1990.12.03 CC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MINUTES _FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DEC�h1EaER _. _.�__ �:_y`�i ► BUDGET" HEARING Mayor Atkinson called the budget hearing to order at 7:10 PM. PRESENT: McAllister, Olson, Vail, Atk::inson City Administrator, t:::en Huber City Finance Officer, Ron Otkin City Clerk:, Mary Ann Creager ABSENT: Jesinski PROPOSED 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET ( RESOLUTION) Pursuant to the Truth in Taxation laws, a public hearing was held on Monday, December 3, 1990 to review the revenue and expenditure budgets of the general fund proposed for 1991. The appropriate notices were. published in the City's legal newspaper, and a copy of the budget was posted at City Hall for review by the general public. The proposed budget being recommended by the City staff reflects a balanced budget in the amount of $908,381.00. This represents a 1.6% increase in spending over the City's 1990 budget of $893,793.00. There are no major changes in the City's budget, with the exception of the full-time Finance Director position, which has been a 32 -hour per week, position in the past. As has been the case in the past, the City staff projected revenues conservatively, and expenditures liberally, in preparing this budget. The utilities budget calls for revenues in the amount of $124,476 and expenditures of $161,575. Mayor Atk::inson opened the public hearing for public comment. Approxi- mately 50 people were present for the public hearing, and the budget questions were directed mainly at the budget for clerk::/administrator. Although there were several questions, there was no objection to the 1991 budget. McAllister made motion. Vail seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION 1990-38, RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR THE 1991 FISCAL YEAR. VOTING AYE: McAllister, Olson, Vail, Atkinson VOTING NAY: None Motion Carried. 1991.► TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 1991 To fund the general fund budget, the City staff is recommending a tax levy increase in the amount of $53,840, which is up 6.9% from the 1989 tax levy collectible in 1990. The $53,840 tax levy increase can be explained as follows: 1. $14,588 increase in general fund spending. 2. $23,542 for replacement of 1990 and 1991 LGA cuts. 3. $15,710 increase debt service for Installment Purchase Contract. Just under half of the proposed increase in tax levy is a result of local government aids tat%en from the City after the City's tax levy was approved in 1990 and what has been certified to the City for 1991. It should be noted that the state has made three major cuts in LGA that have affected