Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />SEPTEMBER 11, 2002 <br />and increase the levy to make up for this loss of funding. However, the City has set <br />aside the equivalent of one year's LGA funding in reserves. A increase in the levy <br />would be needed to offset this loss for subsequent years. The Administrator pointed <br />out that the Governor's plan involved more than just LGA funding, and called for a <br />market-based reduction. In the Governor's budget proposal this past spring, the total <br />reductions to the City would have been $90,000 for 2002 and $140,000 for 2003. <br />The City Administrator pointed out that after many years of anticipation, the City's <br />tax supported bonded debt falls to zero in 2003. Fahey noted that years ago the City <br />levied for infrastructure improvements including sanitary sewer, water main, the <br />water tower, and storm sewer improvements, rather than using special assessments as <br />many other cities did. This levy supported bonded debt provided for a false <br />comparison of tax rates with other cities, given that the costs for these same <br />improvements were reflected in assessments rather than in the tax levy. <br />The City Administrator noted that while the City has no tax levy supported bonded <br />debt, it has other debt that is supported through special assessments and tax increment <br />districts. The Administrator noted that staff has followed the recommendation of the <br />Debt Levy Reduction Committee and has allocated $228,000 (a portion of the dollars <br />previously going to pay bonded debt) toward the Infrastructure Replacement Fund. <br />Fahey asked about the $24,775 carry-forward amount from the 2002 Budget. The <br />City Administrator noted that those dollars were used several years ago to bala~tce the <br />budget and maintain a zero percent net levy increase. This amount has been carried <br />forward for the past 4 or 5 years, and never used because the budget has traditionally <br />operated with a surplus. Based on the recommendation of the Debt Levy Reduction <br />Committee, that amount is being built into the levy and eliminated without creating <br />any pain for the taxpayers. <br />The City Administrator discussed the revenue portion of the budget, noting that <br />building permit revenues are budgeted for conservatively given the potential for <br />variance in revenues based on availability of land, market conditions, etc. <br />Fahey suggested that the Council consider including a contingency in the budget to <br />cover the potential loss of LGA funds. The City Administrator indicated that he has <br />discussed this issue with other city managers, and it is their position that providing <br />these contingencies will make it easier for the State to eliminate the dollars. <br />Montour asked about service fees. The City Administrator reported that one at~ea that <br />he would like the Council to consider is a service fee to cover the cost of fire <br />inspections. He noted that the Fire Marshal spends a lot of time conducting fire <br />inspections of businesses in the City as well as multiple-family housing. The Council <br />discussed this issue at length and the consensus was that a service fee be considered <br />for fire inspections. The City Administrator indicated that he would put together a <br />