Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/10/1985 City Council MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 10, 1985 The SPECIAL SESSION of the City Council of the City of The Colony, Texas was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with the following persons in attendance: Larry D. Sample~ Mayor Rick Harris Councilman Tom Arrambide Councilman Helen Gray Councilman Don Amick Councilman Charles Dodds Councilman and with Councilman Marlene Poole absent due to out of town business, however a quorum was established. 1. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A PROPOSED TAX INCREASE FROM $.38 TO $. 41, WHICH REPRESENTS A 23.7% INCREASE. Councilman Amick made the motion to open the Public Hearing, with a second from Councilman Dodds. The motion carried with all members voting Aye. Citizens Bill Conerly and Dick Weaver presented charts which~they - had prepared, showing a comparison between the Orginal Budget, as presented by Janice Carroll, City Manager, on July 15, 1985, the 1984/85 Budget, the difference in percentage. They also had a chart showing the revenues compared to expenses for the years 1982 through 1986, stating that according to their figures the revenues had always been more than expenses except in the budget year 1983/84. Mayor Sample said he believed the revenues were always more and that there had always been a carry-over. Janice Carroll stated that was correct and the yearly audit would show the actual figures. This chart did show that reveues in 1985/86 will exceed expenditures. Another chart indicated that only three (3) departments in the city had gone over budget in 1984/85. Mr. Conerly then went on to ask specific question regarding the 1985/86 Budget: 1) The contingency fund for 1984/85 is recorded to be $214,690.00, No expenditures for 1984/85 were reported. Why has the contingency fund for 1985/86 been reduced to $127,117.00 and where was the remaining $86,873.00 allocated? Mayor Sample responded by saying that every year since he has been on the Council, the carryover has been budgeted to be less than it was the year before and that so far that has never been the case. He stated that this is a budgeting process and that if the carry over was kept the same from year to year it could be done by increasing taxes more. Janice Carroll stated that it is always best to end a budget year with money in the contingency fund (fund balance at end of year), then that amount is the actual amount that the City goes into the next year with, and that amount is put in again, and when the going through the budget process, that carry over that was not spent is then brought - in to the total revenue for the new year and then it is a totally new decision on how that money should be used. She went on to say that it is very important for the City to have a reserve for contingency for two reasons. 1) We can't always estimate the reveue on the penny and in fact we were short in the 1984/85 year on sales tax, Fox & Jacobs permits and Court. Therefore we need a reserve in case of a major expenditure. If no reserve the City could be in serious financial trouble. 2) The City needs that contingency for a cash flow, since most of the taxes for the City are not collected until the end of the year. (1985) 2) If the debt service payment on the $5,000,000.00 bond issuance can be paid entirely from interest funds why is the bond obligation a direct deduction from other city revenues? Janice Carroll responded; according to Charles Binford, the City can make this year's debt service payment , due in February and August from interest earned on the $1,900,000.00 which is invested from the land sale and the bond funds invested but next year according to the bond payment schedule the debt service payment will be sizeably more than this year, therfore the Council felt it prudent to keep in this year's budget money for that purpose, even though it will not be spent this year. Next year it will go toward making next year's debt service payment. 3) The total proposed Budget for 1985/86 represents $2,859,173.00, that's less the addition of $127,817.00 for the contingency fund. this is $127,517.00 less than the total operating revenue estimated for 1985/86 based on the current rate of $.38 per one hundred dollar valuation. Why then the proposed $.05 increase if the current rate satifies our need? Janice Carroll responded that her original proposal presented on July 15, 1985 represented a $.05 increase, put in for personnel packages. She stated that this did not reflect in the operating budget. Carroll said that through the work sessions, the increase has been cut to $.03. She also stated that the City is coming under on revenue for 1984/85 and that makes a difference also. 4) Given the current tax rate of $.38 considered to be inadequte to satisfy expenses, may the following proposal be considered; A $.02 increase to $.40 would yield a total operating revenue of $3,066,835.00 plus the $81,023.00 anticipated remaining of the 1984/85 budget, would yield a total revenue of $3,147,858.00 which would createan excess of $46,168.00. This proposal would also give your budget, keep your budget in tact as it was originally proposed. Councilman Dodds stated, that is assuming all the revenues come:in as proposed, and that is a big assumption since this year there was a $200,000.00 short fall in revenues. Mayor Sample stated that he does not expect that to happen again, since most of that short fall was due to Beall's Department Store not opening when:it was antici- pated, and the City not receiving as much sales tax as projected. Mr. Conerly said it seemed that the lack of revenue or over-estimated revenue is now coming back on the taxpayer. Councilman Amick said he would agree with that statement if there had not been a carry-over this past year. Amick went on to say that the increase was put in to increase services to the tax payer not to make up the difference in estimated revenue. 5) Personal Auto Allowance of $325.00 , is awarded to select individuals in respective departments. If the payment is made on $.20½ per mile driven, the individual would have to drive approxi- mately 1,585 miles a month, or 75 miles per work day per month, to justify this payment. The payment was $20,700.00 for the 1984/85 budget year and $34,649.00 is proposed for the 1985/86 budget. What is the justification for this type of expense and can it be reduced to a more realistic expenditure? Janice Carroll responded by saying that she personally felt. that $.20½ per mile is low and that the City began this program before the City had money to buy vehicle and before cities had the option to lease-purchase vehicles. Carroll stated that the inpectors, who are required to have a vehicle, do a lot of what is considered heavy driving. That is,a alot of stopping and starting of the vehicles, in construction areas, etc. She stated that to purchase a vehicle costs approximately $228.00 payment per month, (over 5 years) $80.00 a month for gasoline and $50.00 per month for car insurance, for a total of $358.00 a month. These figures do not include any maintenance for the vehicle. She also stated that this year during the budget process the Council had asked that vehicles be purchased for the two inpectors and the Public. Works Director rather than put them on a car allowance. Mr. Conerly stated then that he and Mr. Weaver had noticed that there was no compensation~in the budget for the Mayor and City Council members and that they both felt that the City should compensate the Council and Mayor for all the work they put in, and asked if there was anything in the future plans to remedy that situation. Mayor Sample stated that he would like to recommend that. possiblity sometime in the near future. 0021!, The Mayor went on to say that he to6 felt the Mayor and Council should not be salaried but should be re-embursed for expenses incurred due to the position. Coucnilman Amick commended thee two citizens for their work and diligence. Mike Lynch If the 23.7% increase is based on a $.33 tax rate then why is the Public Hearing called on a $.38 to $.41, which is a $.03 increase, which is not $23.7% and if in fact $.38 is the real thing, what is the true increase? Mayor Sample explained that the rate was set by the appraisal district and that the taxes did not effect homeowners very much but it did effect the land which is in our city limits and lies along SH 121, which was on the tax rolls last year at $5,000.00 an acre, and this year the land is valued at $26,500.00 an acre. Janice Carroll stated that in The Colony $.01 brings in only $40,214.00. She said the $.03 increase represents in revenue, an increase of only $120,642.00. She went on to say that if a house in The Colony was valued at $60,00.00 last year, you paid taxes to the City only of $228.00. She said that if that same house was now valued at $70,000.00 then this year taxes would be $287.00 at $.41 tax rate, which represents a $59.00 a year increase. She stated that she knew of no houses that went up that much in valuation. Another citizen (who failed to give his name) also asked about increased services in the city and how much increase there would be. Janice Carroll responded and stated yes, that with the in- creased personnel in the police department, she felt there would be a definite increase in service in that department in particular. He asked if we could estimate how much cost was inv61ved in answer- ing a call. Carroll stated that is not the way service is measured but was sure it could be determined. Mr. Weaver then requested that a copy'of the final budget be placed in the Publice Library for the general public to view. Michael Leddy suggested that the staff have figures ready in the final form for the public to view before the public hearings. Councilman Amick and Janice Carroll both responded that the original budget was on file in the City Secretary's office for the public to review and had been since July 15, 1985. Also that the work sessions were open to the public. They both stated that it would be very difficult to have a final copy ready for viewing before this hearing since the figures are not yet final. Mrs. Wright was in the audience and commended the Fire Department on a job well done recently at her residence. Councilman Amick moved to set the date of September 16, 1985 for final approval of the budget and also to close the public hearing. Councilman Dodds seconded the moiton which carried with all members voting Aye. Councilman Dodds moved to adjourn this meeting with a second from Councilman Arrambide. The motion carried with all members voting Aye. Mayor Sample adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m. APPROVED: ATTEST: att~i Joannes, ~r [ SEAL]