2002-05-13 (budget) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1840 May 13, 2002 Mr. Ollendorff said that the way to get $400,000 out of next year's budget is by encumbering it this year. REVENUE: Mr. Ollendorff directed the Council to B-7. He said that he would note highlights and answer any questions. Mr. Wagner covered a good portion of our current reserve situation. We have $6.2 million in undesignated reserves starting this current fiscal year and we need to keep in reserve close to $4 million. This year we budgeted to use a little over a million, but we will only need about $600,000. Next year, he had planned to use about $821,000 from this budget, which would leave us with over $900,000 available for future years in excess of the minimum. We will still end the year with a real healthy fund balance. Mr. Lieberman said that the reserve is well over 15% and wondered if it was increased intentionally. Mr. Ollendorff responded that it was intentional and that in the late nineties, knowing that several events would be occurring that would probably take some revenue, the City Council decided that we should build up our reserves. The Census, Internet Sales and Phone Companies refusing to pay utility tax all have played a role in decreasing revenues, so we very purposely built up the reserves over the last four years. Mr. Ollendorff said that this year is not a property tax reassessment year. The property tax revenue is about $80,000. Utility payments are on schedule and the budget for the next year will be similar. Telephone tax continues to slide downward as people continue to move to cell phones or other forms. Mr. Ollendorff said that the last increase for business license fees were about twenty years ago. We have about 50 pages of business licenses, many are specialized and unique. Most business licenses come in two categories. One category is retail and a business pays $1.16 per every $1000 of sales or 1/10 of 1%. The only other community with slightly higher fees was Clayton, most other surrounding municipalities were lower, so he could not justify an increase. The other category is offices and they play a flat rate fee of $35 per year. This fee could probably be increased to $50 - $60. This would probably take a vote of the people, because it is more like a tax than a fee, per the Hancock. We would only want to do this when we have something else on the ballot to justify the election costs. Under City Services, Mr. Ollendorff is recommending a 10% fee increase for refuse collection. This is a valid fee and not a tax and can be increased without a vote of the people. Responding to Mr. Sharpe's concern about senior citizens paying higher fees, Mr. Ollendorff suggested possibly not increasing the senior's fees as much as the regular service citizens. Seniors receive a 10% discount already. We give more services than any other municipality for the cost. Responding to Ms. Welsch's question regarding charging fees to equal overhead, Mr. Ollendorff said that it had been the feeling in the past not to charge the citizens for every last penny, that there was indeed