Chair Doty Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

page 8 Section 7.02: Fiscal year is consistent with the Model and it is good practice. However, it should be recalled that under the election chapter the elective official would not be consistent with the fiscal year. Section 7.03: Same as the Model . Section 7.04: Sub. 1 : The language of the Model Charter is bellter language then included by the Commission. It should be noted, however, that the September 1 date is becoming increasingly more difficult to meet. The reason for this difficulty related to the labor unions negiotating contracts, the changes in the legis- lative mandates on municipal financing causes the Department of Revenue to generate it's information to the City later and later every year and several other items causes the City staff hardship in meeting the time frame. I 'm not advocating, however, at this point changing the September date just trying to note to the Commission that possible alternative would be direction that the Administrator-Manager provide annually to the City Council a calendar of budget events which would insure the adoption of the budget by the October 10th deadline as established by Minnesota Statutes. Sub. 2: I do not believe that this is either practical or economical nor will it satisfy the publics' need to know. Based on the language of this subdivision draft, summary form would be something greater than a one page document. The cost of mailing is in the neighborhood of $1 ,200. This does not include the labor involved for the preparation of this document. To be sure the Council should consider the use of public hearings before the adoption of the City budget annually. However, this may not be the most efficient or economical way to provide public information as spellled out in the Charter language. Section 7.05: The present wording of the requirement is somewhat confusing and it would be better to spell out the four elements that is described simply by giving the title which the explainations would follow. However, I do not believe that this is totally a feasible activity to do. In the first place the City' s Planning Commission is not qualified; they do not have the time; particularly in 1980 to even cope with the requirements that would be placed upon them to execute this portion of the Charter. The Planning Commission should, rightfully so, be involved in the review of the capital improvements program. This is helpful to them and to the Community in determining the types of activities from an improvement standpoint that would occur over a five year period. But it should not be a responsibility of that body to do financial planning. The essence of the comments long-term financial plan based on the subsequent subdivisions, in essence, would be almost attempt to improving the upcoming year's budget by June 1 . This then will be inconsistent with section 7.04 and even more difficult to accomplish from a practical standpoint. Sub. 2: The first sentence is unclear when they phrase, "and so on. " is used. I assume, however, that what is intented that each Department in the City should project a five year plan as to what is needed. The second sentence is unclear but for the sake of assumption that the Planning Commission would measure the objectives and needs for the Departments and set the service levels and determine the impact on the operating budget. This is almost impossible for the Planning Commission to accomplish between January and June 1 of every year.