The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-05-29 Council Packet - Budget Work SessionKenai City Council Work Session May 29, 1990 Budget 1-1 KENAI PENINSULA r AUDUBON SOCIETY, INC. P.O. BOX 3371, SOLDOTNA, ALASKA"99669 ' Mau :_1 . 1990 US Array Corps of Engineers Hld ska District Regulatory Branch t 1 145b) P.O. Box 81� `% : rvrtit) rav]e, ai8:3k5 99BII17'5-0898 r Nar 1990 r CRrtyof K , cn Re: Public boat launch facility, Kenai River 256; Permit application, reference 0'2- 390761 To Whorri to Mau Concern; '0 president and conservation chair i am writing in behalf of the. Kenai Penirrmila Audubon `�ociet,�, represYnti ng aver ZSiJ rnembYrs. 1 wish to ex prYss m►1 co nce r n arni uppositi+gin to the above mentioned public boat launch facility proposed bg the bits of Kenai. Tht? wetlands- are.a proposed for development is unique for W3 1 rreplacesble '.esthetic and %wildlife use values. i quote from the Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan, "The tidal marshes and associated wetlands of the Kenai River are unique in that ttie ij are us- ualIu the first .suitable waterfowl habitat in Conk inlet to become ice free in the spring. In addition, there is relatively little human di -it urbaricn in the :yr. .. slorul with yn abundance of suitable food plant-. Consequently the=.:r wetlands are a major- migration and resti rag area for many •v.-'aterfowl and other :ratert'l rd l ncl udi n� red-thro:yte:; lUons, `Wr'arl-, Canada geese, �n� hlte-f ranted oeese, sno%./ geec.e, mallards, pintails,'viijeons, other puddle ducks, sanohiII craries, gulls, and arctic terns. ...Wetlands adjacent to the river ser,re as im�ortant calvi nil and surrir;ier range for the lo-viland caribou herd." The Pub' is I`:otice of ►;ppl icatlon for Permit states that .'The project area i s �:7it l'; n the knovtn or histrwir; ranle of the Peale's Pergri n Falcon", if this area is developed, the wildlife and ,vraterfowl •:rill tie displaced by the actual filling of wetlands and the activitg diaturbancal- a?Sociated with oper,tion of a public boat ramp and parks nu area. Mlso at risk through development of this area t: the IUJJ of the n:_ val beautu of the %...etlands area, - hich is important bath to resident.: of the Kenai Peninsula and to the hundreds of tourists %., ho visit the Kenai River. There are menu ether areas that could be•developed instead, on upland are:,., that are much les:.'• :,enr;itivp or or. r�etlands areas that have already been di;,turbed. E>;arnple.� be :��jj:,r_.ent to the e::i_ti ng k:err3i publir: docl: or n, lands upstream �)f Eagle Rnik where ttier e a r e lands- adjacent to the river. i fear th.lt effort; to roak:e the Kenyf•Penin4uia•s vast recreational res;iurce- riior- dccesible to the public are destroying the reasons people corr,e r,ere ii, the first place, to see a place th;�t is n5tural1q beautiful and bc.iiMiful. F'rk�Yctfullla, �i35Truiii0,�re: dent i:C: Cltu of ►'.enai -2Z -Gto MAY 1990 M E M O R A N D U M Received S tat e o f A 3-}< a -s a Pubs ew m Dept Department of Fish and Game TO: Alison Smith Project Coordinator Div. of Governmental Coordination Office of Mgmt. and Budget T) FROM: Philip J. Brna Habitat Biologist Habitat Division Department of Fish and Game DATE: May 22 , 1990 FILE NO: TELEPHONE NO: 267-2284 SUBJECT: Kenai River 256 The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has reviewed the proposal by the City of Kenai to discharge 20,000 cubic yards of fill into 2.5 acres wetlands for a public boat launching facility on the lower Kenai River at about river mile 7. Before we can provide comments on this proposal the following additional information is requested: 1. What alternatives to the proposed project were considered? Are alternative locations or configurations available which would minimize or eliminate wetland fills? Are other wetland locations with lower resource values available'? Can the existing City of Kenai facilities at the Port of Kenai or Cunningham Park be upgraded? Are there other sites outside of the City of Kenai limits which could be upgraded or acquired by others the development of which would be less damaging to the environment? 2. Considering the fact that the Kenai River supported 374,259 angler days of ettort in 1988 and a similar effort in 1989, how can a public need for additional launch facilities be justified? cc: V. Gilbert, ADNR S. Spearow, KPB R. Borsetti, CE D. McGillivary, USFWS R. Morris, NMFS P. North, EPA T. Rumtelt, ADEC S. MiLlington, UPOR J. LaShot, City of Kenai MEMORANDUM TO: Kenai City Council 1791-1991 CITY OF KENAI Capdai 4 4 {L/aj.�a „ 210 FIDALGO KENAI, ALASKA 99611 TELEPHONE 283 - 7535 FAX 907.283.3014 FROM: Charles A. Brown, Finance Director C QQ DATE: May 25, 1990 (For May 29, 1990 Work Session) SUBJECT: Review of 1990-91 General Fund Budget As stated in my April 16, 1990 memo: Real Property values may be increased from $185,000,000 to $200,000,000 (@ 2.7 mills) Increase in interest income, to 8.5% Mill rate reduced from 4.0 to 2.7 In addition, based on sales tax data that I received from KPB on May 21, 1990, sales tax revenue may be increased from $2.3 million to $2.4 million Net revenue adjustments possible Appropriation of fund balance in 90-91 budget, as introduced New appropriation of F/B, with 2.7 mills Revenue Effect $ 38,475 77,250 < 287,475>* 100,000 < 71,750> 934,054 $ 1,005,804 A $1,000,000 appropriation of fund balance would probably result in a reduction of fund balance by year-end (6-30-91) of about $500,000. The current unappropriated fund balance of $8,000,000 might be reduced to $7,500,000. * Rounded 1 Page Two Council May 25, 1990 Graphs: 1) Relationship of total General Fund Unreserved Fund Balance to the portion designated in the following year's budget. a) At 4.0 mills, 10.9% of Unreserved F/B is needed in the FY 90-91 budget. b) At 2.7 mills, 11.7% of Unreserved F/B is needed in the FY 90-92 budget. 2) Relationship of total General Fund Budget to the portion financed by fund balance. a) At 4.0 mills, 13.0% of the budget is financed by fund balance. b) At 2.7 mills, 14.0% of the budget is financed by fund balance. 3) Relationship of Kenai's projected 1990 mill rate (combined) to other areas in the Borough. a) At 4.0 mills, Kenai's combined mill rate will be 10.45 mills. b) At 2.7 mills, Kenai's combined mill rate will be 9.15 mills. Argument for 4.0 mills: At 4.0 mills, the fund balance is more likely to remain stable; at 2.7 mills, it. would probably be reduced by about $500,000 by June 30, 1991. Also, with declining state revenues projected in future years, a mill rate increase is probably inevitable at some point. A relatively small rate increase now will tend to reduce the likelihood of a large increase later. Argument for 2.7 mills: The difference between a 4.0 mill levy and a 2.7 mill levy, to the overall budget and to the total finances of the City (i.e., fund balance), is not particularly significant. Graphs one and two bear this out. The additional revenue raised by the 1.3 mill increase ($287,475) :is only 4% of the General Fund Budget. Also, we don't know when the state will reduce its payments for revenue sharing and municipal assistance. Perhaps other revenues, such as sales tax or interest, will offset those reductions. Leave the mill rate as low as possible until it must be increased. If Council decides on a 4.0 mill levy, no motions are required. Council could make motions during consideration of Ordinance No. 1374-90 to adjust revenues as a result of increased real property values, interest income, and sales tax, but it's not necessary (the figures are on page one of this memo; offsets would be to appropriation of fund balance). Page Three Council May 25, 1990 If Council decides on a 2.7 mill levy, motions should be made to adjust property taxes, interest income, and sales taxes. A motion such as the following may be made during consideration of Ordinance No. 1374-90: "Move to decrease property taxes by $249,000, increase interest .income by $77,250, and increase sales tax by $100,000, all in the General Fund 1990-91 Budget, with a net increase in appropriation of fund balance of $71,750." Most important, however, is that a separate motion amending Resolution No. 90-24, setting the mill levy, be made during consideration of that resolution. ...... .. ........ axe.ln;W'll,",;;,; I 11;,1f,;,11 II.......... CCU L-,.2 now p,�� ;�1r ��,.:,,� i�i4.��..,ii ��1,�urbr} Q �F J � :'..�yr,.� i ; � ;i �Ij ; ,!I y..:.:. � ,,� ;;. ....I ;�:� i � ��, ,.Jul '�i , .,�,,; 1 � � I ij �:. �i� ��11I � If �i I� ��,,.��'„'i' .ilii �,��'� � �l� ,,,.;rill;; i ;;;;;; , � � . , ,,�I I . �.. ��.�Ill�l�t�:��..i M- n� Vlk."A OCIS e-uzi jj,, I .............. ..... ..... ..... "Il Y:!j O a Jr LOP ..... ....... ....... ... .......... CIL, . .......... Nh I11-11 4:1 .. ...... . .......... ..... .. . .. .... ...... . ........... .......... ... ........... ............... . ...... . . ....... . .... ...... .. .. .. .... ............ ...... ...... . ......... ..... =01 ih. ir 7111-.15. . ............. . ....... pir-1. I- A 1". 2, I' I:''' I. 1. �li;. I;Ik .. :il::-. 11116NI V I:;. .. .......... . . ..................... . ......... ... ..... ........................... . ... . ..... .. ..... . . ... ........ .... ........... . .. . . ............. .......... . ....... ........ ... . .. . ..... .. .......... . m 1791-1991 CITY OF KENAI ,ad (2dpd-al 4 4Z", i 210 FIDALGO KENAI, ALASKA 99611 TELEPHONE 283 - 7535 FAX 907-283.3014 MEMORANDUM TO: William J. Brighton, City Manager FROM: Charles A. Brown, Finance Director qQ DATE: April 16, 1990 SUBJECT: Mill Rate Increase Although it is too early, with at least two more budget.worksessions left, to determine a final General Fund expenditure level for next year, there are some factors that have recently come to light that may diminish the need for a mill rate increase. We may want to consider these issues during the next few weeks. 1) My latest predictions regarding the results of the current, FY89-90, year are that the General Fund Unappropriated Fund Balance should be unchanged by year-end. That balance is about $8,000,000. In other words, in spite of a $625,000 appropriation of fund balance in the current year budget, actual revenues should roughly equal actual expenditures for the year. 2) The Kenai Peninsula Borough gave a preliminary indication that real property assessed values would decrease by 10%. This week, I received more current data that indicates a decrease of about 2.4 The Borough's work is nearly complete on the assessments, so I assume this latest: data is more accurate. Therefore, the $185,000,000 reed property value that I placed in the budget may be changed to $200,000,000. 3) I projected interest revenue at 8%. This was based upon predictions, by people smarter than I, that rates were prepared to drop sharply this spring (remember the national recession that was widely predicted?). Since my initial interest rate projection, I have purchased about $6,000,000 of securities, all at over 8%. Today, one-year investments are still well above 8%. Therefore, considering the rates that are now locked in through much of next year, an interest rate of 8.5% is probably attainable. AJ Js- - CP Q Cr -,qe- /C e-, ",:,7 0 "i?- oc, 1791-1991 CITY OF KENAI 210 FIDALGO KENAI, ALASKA 99611 TELEPHONE 283-7535 FAX 907-283-3014 March 8, 1990 Alcoholic Beverage Control Board 550 W. 7th, Suite 350 Anchorage, AK 99501 At their regular meeting of March 7, 1990, the Kenai City Council stated they had no objection to renewal of liquor licenses for the following: Beverage Dispensary c:,--" The Rig Bar Kenai Joe's Restaurant/Eating Place Italian Gardens Thank you. Ck/Yt L j(24� Janet Ruotsala, CMC City Clerk jr i KENAI PENINSULA AU DU BON SOCIETY, INC. P.O. BOX 3371, SOLDOTNA, ALASKAW69 Ma►a :1. 1990 US Arrny Corps of Engineers Alaska District Regulatory Branch (1 145b) O. Box 898 NAY 199Q Racel119d i c'} of Xeres a; , Oak p� \tea `I .• �J / Re: Public boat launch facility, Kenai River 256; Permit application, reference -*2-390761 To Whori to May Concern; As president and conservation chair I am writing in behalf of the Kenai Penin-_ill a Audubon Society, representing over 250 members. I wish to express my concern :and oppo::ition to the above mentioned public boat launch facility proposed by the City of Kenai. Thi' wetlands .are: proposed for development is unique for it'; i rrep!eceable aesthetic and wildlife use val ues. i quote frorn the Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan; "The tidal rnarshes and associated %wetlands of the Kenai River are unique in that they are usually the first suitable waterfowl habitat in Cook Inlet to become ice We in the spring. in addition, there is relatively little human Isbobance in the. are-i., ii1ong With an abundance Ali suitable food plants. Cory ecluently, the.. r ',wetlands are a major migration and re3ting area for many :waterfn,: i and other ,..terbird�, including red -throated loorts, swans, Canada geese, white -fronted geese, snu%-w geese, mallards, pintails, :vigeuns, other puildle ducks,.•arnytnl! crane:;, gull;;, and arctic tarns. ...Wetlands adjacent to the river serve a.: important calving and surnnier range for the lowland caribou herd." The Public. "lotice of Application for Permit state..: that "The project are.] i •;Iit;,ir; the known or higtoric: range of the Peale's Pergri n Falcon". if this; area is developed, the wildlife and -.vaterfo••.vl will tie displaced by the ,actual filling of ;wetlands and the ar_ otg disturbances :associated with operation if a public_ boat ramp and parking area. Also at risk through development of this; area i:. the loss of the vi-sual beauty of the --:wetlands area, which is important both to residents of the Kenai Peninsula .and Rohe hundreds of tourists \•whoa visit the Kenai River. There are manq ether areas that could be -developed in.3te,ad. on upland areas thatare mu-Ch --;enSihve or on wetlands area; that have already been di3turbA. Example~ ':would be ,ad};�r_.ent to the eyi::.tl ng !-*.enal public dock or iitl lands upstream of Eagle Por:k Lwher'e there •ir e- land::; .adjacent to the ri•wer. i fe:ar th.'t e f;,.-+; tf7 mal::r the !'enat•PYninW's vast recreational resoures; more. acre iible 5 the public are destromm] the reasons people Conde here iil the first pla(:e• to zgee •3 place that is n.at;jr,y1111UeSutttul and bountiful. Lis) Tr u; i lo, rr•�iJ it cc: Lily Uf Kenai Y_ 5 -ZZ -6(0 At HAY 1990 _ Received MEMORANDUMcdy a%rks� S tat e a f Alaska TO: Alison Smith Project Coordinator Div, of Governmental Coordination Office of Mgmt. and Budget FROM: Philip J. Brna Habitat Biologist Habitat Division Department of Fish and Game Department of Fish and Game^,t v DATE: May 22 , 1990 FILE NO: TELEPHONE NO: 267-2284 SUBJECT: Kenai River 256 The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has reviewed the proposal by the City of Kenai to discharge 20,000 cubic yaLrds of fill into 2.5 acres wetlands for a public boat launching facility on the lower Kenai River at about river mile 7. Before wee can provide comments on this proposal the following additional. information is requested: 1. What alternatives to the proposed project were considered? Are alternative locations or configurations available which would minimize or eliminate wetland fills? Are other wetland locations with lower resource values available? Can the existing City of Kenai facilities at the Port of Kenai or Cunningham Park be upgraded? Are there other sites outside of the City of Kenai limits which could be upgraded or acquired by others the development of which would be less damaging to the environment? 2. Considering the fact that the Kenai River supported 374,259 angler days of effort in 1988 and a similar etfort in 1989, how can a public need for additional launch facilities be justified? cc: V. Gilbert, ADNR S. Spearow, KPB R. Borsetti, CE D. rIcGillivary, USFWS R. Morris, NMFS P. North, EPA T. Rumfelt, ADEC S. Millington, DPOR J. LaShot, City of Kenai