CC_Minutes_2009_0824 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 24, 2009 Page 9 Councilmember Roe opined that it was possible to set a Preliminary Levy, based on principles of BFO, not on actual levels of services, but what the city taxpayers were willing to pay for their property tax for city services; and based on the City Council's best judgment of the value and level of those services, and where priori- ties fell. Councilmember Roe further opined that the key piece of information was at what level or standard the service or program is currently, and how those items varied, which items were obligations without discretion, and which were discretionary. Mr. Miller noted that staff had prepared some performance data, but that it was not inclusive, due to some programs or services not having a good standard meas- urement, and based on quality versus quantity, with those specific areas always providing a challenge when quantitative data was not available or applicable. Mr. Miller advised that the information was available from Department Heads, if not in black and white, at least verbally. Councilmember Johnson questioned whether staff would take the City Council through Option 2. Councilmember Johnson opined that the City Council was re- luctant to make the grand leap with the current information available; and further opined that he was not against levying higher than actual need as a preliminary step. Mr. Miller advised that staff would provide some qualitative and quantitative measures, but that peer comparisons had not been done to-date. City Manager Malinen advised that if the entire BFO process was creating angst, it was a good thing, as the BFO process was designed to move outside comfort zones and historical processes; and reminded Councilmembers that staff was alerting taxpayers and the City Council that the past year's budget processes had not provided fiscal sustainability; and that this process would allow for greater transparency to get the City back on track. Councilmember Pust admitted her frustration, not based on her understanding of the BFO process or lack of philosophical desire for that approach, but based on a lack of line items for her and the public to react to. Councilmember Pust opined that the City needed to contract earlier or establish timeframes within the contract with Springsted to get the information in a more timely fashion. Councilmember Pust again asked staff if they anticipated the contractual obligation as detailed for Option 1 by Springsted to be completed by September 14, 2009, if not before. Mr. Miller advised that this was their proposal as contractually dictated, and for which the City was paying Springsted $15,100; noting that was his expectation. 11. Public Hearings