5.2. & 5.3. SR 12-10-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Additionally at the July 2 meeting, the City Council made budget adjustments for city recreation, the drug task force officer, police prosecution services, and discussed GIS services and ice arena bleachers. At the September 4, 2001 City Council budget meeting, details on the impact on the levy limits and the state-aid changes were presented, however; the city had not yet received county information on the impact of the property class rate changes. Nonetheless, on September 4, 2001, the City Council approved the proposed maximum levy for 2002 and this amount, per state law, was certified to the county by September 15, 2001. At the September 4, 2001 meeting, the City Council agreed to move a number of equipment purchases out of the general fund and into the equipment certificate program and to fund these expenditures with tax revenues. Also, on September 4, 2001, the City Council cut the requested CSO position, continued its discussion on the GIS issue, and became aware of the funding request in order to preserve the small theater. At this meedng the budget gap was reduced to $111,600. By the November 13, 2001, City Council budget worksession, the city had obtained market and property value information from the county. This data indicated that, based on the proposed maximum levy amounts, the city and county tax rates were going up significantly while the school tax rate was going down significandy. These changes were expected. Overall, it is estimated that all property owners will see a decrease in the amount of taxes that they pay. At the November 13 meeting, the Council accepted a number of miscellaneous budget cuts and revenue increases. The two biggest changes called for not adding an environmental assistant position and using landfill revenues to finance part of the city's composting program. Consensus on the budget changes by the City Council resulted in a budget gap of $18,600. In December, the City Council needs to balance the budget and approve its final tax levy amount. The $18,600 budget gap has increased as more of the 2001 actual year-end figures come into focus for such items as insurance (we had a re-evaluation by our new insurance agent, Mary Eberly) and telephone expenses. Additionally, technology continues to be a less than predictable expense as the two new election precinct counters have different software than the existing seven older machines and, of course, these older machines now need to be updated. The attached budget summary pages show the Council how we have moved from the July 2 situation to our current status. The second page of this attachment shows how our current budget gap can be eliminated. Some of the changes are based on revised estimates, most are budget reductions, and one is moving an expenditure into 2001 from the 2002 proposal. Overall, most of the changes are relatively modest and staff will be prepared to discuss these in as much detail as desired by the Council at the December 10, 2001, meeting. Based on the December proposed changes, staff is presenting a balance budget for 2002 in the amount of $7,215,500. This reflects a $745,500 or 11.5 percent increase over the adopted 2001 budget.