Laserfiche WebLink
general fund budget; levy no more than 40% of the tax capacity levy rate; and to put 30% into a <br /> fund to pay for road projects, over time. Mayor Ramsey stated roads are important and nothing <br /> has been saved for road projects for 30 years. He stated he is not interested in a franchise fee and <br /> thinks roads should be paid from the general fund budget. <br /> Councilmember Tossey stated that is not what the City has been doing. He asked why the <br /> Council allowed the City to get involved in the Joint Fire Board if it was not willing to hold off <br /> budget decisions until those discussions are held. He also asked why the HRA built a parking <br /> ramp without having an apartment attached to it, thinking the City often times gets the "cart <br /> before horses." Councilmember Tossey stated he does not want to eliminate fire staff if the City <br /> will end up being the lead agency. He stated he also does not support a franchise fee or to tax <br /> residents more. <br /> Councilmember Elvig stated the City has to be careful with road funding, noting it reduced the <br /> budget by $500,000 with the municipal center refinancing. He urged the Council to keep its goal <br /> in mind, not keep moving the target; and to assure there is a clear vision for budget discussions. <br /> Councilmember Strommen stated she has the same concern as Councilmember Elvig. If the <br /> Council sets a budget goal, it should be done so collectively by the Council and not a lone <br /> member. She noted the Council had directed the City Administrator to come back with <br /> recommendations to meet a set target. If the focus is on roads, she questioned why the Council <br /> just discussed using the majority of the TIF allocation for F &C instead of road projects. <br /> Mayor Ramsey .indicated he understands it needs to be based on consensus of the Council, not <br /> his direction alone. He stated he is frustrated because he is tired of hearing that things will get <br /> better in the future because the City still needs $3 million a year to construct roads. <br /> City Administrator Ulrich stated the Council's direction was to first complete budget discussions <br /> so a target was identified and the Council could determine services it wants to provide, level of <br /> cuts from the general fund budget, and then determine the franchise fees to put into play. City <br /> Administrator Ulrich presented potential additional revenue enhancements. He noted the City <br /> does not have annual street maintenance funded ($595,000), and it needs to be determined how <br /> to fund that on a yearly basis. <br /> The consensus of the City Council was to retain the receptionist position, request staff for <br /> additional input, and to discuss the budget target at the next Work Session so it can be <br /> determined whether the City can backload positions. <br /> Finance Officer Lund addressed cash flows. She indicated that the 2013 budget, with all the cuts <br /> proposed, would result in a $1.4 million positive balance conditioned on the municipal center <br /> being refinanced. In the following years, the amount goes down because there would be no 2012 <br /> debt service savings and TIF districts would be coming back on line. She suggested the Council <br /> discuss whether to consider applying dollars in the positive amount towards road projects to <br /> reduce franchise fees. <br /> Councilmember Backous stated he supported that suggestion <br /> City Council Work Session / February 28, 2012 <br /> Page 4 of 6 <br />