CC_Minutes_2011_0418 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,April 18, 2011 Page 16 Mayor Roe noted that, while this department was essentially non-tax supported, Nuisance Code Enforcement and the Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP) functions were managed by this department; and funded by the property tax levy and the HRA, respectively. Councilmember McGehee opined that the HRA was still tax supported. Mayor Roe noted the funding as a tax levy; however, he clarified that is was a separate tax levy and budget. c. Review List of Mandatory Budget Programs Finance Director Miller provided an overview of the RCA dated April 18, 2011; and distinctions of those mandatory functions, programs or services dictated or prescribed by State Statute or City Code (Attachment A). Mr. Miller noted time constraints in providing narratives on the how's and why's of mandatory items, in whole or in part, recognizing the subjective nature of some of those mandatory items,based on service levels required or indicated. Mayor Roe noted the need to incorporate non-tax supported mandates in the list. Discussion included the discretionary Police Lake Patrol contracted through Ram- sey County part; and City Council discretion on the level of service and subse- quent cost, as well as a different complement of staffing, for some of the manda- tory functions. Mayor Roe noted previous discussions on funding some mandatory items at cur- rent service levels and how to make applicable adjustments. Mr. Miller suggested that they be put back in the overall list of programs and ser- vices, allowing the City Council to define their service levels, as part of the pre- ferred outcome for outcome-based or priority-based budgeting. Mr. Miller noted that at some point as the process continued to evolve, this should become a part of the process; however, he cautioned that it was an enormous undertaking and was at an entirely different budgeting level that what was being attempted to-date. Mayor Roe opined that putting the mandatory items into the prioritization process provided staff guidance from the City Council and how those mandatory items fit into the mix and how service levels and resource allocations were impacted. Further discussion included how those mandatory items were defined, through contractual or legal obligations; debt service; or long-term functions, such as emergency dispatch services), that would dramatically impacted if not funded or if those functions were handled by the City itself; and differentials of Attachments A and B related to tax-supported and non-tax supported services or functions.