CC_Minutes_2011_0214 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, February 14, 2011 Page 29 Mr. Miller noted that one thing not factored into the timeline was the work of the subcommittee and sought Council input on those specific scheduling considera- tions and how to incorporate them. Mayor Roe concurred with Mr. Miller that the timeline came largely from his ef- forts in attempting to reflect on his observations on how the budget process had transpired over the last few years and possible ways to improve that process. Mayor Roe noted that the timeline provided the opportunity for an early round ta- ble discussion among staff and City Councilmembers on programs and priorities from the City Manager and staff as an initial step; as well as providing for earlier City Council and public input. Mayor Roe noted that there were 2-3 opportunities to review the preliminary and final levies. Mayor Roe noted that the document listing on pages 3-4 are lifted directly from his original submission and captured past discussions to tie into this process. Mayor Roe noted that if the City Council went in a different direction or followed a different process, it may need different documents. Councilmember Pust questioned whether this timeline included adoption of a bi- ennial budget process; and if so, it appeared that additional dates were needed to review that second year and make mid-year corrections. Councilmember Pust ex- pressed some concerns with the proposed document listing, opining that she didn't want to pass a resolution referencing specific documents and lock in those documents. Councilmember Pust noted that this City Council had not discussed the document format they preferred, and opined that the listed documents may prove helpful to some, but not necessarily each individual Councilmember. Councilmember Pust noted that at some point in each budget process cycle, there were other documents requested; and suggested further discussion prior to adopt- ing the resolution and referenced documents. Councilmember Pust noted copies of 2010 Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 412.701 (Attachment C) related to municipal budgeting; and Chapter 412.711 (Attachment D) related to consideration of the budget and tax levy; and noted certain informa- tion required in those budgetary documents requiring a breakdown of salaries and wages. Councilmember Pust noted that this was always one of her annual stum- bling blocks when no line item was included to factor in real salary costs for each program/service; causing the process to have impractical limits for her. Council- member Pust opined that, under those circumstances and without that salary in- formation, the City Council was not ready to adopt the resolution tonight. Mayor Roe clarified that the resolution didn't adopt the documents,just the time- line. Councilmember Pust noted that Event No. 2 on the Resolution specifically stated that the City Council approves the 2012 Budget Work Plan, "including required documentation;" indicating that the identified documents were all inclusive.