Laserfiche WebLink
<br />made. She said the overview was intended to provide context for the City's financial position <br />before reviewing individual capital requests. She asked the Council whether they preferred to <br />discuss each item individually or focus on the larger requests. <br /> <br />Mr. Hagen explained that the list includes a combination of replacement equipment, operational <br />needs, and new requests intended to improve efficiency, maintain service levels, or address <br />growing demands. He said some requests could be deferred if necessary, but each had been <br />identified by department staff as beneficial to maintaining or improving City services. He <br />suggested focusing first on the new requests so the Council could better understand the reasoning <br />behind them. <br /> <br />Mayor Heineman agreed and asked how the Council should provide direction if budget <br />reductions become necessary. Rather than asking departments to reduce every request by a set <br />percentage, he questioned what criteria staff should use to determine which items could be <br />delayed or eliminated. <br /> <br />Councilmember Olson expressed concern about the overall size of the preliminary budget. He <br />stated that he appreciated the staff's transparency in presenting every request, but believed the <br />proposal was more of a "wish list" than a practical operating budget. He encouraged staff to <br />return with a refined proposal that distinguished between essential operational needs and projects <br />that could reasonably be postponed. He specifically questioned whether items such as the second <br />fuel island, the hook truck, employee wellness equipment, and other lower-priority requests <br />should remain in the recommended budget if the goal were to minimize the levy increase. <br /> <br />Mr. Hagen responded that this workshop intentionally presented every departmental request <br />before administrative review so the Council could understand the full range of needs. He <br />explained that staff would now take the Council's comments and begin prioritizing projects <br />before returning with a recommended budget later in the process. <br /> <br />Councilmember Buscher stated that she appreciated seeing every request because it provided a <br />better understanding of departmental needs. Rather than immediately removing projects, she <br />asked staff to identify how much could reasonably be funded from existing capital reserves and <br />how much should remain available in those reserves after the 2027 budget. She explained that <br />she wanted to understand the City's financial capacity before deciding which projects to <br />postpone. She also requested larger-print summary sheets for future budget discussions to make <br />it easier to review the extensive financial information during the meeting. <br /> <br />Councilmember Peters asked whether the proposed increase in City Council compensation had <br />already been incorporated into the preliminary budget. Finance staff responded that the amount <br />was relatively small compared to the overall General Fund budget and had already been included <br />within the preliminary projections. Staff also reminded the Council that all collective bargaining <br />agreements would be negotiated before final adoption of the 2027 budget, meaning personnel <br />costs could still change depending upon the outcome of those negotiations. <br /> <br />Councilmember Stewart reminded the Council that the City had recently guaranteed significant <br />monthly debt obligations and emphasized the importance of maintaining adequate financial <br />City Council Work Session / July 14, 2026 <br />Page 9 of 14 <br />