08/08/96 Budget Work Session - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

2) Review Projected 1997/1998 General Fund Revenues a) Discuss Reliance on and Eventual Weaning ~ Building Related Revenues Ms. Hart noted Exhibit E: General Fund 101 - Revenues by Source. She stated that she left the current ad valorum blank. The fiscal disparity is the only certified number she does not have. This year we have tried to be less aggressive on building revenues. We are trying to wean ourselves away. The LGA - that's a certified amount. HACA - $506,529 will be $505,676. $17,821 is the local performance aid - calculated based on population. She stated that the revenue is relatively stable at the current existing rates. City Administrator Schroeder summarized Exhibit D: 1997-1998 Requested General Fund Budget Changes from Original Requests. He stated that we do not know really what the tax targets will be. We are hoping to come with a budget that does not result in a tax capacity increase - a dollar increase but not a mill rate increase unless you (Council) direct me to do otherwise. Caveats - Haubrich - it seems we will be short on revenues to cover that project. We have not talked about how to cover that. As Ms. Hart mentioned, we know we will have a level of residential structure. It will be smaller this year - we are figuring it in much lower than we say we know will occur so we can wean our reliance. The third caveat - if we eliminate our street maintenance assessment program and we fund it in some other fashion, one would be the tax levy. With these three things in mind, we would like to know where the target is for taxing. Councilmember Peterson commented on a general assessment rather than a project by project. Originally that system was set up because a number of people had improved street but a number of people had non-improved streets. People who did not have the improved streets, did not want to pay for the improvements. Discussion ensued relating to sealcoating and the City's portion for street improvements. They also talked about doing it on a condition basis. Last year Andover did not assess for sealcoating. Mr. Jankowski added that the vast majority of cities do not assess for sealcoating. Sergeant Gustafson commented that with that kind of service capacity - money will have to come from somewhere else. Councilmember Peterson agreed. If we do not special assess it, the money will have to come from somewhere. Ms. Hart noted that the number has to be finalized by September 15 - it cannot be increased after that. Councilmember Peterson stated that Exhibit D is what the City Administrator and the Finance Officer have suggested cutting out to balance the budget. Ms. Hart noted some of the adjustments that have to be made and added that we still have to cut another $120,000. Mr. Schroeder stated that the 3.7 is an extremely arbitrary number. He added that staff felt they needed to show Council the impact of getting this budget done and balanced. Maybe there are some things Council thinks should be cut or some things that should be added back in. We want to know what levy rate Council wants. Councilmember Peterson asked if Council should go below 3.7. Finance Committee/Budget Work Session/August 8, 199~0 Page 4 of 6