Thursday, September 30, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
What is A Public Sector Decision
Any decision-making process involves value conflicts, social constructs, and stakeholders. In divided societies, where social homogeneity is limited and power is unequally distributed, people have conflicting interests and ends, and thus will tend to start from disparate particular judgments. Decision-making is shaped by recognition of competing values, ideas and judgments as well as by our bounded rational tools. We try to systematize and explain particular judgments about what is just by appealing to widely shared principles, "going back and forth," changing the judgments or the principles to satisfy similarly revisable methodological constraints, such as consistency, simplicity, and explanatory power. The task is to find a stable basis for cooperation that does not abstract from actual interests.
Management Review states, "public sector decisions are the result of compromise, bargaining and politics. The process of making a decision is often more important than the decision itself. The result may not be the most cost-effective, but it is the result of a consensus developed to satisfy most of the constituents' interests." Conversely, "private sector decision-making is based on identifying the problem, constructing alternatives, and choosing the most cost effective outcome. Private sector decision makers are judged by the outcome of the decision."'
Consequently, the Council and the Manager must be aware that balancing many different conflicting opinions and building a consensus is an essential part of the decision-making process in the public sector and that this fundamentally differs from private sector decision-making.
Management Review states, "public sector decisions are the result of compromise, bargaining and politics. The process of making a decision is often more important than the decision itself. The result may not be the most cost-effective, but it is the result of a consensus developed to satisfy most of the constituents' interests." Conversely, "private sector decision-making is based on identifying the problem, constructing alternatives, and choosing the most cost effective outcome. Private sector decision makers are judged by the outcome of the decision."'
Consequently, the Council and the Manager must be aware that balancing many different conflicting opinions and building a consensus is an essential part of the decision-making process in the public sector and that this fundamentally differs from private sector decision-making.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Luck Of the City
We are all aware of Wisconsin’s economic climate. For years, Lake Mills’ had been dependent on a very large company to provide the majority of jobs to workers in our city. When that company experienced hard times, the economy of the City changed. Today, we are uniquely positioned because we had been gardening for jobs before we even knew the term. The strategy wasn’t a carefully planned approach to economic development, more a probing for opportunities.
Lake Mills could have been like most cities and put an unusual amount of effort into attracting large manufacturing firms, but the strategy has consistently failed to achieve the hoped-for levels of success. Thus, the economic development strategy of cities has simply not had the focus to cope with the transition from the old economy to the future economy. The city has continued efforts to hunt for large firms, but it hasn’t consumed our efforts because we know how to garden for small local businesses.
Lake Mills could have been like most cities and put an unusual amount of effort into attracting large manufacturing firms, but the strategy has consistently failed to achieve the hoped-for levels of success. Thus, the economic development strategy of cities has simply not had the focus to cope with the transition from the old economy to the future economy. The city has continued efforts to hunt for large firms, but it hasn’t consumed our efforts because we know how to garden for small local businesses.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Lift Me Up
The Lake Mills Wastewater Utility has determined that to serve the customers in the Lake Street Alleyway area, because of the topography, the physical features of the earth, and the current design standards require that grinder pumps be installed at seven properties on Lake Street to be able pump sewage into the pipe of the downstream gravity pipeline.
Sewage lift/pump stations are used for pumping wastewater or sewage from a lower to higher elevation, particularly where the elevation of the source is not sufficient for gravity flow and/or when the use of gravity conveyance will result in excessive excavation and higher construction costs.
Four alternatives are available for the design of a wastewater collection system to serve the alleyway. The four alternatives are described as follows:
1. Gravity sewers with several private grinder pumps.
2. Gravity sewers with one public lift pump station.
3. Raising in-building plumbing to gravity flow; or
4. No action
The Utility's policy has been to construct gravity sewer line unless there is no other option. Where there are twenty or less users and gravity is not an option, individual Low Pressure Sewer Systems are the recommended option. Studies consistently show that cost analysis of Low Pressure Sewer Systems is the preferred option to lift stations in small service areas. One study reviewed four completed subdivisions to determine if grinder pumps would have been a realistic alternative. One of these was a 12 lot project where a lift station was installed. The comparative costs were:-
Lift Station and Gravity Sewer Cost for 12 Lots
$144,100.00
Cost Per Lot
$ 12,008.00
Pressure Sewer Cost For 12 Lots
$ 75,900.00
Cost Per Lot
$ 6,325.00
The cost of the pressure sewer system is only 53 per cent of the cost of the gravity system. The report concludes that any development of twenty homes or less where a lift station is required will find pressure sewers and grinder pumps to be a cost- effective alternative.
Key disadvantages of public lift stations include the high cost to construct, maintenance and the potential for odors and noise. Odors and corrosion are a problem in small service areas because the wastewater in the lift station goes septic because the pump does not pump often enough. The wet well of a lift station should be as small as possible in order to minimize detention time of the sewage. Should the wastewater remain too long in the wet well, septic action may occur. Although, the wet well should be large enough so excessive starting and stopping of the lift station pump will not take place.
The lift station would take up two parking spaces in the area and might be viewed as a negative appearance. Lift stations also require a significant amount of power, are sometimes expensive to upgrade, and may create public concerns and negative public reaction.
Sewage lift/pump stations are used for pumping wastewater or sewage from a lower to higher elevation, particularly where the elevation of the source is not sufficient for gravity flow and/or when the use of gravity conveyance will result in excessive excavation and higher construction costs.
Four alternatives are available for the design of a wastewater collection system to serve the alleyway. The four alternatives are described as follows:
1. Gravity sewers with several private grinder pumps.
2. Gravity sewers with one public lift pump station.
3. Raising in-building plumbing to gravity flow; or
4. No action
The Utility's policy has been to construct gravity sewer line unless there is no other option. Where there are twenty or less users and gravity is not an option, individual Low Pressure Sewer Systems are the recommended option. Studies consistently show that cost analysis of Low Pressure Sewer Systems is the preferred option to lift stations in small service areas. One study reviewed four completed subdivisions to determine if grinder pumps would have been a realistic alternative. One of these was a 12 lot project where a lift station was installed. The comparative costs were:-
Lift Station and Gravity Sewer Cost for 12 Lots
$144,100.00
Cost Per Lot
$ 12,008.00
Pressure Sewer Cost For 12 Lots
$ 75,900.00
Cost Per Lot
$ 6,325.00
The cost of the pressure sewer system is only 53 per cent of the cost of the gravity system. The report concludes that any development of twenty homes or less where a lift station is required will find pressure sewers and grinder pumps to be a cost- effective alternative.
Key disadvantages of public lift stations include the high cost to construct, maintenance and the potential for odors and noise. Odors and corrosion are a problem in small service areas because the wastewater in the lift station goes septic because the pump does not pump often enough. The wet well of a lift station should be as small as possible in order to minimize detention time of the sewage. Should the wastewater remain too long in the wet well, septic action may occur. Although, the wet well should be large enough so excessive starting and stopping of the lift station pump will not take place.
The lift station would take up two parking spaces in the area and might be viewed as a negative appearance. Lift stations also require a significant amount of power, are sometimes expensive to upgrade, and may create public concerns and negative public reaction.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
CONDUCTING CONSULTANT STUDY
The City Manager recommends that the Council hire a consultant to perform a job evaluation which will be used to establish the basis for assessing the time contribution of the job. To avoid insufficient cooperation between the clerk, judge and other constitutional officers, I recommend that a consultant be used to provide an impartial review and analysis of the employee pay change request by conducting a study and classification analysis, write a job description, and make recommendations.
Job evaluation is not based on the credentials of, or contribution made by the person holding the position, but is seen as the systematic process of assessing the value of each job in relation to other jobs within an organization. The goal is to establish a ranking or hierarchy of worth within the organization. Job evaluation involves four steps: Job analysis, job documentation, job rating and creating a job hierarchy.
Job analysis is very important because it provides context to the organization in understanding the job duties that should be included in the position. The job duties provide the basis for determining the appropriate salary level for the position. It provides a legal basis for the minimum requirements (education and/or experience) for screening applicants. It provides the basis for Interview questions and related selection tests/instruments (e.g., written tests; oral tests; job simulations). It provides a legal basis for applicant appraisal/evaluation and related orientation materials for applicants/new hires.
The Court Clerk has presented a job summary in her memo to the Judge which indicates the essential duties of a court clerk.
The municipal court clerk is responsible for performing a variety of essential clerical and administrative support duties for the Municipal Court. The work involves pre-court, courtroom and post court activities; preparing the adult and juvenile court calendars and coordinating court matters with the municipal judge, defendant, defense counsel, prosecutor and police department; attending court sessions and recording pleas and sentences, recording trials and collecting forfeitures; taking appropriate followup actions - including completing citations, issuing pretrial notices or notices to appear, maintaining case files and payment records.
The position is currently a part time, salaried and exempt employee that is regularly scheduled to work sixteen (16) hours per week. Part-time employees receive no benefits, except legally mandated benefits, but are subject to all of the expectations and regulations expressed in the Employee Handbook. “Salary” is a regularly paid amount of money, constituting all or part of an employee’s wages, paid on a weekly or less frequent basis that is not subject to reduction due to the quality or quantity of work performed. This is the general definition in federal law (29 CFR 541.118). Since Wisconsin’s overtime law does not define “salary,” and since Wisconsin’s overtime exemptions are interpreted in a manner consistent with federal interpretation, this is the applicable definition. Exempt Employees are employees who are not required, in accordance with applicable federal wage and hours laws, to be paid overtime for work performed beyond forty (40) hours in a work week.
The current salary for the position is $11,315.20 and the total with benefits is $17,886.12. Based on a sixteen hour work week, the hourly pay rate is roughly $13.60 and would become $13.74 based on the budgeted adjustment. The City currently pays social security, retirement and a percentage of the health insurance plan. The proposed change would be from $17,886.12 to $22,342.74 and would add $4,456.62 to this year’s budget. The base salary would increase in 2011 if the budgeted increase is approved to $18,266.19 and the proposed change would increase that amount to $30,484.90 for a budget increase of $12,218.71 in the 2011 budget. The most significant cost increases coming from health insurance related to the change in employment status. The Court Clerk status will change to a part-time regular employee that is regularly scheduled to work twenty (20) or more hours per week, but less than forty (40) hours per week. Part-time Regular employees, depending on the number of hours they are regularly scheduled to work, may accrue prorated benefits (sick days, holidays, and vacation) and may also be covered by health insurance paid in part by the City.
The Municipal Court website indicates that the Office is open on Mondays and Thursdays from 8 am to 12 pm and 1 pm 4:30 pm.
The Council may direct the solicitation of quotes or direct the preparation and advertisement of a Request for Proposals. The estimated cost is $3,500 to $5,000 and this would be paid from the Council contingency fund. The consultants would do a workload analysis and a comparison with other like municipal courts based on volume of tickets, the number of court sessions per month, the use of “in-take” versus trial nights, etc. to determine a realistic range of hours to keep up with current workloads.
Job evaluation is not based on the credentials of, or contribution made by the person holding the position, but is seen as the systematic process of assessing the value of each job in relation to other jobs within an organization. The goal is to establish a ranking or hierarchy of worth within the organization. Job evaluation involves four steps: Job analysis, job documentation, job rating and creating a job hierarchy.
Job analysis is very important because it provides context to the organization in understanding the job duties that should be included in the position. The job duties provide the basis for determining the appropriate salary level for the position. It provides a legal basis for the minimum requirements (education and/or experience) for screening applicants. It provides the basis for Interview questions and related selection tests/instruments (e.g., written tests; oral tests; job simulations). It provides a legal basis for applicant appraisal/evaluation and related orientation materials for applicants/new hires.
The Court Clerk has presented a job summary in her memo to the Judge which indicates the essential duties of a court clerk.
The municipal court clerk is responsible for performing a variety of essential clerical and administrative support duties for the Municipal Court. The work involves pre-court, courtroom and post court activities; preparing the adult and juvenile court calendars and coordinating court matters with the municipal judge, defendant, defense counsel, prosecutor and police department; attending court sessions and recording pleas and sentences, recording trials and collecting forfeitures; taking appropriate followup actions - including completing citations, issuing pretrial notices or notices to appear, maintaining case files and payment records.
The position is currently a part time, salaried and exempt employee that is regularly scheduled to work sixteen (16) hours per week. Part-time employees receive no benefits, except legally mandated benefits, but are subject to all of the expectations and regulations expressed in the Employee Handbook. “Salary” is a regularly paid amount of money, constituting all or part of an employee’s wages, paid on a weekly or less frequent basis that is not subject to reduction due to the quality or quantity of work performed. This is the general definition in federal law (29 CFR 541.118). Since Wisconsin’s overtime law does not define “salary,” and since Wisconsin’s overtime exemptions are interpreted in a manner consistent with federal interpretation, this is the applicable definition. Exempt Employees are employees who are not required, in accordance with applicable federal wage and hours laws, to be paid overtime for work performed beyond forty (40) hours in a work week.
The current salary for the position is $11,315.20 and the total with benefits is $17,886.12. Based on a sixteen hour work week, the hourly pay rate is roughly $13.60 and would become $13.74 based on the budgeted adjustment. The City currently pays social security, retirement and a percentage of the health insurance plan. The proposed change would be from $17,886.12 to $22,342.74 and would add $4,456.62 to this year’s budget. The base salary would increase in 2011 if the budgeted increase is approved to $18,266.19 and the proposed change would increase that amount to $30,484.90 for a budget increase of $12,218.71 in the 2011 budget. The most significant cost increases coming from health insurance related to the change in employment status. The Court Clerk status will change to a part-time regular employee that is regularly scheduled to work twenty (20) or more hours per week, but less than forty (40) hours per week. Part-time Regular employees, depending on the number of hours they are regularly scheduled to work, may accrue prorated benefits (sick days, holidays, and vacation) and may also be covered by health insurance paid in part by the City.
The Municipal Court website indicates that the Office is open on Mondays and Thursdays from 8 am to 12 pm and 1 pm 4:30 pm.
The Council may direct the solicitation of quotes or direct the preparation and advertisement of a Request for Proposals. The estimated cost is $3,500 to $5,000 and this would be paid from the Council contingency fund. The consultants would do a workload analysis and a comparison with other like municipal courts based on volume of tickets, the number of court sessions per month, the use of “in-take” versus trial nights, etc. to determine a realistic range of hours to keep up with current workloads.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Management Style
“The best executive is the one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and self-restraint to keep from meddling with them while they do it.”
Theodore Roosevelt
Managers do things right; leaders do the right thing (Warren Bennis). My primary goal is to be a good leader and a good manager. Managing is about efficiency. Leading is about effectiveness. Managing is about how. Leading is about what and why. Management is about systems, controls, procedures, policies, and structure. Leadership is about trust — about people.
Both managers and leaders may know an organization well. But the leader desires to grasp the essential facts and the underlying forces that determine the trends in the organization, so that they can generate a vision to bring about its future. One telling sign of a good leader is an honest attitude towards the facts, towards objective truth. A subjective leader obscures the facts for the sake of narrow self-interest, partisan interest or prejudice. A good manager can accomplish only what has been defined and documented for him or her, yet a good leader constantly questions why things are done the way they are and is able to recognize the value and potential of doing things differently. A good leader is passionate about excellence and must therefore strive for continuous improvements and change. In other words, a good leader knows that insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.
I have always tried to establish an organizational culture by providing a defining set of shared values and expectations that act to guide the decision-making process within my organization. I have historically used modified principles of Management by Objectives (MBO) which is to attempt to have everybody within the organization clearly understand the aims, or objectives, of the organization, as well as awareness of their own roles and responsibilities in achieving those aims. The complete MBO system is to get managers and employees acting to implement and achieve their plans, which automatically achieve those of the organization.
MBO leaders focus on the result, not the activity. They delegate tasks by "communicating the goals" with their subordinates while not being directive in the implementation. I modified MBO with Situational Leadership. The fundamental underpinning of Situational Leadership is there is no single “best” style of leadership. Every organization has manager’s at different levels of maturity (“the capacity to goal set, willingness and ability to take responsibility for the task, and relevant education and/or experience). Leadership must be person/task-relevant and I believe successful leaders are those that adapt their leadership style to the maturity of the individual being led/influenced. Leadership varies, not only with the person that is being influenced, but also with the task, job or function that needs to be accomplished
Management by Objectives (MBO) is about setting objectives and then breaking them down into results. Results can be defined as performance measurements that monitor the implementation and effectiveness of an organization's strategies, determine the gap between actual and targeted performance and determine organization effectiveness and operational efficiency. Process evaluation assesses the extent to which a program is operating as it was intended. It typically assesses program activities’ conformance to statutory and regulatory requirements, program design, and professional standards or customer expectations. Outcome evaluation assesses the extent to which a program achieves its outcome-oriented objectives. It focuses on outputs and outcomes (including unintended effects) to judge program effectiveness but may also assess program process to understand how outcomes are produced. Cost/Benefit analyses compare a program’s outputs or outcomes with the costs (resources expended) to produce them. Cost-effectiveness analysis assesses the cost of meeting a single goal or objective, and can be used to identify the least costly alternative to meet that goal. Cost-benefit analysis aims to identify all relevant costs and benefits, usually expressed in dollar terms.
The set of common understandings around which action is organized within an organization also play a strong role in MBO. When an organization’s culture is strong – there is less need for a strong structure. All organizations attempt to maintain equilibrium and maximize autonomy. Culture provides the coping, growth, and survival guidelines for maintaining the integrity of the organization environment. Evolution of culture is a way a group preserves its integrity and autonomy, differentiates itself from environment, and provides itself with identity.
Theodore Roosevelt
Managers do things right; leaders do the right thing (Warren Bennis). My primary goal is to be a good leader and a good manager. Managing is about efficiency. Leading is about effectiveness. Managing is about how. Leading is about what and why. Management is about systems, controls, procedures, policies, and structure. Leadership is about trust — about people.
Both managers and leaders may know an organization well. But the leader desires to grasp the essential facts and the underlying forces that determine the trends in the organization, so that they can generate a vision to bring about its future. One telling sign of a good leader is an honest attitude towards the facts, towards objective truth. A subjective leader obscures the facts for the sake of narrow self-interest, partisan interest or prejudice. A good manager can accomplish only what has been defined and documented for him or her, yet a good leader constantly questions why things are done the way they are and is able to recognize the value and potential of doing things differently. A good leader is passionate about excellence and must therefore strive for continuous improvements and change. In other words, a good leader knows that insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.
I have always tried to establish an organizational culture by providing a defining set of shared values and expectations that act to guide the decision-making process within my organization. I have historically used modified principles of Management by Objectives (MBO) which is to attempt to have everybody within the organization clearly understand the aims, or objectives, of the organization, as well as awareness of their own roles and responsibilities in achieving those aims. The complete MBO system is to get managers and employees acting to implement and achieve their plans, which automatically achieve those of the organization.
MBO leaders focus on the result, not the activity. They delegate tasks by "communicating the goals" with their subordinates while not being directive in the implementation. I modified MBO with Situational Leadership. The fundamental underpinning of Situational Leadership is there is no single “best” style of leadership. Every organization has manager’s at different levels of maturity (“the capacity to goal set, willingness and ability to take responsibility for the task, and relevant education and/or experience). Leadership must be person/task-relevant and I believe successful leaders are those that adapt their leadership style to the maturity of the individual being led/influenced. Leadership varies, not only with the person that is being influenced, but also with the task, job or function that needs to be accomplished
Management by Objectives (MBO) is about setting objectives and then breaking them down into results. Results can be defined as performance measurements that monitor the implementation and effectiveness of an organization's strategies, determine the gap between actual and targeted performance and determine organization effectiveness and operational efficiency. Process evaluation assesses the extent to which a program is operating as it was intended. It typically assesses program activities’ conformance to statutory and regulatory requirements, program design, and professional standards or customer expectations. Outcome evaluation assesses the extent to which a program achieves its outcome-oriented objectives. It focuses on outputs and outcomes (including unintended effects) to judge program effectiveness but may also assess program process to understand how outcomes are produced. Cost/Benefit analyses compare a program’s outputs or outcomes with the costs (resources expended) to produce them. Cost-effectiveness analysis assesses the cost of meeting a single goal or objective, and can be used to identify the least costly alternative to meet that goal. Cost-benefit analysis aims to identify all relevant costs and benefits, usually expressed in dollar terms.
The set of common understandings around which action is organized within an organization also play a strong role in MBO. When an organization’s culture is strong – there is less need for a strong structure. All organizations attempt to maintain equilibrium and maximize autonomy. Culture provides the coping, growth, and survival guidelines for maintaining the integrity of the organization environment. Evolution of culture is a way a group preserves its integrity and autonomy, differentiates itself from environment, and provides itself with identity.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Another Budget
For the eleventh year, transmitted herewith is my City Manager’s Proposed Budget. The 2011 budget has been prepared in accordance with state budget laws, city policies and practices.
For example, last year the average home in the City of Lake Mills had a fair market value of approximately $175,600, and the homeowner would pay $3,445.44 in property taxes. The City’s portion of that tax bill was $1,247.63 minus the credit equals $1,184.47 Spread over 12 months, the projected cost to the owner of a $175,600 home was $98.70 per month in 2010 for municipal services. The 2011 budget is projected to increase the property tax levy on a $175,000 home to $1,310.02 minus the credit equals $1,247 or $103.91 per month. There are households in Lake Mills that pay about the same amount for cable TV, phone and internet service as they pay to the City for providing, police, fire, ambulance, financial, legislative, legal services, parks, cemetery, streets, animal control, library, records management, bookkeeping, and a host of other services. Last year, a home with a gross value of $150,098 would have an equalized value of $175,000. The same home this year will have an approximate value of $169,986. If you take $169,986 times the equalized tax rate of .00749 – you get a tax bill of $1,273.20 minus the credits results in a tax bill of $1,211.
The City’s General Fund Budget is proposed to be $4,619,900, up from $4,533,100. This is a 1.92% increase. The General Fund Debt Service was 1,059,100 and is increasing to $1,144,400. This is an 8.1% increase.
The City’s equalized assessed value for 2010 without TID is $459,000,000 and 2009 was $472,688,700 without TID. That is a 3% decrease over 2009. The equalized assessed value for 2008 with TID was $487,638,100 and the City’s equalized assessed value for 2009 was $490,186,900 and 2010 is $475,600,000. The state levy cap this year is 3% or net new construction, whichever is greater. Net new construction for this year is 1.34%. The Levy Limit Law allows for the carrying forward of unused levy from previous years. The city has $299,189 of used levy from available for 2010.
The proposed General Fund budget subject to the cap is at 1.92% - a decrease from last year’s 1.99%. The state determines an equalization ratio for balancing assessed values to market value and across jurisdictions statewide. Last year our ratio was 85.77% and this year I estimate it to be 88.3%. The State needs to do this so that school districts and other multi-jurisdictional agencies can fairly tax across jurisdictional lines and debt ratios can be determined.
The City Manager’s proposed equalized tax rate is $7.49 per thousand dollars of assessed value and is a 5.35% increase in the rate from the previous year. The gross rate is $8.49 and is a 2.34% increase in the rate from the previous year. This is an increase in total levy of $81,100 from the previous year. The City’s rate increase will raise the amount the City collects annually on a $175,000 home by $68.03.
The State Expenditure Restraint Program is based on the information being generated in this document. The State Expenditure Restraint formula is based on inflation and has generally been allowing the City about a 4.0% increase in these categories to qualify for an additional $110,000 in State aid. The State is allowing the City 3% increase this year and the city appears to be well under the line (1.92%) to qualify for expenditure restraint funds.
The Utility Budgets are run like businesses with cash flows and balances. I have not included balances or reserves in the budgets to try to plan around maintenance and capital requirements. The Utility Funds either have positive cash flows or have more than adequate balances to cover any shortfall in current year revenues and no contingency funds.
The City Manager initiates the budget process. The City Manager sets the expenditures of the budget and establishes the revenue estimates to finance the budget. The City Council may increase, decrease, or delete individual items in the proposed budget except for Debt Service expenditures. The City Manager must propose, and the City Council must adopt, a balanced budget.
For example, last year the average home in the City of Lake Mills had a fair market value of approximately $175,600, and the homeowner would pay $3,445.44 in property taxes. The City’s portion of that tax bill was $1,247.63 minus the credit equals $1,184.47 Spread over 12 months, the projected cost to the owner of a $175,600 home was $98.70 per month in 2010 for municipal services. The 2011 budget is projected to increase the property tax levy on a $175,000 home to $1,310.02 minus the credit equals $1,247 or $103.91 per month. There are households in Lake Mills that pay about the same amount for cable TV, phone and internet service as they pay to the City for providing, police, fire, ambulance, financial, legislative, legal services, parks, cemetery, streets, animal control, library, records management, bookkeeping, and a host of other services. Last year, a home with a gross value of $150,098 would have an equalized value of $175,000. The same home this year will have an approximate value of $169,986. If you take $169,986 times the equalized tax rate of .00749 – you get a tax bill of $1,273.20 minus the credits results in a tax bill of $1,211.
The City’s General Fund Budget is proposed to be $4,619,900, up from $4,533,100. This is a 1.92% increase. The General Fund Debt Service was 1,059,100 and is increasing to $1,144,400. This is an 8.1% increase.
The City’s equalized assessed value for 2010 without TID is $459,000,000 and 2009 was $472,688,700 without TID. That is a 3% decrease over 2009. The equalized assessed value for 2008 with TID was $487,638,100 and the City’s equalized assessed value for 2009 was $490,186,900 and 2010 is $475,600,000. The state levy cap this year is 3% or net new construction, whichever is greater. Net new construction for this year is 1.34%. The Levy Limit Law allows for the carrying forward of unused levy from previous years. The city has $299,189 of used levy from available for 2010.
The proposed General Fund budget subject to the cap is at 1.92% - a decrease from last year’s 1.99%. The state determines an equalization ratio for balancing assessed values to market value and across jurisdictions statewide. Last year our ratio was 85.77% and this year I estimate it to be 88.3%. The State needs to do this so that school districts and other multi-jurisdictional agencies can fairly tax across jurisdictional lines and debt ratios can be determined.
The City Manager’s proposed equalized tax rate is $7.49 per thousand dollars of assessed value and is a 5.35% increase in the rate from the previous year. The gross rate is $8.49 and is a 2.34% increase in the rate from the previous year. This is an increase in total levy of $81,100 from the previous year. The City’s rate increase will raise the amount the City collects annually on a $175,000 home by $68.03.
The State Expenditure Restraint Program is based on the information being generated in this document. The State Expenditure Restraint formula is based on inflation and has generally been allowing the City about a 4.0% increase in these categories to qualify for an additional $110,000 in State aid. The State is allowing the City 3% increase this year and the city appears to be well under the line (1.92%) to qualify for expenditure restraint funds.
The Utility Budgets are run like businesses with cash flows and balances. I have not included balances or reserves in the budgets to try to plan around maintenance and capital requirements. The Utility Funds either have positive cash flows or have more than adequate balances to cover any shortfall in current year revenues and no contingency funds.
The City Manager initiates the budget process. The City Manager sets the expenditures of the budget and establishes the revenue estimates to finance the budget. The City Council may increase, decrease, or delete individual items in the proposed budget except for Debt Service expenditures. The City Manager must propose, and the City Council must adopt, a balanced budget.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Lake Street Alley Project
The Lake Mills Wastewater Utility has determined that to serve the customers in this particular area, because of the topography, the physical features of the earth, and the current design standards required that grinder pumps be installed at seven properties on Lake Street to be able pump sewage into the pipe of the downstream gravity pipeline.
The properties will be served by a low pressure system, which uses a grinder pump to grind the sewage from the building (much like a garbage disposal in a kitchen) and pumps the sewage through small plastic pipes to the larger pipes in the street (alley).
Low pressure systems are used in areas which cannot be served by gravity pipes. However, a grinder pump system does require the property owner to take a more active role than required by a property owner served by a gravity system.
The grinder pump can handle any wastewater that is normally discharged to the sewer from a kitchen, bathroom or laundry. A sewage holding tank will need to be installed and a sewage grinder pump installed in the tank. All of the wastewater from a building flows into the tank. When the tank fills to a pre-set level, the grinder pump automatically turns on, grinds the waste, and pumps it out of the tank via the sewer service pipe and into the public sewer system. The grinder pump normally will run for one or two minutes and automatically turns off when the tank is emptied. During a typical day the pump may turn on and turn off 20 to 30 times. The pump is powered by electricity and is connected to a control panel on the property. The property owner is responsible for the plumbing and electricity from the property to the public sewer system.
A property owner will be expected to install a grinder pump and hook up to the new system and this may cost them up to $6,000. The proposal is that the City provide for a 50% grant to help mitigate the costs to these properties. The motion authorizes staff to offer the grants.
The properties will be served by a low pressure system, which uses a grinder pump to grind the sewage from the building (much like a garbage disposal in a kitchen) and pumps the sewage through small plastic pipes to the larger pipes in the street (alley).
Low pressure systems are used in areas which cannot be served by gravity pipes. However, a grinder pump system does require the property owner to take a more active role than required by a property owner served by a gravity system.
The grinder pump can handle any wastewater that is normally discharged to the sewer from a kitchen, bathroom or laundry. A sewage holding tank will need to be installed and a sewage grinder pump installed in the tank. All of the wastewater from a building flows into the tank. When the tank fills to a pre-set level, the grinder pump automatically turns on, grinds the waste, and pumps it out of the tank via the sewer service pipe and into the public sewer system. The grinder pump normally will run for one or two minutes and automatically turns off when the tank is emptied. During a typical day the pump may turn on and turn off 20 to 30 times. The pump is powered by electricity and is connected to a control panel on the property. The property owner is responsible for the plumbing and electricity from the property to the public sewer system.
A property owner will be expected to install a grinder pump and hook up to the new system and this may cost them up to $6,000. The proposal is that the City provide for a 50% grant to help mitigate the costs to these properties. The motion authorizes staff to offer the grants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)