Laserfiche WebLink
MEMORANDUM <br /> DATE: October 7 , 1980 <br /> TO: Mayor and Councilmen <br /> FROM: Jim Fornell, City Manager <br /> SUBJECT: 1981 Budget and Tax Levy <br /> Attached are some final recommended modifications to the proposed <br /> 1981 budget and a resolution certifying the 1980/81 tax levy. <br /> The preparation of a budget is an art, not a science. It is impos- <br /> sible to project with perfect accuracy every expense and revenue. - <br /> Staff does . its best to control expenses and maximize revenues but <br /> through a fiscal year some budget transfers are necessary, in part <br /> due to changing needs. A contingency of $25,00.0 is provided as a <br /> last resort for some of these transfers , should revenues not exceed <br /> the estimate or should appropriations be inadequate and there are no <br /> other appropriations which are projected to be underspent. <br /> While budgets are inexact, I feel more comfortable with the analytical <br /> • quality of this and recent budgets due to improvements in format and <br /> monitoring. Data supports this : from 1977 to 1979 the City had <br /> general fund budgetary surpluses; from 1972-1976 we had deficits. <br /> (_In 1977 we had a surplus only because of the transferred assets of <br /> a terminated debt ,service fund'. ) The number of budget transfers has <br /> also been reduced. <br /> This budget is very lean. There is very little margin for error in <br /> estimates in an effort to produce a fiscally conservative budget. <br /> Reserves are adequate, with the exception of the sewer fund, and <br /> can provide a margin .of relief, if necessary. Some revenue sources <br /> are cause for concern: General Revenue Sharing, the liquor operation <br /> profits, and intergovernmental revenue sources. The "bottom line" <br /> is that one cannot have a highly conservative budget yet expect to <br /> provide a considerable margin for error and a very high service <br /> level. I would characterize this budget as conservative but prudent. <br /> The property tax consequence should be insignificant. According to <br /> mid-September assessed valuation figures , our mill levy should be: <br /> proposed levy 519 ,988 = 10 .28 mills <br /> assessed valuation 50 ,580 ,272 <br /> This compares with a 1979/80 mill levy of 11.197 mills. Homesteaded <br /> valuations have increased however, but the homestead tax credit has <br />