6.0. SR 07-26-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2000 Budget July 21, 1999 Pa!!'e7 . discussed), and eliminating the city's dependence on the undesignated reserve funds to balance the budget. . The landfill transfer is from landfill waste abatement fees and is used to offset the expenses for police officers to monitor truck traffic (and debris blowing out of trucks) in and around the landfill...the equipment and program reserve is showing a decrease of $17,150 to a total of $20,000 in 2000. This $20,000 is a D.A.R.E. reserve transfer, in order to offset some of the reduction in the school liaison program. This D.A.R.E. transfer amount was $10,500 in 1999. The reduction of$17,150 is due to no LGA loss being anticipated, because the Tescom TIF District has been decertified...the street reserve transfer remains the same, and these reserves are generated from the landfill fund that is designated for street activities. These funds are used to offset part of the city's expense for the seal coating and overlay program... the NSPIRDF amount has not changed and is applied toward police services to monitor truck traffic and blowing debris from trucks...the development transfer shows a reduction of $22,150. No funds are projected in 2000 from this category. Again, if funds are received from the economic development- development fund, then this will be a direct offset of LGA revenues, and no net benefit will be received...the wastewater treatment plant transfer is projected to increase $2,000 to a total of $10,000 for additional financial/administration work and cleaning services... the liquor store, utilities, EDA, and HRA transfers are projected to remain the same in 2000 as they were in the adopted 1999 budget. The liquor and utilities transfers are significant amounts of money and are, in general, simply transferred into the general fund in order to keep taxes low. Summarv . As presented, the 2000 general fund revenues show no real surprises. It was anticipated that an increase in tax revenues would be needed in order to fund 2000 expenditures. Also, an increase in growth related revenues was expected (although the budget proposal shows larger increases than I originally anticipated), but these increases became necessary in order to fund activities. Regarding revenue decreases, the $27,000 school liaison and the $31,700 (plus another decrease of $28,300?) COPS FAST reductions were expected. Additionally, in the budget process we generally do not plan for the receiving of grants for such things as the Safe and Sober program. Overall the LGA increase is pretty much a "push" against other LGA related decreases throughout the budget. Finally, we never start off the budget process planning to use cash flow reserves (a $25,000 decrease) in order to balance the budget. Hopefully, by the time we have our budget worksession on 7/26 we will have received state information on our LGA amount and our levy limit status.