according to the JI over 70% of the city's budget goes for salaries. is that really true? if it is, there's the fat. with growth at a standstill (7 new building permits)how can Jordan justify such a huge percentage for salaries. remember those salaries are coming from our tax dollars.

Jordan City Administrator Ed Shukle said at the last work session that 70 percent to 80 percent of the budget is staff. He strongly urged the council not to lay off employees, but it is definitely being considered. As was reported yesterday in the print edition, the planning department might be the most likely position to be cut, if any.

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

That number drove me nuts last night so I called city hall this morning to find out. Mr. Nikunen (Finance Director)said that salaries and benefits make up about 48% of the general fund budget or about 28% of the total city budget.

I have no idea how that compares to similar cities but I can say that it doesn't seem like a large percentage considering they are a service organization (meaning they don't produce a product).

Maybe the city should provide JI (and taxpayers) with a pie chart showing how a tax dollar is split. I find it curious that Mssrs Shukle and Nikunen are so far apart about what percent of the budget is spent on salaries and benefits. It's hard to be informed when the information one gets is so diverse.

My former home town, Two Rivers, Wisconsin provides budget proposal information at the following site:

http://www.two-rivers.org/budget/index.shtml

From the proposed budget for Two Rivers, Wisconsin:

“Proposed 2009 spending is up 0.86 percent over 2007; up 10.71 percent over 2000 (average 1.15 percent per year over 9 years)”

“Proposed City tax rate for 2009 is up 2.74% from 2008 ($26.00 on a $100,000 market value home); this is following increases of 2.13% in 2008 and zero in 2007”

“City has eliminated 19 full-time positions over the past six years (including 3 proposed for 2009), cutting full-time workforce from 140 to 121”

Note the 1.15% per year city tax increases over the past 9 years. What has Two Rivers given up to achieve those single digit tax increases? Not the newly repaved main street. Not the free wireless access throughout downtown TR. Not the renovated and expanded fire station, nor the updated police department annex at city hall. The multi-million dollar library was built primarily through private donations, though.

Two Rivers is a lot more like Jordan, than Edina.

Data from City-Data.com for 2007 (the most recent they have):
Est Median Household Income - TR - $43,458, Jordan - 55,354, Edina - 77,830
Est Median Home Value - TR - $103,382, Jordan - 197,763, Edina - 401,027

A significant portion of the workforce commutes (to Green Bay, Manitowoc, and Sheboygan).

Regardless of the similarity or disparity - Two Rivers taxpayers have seen their city taxes increase a mere 1.15% per year for the past SEVEN YEARS. I'm guessing neither Jordan, nor Edina can say that.

According to things I've heard at city council meetings, the cost of expanding infrastructure is the developer's responsibility.

And the "hiccup" isn't just in home values. Joblessness is hiccuping too. Businesses that once looked invulnerable are asking for bailouts. Last time I checked, there were 17 homes in foreclosure in Jordan. Even Paul Douglas (the weatherman) is saying that his 401k plan is now a 201k plan.

Raising taxes is not going to draw new people to this town. It's not going to help taxpayers pay their bills. What are Jordan taxpayers going to get 14% more of?

I did a little reading in the Two Rivers budget. Thom maybe you should have done more.

Population of Jordan 2000: 3833 Two Rivers: 12639
Population of Jordan 2007: 5428 Two Rivers: 11784
General Fund Budget Jordan 2009: 3,153,669
General Fund Budget Two Rivers 2009: 9,963,722

They're THREE TIMES as big as Jordan. You're comparing an apple and three apples.

Jordan has built 769 homes in the past 11 years. Two Rivers has built just 134. Of course their levy is going to be more static. But it's not static either. You fail to mention the fact that their 2009 property tax levy is going up 5.88%. Their debt service payment is going down 2.73% for now--at least until 2011 when they'll more than DOUBLE it. What do you think that is going to do to their tax rates?

Also I found it interesting in the spreadsheets there are dozens of zeros in columns where percentages should go. Lots of little tid-bits were not recorded such as

Interest on investments DOWN 48.72%
Rec center fees UP 13%
Senior center fees UP 36%

There is a lot of good data in there so I won't dismiss it entirely, but it is absolutely unfair and inaccurate to compare Jordan to a city 3 times its size.

I agree with Thom. Also, if the powers at be cannot run this small town with that size general fund then we've got bigger problems. We shouldn't be trying to grow or build anything right now in this financial climate.

It's not like the tax base on our properties have gone down with the housing market decline either - so we shouldn't make a bad thing worse by increasing the tax before the market has time to correct itself.

I'll get you all some more data that reflects past tax rates.

I'm not going to be near my computer much between now and Monday. I'm leaving work early today, off with family for holiday and traveling this weekend.

I'll input what I can today, update more if I can on Sunday.

Thanks for your patience...

You are correct, percentages are very misleading. For me, I'm not too concerned that the percentage increases as long as the out of the pocket dollars remain the same year over year. I do support maintaining a level of tax that keeps the dollars whole and steady, so as values decline a tax "percentage" increase may be necessary for that reason. It would be interesting to see by property address how the taxable value has been changed from last year to this coming year.

In my case for instance I'm looking at a 94% increase simply because year 1 was lot, year 2 was lot + 50% of home, now year 3 will be lot + 100% of home. It's a little hard to determine what my full tax would've been last year in order to do the "same same" math for me - but I do know I had to hold my chest when I saw what the full tax was going to be for next year. I am from another state where the rules were much different. We didn't have state, county, city and school systems raising their hands whenever things got tight - everything was run by either the state or city and it was all baked in to the various things you pay taxes on. All in all though I pay a significantly higher amount in taxes here in MN for the same value of property and service usage.

Not understanding all the rules here yet - is it within the cities purview to raise taxes when needed on food, gas or cigarettes rather than property? What about other per use items? Not that any of those would be popular either - but as another source of revenue.