The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCouncil Minutes - March 25, 2025+0V R G, � 9Z p 1 m '> r 9@C/SHED 198� ....................................................................... Special City Council Meeting Minutes — March 25, 2025 Mayor Jerry Merrill Council Members: Bryanna Johnson Eric Erickson Robert Chambers David Reeser Colin Erickson Mikel Walker 5:oo P.M. City Hall Council Chambers (208) 359-3020 35 North 1" East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org I Engage. Rexburg.org ................................................................................................ City Staff: Spencer Rammell - City Attorney Matt Nielson - Finance Officer Keith Davidson - Public Works Director Alan Parkinson - Planning & Zoning Administrator Scott Johnson - Economic Development Director Deborah Lovejoy - City Clerk Roll Call of Council Members: Attending: Council Member Johnson, Council Member Chambers, Council Member E. Erickson (via Zoom), Council Member C. Erickson, Council Member Reeser, Council President Walker and Mayor Merrill. Finance Officer Nielson reviewed part of the state requirement process for cities to permanently override the 3% budget cap. Elections & Dates Overriding the 3% Budget Cap Overriding the 3% Budget Cap Available to all types of taxing districts • Election Consolidation (I.C. §34-106) Eslm]abng u,e nmx,mom.—m or an overndc • Most elections aro handled oy the county clerk Provide balol • Two (2) year overnda - A dntiicl s corrlbined lu.mr aril pveriirx. lav excrml the y anno language as soon as •you con haMever. final bell. wording simple majority to pass lord's levy Lmd needs to be submitted to the—ly(tes) no later than 60 days Temporary - expires In 2 years Bolow is one way to eslimme ft. maximum P-tax amount of the umber years and 50 deys an odd number years Not all—ed a 3% increase ov>rnde Q be'ae elocbon. Perm nl cvemcktl - 'Ih-a examl. rs h—rii on o hre dislrM w: 14xi to ust an nw,ride 213" majority to pass (80%: for qualdying cities) for as general him (10180; max I-, rela - 0 00241 J"Tuestlay in may Resets the non-exempt portion o! a laxlN dlsll, ra lha dishrl a naxnlwm non-exempt P-lax budget Mess IUnsdnr trAlovnns im• t° Mrmtlar it propedy tax budget rwpl.uamniY„a) is S740.60.7 lnduded in following year 3% calculation Iff,sin involve all county corks Both ore fum-specific • Cannot exceed fund s levy lima (exoepl hgla y o,ol-) • $drools have snnilar IxOYia101i3 fa SUPp18+nMNaI ®II■ lllllll' �®�� Override Cautions Ballot Language Basic Property Tax • ITC is a1Mim, to nnianv la. N d,-b l prow iy ta.+'ola:ed halal in • M.-.agast indudmg levy isles as pad of WON question. eta wiyualao ba11a. are c 00 If vMrrs alipr<,vn lhf. rNn nn lYu!tubor ann the ,a'Ues drgl, Mn YG:tt aaMs my-I.0 §ib-91;1o:ei:rie!. inhrmal"M lhal :s fo he nn lhr ar ,l >t:danx,ir, and ua, uaaat wi Wmle Total budget minus non -property lax revenue equals agwavUd wvy rase world fJ01 genanale (,w UirvrJnm: d rtwxaUy tM &I,., e,rpected Non -band is _ - (I C. §3t•a,4) shall inchx m Inn halve! property tax (P-tax) budget In aP—,—"o+er„aU Me am N eeen of lb-'. noiild lxev ! q,x,.liori a m a a W na<„a n an eta• I>_,•Im Ixx s� I, firm In<. rol. gw`snm sWr_budiMly as wlw+r. • Not affected by tax relief (H82921 H8521) Lx;ae hulkµ•! ncreasas<x lrren ia:ung na•. same an,a;inl . Purlwwwhxh.he low sheltie used axle u'e4x•1ipn, arxf sew raw may W used as pad or an e. mpre Im dam, axnma;ea w li•, cw a e„d, year from Ine law Levy rate computed by dividing the P-tax budget by cI`araa on taxpayer EaLn,mva average annual co511olavpayer i.n the Farn of"am` the net losable value of district • Usa as much slatulay lanyuage as fwssible (I C. §03-802) of S Pe: S1C0,000 er laxa assessed value. Prn year. Benxi on considerMmt♦r such as'exru;d"ne'rnerriU? ranter--sem,l' list k— ., law) <onane,e. aril n,e length of 6—ora>clMm momhs p' yams m whkh hx* ao sex re v x+al w ax..ess. 9 decimal places S 100,000 P-Tax • oat l um'Adnsci vac d vas mean lu imnwmcid ovaindc 11 Icaacirm exrstlna I— of same Woo mar induda addlia,al - T MADISON COUNTY • la\ ( IltieAlVaS ran. ?'ra DWiloY F DMI'Y Ceti, drn:: cal Ae:: -.,y. Sip. ilex aw laa;:aaa 001-000 110 REXBURG _ _ — _ _- — To CA : IL Sri el:l T,1RT Ta, SA'. 2U Sli.n..I t�:b 0+7„1D !1•. ,t ,.l x:rrl.tAatrnu u•.tRult�.t f 7 Sn a?? 17017 hriNCr _.—..—...--- 71r: rfI d ;+7 y{121 fCMal . tai e:rti., Ts, (Ixy..1 ray la. ti.Pavit re; Tan S.Mfil 'yn To. srlxe.I YH u ci'Urs:1..T 1 0 0rJ11!tad7 . tiro*:ua t 0 114"• f0 RF.XEURG Cf.A7 Ta+ 'enwtari r_ f1000Ydre� 71.7 p1ADt5!#1 t10fiARY 7ro t¢xar, IeUO?g5135 ill AaAUltit ii Leta _:v1" BCMG Ia. Ld—r, "fo, 0 00OWMA 7A1 W.I>u ASATF Ts. fit -,Abate 50:1u7+t3+:a3 Ir ftsCnS ;N i,; r, Al.!0 ran Ar�*vCaica. 90ix3219:id4: __.__ _ _-.__._ 70M 8.014i" •►6 T.CS1St• A11n1nR1T1 TU.11ln r o[IF W RATF [ ITIE� ;,^I U: 0lffi: ncpen iC:r ozc) GS :OJ.: t?b6 `,(a.'h:a!1•:L^� co xz TOD1 k,r Cacao:ca:c:d M%i:•. C af%41 lraylo,'m itrt F=d N/-116 C<44 Stall xte<I ra:r.€:p nrr2a:c ; , aloarifl cairn few --ul-ml IMT—, cl :ae ate (agem Fd<uu aP.-:s2 _t :y-1+5;, •a Lm:r !,:I,C.Jf:ofcl^..•'::a::/cPPRSI rc'.. Wilccua F:}'Iot, I•"mead 7rd'0:ui fete Geaecal 16d 421)1 000 Padrn:nJ+]ad Ca:ul:.:; Nil 10,1 :0 L"..: Lm m .3-:603 UK L-fir ,nett of itl+l', :0.0 • ':o Line, l.x]!liqmmirnit ft.'d:]t!.fr `017V (m, Lwaf 4up:arc=l W)Itapt iltt;ad<) 401-66 1*1 Poh<; Rrsc:m! �n-1:' w.koS Tr4 i::naanc; P:rP:aab, n?" •;olma! tiara; a 1^.!Mx ; d-il'S Net Llavt 54ae tlud-ag'^,h+c :0.!tn: Srr Cade 3tans+ra sn G:ecead 6y F-+=<Sh.: a¢aa:c t+. of iota! raix 1 Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the permanent override examples/analysis figures. This option is more difficult to pass because it needs a 2/3 majority vote. The city's budget for 2025 right now on property tax is about 6.9 million. He said he received the letter below from the county on March 12th, 2025, and the net taxable value is almost exactly the amount he calculated for the assessed value. The new budget would be 7.9 million dollars which means a new levy rate of .00357. The new levy increase is .000451223. The increase cost for $1oo,000 of assessed value is $45.00. Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the examples of the costs over 30 years of the net assessed value after the homeowner's exemption section of the analysis. A large apartment with an assessed value of $28,804,700 one-year cost is $12,997 and the compounded 3% over 30 years cost is $618,353• He reviewed those same costs for a townhouse, single family home 1800 square feet, single family home 5726 square feet, and large, big box buildings. Permanent Override Examples/Analysis 2024 City Code Levy (2025 Budget) 0.003128028 Property Tax Budget -General Fund $ 6,932,339 Calculated Assessed Value $ 2,216,201,070 Permanent Override Budget Increase $ 11000,000 New Budget $ 7,932,339 Assessed Value $ 2,216,201,070 New Levy Rate 0,003579251 Levy Increase 0,000451223 Increase Cost/$100,000 of Assessed Value $ 45 Examples of Cost over 30 Years Net Assessed Compounded Value (after HOE 3% over 30 Property exemption) Cost/Year Year Cost Large Apartment Complex S 28,804,700 5 12,997 $618,353 Townhouse $ 323,000 $ 146 $6,934 Single Family Home-1800 sq ft' $ 351,105 $ 158 $7,537 Single Family Home-5726 sq ft' S 848,021 $ 383 $18,205 Large Big Box S 21,853,660 S 9,861 $469,135 March 12, 2025 Mr. Matt Nielson City of Rexburg P. O. Box 280 Rexburg, ID 33-440 Re: 2024 December Market Value Dear Matt: For your records and according to Idaho Code 63-1312(1), 1 am certifying market value for the calendar year ending December 31, 2024. These figures are estimated due to cancellations that may slightly affect the amount_ Your net taxable value is -- Net Taxable Value Operating Value City of Rexburg $2,216,206,683 $ 9,926,031 Finance Officer Nielson said if the permanent levy override were voted upon and approved, the city would not see funding from the override for a couple of years. Council Member Reeser asked if the one -million -dollar levy override would cover future street reconstruction repairs. Public Works Director Davidson replied that it depends on the prices received back from the bids. He has seen the prices ramp up rapidly and hopes those prices level off. He asked the City Council to keep in mind that the sewer line replacement costs are also included in the million - dollar costs. Council Member Chambers asked if LID 54 is completed this year, how many years before the city would have to go back to reconstruct that road again or is the time frame tied to the life of the street? Public Works Director Davidson replied, the ideal life of the street would be 30 years; however, there are streets that have not been reconstructed in 50 years. They are going to need to reconstruct some of the main roads sooner because of the heavier traffic. He said the higher traffic volume roads are going to deteriorate faster. The roads that are needing reconstructed sooner will cause the less trafficked roads to wait longer to be reconstructed. Council Member Chambers said the property owners pay less with a permanent levy override. Public Works Director Davidson replied yes, some homeowners would pay less with the levy override; however, the commercial property owners would pay more because it is based on their property's assessed value. 2 Discussion regarding the increased taxes on residential property verses commercial property. Over the last five years residential property values have increased; however, commercial property values have stayed about the same. Council Member Johnson said she would prefer to start with the simplest solutions to fund LIDs, one of those solutions is the city's street budget. The carryover for streets was 7.2 million this past fiscal year, the previous fiscal year the carryover was 6.7 million and two years prior the carryover was 4.6 million. There is a sizable carryover in the city's street budget. She asked them to review all the street projects that have been earmarked but not completed in that budget year. The City Council decided a few years ago to not LID residential areas as much. She wondered if they could patch the street more and file down the sidewalks. They could also reconstruct fewer streets. She said she would prefer to discuss these other solutions before trying to pass a levy override. Council Member Reeser said he agrees with Council Member Johnson's request to look at the simplest solutions; however, they need to determine the long-term solution for street reconstruction costs because the simplest solutions will only fill the gap in the short term. Council Member Johnson said the City Council cannot control whether a levy passes; however, they can control the city's budget. Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the street carryover amounts at fiscal year-end. He asked the Councilmembers to keep in mind the city has many funds associated with streets. The Street Maintenance Fund 2 illustrated in the chart below is the account used for all the city's street maintenance. The revenue in fund 2 is collected from franchise fees and fuel tax. He said there is never any carryover from fund 2 because the monies left over after the city completes street maintenance each year are transferred to Fund 43-Street Reconstruction and sometimes transferred to Fund 44-New Street Construction, depending on which construction projects are in the capital improvement plan. Finance Officer Nielson said the funds in the Fund 33-Street Impact cannot be used for street reconstruction. State code requires the city to specifically identify projects in the impact analysis and the project must add to the city's capacity. Fund 33-Street Impact are monies from newcomers paying their proportionate share to not reduce the city's service level as the city grows. Fund 43-Street Reconstruction and Fund 44-New Street Construction pay for projects that are in the capital improvement plan; however, sometimes he will use Fund 84-2nd East Moody Construction. Because of the amount of work the city is completing in that area, he added the dedicated fund for those projects. Fund 85-Street Lighting funds can only be used for street lighting. Finance Officer Nielson explained Fund 43 and Fund 44 new street and street reconstruction in the chart below illustrates the carryover amounts that could be used for street reconstruction. He is forecasting the city's levels of sales tax and fuel tax decreasing because the state is forecasting a decrease as well. He pointed out it may appear that the city carried over 7.1 million dollars in the Street Fund in 2024; however, the reality is the city carried over 4.7 million in funds 43 and 44 because the other funds can only be used for specific items. He asked the City Council to consider the carryover amounts from funds 43 and 44 are oftentimes already encumbered, meaning there is a project underway that did not happen last fiscal year, it may happen in October or November which is a new fiscal year. Another factor is there could be a project under design slated for next spring. The city is required to report on the state of future projects. He said the city reports those future projects through the city's five-year plan. The city engineers identify the five years of projects and for 2024 they have identified the city will need 13.2 million dollars to complete those projects without factoring in inflation. Street Carryover Amounts at Fiscal Year End Fund # Fund 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Street Maintenance 33 Street Impact 1,645,147 1,810,800 1,913,834 2,079,431 2,251,793 1,940,201 43 Street Reconstruction 1,041,783 1,803,300 2,038,164 2,861,458 3,919,835 2,332,908 44 New Street Construction 339,066 520,800 65 872,175 834,547 513,331 84 2nd E Moody Construction - - - - - - 85 Street Lighting 331,272 493,600 663,886 843,413 161,069 498,648 Total Carryover Reported to state $ 3,357,268 $ 4,628,500 $ 4,615,949 $ 6,656,477 $ 7,167,244 $ 5,285,088 43 and 44 New Street and Street Reconstruction 1,380,849 2,324,100 2,038,229 3,733,633 4,754,382 2,846,239 Future Projects in 5 Year Plan 12,237,200 8,231,500 6,330,000 10,350,000 13,260,000 10,081,740 Net $(10,856,351) $(5,907,400) $(4,291,771) $(6,616,367) $(8,505,618) $(7,235,501) Public Works Director Davidson cautioned City Council when reviewing the Street Budget, there are large projects being considered, such as the overpass over Highway 20, which city staff hope to apply for federal grant funds; however, oftentimes those grants come with matching funds and when considering a 30 million dollar project that match is quite large. He said having money in the reserve is beneficial when considering large projects. Council Member Johnson said in the 2023 Street Report Budget, the city has earmarked 10 million dollars for projects in the next five years. She suggested decreasing the number of projects planned in the five-year plan and decreasing the number of LIDS in the residential neighborhoods. The city could have saved money by patching Park Street instead of reconstructing that road. She asked if the city 3 engineers could analyze the criteria that determine whether a road needs to be completely gutted or if other measures could be used to fix the road. The city residents are informing the City Council these LIDs are a burden on them and to do something different to fund LIDs. Mayor Merrill explained that one of the biggest complaints from residents during the summer are the condition of the roads. He said he understands LIDs are a burden to property owners; however, the City Council is trying to balance the costs of street reconstruction. The city could reconstruct less roads; however, the longer the city waits to reconstruct the road the more the asphalt falls apart. Council Member E. Erickson asked Public Works Director Davidson about the process of determining which roads need to be reconstructed. Public Works Director Davidson said with the limited funds available in the street budget, it takes the city over 50 years to get around to reconstruct all the city streets. The city has purchased a dura patcher to try and stretch out the life of the asphalt as far as possible. The asphalt in the high traffic volume roads starts to deteriorate quickly once water starts to pond and potholes are formed. There are other forms of street maintenance to try and extend the life of the asphalt such as a chip seal/slurry seal and CRABS process. Public Works Director Davidson shared a situation with one of the garbage trucks sinking up to its axle in a neighborhood road. When patching small sections of road there are some costs; however, patching larger sections of road becomes more expensive. There are neighborhood roads in rough shape; however, city staff have focused on reconstructing main roads based on the City Council's direction. Discussion regarding neighborhood roads needing repairs. Council Member Johnson asked if the city requires the sidewalks to be replaced when they are reconstructing a street. Public Works Director Davidson explained the corner section of sidewalk must be replaced to meet ADA federal regulations. When sidewalks are up against the curb there is a cross slope along the driveway sections. The cross slope must meet the 2% ADA standard, when the cross slope is greater than the 2% that driveway apron must be replaced. The replacement of the sidewalks is based on criteria the City Council has implemented. Council Member E. Erickson asked about non -existing sidewalks. There is a city ordinance requiring property owners to install sidewalks. Public Works Director Davidson replied yes, there is a city ordinance the City Council passed many years ago requiring the property owners to install sidewalks on their property. Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the General Fund and the services the city is paying for with those general dollars which are sales and property taxes. The chart illustrates the actual subsidies of those services from 2022 to 2024. He said he added the 2025 budget; however, because the city is in the middle of fiscal year 2025, he could not show the actual subsidies for that year. He calculated the average per year and included the total average subsidy per year for each of the different services. Finance Officer Nielson explained there are a couple of methods to subsidize. One method is to pay for the subsidy directly out of the General Fund, the other method is to transfer money into the respective fund for that service. The recreation programs subsidy is in Fund 03, in 2024 they were able to decrease the subsidy by about $5,70o. Rexburg Rapids is subsidized mainly for capital replacement which was established from the beginning to make sure the assets are being taken care of. The Recreation Administration Fund is the fund for the positions that run all the recreation programs. Finance Officer Nielson continued to review the other funds for the different subsidies. The Cultural Art Fund includes the Tabernacle, Romance Theater, and Legacy Flight Museum. The average subsidy for the Cultural Arts was about $686,503; however, last years subsidy was large at about 1.3 million dollars because of the repointing of the Tabernacle to the amount of almost $9oo,000. Finance Officer Nielson said the average subsidies for the Police Department are about 5.9 million dollars and last year's budget for police was about 6.4 million dollars. The police budget generally never decreases because of the growth in the city and the personnel growth in that department each year. The costs are primarily operational. The police budget also includes a fund transfer to set aside money for a future building which is part of that analysis. Finance Officer Nielson explained the fire budget is like the police budget in that their budget typically does not decrease. The fire budget is heavier on the capital side than police because they have expensive equipment that they must purchase. A fire truck costs over one million dollars, he pointed out that the 1.7-million-dollar fire budget is the city's share of the three entities. Finance Officer Nielson said the parks and trails budget does not typically decrease as well; however, the city has received a few grants. The subsidy last year for parks and trails was $1,000,037, this year the subsidy is $993,00o. The average subsidy is generally over one million dollars. The city is setting aside a small amount of money for trails and parks capital reserve. The money is being set aside 11 for additional pickleball courts and the conversion of the Smith Park tennis courts to pickleball courts this spring. Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the Airport Fund, it is a 50/50 ownership with the county, and the city averages a $50,000 subsidy, the county's subsidy for the airport is about $50,000, totaling to about a $1oo,000 subsidy. He noted the FAA funds go% of the airport projects, which if they did not fund those projects the city and county's subsidies would be astronomical. Finance Officer Nielson said the golf courses are also a joint venture with the county, it is a 50/50 ownership between the city and county. The golf course subsidy has decreased compared to the prior two years. The city/county is setting aside money to replace the irrigation system at Teton Lakes within the next 10 years. Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the fiber fund. The fiber project was funded through a grant. The city built the fiber ring which led to a private public partnership with Silver Star. They hope to connect all the residents and businesses in the city to fiber. General Fund Subsidies-4 Year 202S AVERAGEPER TOTALAVERAGE FUND ORG OBJECT ACCT DESCRIPTION 2022 ACTUAL 2023 ACTUAL 2024 ACTUAL BUDGET YEAR SUBSIDY/YEAR RECREATION '01 '01499 '4903 FUND TFR -RECREATION PROGRAMS 122,517 78,911 5,728 16,400 $ 55,889 01 '01499 '4923 FUND TFR -R RAPIDS CAP REPLACE 65,004 65,004 25,008 20,000 S 43,754 '01 '01449 RECADM INNET 345,449 316,877 322,109 586,200 5 392,659 $ 492,302 CULTURALARTS '01 '01499 '4904 FUNDTFR-TABERNACLE 119,892 204.599 986,967 400,800 $ 428.064 '01 101499 '4924 FUNDTFR -LEGACY FLIGHT MUSEUM 15,000 15,000 15,000 13,000 S 14,500 '01 '01499 4940 FUNDTFR -ROMANCE THEATER 73,802 172,473 225,071 76,800 S 137,036 0- 01499 4981 FUNDTFR-REXBURGCULTURAL ART 48,754 151,867 109,187 117,800 $ 106,902 $ 696,S03 POLICE 01 �01499 '4908 FUNDTFR -DARE 8,500 8,500 8,500 6,000 $ 7,875 '01 '01499 4932 FUND TFR-NEW CITY/POL BLDG RES 400,000 400,000 425,004 300,000 $ 381,251 01 01420-01425 ALL POLICE DIVISIONS NET 4,362,911 5,166,345 6,120,420 6,406,800 S 5,514,119 $ S,903,245 FIRE '01 '01499 4916 FUND TFR-FIRE STAT BLDG 0 0 0 85,000 $ 21,250 '01 '01499 '4917 FUNDTFR -JOINT FIRE OPERATION 1,313,697 1,491,188 1,936,659 1,818,200 S 1,639,936 '01 '01499 4918 FUND TFR -JOINT FIRE EQUIP 35,000 65,004 64,992 65.000 $ 57,499 $ 1,718,685 PARKS AND TRAILS 01 01499 4939 FUNDTFR- TRAILS FUND 30,000 30,000 30,000 10,000 S 25,DW '01 '01499 4941 FUND TFR-PARKS CAP RESERVE 50,004 210,727 100,000 92,600 $ 113,333 '01 01438-'01442 PARK OPERATIONS NET 776,458 901,270 1,037,807 993,000 S 927,134 $ 1,065,467 AIRPORT-50%OWNER WITH COUNTY '01 '01499 '4947 FUNDTFR- AIRPORTOPERAT,ONS 19,987 16,000 20,OW 18,500 S 18,622 01 '01499 4948 FUND TFR -AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION 7,932 7,944 32,943 22,500 S 17,830 01 '01499 '4949 FUND TFR -AIRPORT RELO. RESERVE 20,004 20,004 10,008 5,000 S 13,754 $ S0,205 GOLF-50%OWNER WITH COUNTY '01 '01499 4950 FUNDTFR -GOLF OPERATIONS 49,100 50,000 25,300 0 $ 31,100 01 '01499 '4951 FUNDTFR -GOLF DEBT SERVICE 25,000 24,996 152,654 60,000 $ 65,663 $ 96,763 FIBER -MOSTLY PAID BYC30AW 01 �01499 4982 FUNDTFR-FIBER RESERVE 3,161,912 0 0 0 S 790,478 01 '01499 4986 FUND TFR-FIBEROPER 72,500 183,842 0 0 $ 64,086 $ 854,564 01 01499 4983 FUND TF-ENTREPRENEURIAL EFFORT 1,000 15,000 0 0 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 TOTAL SUBSIDIES FOR SERVICES ABOVE 11,124,423 9,595,551 11,653,355 11,113,600 10,871,732 $ 10,871,732 OTHER GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENTS FUND NET i;EXPENSES LESS REVENUES) '01408 BUILDING MAINTENANCE NET 55,369 58,257 118,720 65,800 $ 74.537 S 74,537 '01410 HUMAN RESOURCES NET 104,018 11%161 157,107 167,800 5 137,022 S 137,022 01411 MAYOR& COUNCIL EXPENSE ONLY 382,2411 398,169 453,864 564,500 5 449,694 5 449,694 01412 ECONOMIC DEV. ?PUBLIC AFFAIRS NET 356,509 360,112 386,799 444,200 S 386,880 S 386,890 01413 CUSTOMER SERVICE NET 297,920 339,647 379,592 386,900 S 351,015 S 351,015 01414 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY NET 726,409 786,501 867,797 982,600 5 940,827 S 940,927 01415 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT NET 1,007.487 1,025,353 1,080,536 1,147,600 S 1,065,244 S 1,065,244 01416 LEGALNET 301,621 314,004 337,168 373,900 S 331,673 S 331,673 �01417 PLANNING AND ZONING NET 372,899 508,211 527,858 490,900 5 474,967 S 474,967 MISC.DEPT'S MISCDEPTNET 57,159 200.833 57,562 = .100 $ 65,664 $ 65,664 TOTAL OTHER GENERAL FUNDS NET EXPENSE 3,661,634 4.010,248 4,367,003 - - 4,177,521 4,177,521 TOTAL NE? EXPENSES ALL GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENTS 14,786.057 13,605.799 16,020,358 15.784,800 15,049,254 15,049,254 REVENUES 01411 3870 OVERHEAD CHARGES 2,212,800 2,020,508 2,199,264 2,570,100 S 2.250,668 S 2,250,668 01411 OTHER REVENUES 3,805,453 1,398,991 2,106,804 2,607,400� 2,479,662 S 2,479,662 01411 3000-3004 PROPERTYTAX 5,961,728 6,381,545 6,721,474 7.020,100 S 6,521,212 $ 6,521,212 01411 3010 SALESTAX 3,695.524 3.845.256 3,901,674 3,587,200 S 3,757,414 S 3,757,414 01411 TOTAL REVENUES 15,675,505 13,646,300 14,929,216 15,794,900 5 15,009,955 S 15,008,955 NET 889,448 40,501 -1.091,142 0 -40,298 -40,298 Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the other General Fund Departments Fund Net (expenses less revenues) as illustrated in the chart above. The Finance, Planning and IT Departments are a significant expense. He also reviewed the revenue sources such as overhead charges, other revenues, property tax and sales tax. The business type funds, or the proprietary type funds will pay overhead charges. Another example is the building inspections will have an overhead expense for those services. He noted the sales tax is very volatile; those taxes could go up or down quickly depending on the economy. Finance Officer Nielson expressed caution when pulling funds from the General Fund because the reserve in the general fund is dropping significantly and steadily. These are the areas the City Council could cut out to fund LIDS. Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the March 25th Work Meeting Analysis. The analysis illustrates the costs of the LIDS over the last io years. The costs of LID 45 were about $681,00 io years ago and LID 54 is a large project at an estimated cost of 4.5 million dollars with the city share of 3.5 million dollars and the property owner's share of $9977500• March 25th Wait Meeting Analyst! 0 Yr UD's 1O Yean I RI 46I 47I .1 .1 "1 31I 321 $31 MI M Y-T"I A Z, A--g, AwP 7%IA-a3a % City Costs Total 559,224 1A16,9OO 1,387AO0 1,738,676 1,402,100 1998,900 2,011,400 3,102,600 3,218,747 3,536,300 20,372,247 2,037,225 3,235,582 85-< Property O- CostT.W 121,984 67,922 243,791 349,354 65.500. 357.088 617,386 557,800 120,678 997,500 3,499,003 349,l00 558,6l9 - Tot.! Cost 681,2W 1,434,822 S,Wl,ll1 Z,O38,D3O 1,437,600 2,335,95O 2,628,733 3,860,400 3,939,425 4,333,300 23,871,251 2,387,125 3 344 542 - Dr!-y & C&G 24,504 36,467 57,293 157,596 104,615 34,681 367,393 782,549 111,793 168,896 Sewer 4,715 9,806 62,720 47,457 83,787 12,544 74,480 295,509 42.216 56,937 Ashpah 331 729 - 3,408 - 48,922 53,440 8,907 17,443 L-6-pl^3 32,680 10,369 16,072 - - 59.122 11,824 5.357 Property Owner Cost E.dudin3 new Sidew.lk/D,N .Y UG, S.w.r, &Asphalt 127,269 67,922 219,257 303,031 65,119 203,666 401.964 349,917 73,433 506,706 2,303,334 230,939 310,025 Wrlh City Share of 30%Partkipaw- 152,449 68,299 285,073 394,006 84,655 264,7" 522.553 451.992 95,489 658,717 3,000,899 3Lq,090 4O3033 Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the different city participation percentages for the costs of LID 54. He specifically explained, the column indicating the city's t00% participation for curb and gutter, excluding sidewalk and driveway and the estimated property owner cost with curb and gutter city participation. In 2018 the City Council made the decision to move the franchise fees from the General Fund into the streets budget. The added funds from the franchise fees were about $630,000 more per year that is available for street reconstruction. He said if the City Council had not made the decision to move the franchise fees into the street budget, then approximately 1.9 million dollars would be available for street reconstruction. LOCAL IMPROVEMEN T I v' 1 5- I C. 9�Lase 4l-AS.-CREC-w,da.b I'M Pzrn�- Er,n9aled Cs (.Wei of Replaced Pryem-Crsr SR Cd:G. ea,IWes Ca+e./3P?af .ee >ab drte°nl Pvrlr,paew �i61 Er:azrtd Cie. TI Panizlpedw Ieredrnemj�� ®®® 18 CITY SHARE S 176.3CO 15`6 S 283.900 25% S 451.600 - 387. 5 230AN 20% PROPERTY OWNER SHARE S SS7.700 35% S $84.200 75% 5 722.200 62.4 S 912.900 SOY° TOTAL ESTIMATED COST S 1.173,500 100'.: 6 1,173.500 100%S 1,173.500 100°.b S 1.173.300 100% I hom :019 ,h1o.9h a,goslmeleh :0:: dxld. Io wal a alI hanehire fees f,- the Several N d Io 1ha zlceell m .. off " Wm sera, I dhe9 "., k . i-.4Smt- YNb, . eel yualez 1ha, aPPeari Wa 54O.DDD adddlaaa42aWrt rn.,e bte the •Ircn rerrnmac, los O each-1 W-- of 1ha1 W'4e1 derision Public Works Director Davidson said he and Mayor Merrill met with the County Comissioners regarding the County Road and Bridge tax dropping by about $700,00o that the city receives. The County Comissioners are looking to see if they can change the direction of those funds to hopefully give back a little bit more to the city. Council Member E. Erickson asked Public Works Director Davidson, if LID 54 is an unusually large LID. Public Works Director Davidson replied no, LID 54 is not necessarily large; however, there are more properties that do not have sidewalks. The city engineers survey all the curb and gutter slopes to look for water drainage issues. The slopes of the gutter help to keep water off the roads; therefore, maintaining the life of the asphalt. Mayor Merrill added when a property has more curb and gutter then that assessment is a lot more, it would make sense for the city to take care of the costs for curb and gutter. Council Member Reeser asked if the Councilmembers would consider a temporary moratorium on requiring new sidewalks until the LID funding is sorted out. Public Works Director Davidson mentioned a property owner had requested to delay the replacement of sidewalks because they plan to redevelop the property. The city allowed that property owner to postpone the replacement of the sidewalk for a year. There are benefits to having sidewalks especially in areas where there is heavy pedestrian travel. Discussion regarding areas with no sidewalks and the sidewalk replacement criteria. Council Member C. Erickson mentioned there are sidewalks included in LID 54 that do not need to be replaced. Public Works Director Davidson said the City Council could adjust the current criteria requiring sidewalk replacement. Council Member Johnson said the easiest solution is to reconstruct fewer streets included in an LID and for the city to pick up more of the LID costs for property owners. She is in favor of delaying this LID until they try to figure out other funding options. Council Member E. Erickson said from his point of view, the city picking up the costs of the curb and gutter is a good gesture. The property owner is still going to have the expense of replacing or installing sidewalk on their property. He said he is not in favor of raising taxes which is what a general bond would do. The LID philosophy is that the person who benefits the most pays for the improvements. Council Member Chambers asked about the property owners that have a $20,015 assessement and if the city covers all of the costs for curb and gutter, how did those savings impact the costs of those assessements. Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the estimated savings for the property owners when the city covers the costs to replace curb and gutter. Discussion regarding the city covering the entire costs to replace curb and gutter and not to cover any of the costs to install new curb and gutter. Discussion regarding ribbon curbing. Council Member Johnson asked to review the costs analysis if the city were to cover the costs of replacing the curb and gutter and 30% of the sidewalk. Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the costs to the city with replacing the curb and gutter and picking up 30% of the sidewalk costs. Finance Officer Nielson mentioned the option to lower the interest rate for the property owners that choose to finance the LID. He expessed caution when deciding how much to lower the interest rate because too low of a rate may incentivize property owners not to pay off the LID loan. Council President Walker suggested lowering the LID loan interest rate to 3%. Discussion regarding the city making accommodations to cover the costs of curb and gutter on previous LIDs due to having to take out the curb and gutter to meet city standards. Council President Walker suggested the city cover i00% of the costs to replace curb and gutter and 30% city participation of the costs when the driveway apron needs to be replaced to meet ADA Standards. Council Member Johnson said she agrees with keeping the 30% city participation of the costs of the sidewalks. Mayor Merrill cautioned increasing the city's participation is going to have a larger impact on the city's budget. Council Member Johnson said she is interested in trying to help people who do not have exsisting sidewalks. Mayor Merrill said as property owners, we need to have some ownership and not have the city pay for property improvements. The city taking i00% of the costs to replace curb and gutter is a large portion of the assessements. He said it makes sen#e for the city to pay to replace the curb and gutter because it is part of the street. Council Member C. Erickson said he agrees with Mayor Merrill that the city should cover the costs to replace the curb and gutter because it is a part of the street. Discussion regarding private companies replacing sidewalks at a lower costs for property owners. Council Member C. Erickson said they have spent hours trying to figure out how to fund LIDS; however, in order to balance the budget and fund LIDs the city would have to take away some of the services such as safety and other areas. Public Works Director Davidson said the City Council recommended changes will be made to Resolution 2020 - 25 and presented at the next City Council meeting. Adjournment 6:46 P.M. Attest: Ma anna Gonzalez, City Deputy Clerk ' PROVED: er Merr 1, Mayor 7