02/03/1986 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mr. Obie commented that the vote would never hold in the Budget Committee process. Ms. Wooten agreed. Without a measure of unanimity from the City Council, the Budget Committee will not accept the proposal. Mr. Hansen conceded willingness to consider a process to generate revenue and recommend cuts in spending. Ms. Wooten questioned whether the council needed to direct staff to bring back options for both cuts and revenues. In response to Ms. Ehrman's question, Mr. Gleason affirmed that recommendations for imple- mentation of user fees would be periodically brought to the council and that individual recommendations would not be delayed until the whole study was completed. e Ms. Schue said that some tax ideas have merit, such as gas taxes and State car registration; all opportunities for new revenue have not been exhausted. User fees are not the only revenue opportunity. Mr. Obie agreed. After continued discussion, Mr. Obie asked the councilors what process they preferred: funding the $1.5 million gap by considering cuts only or con- sidering cuts, new revenue, and user fees simultaneously. He also asked how the staff is to make cut recommendations, which is not the City Manager's job. Ms. Schue pointed out that the budget priorities are already in place. Mr. Gleason responded by referring the council to a handout he distributed entitled "Approved General Funding Based for Municipal Service Priorities." After discussing the handouts, it was the general consensus of the council that all spending cuts could not come from Service Level 5 and that they would need to look at the whole budget. Ms. Wooten moved, and Ms. Ehrman seconded, that the staff be directed to: 1) bring the council a combination of cuts, user fee opportunities, and new revenues in three distinct categories in an effort to fill the $1.5 million gap; 2) go through depart- mental budgets and pull things that do not severely undermine the operation of individual programs; 3) consider service-level reductions; and 4) explore new revenue opportunities as yet not analyzed, as well as entrepreneurial opportunities, not includ- ing serial levies and new taxes. Ms. Schue requested enough options to allow even-handedness. Ms. Wooten clarified that the staff recommendations be according to their best jUdgment and that the council make decisions accordingly. In response to Mr. Hansen, Ms. Wooten requested enough options so that the council would have choices. The motion passed unanimously. At Mr. Gleason's suggestion and the agreement of the council, the staff was directed to brainstorm for 15 minutes in order to present a list of potential cuts that could fill the $1.5 million funding gap. Mr. Obie recessed the meeting for 15 minutes at 8:05 p.m. e MINUTES--City Council Work Session February 3, 1986 Page 6