|
<br />1('2
<br />'J
<br />
<br />TUESDAY
<br />
<br />MAY 18, 1976
<br />
<br />burdens on us. In short, our expenses are soaring and we don't
<br />have the revenue to pay for them. I have stated before that I
<br />feel the City began living over its head as early as 1972
<br />when we began balancing the budgets with windfalls from split-
<br />tax billing money, electric department surplus and revenue
<br />sharing funds. It is obvious to me that we are use to a
<br />standard of living which we just can't afford anymore. And,
<br />I think we have to do something about it this year, or the
<br />problem will worsen in the years to come.--rt won't be easy.
<br />Last year we raised taxes, cut transit service and raised
<br />fares, raised electrical rates, cut personnel and cut garbage
<br />service which citizens still complain about. This year I
<br />think we need to make further cuts. It will take detailed
<br />study and cooperation from city administrators, department
<br />heads and the citizens. We may have to cut personnel. We
<br />may have to reduce services. But, I think we have to get
<br />our operating expenses to a point where we can pay for them
<br />with normal growth of the tax base without scrambling around
<br />for windfall monies each and every year. Certainly we will
<br />discuss these matters in the next few weeks and I hope the
<br />citizens will come before Council and voice their opinions.
<br />
<br />A few more points:
<br />
<br />1. Next year the Water and Sewer Funds will show a deficit
<br />of $131,000.00 which must be absorbed by the Water Fund
<br />surplus. The following year, debt service requirements
<br />will decline by $262,000.00. However, even if we exclude
<br />debt service payments, the profits of the two funds have
<br />declined 49% since fiscal 1974 - $201,000.00, due to
<br />decreased demand and a rise in expenses caused mostly by
<br />State regulations. We discussed this matter in February,
<br />and I think we should address the problem again during
<br />the coming weeks.
<br />
<br />2. I am opposed to using the $312,000.00 APCO refund to pay
<br />for operating expenses. It is a stop-gap measure which
<br />will enable us to balance the budget for twelve months,
<br />but when next year's budget rolls around, we will face
<br />the problem of finding $312,000.00 from somewhere else.
<br />I have no objections to spending the $312,000.00 because
<br />we have built the surplus of the Electric Department to
<br />$490,000.00 from $64,000.00, but, I would rather see the
<br />refund spent for non-recurring capital expenditures such
<br />as the $50,000.00 bucket truck needed by the Electric
<br />Department, the $76,000.00 needed for re-bui1ding
<br />Brookda1e Road, mini parks requested by the citizens in
<br />public meetings, or other one-time projects of this
<br />nature.
<br />
<br />"....._"-"._---_.".~...._~~_._;'".---"'""""-.,~.,~,..._--_.._---_._~---"-".",,.~,-",..'~;- ,,,,,. ~-,... "",,-.._"--_. ".,
<br />
|