PUBLIC HEARING: FY 2018-2019 Budget

Lincoln City Hall, Council Chambers

700 Broadway Street I Lincoln, Illinois

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

The Public Hearing of the City Councilof Lincoln was called to order by Mayor Seth Goodman at 7 p.m., with proper notice given. The hearing was held in regards to the Fiscal Year

2018-2019 Budget.

Present:

Alderman Steve Parrott Alderman Tracy Welch Alderman Ron Fleshman Alderwoman Michelle Bauer Alderwoman Heidi Browne Alderman Jeff Hoinacki Alderman Dayne Dalpoas

Present:

City Administrator Elizabeth Kavelman City Clerk Peggy Bateman

Treasurer Chuck Conze Police Chief Paul Adams

Assistant Fire Chief Darren Coffey Building and Safety Officer Wes Woodhall

Waste Water and Treatment Manager Tim Ferguson Streets Superintendent Walt Landers

Absent:

City Attorney Blinn Bates Alderman Ron Keller

Presiding:

Mayor Seth Goodman

Public Comment:

Mayor Goodman turned things over to City Treasurer Chuck Conzo--to discuss the appropriations ordinance 2018-881 for Fiscal Year 2018-2019. He said in previous meetings the public heard about the budget and appropriations and the purpose of this meeting is to hear

public comment. The documents were made available on July 12.

Mrs. Wanda Lee Rohlfs came forward and directed questions to Treasurer Conze. She delved in questions surrounding the Telecommunications Tax. She said she noticed after looking back at previous budgets, that from 2011-2012, the tax went down from $410,626 to $288,000 in

2018-2019, she wanted to know how this would impact the public, because if you look at the TIF District-and you look at The Telecommunications Tax revenue-it shows as having an income of $426,923 in the years 2016-2035. She wanted to know if this would have any impact on those particular service amounts.

The treasurer said it could, but we don't know what will happen with the tax in the future, it could go down, it could go back up, it could change based on the Illinois State Legislature. He said telecommunications/electronics were not his expertise, but a lot of it has to do with the disconnection of a lot of landline phones. He said this is pledged as the primary source to pay for the TJF Bond, he said the ordinance does pledge the remaining streams of revenue in the GRF. He said we would hope that would not be necessary to get that far down.

We would not come close to that, he said if it gets that far down it will affect us in a lot of ways. He said it would be enough to cover the difference of the TIF increment and the amount of the TIF Bond payment.

She asked if it was only used for the TIF-or do you use that for any other . . . He said we can use it for any General Revenue Fund purpose. He said the amount we would need for the TIF District. The difference between the property tax and the bond payment.

He said if he had a blackboard it would be easier to explain what he means. In the foreseeable future he said we will not see it drop that low. He said the hope would be that the TIF increment will increase to the point where they don't have to use any of the Telecommunications Tax or other revenue streams.

The payment for the TIF Bond-the taxes are abated every year. So that we would not levee taxes to pay that bond issue.

She wanted to know if that was a possibility, she said we don't know what will happen between now and 2035. But that could be a possibility then. He said it could, but that's an extremely unlikely thing to happen.

She said the Telecommunications Tax, if we look at the landline bills, she said she has a landline . . . we see that tax on that-the total amount that we get every year goes into the state for the town of Lincoln and that's what we get back? He said not all of it. We get what the state gives us. She asked so not all of what the City of Lincoln pays in their phone bills in the Telecommunications Tax comes back to us? She said we ought to change that.

She then wanted to go to page 14 in the packet. She said in if you look at the TIF District-she had a couple of questions. She said if I look back at the budgets, most of the budgets were not prepared by Mr. Conze, they were performed by former city administrators . . . she said some of her comments do not pertain to the current city treasurer. She said after going through the budgets and looking at the TIF items there were a lot of inconsistencies, she did not get a very clear picture. She said on page 14, if we look at the amounts, she had $135,000 for the tax increment, $3,500 interest, which comes out to $138,035. She asked if that was on his . . .

Treasurer Conze said that is an error and that one is my error. He said the $135,035 is correct that should be $35 in interest as projected, he said that's consistent with the column next to that and it was correct in the original budget . . . that was just an error.

He said the total is correct then . . .$135,035. Alderwoman Michelle Bauer said that is the total. It was $135,000 plus $35.

Mrs. Rohlfs wanted to know what $135,035 and $85,000 added together came out to. He said that would be $220,035. Alderwoman Bauer said those two columns are not added together . .. but you're asking to do the math?

She said when Ilook at this we had several revenue items. The tax, the increment tax, the interest of now $35, and the GRF amount of $85,000. Alderwoman Bauer said it's a transfer, but not a guaranteed transfer.

She then wanted to look at the expenditures. Between those two there is about a $22,000 difference. He said there is more in revenue in transfers than there is in expenditures. He said the $85,000 is not a guaranteed amount, it's a limit. He said theoretically we could receive more in property tax increment that the $135,000 than we are expecting to receive. He said with the appropriation, it's not what we will spend, it's what we can spend if we have to.

She said so at this point we don't know if we'll have that kind of an increment in the TIF District? He said we don't know who's going to pay their taxes . . . or who isn't. He said it's the entire property tax. He said we know what the levee is, he did not think it would be off by much. He said last time he under projected it. He said he is hoping that he has under projected it again

this year. He said if we're really lucky it will be under projected again. She said so we have a little bit of cushion there? That was her question.

Alderwoman Bauer said we were even in the budget-she said the $135,000, plus the $35, plus the $61,640, came out to equal the revenue expenditure of $197, 176. She said when Iwas looking over at the transfer line, that was in the appropriations portion-that was as needed ... so that's why it didn't make sense to her, what she [Mrs. Rohlfs] was asking.

She said when we put in the fade grant amount, as it is the TIF Grant, if you go back to the very beginning, the only thing the city had as TIF Grants was the $2.53 million dollars . . .She said so all of the sudden you were seeing a drop. Again to her, they might need to be listed under different titles. She said $20,000 for a fade grant is not the same thing . . .as a TIF Grant.

He said the city has done it both ways. He said looking back at it, it would probably be better to do it as a TIF Fade Grant out of the General Revenue Fund. He spoke to this. She said there was someone else who was doing budgets there for a few years . . .

[Inaudible] Further comments between Mrs. Rohlfs and Treasurer Conzo ensued. She said one year we did $50,000. She closed by saying, "thank you.n

Adjournment:

Mayor Goodman called others forward to speak under public participation.There being none. Alderwoman Bauer motioned to adjourn, seconded by Alderman Parrott. The Public Hearing adjourned at 7:17 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted By:

Alex Williams, Recording Secretary

3 ITuesday, July 24, 2018