City Council Minutes 2014 10 21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes October 21, 2014 Page 9 of 24 reconstruction. There are no fee increases except for the Nite at the Rec, based on Council discussion. In terms of transfers from the General Fund to other funds he noted there are restrictions on any transfers from the Utility Fund to another fund. The Waste Water Utility Fund made a loan to the Golf Course Fund, which must be paid back with interest. The loan amount is over $1.6 Million and must be paid within 17 years, starting in 2010. Any additional loans to the Golf Course Fund would have to be paid back, with interest over a period of time set by the City Council. He explained as long as the transfers from the General Fund to other funds are for legitimate governmental purposes, it is legal. The General Fund is the least restrictive source of funds, but can only be used for governmental purposes. The City cannot receive more than 10% of revenue in an Enterprise Fund from another source without losing the Enterprise status. City Attorney Light confirmed 10% of the annual revenues received from other state and local sources. If it is exceeded the Enterprise status does not qualify for that year. The fund can requalify in another year. The status is affected on a year -to -year basis. City Manager Fleming explained the Golf Course Enterprise Fund will lose its status this year because it is receiving more that 10% of its revenue from other sources. The golf course will not regain enterprise status until 2016. COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Pro Tem Dalton responded to Mr. Donnelly questions about if the loans from the Waste Water Utility Enterprise were the reason for the rate increases and the answer is no. Mayor Muckle explained most communities are not spending money on capital projects. He supported transferring money from the General Fund to accomplish repairs and those types of capital projects. Council member Lipton opposed cutting Nite at the Rec and stated it is an important program for the youth. He felt there are legitimate reasons for increasing some staff, but some positions could be postponed until 2016 without compromising the quality of life or the efficiency of City government. He questioned the Special Events Parking Plan project and stated Council discussed moving the item to 2016 along with the residential parking permit plan. He favored moving the Neighborhood Plan Project to 2016 to allow the Planning Department and the Community to focus on Corridor Plans. He was concerned about the IT Department's projects including the Enterprise Resource Project and suggested discussion on pushing some projects out to 2016. He addressed the Historical Structure Survey and felt there should be some discussion and advanced work establishing policy before appropriating funds. He addressed the fees for the Recreation Center for non - residents and felt there should be realignment to make sure everyone is paying their fair share. He agreed with Council member Stolzmann on funding for road infrastructure.