Market Value Referenda Rate = 0.00000% 0.00000% 0.0% - Assumes a 1% increase in Net Tax Capacity (Current assumption by County is a 1% increase in Taxable Market Value) STEP 2 - Calculate the Impact of the Taxing District's Rate on Residential Homestead Taxes: 13. Assumes a 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. (D) 1.0% increase in market value from 2008 to 2009. (E) (F) (G) H Actua Pay 2008 Pay 2004 MV X 1.010 Taxing Total Taxing Taxing Taxable Estimated Tax District ate as % of total rate: District Mkt Value District District Market Tax Gross Hstd share of Net Value Capacity Tax Credit Credit Tax Actua Pay 2008 Pay 2004 MV X 1.010 500,000©1.0% rem @ 1.25% (A7 x E) + (Al2 X D) 76,000©.40% - rem©.09% (G) x % (F) - (H) Estimated Tax District ate as % of total rate: 50% $5.27 99,000 990 $477.04 $283.30 $141.65 $335.39 148,500 1,485 $715.56 $238.75 $119.38 $596.18 247,500 2,475 $1,192.60 $149.65 $74.83 $1,117.77 495,000 4,950 $2,385.21 $0.00 $0.00 $2,385.21 742,600 8,033 $3,870.78 $0.00 $0.00 $3,870.78 Proposed Pay 2009 Pay 2004 MV X 1.010 500,000©1.0% rem @ 1.25% (B7 x E) + (B12 x D) 76,000 @.40% - rem©.09% (G) x % (F) - (H) Estimated Tax District rate as % of total rate: 50% $5.27 100,000 1,000 $481.86 $282.40 $141.20 $340.66 150,000 1,500 $722.79 $237.40 $118.70 $604.09 250,000 2,500 $1,204.65 $147.40 $73.70 $1,130.95 500,000 5,000 $2,409.30 $0.00 $0.00 $2,409.30 750,000 8,125 $3,915.11 $0.00 $0.00 $3,915.11 $ Change from 2008 to 2009 Percentage Change from 2008 to 2009 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% -0.3% -0.3% 1.6% $5.27 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% -0.6% -0.6% 1.3% $7.91 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% -1.5% -1.5% 1.2% $13.18 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% $24.09 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% $44.33 Possible Pay 2009 Property Tax Impact Worksheet 3% Increase in Tax Rate Taxing District: City of Stillwater STEP 1 - Calculate the Taxing District's Tax Rate: Required Levy -Levy may be reduced if there is sufficient funding elsewhere (besides property taxes * - Assumes a 1% increase in Net Tax Capacity (Current assumption by County is a 1% increase in Taxable Market Value) STEP 2 - Calculate the Impact of the Taxing District's Rate on Residential Homestead Taxes: 13. Assumes a 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. (D) 1.0% increase in market value from 2008 to 2009. (E) (F) (G) H Item Taxing Actual Pay 2008 (A) Proposed Pay 2009 (B) Change (C) 1. Operating Levy District $6,775,809 $6,558,809 -3.2% 2. Debt Service Levy Gross $3,192,158 $3,777,192 18.3% 3. Certifed Property Tax Levy = $9,967,967 $10,336,001 3.7% 4. Fiscal Disparity Portion of Levy - $909,059 $909,059 0.0% 5. Local Portion of Levy = $9,058,908 $9,426,942 4.1% 6. Local Taxable Value - 18,799,868 18,987,867 1.0% 7. Local Tax Rate = 48.186% 49.647% 3.0% 8. Market Value Referenda Levy $0 $0 0.0% 9. Fiscal Disparity Portion of Levy (SDs only) - $0 $0 0.0% 10. Local Levy = $0 $0 0.0% 11. Referenda Market Value - 0 0 0.0% 12. Market Value Referenda Rate = 0.00000% 0.00000% 0.0% * - Assumes a 1% increase in Net Tax Capacity (Current assumption by County is a 1% increase in Taxable Market Value) STEP 2 - Calculate the Impact of the Taxing District's Rate on Residential Homestead Taxes: 13. Assumes a 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. (D) 1.0% increase in market value from 2008 to 2009. (E) (F) (G) H Actua Pay 2008 Pay 2004 MV X 1.010 Taxing Total Taxing Taxing Taxable Estimated Tax District ate as % of total rate: District Mkt Value District District Market Tax Gross Hstd share of Net Value Capacity Tax Credit Credit Tax Actua Pay 2008 Pay 2004 MV X 1.010 500,000 @1.0% rem @ 1.25% (A7 x E) + (Al2 X D) 76,000 @.40% - rem @.09% (G) x % (F) - (H) Estimated Tax District ate as % of total rate: 50% $19.88 99,000 990 $477.04 $283.30 $141.65 $335.39 148,500 1,485 $715.56 $238.75 $119.38 $596.18 247,500 2,475 $1,192.60 $149.65 $74.83 $1,117.77 495,000 4,950 $2,385.21 $0.00 $0.00 $2,385.21 742,600 8,033 $3,870.78 $0.00 $0.00 $3,870.78 Proposed Pay 2009 Pay 2004 MV X 1.010 500,000©1.0% rem @ 1.25% (B7 x E) + (B12 x D) 76,000©.40% - rem @.09% (G) x % (F) - (H) Estimated Tax District ate as % of total rate: 50% $19.88 100,000 1,000 $496.47 $282.40 $141.20 $355.27 150,000 1,500 $744.71 $237.40 $118.70 $626.01 250,000 2,500 $1,241.18 $147.40 $73.70 $1,167.48 500,000 5,000 $2,482.35 $0.00 $0.00 $2,482.35 750,000 8,125 $4,033.82 $0.00 $0.00 $4,033.82 $ Change from 2008 to 2009 Percentage Change from 2008 to 2009 1.0% 1.0% 4.1% -0.3% -0.3% 5.9% $19.88 1.0% 1.0% 4.1% -0.6% -0.6% 5.0% $29.83 1.0% 1.0% 4.1% -1.5% -1.5% 4.4% $49.71 1.0% 1.0% 4.1%. 0.0% 0.0% 4.1% $97.14 1.0% 1.1% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% $163.04 ASSESSMENT POLICY STATEMENT CITY OF STILLWATER ADOPTED MAY 4, 1993 AND REVISED MARCH , 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I - GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT 1 SECTION II - METHODS OF ASSESSMENT 3 SECTION III - IMPROVEMENT TYPE AND COST APPORTIONMENT 11 SECTION IV - ASSESSMENT CONDITIONS 13 SECTION V - SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT POLICY GUIDELINES 14 SECTION VI - DEFINITIONS ...................... 17 ..................... ............................... (1) CITY OF STILLWATER ASSESSMENT POLICY FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS SECTION 1- GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT A. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Assessment Policy is to provide a fair and equitable manner of recovering and distributing the cost of public improvements. While there is no perfect assessment policy, it is important that assessments be implemented in a reasonable, consistent and fair manner. There may be exceptions to the Assessment Policy when unique situations or circumstances exist which may require special consideration and discretion by the City Council. Therefore, the assessment policy is intended to serve as a guide for a systematic assessment process in the City of Stillwater. PROCEDURE. The procedures used by the City of Stillwater ( "City ") for levying special assessments are those specified by Minnesota Statutes which provide that all or a part of the cost of improvements may be assessed against benefiting properties. The procedures for local improvements are summarized in Exhibit "A." While establishing the authority by which communities may proceed to construct public facility projects, the statutes provide no guide as to how costs are to be apportioned. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the local legislative body to establish a fair and reasonable method by which properties will be assessed. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA. Three basic criteria must be satisfied before a particular parcel can be validly assessed. They are: 1. The land must have received special benefit from the improvement. 2. The amount of the assessment must not exceed the increase in value of the land occasioned by the special benefit. 3. The assessment must be uniform in relation to the same class of property within the assessment area. The primary test for determining the validity of a special assessment is whether the improvement for which the assessment was levied has increased the market value of the property against which the assessment operates in at least the amount of the assessment. It is important to recognize that the actual cost of extending an improvement past a particular parcel is not the sole determining factor in determining the amount to be assessed. An exception might be a project initiated by a developer where market value increase may not be a relevant factor given the nature of the improvement and the Developer agrees to pay all costs. Another test for determining the validity of a special assessment is whether the assessment is based on a uniform method for all like classes of property. For example, the use of a front foot assessment for some properties and the use of a per lot assessment for other properties of the same class for a related. improvement could result in a non- uniform assessment rate which could mean the assessment would be set aside or could be thrown out by the courts. INITIATION OF IMPROVEMENTS. Public Improvements may be initiated in the following manner: Council Initiated. The City Council, on its own motion and without petition, may order the improvement on at least a 4/5 vote of the City Council. However, the City must still follow all statutory provisions related to the local improvement process. Property Owner Petition. The City Council may decide, by simple majority, on an improvement after receiving a petition for said improvement from the owners of not less than 35 percent (35 %) of the properties abutting on the streets named in the petition as the location of the improvement. In addition, all owners of real property abutting upon any street named as the location of any improvement may petition the City Council to construct the improvement and to assess the entire cost against their property. In the latter case, the City Council may, without a public hearing, adopt a resolution determining such fact and ordering the improvement. However, it is advisable to conduct public hearings on the improvement to avoid misunderstanding by the petitioners and to also inform the general public about the nature of the project. Proper waiver of assessments and/or agreements should be obtained from each property owner affected by the improvement. Developer Request. A developer who is the owner of all the property within the proposed subdivision may petition the City Council to construct the improvement and to assess the entire cost against the developer's property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. In such event, the City may, without a public hearing, adopt a resolution determining such fact and ordering the improvement. However, a developer's agreement, including a valid and enforceable waiver of assessments if appropriate, shall be negotiated and executed prior to said authorization. It may also be advisable to conduct public hearings on the improvement to avoid misunderstanding by the petitioners and to also inform the general public about the nature of the project. E. PROJECT COSTS. Project costs shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Construction costs (day labor or contractual). 2. Engineering and consulting fees. 3 Administrative fees. 4 Right -of -way acquisition/condemnation costs. 5 Legal fees. - 2 - Capitalized interest. 7. Financing costs. The entire project shall be considered as a whole for the purpose of calculating and computing an assessment rate. However, project costs for work of a dissimilar nature (i.e., where a project contains different types of work such as street resurfacing in one project area and street reconstruction in another area) shall be calculated separately and assessed separately according to benefit received. If City staff has doubt as to whether or not the costs of the project may exceed the special benefits to the property, the City Council should obtain such appraisals as may be necessary to support the proposed assessment. Appraisals may be obtained anytime after the improvement has been ordered including prior to actually awarding the bid or entering into a contract for the work. The City Council may also conduct assessment hearings and actually adopt the assessment roll anytime after the improvement hearing and before a contract for the work is awarded. The Assessment Policy, in brief summary, consists of six (6) main sections addressing General Policy Statement, Methods of Assessment, Improvement Type and Cost Apportionment, Assessment Conditions, Supplementary Guide section and a Definition section. A summary of actions and resolutions is also included as Exhibit "A ". SECTION II - METHODS OF ASSESSMENT The nature of an improvement determines the method of assessment. The objective is to choose an assessment method which will arrive at a reasonable, fair and equitable assessment which will be uniform upon the same class of property within the assessed area. The most frequently recognized assessment methods are: the unit assessment, the front footage assessment and the area assessment. Depending upon the individual project, any one or a combination of these methods may be utilized to arrive at an appropriate cost distribution. City staff will consider all methods and weigh their applicability to the project and present a recommendation to the City Council in the form of a mock assessment roll (or rolls). A description of each assessment and its corresponding policy application is presented. A separate section (Section III) will identify the appropriate match up of method with a specific type of project and analyze why each is generally used. A. UNIT ASSESSMENT. A unit assessment shall be derived by dividing the total project cost by the number of Residential Equivalent Density (RED) units in the project area. A RED unit is defined as a single family residential unit. All platted and unplatted property will be assigned RED unit values equivalent to the underlying zoning. When the existing land use is less than the highest and best permitted use, the Council may consider the current use as well as the full potential of land use in determining the appropriate number of RED units. Otherwise, the following RED chart will apply on a per unit basis, subject to adjustment by the Council for any inequities: Single Family Condominium 1.00 RED 1 RED plus 0.2 RED for each add'l unit Multifamily (2 units or more) Townhouse Commercial Industrial Ai RED plus 0.2 RED for each add'l unit Al RED plus 0.2 RED for each add'l unit RED units =SAC units RED units =SAC units The unit approach has proven to be the best method in those instances whereby the improvement largely benefits everyone to the same degree and the cost of the improvement is not generally affected by parcel size. AREA ASSESSMENT. The assessable area shall be expressed in terms of the number of acres or the number of square feet subject to assessment. When determining the assessable area, the following considerations will be given: 1. Ponding Assessment Consideration. Lakes, ponds and swamps may be considered a part of the assessable area of a parcel. However, the property owner has the option of providing a storm water ponding easement to the City for the land under the lake, pond or swamp if integrated into the storm water management system. If such ponding easement is accepted based upon its functional integration into the storm water management system, a reduction in area equal to the area of the easement for the lake, pond or swamp will be subtracted from the gross area assessment of the parcel. Lots utilizing a ponding area for the purpose of density credit shall be charged for that area within the portion of the easement necessary to meet minimum lot standards. 2. Road Right -of -Way Assessment Consideration. Up to 20 percent (20%) of the gross acreage may be deducted for street right -of -way purposes within unpiatted parcels of five acres or more depending upon the parcel configuration. Parcels of less than five acres may not qualify and may be assessed full acreage. The reason for this size restriction is that, in most instances, parcels of less than five acres cannot support an internal public road system. 3. Park Dedication Assessment Consideration. When park land is dedicated as part of a residential development, as required by Subdivision Code — Chapter 31.06, the developer shall not be assessed an acreage charge on the portion of land dedicated. C. FRONT FOOTAGE ASSESSMENT. The actual physical dimensions of a parcel abutting an improvement (i.e., street, sewer, water, etc.) shall NOT be construed as the frontage utilized to calculate the assessment for a particular parcel. Rather, an "adjusted front footage" will be determined. The purpose of this method is to equalize assessment calculations for lots of similar size. Individual parcels by their very nature differ considerably in shape and area. The following procedures will apply when calculating adjusted front footage. The selection of the appropriate procedures will be determined by the specific configuration of the parcel. All measurements will be scaled from available plat and section maps and will be rounded down to the nearest 1/2 foot dimension with any excess fraction deleted. Categorical type descriptions are as follows: - 4 - 1. Standard lots 2. Rectangular variation Tots 3. Triangular lots 4. Cul -de -sac lots Curved Tots Irregularly shaped lots Corner lots Flag lots Double frontage lots The ultimate objective of these procedures is to arrive at a fair and equitable distribution of cost whereby consideration is given to lot size and parcels are comparably assessed. a. Standard Lots. In this instance, the adjusted front footage for rectangular lots will be the actual front footage of the lot. The frontage measured shall be the lot width at the front lot line. Adj. Front Footage MAIN AVENUE EXAMPLES: 50' 90' A B Lot A — 50' Lot B — 90' b. Rectangular Variation Lots. For a lot which is approximately rectangular and uniform in shape, the adjusted front footage is computed by averaging the front and back sides of the lot. This method is used only where the divergence between front and rear lot lines is 20 feet or less. MAIN AVENUE 90' A 110' 70' B ea - 5 - Adj. Front Footage EXAM P LES: Lot A — 90 + 100 = 100' 2 Lot B — 70 + 80 = 75' 2 c. Triangular Lots. For a triangular shaped lot, the adjusted front footage is computed by averaging the front and back lot lines. The measurement at the back lot line shall not exceed a maximum distance in depth of 150 feet. MAIN AVENUE (50' Adj. Front Footage EXAMPLES: Lot A — 100 + 40 = 70' 2 Lot B — 40 + 130 = 85' 2 Lot C — 120 + 0 = 60' 2 d. Cul— De—Sac Lots. The adjusted front footage for those lots that exist on cul —de —sacs will be calculated at the midsection of the lot at the most reasonably defined and determinable position. This line will be computed by connecting the midpoints of the two side lot lines. Of, if the lots are similar in nature and configuration, a common lot width, such as the standard set back of 30', may be assigned based upon an evaluation of typical Tots within the subdivision. -6- Adj. Front Footage EXAMPLES: Lot A — 70' Lot B — 90' LotC —150' e. Curved Lots. In certain situations such as those where lots are located along meandering trail system streets, road patterns created curvilinear frontages. In such instances, the adjusted front footage will be the width of the lot measured at the midpoint of the shortest side lot line. Adj. Front Footage EXAMPLES: Lot A — 70' Lot B — 90' Lot C —150' Irregularly Shaped Lots. In many cases, unplatted parcels that are legally described by a metes and bounds description are irregular and odd shaped. The adjusted front footage will be calculated by measuring the lot width at the 30 foot building setback line. MAIN AVENUE Adj. Front Footage EXAMPLES: Lot A — 115' Lot B — 140' LotC —150' g. Corner Lots. (i) On a corner lot, 100 percent (100 %) of the adjusted front footage of the short side will be assessed and 35 percent (35 %) of the adjusted front footage of the long side will be assessed for improvements benefiting the respective sides. The length of the property sides and not the orientation of the principal building shall determine adjusted front footage in this case. A series of lots (two or more) under common ownership shall be considered as one parcel or lot for determining which is the short or long side of a property. However, this shall only apply to series of lots on which only one principal building is situated. A if) 125' MAIN N W 2 Adj. Front Footage EXAMPLES Lot A — Side 1= 43.75' Side 2 =95' Lot B — Side 1 =87.5' Side 2= 125' N B 150' 1 AVENUE lsidE it (ii) General Commercial Zoned Corner Lots. No allowance relief will be granted because of the higher inherent property value associated with improved traffic frontage and greater visibility along business district and industrial park intersections. The adjusted front footage shall be the entire frontage measured along the setback line comprising the building envelope. 155' MAIN -9- Adj. Front Footage EXAMPLES Lot A — 280' Lot B — 390' B 275' 300' AVENUE h. Flag Lots. Properties which utilize a narrow private easement or maintain ownership of access to their property exceeding a minimum length of 125 feet, thereby having a small frontage on a street, will be assigned an adjusted front footage of 80 feet. This dimension is consistent with the subdivision ordinance which prescribes such length as the minimum lot frontage along a public roadway. The adjusted front footage for flag lots whose driveway access is under 125 feet will be measured at the building setback line from the access terminus. 20' MAIN AVE. 0 u-J z 2 A 170' 30 B Adj. Front Footage EXAMPLES: Lot A — 80' Lot B — 90' Double Frontage Lots. If a parcel, other than a corner lot, comprises frontage on two streets and is eligible for subdivision, then an adjusted front footage assessment will be charged along each street. For double frontage lots lacking the necessary depth for subdivision, only a single adjusted front footage will be computed. MAIN AVE. 110' A 110 MAIN AVE. Adj. Front Footage EXAMPLES: 80' B Lot A — 220' Lot B — 220' SECTION III - IMPROVEMENT TYPE AND COST APPORTIONMENT A. STREET RECONSTRUCTION INCLUDING CURB AND GUTTER. The cost of street reconstruction shall be recovered by the unit or adjusted front footage method. Seventy percent (70%) of the costs shall be assessed against benefited property. However, if concrete curbs are installed for the first time on a project, one hundred percent (100 %) of the costs of new curbs shall be assessed. n The remaining cost shall be recovered by means of the general ad valorem property tax paid by the entire community or •by other funds that may become available to the City for infrastructure cost recovery . B. STREET RESURFACING. Street resurfacing is commonly known and referred to as street overlaying whereby a new bed of road material such as bituminous is installed over an existing paved road to a specific thickness. Assessments shall be determined by the unit or adjusted front footage method and seventy percent (70%) of the costs shall be assessed against benefited property. The remaining cost shall be recovered by means of the general ad valorem property tax paid by the entire community or by other funds that may become available to the City for infrastructure cost recovery. C. SIDEWALK. Sidewalk improvements may be done in conjunction with a street reconstruction or as a separate project. If the project involves the replacement of existing sidewalks, seventy percent (70 %) of the cost of sidewalk improvements shall be assessed to benefited properties on a front footage basis. If the sidewalk is to be installed for the first time, one hundred percent (100%) of the costs shall be assessed. D. SEALCOATING. Sealcoating shall be treated as a general maintenance expense and shall be paid from the City's current operating funds. No assessments will be levied for Sealcoating projects. i✓. SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAINS. Repair and replacement of sewer or water main is usually done in conjunction with a street reconstruction project and the cost of this work should be included as part of the total major street project cost and should also be considered to be included in the rate assessed for street reconstruction. If it is determined that the repair and replacement work results in a greater benefit to some properties and not to others, the Council should consider establishing a different assessment rate based on the benefits received. LIGHTING. Repair and replacement of street lights is usually done in conjunction with a street project and the cost included as part of total project costs. However, if street lights are installed for the first time, one hundred percent (100 %) of the costs shall be assessed against benefited properties. SANITARY SEWER AND WATER TRUNK IMPROVEMENTS. Trunk sewer and water mains are usually designed to carry larger volumes of flow than are necessary within an immediate property area in order to serve additional properties beyond the area of their immediate placement. Therefore, 100 percent (100 %) of the cost of trunk improvements will be assessed on a unit basis to all properties within a district deemed to he benefited from the trunk improvements . H. SEWER AND WATER SERVICES. Individual sewer and water services benefit only the properties they serve and 100 percent (100%) of their cost shall be assessed to the property for which they are installed. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. Storm drainage and ponding/basin systems are usually constructed to serve a specific drainage or "watershed" district. The cost of drainage improvements shall be 100 percent (100 %) assessed to the properties within the drainage district. The cost may also be levied on an ad valorem tax basis to the properties within the district as provided by Minnesota Statutes. Storm sewer reconstruction normally takes place together with street reconstruction projects and the costs shall be assessed in accordance with the assessment policies related to street improvements. J. SPECIAL CONSIDERATION. Special consideration shall be given to the "age" of a street or utility system when determining the proportion of cost to be assessed to benefited properties. If it is necessary to reconstruct or resurface a street /before a reasonable amount of time (15Ayears for resurfacing„^ and 25 years/ for total reconstruction). The assessment shall be calculated on a pro rata basis. The remaining cost shall be recovered by means of the general ad valorem property tax paid by the entire community or by other funds that may become available to the City for infrastructure cost recovery. Further, costs associated with extra width or tonnage associated with collector status of streets or traffic control devises shall be subtracted from the total cost to be assessed against benefited property. Finally, MSA streets will be assessed to the equivalent local street costs. INDUSTRIAL PARK ASSESSMENTS. The Industrial Park is generally bounded by Orleans Street to the north, Greeley Street to the east, CSAH County Road 5 to the west and Highway 36 to the south. The following assessment methods shall be used for Industrial Park improvement projects: 1 Area Assessment: a. Total or partial street reconstruction projects. b. Water and sewer mains. c. Storm sewer /drainage. d. Trunk sanitary sewer. Unit Basis: a. Sewer services. - 12 - Water services. One hundred percent (100%) of the cost of improvements shall be assessed to benefited properties. SECTION IV - ASSESSMENT CONDITIONS A TERM OF ASSESSMENT. The term of special assessments shall normally be for a ten (10) year period. However, in some cases the project costs warrant either shorter or longer terms. For example, sidewalk improvements undertaken separately may be assessed for over a five (5) year period because the costs are usually nominal (under $2,000). On `the other hand, some major reconstruction projects where several types of improvements are involved could lead to a very high assessment which could create a financial hardship if assessed for a ten (10) year term. A fifteen (15) to twenty (20) year term may be appropriate in this case. In any event, the assessment term should never exceed the potential life of the improvement. B. INTEREST RATE. The interest rate charged on assessments for all projects financed internally or by debt issuance (the "Funds ") shall be one percent (1°%o) greater than the Acurrent interest rate of th Funds used to finance the improvement. This is necessary in order to ensure adequate cash flow when the City is unable to reinvest assessment prepayments at an interest rate sufficient to meet the interest cost of Funds or when the City experiences problems of payment collection delinquencies. Interest on initial special assessment installments shall begin to accrue from the date of the resolution adopting the assessment. Owners must be notified by mail of any changes adopted by the City Council regarding interest rates or prepayment requirements which differ from those contained in the notice of the proposed assessment. C. PAYMENT PROCEDURES. The property owner has four available options when considering payment of assessments: 1. Tax Payment. If no payment is undertaken by the property owner, then special assessment installments will appear annually on the individual's property tax statement for the duration of the assessment term. 2. Full Payment. No interest will be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days of the date of adoption of the assessment roll. 3. Partial Payment. The property owner has a one -time opportunity to make a partial payment reduction of any amount against. \their assessment. This option may only be exercised within the 30 -day period immediately following adoption of the assessment roll. Prepayment. The property owner may at any time prior to November 15 of the initial year, prepay the balance of the assessment with interest accrued to December 31 of that year. The property owner may also choose to pay the remaining assessment balance at any time, with the exception of the current year's - 13 - installment of principal and interest, which must be collected with the real estate taxes APPEALS PROCEDURES. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of any assessment adopted unless a written objection signed by the affected property owner is filed with the city clerk's office prior to the assessment hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. The property owner may appeal an assessment to District Court by serving notice of the- appeal upon the Mayor or city clerk within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court within 10 days after service of the appeal upon the Mayor or city clerk. REAPPORTIONMENT UPON LAND DIVISION. When a tract of land against which a special assessment has been levied is subsequently divided or subdivided by plat or otherwise, the City Council may, on application of the owner of any part of the tract or on its own motion, equitably apportion among the various Tots or parcels in the tract all the installments of the assessment against the tract remaining unpaid and not then due if it determines that such apportionment will not materially impair collection of the unpaid balance of the original assessment against the tract. The apportionment shall be done on the same basis as the original assessment unless another method of apportioning can be done with the owner's acceptance and if the apportionment will not materially impair collection of the unpaid balance of the assessment against the tract of land. In any case, the City Council may require furnishing of a satisfactory surety bond in certain cases as specified in Minnesota Statutes Section 429.071, Subd. 3 . Notice of the apportionment and of the right to appeal shall be mailed to or personally served upon all owners of any part of the tract. SENIOR CITIZEN DEFERRAL. Chapter 56.05 of the Stillwater City Code allows the City Council, at its discretion, to defer the payment of any special assessment for local improvements constructed by the City when it determines by a three - fifths (3/5) vote that the property being assessed is homestead property and that one or more of the owners of the property is sixty /five (65) years of age or over and that the payment of the assessment would be a hardship for the owner thereof. The interest for senior citizen deferral shall be at the same rate that the City sets for other property owners for the improvement. SECTION V - SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT POLICY GUIDELINES AREAS PARTIALLY SERVED BY UTILITIES. Any tract of land, lot or parcel whereby a project improvement, such as a sewer or water lateral or ending street terminus, does not extend fully past or beyond the property shall be considered served, benefited and assessed accordingly. The current special assessment shall be subject to an adjusted front footage not to exceed 150 feet and a maximum current acreage of 2.5 acres, provided said assessment does not exceed the special benefit conferred upon the affected property. If an improvement benefits, non- abutting properties which may be served by the improvement when later extensions or improvements are made but are not initially assessed, the City may reimburse itself for all or part of the costs incurred by - 14- assessing those non - abutting properties at the time of the later extensions or improvements. However, proper notice must be given of that fact at the time of making the extensions or improvements to the previously unassessed non - abutting properties. The City may also establish "hookup" charges to recover costs of sewer and water main improvements not initially assessed. PRELIMINARY PLAT CONSIDERATION. Land could be considered for assessment based on preliminary plat consideration. This consideration will occur only when the following scenarios exits: (1) the City Council has approved a preliminary plat, and (2) a public hearing ordering the improvement project has not yet occurred. In the event this exists, assessment frontages may be calculated based upon the proposed lot configuration within the preliminary plat. Road right -of -way within the proposed street alignment will not be subject to assessment. TAX EXEMPT PROPERTY. Other than land under City ownership, there are three categories of tax: exempt properties. Said properties shall be assessed as follows: 1. Churches and schools shall he assessed in the same manner as commercial and industrial zoned property, as long as the assessments do not exceed the special benefits conferred. Acreage assessment shall be based upon the gross acreage of the sit. Adjusted front footage shall be similarly calculated along the building setback line in its entirety. 2. State land is normally exempt from assessment unless otherwise negotiated or agreed upon by the affected state agency. 3. County land is subject to assessment and shall be assessed in the same manner as commercial and industrial zoned property, as long as the assessments do not exceed the special benefits conferred. MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS. City owned property is divided into three classifications for the purpose of determining assessment participation. They are: 1. Public facility land. 2. Public right -of -way. 3 Park land. Public facility property is defined as land utilized for public buildings such as city halls, tire halls, libraries, maintenance garages, municipal parking lots, etc. Public facility property within a project area will participate in the total assessable cost of an improvement and will be treated in the same manner as any other benefited parcel. Public right -of -way property consisting of all City acquired easements, subject to fee title, for the specific purpose of utility placement or street construction will be exempt from assessment. - 1 5 - Park land assessment eligibility is further categorized according to the following descriptions: a. "Community Parks" are characterized by a higher degree of intense public use and are relatively large in area size. They are normally associated with athletic events and sporting activities, i.e., softball, football, baseball, hockey, etc. Park lands of this nature will be subject to assessments. Because community parks provide citywide benefit, the cost of these assessments shall be recovered be a special levy upon the ad valorem taxes. b "Neighborhood Parks" accommodate open space objectives within residential development and are passive in use as indicated by such features as playground structures. Because neighborhood parks are commonly used by the immediate residents of the area, such park land will not be assessed if it comprises Less than 25 percent of the aggregate project area. Larger parks representing an area grater than 25 percent of the aggregate project area shall participate in the assessment process in the same manner as community parks. c. "Parkland Dedication" is required either in the form of cash in lieu of land or a land grant. The developer shall be responsible for the , payment of all special assessments existing at the time of dedication. Depending upon the amount of land involved, the development shall not be assessed trunk acreage for that portion exceeding the minimum percentage dedication requirement for park purposes. E. TAX FORFEITURE ASSESSMENTS. When a parcel of tax forfeited land is returned to private ownership, and the parcel is benefited by an improvement for which special assessments were cancelled because of the forfeiture, the City may, upon notice and hearing as provided for the original assessment, make a reassessment or a new assessment as to the parcel in an amount equal to the amount remaining unpaid on the original assessment. FIRST SERVE SITUATIONS. If the plans of the City and a developer coincide in regard to utility installations on certain properties, the plans of the City shall receive first consideration. In that event, the City may, upon notice and hearing, assess all unplatted parcels according to this Policy if the improvements are approved prior to hardshell consent of the unplatted properties. NEW SUBDIVISIONS. The improvement costs of new subdivisions shall be the sole responsibility of the property developer except consideration shall be given for assessing any other properties that receives special benefit from the improvements. - 16 - SECTION VI - DEFINITIONS Adjusted Front Footage The number of feet actually utilized in calculating an assessment for a particular property. This may differ from the actual front footage of the property. Assessment The dollar amount charged against a property receiving an improvement benefit. Condominium Drainage District Lateral Multifamily Nuisance Abatements Oversi zing Individual ownership of a unit in a multi -unit structure (similar to an apartment building) A special relationship exists whereby the individual owns the actual air space within the physical confines of the unit but not the barrier walls themselves. An area defined by the City Engineer which shall form the physical boundaries where benefit exists within a storm sewer project. Property to be included within a district shall be all land which contributes to storm water runoff, as well as land serving as a collector basin for storing such water. Natural geographical features normally form these boundaries. A lateral sewer is designated to collect the sewage from a project area for conveyance to a trunk facility. A water lateral is sized to provide water in sufficient volumes and pressure as required t serve a defined project area. A structure otttwo or more units, the primary purpose of which is to provide rental or leased living space to the general public. Building characteristics include common hallways for access purposes and a common parking lot. The elimination of a nuisance whereby the City acts on behalf of the property owner as authorized by ordinance to eliminate problems such as junk, weeds, dead trees, etc. The City may collect the charges for all or any part of the cost of eliminating any such nuisance by levying a special assessment against the property benefited. A pipe which is designed and constructed larger and/or deeper than necessary to serve a specific project area. - 17- Public Improvement Townhouse Utility Improvement Area A project undertaken by the City under the authority granted in MSA §429.021 for the purpose of installation of improvements such as street, curb and gutter, sewer, water, etc. A public hearing shall be conducted to determine the necessity and common good of the project as it affects the community. Upon authorization, the City will proceed with construction and administration of the project. Single family attached units in structures housing two or more contiguous dwelling units, sharing a common wall, each having separate individual front and rear entrances; the structure is that of a row -type house as distinguished from multiple - dwelling apartment bui ldings. A defined area within which all properties are deemed to have been served by an important project and are considered to receive the benefit. EXHIBIT "A" SUMMARY OF SCHEDULE OF ACTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Initiation of proceedings either by the Council or by petition of affected property owners. Owners may waive public hearing and submit "Agreement of Assessment and Waiver of Irregularity and Appeal." Adopt Resolution "Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering Preparation of Report" (should be published because of appeal process) or, if not using petition, "Ordering Preparation of Report on Improvement" (need not be published). Preparation of report on the proposed improvement, submission to and approval by Council, Council then accepts the report and orders a Public Hearing. (When a petition signed by 100% of the landowners requests the improvement, the Council may order the improvement without a hearing.) Adopt Resolution "Receiving Report and Calling Hearing on Improvement" (need not be published). 3. After a public hearing, or if hearing is waived; adopt following Resolution: Adopt Resolution "Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specs ". 4. After submission to and approval by Council the following Resolution is required. Adopt Resolution "Approving Plans and Specifications, Ordering Improvement and Advertisement for Bids." 5. After receiving bids, Council will adopt the following Resolution awarding the bid: Adopt Resolution "Accepting Bid." (Need not be published). 6. After work is completed and receiving Engineer's recommendation for final acceptance, the following Resolution is adopted: Adopt Resolution "Accepting Work." ?. Assessment Proceedings: Adopt Resolution "Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment." Adopt Resolution for "Hearing on Proposed Assessment" (need not publish resolution - but must publish and mail hearing notice.) 2009 PROJECTED BENEFITS - REQUESTED GENERAL FUND MAYOR & COUNCIL Total Department Allocation Benefit Gross Projected Name /Position % % Wages Benefits GENERAL FUND MAYOR & COUNCIL Part-time Mayor 100% 100% 9,000 7,530 Councilmember 100% 100% 7,200 12,507 Councilmember 100% 100% 7,200 7,991 Councilmember 100% 100% 7,200 12,507 Councilmember 100% 100% 7,200 12,507 Total Part -time 37,800 53,042 TOTAL MAYOR & COUNCIL Ar / 37,800 53,042 Total Projected Wages & Benefits 16,530 19,707 15,191 19,707 19,707 90,842 90,842 2009 PROJECTED BENEFITS - REQUESTED ELECTIONS Total Department Allocation Benefit Gross Projected Name /Position % % Wages Benefits ELECTIONS Over -time Admin O/T 100% 0% 0 0 Total O/T Full -time 0 0 Election Judges 100% 5,500 421 TOTAL ELECTIONS Ar 5,500 421 Total Projected Wages & Benefits 0 0 5,921 5,921 2009 PROJECTED BENEFITS - REQUESTED MIS SUPPORT SERVICES Full -time MIS Specialist 100% Total Department Allocation Benefit Gross Projected Name /Position % % Wages Benefits MIS SUPPORT SERVICES Full -time MIS Specialist 100% 100% 71,922 17,495 IS Technician 80% 100% 42,627 11,848 Total Full -time 114,549 29,343 TOTAL MIS SUPPORT SERVICES e AV� 114,549 29,343 Total Projected Wages & Benefits 89,417 54,475 143,892 143,892 2009 PROJECTED BENEFITS - REQUESTED FINANCE Full -Time Total Department Allocation Benefit Gross Projected Name /Position % % Wages Benefits FINANCE Full -Time Payroll /HR Technician 100% 100% 52,880 19,268 Finance Director 100% 100% 97,986 21,248 Accountant 100% 100% 56,071 15,212 Sr. Account Clerk 100% 100% 49,656 14,289 Sr. Account Clerk 50% 100% 25,188 7,196 Overtime 100% 100% 0 0 Total Full -Time 281,781 77,213 Part-Time Seasonal 100% 0% 0 0 Total Part-Time 0 0 TOTAL FINANCE �������Ar / 281,781 77,213 Total Projected Wages & Benefits 72,148 119,234 71,283 63,945 32,384 0 358,994 0 0 358,994 2009 PROJECTED BENEFITS - REQUESTED Total Projected Wages & Benefits ADMINISTRATION Full -Time Human Resource Coordinator 100% Total Department Allocation Benefit Gross Projected Name /Position % % Wages Benefits Total Projected Wages & Benefits ADMINISTRATION Full -Time Human Resource Coordinator 100% 100% 63,578 20,810 City Administrator Car Allowance 100% 100% 100% 100% 110,346 3,600 23,027 275 Secretary 100% 100% 49,620 14,283 Secretary 90% 100% 44,658 12,854 City Clerk 100% 100% 70,653 17,312 Total Full -time 342,455 88,561 Part-Time Recording Secretary 100% 0% 6,500 497 100% 0% 0 0 Total Part-Time 6,500 497 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION AVV 348,955 89,058 84,388 133,373 3,875 63,903 57,512 87,965 431,016 6,997 0 6,997 438,013 2009 PROJECTED BENEFITS - REQUESTED LEGAL Part -time Attorney 100% Total Department Allocation Benefit Gross Projected Name /Position % % Wages Benefits LEGAL Part -time Attorney 100% 100% 101,585 26,224 Total Part -time 101,585 26,224 TOTAL LEGAL Ar� 101,585 26,224 Total Projected Wages & Benefits 127,809 127,809 127,809 2009 PROJECTED BENEFITS - REQUESTED PLANT /CITY HALL Full -Time Total Department Allocation Benefit Gross Projected Name /Position % % Wages Benefits PLANT /CITY HALL Full -Time 100% 100% 0 0 Total Full -time 0 0 TOTAL PLANT /CITY HALL / Ar� 0 0 Total Projected Wages & Benefits 0 0 0 2009 PROJECTED BENEFITS - REQUESTED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Full -time Planner II 100% Total Department Allocation Benefit Gross Projected Name /Position % % Wages Benefits COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Full -time Planner II 100% 100% 63,894 16,339 Secretary 50% 100% 25,362 7,221 Community Development Dir 100% 100% 93,685 25,145 Overtime 100% 100% 1,000 145 Total Full -time 183,941 48,850 Part -time Planning Intern 100% 0% 0 0 Total Part -time 0 0 TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT r i% I 183,941 48,850 Total Projected Wages & Benefits 80,233 32,583 118,830 1,145 232,791 0 0 232,791 2009 PROJECTED BENEFITS - REQUESTED POLICE Full -time Total Department Allocation Benefit Gross Projected Name /Position % % Wages Benefits POLICE Full -time Patrol Officer 100% 100% 68,294 17,757 Secretary/Dispatch I 100% 100% 46,998 13,905 Investigator 100% 100% 69,520 17,948 Patrol Officer 100% 100% 67,331 17,608 Patrol Officer 100% 100% 82,219 24,439 Chief of Police 100% 100% 99,381 27,108 Patrol Officer 100% 100% 66,381 21,977 Investigator 100% 100% 70,007 22,540 Community Service Officer 100% 100% 44,742 10,807 Patrol Officer 100% 100% 67,331 17,608 Patrol Officer 100% 100% 66,381 17,461 Sergeant 100% 100% 82,820 23,332 Sergeant 100% 100% 81,069 24,261 Patrol Officer 100% 100% 66,936 22,063 Patrol Officer 100% 100% 66,381 17,461 Patrol Officer 100% 100% 53,104 15,396 Patrol Officer 100% 100% 66,381 17,461 Police Captain 100% 100% 89,992 20,439 Sergeant 100% 100% 82,820 24,533 Patrol Officer 100% 100% 53,104 15,396 Sergeant 100% 100% 82,219 24,439 Patrol Officer 100% 100% 67,331 22,124 Secretary/Dispatch I 50% 100% 24,768 7,136 Patrol Officer 100% 100% 67,331 17,608 Patrol Officer 100% 100% 69,551 17,557 Patrol Officer 100% 100% 66,381 21,977 Holiday Pay ( "Half ") 100% 0% 15,245 2,371 Overtime 100% 0% 95,000 14,773 Total Full -time 1,879,018 517,485 Part -time Part -time Personnel 100% 0% 95,000 7,268 Total Part-time 95,000 7,268 TOTAL POLICE %� AV 1,974,018 524,753 Total Projected Wages & Benefits 86,051 60,903 87,468 84,939 106,658 126,489 88,358 92,547 55,549 84,939 83,842 106,152 105,330 88,999 83,842 68,500 83,842 110,431 107,353 68,500 106,658 89,455 31,904 84,939 87,108 88,358 17,616 109,773 2,396,503 102,268 102,268 2,498,771 2009 PROJECTED BENEFITS - REQUESTED FIRE Full-time Assistant Fire Chief 100% Total Department Allocation Benefit Gross Projected Name /Position % % Wages Benefits FIRE Full-time Assistant Fire Chief 100% 100% 77,884 23,765 Fire Engineer 100% 100% 63,335 17,598 Fire Chief 100% 100% 94,508 21,834 Captain 100% 100% 64,680 21,712 Captain 100% 100% 68,014 22,230 Fire Engineer 100% 100% 61,351 21,194 Fire Engineer 100% 100% 62,365 17,447 Secretary/Dispatch I 50% 100% 24,591 7,110 Captain 100% 100% 66,527 21,999 Fire Engineer 100% 100% 55,593 15,783 Overtime 100% 0% 32,600 5,070 Total Full -time 671,448 195,742 Part-time Volunteer Fire Firefighters 100% 0% 110,000 8,415 Total Part-time 110,000 8,415 TOTAL FIRE �Ar . 781,448 204,157 Total Projected Wages & Benefits 101,649 80,933 116,342 86,392 90,244 82,545 79,812 31,701 88,526 71,376 37,670 867,190 118,415 118,415 985,605 2009 PROJECTED BENEFITS - REQUESTED BUILDING INSPECTION Full -time Secretary 50% Total Department Allocation Benefit Gross Projected Name /Position % % Wages Benefits BUILDING INSPECTION Full -time Secretary 50% 100% 25,362 7,221 Building Official 100% 100% 72,314 17,551 Building Inspector 100% 100% 60,312 20,339 Total Full -time 157,988 45,111 TOTAL BUILDING INSPECTION ,AV / 157,988 45,111 Total Projected Wages & Benefits 32,583 89,865 80,651 203,099 203,099 91,237 2,422 2009 PROJECTED BENEFITS - REQUESTED ENGINEERING Full -Time Total Department Allocation Benefit Gross Projected Name /Position % % Wages Benefits ENGINEERING Full -Time Assistant City Engineer 50% 100% 39,548 11,521 Project Coordinator 50% 100% 35,640 8,701 City Engineer /Public Works Dir Car Allowance 75% 100% 100% 100% 72,112 2,250 19,125 172 Engineering Technician III 100% 100% 43,336 14,980 Secretary 50% 100% 24,462 7,091 Engineering Technician III 85% 100% 48,623 16,908 Overtime 100% 0% 5,000 721 Total Full -time 270,971 79,219 Part-time Intern 100% 0% 6,000 459 Total Part-time 6,000 459 TOTAL ENGINEERING / Ar 276,971 79,678 Total Projected Wages & Benefits 51,069 44,341 58,316 31,553 65,531 5,721 350,190 6,459 6,459 356,649 2009 PROJECTED BENEFITS - REQUESTED STREET Full -time Maintenance Worker III 100% Total Department Allocation Benefit Gross Projected Name /Position % % Wages Benefits STREET Full -time Maintenance Worker III 100% 100% 48,922 18,699 Asst Public Works Superintendant 25% 100% 18,312 5,550 Maintenance Worker III 100% 100% 48,922 18,699 Maintenance Worker IV 100% 100% 50,256 18,891 Maintenance Worker IV 100% 100% 52,190 15,266 Maintenance Worker III 50% 100% 12,412 3,572 Maintenance Worker IV 100% 100% 50,256 14,375 Chief Mechanic 100% 100% 53,138 19,306 Maintenance Worker III 100% 100% 49,648 14,287 Maintenance Worker IV 100% 100% 50,256 14,375 Public Works Superintendant 50% 100% 41,749 11,839 Overtime 100% 0% 10,000 1,440 Total Full -time 486,061 156,299 Part-time Seasonal workers 100% 0% 21,200 1,622 Total Part-time 21,200 1,622 TOTAL STREET Ar 507,261 157,921 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 4,771,797 1,335,771 Total Projected Wages & Benefits 67,621 23,862 67,621 69,147 67,456 15,984 64,631 72,444 63,935 64,631 53,588 11,440 642,360 22,822 22,822 665,182 6,107,568 2009 PROJECTED BENEFITS - REQUESTED LIBRARY Operations Full -time Library Director Total Department Allocation Benefit Gross Projected Name /Position % % Wages Benefits LIBRARY Operations Full -time Library Director 100% 100% 87,761 24,292 Secretary 100% 100% 46,571 13,845 Library Assistant I 100% 100% 43,638 13,422 IS Technician 20% 100% 10,656 2,962 Total Full -time 188,626 54,521 Part -time Assistant Library Director 75% 100% 59,281 15,551 Supervisory Librarian 75% 100% 49,713 14,174 Library Assistant II 75% 100% 23,285 9,213 Supervisory Librarian 75% 100% 52,288 15,156 Library Associate 75% 100% 36,021 5,614 Librarian I 75% 100% 41,044 12,925 Library Assistant II 75% 100% 31,652 13,313 Library Associate 75% 0% 26,962 9,743 Nonbenefitted Library Assistant I 100% 0% 11,806 1,700 Library Assistant I 100% 0% 23,612 3,704 Library Associate 100% 0% 12,673 1,824 Library Associate 100% 0% 12,673 1,824 Aide 100% 0% 11,086 1,596 Aide 100% 0% 7,997 1,152 Shelver 1 100% 0% 4,941 712 Shelver 2 100% 0% 4,941 712 Shelver 3 100% 0% 4,941 712 Shelver 4 100% 0% 4,941 712 Shelver 5 100% 0% 4,941 712 Shelver 6 100% 0% 4,942 712 Reference Subs 100% 0% 7,745 1,115 Circulation Subs 100% 0% 12,897 1,858 Sunday Differential 100% 0% 520 75 Total Part -time 450,902 114,809 Total Operations 639,528 169,330 Plant Part -time Custodian I 100% 100% 43,057 17,854 Custodian II 50% 100% 25,039 9,465 Janitorial Substitutes 100% 0% 6,461 0 Total Part -time 74,557 27,319 Total Plant 74,557 27,319 TOTAL LIBRARY FUND �/��������� /�/���/ 714,085 196,649 Total Projected Wages & Benefits 112,053 60,416 57,060 13,618 243,147 74,832 63,887 32,498 67,444 41,635 53,969 44,965 36,705 13,506 27,316 14,497 14,497 12,682 9,149 5,653 5,653 5,653 5,653 5,653 5,654 8,860 14,755 595 565,711 808,858 60,911 34,504 6,461 101,876 101,876 910,734 2009 PROJECTED BENEFITS - REQUESTED PARKS Full -time Maintenance Worker III 100% 100% 48,922 18,699 Total Department Allocation Benefit Gross Projected Name /Position % % Wages Benefits PARKS Full -time Maintenance Worker III 100% 100% 48,922 18,699 Maintenance Worker IV 100% _ 100% 52,190 19,170 Maintenance Worker III 50% 100% 24,823 7,144 Maintenance Worker III 100% 100% 49,648 18,803 Maintenance Worker III 100% 100% 48,922 14,183 Lead Worker 100% 100% 55,112 15,074 Public Works Superintendant 50% 100% 41,749 11,839 Maintenance Worker III 100% 100% 50,374 14,392 Secretary 50% 100% 24,462 7,091 Overtime 100% 0% 3,000 433 Total Full -time 399,202 126,828 Part-Time Seasonal Workers 100% 0% 21,200 1,622 Total Part-time 21,200 1,622 TOTAL PARKS FUND % ;% 420,402 128,450 Total Projected Wages & Benefits 67,621 71,360 31,967 68,451 63,105 70,186 53,588 64,766 31,553 3,433 526,030 22,822 22,822 548,852 2009 PROJECTED BENEFITS - REQUESTED SEWER Full -time Assist Public Works Superintendant 25% Total Department Allocation Benefit Gross Projected Name /Position % % Wages Benefits SEWER Full -time Assist Public Works Superintendant 25% 100% 18,312 5,550 Lead Worker 100% 100% 53,138 19,306 Maintenance Worker IV Class 3B W /Wtr Fac Op Lic 100% 100% 56,181 19,744 100% 100% 600 87 Maintenance Worker IV Class 3B W /Wtr Fac Op Lic 100% 100% 100% 100% 57,913 600 15,477 87 Assistant City Engineer 25% 100% 19,773 5,761 City Engineer /Public Works Dir Car Allowance 25% 25% 100% 100% 24,037 750 6,374 57 Sr Account Clerk 20% 100% 10,076 2,879 Overtime 100% 0% 0 0 Total Full -time 241,380 75,322 Part -time Seasonal Workers (2) 100% 0% 13,800 1,056 Total Part-time 13,800 1,056 TOTAL SEWER FUND Ar 255,180 76,378 Total Projected Wages & Benefits 23,862 72,444 75,925 687 73,390 687 25,534 30,411 807 12,955 0 316,702 14,856 14,856 331,558 2009 PROJECTED BENEFITS - REQUESTED STORM SEWER FUND Total Department Allocation Benefit Gross Projected Name /Position % % Wages Benefits STORM SEWER FUND Full -time Assist Public Works Superintendant 25% 100% 18,195 5,533 Maintenance Worker IV 30% 100% 15,943 5,792 Maintenance Worker III 25% 100% 12,412 3,572 Assistant City Engineer 25% 100% 19,773 5,761 Project Coordinator 50% 100% 35,640 8,701 Engineering Technician III 25% 100% 14,446 4,993 Sr Account Clerk 15% 100% 7,557 2,159 Total Full -time 123,966 36,511 TOTAL STORM SEWER FUND r��� '/ 123,966 36,511 Total Projected Wages & Benefits 23,728 21,735 15,984 25,534 44,341 19,439 9,716 160,477 160,477 2009 PROJECTED BENEFITS - REQUESTED SIGNS & LIGHTING FUND Full-Time Assist Public Works Superintendant 25% Total Department Allocation Benefit Gross Projected Name /Position % % Wages Benefits SIGNS & LIGHTING FUND Full-Time Assist Public Works Superintendant 25% 100% 18,195 5,533 Maintenance Worker IV 70% 100% 37,196 13,513 Sr Account Clerk 15% 100% 7,557 2,159 Engineering Technician III 15% 100% 8,581 2,984 Overtime 100% 0% 0 0 Total Full -time 71,529 24,189 Part-time Intern 100% 0% 0 0 Total Part-time 0 0 TOTAL SIGNS & LIGHTING FUND /�������;if� ��/ 71,529 24,189 Total Projected Wages & Benefits 23,728 50,709 9,716 11,565 0 95,718 0 0 95,718 2009 PROJECTED BENEFITS - REQUESTED PARKING FUND Full -time Community Service Officer 100% Total Department Allocation Benefit Gross Projected Name /Position % % Wages Benefits PARKING FUND Full -time Community Service Officer 100% 100% 43,758 13,439 Secretary 10% 100% 4,962 1,429 Overtime 3,000 433 Total Full -time 51,720 15,301 Part -time Parking Enforcement 100% 0% 36,000 2,754 Total Part-time 36,000 2,754 TOTAL PARKING FUND V � Ar A 87,720 18,055 GRAND TOTAL (ALL FUNDS) A 6,444,6791 1,816,003 Total Projected Wages & Benefits 57,197 6,391 3,433 67,021 38,754 38,754 105,775 8,260,682 ■ 0 •- a Io Of 00 111 0 0 el co, 0 CO M 0 0 Fire Department Police Department Snow Removal Street Repair and Maintenance Parks /Recreation Ease of Travel by Car Public Library Park Maintenance Ease of Parking Downtown Ease of Access to City Information Helpfulness of Building Inspectors Ease of Obtaining Permits Stillwater Newsletter N .0 d U X� • rovemen as .a C) Priority of Community Projects C3). c N- N N N > y U) CC a 0 0 L d c O E C a R F u� us N N N Expand Community/Recreation Center O Y CC a O J 4. ca • E c tA C d V L m E R N O U l6 a C ea I-. N d d a Arts and Cultural Center (Current Armory Building) 0 - O e - O co O CD - O N 0 U, O) S ■ M_ G) L N 0 0 J ■ C O C a 0 0 z n rn