|
Session 1695, Minutes
<br />May 12, 1997
<br />
<br />we only budget Community Development Block Grant Funds that we actually receive for payment, such as for salaries, etc.
<br />The County handles a majority of the bill paying. Under Sundry Revenue, 680.30, we had budgeted over $240,000, but
<br />we are receiving over $300,000. The City Manager thinks this increase is due to increased parking ticket revenues which
<br />resulted from a new automated parking ticket system. Revenue for newspaper salvage has been disappointing. Hopefully,
<br />the release of the new TreeSaver containers will help this to go up. The price is way down, possibly because there is so
<br />much recycling going on. Mayor inquired as to whether the City is making the state mandated projected amounts of less
<br />waste going to the waste stream. Mr. Ollendorff said that the figures he had were over a year old and that he would
<br />attempt to get updated figures, but as he recalled, the percentage was at the 2096 range and the state wants about 4296.
<br />Mayor Adams stated that Council should probably talk about going to mandatory recycling at the next study session, if it
<br />doesn't get closer to the state level. Responding to Mr. Wagner, Mr. Ollendorff responded that the amount under Sundry
<br />Revenue - 680.40 False Alarms were for fines received for false alarms on home security systems. Brief discussion ensued,
<br />at this point, regarding lateral sewers which are in disrepair and how the City acts to correct the problem. Responding to
<br />Mr. Munkel, Mr. Ollendorffexplained that Continued Appropriation Encumbrances, 690. I I, is committed funds, e.g. unfilled
<br />purchase orders, that are carried over from the preceding year. Mr. Ollendorff concluded the Revenue section, by
<br />summarizing that the $500,000 increase in the City's revenue budget is due to approximately $300,000 from county sales
<br />tax sharing, and the remainder of revenue is from a variety of sources, such as utility taxes.
<br />
<br />Mr. Ollendorffasked the Council to consider putting the local use tax on the ballot next spring. The County wide local use
<br />tax is what would bene~t the City the most, since it represents several hundred thousand dollars for the City, however, last
<br />August, it failed at the polls. Hopefully, the county puts it back on the ballot for a county wide election. Maybe better
<br />campaigning and circulating more educational materials would help it to pass the next time. The second thing that could be
<br />done is to have our own local use tax. Mr. Ollendorff does not know what this would bring in, since the State does not
<br />keep separate records of whose paying the local use tax, city by city. Most cities are putting it on their ballots, and passing it.
<br />When the money comes in, then the State divvies it up amongst the cities. The rate is the same for all cities, set at ¼ of 196.
<br />Mr. Schoomer mentioned that the County and the County Municipal League were working on a joint committee to bring
<br />this tax issue forward. The County wide tax could bring us close to one million dollars.
<br />
<br />(Added at later point in meeting)
<br />Mr. Ollendorffasked the Council to consider two additional revenue items, not mentioned earlier. The first was the
<br />ambulance fee and whether or not it should be raised each year as discussed at last year's budget study meeting. The
<br />second revenue item to discuss is recreation charges. The Council's philosophy, up to this point, was to charge basically a
<br />token fee for swimming lessons and other classes. He recommended having the Park Board and staff review all the
<br />recreation fees over the course of the year. The Council needs to decide what kind of policy to adopt for these recreation
<br />programs. Mr, Norfleet said, responding to Mr. Munkel, that we were getting about $156 - $180 in ambulance fees,
<br />depending on the types of service received. Mr. Munkel asked that we make it a priority to look at our ambulance fee
<br />structure, because it was way below the current market rate. Conversation ensued at this point regarding the charges for
<br />the various recreation programs and the resultant overhead costs which the City has to pay to run the programs,
<br />demonstrating that the revenue for the programs only covers a fraction of the City's costs.
<br />
<br />I 010 - LEGISI ATIVE SERVICES:
<br />
<br />Before starting with the detail for Legislative Services, Mr. Ollendorffdirected Council to a couple of items, which affect
<br />most departments, such as personnel costs which consists ofa 2 - 3 96 general wage adjustment. Inflation, for the last 12
<br />months, was approximately 3%. As mentioned earlier, the actuariai reports have not been received for the Police and
<br />Fireman's Retirement fund, which is supported by tax rate, and the Non-Uniformed Employee's Retirement fund. There is
<br />no money in the budget for these funds. Last year, the City did not have to pay anything in. We increased the bene~s,
<br />because of a small surplus. The estimate of our costs was about $50,000. When the study comes in, we will have to
<br />transfer the necessary funds in order to cover the pension amounts. This money can come from health insurance, which
<br />was budgeted for a 596 increase. The Assistant City Manager, Gregory Rose, negotiated for no increases from both city
<br />insurance providers, so an increase will not be needed. Mr. Ollendorffsaid that the City was advised to expect about a 10%
<br />
<br />
<br />
|