Remarks by Jim Morrison
81 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 3 of 4
Well, if we don't, I'll be moving that we continue the matter until January, February of whatever year it takes.
I have a question looking at our state government declared accounting form. You would say that we are $90 million ahead of 2025 in our expenditures. And I think that is not reflective in 25 and 26 of our reserve funds. Is that why it appears to be 90 million?
And so do our reserve funds approximate $90 million?
So if their form also had been a little more artful, we would have known in 25 we had extra million dollars in these same reserves that don't show up in their current form. Is that correct? In other words, it said 165 million and 25. I assume if we had had those reserves, it might have been 190. So it really isn't reflective of what we're doing?
So if our reserve funds are 82 million that we have approximately now, that's almost 50% of an annual budget that we're intending to expend, is that correct?
Is there a limit of how far we need to be or you're recommending we do with reserve funds?
to those conditions Well, I don't disagree with Larry's comment I think from our first meeting in January It was concerned about where our expenditures were and we needed to lower the mill levy Mill levies are kind of a magical term that nobody in the general public pays attention to. I think you've done a good job of keeping us under what the inflation rate for valuations on property are, but I think we need to remind ourselves, or at least I'm reminding myself, that come January of 27, if we have that same kind of meeting, I'm gonna be saying we gotta do better. And we've done better, but I…
Well, it seems to me the comments that Larry's made and I've made, we had to acknowledge that we're not doing it revenue neutral. We had to recognize some growth within the community. And revenue neutral next year may be still the battle, but it's going to be at least a target that we have to keep as a marker on the road where we are. I think for the last rounds of all of these meetings, we've had to acknowledge that neutral wasn't going to work this year.
I do agree it's important to have this discussion. Probably ought to be ongoing more annually during the year so you understand and we understand where we're at. I'm satisfied that we've made an attempt to reduce the levy. I think it's important in light of the issues that are coming for the city, which is the sales tax, because even though one is going off, it is apparent in our community, the streets and other public facilities have been unable to keep up with the need of repair and maintenance and upkeep because it was not dedicated funds sufficient to keep it that way so maybe we're…
Well, 3% is an arbitrary number that makes sense, but when you look at what else we're doing in the neighborhood, county is lower than that, but they also have step and pay grade automatic for tenure. And so I assume when I do the math, that's well beyond 3%. Police department was only like one and a half, as I recall, but they have step and pay. which put them beyond 3%. Have no idea, I'm not smart enough to read the school board budget information, find out what they're doing, but I assume that they are not less than 3%. But we do have to keep staff. Our concern is do we have the right…
I perused all the stuff you gave us. And I'm not in your field of expertise. But on new developments, the lot and all these rules really don't concern me. east of Sunset where they don't have a whole lot of platting restrictions about lot size, you know, association restrictions. If I've got one of the ward lots that is a 50 by 150, which would accommodate two facilities at 3,000 or more, do they have to replat, rezone each of those?
So it would be a front and back division?
If there's an alley, does that allow the primary access to the new 3,000 square foot lot off the alley as a primary access?
I mean, do our ordinances allow that as the primary access? I know it does for garages and other things, but if it's a separate home?
subsequent topic to talk about, that easily could change the character of a neighborhood. And how does that fit in with what we're going to be having to discuss and discuss?
And looking at it again, it looks like it's statewide, so there's no variation as the first class, second class, third class county. It appears to be...
The classes of the cities, so therefore no charter ordinance can restrict or limit the wisdom of the legislature. Interesting.
Yeah. My thought is if we have a raw piece of land that somebody wants to develop with 3,000 square foot lots, whoever buys it knows what they're gonna get and that's their issue and their decision. But I think in some of our older neighborhoods, it's going to be disruptive and not necessarily well accepted. And so if we can't do nothing about it, all we can do is tell the legislature, maybe they shouldn't have done it, but that isn't very effective either. Thank you.
But if they cleared the block out like Larry asked and replanted it, they can make the lots design any way they want, as long as 3,000 feet.
We couldn't move as fast as the Wisdom in Topeka moved, but our ordinance is adjusted. Is, I think, a fair answer? Is that correct, Stephanie?
Setbacks on the side the back and all that. Mm-hmm. I did not see those specific numbers in the Legislative Act were those things that you're recommending that we would have to do they be orderly So anything so the setbacks here those were not you're right.
Could we be sneaky and just not change those setbacks? We certainly have that option. And that would certainly restrict substantially the ability to do any interior lot modifications unless the house burned down and they did something stacking like you just showed. Would that cure most of that? Go ahead.
So what you just pulled up, the blue numbers are things that you've created, not what the legislative action required. Is that correct?
They'd be doing a three- or four-story building if they met requirements they have in place.
But if we don't modify those, then we do force more problems on wanting to do that, don't we?