05-28-2024 (Workshop - Budget Kickoff)HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL
2025 BUDGET KICKOFF
MINUTES
TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2024 - 4:00 PM
CITY CENTER — COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. Call to Order
Mayor Forcier called the workshop to order at 4:00 p.m. Members present included Pat May,
Dave Sebesta, and Chad Czmowski. Member absent was Tim Burley. Others present were:
Matt Jaunich, City Administrator, Andy Reid, Finance Director and other city directors.
2025 BUDGET KICKOFF REVIEW
2. 2025 Budget Kickoff
Matt Jaunich, City Administrator, presented before the Council. Mr. Jaunich noted that today's
workshop is to begin the 2025 budgeting season. Mr. Jaunich noted that setting the annual budget
is one of the biggest policy decisions of the City Council. The City's budget documents drive the
work of the city and are the forces behind achieving the City's Mission Statement. Mr. Jaunich
reviewed the City's mission statement, vision statement, the seven core areas of focus which
include public safety, health & recreation, transportation, economic development, environment,
good government and housing. Mr. Jaunich spoke about statements identified in the City's last
strategic plan. Those statements included wanting to be known as a destination place for
recreation, art and leisure; wanting to have a growing, diverse economy with a skilled workforce;
wanting to have adequate, affordable housing for all; wanting to have welcoming and safe city
facilities to service current and future generations; wanting to have cost effective, reliable and
sustainable energy and practices; wanting to have high quality, multi -modal transportation and
infrastructure systems; wanting to have active citizen engagement, participation and involvement
and wanting to have fiscally responsible management to serve community needs. Mr. Jaunich
also reviewed five long-term goals the Council should consider every budget season. Those goals
include: 1. What should future tax levies look like? 2. What levels of services should the City
perform and provide in the future? 3. What is an acceptable level of debt? 4. What is our level of
investment in technology and equipment, and what period of payback is acceptable? 5. What are
our future infrastructure needs (roads, utilities, buildings, etc.) and how are we going to pay for
them?
Mr. Jaunich noted that the purpose of today's workshop is to review the budget calendar that has
been established as well as review historical data and items that staff has identified as
items/concerns that need to be addressed. Staff would also like to review the Fleet and Facility
Plans and how those are established and get direction from the Council on what they would like
to see during the 2025 budget preparation season. Mr. Jaunich noted that there are three ways to
approach a budget — either staff driven, Council driven or a combination of the Council working
with staff.
Mr. Jaunich reviewed tax rate comparisons of Hutchinson with other McLeod County cities as
well as with other regional center city rates. Hutchinson is the second lowest in the county and
ranks in the mid -range amongst regional centers. Mr. Jaunich also spoke about taxable market
values and home market values as they relate to tax rates amongst McLeod County
municipalities. Mr. Jaunich spoke about the price of government which is the percent of every
dollar earned going to pay for City services, excluding electric and gas utilities. Hutchinson is at
approximately 2.5% for a total cost of government which is rather comparable to other regional
centers. Mr. Jaunich provided data on economic comparisons, the 10-year tax rate trend, the 10-
year total tax levy trend, the total market value history, the total taxable market value history and
the total tax capacity history. Mr. Jaunich explained that the City's tax rate is determined by the
tax levy and tax capacity and tax capacity is determined by the market value. The City's modest
tax increases over the past ten years have been offset by large increases in the city's market
values. Since 2018, total market values have exceeded a billion and are the highest in the history
of the City. 2024 values increased by 3.3% over 2023. Taxable values are just as high and the
2024 report shows values increasing by 6.5%, this on top of an 18.4% in 2023 and 12% in 2022.
Tax increases without value increases end up having a negative effect on the tax rate. The
valuation changes over the past few years have shifted more of the City tax burden onto
residential properties. While commercial and industrial properties likely will see a tax decrease
as their valuations have remained flat or had minor changes. As values increase, the market value
homestead credit decreases, impacting residential tax bills. In general, the City's market value
increases have outpaced the tax levy increases, lowering the tax rate, except for last year. The
2024 tax rate was the first increase in 11 years. Mr. Jaunich further reviewed historical budget
numbers including the tax levy from the last five years and tax levies as a percentage. Mr.
Jaunich provided information on certified city levy changes for 2024 for other McLeod County
cities and throughout the state. The average tax levy increase was 6.4% within the county and the
average state-wide tax levy increase was 7.5%.
Council Member Tim Burley arrived at 4:20 p.m.
Mr. Jaunich then provided a very preliminary general fund budget for 2025. This includes wages
and benefits expected to increase by 5.3%. This includes increased health costs. This includes
assumptions that may not play out in 2025, such as the engineer position, etc. Other expenditures
are assumed to remain flat at this time. A current look has a 6.8% levy increase to balance the
budget. LGA is assumed at a minimal increase for 2025. All other revenues are at 2024
budgeted amounts. Revenues are expected to remain flat at this time. A 1% tax levy increase is
equal to $63,586. Mr. Jaunich presented a preliminary general fund five-year budget. Mr.
Jaunich provided a list of things to think about when establishing the 2025 general fund budget —
such as program changes — need for increase/decrease?; enterprise fund transfers to the general
fund; analysis of certain line item projections; performance increase percentages; fleet/facility
funding; funding of wages and benefits; inflation impacts; payroll allocations (general vs.
enterprise); continued discussion on general staffing levels and service level needs/wants; new
position requests/retirements; new election equipment needs; appropriate CIP funding and needs;
state budget/tax agreements; local government aid; state legislative impacts; moving start of
performance increase to January 1; funding of major/special projects; wage survey; impact of
selling old EOC building/event center; and sales tax. Mr. Jaunich spoke about use of LGA funds.
He noted that the City is set to receive $3,103,462 in LGA in 2025 which is an increase of $5,537
from 2024. He noted that 50% goes to the general fund and 50% goes to various aspects of the
capital improvement fund. Capital Projects Fund is for various projects currently not designated.
He noted that 2025 will be the sixth year of the Playground Replacement Fund of $50,000. He
also noted that 2025 will be the fourth year of a 50150 split with LGA between the CIP and the
general fund. Mr. Jaunich also reviewed historical LGA numbers.
Mr. Jaunich then reviewed the debt management plan. He noted that the big impact was the new
police station. He also noted that 2022 was the first increase in the debt levy since 2016. The
2025 increase is projected to be at about 3.6%. He explained that increasing interest rates
have/will impact future debt decisions and rising project costs have put pressure on increasing the
debt tax levy. He noted that the debt levy has not kept up with inflation. He also explained that
special assessment rates need to be reviewed and the City still has future debt needs for heavy
equipment and fire trucks.
Mr. Jaunich also reviewed major projects potentially scheduled for 2025. These include: HATS
storage building/fuel site (likely to be pushed back); Roberts Park lighting; various streets; other
equipment/vehicle replacements; stormwater improvements in the Michigan Street area; water
meter replacements; other water/wastewater and other facility improvements.
Mr. Jaunich then provided an update on Facility Planning. Mr. Jaunich explained the process
used by the Facility Committee for projects. This includes using a Facility Inventory and Facility
Condition Index (FCI) with department heads and/or the facility manager. Inventory is compiled
by using the FCI, possible projects are ranked based on the FCI and overall need, obtain bids for
projects, determine how many projects can be completed based on funding, award bids and
complete the work. Mr. Jaunich explained that the Facility Committee is composed of nine staff
members. Mr. Jaunich also explained the project prioritization criteria used which include public
health, safety and welfare; facility preservation; facility condition index; facility utilization; and
energy conservation. Facility assessment criteria includes envelope, roof, HVAC, lot/structure,
electrical, interior, efficiency and mechanical. Mr. Jaunich reviewed the facility plan budget, the
facility funding plan, the facilities replacement plan, the playground funding plan and the
playground replacement plan.
Mr. Jaunich then provided an update on the Fleet Committee. Mr. Jaunich explained that the
objective of the fleet policy is to reduce ongoing expenses and replacement costs by addressing
acquisition, use, maintenance and disposal of vehicles and equipment. The Fleet Committee is
comprised of eight staff members and meet at least twice a year to review and recommend
replacements and to review current year purchases and dispositions. The Committee also meets
as needed to address immediate needs/opportunities. Mr. Jaunich spoke about acquisition
procedures, disposition, utilization, maintenance, reporting and policy review. Mr. Jaunich noted
that the Committee uses a Vehicle Condition Index (VCI) which is a point system measurement
used to assess the condition of each vehicle or piece of equipment. Annual replacements ideally
shall consider the worst VCI scored vehicles, however the VCI alone does not automatically
trigger a replacement. Departments must demonstrate the operational need for a replacement.
He also noted that since the VCI is a measure of current condition, the fleet committee uses
service life, VCI and other factors when prioritizing replacements for years 2-5 of the 5-year CIP.
Mr. Jaunich reviewed the VCI factors used which include service age, miles or hours, utilization,
reliability, maintenance and repair costs, condition and safety concerns. Mr. Jaunich explained
the fleet inventory and what the general fund accounts for and what the enterprise funds account
for. Mr. Jaunich spoke about the average annual replacement cost and funding of light fleet and
heavy fleet replacements. Mr. Jaunich noted that the committee's focus for 2024 was to review
availability through state contracts and local dealers due to supply issues; analyze and discuss
performance of current City hybrid and electric vehicles; discuss options for the aging fire ladder
truck (23 years old); review fleet policy for potential updates.
Mr. Jaunich then reviewed the various current City fund balances. Mr. Jaunich noted that the
target cash balance is based on 50% of the 2024 budgeted operating expenses plus the 2024 debt
service payments. It is a measure of liquidity and the ability of the enterprise fund to pay for its
short-term obligations. Future capital needs and debt service are not taken into consideration
when looking at the target cash balance. Mr. Jaunich also reviewed special projects fund
balances which include the Community Improvement Fund, Capital Projects Fund and the Public
Sites Fund.
Mr. Jaunich also reviewed a list of staff concerns or items in need of being addressed/watched
These include: levy expectations and meeting costs of employee wages/benefits; growth of
salaries/benefits is the City's biggest cost driver; funding for splash pad;
construction/replacement costs increasing; engineering position; examine all revenues and
expenses; IT licensing costs increasing; stormwater project impacts following study; regulatory
impacts to water and wastewater infrastructure; moving pay adjustments to January 1st; selling of
City assets (EOC building and event center); Event Center operations; new election equipment;
additional staffing requests; performance review/wage system analysis; interest rates/inflation;
funding for heavy equipment/fleet and fire ladder truck; wage allocations; special assessment
rates; sales tax extension; and legislative impacts.
Mr. Jaunich then reviewed legislative impacts for the 2025 budget and beyond. The impact of
paid family/medical leave is an estimated annual cost of around $50,000 (goes into effect in
2026); the impact of Sick and Safe Time; future of City sales tax requests (moratorium still in
place); PFAS and other environmental regulations; zoning and land use authority; bonding bill;
and adult -use cannabis.
Mr. Jaunich asked the Council's thoughts/ideas on the 2025 budget: 1. tax levy goal? — 0%,
moderate increase, or significant increase; 5-year budget plan called for an annual general levy
increase of 6-7%; "very early look" calls for something around 6.8%; 2. Any services Council
would like to see provided and/or increased/decreased in 2025? — Park & Rec, streets, equipment,
etc.; 3. Is there a specific project/item the Council would like to see budgeted for and/or done in
2025? — splash pad, housing, infrastructure, etc. "Think Strategic Plans"; 4. Any fee/rate/transfer
changes to look at in 2025? — utilities, licenses, rentals, programs, park dedication, etc.
Discussion was held on the lack of candidates for the engineer position recently recruited for.
Mayor Forcier expressed that he feels the City should continue to take care of what it has, such as
maintenance efforts. Council Member Czmowski noted that although the Council likes to see a
4% levy increase, that might not be an option any longer. Council Member Czmowski suggested
that the PRCE Board revisit the splash pad project and consider a site where a parking lot and
restrooms are already in place to reduce the total cost of the project.
3. Adjournment
Motion by Czmowski, second by Sebesta, to adjourn the workshop at 5:05 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.
ATTEST:
Gary T. Forcier
Mayor
Matthew Jaunich
City Administrator