2013-10-28 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

maintain its streets, alleys, and parking lots, and the city has taken nearly four million dollars out of its reserves to do just that. Therefore, the Council cannot turnaround now and say that we do not need to pave the free parking lot, even though it is not in good condition and we need to move forward. Ms. Carr stated her major problem right now was the manner in which the information is brought to Council. She stated many times that if she is not provided with the right information she cannot make a good decision. She stated the staff spins that information and disassembles it to make it look different than it is; it then becomes difficult for anyone to make any sense out of it. Ms. Carr stated that after nearly nineteen months everyone should know that she peels back the onion, so she truly understands that the information provided to Council was inadequate and did not provide them with enough details to make a decision with regards to the Economic Development Retail Sales Tax. Ms Carr stated that her only option for gathering answers to all of the things that had been left unresolved was to contact Mr. Walker over the weekend, and that is unconscionable. Mr. Crow asked if staff could provide him with an explanation of what the following statement contained in Budget Amendment Resolution number 1 under General Fund was “Based upon last year’s sales tax receipts and due to the fact that we are going to have a decrease in property values, we are going to increase our projection of $100,000.00 for sales tax receipts”? City Manager Walker stated that the statement is based on the projection that the City’s sales receipts are going to be increased by $100,000. Mr. Crow then asked what the projection was based on. Finance Director Tina Charumilind stated that the projection was based on the year end FY-2013, and the fact that the City’s sales tax had performed better than anticipated. Mr. Crow then asked Ms. Charumilind if she could provide an explanation of what the following statement contained in Bill 9202 was based on: “To offset a decrease of property taxes a projection of building licenses and building zoning fees are being increased by $50,000.00 each”? Ms. Charumilind stated that her projection was based on last year’s volume; which she had no reason to believe it was going to change, and was not related to Bill 9202. She stated that the projection for the building and zoning revenues had been underestimated and therefore it was increased by $100,000. The same held true for the business licenses. Ms. Charumilind stated that an audit had been conducted to ensure that the City collected all of its license fees from businesses. Mr. Crow questioned whether the projection represented an increase in volume or an increase in fees or rates? Ms. Charumilind stated that there had been an increase in volume. With regard to Parking Lot Number 4, Mr. Crow stated that he had seen the detailed projections for the increase, but in one year’s time it has gone from $318,000 to $483,000.00. He then questioned whether this increase of over 50 percent was based on the cost of materials, scope of the project or labor? Director of Public Works & Parks Richard Wilson stated that in the review process by the Green Practice Committee, staff had been asked to add some additional landscaping and permeable pavers to the project, which changed the scope. Mr. Crow asked how much of the $170,000 increase was based on the changes that 14