Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MEMO December 11, 1998 <br /> To: Honorable Mayor and City Council <br /> From: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator <br /> Re: December 14, 1998 City Council <br /> Here's the agenda for Monday's meeting: <br /> Council Business - Item 7A - Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 623 for 1999 Waste <br /> Water and Water Rates: Bruce can respond to questions and comments regarding the new rates. <br /> This is the second reading as well and will require a roll call vote for approval. <br /> Item 7B -Public Hearing regarding Ordinance 624 for the 1999 Long Term Financial Plan: <br /> This item has been reviewed as part of the budget discussions. It is the second reading and it too will <br /> require a roll call vote for approval. <br /> Item 7C- Consideration of Ordinance 622 regarding the setting of the Franchise Fee for 1999: <br /> At the November 30 public hearing the City Council agreed by consensus to up the gas and electric <br /> franchise fee from 2.5% to 3% for 1999. The change in the city's revenue budget for 1999 was <br /> estimated to be an additional $31,000. After the November 30 meeting, Bruce determined after <br /> talking with NSP that the new rate would not be implemented for two months meaning the city's <br /> anticipated revenue would be the$31,000. If the Council has any inclination to not go to the 3% on <br /> Monday, it may want to finish discussion on the budget options and the levy prior to adopting <br /> Ordinance 622. <br /> Item 7D - Consideration of Resolution 5283,Adopting the 1999 Tax Levy and General Fund <br /> Budget: Based on the November 30,the Council directed the city administrator to balance a budget <br /> that was based on a 3%franchise fee and a 5%levy increase. The resulting $25,000 (approximate) <br /> budget deficit can be eliminated with changes made in the community service officer position,the <br /> front office or receptionist position and the contingency fund. It has been suggested that since the <br /> CSO position will be a police department position, that the city should wait for a new police chief <br /> or policing option to determine changes to improve traffic enforcement. Either eliminating the CSO <br /> or cutting it back is an option. Whether the Council is still concerned about traffic management <br /> relative to this position is something you may want to discuss. Another option is to reduce in all or <br /> part the front office personnel budget. As I stated at the November 30 meeting, I would prefer not <br /> to hire a full time position,a receptionist,in order to maintain some personnel and expense flexibility <br /> in the coming year. I have office changes in mind that may keep any additional help costs to less <br /> than full time anyway and would not want to lock into something that will be harder to cut this time <br /> next year. These two areas, either in full or in part could be made to balance the budget. If the <br /> Council were to not increase the franchise fee as it decided to November 30, these two areas would <br /> be my recommended expense cuts in full. <br />