Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />DECEMBER 12, 1990 <br />The Administrator reviewed the Cable TV portion of the <br />budget which is funded through the franchise fees that <br />the City receives. <br />The Administrator reviewed the Capital Projects Fund <br />which is not tax supported. Fees for this fund are <br />generated through special assessment projects or Tax <br />Increment Financing projects. The Administrator <br />reported that the City is planning to purchase a <br />heavy-duty mowing system for parks from this Fund. <br />The Administrator reviewed the Park Development Budget <br />and reported that in 1990 the City reduced its <br />commitment to the Park Development Fund from $72,500 to <br />$24,000. Commitment to this Fund will depend on excess <br />over expenditures in the 1990 General Fund Budget. <br />Fahey pointed out the donations that the City received <br />for the purchase of park land. These purchases were <br />made at no cost to the taxpayers. Fahey also pointed <br />out that the City is not budgeting for any park <br />equipment purchases in 1991. <br />The Administrator reviewed the City's impact to <br />property tax bills in 1991 assuming a 7.12% increase in <br />the City's property tax levy. The Administrator <br />pointed out that due to State action on how assessed <br />values are used, homes with market values of $120,000 <br />or more will have decreases in the City portion of <br />their property tax bill. The same is true for <br />commercial property. <br />Tracy George asked about a change in numbers from the <br />information that was handed out at the Budget workshop <br />meeting. <br />The Administrator replied that the change is due to the <br />fact that the City now has accurate Homestead Credit <br />amounts to work with and had used estimates initially. <br />One business owner reported that he calculated about a <br />$5,000 increase in his property taxes from 1990 to <br />1991. <br />Blesener presented the Council with information <br />comparing tax levies from 1980/81 to 1990/91 showing <br />the City's portion of tax versus County and School <br />District. Blesener also showed comparisons of <br />increased market values over the past ten years, and <br />decreases in the City's portion of property taxes. It <br />was pointed out the #1 tax status attributed to Little <br />Canada is because of the County and School District. <br />Page 5 <br />