CC_Minutes_2009_0824 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 24, 2009 Page 20 ommendations to the City Council; with senior staff available to answer questions of the Council specific to their departments; followed by City Council delibera- tions and a consensus on that threshold. Mr. Miller noted that the process this year is somewhat disjointed; however, asked that this was hindered by individual approaches and information processes, and lack of input from the Council to staff. Additional discussion included additional opportunities for meeting beyond addi- tionally this week; lack of information from the financial consultant; and recog- nizing that meeting later would allow for more to be accomplished and with addi- tional information available. Councilmember Ihlan concurred with Mr. Willmus' comments that the regular budget process be used this year, and the BFO anticipated for 2011, to allow full application and justice to the BFO process. Councilmember Ihlan expressed her need for a proposed budget. Councilmember Johnson expressed his support of setting a larger preliminary levy, anticipating that it would be reduced during the budget process; and ques- tioned whether setting a smaller preliminary levy was fiscally responsible of the City Council; and questioned how changing the budget process now would make any difference in the time constraints before the Council, and opined that chang- ing strategy at this late date was not in the best interest of the community or the City Council. Mayor Klausing noted his preference in having a City Manager-recommended budget with staff providing their recommended percentage and Council reacting to that; however, admitted that he was under the impression that the rest of the Council was more comfortable in establishing their preferred levy percentage in- crease, decrease or status quo, and negotiating from that point. Councilmember Pust noted that, at that point in the discussion, more information had been available to Councilmembers than currently is available, allowing for more of a framework for analysis and actual costs. Councilmember Pust again expressed her frustration in the limited information available for the choices to be made. Mr. Miller reviewed page 3 of the staff report and available levy increases based on the information provided to-date; and opined that levy limits should not be de- terrent, since the City was far enough those limits last year for most services, and providing additional flexibility. Additional discussion included timing to process the information to-date and time constraints in setting the preliminary levy; rationale for discussions now or after the preliminary levy was set at the highest point available; and statutory require-