7.0. SR 08-25-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Budget Worksession Memo August 25, 2003 Page 12 of 13 moves to outside of the levy limit, then the amount previously inside the levy limit ($150,000) can then be transferred to general fund activities. Clearly, by moving this levy to outside the levy l/mits, there is a tax increase to our property owners as we are using more taxes. By including $100,000 in the tax levy resolution outside of the limited levy (listed as 2003 improvement bonds), I am showing the Council what I believe to be the worst case tax levy scenario for 2004. If these PRP projects take place every two or three years and we fund these projects over time by way of bonds, then another street levy would show up in a few years. We need to discuss how these levies can be balanced against such issues as the length of the bonds, the total cost of the projects, the appropriate use of the reserves that have been generated by taxes, and similar issues. Growth Related Revenues The three main growth related revenues are building permits, building/heating permits, and plan check fees. The 2004 figures are based on 90% of the 2002 actuals. These projected 2004 levels are less than the actual amounts received in years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 but are above the amounts actually received in any of the years in the 1990s. A slight increase could be put into these budget line items but I am leafy about getting these figures too high and becoming too dependent on this source of revenue. If the revenues do exceed the actual amounts at the end of the year, then the Council can always decrease the transfers in from the reserves in order to balance out the revenues. Host Fees This is the big new revenue source for 2004 and a "wild card" in our budgeting process. No host fee funds are in the draft budget at this time. A projected amount of $290,000 is based on 90% of the 2002 actuals as related to the 25¢ per cubic yard that was previously designated for waste abatement purposes. This revenue source would make balancing the 2004 budget much easier. The city may want to place some of these monies into a capital reserve for needed projects or in case the annual funding level decreases or simply goes away at some point in time. We should not get our general fund too dependent on this money. Rese~es In this draft budget the reserves (within the transfers category) are projected in a similar amount to the adopted 2003 budget. Other Other revenue issues that the Council could consider is to reevaluate the need for a gas franchise fee. This fee was proposed to replace the tax levy part of the funding for the PRP. Also, we are moving very carefully and slowly with the concept of a police administrative citation program as this looks like it will be a State Legislative issue in 2004. Finally, the city could consider charging the schools a prorated share of our election expenses based on the ballot length dedicated to school issues. The 2003 general fund revenues (which includes the shifting of the street tax levy) are projected in the amount of $7,619,550. This reflects a $75,850 decrease from the June 2003 amended budget and a $68,350 decrease from the original 2003 budget. When considering LGA cuts, the 2004 revenues budget reflects a $568,250 or 8% increase from the June budget.