Laserfiche WebLink
82 April I I th and April 18 th <br />3 The Council adopted a budget work plan, and budget and' financialpolicies. The Council <br />also reviewed the budgetprogram' descriptions, agreed on the budgetprocess and developed <br />I I th, .,o <br />program ranking criteria. On A it the C unil also re-affirm'ed its support for <br />p <br />6 <br />following a program'-bused budget. <br />M <br />rd <br />May 2'3 <br />9 .,o I Ity C uncil budget program priority rankings. The <br />The C uncil reviews ty Staff and ./o <br />90 Council rankings, and to a lesser extent the (,ommunity Survey results, are used to guide the <br />9111 (,.,Ity Manager Recommended Budget including the proposed program and service <br />92 reductions. <br />93 <br />94 June 13 th and June 2'0 th <br />95 The Council reviews the recommendations set forth by the CIP Task Force. The Council <br />96 tentatively agrees to increase water and sewer rates by 60-65% in 2'012, to fungi' <br />utility <br />97 infrastructure. The Council also tentatively agrees to increase the tax levy by $500, 000 to <br />98 strengthen jund'in for vehicles, equipment, and general facilities replacement. <br />th <br />Y <br />The Council receives Y i es the (,., ty Manager Recommended Budget which included the reduction <br />'1 2 or elimination of selected programs and services in lieu of requiring higher taxes. The <br />1 3 re . <br />' proposed reductions a primarily based -Y <br />on (,.,Ity Council's priorities, but also incorporate <br />state mandates or other practical considerations that lim'it the (7ity -s ability to reduce or <br />eliminate lower-ranked' programs and services. <br />'I ('_) 6 <br />107 JuIv 25th and AuQrust 8th <br />The Council continues discussion and receives public comment on the Recommended <br />Budget. <br />Understandably, the proposed program and service level reductions called for in the Recommended <br />112 Budget has generated some concern in the community as well as with some Councilmembers. City <br />113 Staff shares that concern. The transparency of the budget cuts stems directly from the program-based <br />114 budgeting approach that the Council agreed to follow. <br />116 Under this new approach, budget reductions are equated with program reductions. This is in contrast <br />11 "7 to prior budgeting approaches where budget reductions weren't necessarily connected to specific <br />11 programs. This sometimes resulted in highly valued programs being diminished instead of lower- <br />119 valued ones. The new approach is more transparent,, creates greater accountability, and is more <br />120 sustainable. <br />121 <br />122 City Manager Recommended Budget and Tax Levy (revised on 8/8/11) <br />123 The City Manager Recommended Budget was originally presented on July 11, 2 011. A revised <br />124 recommendation was delivered on August 8th. The Recommended Budget now calls for a tax levy <br />125 increase of $262,500 or 1.8% over the previous year. The additional monies would be solely dedicated for <br />12 6 capital replacements. <br />12 "7 <br />128 The Recommended Budget would also re-purpose one-half, or $,287,500 of the tax levy dollars previously <br />129 dedicated to offset MVHC reductions,, for day-to-day operations. These monies would be used to continue <br />130 funding for all existing City Staff positions. This measure would stave off employee terminations and any <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />