10/13/03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Sullivan stated the $136,495 HRA levy plus the $63,583 used to fund the acquisition of the Alloy Recovery property equaled the $200,078 the EDA had recommended Council levy. He added every extra EDA revenue dollar was plugged into land purchases. Member Kurak noted the $20,504 appearing in the line item budget for land would not have much purchasing power. Mr. Sullivan responded the HRA levy was there to help the EDA do the things it needed to do. Mr. Sullivan indicated he had also voiced concern about breaking down the miscellaneous items; however, this had been the form presented. Member Gromberg suggested an attachment be included that itemized the miscellaneous items so positions could be defended. Ms. Wald stated the miscellaneous categories could be itemized. Member Kurak indicated she was concerned about the $81,000 set aside for miscellaneous professional services. She stated the EDA was paying for consultants and could not afford to implement their proposals. Member Strommen stated her employer's budget included a narrative explanation of what the miscellaneous categories included. Member Kiefer indicated the $81,000 was not that far out of line when inflation, etc., was considered. Member Kurak asked if another meeting was needed before Council adopted the budget. Member Kiefer suggested the EDA should hold two or three meetings before the budget was adopted. Ms. Wald stated that she and Mr. Sullivan did not deal with budgets; therefore, they currently did not have information for the EDA. Member Kurak asked how figures were calculated for things like electricity. Mr. Sullivan suggested it would be helpful if Council knew what the line items involved. It was asked if a list of questions was being kept. Member Kiefer asked about such items as tires and other vehicle parts. Member Kurak asked why the Alloy Recovery amount was not included in the capital outlay for land. Economic Development Authority / October 13, 2003 Page 4 of 6