CC_Minutes_2009_1207 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, December 07, 2009 Page 10 Mr. Miller used, as an example, the 2010 proposed training budget amount that was the same as that of 2009; and noted that the priorities for that training within departments had not yet been prioritized until staff was made aware of the City Council's final goals and objectives, at which time Department Heads will assign priorities within that line item based on those goals and objectives. Mr. Miller advised that this was applicable to each specific department for training, supplies, and professional services budgets, at which time staff would then provide a line item budget. Councilmember Ihlan opined that she was not asking the City Council to direct staff to create something new, alleging that there had to be line item number to support the budget expenditure summaries provided by staff. Councilmember Ih- lan noted that the City Council only had one more meeting to set the 2010 budget; and opined that something was really wrong. Councilmember Roe noted that the BFO process was amulti-step process, and that the BFO process was not followed. for all non tax-supported programs, thus that information was available based on past practice and information. Council- member Roe clarified that since the BFO process was being implemented for 2010 for tax-supported funds, many items were represented as a lump sum and were still pending (i.e., depreciation, employee health care costs), with Mr. Miller needing to have direction, based on Council priorities, to allocate that total sum into each department and each applicable fund. Councilmember Roe noted that he understood that it was an aggregate concept from 2009 to 2010, and that was sufficient for his decision-making. Councilmember Roe further noted that, other funds were less complicated (i.e., Fire Relief Fund). Councilmember Pust, in response to Councilmember Roe's examples, opined that there remained 11 new spending areas in the 2010 proposed budget, with the ma- jority not requiring staff to allocate among or within departments (i.e., Hazardous and Diseased Tree Program). Councilmember Pust opined that if staff was to print out the 2009 budget and supporting documents, and changed those applica- ble items for 2010, including the items as amended mid-year in 2009, distributing them as requested, it wouldn't require too much staff time. Mr. Miller concurred that such an exercise would not be labor intensive as de- scribed; however, he noted that this had been provided in the budget matrix being used by Councilmembers and color highlighted as previously discussed. How- ever, Mr. Miller understood Councilmember Ihlan's request was to provide the detail behind the line items, which was not yet available for 2010. Councilmember Pust reviewed several new line items (i.e., replacing lost State Aid; Arboretum restroom) that also didn't require allocation among departments; and opined that more time had been spent arguing about the request than would