11-09-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

has dropped to 3.33% and the net levy stands at 3.91%. (Please keep in mind that the reductions above started at a gross levy increase of 5.33% and a net levy of 6.25 %.) To achieve a drop of approximately 1/z% in the levy, for further reductions to the levy, we need a combination of decreased expenses or increased revenues totaling about $12,015 for each 0.5% of levy reduction. Addition Levy Reduction Options: One new option to consider relates to the publishing of the floor agenda in the Little Canada/Roseville Review. That costs us $109 a month in 2015 and will likely increase for 2016. The Review has informed us that they have moved up the deadline for submitting the agenda for publication from noon on Friday's to noon on Thursday's. While this isn't an insurmountable issue, it does require a modification to our agenda preparation process. Also, we could handle agenda availability like we do the Council Minutes whereby we place them on our web page and mail them to anyone who would like a copy. (Currently, we mail five copies of the minutes.) In the case of the floor agenda, we can also readily place it on Channel 16. If we discontinued publication of the agenda, it would save us $1,300 per year. Other options previously discussed that can still be considered are as follows: 1. Eliminate additional hours for Accounting Clerk. We currently budget for about 22 hours per week and the 2016 budget increases that amount by five hours per week. This would yield a total reduction of $6,721 with $2,688 of that attributed to the General Fund. 2. Do not create In-house Planner position. The total cost of this proposal is projected at $4,680 and the impact to the General Fund is $3,077. 3. Do not hire part-time Utility Billing Clerk (in association with In -House Planner position). We budgeted 16 hours a week for this position. The total cost is $16,640 with a General Fund impact of $5,491). 4. If we reduced the hours of the part-time Utility Billing Clerk to 12 per week, the total cost drops to $12,480 and the General Fund Impact is $4,118 for a General Fund savings of $1,373 over the previous option. 5. Reduce administrative costs in the Parks & Recreation Department. The Parks & Recreation Director has indicated hours could be reduced for the Assistants position, maybe as much as a 1/2 time equivalent. If we were to do that, the savings would be about $30,750. Effectively, this eliminates one assistant position (keep in mind one is an employee and one is a contractor). The reduction amount is based on the assistants being budgeted at about 18.5 hours per week. 6. Another option would be to reduce the full-time director's position to %2 time. The rationale for doing so relates to the fact that the Assistants are the primary delivers of programming services. When you consider that registrations have dropped by over by over 45% from 2006 through 2014 and that the Director has indicated he "won't be here much longer" given his ability to retire, it would seem that for the long term benefit of the program, cutting the assistants' position would cause us an even great loss of institutional knowledge and experience. If we were to reduce the Director's position to %2 time, the salary and related benefit savings would total about $47,000. Obviously, this option merits discussion relative to the future direction of the program. 2