CC_Minutes_2010_0816 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 16, 2010 Page 12 At the request of Councilmember Roe, Mr. Miller volunteered to provide addi- tional information to the City Council on capital investments over a ten (10) year average. Councilmember Roe opined that if the City Council was looking to cut other areas in the Community Development area that are fee-funded, but remain unfunded at this time, even with the shift in code enforcement to the General Fund, it was pru- dent to prioritize those remaining items to determine if the budget could be realis- tically reduced or savings found. Councilmember Roe further opined that such prioritization by the City Council would provide guidance to staff in making deci- sions and/or recommendations. Councilmember Roe further noted that fees for City functions listed in Attachment B were impacted and that some areas may not be able to achieve savings (e.g. water and other enterprise funds) that would pro- vide additional levy funds for other functions in tax-supported funds. Council- member Roe suggested that, if the proposal was to save money in the Community Development Department by keeping code enforcement out of the tax-supported side of the ledger, the City Council should provide rankings to see if those savings could be achieved. Mayor Klausing questioned Councilmember Roe, if his interpretation was that by moving fee-supported items to the General Fund supported revenue due to a lack of funds, if only those funds were ranked, they would be ranked against each oth- er as part of the overall budget ranking. Councilmember Roe responded affirmatively; clarifying that when ranking any- thing, you provided it with a numerical rank related to that of tax supported func- tions, no matter its funding source; and that this option was taking something - code enforcement -currently supported by fees rather than General Fund tax-levy supported; and that further determination would be based on whether it was total- ly or proportionately fee supported; recognizing that Community Development activities were funded by fees, and that if code enforcement remains under that fee-supported system, another area of the department may need to be reduced or ranked lower to provide sufficient funds for code enforcement. City Manager Malinen also noted that fees were specific to the service provided, and that if the service was a mandatory classification, such as Electrical Inspec- tions, the City still had to make that inspection and could not reduce that level of service. Councilmember Ihlan noted the breakdown of the Community Development budget and percentage assigned to planning, and economic development and/or redevelopment based on building permit review and improvements. Council- member Ihlan opined that, if those activities were down, the first thing to scale back on was those categories. Councilmember Ihlan expressed her willingness to