CC_Minutes_2009_1012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 12, 2009 Page 16 process for the entire budget, given that the tax-supported programs were the City's largest problem areas. Mr. Miller advised that, once this initial BFO rank- ing was completed, the other departments could be considered; however, he noted that those departments were not as time-sensitive for setting the 2010 budget as the proposed General Fund programs and services. Acting Mayor Roe noted that it was staff's recommendation to initiate the BFO process at this point. Further discussion included funding for fee-based community development pro- grams and services, funding substantially by Building Permit fees; State Law re- quirements related to fees charged and a nexus to services provided, thus the stand-alone nature of the Community Development Department and functions and segregation of their revenues; identification of acronyms and membership links, whether mandatory or discretionary and rationale for participation. Councilmember Pust noted that the information request related to membership, their function and their cost, was the additional information covered in the motion on the table, thus the need for prioritization values of such memberships, noting that this was always a budget issue. Mr. Miller admitted that staff did not anticipate that question. With reference to Attachment A, page 1, and "Other" in the amount of $177,000; Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification as to what that actually included and how it should be ranked. Mr. Miller advised that he had attempted to preserve the integrity of the Spring- sted report; and this "Other Unallocated" category was taken from employee time-spent profiles, and their hours apportioned out to many different functions, some as a group and some on an individual level, but not specific to any program or function and difficult to categorize. Mr. Miller asked that Councilmembers use Attachment B, providing more detail for programs and functions in their prioriti- zation process. Councilmembers proceeded through each department, asking questions of staff as applicable, including levels of service; contingencies allotted in the Finance De- partment for all departments; ongoing maintenance of department-specific soft- ware that was not included in the Joint Powers Agreements (JPA's) with other cit- ies; and request for a breakdown from the Police Department for mandated pro- grams, whether state or City ordinance mandated, with the information to be pro- vide via e-mail to Councilmembers for their information. Councilmember Johnson sought clarification from Acting Chief Mathwig, based on citizen requests, of the philosophical relationship of the Fire and Police De-