Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Superior council debates revised 2012–13 budget, proposal for 3.8% levy increase fails
Summary
Councilors heard a revised General Fund budget from Finance Director Vito that included a proposed 3.8% property tax levy increase (about $29 per $100,000 of assessed value). After hours of debate and public questions, a motion to approve the amended budget failed 4–6.
The City of Superior Common Council on the evening reviewed a revised 2012–2013 General Fund operating budget that included a proposed 3.8% property tax levy increase, which finance staff said would equal about $29 per $100,000 of assessed valuation.
Finance Director Vito presented the “revised recommended budget” and explained staff identified a $179,000 shortfall after updated revenue estimates; Mayor Hagan recommended covering that gap by reducing transfers from the capital improvement program. “The revised recommended budget calls for a 3.8% increase in levy, which equals or equates to $29 per $100,000 of assessed valuation,” Vito told the council.
Why it matters: Councilors said the levy would be noticeable to residents and business owners already facing other tax pressures. Council discussion focused on service-level impacts, the condition of city facilities, the depleted contingency, and alternatives to raising taxes, including across-the-board departmental cuts and further internal efficiencies.
Details and debate: Councilor Olsen, speaking from the phone, said she could not support the recommended levy and urged the council to “come up with a lower levy increase, identify the budget issues that we need to be corrected, and tighten up on the belts of the departments that need to be balanced better.” Councilor Bender, who reviewed the published staffing tables, urged careful review of line items and raised concerns about the cumulative effect when county and school levies are added to city increases. Councilor McKenzie and others emphasized resident complaints about taxes and urged exploring alternatives to a property tax increase.
Staff described specific trade-offs in the revised budget: the draft included staffing reductions and program cuts already identified (for example, reductions proposed for fire and police staffing and for vehicle replacements), and it assumed use of CIP transfers to close the $179,000 gap. Vito warned the revised budget leaves the city with no contingency fund for unexpected demolition or emergency removal costs.
Action taken: A motion to approve the amended (revised) General Fund budget was made and seconded. After floor debate, the council took a roll-call vote: Councilors Stenberg, McDonald, Finsland and Herrick voted yes; Councilors Olsen, Bridge, Bender, McKenzie, Goyal and Brown voted no. The motion failed 4–6.
What’s next: Mayor and council leadership said they will meet to develop recommendations for further changes and to return with alternatives. Staff warned that waiting too long could jeopardize the city’s timeline for adopting a budget and holding required public hearings. Finance staff offered to provide more detail on the potential operational consequences of smaller levy increases and on department-level reduction scenarios.
Ending: The council did not adopt a revised budget during the meeting and directed additional work and follow-up; staff and several councilors flagged that further public meetings and a revisited proposal will be needed before a final budget is adopted.
