CC_Minutes_2010_0809 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 09, 2010 Page 16 preliminary, not-to-exceed tax levy; and staff's attempt to provide as much infor- mation to them as possible prior to that decision, including short- and long-term capital needs as well as day-to-day operational costs. Mr. Miller noted staff's re- sponse to the City Council's request to separate out mandatory items; however, noted the information remained of a preliminary nature. Mr. Miller advised that staff was awaiting City Council reaction to the additional information from a levy standpoint on where to draw the line if other than where indicated by internal staff review to-date. Discussion included Attachment A and rankings and where the line would be eventually drawn for those items included in the 2011 budget recommendations; those items supported in full or in part by property taxes with those mandatory items separated out and staff indications of additional monies needed and/or budget increases for 2011 as detailed in the RCA. Further discussion included current vacant positions and the need for staff to pro- vide additional staff analysis from a management point of view and input on those positions remaining vacant without significant impacts to specific departments and/or day-to-day operations; need for current and future review of the impact of those previous positions versus a historical perspective to meet the needs of de- partments at current program and/or service levels and management's rationale for their recommendations; additional information on Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) costs as new and not ranked; and code enforcement being brought into alevy- supported as opposed to fee-supported part of the budget and subsequent ranking. City Manager Malinen responded to several questions of the City Council ad- dressing projected impacts due to loss of interest earnings as projected on Mr. Miller's analysis of the market and the City's investment portfolio performing worse than last year; illumination of the EAB program anticipating the need and attempting to identify resources for appropriate response and prioritization; and lack of sustainability of the City's overall code enforcement program from Com- munity Development Department revenues funded through their own revenue streams from development and inspection charges and permit fees. Mr. Malinen noted that code enforcement seemed more of a quality of life issue for the entire community, rather than specifically related to planning and zoning, and should be addressed through the General Fund. Further discussion included no additional funds included for rolling stuck, with $60,000 identified to begin replacement of city-owned street lights and poles, and $150,000 for short-term needs for smaller equipment, and other smaller capital items, with the 2010 CIP for rolling stock matched in 2011. Councilmember Ihlan requested an itemized list of proposed CIP purchases for a line-by-line review by Councilmembers and whether they should be funded by tax monies. Councilmember Ihlan opined that assumptions should not be made to