Laserfiche WebLink
c <br />c <br />c <br />TO: <br />FROM: <br />DA'IE: <br />Mayor I’etcrson and Council Members <br />Ron Moorsc, City Administrator <br />August 20,2004 <br />SUBJECT: 2005 Budget Tax Levy Alternatives <br />Tax Levy Alternative l.evels <br />At the August 3 budget worksession, the proposed 2005 budget and tax levy were reviewed. The <br />budget reflects an effort to address a number of deferred needs, as well as to fund a number of special <br />projects, while managing the impact of the tax levy on property owners. The budget rellects a tax levy <br />increase of 8.25%. The Council requested that stalTprioritize the deferred needs and special projects, <br />and provide recommendations regarding alternative tax levy increa.ses (8%, 6%, and 4%). The tax levy <br />alternatives, and staffs recommendations regarding expenditure reductions related to each levy <br />alternative, are shown on the attached table titled Tax Levy Alternatives and Ilxpenditurc Levels. <br />Staff Recomme nds Maintaining Initially Prop os ed Levy <br />It is the strong consensus and recommendation of the management team that the levy' be maintained at <br />the initially proposed level. Tliere are three key factors driving this recommendation, f irst, both the <br />part-time rinance/l.T. position and the additional police investigator position were approved in the <br />2003 budget. The filling of these positions was delayed while the Legislature dealt with the State <br />budget deficit. When the legislature cut State Aids to cities and enacted strict levy limits, which would <br />have made it very difficult or impossible to fund the positions in 2004, the positions were left unfilled. <br />'I'hc expiration of levy limits now enables the flexibility to provide the necessary funding for these <br />|H>sitions. <br />Second, there are a number of additional deferred and upcoming needs, both short-term and long-tenn, <br />that are only partially addre.s.sed, or not addressed at all, in the propo.scd budget. Prior to a proposed <br />budget being presented to the Council, the budget requests from all departments are prioritized and <br />winnowed down to those that are essential. A number of initiatives and needs that merit funding were <br />excluded from tlie budget in an ctlbrt to hold the levy increase to a level that would be acceptable to the <br />Council and the citi/ens. <br />Additional long term funding of necessary' public improvements, such as major street rehabilitation and <br />stormwater drainage improvements, additional funding for vehicle and equipment replacement, as well <br />as additional police staffing needs, will need to be addressed in future budgets. It is important that the <br />C'ity takes a substantial step towiu-d increased funding at this time, both to address a substantial portion <br />of the deferred needs, and to put itself into a position to be able to continue to address the remainder of <br />the defeiTcd and upcoming needs in fufac budgets. <br />niird, the propo.scd budget is providing a v cry substantial bang for the buck, fhe budget eiubles major <br />progress to be made in meeting stalling r eeds, training needs, equipment replacement needs, and street <br />*- a '.iU i i ill