11-30-2009 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION November 30, 2009 APPROVED 41 many short sighted decisions in the proposed budget such as not fully funding equipment L42 replacement and also temporary reductions(employee furloughs,use of fund reserve) and those 43 actions are financially irresponsible. 44 The council discussed their salary. After a suggestion and some discussion about the amount of 45 savings, the council concurred that they will return to the 2007 rate. 46 Regarding the Police Department budget,Mr. Tesch remarked that the police department is 47 receiving a grant(stimulus money) and an opinion is pending from the grant writers at the state 48 as to whether or not a furlough effort would make the grant be seen as supplanting, an element 49 that is not allowed under the terms of the grant. Police Chief Pecchia added that the grant in 50 question(the amount being in excess of$300,000) shouldn't be jeopardized; he noted that he is 51 not comfortable moving any reductions in the police department past the grant amount because 52 the grant writers have told him that they will not give a written opinion on the supplanting 53 question. He noted other reductions in the department that are outside of officer salary and past 54 the grant amount(such as AFSCME employee furloughs). 55 A council member remarked that the city has a right to receive a written answer to its question 56 and suggested that staff be directed to get that answer. 57 Mr. Rolek continued his review noting that the budget proposals brought forward by staff in 58 August presented budget decreases and revenue increases that fell in the $1 to $2 million range. 59 Since that time and after several discussions with the council, staff was directed to prepare a 60 budget that included debt service for the Legacy bonds through an interfund loan, fewer staff 61 reductions, a two-week furlough instead of one and a direction to discuss possible revenue 62 changes in 2010. If staff is to be directed to include more reductions in the budget, they should 63 be specified by the council at this time. On the question of permanent versus temporary cuts,Mr. 64 Rolek laid out that, of the approximately$500,000 in reductions, about$300,000 is staff 65 reduction(permanent), $50,000 is the joint powers agreement with the school district 66 (permanent) and $144,000 is employee furlough (temporary). 67 The council requested information on what to expect in the coming years for property values. 68 Mr. Rolek explained that the current estimate is in the area of an 8%valuation reduction for 2011 69 payable taxes. He added that less valuation does not reduce the amount of work and the cost of 70 that work to provide city services. If outsourcing is to be considered,he would warn that there 71 can be hidden costs involved. He also suggested that, when considering valuation and tax 72 capacity, there should also be consideration the impact of lower valuation on the amount taxed 73 and also revenue factors in the budget. 74 A council member suggested that permanent cuts to the budget should be determined after a clear 75 view of priorities by the council. He suggests that the council begin its 2011 budget discussions 76 in January. Evaluation of everything at city hall is needed,perhaps by an outside party. 77 A council member suggested that one challenge will be to come up with permanent cuts that 78 don't impact negatively on city services through the loss of personnel; if possible, that process 79 could begin by looking for permanent cuts instead of the employee furlough savings. 2