My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Study Session Summary 2009 08 11
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
STUDY SESSIONS (45.010)
>
2001-2009 City Council Study Sessions
>
2009 City Council Study Sessions
>
City Council Study Session Summary 2009 08 11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2019 11:38:09 AM
Creation date
9/15/2009 11:09:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITYWIDE
Original Hardcopy Storage
6E1
Supplemental fields
Test
SSSUM 2009 08 11
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br />Study Session Summary <br />August 11, 2009 <br />Page 5 of 6 <br /> C: Consider this action at a later date if necessary <br /> D: Staff considered this and recommends against taking this action <br />Fleming added that implementing all the Priority A actions would reduce the <br />General Fund shortfall by just over $300,000 in 2009 (assuming September 1, <br />2009 implementation) and just under $800,000 for the full year of 2010. The <br />combined impact of implementing the Priority A and B items would reduce the <br />General Fund shortfall by about $1.5 million annually in 2010 and subsequent <br />years and enable the City to maintain an adequate reserve through 2015. These <br />figures do not include additional revenue if voters approved a residential building <br />use and/or consumer use taxes. <br />Fleming stated that the options included on the list total approximately $1.5 <br />million is roughly a 2/3 reductions in services and 1/3 fee or tax increases. <br />Council gave staff feedback on the list including the following: <br />Muckle stated that Memory Square Pool should remain open and funded by the <br />City as it is an integral part of the Community. <br />Sisk stated he agreed with Muckle regarding the pool and added that he would <br />like to see the community events preserved as they are part of what defines the <br />community. <br />Yarnell agreed with Sisk. <br />Clabots noted that the savings of closing Memory Square Pool are not large <br />enough to support a change. <br />Sackett stated that the survey showed that most people would prefer service cuts <br />before fee increases. Memory Square Pool can not be ignored. It is too <br />expensive, highly subsidized, and too few residents use it. He noted that the <br />Council will have to show some leadership regarding the budget and make the <br />hard choices. <br />Marsella noted that if Memory Square Pool and special events are not cut, the <br />money will need to be made up elsewhere. She added that the Council needs to <br />be realistic about what can and cannot be saved. <br />Yarnell added that the Council will need to review the Council’s core values and <br />make cuts based on those values. <br />Sisk stated that he had talked to Councilmember Dalton (absent) prior to the <br />meeting and Dalton asked if the Council could/should consider asking for <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.