CC_Minutes_2015_0713 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,July 13, 2015 Page 6 City Manager Trudgeon reviewed the next steps in the 2016 budget process and projected timelines: Date Next Step July 14,2015 Presentation of City Manager Recommended 2016 Budget to the Finance Commission August 10,2015 Public hearing at the City Council August 11 Public hearing at the Finance Commission August 17,2015 Joint meeting of the City Council and Finance Commission September 14,2015* City Council adoption of the 2016 Preliminary Budget and Levy October 19,2015 City Council discussion on a 2016 Final Budget and levy November 30,2015 Final City Council discussion of 2016 Budget/Levy December 7,2015 City Council Adoption of 2016 Budget,Levy,Utility Rates,and Fees *City Manager Trudgeon noted that there had been no legislative changes affecting the Housing& Redevelopment Authority(HRA)budget and levy, so a Preliminary Levy would need to be adopt- ed on September 14,and a Final on December 7,2015. At the request of Mayor Roe specific to potential levy impacts for 2016, City Manager Trudgeon advised that final analysis based on actual costs and projec- tions for 2016 were still pending as specific to utility fees. While recognizing that spending in several of those utilities had decreased, Mr. Trudgeon noted that whenever utility fees were used to fund a position, it increased fees proportional- ly. At the request of Councilmember Willmus regarding the impact to homeowners (RCA page 4), Mayor Roe and City Manager Trudgeon identified and clarified for the public the different percentage increases and average taxpayer impacts used based on levy and dollar increases. Mr. Trudgeon noted the percentage to pay attention to at this time was the projected levy increase of 3.65% from 2015 to 2016. At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Finance Director Miller fur- ther clarified the 2015 budgeted amount for COLA was 1.4%; and confirmed that at this point in 2015, the CPI was flat based on May figures until updated as pre- viously noted. Councilmember McGehee stated that she still had a problem with the budget pro- cess, and read through the 2016 CIP expenses per department, but not yet vetted by staff, the City Council or the public. Councilmember McGehee opined that this happened every year in not performing that vetting until later in the process and usually immediately before the final levy is adopted and not allowing for any meaningful dialogue or consideration about funding, creating misperceptions or misunderstanding of what is or is not being funded based on those last-minute up- dates, or pulling funding from reserves. Councilmember McGehee proposed that this practice no longer be continued to avoid getting the City in the same fix it was in eight years ago when the CIP had to be recreated. With this CIP document providing a clear, long-term projection of CIP costs, not just a "wish list," Coun- cilmember McGehee suggested it be addressed as part of the first budget glimpse allowing for ongoing transparency in line with the budget process and City Coun-