CC_Minutes_2014_0825 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,August 25, 2014 Page 16 but clarified that it would still require action by the City Council as part of the 2015 budget process to ratify those recommendations. Mayor Roe clarified that resolutions didn't set the annual levy, and confirmation of those recommendations were on the annual docket for this and future City Councils. Specific to raising revenue through increased fees, Councilmember McGehee asked that the Finance Commission be charged with discussion the pros and cons of annual bonding for some of these CIP items, particularly infrastructure needs to avoid repetitive fee increases to pay for them. Recognizing that the City Council usually had an annual fee review and update provided by staff, Councilmember McGehee asked if that would be the case this year as well; and sought consensus interest in having those discussions in light of the large volume of fees or CIP gaps that seem to be related to Parks and Recreation needs with new facilities coming on line in 2016 and 2017, even after the $19 million bond issue. Coun- cilmember McGehee expressed her surprise in seeing such a large amount of un- funded needs remaining, even through the most recent community survey results supported the resident interest in retaining the same level of services and pro- grams as they were currently receiving. However, Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council needed to determine how to accomplish that, and of- ten failed to pay attention to basic infrastructure needs, which she considered es- sential services, such as consistent and continual water, sewer service and street infrastructure needs as well. Regarding the assumptions outlined by Finance Director Miller in his presenta- tion, particularly Assumption A entitled "The City desires to maintain all existing programs and services at existing levels;" Councilmember Willmus opined that question #47 of the latest 2014 community survey conflicted with that assump- tion. Councilmember Willmus expressed his disappointment that the same survey format had not been followed over time, and to find the same question he went back to 1998 and percentage changes from then to the 2014 survey for responses to that question, with favorable responses for support of a tax increase to maintain those levels being significantly reduced, and the opposition to a tax increase be- coming higher over that same time. Councilmember Willmus opined that, as more residents became aware of proposed 2015 cost and increases, that opposition number may increase; and therefore it behooved the City Council to begin the reprioritization process as mentioned by Councilmember McGehee. Coun- cilmember Willmus advised that this would be a critical or key component mov- ing forward. Regarding the bonding proposal, Mayor Roe stated that they still had to be paid, and a plan of how to pay them needed to be part of the discussion. While bonding was often used at the state level for infrastructure needs, Mayor Roe clarified that they also removed debt service as they added more, so the net impact didn't create