News, sports, politics, blogs and forums for Jordan, Minnesota • (952) 492-2224

Jordan Resident's GuideLocal Worship DirectoryJordan Foreclosure Data

Jordan, Minnesota

Keep up with the Independent! Sign up for email newsletters and RSS feeds.
Click to Login
No account? Sign up!

Advertising

40 people pack public hearing on proposed city tax levy increase


» Read similar stories filed under:

Forty-some people packed the Jordan City Council chamber tonight, as the council held a public hearing regarding its proposed tax levy increase.

City staff proposed a $3.1 million budget, which included $225,000 less in spending than the preliminary budget approved by the council in September. Reacting to disdain voiced by 15 taxpayers, the council began to discuss proposed budget cuts that would severely affect city services and further lower the amount of money collected from taxpayers next year.

The city staff proposed cutting:

- $150,000 from the building fund dedicated to future construction projects like a city hall, police station, or library;

- $40,000 in salary for a police officer scheduled to be hired in July;

- $20,000 meant for the Jordan Economic Development Authority;

- and $15,000 in building inspections.

Some of the council's comments included the following:

Advertisement. Article continues below.

- Councilmember Jeanne Marnoff questioned why the city staff would propose cutting $20,000 from the budget of the Jordan Economic Development Authority, which seeks to promote economic development in the city. City Administrator Ed Shukle said it was a suggestion of the council.

- Councilmember Mike Shaw asked if the city staff's recommendation was to leave last year's allocation of $200,000 for the building fund for a future city hall but also to cut $150,000 of the $200,000 proposed for this year. "Because we do have the $200,000 (from last year) in there, I would be in favor of not putting anything in this year," Shaw said. Councilmembers Barry Ullmann and Sally Schultz spoke up in agreement with Shaw.

- Shaw also said he would support laying off a city planner, a move that would save the city $60,000.

- "I'd like to add a pay freeze to that," Councilmember David Hanson said. Finance Director Tom Nikunen said that if the city were able to save 2 percent salary increases for every city employee, the city could save $30,700. It's unlikely that the city would actually save that much money, because its employees have two unions that can strike and one that can demand arbitration.

- Shaw and Hanson said they need more time to digest the proposed budget cuts. "I'd like to sit down with a calculator and explore some of the minute changes that were discussed here," Hanson said.

The public hearing lasted about 1-1/2 hours.




For more information about...

Back to page top
Mathias Baden's picture

For more information about the city portion of your tax bill, read the Dec. 4 issue of the Jordan Independent.

(Mathias Baden is the editor of the Jordan Independent. He can be reached at editor@jordannews.com.)


Submitted by Mathias Baden on December 2, 2008 - 12:15am.

Penny wise, pound foolish!...

Back to page top

Penny wise, pound foolish! Geez people, don't let headlines guide your fiscal planning! The city is in good shape, and aside from some bonding increases, the actual fiscal planning is sound. This glut in bonding will subside in the next year or two and the tax rate will go down. These percentages are so misleading and are bieng used to scare people. Cutting like crazy now only hurts planning for later. Cuts are ok, just not so deep that it hinders growth. Its like a business, a small business has growing pains and unfortuantely will have financial highs and lows. But with smart financial planning we will be better off in the long run by attracting new tax paying citizens and businesses. You can't compare a new business to a blue chip company, they have different problems, just like you can't compare Jordan to Bloomington or even Shakopee. Think with your head not your emotions. That's why the city council gets elected to make decisions that may not be popular with a portion of misinformed public but is better for all citizens in the long run.


Submitted by Johnnie14 on December 2, 2008 - 9:41am.

How about cutting the Hwy...

Back to page top
swansonmej's picture

How about cutting the Hwy 282/21 intersection project???? LoL.


Submitted by swansonmej on December 2, 2008 - 12:54pm.

Oh boy, here we go again...

Back to page top
Mathias Baden's picture

Oh boy, here we go again ...

But honestly, what would be the savings of cutting the intersection portion of the project? The attorney's fees and any compensation for the acquisition of easements? Yeah, I guess that would be substantial.

Unfortunately for opponents of the project, now that it has been bid out, it would be foolish for the city to renege and get the contractor's attorneys involved.

(Mathias Baden is the editor of the Jordan Independent. He can be reached at editor@jordannews.com.)


Submitted by Mathias Baden on December 2, 2008 - 1:36pm.

Not just foolish,...

Back to page top
bucky's picture

Not just foolish, Mathias--illegal.

We have already bonded for the project, we have already awarded a bid, and we have already received over $900,000 in MnDOT funding. Several items involved with the project are already underway.

Thank you, Johnnie14, your comments about penny-wise and pound foolish could not be more dead on.

DavidH


Submitted by bucky on December 2, 2008 - 2:02pm.

Jordan is not a new...

Back to page top
Thom Boncher's picture

Jordan is not a new business. It's been around for about 150 years. Headlines don't guide my fiscal planning. My income does, and my income isn't going up 14% next year. An awful lot of people in this town are having to tighten their belts, and they want the city to do the same.

And for what it's worth, the LOL Ms. Swanson injected in her comment tells me she was kidding.


Submitted by Thom Boncher on December 2, 2008 - 2:16pm.

Her comments in the past...

Back to page top

Her comments in the past show that she isn't kidding.

As far as Jordan not being new, you are being to literal. Look at the growth charts and you should be able to figure out what I was saying. As far as the 14%, I've said time and time again that is from a bonding glut and a decrease in home values. I don't get why you can't understand the math behind that 14% number. Look at the cutting that was done years prior, being able to obsorb hundreds of thousands in state aid cuts. Fiscal planning happens over years not one year in a bubble. Where were all the people screaming they weren't paying enough when our sales values were so much higher than our taxable values and our tax rates were dropping because home values were increasing. This reversal was going to happen, it was just a matter of time. Of course its always easier looking back, if any of us saw this coming we'd be really wealthy right now.


Submitted by Johnnie14 on December 2, 2008 - 2:50pm.

Johnny 14, here's what I...

Back to page top
Thom Boncher's picture

Johnny 14, here's what I understand.

My contributions to my church have been reduced. My motorcycle is for sale. My thermostat is turned down to 65 degrees. My water heater and water softener settings have both been reduced. I eat out less often than last year. I take half as many trips as I did a year ago. My wife has mostly stopped using the clothes dryer to reduce our electric bill. Neither my wife, nor I have purchased a new pair of shoes in the past 12 months.

What's happening in MY bubble is my income is going down, and my expenses are going up. If this continues, there won't BE a future. If you're well off enough to not have to watch your tax dollars, I envy you. Say a prayer of thanks for your good fortune. For me, a 14% increase in the cost of anything is a burden.


Submitted by Thom Boncher on December 2, 2008 - 3:25pm.

Thom you REALLY have to stop...

Back to page top
bucky's picture

Thom you REALLY have to stop using that 14% number.

A 14% increase to the levy does NOT translate to the same increase to someone's tax bill. The proposed tax rate is just under 5% higher than last year.

Multiply your taxable value by 1% to calculate your tax capacity. Multiply that by the tax rate and you get a number very close to the city tax portion. There is a market value tax credit in the middle that I don't know how to calculate, but it actually lowers the number, and it is only slightly.

If your home is worth $200,000 in 2008 your tax is approximately $1,038. $200,000 x 1% = $2,000 x .51916 = $1,038.00. The market value tax credit will reduce it further but for the sake of argument...

Scott County is reducing tax values by 1.47%. That means your home in 2009 is valued at $197,060 and your tax is going to be approximately $1,109.

That's an increase of $71.00. For the year. That's $5.92 a month. For most folks that's less than the cost of the taxes on their cell phone bill.

Does that mean I don't empathize with folks who've seen their incomes shrink? Absolutely not. I'm dealing with cost increases and revenue decreases just like any other business owner. And just like every other resident of Jordan or any other city.


Submitted by bucky on December 2, 2008 - 5:19pm.

I'm not real smart, so...

Back to page top
Thom Boncher's picture

I'm not real smart, so you'll have to bear with me. The city council has been discussing a BUDGET increase with percentages varying from 22 to 14%. Is that correct?

And budget increases do not directly translate into TAX increases. Is that correct? (Sorta begs the question, "Why not?", but I'll take your word on it.

My city taxes in 2008 were $879.69. In 2009 they're proposed at $978.83 - an increase of $99.14 ($8.26/mo.). My Casio says that my new taxes will be 111.27% of last year. So yes, for me, 14% is not precise. 11% would be more accurate. My home Taxable Market Value is $180,300 in 2009 - down from $190,600 in 2008 (94.6% of the '08 MTV). These numbers are taken from my Proposed Property Tax for 2009 statement.

Is an extra $8.26/month a lot of money? Well, it would just about cover the insurance on my motorcycle.

What am I missing?


Submitted by Thom Boncher on December 2, 2008 - 8:01pm.

From what I've read and...

Back to page top

From what I've read and heard it seems a big contributing factor to this entire discussion is the over $500k in bond payments that are due next year.

With that said - and the proposed increase aside - does anyone else wonder why those bonds weren't accrued for already so we wouldn't have to come up with the money at the last minute?

Look at the numbers from Dave and it's apparent to me that someone didn't "budget" for these future payments when they signed the dotted line. I hope we've at least got the payments for any bonds baked into the budget somewhere so we don't have to do this again.


Submitted by ITGuy on December 2, 2008 - 8:09pm.

Did I see that the fines...

Back to page top
Ray Sandey's picture

Did I see that the fines collected were down by 40+%? Now I am going completely off the top of my head. Were they down like $6x,xxx.00?

Dave, why was that?


Submitted by Ray Sandey on December 2, 2008 - 11:25pm.

Ray you read it right, the...

Back to page top
bucky's picture

Ray you read it right, the budget for fines and forfeitures is down $40,000 in 2009.

I will find out the answer but so far I can comment on the fact the the budget is not the same as actual expenses or revenues.

I will get both the 2008 actual as well as the answer and post for all.

Actually I found it-my suspicions were right.

2005 budget $80,000 - actual $74,153.82
2006 budget $105,000 - actual $78,074.99
2007 budget $105,000 - actual $56,392.00
2008 budget $105,000 - year to date $11,387.55

The 2008 number will change later when all of the data has been recorded. I don't know how many months off it is but that's the big reason it is so much lower.

I think the budget of $65,000 proposed for 2009 is going to be closer to the actual number we can expect.

Remember this budget item was not a charge but an estimate of revenue.


Submitted by bucky on December 3, 2008 - 2:27pm.

To Mr. Boncher and the other...

Back to page top

To Mr. Boncher and the other taxpayers of Jordan:

Good Morning,

I would like to help you and everyone else understand their taxes more if I can. The tax increases you are talking about are from the preliminary tax levy for the City of Jordan. The City Council passed a preliminary levy in September which was a 22% increase over 2008. This levy was $596,000 higher with $510,000 of new/old debt issued. The projects which were bonded in 2008 were for the ladder fire truck, the fire hall expansion, Hwy282/21 project and Park Drive. The rest of the increases were due to the general fund levy and some tax abatements. That preliminary levy is the number on your tax statement that was mailed out by the County. This preliminary levy can be reduced by the Council and has been. The debt levy can't be reduced because we need to have those funds levied to pay the bonds. The general fund levy can be reduced by cuts to spending for operations. This levy has been cut dramatically since September. With the cuts to the general fund budget the levy increase sits at a 9.494% increase. The 9.494% doesn't mean your taxes will go up 9.494%. On average the tax increase under this current levy about would be between 3-4% depending on your taxable value. For Mr. Boncher at that levy amount your taxes for the City of Jordan would be $886.20. This would be an increase of $6.51 for 2009 payable taxes for you. This will be much lower than a 14% increase and actually less than 1% since your property value was reduced.

I don't wish to join in your discussions about what project should have been done or not done but if anyone would wish to learn more about their actual proposed tax increases please call me at city hall. I would be more than happy to explain the process and what your proposed taxes would be with the current budget cuts so far. I have received many calls and most people are able to understand the tax levy much better if they give me the opportunity to explain it to them further. Remember those tax statements are the highest your taxes could be but the City Council has reduced the levy and the impact to our tax payers will be reduced greatly. The levy has gone from a 22% increase to a 9.494% increase so far. In general terms you can take the increase to the City portion and cut it in half. I know the County is in the process of cutting their levy back to so all government units are working to help reduce the tax strains on all of us.

Thanks and have a nice day,

Tom Nikunen
Finance Director
City of Jordan
952-492-2535


Submitted by TN on December 3, 2008 - 10:18am.

I have to say, Tom, that...

Back to page top
Mathias Baden's picture

I have to say, Tom, that you've been very helpful with getting me any information that I need to write stories for the newspaper. Thanks for clarifying.

(Mathias Baden is the editor of the Jordan Independent. He can be reached at editor@jordannews.com.)


Submitted by Mathias Baden on December 3, 2008 - 4:06pm.

Advertising

Advertising

Recent comments

Advertising

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 159 guests online.

Who's new

  • tibuan
  • watchingthetown
  • AwayinFlorida
  • POPCORNPEG
  • anonimal

Advertising

1

Advertising