Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2000 Budget <br />August 26, 1999 <br />Pae-e 2 <br /> <br />. When you look at the levy limit information from the state and the tax levy data <br />page that is at the end of this packet, you can see that the 2000 budget proposal is <br />approximately $390,700 under the levy limit. <br /> <br />EXPENDITURES <br /> <br />All of the departmental budget pages were not available at the 7/26 worksession. <br />All of these sheets are now available, and are attached for your review. These <br />budget sheets follow the summary page which provides 1999 adopted budget <br />information along with the proposed 2000 figures. In the final budget document, a <br />number of these budget worksheets will be combined into one page, (i.e. City <br />Council and Cable TV will be combined into the Mayor/Council budget). <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Expenditures are proposed in the amount of $5,940,400. Nothing has changed in <br />this 2000 budget proposal, but this amount is more than what was indicated at the <br />7/26 worksession. The reason that this amount is more is due to a minor math <br />error, a low estimate for police wages, a mistake in the City Hall debt payment <br />amount, and the omission of the recreation transfer for the ice arena. I knew going <br />into the 7/26 worksession that the expenditures were not finalized, and accordingly <br />were provided in a hand-written format, plus most of the 7/26 worksession <br />concentrated on revenues. <br /> <br />When you compare the expenditure proposal to the current 2000 revenue projection <br />of $5,701,100, you end up with a budget gap of $239,300. In addition to this <br />amount, we still have an ice arena budget gap of $64,500 for a total problem of <br />$303,800. <br /> <br />Also attached for your review is a personnel page which provides you with <br />information on the total cost of the requested additional employees. These <br />employees are already in the departmental budgets, so any position which is not <br />approved would help close the budget gap. Additionally, the City Council should <br />note that a 3 percent increase for cost of living purposes amounts to a general fund <br />expenditure (excluding the police union employees) of approximately $87,150. This <br />means that each percent increase equals approximately $29,050. This expense is in <br />the City Council contingency fund which is proposed at $106,650. This budget may <br />need to be increased, especially if the council is thinking about including a 3.5 or 4 <br />percent COLA to improve our "95 percent of metro average" status that was <br />reviewed in June. The council should further note that 72 percent of the total <br />general fund expenditures are in the personal services category. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Also attached is the capital outlay page. This page was distributed at the 7/26 <br />meeting, and most of the capital outlay expenditures are outside of the general fund <br />and are in the equipment certificate and equipment reserve budgets. The council <br />