CC_Minutes_2011_1024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 24, 2011 Page 23 Councilmember Pust also agreed with statements that money was cheap at this time, that things were in disrepair, and the City could do its part in putting back to work to get the economy going. Councilmember Pust reiterated her support for both of the projects, but disagreed that either or both were just maintenance issues, and taking care of normal wear and tear. Councilmember Pust opined that that normal wear and tear should be taken care of through annual levying at 2-5% in order to maintain what the City currently had, a responsibility she held as an elected City Councilmember. However, Councilmember Pust opined that this was actually capital improve- ments (CIP) as detailed in the proposed resolution, with park system improve- ments and construction of a public safety facility, both capital expenditures; and that such expenditures needed to go before the voters. Councilmember Pust noted that she had previously expressed her willingness to lead that charge to the voters, and would be 100%behind the projects; and while recognizing that the voter sup- port was probably there, she noted her strong belief that it was important to get the voter's approval. Councilmember Pust noted the significant increase to prop- erty taxes on an annual basis and that this would become a base going forward for decades; and far beyond the 2-5% increase for maintenance that the voters had elected her for maintaining the City's infrastructure and facilities. With past City Councils adopting a policy that any expenditure over$3 million would go for vot- er referendum, Councilmember Pust opined that it was still not a moral or ethical issue as suggested, but that it was an issue of democracy. Councilmember Pust advised that, based on that rationale, she would be support- ing this motion. Councilmember McGehee echoed the comments of Councilmember Pust; and in addition, in her new role as a Councilmember, lauded the Parks and Recreation Commission for their use of public input,but after her detailed review of the Mas- ter Plan findings and Implementation Plan that originally called for a voter refer- endum, it also suggested other funding options (e.g. legacy funds, grants, commu- nity partnerships, and contributions). Councilmember McGehee noted that the original timeframe for implementation recommended a voter referendum in 2011; and also noted that the park public survey did not reflect many of those priorities for this first phase of implementation. Councilmember McGehee opined that a voter referendum would allow more public discussion about the plan and match a broader range of goals, using an example of the little support from the survey for better and/or bigger warming houses. As far as the fire station is concerned, Councilmember McGehee opined that she absolutely agreed that a new station was needed; however, her problem was that even though this was a public building, the public had nothing to say about it,