CC_Minutes_2011_0822 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,August 22,2011 Page 25 needs to be addressed; and further noting that the Team had purposely brought that number down to a more realistic number in recognizing the other community needs being considered by the City Council the overall budget. Councilmember Pust sought clarification if the Team was opposed to going to the taxpayers for a vote on a referendum. Chair Etten responded that the Team was not opposed to doing so, but felt that those discussions had been held earlier and that it was their consensus that Step One should be offered through abatement bonding, with future steps going to re- ferendum for an up or down vote by the community (e.g. community center). Mr. Brokke noted the Team's review of four (4) options for funding Step One, and recommendations that this first step was more appropriate for abatement bonding, because it was primarily to take care of the existing system. Councilmember Willmus opined that the Team had been correctly gauging res- ponses over the last few City Council meetings and was taking the correct view toward this abatement bonding. Councilmember Willmus further opined that he viewed this as park infrastructure, similar to that of other infrastructure needs whose management would not go before the voters as a referendum; with the re- sults of whether that infrastructure should be maintained or not based on popular vote. Since future phases called for expansion of that existing system, Council- member Willmus opined that they were more appropriate for a referendum; and advised that he would have a different outlook on those phases; and that he would look to the community at that time to indicate at the polls their preferences. Re- garding this abatement bonding for this purpose, Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of this option and the projects as outlined; and applauded the Team for looking at property acquisition at this time to reap more cost efficiencies in the long term; and offered his encouragement and full support of moving forward with Implementation Step One as presented. Councilmember McGehee echoed some of Councilmember Pust's comments; also commending the Team, as she had throughout the process, for their involvement of the community. However, as she had previously advised Mr. Brokke, Coun- cilmember McGehee spoke in opposition to the bonding as proposed. Council- member McGehee advised that this opposition was in part due to the language provided in the City Council's own Fiscal Policy related to community participa- tion in bond issues, which she read for the record. Community Participation and Consultation Policy Purpose While the City Council is elected to represent the community in making choices of public safety,public works and the providing of general governmental services,