CC_Minutes_2011_0912 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 12, 2011 Page 24 Mayor Roe noted that the 2012 budget needed adoption; and that the 2013 budget was what would be ultimately addressed in December. From a planning perspective, Mr. Miller advised that a biennial budget adopted in December was for those planning purposes but would have no legal standing, with an annual budget needing formal adoption again in 2013, as per state statute. Mayor Roe suggested that concentration be on the statutory requirements for 2012 and the not-to-exceed levy, with additional time available for further refinement for final adoption. Councilmember Johnson suggested that the City Council not just stay at the 3.4% levy increase, but consider setting the not-to-exceed levy at 4%to allow more dis- cussion on the larger picture; specifically leaving room for more discussion on the PIP. Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10928 (Attach- ment A) entitled, "Resolution Submitting the Preliminary Property Tax Levy on Real Estate to the Ramsey County Auditor for the Fiscal Year of 2012;" as amended to increase the not-to-exceed levy percentage to 4% over the 2011 levy amount; for a total amount of 15,291,245. Councilmember McGehee referenced her personal budget review for the biennial budget discussion, included in the meeting packet (Attachment F); and expressed her support for ongoing funding for CIP. Discussion ensued on Councilmember McGehee's 2012 and 2013 options as out- lined on the attachment; with Mr. Miller clarifying that enterprise funds (e.g. wa- ter, sanitary sewer, storm water) could be funded from property taxes, but clari- fied that from a historical perspective, the City had funded them solely through their rate structures; and further clarified that Mr. Miller's annual interest payment included principal and interest. Councilmember Member referenced the $700,000 projected interest needing to be paid since infrastructure needs were not addressed in the past; and opined that that was a pathetic situation. Councilmember Pust sought further clarification in her attempts to track page 2 of the memorandum with budget summaries (Attachments D and E) for tax- supported and non-tax-supported funds and her inability to reconcile them. After further discussion, it was found that the Attachment D was missing several lines at the bottom, creating the confusion and inability to reconcile the memo- randum with the attachments. Mr. Miller apologized for this discrepancy, and demonstrated how the documents tied together: City Manager restored $287,230,