Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Look stated the bottom line is they cannot pay people back; they are going <br />forward. He feels everyone is already paying into the maintenance. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen stated with the street maintenance he feels it is somewhat of an additional <br />tax. The City taxes at a specific rate and then asks the residents to pay for something that is <br />inherently part of the City function. Either way it is paid, whether it is through taxes or a special <br />assessment. He has been an advocate of taking this in-house. Philosophically he does not want <br />to pay any more than what he considers the normal City function. He would rather eliminate the <br />two new positions even if Chief Way needs to come back with two new positions next time. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen pointed out that the remainder to be cut to meet the desired tax rate is <br />$129,655; the other $336,000 is basically out of other line item cuts and additional personnel. <br />They have reduced the budget significantly from last year. It is not the time for new programs or <br />for shifting the street maintenance policy. She is not completely decided about the patrol officer <br />position; she does not see that they will be in a better budget position in the next year or two. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated he appreciates that this budget did not go off of a wish list this year. <br />Looking at the cost of living and all the different increases included in any budget, that consists <br />of at least a 3% increase. With the 3% the budget should have gone up and the 5% decrease, that <br />is an 8% swing. <br /> <br />Councilmembers Dehen, Elvig, Jeffrey and Look expressed their support in eliminating both the <br />recreation coordinator and the patrol officer positions from the budget. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look asked who supports eliminating assessments of sealcoating in the street <br />maintenance program. <br /> <br />Councilmembers Dehen and Look expressed their support in eliminating. the assessments. <br /> <br />Councilmember Jeffrey stated he is undecided. Ht is not a big fan of changing this year due to <br />budget impacts, but possibly next year. He would like to see the projection into the future before <br />making a decision. <br /> <br />Finance Officer Lund indicated the preliminary budget and levy is due on September 15, 2007. <br />After that date it can be reduced, but not increased. Council may want to leave one of the items <br />in knowing it can be cut by the final budget and levy date in December. $129,000 in cuts are <br />needed to get to the tax rate the Council has requested. <br /> <br />Councilmember Jeffrey stated he would not support a rate higher than 39.39%. <br /> <br />Interim City Administrator Nelson explained the two positions and the sealcoat assessments are <br />the new things in the budget. Without cutting the $129,000 the rate is at 39.9646%. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen stated she is not interested in looking at cutting things other than <br />what staff has proposed, which are the new things in the budget. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session / July 31, 2007 <br />Page 13 of 18 <br />