The preliminary 2014 budget and proposed levy were adopted by the Grand Marais City Council during the Sept. 11, 2013 meeting.
Councilors also discussed a proposed public works facility, and expressed a desire to partner with the county to help defray the $3-million-plus price tag which will likely affect the city’s budget in 2015 and beyond.
In presenting the draft budget and resolution, City Administrator Mike Roth said the numbers should look familiar because they were “exactly the ones you saw last time.”
Roth was referring to the tentative budget plan council reviewed at its prior meeting, Aug. 31, and instructed him to move forward with. The state mandates that a preliminary budget showing a maximum tax levy be approved before Sept. 15. That levy can be decreased before final adoption of the budget in December, but not increased.
According to Roth, the city can anticipate a 6.46 percent decrease in general fund spending next year. However, due to debt service, current projections show a 2.94 percent property tax levy increase. That translates into a levy of $839,026, orabouta3percentincrease over the current levy.
In related matters, Paul Coe of Security State Insurance stopped by to present and explain the city’s liability insurance renewal policy. The premium is $70,814, which is about a 3 percent reduction over the existing policy.
Coe said the policy is pretty much the same, with only some minor adjustments to things such as the value of some of the city’s buildings. The decrease is attributable to a new rating system, he said.
The liability coverage provides a limit of $1.5 million per occurrence, the statutory municipal tort liability limit. The statutory limit per claimant is $500,000.
In other city business:
. Councilor Jan Sivertson said she has been getting a lot of questions about the city’s plan to build a municipal public works facility and its $3 million price tag. “The price shocks people, as it shocked us,” she said. Sivertson asked if there was still some way the city could work with the county or another agency to share the facility and its costs after the city’s most recent request to do so was turned down by the county.
Roth noted that the project has changed dramatically since it was first proposed a few years ago. Then, the county, school district, DNR, Forest Service, MnDOT and AEOA were interested in sharing space. But since that time, some of the agencies have moved on and either built their own storage facilities and offices, moved, or improved the ones they were using.
Roth said the city is now moving forward on its own, but the city could still pause periodically during the planning process and ask the county to re-visit its decision not to participate. As work progresses on the schematic design and identification of a site, Roth said it “wouldn’t be terrible” to go back to the county and ask them again about partnering with the city on the project.
Roth also noted that there will still be some sharing of resources in order to avoid duplication: the city’s facility won’t include an area for salt and sand storage or truck wash (both of which will continue to be provided by other local agencies), and the city already shares a fueling station with other area agencies.
“It sure makes sense to share a roof, but we’re not making much headway,” said Councilor Tim Kennedy. “I don’t know how many times we can open the door.”
Sivertson agreed but remained optimistic. “They [county] may change their mind after seeing the price,” she said. “It surprised a lot of people.”
. Councilor and park board member Bill Lenz reported that the Recreation Park is doing well financially, but not as well as it did last year. That is due to the cold and rainy weather we had this spring, he said. Gas sales at the marina are “way down,” Lenz added, but the park will still meet its budgetary expectations for the year.
Leave a Reply