02-22-07 PTRC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Some of the ideas were discussed and were determined as not feasible as a sustainable revenue source. The APrC then challenged staff to create projections of potential revenue from the sources that seemed to be sustainable. Investigation into the items that were considered "potential"revenue sources found that each idea, while having merit, had some inherent problems: • Park tax: Impose a tax from sales of goods such as gasoline or similar. Since the APrC has no authority to impose a tax, this idea was immediately deemed"not feasible." • Volunteer"Check Off' on utility bills: When checking with another city who has implemented this program, it was clear that this does not generate substantial revenue. Roseville says that this system has generated"a few thousand dollars" a year and about 20%participation for their parks system. The APrC determined that this, along with administrative costs of tracking such a system, would not sustain CIP projects. • Tax levy funds: While dedicating a portion of the tax levy is desirable, concern was brought up about the distribution of funds, and why parks CIP projects should be funded from the General Fund. Because of levy limits,this would mean a decrease in funding available to fund current General Fund programs. • Mandatory water utility "round up": When projected income was tallied, initial income was determined not to support a one-year CIP project list. With additional administrative costs to handle the program, it was determined that the cost far outweighed the benefit, and the idea was determined as "not feasible"as a sustainable revenue source. There was also an equity issue, since the amount paid per resident would be different for each person; if rounded to the next dollar, a person with a$40.56 water bill would pay$.44, while someone with a$40.98 water bill would only pay$.02. • Park renewal/replacement fee on water bills: While this idea would have generated a reasonable amount of revenue to sustain the CIP and been a reliable, sustainable revenue source, City Attorney Bob Bauer determined this idea had no legal basis to proceed. Thus the legality of the idea determined it to be"not feasible." This analysis meets Council's request to eliminate options that are not legally feasible. A confidential memo from the City Attorney's office reiterates this point,that legally this is not a feasible option. • Charitable gambling proceeds: State statute allows municipalities to receive a 10% contribution from charitable gambling operations within their community. While this system would generate some funds, the total amount would not be enough annually to sustain more than one or two projects on one year's CIP list. Income would potentially range from$24,000 to $40,000 each year, if gambling remains steady. Decline in legal gambling would decrease the amount of income. This idea was determined to not generate enough revenue to be considered a sustainable revenue source. • Increase park dedication fees: This idea will, in fact, generate revenue. It has been the primary revenue source for decades, sustaining CIP projects. Each year, fees are adjusted/increased to reflect market value of land. However, this source of revenue