CC_Minutes_2011_0613 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,June 13,2011 Page 29 additional subsequent cuts; and from that perspective, he expressed appreciation in the effort to identify some level of funding for 2013. However, City Manager Malinen noted that the City Council would need to set the 2013 levy again at the end of 2012, and as a biennial budget process continued to develop based on more accurate figures rather than just projections. Councilmember Willmus advised that was why he was voting against it, since it was not on tonight's agenda; and it needed more transparency for the public. Councilmember Johnson advised that he was prepared to vote on a levy for 2013, only because it had no current boundaries; however, he supported the initial mo- tion and subcommittee representation to the City Council tonight for a 3.4% levy increase for 2012; and a 0% levy increase for 2013. While understanding Mayor Roe's intent in taking the onus of inflation off costs for directors and staff, at some point, he opined that there needed to be some kind of shift. Councilmember Johnson, therefore, advised that he would not support the motion to amend the original motion. Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Willmus in not setting the 2013 levy, opining that it was misleading to say a 0% levy increase in 2013, when that information was unknown at this time. Councilmember McGehee opined that the original motion represented a good start for now, based on availa- ble information, and to look at 2013 at the end of the year. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the original motion, with the understanding that it was intended as an exercise at 3.4%, not what was being proposed for 2013. Given the lack of majority support, Mayor Roe withdrew his motion; however, he noted that the City Council was actually putting cuts on top of cuts in 2013, while asking the City Manager to prepare and expecting a biennial budget; but not pro- posing what that levy should be for the second year of that biennial budget, opin- ing that 0% was not where the City Council wanted to be and questioning why that couldn't be acknowledged now and not have staff forced to absorb operating cuts for two (2) years. Seeking clarification of the original motion, Councilmember Johnson restated the motion: Johnson moved, Roe seconded, a levy increase of 3.4% for 2012, based on the recommendations of the Capital Needs Subcommittee. Mayor Roe noted that the City Council had asked the City Manager to submit a biennial budget without any guidance for the second year; and opined that staff would be really challenged to accomplish that task without any guidance; and recommended that both years be included.