My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/11/05 Budget Study
Public Access
>
City Council Minutes
>
2005
>
05/11/05 Budget Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/20/2005 12:32:40 PM
Creation date
6/20/2005 12:32:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Meeting
Supplemental fields
Minutes - Date
5/11/2005
SESSIONNUM
1965
TYPE
BUDGET STUDY
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
<br />Budget Study Session <br />May 11, 2005 <br /> <br />Edward J. McCarthy, 7101 Princeton, said he did not care whether economic <br />development was “black” or ‘white” but he is concerned that economic development and <br />money were the issue at stake. He did not see expansion or moving of the transfer <br />station in the Economic Development Plan. He asked if the City wanted to pursue this <br />issue. He sees it as a tremendous economic development instead of tax increases. If <br />this were moved and expanded and generated revenue, it would be good for the City. <br /> <br />Secondly, he asked about performance measurement, noting the activity of the police <br />department and how it affected his home insurance premiums. He sees this as a <br />performance measurement to use to evaluate the police department and the fire <br />department. Mr. Ollendorff responded that perhaps the “City had not bragged enough <br />about it” and Mr. McCarthy agreed and suggested that it should be used in the budget <br />to justify changes. <br /> <br />Mr. McCathy said he hoped changes in the Planning Department would be approved <br />and then he said the contingency fund fee was “a little tight” at one per cent. The City <br />Manager said once the budget is approved, the contingency will disappear and that <br />th <br />money will be allocated. This will be discussed on May 18. He provided additional <br />comments about the 15 per cent, $3 million dollar reserve fund and how it operates. He <br />does not think that both a reserve and a contingency fund are needed. Many cities do <br />have both. This preliminary budget shows a contingency, but it will be allocated later. <br />The City’s budget is typically very tight and amounts must be justified by the various <br />departments to the exact amounts. Mr. Wagner commented that revenues, not <br />expenditures, are volatile. Mr. Ollendorff said if there is a separate contingency fund <br />each year, he would argue that a big reserve is not needed. Finally, Mr. McCarthy <br />asked about a formatting issue and why “one column cannot be annualized?” <br /> <br />Ms. Welsch said she mistook contingency with reserve. <br /> <br />ADJOURNMENT <br /> <br />The Budget Session adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next installment of budget study <br />th <br />sessions would be on May 18 in the Library Auditorium. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />__________________________________ <br />Leisha Meine Forsythe, City Clerk <br />Page 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.