HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-19 Budget Committee MinutesJoint Budget and Parks Commission
February 19, 2009-Page 1 of 5
ASHLAND BUDGET COMMITTEE
ASHLAND PARKS COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
February 19, 2009
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
7:00 p.m. Joint Meeting
CALL TO ORDER The Joint Budget Committee and Ashland Parks Commission
meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. on February 19, 2009 held at the Council
Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland OR, 97520.
ROLL CALL: Mayor Stromberg was present. Councilors Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse,
Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present. Commissioners Eggers, Lewis, Rosenthal,
Noraas and Gardiner were present. Committee members Boenheim, Douma, Heimann,
Slattery and Thompson were present.
COMMITTEE ABSENT: Committee members Everson and Gregorio were absent.
STAFF PRESENT: Martha Bennett, City Administrator
Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services/Finance Director
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Don Robertson, Parks Director
Mike Ainsworth, Interim Information Technology Director
Jeff Rehbein, Financial Analyst
Melissa Huhtala, Administrative Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of minutes from previous Joint Budget Committee meeting dated 2/2/2009.
Slattery/Boenheim m/s to approve minutes as presented. All ayes.
PRESENTATION BY STAFF
City Administrator Martha Bennett gave an overview of what would be discussed. She
stated projections by fund and fund health, decisions the elected bodies need to make, and
budget assumptions would be the main focus.
Mr. Tuneberg reviewed the General Fund Revenue Projection from 12/15/2008. He
discussed the projections made from the December meeting. Property tax was higher
then what was anticipated. Many other major categories in the General Fund are
decreasing. There were also decreases in revenues in other funds so the City decided to
take action then. Decisions were made based on information available at the time.
Mr. Tuneberg explained that staff anticipated a $540,000 shortfall in the general fund.
He discussed the FY 2008-2009 General Fund Spending Reduction Plan. To offset the
Joint Budget and Parks Commission
February 19, 2009-Page 2 of 5
shortfall in revenue, cuts were made in the General Fund and other funds. Departments
were asked to hold expenditures to 95% of their budget for the year and Enterprise Funds
were asked to hold their expenditures to 97%.
Mr. Tuneberg discussed the impacts to the General Fund. There were changes in the
City's estimations and carry forward from the time the budget was set.
Mr. Tuneberg explained how the City calculates the General Fund. When the budget
process was completed last year expenditures exceeded revenue projections by $556,000.
He discussed the change in last years carry forward. The City budgeted a carry forward of
about $1.7 million and the City ended up with $2.2 million. One element was the City
under spent by $335,000. This was due to tightening the budget last spring and not using
the entire contingency. The second element was the $215,000 that needed to be
recognized in the General Fund. That constitutes for the $556,000 extra dollars that
were brought forward for this year. However, in December the City's revenues were not
coming in as anticipated which led to the $540,000 dollar shortfall. Management made
$530,000 of lasting cuts to match the shortfall.
Mr. Tuneberg discussed the key revenue trends for 2008-2009 currently (See slide). The
City levied property tax 13.5% higher in the General Fund and is seeing 13% more
revenue in taxes year to year. The other funds that rates remained the same are seeing
5% more revenue in taxes. This indicates that the conservative estimate of taxes levied is
generating 3% additional revenue based upon property assessments growing. He
explained that a complication in doing this calculation is the way people have been
paying their taxes has changed. This year there was a larger influx of tax revenues earlier
then ever before.
Mr. Tuneberg gave an overview of the percentage changes of revenue in the major
categories (See slide).
Mr. Tuneberg discussed the City wide cash concern. There are constant changes. There
have been highs and lows from January 2008 to current. There was a high in January
2008 because Parks was still managing the Youth Activity Levy. On October 2008 there
was a low because it is right before disbursements begin.
Mr. Tuneberg explained the Ending Fund Balance Chart which is projected with 3%
Revenue Increases (See slide).
The Committee questioned why the Street Fund is no longer a problem fund. Mr.
Tuneberg explained that currently the Street Fund has no capital projects, no borrowing
or debt service.
Mr. Tuneberg explained the Ending Fund Balance Chart projected with larger
adjustments. The chart shows what magnitude of changes that will have to occur in order
to minimize negative Ending Fund Balance. Based on the assumptions used there are
Joint Budget and Parks Commission
February 19, 2009-Page 3 of 5
large increases. For example, if the Food and Beverage tax was not being renewed there
would be a 20% increase in the Wastewater Fund, followed by 40% and 18%.
Mr. Tuneberg discussed that Parks Ending Fund Balance could potentially go negative in
2014-2015. Parks tax revenue is the primary revenue stream for their general fund. The
Parks Department has large amounts of cash on hand in December and not as much in
October. He stated that Parks may have to borrow in October to meet the operating
expenses that month.
Mr. Tuneberg explained the Ending Fund Balance Chart comparison for potential
solutions or adjustments. He stated that making substantial cuts would be most beneficial
if the City ensures that the cuts last.
Mr. Tuneberg discussed challenges in the Budget. One challenge is how to do affordable
repairs. If the City does not do repairs it means there will be an increase in operational
costs. He stated that most estimates will change by the time the Budget Message is
presented in April.
Mr. Tuneberg discussed the National Literature Suggestions (see slide). One suggestion
is to identify services needed and wanted and to fund them. This means there may have to
be an increase in rates to get the results the City needs.
Ms. Bennett discussed issues for City Council. She stated that elected bodies need to
make decisions. Debt load and financing options are a follow up on initial discussion on
whether to sell bonds, and how else the City can finance projects. Elected bodies also
need to decide utility rate adjustments, employee compensation packages and terms of
employment.
The Committee discussed their responsibilities in decision making. The Committee
stated that it is important for officials and staffs to have information on what decisions
need to be made.
The Budget Committee discussed the criteria set for decision making, and feels that
responsibilities should lie more on the elected bodies.
Council stated there will be a meeting in March to set goals, and will let the Committee
know what the goals and priorities are. Council discussed how to set goals and priorities
for the City. Ms. Bennett suggested starting with a one year agreement on this approach.
PUBLIC INPUT
Keith Massey, 1615 Peachy Road, Ashland, OR 97520. Mr. Massey proposed
reallocating a portion of the Ashland Food and Beverage Tax to Recreational Facilities.
In his proposal he stated that 70% of Food and Beverage Tax goes to pay the DEQ loan
Joint Budget and Parks Commission
February 19, 2009-Page 4 of 5
and 30% goes to the Parks Department to be utilized for park land acquisition and
recreation facility development (See attached).
He added he was not attending or speaking on behalf of the School Board.
PRESENTATION BY STAFF CONTINUED:
Ms. Bennett presented the issues and assumptions for next year's budget. She explained
that across the board cuts, hiring freezes etc. are ways to reduce spending but do not
always yield the most effective results. Staff proposes there be screening criteria for
making decisions about services to be protected in the budget process.
Ms. Bennett discussed what things should be protected in high, medium and low priority
categories (see slide).
The Committee questioned if existing contractual obligations was just for contracts that
could not be changed. Ms. Bennett responded that if it is possible for the City to alter or
reduce the cost of a contractual obligation such as to refinance the DEQ loan the City
would attempt to do that if not then the City would continue with the contractual
obligation.
The Committee questioned the definition of meeting basic health needs. Ms. Bennett
answered that it includes things that the City does to prevent sickness such as sewer and
water.
The Committee expressed concern about the order of priorities. Others stated that it was
a great idea to have a process for the City Council to establish a set of criteria. Martha
stated that it is not perfect and that priorities on the list could be moved around.
The Committee suggested that this would be a great tool for Department Heads to use to
make choices of how to prioritize their budget.
Ms. Bennett discussed specific FY 2010 assumptions. Base expenditures are FY 2009
levels including reductions implemented in December 2008 (minus 5% for some
departments, 3% for other departments). All departments will build to that base.
The Committee questioned the City's bond rating financial security on existing and future
debt. Mr. Tuneberg responded that the City may have to levy taxes to maintain
credibility in any full faith and credit debt that has been done or will be done. If there is a
requirement that the City needs a certain level of revenue stream to get the appropriate
interest rate for a project then the City will agree to levy that tax.
Mr. Tuneberg discussed the change in the City's ability to insure for debt issues. He
explained that there are changes in financing. Companies used to sell insurance so when
bonds were issued insurance was bought to guarantee payment. These companies are no
longer therefore the City cannot lower the interest rate by getting insurance when issuing
bonds.
Joint Budget and Parks Commission
February 19, 2009-Page 5 of 5
DISCUSSION BY COMMITTEE- Committee proposed accepting the assumptions.
m/s the accepting the assumptions Lemhouse/Slattery. All ayes.
LOGISTICAL ISSUES FOR FY 2010 BUDGET PROCESS
• Calendar -Lee explained budget calendar changes.
• Subcommittee Volunteers for Social Service Grant Meetings on 3/11/09-
3/12/09
• Subcommittee Volunteers for Economic & Cultural Development Grant
Meetings on 4/l/19-4/2/09
ADJOURNMENT
9:35 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Melissa Huhtala
Administrative Secretary
Joint Meeting:
Budget Committee & Ashland
Parks & Recreation
Commission
February 19, 2009
Objectives for tonight
• Discuss Projections by Fund of Fund Health
• Discuss Decisions for Elected Bodies
• Discuss Budget Assumptions
FY 2008-2009 General Fund
Revenue Projection from 12/15
Revenue
Budget
Projection
Difference
Prop Tax
$3.935
m
$4.100
m
$1757000
TOT
$1.723
m
$1.636
m
(90,000)
Franchises
$2.534
m
$2.490
m
(65,000)
Electric User tax
$2.786
m
$2.620
m
(166,000)
Development
Fees
$1.132
m
$.800
(332,000)
Other fees
$1.545
m
$1.499
m
(46,000)
Misc
$1.016
m
$1.000
m
(16,000)
Total
$(540,000)
FY 2008-2009 General Fund Spending
Reduction Plan
Dept
Budget
Reduction
Police
$5.790 m
$(150,000)
Fire
$5.117 m
(150,000)
Comm. Dev.
(operating)
$2.112 m
(110,000)
Muni. Court
$.442 m
(20,000)
Admin (GF only)
$334
(85,000)
Cemetery
$.332 m
(15,000)
Total
1
1 $(5307000)
•00
•00
• •
Spending Reduction Plan
in Other Funds for FY 2008-2009
• Parks and Recreation Fund target is 95% of
budget. Parks has already made several
service reductions
• Central Services Fund target is 95% of
budget. Will help all funds next year
• All other funds asked to hit 97%
• Utility Funds will be closely tracked all year,
esp. Wastewater, Water, and Electric
Review of Impacts to the
General Fund
...
000 0
00
..
• FY 2008-2009 Adopted Budget upside down
by $556,000 —Expenditures over Revenue
• Shortfall of target EFB by $464,000
• Larger carry forward from prior year of
$550,000 including prior period adjustment
• December projection of $540,000 less in
revenue —continuing into FY 2009-2010
• Management did $530,000 in lasting cuts
•00
•00
• •
Key Revenue Trends for 2008-2009 - today
Revenue Item: Percent Change*
Property Tax (GF up by $0.1351$1000) 13% others 5%
Electric User Tax 7%
Transient Occupancy Tax (28%) 10%
Food & Beverage Tax -3%-7%
Ambulance (net) -17%
Franchises 20%
Planning
2%
Building
-30%
Charges for Services (Sales)
Flat
SDC's
-63%
State Subventions -6%
Interest -78%
City-wide Cash Concern
January 2008 October 2008 January 2009
Unrestricted $ 14,617,278 $ 5,677,105 $ 7,964,996
Asset Forfeiture
329,180
237,487
237,487
Other Reserved
241,400
241,400
241,400
Debt F;bserved
3,064,040
2,848,471
2,726,284
SDCs
6,355,404
6,076,688
6,570,807
Claims &Judgermnts
400,000
400,000
400,000
Trust
762,072
779,040
783,776
$25,769,374
$16,260,190
$18,924,750
Ending Fund Balance Chart — Projected
with 3% Revenue Increases
Ending Fund Balance Chart — Projected
with Larger Adjustments
Ending Fund Balance Chart Comparison -
Potential Solutions or Adjustments
Challenges
• Cash Balances — Restricted & non -restricted
• Funding Improvements & Repairs —
Affordability
• NO repairs generally means more operational
costs
• Meeting Requirements & Covenants
• Virtually all estimates will vary by the time we
present the Budget Message in April
•00
•00
• •
National Literature Suggests
• Stop across the board cuts — Prioritize
• Fund the services you need and want
• Positively impact your local economy
• Do CI P that offers best ROI
• Build reserves or at least tread water
• Be positive and strategic
Issues for City Council
• Debt load and financing options
• Utility Rate adjustments
• Employee compensation package
and terms of employment
0000
Issues for City Council
::•
and
Parks & Recreation Commission
• Split of the permanent rate
• Request that the voters renew the
Food and Beverage Tax
• Potential for voter consideration of a
local option levy for certain services
Issues and Assumptions
for FY 2010 Budget Preparation
Recommended Overarching
Assumptions
• Across the board cuts and other "random"
methods (e.g., hiring freezes, etc.) of reducing
spending do not always yield most efficient or
effective results
• Staff proposes screening criteria for making
decisions about services to be protected in budget
process
Highest Priority Criteria
• Services mandated by Federal or State law
• Services mandated by City Charter or Code
• Existing contractual obligations (e.g., existing
debt)
• Emergency response
• Meeting basic health needs
Medium Priority Criteria
• Long term financial responsibility/ efficiency/
reduction in risk to tax and rate payers
• Support
for the
health of
the local
economy
• Environmental
protection
beyond
Federal and
State Mandates
• Prevention of emergencies and emergency
preparedness for unexpected events
Lowest Priority Criteria
• Enhance quality of Ashland as a place to live
• Support for resident's health beyond basic
services
• Provide high quality citizen service
• Key issue of local control/ local decision
making
Example of Applied Criteria
Criteria
Response &
Investigation
of Crime
Crime
Prevention
Non -
Emerg.Dispute
Res
High Priority
Federal and State Mandates
City Charter and Code
x
Contractual obligations and bond covenants
Emergency Response
x
Basic Needs Public Health & Welfare
x
Medium Priority
Operational Efficiency/Risk Mgmt/ Fiscal Health
x
Support for local economic health
x
x
x
Environmental Protection above mandated levels
Emergency prevention and/ or preparedness
x
Lower Priority
Enhance Quality of Life/Desirability of Ashland
x
x
x
Support for residents' health beyond basics
x
x
Quality Citizen Service
x
x
x
Key Issue of Local Control
x
Will this work?
• Attempts to separate those things that truly
are "core" from those things that are not
• Attempts to prevent cutting programs to the
point where they really don't make sense any
more
• Won't prevent discussions about whether
something truly meets criteria
• Will be exceptions. Sometimes decision -
makers will say, "Yeah ... but . . . ."
•00
•00
• •
Specific FY 2010 Assumptions
• Base expenditures are FY 2009 levels
including reductions implemented in
December 2008
• 0% COLA for non -bargaining and parks &
recreation employees
• PERS costs are reduced or flat
• 15% increase in health insurance
Specific FY 2010 Assumptions
continued
• Capital spending set by Council, predicated
on available cash, the ability to affordably
finance projects, federal/state stimulus
funding packages, and impact on operating
costs
• Budget will adhere to existing ending fund
balance policies
• Technology debt will be allocated as in FY
2008 and FY 2009
Specific FY 2010 Assumptions
continued
• Recommendation about changing property
tax rate will balance three factors: overall
•00
•00
••
affordability for residents, impact on "priority"
services and outcomes, and preservation of
City's bond rating/ financial security on
existing and future debt
16011111ad
MOPOSM; 11) revisespae cuawu Nod & Bo.average Tax allocadon, so Ihat 30% -- an increase 1011
--- a,s aHocated to the Parks Deparlment (ieducing the w'dwer licahnent aflocation by the sarne
anKmah) to be utdized for park Iwnd aapWon and recreational facility develc)pnierrt
i. 'ro make Wnds avaihble Or both land acquishion aW recreahoira] flacility deveioprnent
2.1tecreatOnal kwOks can he p6ofifized hased upon need
3. Funds could be utdized Or rnamer planning oH',acihdes inipiovernenli and devOopilleffl
4, p°unds are not to be use,Ll i"or operational expenses
5.5051 inuvase in Rubs to Patts Ikpanment offsei by a 12 decrease in funds 1'61,
Wastewater Bond payrnent
F090 So BcvcrdI-,�e'j'fax �oward
,A Sougg paks and recmathrml WINes pwWe nuwe and enhanced recwthnal oppoilunifies
Ii)r visitors 'And residerns of ewTy demographe
B Paa we pwinotes healthier fifestyles,
C. Engaging young pe(Q in healthy activifies is Wipmamt, obesily is as natkrYnal heakh assue
p ) Attractive parks and WHOes adds appeal as a tourist deminatit),ni
FQ'I'll"Ifity, ofhfe �n Ashkind and valries mv impaned in dkecl corrdaHon to parts irnpawentent
SUPPOR"TING pa ese,,irch
COUICILISiOTIS uffhe SHWY, "Ibe Benermits of Local Recreation and INrk Senims - At Nakmnvide
to of the Perceptions of the Arnerican Public" by Pennsylvania State I Jniver'sily,
* Tbe,vast rnajitiwrty asap the /knierican pubhc uses Mal recreation and park services.
* Park and lAaygnnnid use is the rriost conli'llon u,,'se
* Nuk anti recreational service'use confinues, lhrougjiout the W cycle Recrearionai pairticipation
declUs with age, but park use does not, In Nct, poaple between the ages ol'65 and '74 usse loca,l
parks nu')re firecuendy than amy cAher age pyoup kom Use 15 and Wder,
* The in*rity o,f people that do meal tv'se parks and recreational services still PCIITOIV(a SUbstanfial
henefi� from, thern
* Sixt.'y percera of1he slu#s respwidents perceive as "WeW clear, orcunmnunky benuRt hwun such
services,
* I wal parks and recreation are asuWated withi as some of amnrnundy. Conitnunity level 1,)enefils
are consicbred nwe uncap onato than individual: io'r household level benefits
0 Personal Benefits
Exercise, fitness & condifioning
1% and emeaAment
IQ Learningand ediication,
Relaxatkw
0 SocW Benefits:
* NOW to know people
* (jump PmakQedon
Inlcradii,,)n ot'adt,ilts a,'trrd kids
Comintinity awareness,
IQ A= sphtt
0 Facdhy BeneRm
Locations lo Wd inmucUmml clames
'Me joy of'playing, panhipating,
aa A place tci go; cornamnity budding
A place Rw reamk)n
Njx%ure to arts, & (.,�xafis, enterl,,Jnment
Watching (rrgardzc('J sports
0 [,nvin,)nj'nentaI Benefit :
o Resh ah
A place to he or�tdoors
P Exonomic Bcncfks�
C--pnMroved Scililics %,vdhout direct cost to to
0 ImInoved Ashland pn)peay Met per above mentioned beneRls,
Plant(W\A(141) Ftit)ds
e, Ifpropos,al is appioved, the amount cMemed Ar the %VVVTP in, the caleridar year 201 d "'OUld
slffl be greater than the amxwnt contWHY in 2004 undef the old End alhcatJon
adsAshland's sewtv rales mv cuantly the same or Wer than, AM Wed chics W WcNcm:
o Based on sevenrl WOW stipporting the Ycwdi AMMes Ovy rvacMuml Whics an: as h1h
p6cwhy Or Udand Wdents
Alte.ri-rative Sriggcstion�
If Unsure ofthe univenal suppon 11m, this proposal, c(,)n(fi.jct as sm'vey mad" Ashland residc�,nts
to ascerlairr if t1rey are saipporfive
P
NO NUM
16.15 Peachey Road
MAW
5511771)
I ¢ aro a a
p r I k u
l � I
0 CO
— --
M N ,
Vm V) fn U4 ) ref)
u�
1
I
a
e C1"1 r J
a NT - ¢Xm
r a D rI (x' �
� Al mar Syr f us") us�a a- r�r✓ Ia� ry �k
i
u
C.
i
W ci n .
I w �'�4 a^w�ti (Ni a"4 a i tea, 404 4 a"°' C9
I
ti
r �
iI
-D
I w C
aY ICy w
cl
I �u
I i
Z
y
'W CD
..— r° w M 4 �� CA 7
k S'"*dl', to ».. iu"� i„6b.l�
axe 0,
>>�
a.w z
W
CD CO Z �
CE *� U,�
01
�aw<
UL
1
'i
4.„Jµ ~w
W
C;
CJpY 2 ° 1 k
z
X
IsrµU5
r—
g,
qSJ
Cf
W
ry
-n
tll^
lil
13
'00
c3
0
oh
fro
yl arj
cn
to
C,)
-M
c3l
04
to
r,Y)
f P a
dYM1
ir
.'
s w
wio
oa
3
X
m
m
ilt
2Ln,
,