02/03/1986 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mr. Wong concluded his presentation by discussing "Existing User Revenues. II User fees now generate $4 million in revenue, which is ten percent of the General Fund operating budget. The proposal suggests increasing that figure by 15-25 percent or $6 million to $8 million. Ms. Ehrman asked if information about wage cuts had been produced as she requested. Mr. Gleason responded that it will take some time to do so. II. DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED STRATEGY BY THE CITY COUNCIL Mr. Rutan commented that the demise of General Revenue sharing has had a significant impact and that the way City government is financed needs to be changed. This will require educating the public. He said the council needed to address whether major service cuts need to be reviewed. Mr. Obie agreed that the question is whether to fund the operating fund gap through user fees and/or major service cuts. Ms. Schue expressed concern that capital funding is at issue and that with the conservative allowances in the staff's proposal, City property cannot be maintained at the level that it should be maintained, even with innovative financial planning. In response to Ms. Wooten1s question, Mr. Wong and Mr. Gleason defined the funding gap. e Mr. Obie asked that user fees be defined in terms of what property taxes buy in services and what services have to be funded in other ways. There is a danger in eroding the property tax basis of support if we depend on another basis of support. He asked if the fees were charged taking into account the difference between non-essential service fees and essential service fees. Ms. Wooten opposed any kind of surcharge on utility bills because it could create a situation where only those who could afford it could have utility service. She also opposes any kind of charge for library services. Mr. Obie commented that those who cannot afford fees should not have to pay, but, in the case of the library, those who can should perhaps pay for the service. Ms. Schue suggested that tax-exempt properties should be charged for public safety services. Ms. Wooten agreed. Ms. Ehrman suggested that by charging user fees for street repairs, the City could create a higher service demand. Mr. Miller commented that if street repair funds were dedicated, then there would be money to meet demand. In response to Ms. Bascom's questions, if the council were to implement the entire list of user fee proposals, there could be an increase in the range of 15-25 percent. Mr. Hansen asked that the council look at the fees realistically in light of their political feasibility. e MINUTES--City Council Work Session February 3, 1986 Page 2