Laserfiche WebLink
<br />LO <br /> <br />THURSDAY <br /> <br />JUNE 19, 1975 <br /> <br />It appears to me that Council can choose from three alternatives <br />in order to balance the budget: <br /> <br />(1) Require City Administrators to Make Additional <br />Personnel Cuts: <br />City Administrators have cut personnel and it <br />is my understanding that additional cuts are <br />forthcoming. They state that these cuts will <br />cause a slight decrease in services, but <br />hopefully, increased efficiency will offset <br />this; however, City Administrators state that <br />additional cuts will, in their best judgement, <br />cause a significant decline in City services. <br />They have also advised that in many departments, <br />because of Federal and State regulations, cuts <br />in services cannot be made. According to City <br />Administrators, if Council wants further cuts <br />in personnel, Council must determine what services <br />to sacrifice. <br /> <br />(2) Leave the nominal tax rate on real estate at the <br />present rate of $1.90, or a slightly lower rate, <br />instead of the $1.85 rate: <br />Every Councilman is aware of how unpopular this <br />will probably be. In previous budget sess~ons <br />all five Councilmen agreed on a $1.85 tax rate. <br />There was disagreement among Councilmen on <br />spending priorities, but not on the $1.85 rate. <br />At $1.85, if a person lives in a home valued at <br />$25,000.00 this year, and his assessed value <br />increased 25%, his taxes will increase by $61.88 <br />per year, or $5.16 per month. If Council leaves <br />the rate at $1.90, real estate taxes will be 2.7% <br />higher for citizens than at the $1.85 rate. A <br />person in a $25,000.00 home will face an increase <br />of $71.25 in taxes instead of $61.88, an additional <br />$9.37 per year over the $1.85 rate. The difference <br />in revenue to the city between the $1.85 rate and <br />the $1.90 rate is approximately $55,000.00. <br /> <br />The third alternative is to use additional Revenue-Sharing <br />Funds to Balance the Budget: <br />Most of the Councilmen including myself have <br />publicly stated that they oppose the use of <br />Federal Revenue-Sharing Funds to pay for operating <br />expenses, for two reasons: (1) The City has <br />no assurance that the federal funding will <br />continue; and (2) Revenue-Sharing Funds should be <br />used for capital expenditures. There was <br />disagreement among the Councilmen as to how <br />much of next year's $385,000.00 Revenue-Sharing <br />Allotment should be used to pay for operating <br />