CC_Minutes_2010_1115 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, November 15, 2010 Page 20 At the request of Mayor Klausing, Mr. Miller advised that the work papers could be collected, but not easily. Councilmember Johnson noted that, last year, he didn't support the motion to get line item information for Council Member Pust since the City Council majori- ty agreed to the Budgeting for Outcomes Process, not line item budgeting. How- ever, since Council Member Ihlan is asking for staff work sheets and not an alter- native budgeting process such papers should be provided to any council member requesting them regardless if they correlated to the budget summary or not. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe; and Ihlan. Nays: Klausing. Motion carried. Councilmember Pust referenced Attachment A, questioning whether staff could add another column matching those and headed "2010 Program Costs" for com- parison purposes. Finance Director Miller advised that, as previously discussed between Council- members and staff 8 -9 months ago, few of the program listings in the packet to- day are totally different than those 161 programs the City Council had previously worked with, with new programs developed following conversations with the City Council and definition of those programs. Mr. Miller expressed his recollection and understanding, from those discussions, that the City Council understood at that time that staff would be unable to provide a program -by- program compari- son, other than in large portions, between 2010 and 2011. Councilmembers Roe and Pust concurred, noting that that information was re- flected in the summary. Councilmember Johnson noted that staff providing criteria to narrow program- ming down for a more manageable scenario is the type of information he'd be in- terested in receiving, specifically those items flagged as major changes, similar to that referenced in Police Department Administration. Mr. Miller advised that he could provide that information. Councilmember Roe advised that he didn't' need that information, as the aggre- gate change was reflected in the City Manager- recommended budget; however, he requested that for next year's process, Attachments A and B be used as the basis for comparing 2010 and 2011.