The Star Bulletin - Daily News Updates

Home News Cal City delays again a decision on a new budget

Cal City delays again a decision on a new budget

Cal City delays again a decision on a new budget

Cal City delays again a decision on a new budget.

On Thursday, the City Council saw the budget proposal for the 2022-2023 fiscal years. However, it delayed any decision until January when a new Council will be seated and more information will be available.

ClearGov Inc. presented the draft budget for the fiscal year, which is already five months old. It is the first time that ClearGov Inc. has submitted it under a contract of three years, which was awarded in October.

Interim City Manager Jim Hart stated that the budget presented was “apparently our first attempt at a Budget with the Council” and is being presented for Council input.

Madison High graduate finishes college football career

The city has used the budget under several extensions since July 1, when the fiscal year began. This budget proposal is basically an extension to the budget for 2021-2022. Hart stated that it will continue programs and services at the same level through the end of the current fiscal year.

Hart stated that the proposed budget is balanced with sufficient surplus in the General Fund for the covering of deficits in areas where revenues are not sufficient to cover expenses. Hart also said that the budget was balanced.

The proposed budget for the General Fund, which pays most of the city’s daily expenses, is $5.64million, $1.13million less than the 2021-2022 budget. With projected revenues of $7.6million, it will leave the city with nearly $2 million surplus.

Jeanie O’Laughlin, Mayor of Montreal, disputed the surplus figure. She stated that the General Fund has to cover the deficits of other funds up to $800,000. She stated that this should be included in General Fund expenses.

Cal City delays again a decision on a new budget

Many Council members were unhappy with the format. They claimed that the information was not clear and did not include the explanations and summaries they were used to.

Hart stated that the Thursday format was not final and could be accessed online with clear links. Hart stated that some links were confusing because of the fact that print copies were provided to the Council and the general public.

O’Laughlin stated that she felt there was still a lot to be done.

An overview of the funding priorities for next year is one of the missing items from the budget presentation.

To understand the legal costs, Nick Lessenevitch, Mayor Pro Tem, requested an accounting of the city’s legal services, preferably per case and by legal firm.

He said that although the budget proposed indicates $800,000.000 in legal expenses at this point.

He said that such information is necessary in order to approve a budget.

He said that such information is necessary in order to approve a budget.

The Council would like to see separate lists of application fees, licenses, and permit fees for the cannabis industry’s revenues. This will allow the Council to allocate expenses correctly. This is required to comply with Prop. This is necessary to meet Prop.

Karen Macedonio, Councilmember, stated that “we have to have more detail to understand what’s going on.”

The debate about how cannabis revenues should be allocated in relation to Measure C, the special property tax for the city, has continued. Discussions also continue on how these revenues can be used to support public safety funds.

Discussions also covered recommendations on how to allocate the remaining funds from the American Rescue Plan Act to the city. These funds are used to purchase equipment and vehicles for various city departments such as the fire department, parks and recreation, and public works departments.

In January, the Council held a town hall meeting to get public input about how to use the $3 million in funding.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here