Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-01 Budget Committee Minutes BUDGET COMMITTEE MINUTES —COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT— MAY 1, 2000 CIVIC CENTER Committee members present: Regina Stepahin, Carole Wheeldon, David Fine, Susan Reid, Howard Braham, James Moore and David Williams. Committee member(s) absent: Cate Hartzell. Staff present: Mike Freeman, Greg Scoles, Karen Huckins, Patrick Caldwell, John McLaughlin and Sheri Bruce. The meeting was called to order by Regina Stepahin at 4:40 p.m. Stepahin turned the meeting over to John McLaughlin, Planning Department Director. I. OPENING DISCUSSION – COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT None II. PRESENTATION Overview McLaughlin noted that the department comprises two divisions planning and building. In addition, the department maintains the code compliance and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). We also do the permit inspection program for the City of Talent. We contract our services for this. Carole Wheeldon asks if they had a two-year carryover. Williams’s comments that he had better success in following the historic (previous years) fund allocations within the Community Development budget data than with other departments. However, he notices a 75% increase over the past few years and wonders what caused that increase. McLaughlin said that the central service charge has increased and part of that is due to attorney services. In addition, the code compliance program caused an increase, an assistant planner and an extra clerk positions. Compounded by general cost increases have all driven the budget increase. We now have this assistance available to us, whereas, in previous years that service had not been available. Also, included in the increase are personnel costs. III. DISCUSSION Reid asked, how many permits were issued? McLaughlin indicated that for this year, there were roughly 200 issued permits. Wheeldon commented that the Building Department is fee based and asked that McLaughlin expand upon his original comments. McLaughlin indicated that whatever is brought in is what runs the department. Regarding the fee schedules, the schedules have not changed since the 1970’s, yet the costs for building have increased. Kenefick asks what is the logic in keeping the fees within the building department, are the fees set by the state? Williams asked if McLaughlin had projected an increase in full-time personnel. McLaughlin said that this is the last personnel increase anticipated for the next 10 years. Fine asks if there is room to contract out any of the jobs. McLaughlin responds that 75% of the services performed are community interaction based. This is knowledge, which takes a specified information base that a consultant or outside person simply will not be able to fill. Currently, the City has the suitable staff to perform those functions. Contracting out has been previously considered— essentially, there are no contractors within the Rogue Valley by comparison to Salem and Eugene— travel is the largest issue. Braham asks, “Would it be cost effective to bring someone in to do the administrating and allow McLaughlin to concentrate on the planning?” McLaughlin agrees, but indicates that at this time it is not feasible. Community Development Page 1 May 1, 2000 Williams asks, what is the City getting for the GIS costs? McLaughlin indicates that the mapping systems are far superior by comparison to previous years. “Due to the new mapping system, the staff efficiencies are greatly enhanced. We are now able to meet the requests with a greater level of efficiency than in past years, which is why we do not see the need for staffing increases.” Reid raises many issues regarding subsided affordable housing. Her comment is in reference to the utilization of the planning fees. She also suggested that “although this may not be the time to delve into this, I do believe that we should not let this issue fall through the cracks. It does need to be addressed by this Committee.” Fine sees a massive disconnection between the policies and the budget numbers. He said, “the concern is whether or not the budget committee is executing or discharging its responsibilities.” McLaughlin responded by saying that he would be more than willing to sit down and go through each line item with any of the committee members. Moore has suggestions to hand out to the committee that specify how they can better administer the funds. He proposes that the committee discuss these issues. Kenefick indicated the reason she applied for this committee was the City’s growth. In addition, she felt that the increasing budget should be limited. Furthermore, she noted that the people in Ashland have shown themselves charitable and supportive of each other. However, according to the citizens who have spoken with her “there are a lot of people who are frightened about the increase in the budget.” In closing, McLaughlin offered to sit down with any of the members and go over each one of the line items. Fine responds by saying that although he appreciates McLaughlin’s response, he does not feel that it is expedient for McLaughlin to take the time to go over each line item by council member. Fine emphasizes that the structure of the budget document does not allow the committee to discharge the responsibility that has been entrusted to them. IV. CONCLUSION Stepahin moved to submit the proposed budget to the budget committee for approval. Braham seconded. All AYES. None opposed. V. Public Input None. I. OPENING DISCUSSION - FINANCE Greg Scoles announced that he is the acting Finance Director in the absence of former finance director, Jill Turner. Susan Reid asked if there would be a projection of savings “because the position will not be filled for “x” number of days?” Scoles replied that he did not feel that there were any savings. However, there are some additional costs with the transition between people. He said “we have to pay out for vacation time, etc. to the incumbent and recruit the new Finance Director. So, there are some additional costs associated with that, if anything it is a breakeven situation.” Reid asked when a replacement for Turner would occur. Scoles indicated that it would be possibly in late July or August. II. PRESENTATION Overview Community Development Page 2 May 1, 2000 The department is composed of three divisions, accounting, customer information services and purchasing. Each division provides services internally to other City departments and directly to the public. Reid asked why a consultant was included in the budget and what projects are involved. Karen Huckins said that the consultant indicated is for the bond sales project. Referring to the absence of a Finance Director, Reid asked if there is a negative budget impact. Scoles emphasized that he did not anticipate any negativity regarding the transition and that all projects should be completed as planned. Beverly Kenefick inquired “What are we self-insured for?” Caldwell responded that “we (City) are self-insured for everything except health.” David Fine asked for a stipulation of which losses were under discussion. Caldwell is not aware of all of the risk management issues involved—but, he did indicate a few of those items (property, vehicular, an increase in workman’s comp. and the hospital). Fine also asked if our loss prevention efforts needed to be refocused. Freeman responded that it would not be necessary as many programs are already in place to take care of this issue. Caldwell supported Freeman’s statement by saying that each department’s losses are calculated into their individual budget(s). Jim Moore asks where the debt service is presented within the General Fund budget document for the years 2000-01. Caldwell said that there is no debt service for 2000-01 as this debt had been fulfilled. Williams attempted to trace the history of the numbers in previous year(s) budget documents and found it difficult to accomplish. Moore agreed with Williams, as he independently sought to accomplish the same task but did not feel that the data was consistently traceable. Freeman indicated that the data can be compiled for him and Caldwell offered to provide the information at Williams/Moore’s convenience. Significant Changes in the this FY Budget Materials and Services increased by $238,000 Capital outlay increased by $4.45 million (due to fire station, library and Hillah Temple) Debt service increased by $259,000 (debt for new construction) Economic and cultural costs increased $91,600 (accounting adjustment and payment for last year’s unanticipated high hotel/motel tax) Bancroft debt increased $95,000 (new issuance) III. DISCUSSION Economic and cultural costs, Reid asked when would the council be able to review the information again. Also, what if the budget committee in general consensus, determines that they do not want to allocate the funds in the same manner? She referenced a previous meeting with the parks department in her statement, and said “we’re not going to tell you how much you are going to get and then you figure out how you are going to spend it.” Fine joins in this discussion with Reid. Reid proposes that the committee review this issue at an opportune time. Freeman inquired if the committee wanted to revisit this issue prior to budget adoption? Fine and Reid concurred that it is not necessary at this point, although they would prefer to have had the opportunity. However, they would like to ensure that the issue is not lost and that it will be addressed at a future time. IV. CONCLUSION Community Development Page 3 May 1, 2000 Braham moved to submit the proposed budget to the full budget committee. Wheeldon seconded. Stepahin inquires if all members agree. All AYES. None opposed. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC INPUT None Meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sheri Bruce Community Development Page 4 May 1, 2000