Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-25 Budget Committee Minutes BUDGET COMMITTEE MINUTES May 25, 2000 CIVIC CENTER Committee members present: Cathy Shaw, Regina Stepahin, Cate Hartzell, Beverly Kenefick, James Moore, Cameron Hanson, Howard Braham, Steve Hauck, David Williams, Carol Wheeldon. Committee members absent: Martin Lavine Staff present: Mike Freeman, Greg Scoles, Patrick Caldwell, Ken Mickelson, Sheri Bruce Meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. I. OPENING DISCUSSION The decision was made to review the minutes at a future time. Hauck moves to continue with the agenda, Moore seconds, all agree. II. Senior Program—Request to increase budget by $10,000 Regina recognizes Sharon Laws. Laws presents the proposed $10,000 increase in the Senior Department budget to accommodate the Loaves and Fishes program. Laws presents the request for addition funds that would support personnel costs for an on-sight manager. Braham asks if this a permanent issue or a one time situation. Hauck verifies the validity of Laws request. Shaw questions if there is not enough staff on hand, including Laws, to fill this position without providing additional funds. Law responds that the other staff members are part time and would take away three hours out of their regular duties. Hartzell asks if they have considered dove tailing the program with Meals on Wheels. Laws replies that there is no government money tied with Meals on Wheels. Hanson asks what the food site manager does. Laws replies that there are strict health department regulations that are involved with serving food. In addition, the manager would be responsible for the record keeping, staffing issues, etc. Hauck said that the records must be very specific so that they will be in compliance Federal guidelines. Williams moved to accept and adopt the allocation of funds. Wheeldon seconded. All AYES. None opposed. Motion is passed. No further discussion. III. MODIFIED BUDGET 2000-2001 The increase in budget is specifically for AFN. A rate increase is expected for the following year of approximately 3-5%. III. DISCUSSION Wheeldon asked for clarification regarding the levies. Remove local option levy and call it Youth Activity Levy. Freeman notes that the errors in the first budget copy Shaw moves to approve the proposed budget (as amended) , property tax permanent levy at 3.6243 per 1,000, Youth Levy Rate of 1.3806 per 1,000 and the Bond Debt Levy Rate of .4841 per 1,000, Hauck seconds. All AYES. None opposed. Motion passed. IV. DISCUSSION (re: motion) Williams questions the large carryover in the Parks budget. The large variance between previous years and current year are under discussion. Freeman comments that Parks did not do a long-term budget—projections were made instead. Therefore, long-term budget issues cannot be addressed at this time. However, Freeman did discuss the General budget. Moore proposes that Parks provides their long-term budget and provide the data for the next budget meeting. Hauck concurs. Laws suggests that Parks be present at the following meeting to discuss their budget. The hotel/motel tax was strong, the big change will be the electric charges will increase, the council is considering raising planning fees—this all has a huge impact on taxes and is an unknown. This unknown was already built into the budget. If the council chooses to not approve the budget and to remove those items, then the budget will dramatically change. Freeman recommends that the council pass the budget as proposed so that there are not a dramatic impact upon the community. The changes from last year to this year are electric rate increases (the rate of increase is unknown at this time), that impact the general fund via the electric user fee. Secondly, the rise of planning fees (increase not yet approved by Council). Freeman requests that the Council not consider the increase at this juncture because all of the details have yet to be evident. Laws moves that clarification of those figures be provided, Moore seconds. Shaw concurs and further comments on page 186-187. Freeman agrees, he does not feel that the figures are accurate. Laws reminds council that Parks is dependant upon property tax revenues. Wheeldon suggests a study session regarding how to get the Parks budget more in sync with the budget as a whole. Additionally, Moore suggests that an outside group come in to evaluate the process flow for them as well as the efficiency of the department. Williams suggests folding parks into the system and this would eliminate the authority of the Parks Commission. He feels that the way we budget Parks offers an opportunity for improvement. He feels that it is time for Ashland to move to a stronger form of government (A City Manager) and away from the City Administrator. In some ways the City Administrator is somewhat handicapped. Partially, noting the long drawn out approval process of the budget. Laws notes that the City Manager would have the ability to appoint department heads whereas, at this time the City Mayor is the one who appoints the City Administrator and the managers. Wheeldon comments that how the parks budget is administered is not council’s business, it is for Parks to do basically, the position of the Council is to provide council. Fine respectfully disagrees, when it comes to giving guidance to the departments heads, either the council, administrator, parks commission, when it comes to giving advise. Fine says that they either approved or disapprove. Wheeldon disagrees. He wanted to correct the perception that the budget committee directs the departments and that is simply not true. Hauck notes that Council can over rule, and he notes various Ken Mickelson comments that Parks is not opposed to reviewing the numbers and verifying the accuracy of those numbers. They simply had not had the opportunity to fully review the budget for future years. Shaw comments that ultimately, “this body (Budget Council) has always, at least for the last 14 years, approved or disapproved the Parks budget and provided direction for that department. She further comments that both forms of government have their place and that there are pros and cons to both. Shaw firmly supports the current form of government. Hauck would move that we go on and discuss the budget. Moore and Fine concur. Roll call: Steve Hauck, Cate Hartzell, Don Laws, David Williams, Cathy Shaw, Regina Stepahin, Carol Wheeldon, Beverly Kenefick, James Moore, Howard Braham, Cameron Hanson, David Fine David Fine abstains. Martin Lavine is absent. Laws recommends that this committee convene to discuss the budget. Agenda: Projected budget as a base budget (get a full July 15, 2000 is when the budget is due. Shaw moves. Moore seconds. All AYES. None opposed. Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.