Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORDINANCE 1958-2002Suggested by: Administration CITY OF KENAI ORDINANCE N0. 1958-2002 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 2002 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2003. WHEREAS, it is a requirement of the Code of the City of Kenai, Alaska, that the City Council, not later than the tenth day of June, adopt a budget for the following fiscal year and make appropriation of the monies needed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE Ifi ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA as follows: ~P.(al nn 1 That certain document entitled "City of Kenai Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Budget" which is available for examination by the public in the Office of the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted as the budget for the City of Kenai for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2003. Secti nn 2' The following sums of money are hereby appropriated for the operations of the City of Kenai for the fiscal year commencing on the first day of July, 2002, and ending the 30th day of June, 2003, to be expended consistent with and subject to the restrictions, procedures, and purposes set forth in the Code of the City of Kenai and to be expended substantially by line item in the manner shown in the budget adopted by Section 1 hereof: General Fund Airport Terminal Fund Congregate Housing Water and Sewer Fund Airport Land System Fund Boating Facility Fund Senior Citizen Title III Grant Fund Senior Citizen Title V Grant Fund Senior Citizen COA-Borough Fund 1984 / 86 / 93 Bond Issue Debt Service Fund X8,483,481 469,182 379,087 1,431,909 1,480,029 165,169 228,235 21,010 166,329 ~~n_n~n t~lrport Lana gates ~t~rust t+~na 25,000 Ordinance No. 1958-2002 Page fiwo PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 5th day of June, 2002. JOHN ILLIAMS, MAYOR ATTEST: Carol L. Freas, City Clerk Introduced: Adopted: Effective: May 15, 2002 June 5, 2002 July 1, 2002 Approved by Finance:-~~~-- (05/09/2002) jl May 28~ 24~~ From; John Williams To: Council Members City Clerk Administration Subject; 200-3 Budget. Dear Council; I have been giving a considerable amount of thought to our budget situation aver the last few day and I am sure that most of you have as well. I have made an honest effort to discuss the situation with members of the general public, friends, and neighbors, and as I any sure you have, I have received written eonan~ents from some quarry of the citizenry. Additionally, the signals that we are receiving from the Borough Assembly is that there will be no reduction in the mill rate from their quarter this year. After having coidered all of these comments I have come to the canclusaon that to proceed along the path that is presently being taken will lead to an untenable situation for the Administration and especially far the City Manager. To place the responsibility of making cuts, many of which would undoubtedly be categorized as "Policy Decisions", and many others I am certain would meet with one cauncal member or another's disapproval an her shoulders will only exacerbate an already tenuous situation. ~n my opinion, and borne out by our work sessions, the Administration has already handed us a very slim budget. To cut it further wi11 bring dissention upon this Council from several directions. I am therefore proposing another alternative. In thinking about all of yo~.r comments there is one that continually pops into mind. During one of our sessions Councilman Bookey said, (paraphrasing}, it would be better to go back to the Administr~.taon's original budget and float for a year than to do what we have been doing. I have Come to the point where I agree with Jim, In taking that approach we should still remain above the 4 million level in reserves, cif ail goes well), and will still be on track to shift the revenue requirement next year, if necessary. I am therefore willing to accept an amendment from the Council at the June 5~` meeting that wall do just that, In doing this ~ still want the council to clearly un~'erstand the past ramiflcatian~ of not enhancing the revenue side of the equation sooner and so I am still going to point out same absolute facts. At the time the mill rate was set at 3.5 the City of Kenai was receiving well over $8~0,00~.00 in Municipal Assistance and Revenue Sharing. This next 1 ulllllll~ u.vV u~ ya/ v V, V V V . V V lV~7~7 lAi Vut llli7,~k7 ii Vill -7Q V iil~k7 ~liQil 1Gi~J~ ~ 4CL1. 1 liar 1~7 a cumulative lass of $1 million dollars in revenue with out an adjustment to the mill rate. Despite this loss, we have continued to post deficit budgets for several years. Most of this deficit has been spent on capital pro j ects to our credit.. Praj ects that have not only met with citizens approval but have enhanced the economy as well. Again to our credit. without seriously jeopardizing the City's finance's we will be unable to continue doing this. What this means is that even if an opportunity to partner on a good pro jest comes along, we will have to consider the ramifications and might even have to pass unless the revenue picture changes in the near future. Additionally during my review of all aspects of the budget, one area that still troubles me is the issue of salary and benefits to our employees. As you know council has decided to forego for the second year a cola for these people. Comments have been made that they all get raises in the form of step increases. Not so. Step increases only came every two years for same employees. Far others who are among the most valuable because of their many years of service, there is no increase. I know of same employees who have not had a step increase for over 1 ~ years. with no cola, they fall further behind on the economic scale with each passing budget. Please do not lay the private sector scenario on this discussion. I will ,guarantee you that in many areas of the private sector employees of like skills are doing far better than our awn city employees. I have reviewed within the last month both the Federal and State wage and standards requirements and they have all taken a large jump. As a matter of fact information coming to me from our architects and contractors is that of some seven construction projects an the Peninsula bid this year all, including the Challenger Learning Center, all came in from ~0 to 3~ % over engineers estimates. The two most given reasons were wages and changes in the Unifarn~. wilding Code. To fail in our recognition of this fact v~ill lead to a similar situation that occurred during the construction of the pipeline, Loss of valuable employees at a time when we can least afford to loose them. And finally let me say that it appears the area of 4~ lk verses deposit's to Social Security has also produced an anomaly. At the time the council voted to opt out of Social Security and offer 4~ l k deposits to the employees, the City rate for bath was 4% of the first $3~,~00.~4 Today the Social Security rate is 7.~5 °/a on $SO,~Oa.00 and the City still offers only 4% of $37,~40.0~ for the employees 401k that in my estimation is a cut in benefits to employees. ~~hat all of this points out is that in the near future the City of Kenai has same serious considerations to give in how it does business and how it plans to correct some of the obvious deficiencies in our operating policies. Council, if you hive read all of this, thank you far your patience's; Sincerely; Mayor John.