CC_Minutes_2011_0822 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,August 22,2011 Page 8 sults and staff ratings; which particular program items came out of; and where they fell in terms of priority ranking. Councilmember Pust also sought clarification on which documents to use, the highlighted attachment to the RCA dated August 8, 2011 (Attachment B) or the document listing all 160 programs as rated; and how or if they corresponded with each other. City Manager Malinen described the process used by staff, upon receiving direc- tion from the City Council to reduce the operating budget by 2% with a corres- ponding levy increase for the CIP, with the reduction in the operating budget used to fund the CIP as well. At that point, City Manager Malinen advised that he had provided direction to Department Heads to look at their specific budgets for a 3% reduction, using City Council rankings to come up with that percentage. Councilmember Pust opined that this should allow Councilmembers to track fairly well from this document with ratings and those lowest ranked programs, thus the rationale for cutting those items, and consistent with the process to-date. City Manager Malinen concurred with Councilmember Pust's assessment, sug- gesting that Attachment C provided the areas proposed for decreases, with most at the bottom level of rankings; however, noting that not all were, given input from Department Heads on their rationale and their ultimate recommendations to achieve the 3% reduction. Based on Department Head overall department pers- pectives and expertise, City Manager Malinen noted that not all reductions may b in higher ranked programs when they were able to achieve some reductions. However, City Manager Malinen noted that some of those that may be ranked lower by the City Council may be mandated programs. Finance Director Miller advised that, as part of the original 3% reduction, more than the revised City Manager-recommended budget cuts, there were some things that may be from both columns. Mayor Roe asked that staff clarify the relationship between Attachments A and C and provide a cross-reference. Finance Director Miller proceeded to systematically compare those items hig- hlighted in Attachment C as sorted by City Council ranking; and those highlighted by City Manager Malinen for 2012 Tax Supported budget cuts, working from the end of Attachment C to the beginning; detailing those items remaining to be re- duced or eliminated under the revised City Manager-recommended budget in At- tachment A. Those programs still recommended for removal and/or reduction included: