02/03/1986 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e led Mr. Obie to add that if cutting is not an acceptable answer, then increased and new user fees must be seriously considered. Mr. Obie also said that the services provided by the City to the community are desired, good services. In light of that, he would personally favor looking carefully and selectively at new revenue. In response to Ms. Ehrman's comment that four of the present councilors have not considered cuts, Mr. Obie responded that if they want to explore the service reduction process, that a time limit be set (90 days) and try it. However, he is more favorable toward City government becoming more entrepre- neurial and people buying services because they want them, or even contracting services. Mr. Miller encouraged looking carefully at the user fees to see if the City should recoup its losses through fees or eliminate services, if the losses are too heavy. He requested specific information in order to make those decisions. Mr. Hansen commented that if it were up to the building industry, there would be no user fees and that, therefore, we are asking people to pay for a service they don't want us to perform. He continued to subscribe to the policy of balancing the budget first and funding whatever is possible with the money available. Mr. Obie said that Mr. Hansen's proposal would require cuts and asked for specific suggestions for those cuts, which must be supported by five other councilors. Ms. Wooten suggested a proposal that included establishing what money is needed through FY93 to maintain a Tier 1 and Tier 2 Capital Budget without new construction; that the figure be adjusted at a five-percent level in order to get a fix on the dollar amount; and then looking at all three staff recom- mendations simultaneously: new revenue (affirmed entrepreneurial idea), some service cuts, and some user fees. This package would then be presented as a proposal. In response to both Mr. Rutan and Ms. Wooten, Mr. Gleason suggested that the first step was to determine the capital amount, which will then help identify the funding gap. Mr. Obie clarified that Ms. Wooten's suggested process would layout a conceptual path that would consider a level of capital, a level of adjusted revenues, and a level of spending cuts. Ms. Wooten said that by creating a matrix according to the numbers, the council could develop ways to fill the categories. She asked for a similar chart for revenues and cuts. Ms. Schue added that the council has already set budget priorities, and if we mean to change those, the staff needs to know before they can provide the information requested. Ms. Bascom repeated that an amount for CIP must be agreed upon first. Ms. Wooten charted her suggested process. Mr. Obie requested two decisions: to establish a level of funding for the CIP and to choose between closing the gaps with cuts or with a simultaneous approach of considering cuts and revenue, as suggested by Ms. Wooten. Mr. Rutan asked Mr. Gleason to clarify the $3 million capital funding needed and how much of the amount is for maintenance, as against new construction. Using a figure of $3 million, Mr. Gleason said that about 75 percent is for maintenance and replacement and that even at the $3 million level, the City is $5 million behind. MINUTES--City Council Work Session February 3, 1986 Page 4