Laserfiche WebLink
MEMO <br />TO: David Hartley, City Administrator <br />FROM: Noel J. Graczyk, Finance Officer <br />DATE: July 28, 1987 <br />RE: 1987 Federal Revenue Sharing Entitlement Appropriations <br />Because the City has not expended the appropriations it made <br />during 1986 for all of its Federal Revenue Sharing Funds and <br />because it appears that the City may not expend some of the <br />appropriations it made during 1987, the City currently has excess <br />Federal Revenue Sharing Funds available. Enclosed is a copy of <br />the 1987 Budget showing the 1987 Federal Revenue Sharing <br />appropriations. I've included on the sheet a listing of the <br />actual expenditures that have been incurred during 1987. <br />At the present time it appears that the Federal Revenue Sharing <br />fund after interest is credited will have a remaining balance of <br />approximately $21,639. These remaining funds will be fully used <br />if any of the additional entitlement appropriations indicated on <br />the sheet were expended during 1987. <br />It must be noted the City Council must appropriate no later than <br />September 30, 1987, all Federal Revenue Sharing funds it <br />maintains or the funds must be returned to the Federal <br />Government. <br />It is recommended the City Council take this into consideration <br />when considering the possibility of expending any of the <br />additional entitlement appropriations already approved. The <br />Council may also wish to consider reappropriating some of the <br />1987 Federal Revenue Sharing Funds. <br />In order to reappropriate the City would have to hold a public <br />bearing on the funds. This public hearing has been included in <br />the proposed 1988 budget development agenda and is tentatively <br />scheduled for August 11, 1987. <br />I would recommend the City give consideration to using these <br />additional Revenue Sharing Funds to address the data processing <br />concerns the City currently has. At the present time the <br />computer is functioning well but does not provide sufficient <br />storage capacity or processing time for the current work load in <br />expected storage requirements. In order to address these data <br />processing needs the City would probably have to consider the <br />following: <br />26 <br />