My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2004-05-12 Budget Study
Public Access
>
City Council Minutes
>
2004
>
2004-05-12 Budget Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/6/2004 2:50:13 PM
Creation date
6/17/2004 11:50:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Meeting
Supplemental fields
Minutes - Date
5/12/2004
SESSIONNUM
1920
TYPE
BUDGET STUDY
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Session 1920 <br />May 12, 2004 <br /> <br />for total rehabilitation, including new front facade. We cannot afford any of those <br />choices currently, at least not this year. Mr. Ollendorff explained that there are various <br />kinds of bond issues. One is borrowing against sales tax revenue. If the voters voted it <br />in, it continues, and the City can continue to borrow against that source of revenue. The <br />more common option is for voters to vote in favor of a property tax-based bond issue. <br />In this instance, there must be a new vote for each bond issue. For example, if the <br />voters allow the City to borrow $2 million to preserve City Hall and $500,000 for the bath <br />house, and allow the City to borrow $2.5 million to attach the necessary property tax to <br />pay off the bonds; that requires about a 12 cent property rate to pay off $2.5 million <br />dollar bonds. The voters would vote for this increased property tax rate. The School <br />District just did the same thing on Proposition B, which was a new bond issue, so the <br />voters had to decide. It was not an increase, if voters voted "yes", the amount remained <br />the same. If they voted "no", the taxes would have decreased. It is accurate to say "no <br />tax increase if you vote yes." This is not a "no-tax increase" because a property tax has <br />not been levied for the bond issue. <br /> <br />4010 - The Library <br /> <br />The Library Board recommended the draft budget and the City Manager had no <br />questions about the figures. The number of library-users has increased considerably by <br />opening facilities to non-resident users. <br /> <br />7000- The Central Garage <br /> <br />No changes reported. <br /> <br />2700 - University City Loop Parking Garage <br /> <br />The City Manager reported the garage collects enough revenue to pay the annual <br />operating expenses, with some left over to direct towards the debt. There are several <br />different loans: the one fully-covered by the rent revenue is the one from the bond issue, <br />one from the general fund, one from the IDA, and the City is nowhere near raising <br />enough revenue to pay-off the loans the City paid for this project. <br /> <br />Councilmember Wagner asked if the garage was used and if there were statistics to <br />show how it is used, and Mr. Ollendorff said that he would obtain a report. Mayor <br />Adams said the only way to increase revenue was to increase fees, and that might <br />decrease usage. <br /> <br />C-104 - C111: TIF, LCRA, and IDA <br /> <br />The only budgeting in these pages is shown on C-111. Mr. Ollendorff explained that <br />last year the City asked IDA to contribute $192,000 towards Phase One of the Olive <br />Enhancement and the subsequent year of budgeting, $72,298 is to be directed towards <br /> Page 8 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.