Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> MINUT);S <br /> CITY COUNCIL <br /> SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 <br /> The Finance Director noted that Street Department expenditures are <br /> projected to decrease by 7.09%. She highlighted several key factors in <br /> this portion of the budget, including that newer employees will receive <br /> step increases, there is the addition of wages for apart-time street sweeper, <br /> and increased fuel costs. <br /> The Storm Sewer expenditures were reviewed with the Finance Director <br /> noting a projected decrease of 19.66%. Street bighting expenditures are <br /> projected to increase by 2.25%. Recycling/Sanitation is up by 9.23%, and <br /> City Garage costs are projected to be down by 10.38%. Keis asked about <br /> the cost of a new Public Works Garage. The Finance Director indicated <br /> that those costs have been included in the Water/Sewer Capital <br /> Replacement Fund. <br /> The Parks & Kecrcation expenditures were next reviewed, with a <br /> projected decrease of 0.13% noted. The Director reported that staff is <br /> looking into the possibility of contracting some of the field maintenance <br /> work in an effort to reduce costs further. <br /> The Director next reviewed Community Service expenditures projected to <br /> decrease by .67%; and Shade Tree expenditures projected to increase by <br /> 31.82% given the need for additional boulevard tree trimming in 2010 <br /> needed to eliminate vehicle conflicts. <br /> The Director indicated that overall General Fund expenditures are <br /> projected to increase by .38%, or $11,511. <br /> The Director noted that gambling revenue is down which has impacted the <br /> City's Capital Improvement Fwrd. The Director suggested that the <br /> Council may want to consider some way to replace this fund revenue. <br /> Blesener noted that other budget funds will be reviewed at a subsequent <br /> workshop given these funds do not impact the levy. 'The Finance Director <br /> replied that that was correct. <br /> 'The Finance Director then pt•esented possible levy scenarios which she <br /> reviewed in detail. The first option would be to levy to a balanced budget <br /> and eliminate the debt levy. This would result in a Gross Levy increase of <br /> 2.97% and a Net Levy increase of 3.1.1 The second option levies to a <br /> balanced budget, eliminates the debt levy, and increases the Capital Levy <br /> in order to protect the Local Government Aid Special Levy. This option <br /> results in a Gross Levy increase of 4.98% aild a Net Levy increase of <br /> 5.43%. The Director noted that the first option does not fully protect the <br /> City's ability to levy back LGA cuts, while the second option provides <br /> that protection. <br /> 5 <br /> <br />