Austin Budget: Cemeteries, Environment, Taxes
- The city council gave initial approval to the city's operating budget for the upcoming fiscal year, outlining spending priorities and financial adjustments.
- Key budget changes included proposing a specific tax rate for a Municipal Utility District (MUD) under consideration for annexation.
- A policy decision was made to privatize city cemeteries, expected to generate additional funds.
- The budget allocated an additional $35,000 to the Environmental and Conservation Fund, while also sparking debate over administrative costs in the Planning Department.
Full Transcript
FOUNDIN 1 Austin City Council MINUTES For - SPECIAL CALLED COUNCIL MEETING September 11, 1990 1:00 Ρ.Μ. | - Mayor Cooke called to order the Special Called Meeting of the Council, noting the absence of Mayor Pro Tem Urdy, who arrived later in the meeting. ORDINANCES Operating Budget Council had before them for consideration seven ordinances dealing with the 1990-91 City of Austin budget. Motion 1 Councilmember Barnstone made a motion seconded by Mayor Cooke to adopt the City Manager's proposed budget by passing through first reading of an Ordinance adopting and approving the Operating Budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1990 and terminating September 30, 1991, and making appropriations for each department, project and account, amended as follows: 1. Firm tax rate of .80 for MUD City is talking about annexing. 2. Higher collection rate we are assuming of 98% (instead of 96%). which will result in a positive $51,000.00 change. 3. Privatization of cemeteries adding $18,500.00. 4. Other changes throughout the other funds but they are all editorial changes. 5. Three positions in the Electric Fund are being transferred to Information Systems Department but the Electric Fund will continue paying for them. 6. The Environmental and Conservation Fund will increase by $35,000.00 7. All other changes have zero impact. Amendments to Main Motion Councilmember Epstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Larson, to hold administrative costs at their previous level in the Planning Department. Discussion followed because Councilmember Epstein indicated she had many items to question and discuss. Council agreed that her question's should be referred to the City Manager. Dr. Barnett told Council she would have the answers by the time of the second reading of the budget, September 12, 1990.