HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-11-23_TRUTH IN TAXATION MEETINGMEMORANDUM
DATE: November 23, 1994
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Gordon L. Hughes
Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING
Enclosed is a packet concerning the 1995 Edina City Budget. This packet as well as a
summary of the budget will be available to all residents attending the November 29, 1994,
Truth in Taxation hearing. We will also have copies of the full budget for those individuals
who desire more detailed information.
TRUTH IN TAXATIONJBUDGET ADOPTION PROCESS
The official Truth in Taxation hearing is scheduled for November 29, 1994. If the Coulqcil
wishes, the hearing may be continued until December 7, 1994. The Council may not adopt
the final budget and final property tax levy at the Truth in Taxation hearing. After the close
of the Truth in Taxation hearing, the Council must announce the time and place of the
meeting at which they will consider adoption of the final budget and final property tax levy.
This budget adoption meeting may not occur less than 24 hours after completion of the
Truth in Taxation hearing.
If the Council concludes on November 29, that an adequate opportunity has been afforded
to all desiring to be heard, it should proceed to adopt a motion closing the hearing. The
Council should then formally establish a time for the consideration of the final budget and
property tax levy. Staff would recommend that this consideration be given at the Council's
regularly scheduled meeting of December 5, 1994. If the Council wishes, it may further
continue the final budget and property tax levy consideration until the December 19, 1994,
City Council meeting. The Council need not consider the budget and the levy at a regularly
scheduled meeting, although this has been the Council's past practice. If the Council wishes
to continue the Truth in Taxation hearing until December 7, 1994, the final budget and final
levy would presumably not be considered until December 19, 1994.
Please call if you have any questions concerning the attached materials. We will be happy
to prepare additional materials at your request.
Nov. 22, 1994
City of Edina, City Hall
4801 W. 50th- St.
Edina, MN 55424
To whom it may concern:
It seems you people who have the
honor of "taxing" the residents of
this community, will always hear
when the community is unhappy!
Well, I just wanted you to know
after receiving the proposed tax
statement for 1995 I am well
pleased! You are just a "hair" over
the estimated personal income
increase of 4.5 %. Congratualtions
on a job well done, keep up this
great tradition!
Sincerely
Birdie Bagley
4405 Claremore Dr.
Edina, MN 55435
91;.a. Atl�l.
Q �+
P
Facts Concerning the 1995 Edina City Budget
Q. What is the dollar amount of the proposed City expenditures for 1994 and
1995?
A. 1994 1995
$15,062,301 $15,723,228
Q. How much of an increase is this from the current year?
A. $660,927 or 4.39%
Q. How much do taxes need to increase from 1994 to support the 1995 City
Budget?
A. 4.24%
Q. What are the major categories of City Spending?
A.
Expenditures by Type
Salaries 54%
Contr. Svcs. 12'
Commodities 5%
Reserves 1 %.
Equipment 6%
Cent. Svcs. 22% ,
Expenditures by Area
Public Works 24%
Public Safety 48%
Gen. Govt 14%
/ Parks 13%
Non -Dept 2%
Q. What are the sources for City revenues?
A.
Taxes 7'
Revenues by Type
Other Revenue 3%
Fees & Charges 8%
Ines & Forfeitures 3%
...q,v.' . Ald 10%
Llc. & Permits 60/6
Q. How are taxes determined for my home?
A. For an owner- occupied house or condominium: The first step is to multiply the 1994
assessors estimated market value (EMV) of your home by the "class rates" imposed
by State Law. The result is known as your home's "tax capacity" (i.e. its taxable
value). (The class rates for owner - occupied housing are 1 % for the first $72,000 of
market value and 2% for the market value in excess of $72,000:) The next. step is to
multiply the tax capacity by the extension rate (i.e. tax rate) calculated for each taxing
jurisdiction based upon their proposed expenditures. The result is your tax bill.
Example
$150,000 Home in the Edina School District
$ 72,000 x 1% = $ 720
$ 78,000 x 2% = $1,560
Tax Capacity 2,280
Extension Rate_ x 117.116%
Tax $2,670.24
Plus - School Bond Levy
Market Value $150,000
Referendum Rate x.12521%
School Bond Tax $187.82
Total Taxes on Home $2,858.06
Q. The City's Tax Rate decreased 3.14 %, but my taxes increased. Why did this
happen?
A. Other factors can contribute to a change in the City portion of your tax bill:
a. Changes in the value of your property in relation to other properties
b. Minnesota's progressive tax rate structure on residential property
Example
$100,000 single family home with a 6.5% increase in value has a 10.16% increase in
Tax Capacity and a 6.69% increase in City Taxes
Tax Capacity Calculation
1993 Value 100,000 = (72,000 x 1.0 %) + (28,000 x 2.0 %)
_ (720) + (560)
= 1,280 Tax Capacity
City Tax Calculation
= Tax Capacity x City Tax Rate
= 1,280 x 16.032%
= 1994 City Taxes of $205.21
Tax Capacity Calculation
1994 Value 106,500 = (72,000 x 1.0 %) + (34,500 x 2.0 %)
_ (720) + (690)
= 1,410 Tax Capacity
City Tax Calculation
= Tax Capacity x City Tax Rate
= 1,410 x 15.528%
= 1995 City Taxes of $218.94
Value Increase= 6.5% Tax Capacity Increase= 10.16% City Tax Increase= 6.69%
Q. The assessor's market value of my property seems too high. Can this be
lowered?
A. Taxes payable in 1995 are based upon the assessor's valuation of your property on
January 2, 1994. This value cannot be changed. The 1995 valuation of your
property will be sent to you this winter and will be the basis for your 1996 tax bill. That
valuation may be appealed to the City Council in April.
4. Where does my tax dollar go?
A.
1995 Proposed Tax Distribution
Local Schools' 49%
° -- °pin County
. - School Percentage Does Not Include Bond Levy
32%
City of Edina 13%
mezry 8 Watershed 670
Q. Why did some areas of the City receive a higher tax increase than other areas?
A. Although the Edina School District covers most of the City, five other school districts
comprise portions of Edina. Of these five, only the Richfield School District and the
Hopkins School District cover major portions of the City. Some of these districts are
proposing a greater increase in their tax rate than the Edina School District. The
attached map shows those portions of Edina located in the Hopkins and Richfield
School Districts.
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
Hopkins School District ( #270) ❑
Richfield School District ( #280) El
C,TV �F
> w E INA
lint
OMNI AN
XJ
FP
IM
Ile —L
:��'•�_ O Ci !�Y .� / /�� -- • "-l.. � � ,• - r � i I NM.J or[x Y.C[ —
_ ''�•- Y/ r 1 i a.�• =. =� �'""'a., ` l` -rte,' ��� _ [��
U F
11,14,11 Pam
� 1
1'
Y .
tY
yr i t
A.
e �0 •
�.ATtt'N,a Mayor Changes from 1994 to 1995 Budget
v Wage Adjustment -- 2.5%
v $10.00 /Month in each employee's health insurance package
$75,000 increase in, Worker's Compensation Insurance
$30,000 Additional Clerical Position - Police Department
* $35,000 Crime Prevention Specialist (Fully Funded by Edina Crime Fund)
* $56,000 PSLO Position - Police Department ($40,000 Reimbursed by School District)
* $60,000 Building Inspection Services (Offset by $75,000 in Additional Fees)
$40,000 Additional Park Maintenance Position
$9,000 increase in cost of Police Department Computer Contract
v $7,500 Deer Control Program
$2,800 South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency Additional Funding (SHeRPA)
($40,000) Decrease in Election Costs (Non - Election Year)
($67,000) Decrease in Capital Plan Appropriation
* Starred Items either partially or fully funded from sources other than property taxes
Examples of Impact on Select Edina Homesteads
by Proposed 1995 Tax Budget
Payable
1995
1995
Market
1994
Proposed
%
1994
Proposed
%
Value
Total Tax
Total Tax
Change
City Tax
City Tax
Change
60,000
812
778
-4.16%
96
93
-3.14%
100,000
1,695
1,624
- 4.19%
205
199
-3.14%
Median Value
All Residential
142,400
2,788
2,671
-4.21%1
341
330
-3.14%
Average Value
All Residential
159,000
3,216
3,080
-4.21%
394
382
-3.14%
Median Value
Single Family
162,600
3,308
3,169
- 4.21%
406
393
- 3.14%
Average Value
Single Family
188,814
3,984
3,816
- 4.22%
490
475
- 3.14%
300,000
6,849
6,559
-4.22%
846
•820
- 3.14%
500,000
12,002
11,494
-4.23%1
1,4881
-3.14%
1995 Truth in Taxation
1.
Examples of Impact on Select Edina Homesteads
. by Proposed 1995 Tax Budget
1994
1995
Payable
Payable
1995
1995
Market
Market
1994
Proposed
%
1994
Proposed
%
Value
Value
Total Tax
Total Tax
Change
City Tax
City Tax
Change
60,000
63,900
812
828
2.07%
96
99
3.15%
100,000
106,500
1,695
1,785
5.27%
205
219
6.69%
Median Value
All Residential
133,709
142,400
2,564
2,671
4.16%
313
330
5.47%
Average Value
All Residential
149,296
159,000
2,966
3,080
3.86%
363
382
5.15%
Median Value
Single Family
152,676
162,600
3,053
3,169
3.81%
374
393
5.09%
Average Value
Single Family
177,290
188,814
3,687
3,816
3.50%
453
475
4.76%
300,000
319,500
6,849
7,041
2.80%
846
880
4.01%
500,000
532,500
12,002
12,296
2.45%
1,488
1,542
3.640/6
• 1995 Truth in Taxation
Tax Effects on Other Types of Property
* - Increase in City Tax Due to Reduction in Fiscal Disparities Net Contribution
Estimated
1994
1995
1994
1995
Property
Market
Total
Total
%
City
City
%
Type
Value
Tax
Tax
Change
Tax
Tax
Change
Apartment
500,000
21,452
20,536
-4.27%
2,725
2,640
-3.14%
Seasonal
Residential
250,000
7,531
7,211
-4.25%
944
915
-3.14%
Commercial
Industrial
500,000
29,565
28,568
-3.37%
2,549
2,688
5.49%
* - Increase in City Tax Due to Reduction in Fiscal Disparities Net Contribution
i How-much 'are your property taxes-going-up? z
Hdn stem re in the TaM CIfiM nMtrapoYOertarea The Star Ttlbrete has csltaaetsd poterrtlsl
fax bllb a sni a alnlgaa al ptaperq vallsa and
have begin Mm
sort mum.
for hornee od average value In 73 metro areawxxoo fes In taxes. Multiple oHlaist o lm were
which imm a waucar sosneno of next communities (with at beat 6.000 restdarttsl. done for cities wncise boutoarres rrmim
more
years tax 0111.
community. than are school
For sun community. the parosraagea relbct
dtetrrct.
My or School
• market
1994
rrterkst 1995 1 Market
CKV or
Siallppk me"M 1994
market 19951 Mar et
Township dlablot
value
tax
value tax I value Tax
Township
distilet value tax
value tax I value Tax
Anoka L.O.
Hemm* In
Co.
Andover 11;
594.8001
S1.2871
5100.300151.49615.8 %.1162°6
Bloomington
271 I S110.000 : 51.875 '
S115.000 1 52.008 1 4.5%17.1%
151
94AW 1
1,3871
100.3001 1.52315.8
1 9.8
2721 110,0001 7.943 1
115.0001 2.1401 4.5
1102
Anoka 11:
77,0001
9501
79.8001 1.073 13.6
113.0
273 1 110.000 1 2.078 1
115.0001 2,133 1 4.5
12.6
Blaine 11
80,4001
1.0131
83.5001 1.126 13.9
111.2
Brooklyn Center 11! 73.000 950
73.000: 1.0061 0.0
1 5.8
121
80,4001
1.0731
83.5001 1,15613.9
1 7.7
2791 73.0001 1.0281
73,000 l 1.0651 0.0
1 3.7
16:
80.4001
9921
83.500; 1.10013.9
110.9
2811 73.0001 1,010 i
730001 1,0461 0.0
13.6
Columbia Heights 13
69,100:
9021
69.3001 96810.3
; 7.3
2861 73,0001 9521
73,0001 1,1121 0.0
116.8
Coon Rapids 1 t -
80.4001
973!
83.2001 1,084 1 3.5
111.4
Brooklyn Park
111 88.000 ' 1.311 :
89.0001 1.426 ' 1.1
1 8.8
East Bethel 15
69.8001
8101
74.1001 891 16.2
110.1
2791 88,0001 1.4201
89.0001 1.511 1 1.1
6.5
8311
69.8001
7821
74.1001 87716.2
1122
2811 88.0001 1.3951
89,0001 1,484 11.1
16.4
Fridley 11
77.700!
928:
79.6001 1.011 12.4
9.0
Champlin
111 88.0001 1.282
93.000 ' 1.4651 5.7
1142
13'
77.7001
1,028
79.6001 1,14912.4
11.7
Corcoran
279; 108.000 1.854 ;
119.000 i 2.158 110.2
116.4
14;
77,7001
1,040
79.6001 1,10712.4
6.5
2841 108,0001 1,7511
119.0001 2.005110.2
114.5
161
77,7001
9081
79,6001 987 j 2.4
8.7
8771 108.0001 1,7261
119.0001 2.145 110.2
124.3
Ham Lake 11
84.7001
1.012!
89.6001 1.16315.8
1 14.9
8791 108,0001 1.8281
119,0001 2.115 1102
115.7
8311
84,7001
1.0621
89.600 I 1,16815.8
110.0
883 1 108.0001 1.8231
119,0001 1.987 110.2
1 9.0
Lino Lakes 12
97,700:
1,630'
105.600: 1.874:8.1
115.0
Crystal
281 74.000. 1.025
77.000: 1,127 41
19.9
6241
97,7001
1,7281
105.6001 2.088 18.1
120.9
Eden Prairie
2701 150.000 ' 3.1451
162.0001 3.628 1 8.0
115.4
8311
97,7001
1,5971
105.6001 1,82518.1
114.3
2721 150,0001 3.0191
162.0001 3.4281 8.0
113.5
Oak Grove 11
80.600'
1.164
87.1001 1.36618.1
117.4
2761 150.0001 3,3591
162.0001 3,6611 8.0
19.0
151
80,6001
1.2441
87.1001 1.39018.1
111.7
Edina
2701 185.000: 3.824
197.000 ' 4.334 6.5
113.3
Ramsey 11
85.7001
1,089
91.800 1.285-7.1
;18.0
2711 185,0001 3.5371
197,0001 3.8271 6.5
182
7281
85,7001
1.1931
91.8001 1,275 17.1
1 6.9
2721 185.0001 3.6601
197.0091 4.0791 6.5
111.4
Sprig Lake Park 16
78.600:
983'
81.000. 1.090.3.1
;10.8
273 1 185.0001 3.886 I
197.000 4.018 6.5
13.4
�w CO.
280 1 1 3.786 I
197,000 1 4.737 16.5
9.3
Chanhassen 112:5135.0001
S2.716I
5143.6001 53.151 16.4
%116.0°/
2831 185.0001 3,848 1
197.0001 4265 1 6.5
110.8
276!
135,0001
3.0091
143.6001 3.316 16.4
1 102
Golden Valley
270' 117.000. 2.233
122.000' 2.500 4 3
;12.0
Chaska 112
96.0001
1.528 !
101.000: t 1 5.2
;17.2
2811 117,000: 2.185 I
122,000 1 2.364 14.3
182
.791
Hopkins
2701 101.0001 1.817 '
109.000 ' 2.133 ' 7.9
117.4
Dakota CO.
2731 101.0001 1.868 1
109.0001 2.041 1 7.9
1 92
Apple Valley 196! 5112.3001$1.801
1 $116.1001$1.922 13.4%.1 6.7%
2831 101,000 1 1.828 I
109AW 1 2.1021 7.9
1160
1911
112.3001
2.0271
116,1001 2.221 13.4
1 9.6
Made Grove
279: 110.000' 2.011
118.0130 ' 2.264 ' 7.3
112.6
Burnsville 191
109.4001
1.887
114.000; 2.092 14.2
110.9
2841 110.0001 1.9051
118.0001 2.1131 7.3
110.9
1941
109.4001
1.890 i
114.0001 1.958 14.2
1 3.6
Minneapolis
1 78.600 1.206
80.300 ' 1.291 ' 2.2
i 7.0
1961
109.4001
1,6691
114.0001 1.801 14.2
1 7.9
Minnetonka
2701 140.000 2.755
150.000 3.205. 71
116.3
.Eagan 196
112.600,
1.778
118.100: 1.926 i 4.9
8.3
2761 140,0001 2,9461
150,0001 3.2291 7.1
1 9.6
1911
112,6001
2.0041
118.1001 2233 14.9
1111A
2841 140.0001 2.595 1
150.0001 2.974 ; 7.1
110.7
197;
112.6001
1.8341
118,1001 1.94414.9
1 6.0
Mound
277: 92.000 1.490
98.000 1.6491 6.5
110.6
Fan nrigton 192
87,1001
1.387:
91.9001 1.598 15.5
1 152
New Hope
281. 89.000 • 1.402
92.000. 1.502 34
' 7.1
Hasbnos 200
922001
1.364
94.300; 1.512:2.3
110.9
Orono
276! 220.000 5.063
240.000: 5.611 9.1
110.8
Inver Grove Hgts.199
101.100!
1,734:
105.7001 1.864.4.5
73
2771 220.0001 4.7121
240.0001 52121 9.1
(10.6
1961
101.1001
1.5351
105.7001 1,67914.5
1 9A
2781 220.0001 4.641 1
240.0001 52011 9.1
02.1
1971
101,1001
1.5831
105.7001 1.695 4.5
1 7.1
2841 220.0001 4.4431
240.0001 4.974: 9.1
112.0
Lakeville 194
107.700'
1.7961
114.1001 1.93015.9
, 7.4
Plymouth
270: 139.000 2.631
150.000. 3.049 7.9
115.9
1921
107.7001
1.7391
114.100 1 2.00815.9
1155
2791 139.0001 2.620!
150.0001 2.9271 7.9
111.7
1961
107.7001
1.5811
114,1001 1.74615.9
110.5
2811 139.000; 2.571
150.000: 2.868; 7.9
111.6
Mendota Heiohts 197
151.800.
2.734
158.000! 2.832! 4.1
- 3.6
2841 139.000! 2.473 '
150.0001 2.717 ' 7.9
1 9.9
Rosemount 196
101.900'
1.656 :
108.000 1.870: 6.0
.12.9
Richfield
280 81.000 1.232
83.000 1.294 2.5
. 5.0
199;
101.9001
1.8561
108.0001 2.05816.0
110.9
Robbinsciale
281 74.000 1.031
75.000 1.065 1 4
! 3.3
2001
101,9001
1.6491
108.0001 1,909 16.0
115.7
St. Anthony
282. 98.000 1.6 9a
103.000 ! 1.811 51
6.9
S. St. Paul 006
79.6001
1.029
80.100 1.242 10.6
;20.7
SL Louis Park
270 93.000 1.509
97.000 1.706 4.3
13.1
199'
79.6001
12181
80.1001 1,23110.6
1 1.1
2731 93.000; 1.561
97.0001$1.6141 4.3
1 3.4
W. St. Paul 197
93.400:
1.373
94.000; 1.385 10.6
0.8
2831 93.000: 1.520:
97.0001$1.657 1 4.3
1 9.1
ii�tNy CO.
Shorewood
276; 181.0001 4,081 1
196.000 S4.536 . 8.3
111.1
2771 181,0001 3.8041
196.0001$4223: 8.3
111.0
Arden Hills 621: 5132.553152.553 ; $136.2491 S2.660 12.8 %. 4.2%
6231
132.5531
2.7121
1362491 2.85412.8
1 52
Watllfl�IlgtOA CO.
Falcon Heights 623
113.858.
2.154
116.950; 2.280:2.7
5.8
Cottage Grove
8331 $83.300. $1.279 '
585.200' 51.311 ' 2.316; 2.6%
Little Canada 623
105.359:
2.028.
110.594; 2.207: 5.0
. 8.8
Fist Lake
8311 83.9001 1.1421
64,5001 1.1621 0.7
1 1.7
624;
105.3591
2.004 I
110.5941 228515.0
11.1.0
Forest L. Twp.
8311 104.600 1.511
107.4001 1.688 2.7
:11.7
Maplewood 622'
92.3521
1,510
94.1191 1.624 11.9
7.6
Hugo
6241 99.8001 1.6101
105.9001 1.9241 6.1
119.5
6231
92.3521
1.6311
94,1191 1,724 1 1.9
1 5.7
take Elmo
834; 133.700 2.397
140.400. 2.628 : 5.0
1 9.6 .
6241
922521
1,6411
94,1191 1,81711.9
110.6
Malttpmedt
8321 114.1001 1,9741
1192001 2.1231 4.5
17.6
Mounds View 621
85.7991
1,408
87.2361 1.458 1 1.7
3.5
Oakdale
622: 78.800 1.053
79.600, 1.093 1.0
1 3.6
New Brighton 282:
107,7871
1.920
110.4691 1.99912.5
4.1
SL Paul Park
8331 70.5001 903 i
72.7001 9181 3.1
1 1.7
6211
107.7871
1.9051
110,4691 1,98612.5
142
Stillwater
834: 93.600 1.468
97.100' 1.605: 3.7
: 9.3
No. St. Paul 622
82.147
1.167
84.309: 1.266! 2.6
8.5
Woodbury
8331 129.500: 2.4351
133.8001 2.501 3.3
1 55
Roseville 621
103.362:
1.780
105.270: 1.842 1 1.8
1 3.5
Scott CO.
6231
103.3621
1.8911
1052701 1.9761 1.
1 4.5
St. Anthony 282
116.168;
2.286
120.333: 2.397 13.6 6
1 4.9
Pnor Lake
7191 S98.800 : S1.882 i S107.400152.224
' 8.7%11827.
St. Paul 625
74.973:
1.150
77.0221 1.241:2.7
; 8.0
7201 98.800 ! 1.9601
107,4001 2.328 1 8.7
116.8
Shoreview 621
123.497:
2.337
127.418 i 2.454 13.2
5.0
Savage
1911 92.100 1.795 i
100,300. 2.146, 8.9
119.5
621
123.159:
2.4811
1212621 2.631 13.2
1 0.1
7191 92.1001 1,598 '.
100.3001 1,903 16.9
118.1
Vadnais Heights 621 '
119.1591
2.147 !
1212621 2.2151 1.8
! 32
Shakopee
1911 86.300: 1.573
92.5001 1.840: 72
117.0
6241
719.159 1
2.254 I
121262 1 2.469 11.8
195
7201 86.3001 1,470 1
92,5001 1,730 1 72
117.7
White Bear Lake 622.
892001
1.375
91.8101 1.48012.9
: 7.6
6241
89200 i
1.467 i
91.8101 1,63312.9
1113
t3oube: Cou iv assessors em
rarsettrs
While Bear Twp. 621
6241
108.4271
108.4271
1.855;
1,9431
113.0451 1,98514.3
113.0451 220814.3
' 7.0
Str Tribune pupheydane FdeOrrrn
�
113.6
Reeer , awlnsnea, roe
Klemm
111
ITJ
I\
O1;IA. n1l
A
o
I°
0)
City of Edina
NOTICE OF CLOSED SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Edina City Council will hold a Closed Special
Meeting on Wednesday, September 7, 1994, at 6:15 P.M. in the Manager's Conference
Room, Edina City Hall, for the purpose of discussing litigation against the City.
BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL.
Marcella M. Daehn
City Clerk
08/29/94
City Hall (612) 927 -8861
4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 927 -7645
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 -1394 TDD (612) 927,5461
r
CITY OF EDINA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 25, 1994
TO: Mayor & City Council Members
FROM: Ceil Smith
SUBJECT: David Hembre Veteran's Preference Proceeding
On August 23, 1994, 1 received the findings of the Court of Appeals in the David
Hembre Veteran's Preference proceeding. As you may recall, the attorneys
representing the City met with you prior to filing the City's appeal of the Commissioner
of Veteran's findings in this matter.
The court in its action, has affirmed the Commissioner's original award which was to
pay David Hembre back pay, with offset adjustments totaling $106,724.71, plus interest
at a rate of 6 %. Additionally, the City must pay PERA contributions of $19,288.15.
It is the recommendation of staff that you meet with the City's attorneys prior to the
September 7, 1994 Council meeting to discuss the options that remain.
PlI GiiiiiiTEL
l=RO` I'1,iAKIN ) "FH1S OPINION Ott OI:DER P!. :BLIC
I PRIOR TO 1 2:01 A.M. ON THE FILE DATE
.. nnr- LX:L' SCI n"?
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1992).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
C6 -94 -563
Department of Veterans Affairs Harten, Judge
Dissenting, Parker, Judge
David P. Hembre, Jeffrey W. Jacobs.
1100 Northland Plaza
Respondent, 3800 West 80th street
Bloomington, MN 55431
VS.
City of Edina, David J. Lauth
Mary Beth Thomas
Relator, Dorsey & Whitney
220 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Commissioner of Veterans
Affairs,
Respondent.
Filed August 23, 1994,
Office of Appellate Courts
Considered and decided by Harten, Presiding Judge, Parker,
Judge, and Schumacher, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
HARTEN, Judge
The Commissioner of Veterans Affairs. upheld the conclusion of
an administrative law judge (ALJ) that respondent David P. Hembre,
a U.S. military veteran who was employed by relator as a police
officer, had been unlawfully removed from his employment when
relator City of Edina placed him on indefinite medical leave
without the hearing mandated by the Veterans Preference Act, Minn.
Stat. 9 197.46 (1986) . The Commissioner further concluded that
relator owed respondent back pay including Public Employee
Retirement Association (PERA) contributions, and required relator
to reimburse respondent's PERA account. We affirm.
FACTS
Respondent David P. Hembre, a U.S. military veteran, began to
work for relator City of Edina as a police officer in 1964. While
on duty in 1986, Hembre injured his knee in a car accident during
a high -speed chase. He returned to work for 16 months, but his
condition then deteriorated so that he could no longer perform the
duties of a police officer. On April 14, 1987, Hembre went off
duty and began using his accumulated vacation and sick pay.
Edina' s doctors examined Hembre and found that he could not perform
a police officer's duties, that he could perform only sedentary
work, and that his eventual return to police work was uncertain.
Hembre applied for a job as a police dispatcher with Edina but was
not accepted.
Hembre's vacation and sick'pay lasted until the end of 1987.
On January 4, 1988, he appeared at the police station in full
uniform, but without the medical certificates that he' knew Edina
required before he would be allowed to return to work as a police
officer. Hembre was told to remove his gun and badge, to refrain
from.wearing a police officer's uniform, and to leave the station
because there was no light work for him. On January 7, 1988, Edina
officials met with Hembre and told him they.could make no decision
without more detailed medical information. Hembre told Edina that
-2-
he probably would be having knee surgery; the surgery was performed
in April 1988.
--'For the next two years, Hembre was unable to work. Hembre
wrote to Edina in May 1990, but did not respond to the City
Manager's reply letter asking him to call concerning the
possibility of employment. In October 1990, Hembre filed a
petition with the Department of Veterans Affairs seeking a
determination that he had been unlawfully removed, and in December
1991, an ALJ so determined. Edina then offered to find Hembre a
suitable job, but he declined. In March 1993,. the ALJ recommended
that Edina be ordered to pay Hembre back pay from January 4, 1988
through February 18, 1992 (the parties' stipulated end date) and to
reimburse Hembre's PERA account for disability benefits paid to him
during that period. The Commissioner adopted the ALJ's conclusions
and recommendation; Edina petitioned for certiorari review.
D E C I S I O N
In considering questions of law, reviewing courts are not
bound by the decision of an agency, and need not defer to its
expertise. St. Otto's Home v. Department of Human Servs., 437
N.W.2d 35, 39 -40 (Minn. 1989). Whether a removal has occurred in
violation of the Veterans Preference Act is a question of law.
Gorecki v. Ramsey County, 437 N.W.2d 646, 649 (Minn. 1989). Since
the facts here are stipulated, this court's review is de novo.
1. Removal.
No person holding a position by appointment or employment
in the several counties, cities, towns, school districts
and all other political subdivisions of the state, who is
a veteran separated from the military service under
-3-
honcrable conditions, shall be removed from such.position
or employment except for incompetency or misconduct shown
after a hearing, upon due notice, upon stated charges, in
writing.
Minn. Stat. §- 197.46 (1986) , the Veterans Preference Act. The
Commissioner adopted the ALJ's conclusion that Hembre was removed
from his position of employment with Edina when he was placed on
medical layoff on April 14, 1987. In his memorandum, the ALJ
observed that the facts here are "strikingly close" to those in
Myers v. City of Oakdale, 409 N.W.2d 848 (Minn. 1987).
Myers, like Hembre, was a veteran and a police officer who was
injured while on duty, placed on indefinite medical leave of
absence, and informed that he would be placed on active status if
and when he was ever again declared medically fit to perform the
duties of a police officer. Id. at 849. Oakdale argued that since
the opportunity existed for Myers to return to his job as a police
officer, he had not been removed within the meaning of the Veterans
Preference Act._ Id. at 850. The supreme court disagreed.
Oakdale's argument imports too rigid a meaning to
"removed," emphasizing forni at the expense of substance.
[U] nder the Veterans Preference Act, a veteran is removed from
his or her position or employment when the effect of the
employer's action is to make it unlikely or improbable that
the veteran will be able to return to the job.
Id. at 850 -51. The effect of Oakdale's action was to make it
unlikely that Myers would be able to return to his job. The court
cited evidence showing that: (1) Myers suffered a work - related
injury that was unlikely to improve to a significant degree; (2)
doctors had restricted Myers' activity; (3) Oakdale's decision to
-4-
place Myers on indefinite leave of absence was based on the
doctors' reports; and (4) Oakdale would not permit Myers to return
to his work until the doctors considered him able to perform all
the duties of a police officer. Id. at 851. These facts were held
to support a determination that the effect of Oakdale's action had
been the removal of Myers. Id.
The Myers facts are analogous to the case before us. The
parties stipulated that
La] s of the end of December, 1987, neither Mr. Hembre nor
his doctors had any idea when, if at all, he would
improve his physical condition to the level at which he
could perform his regular duties as a police officer.
One doctor wrote that Hembre was unable to do regular police
officer duties such as climbing stairs or using heavy equipment;
another found Hembre would need a job that 'put no stress on his
left knee and enabled him to sit most of the time. The parties
also stipulated to Edina's. policy that,
in order to return to work from an illness or injury an
employee must have his doctor's report approving such a
return and the employee must then also have the report
and approval of the City's doctor.
Hembre's situation parallels that of Myers.'
'Edina attempts to distinguish Myers on the grounds that
Oakdale placed Myers on indefinite medical retirement because
medical information showed his condition was unlikely to improve,
whereas Edina could make no decision relative to Hembre's status
because it lacked definitive medical information. However, Edina
ignores the fact that the Myers standard is not what the city did
but rather the effect of what the city did.- The effect of Edina's
making no decision was to keep Hembre from working, which
constituted removal within the meaning of the Veterans' Preference
Act. Myers, 409 N.W.2d at 850 -51.
-5-
a
Myers also holds that when a veteran - employee is removed
• because of physical inability to perform a job, that employee is
"incompetent" within the meaning of the Veterans Preference Act,
and is entitled to a hearing. Id. at 852 -53. Edina's argument
that Hembre's removal was caused by his own inability to work
rather than by Edina's action is irrelevant: the issue is not what
caused Hembre's removal, but rather, that he was entitled to a
hearing before he was removed.
2. Damages.
The Commissioner awarded Hembre back pay from January 4, 1988
to February 18, 1992 at a police officer's salary, including PERA
contributions at the 12 percent police and fire rate. Edina argues
that since Hembre was not able to perform a police officer's work
prior to April 1988, and was not able to perform any work from then
until April 1990, he was not entitled to receive compensation.
However,
a veteran cannot be removed- -i.e., discharged - -from his
or her public employment except for incompetency or
misconduct "after a hearifig." The hearing must come
first, then the discharge. Until discharge, the veteran
is entitled to be paid.
Mitivng v. Wolff, 342 N.W.2d 120, 123 (Minn. 1984). Since there
was no hearing, there was no discharge, and Hembre was entitled to
be paid.
Edina argues that Hembre is not entitled to back pay after
April 1990, when he became able to work, because his failure to
work constituted a failure to mitigate damages. Hembre, however,
became employed by Alpine Air products in April 1990. The fact
-6-
that the job did not prove lucrative does not mean that Hembre
failed to make a reasonable effort to mitigate damages.
[T] he employer carries the burden of proof that the employee
could have obtained other employment." Henry v. Metropolitan Waste
Control Comm'n, 401 N.W.2d 401, 406 (Minn. App. 1987). Edina
attempts to meet this burden by asserting that Hembre did not seek
other employment opportunities with Edina. Hembre testified that
he sought a position as a dispatcher in 1987, but was not
interviewed. The parties stipulated that Hembre hoped to be
assigned to light work when he reported to the police station on
January 4, 1988, but was told that nothing was available. The
chief of police testified that no light work was contemplated for
Hembre, because light assignments were reserved for police officers
who were expected to return to full police duty.' By the time Edina
.did offer Hembre light work in 1992, the ALJ had determined that
Hembre had been wrongfully removed and the parties had agreed that
the time limit for his damages would be February 18, 1992. Edina's
offers after that date are irrelevant to the issue of damages.
r
Edina argues that the ALJ erred.in using the 12 percent police
and fire rate rather than the lower general rate to calculate
Edina's $19,288.15 back pay contribution to Hembre's PERA account.
Edina asserts that if Hembre had been working during the back pay
period, he would not have been working as a police officer. The
Veterans Preference Act, however, mandates that until discharged
following a hearing, veterans shall be treated as if they were
still employed. See Mitlyng, 342 N.W.2d at 123. Treating Hembre
-7-
as if he were still employed means treating him as a police
officer, which, in turn, means contributing to his PERA account at
the police officer rate.
Minn. Stat. § 353.656, subd. 4 (1986) provides that,
[n]o member (of PERA] shall receive any disability
benefit payment * * * when during the period of
disability, there has been no impairment of salary.
During the period of his disability, Hembre received PERA
disability payments totalling $60,128.17. Following the ALJ's
recommendation. that Hembre receive as back pair his fall salary less
the PERA payments, PERA asserted its right to be reimbursed. The
Commissioner ordered Edina to reimburse Hembre's PERA account.
Edina attacks the Commissioner's order on procedural grounds,
arguing that the Commissioner lacked authority to address the
reimbursement issue because there was no hearing on it, and
therefore no evidence was presented on whether reimbursement of the
PERA account is necessary to make Hembre whole. We do not see this
as an evidentiary issue. Hembre was made whole by the award of
back pay less the disability Payments from PERA. The statute
mandates reimbursement of .PERA for these payments. Obviously,
Hembre will no longer be whole if he reimburses PERA, since the
payments have already been deducted from his back pay award. Edina
is not entitled to save $60,128.17, because Hembre collected PERA
disability benefits.
In summary, we agree with the Commissioner that Hembre-was
wrongfully discharged in violation of the Veterans Preference Act.
The Commissioner correctly ordered that Hembre receive back pay and
-8-
PERA contributions at the rate commensurate with his status as a
police officer, and that Edina reimburse his PERA account for
payments made during his disability.
Affirmed.
9 y���s,
�9fy
PARKER, Judge (Dissenting)
I respectfully dissent, because the decision of the
Commissioner as to back pay appears contrary to' the stipulated
facts. That remarkably detailed agreement consisting of 97
paragraphs in 23 pages reveals the following: Hembre was on
voluntary medical leave from April 14, 1987 (Stip. 1 2); prior to
January 4, 1988, when he said he was reporting for work as a police
officer, he had, in the fall 1987, formally applied for disability
pension benefits (11 20) ; when he applied, he had no intention of
returning to work (11 22) and his physical condition due to the
injury had deteriorated considerably 1 11); in the fall of 1987
he was advised by his doctor that major reconstructive surgery was
necessary (1I 5) . Thus, from April through December 1987 he was
unable to perform the duties of a police officer (11 6) On January
4, 1988, he was aware that he was required to have a doctor's
report approving such a return to work (1 32) and he had no such
recommendation (1I 31) ; Mr. Hembre did not report to Dr. Cohan ( for
the city), or to city official6, the results of the treatments,
examinations or tests by his doctors (including the MRI and
recommendations for major knee surgery) made subsequent to Dr.
Cohan,s examination in August, 1987 (1 33) ; on January 4, 1988, he
knew he would require. major knee reconstructive surgery and that
there would be a considerable period of rehabilitation (y 43) and
he knew he could not perform the regular duties of a police
officer. (¶ 41) He had the surgery in April, 1988 (1 71), and he
understood he was to initiate the process of returning to work of
any kind by submitting his doctor's recommendation of his
D -1
availability (1I 65). Hembre's attorney informed the city manager
that it would be best to wait for the results of Hembre's doctor's
evaluation in late September, 19.88, and that the attorney would
contact him (1I 74). After January, 1988, the city never received
a statement that he wished to work and a medical. opinion that he is
able to come back to work in any capacity (¶ 78). In May, 1990,
Hembre wrote the city manager inquiring about a reduced capacity
job with the city (1I 92). The city manager responded and asked
Hembre to contact him regarding his employment interests but Hembre
did not respond (1I 93); At the time of the stipulation (July 9,
1991), Hembre's physical condition would-still not permit him to
perform the regular duties of a police officer (1I 97).
On this statement of facts the Commissioner awarded Hembre
back -pay from January 4, 1988, to February 18, 1992, at a police
officer's salary. I do not believe that the evidence permits such
an award and would reverse.
D -2
r
City Name: EDINA
Contact Person: John Wallin, Finance Director Phone Number: 927 -8861
Public Hearing Reconvened Hearing
Date: Tuesday, November 29, 1994
Time: 7:00 P.M.
Location: Edina City Hall - Council Chambers
4801 W. 50th Street
Edina MN 55424
Phone Number: 927-,8861
Please return this form in the enclosed envelope as soon as possible but
no later than September 15, 1994. .
enne'Din
August 15, 1994
Marcella M. Daehn
Edina City Hall
Council Room
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424 -1394
Dear Ms. Daehn:
ountyEmnlover
As required by the Truth in Taxation legislation, we are notifying you of the public
hearing dates set for the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, Metropolitan
Special Taxing Districts and the school districts to adopt the levies for taxes payable
in 1995:
Taxing District
Hennepin County
Metro Special Taxing Districts
School District 270
School District 271
School District 272
School District 273
School District 280
School District 283
Original Hearing
December
13,
1994
December
5,
1994
December
1,
1994
December
1,
1994
December
6,
1994
December
6,
1994
December
6,
1994
December
6,
1994
Reconvened Hearina
December 20,
1994
December 12,
1994
December 15,
1994
December 8,
1994
December 14,
1994
December 19,
1994
December 19,
1994
December 15,
1994
We are now asking that you set your city's dates and times for the original budget
hearing and for a reconvened hearing. Although we will only be printing the original
hearing date on the notice, the reconvened date needs to also be set at this time. The
hearings may be held anytime November 29, 1994 through. December 20, 1994,
A VOW
We ask that upon determining the dates, times, places and phone number for
taxpayers to call, that you fill out the enclosed form and return it to us in the envelope
provided. Minnesota Statutes 275.065 requires it be it'd> `<a ``i`' >tii
Hennepin County General Services
Taxpayer Services Division Recycled Paper
A -600 Hennepin County Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 -0060
i
Truth/Taxation hearing letter
August 15, 1994
Page 2
The expense of preparing and mailing the Truth in Taxation notices is to be divided
in thirds among the county, school and city. Each city's portion of the third will be
determined by the number of parcels in your city. You will be billed in December after
the mailing costs have been determined.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 348 -5100.
Sincerely,
Patrick H. O'Connor, Manager
Taxpayer Services Division
V,*\q K" ly-
Marie A. Kunze, Manager
Property Tax Section
PHO:MAK:djt
enclosure