Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-0814 SPEC MINMINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL August 14, 1996 SPECIAL AGENDA ITEM 7:30 P.M., Council Chambers Joint meeting between Council Members, Councilors Wheeldon and Reid were absent and the Citizens' Budget Committee members, Dick Trout, Regina Stapahin, Patti Acklin and Marty Levine regarding financial impacts of proposed charter amendment initiatives. City Attorney Paul Nolte informed council and budget committee members that the initiatives that were filed require that the five members be elected at the next mail in election held in 1997. The Oregon Constitution precludes election of city officers except in Primary or General elections every biennium. This means that the first time anyone could be elected for these commissions if the initiatives pass would be in the general election of 1998 and take office in January 1999. For purposes of budget impact there would be no expenditures expected until the commission were to take office. There is no severability clause. Discussion that the initiatives are not clear as to when members would take office. Clarification on how members would be appointed if a member could not continue with their term. Question and discussion as to how expenses would be handled, what types of documents could be requested and received. Finance Director, Jill Turner stated that it is difficult to determine what is meant by financial audit in the proposed initiatives. She explained that the current financial audit is performed by an outside certified public accounting firm which has to be done under state statutes. Turner commented that it would be difficult to add additional projects to her department. Turner gave examples of costs which could associated with special projects. Budget committee member, Dick Trout stated that to create this new commission would cause additional costs to the city. Read statement to other budget members and council in regards to consequences of creating two commissions, misperceptions regarding what the city is currently doing and submitted facts and background material for articles. There was general agreement that they had an obligation to inform citizens of the consequences of these initiatives. special Council/Budget Committee meeting 8-14-96 1 Discussion as to whether a political committee could be formed to oppose this initiative. Budget member, Patty Acklin felt that the positive aspects that the budget committee has brought forward should be made public. Public should be informed of the safeguards that are in place and that another level of government is not necessary. Councilor Hauck noted that in other cities, they have elected officers who have professional staff to do audits. Meeting Adjourned: 8:55 p.m. Barbara Christensen, Recorder special Council/Budget Committee meeting 8-14-96 2 Some thoughts For The Special Budget Committee Meeting on 8-14-96 ~]eating these two commissions will: 1. Cost more money for the Staff's time, for the hiring of probably too many consultants, and for supplies and facilities. 2. Create unnecessary conflict without adding anything useful, as Don Laws noted to the press. New commissions have a tendency to justify their positions by seeking and discovering "problems" 3. Put another bureaucracy on top of a bureacracy, as noted by Mia Manzano in the Tidings recently; plus, there is already a lack of qualified people willing to serve on the Council and on commissions. 4. Create confusion. How does "strictly advisory" relate to having command of the City staff for audits? The language of these measures is vague; and we don't know the extent or the limits of these commissions' authority. Some things we can consider doing are: 1. Sponsor some "arguments against" in the voters pamphlet. At least one from the Council and one from the Budget Committee for each measure; more if possible. 2. Letters To The Editor and Commentaries in newspapers. listed some ideas below. I've 3. Don't put a measure on the ballot now to raise money for the additional costs if these two measures pass. This would probably be taken as a threat, and the costs are unknown at this time. But we should note in the voters pamphlet the likely need in the future; voters should know that these won't come free. 4. We should agree, publicly, that although it's proper to have initiative measures on the ballot, we believe these two should be defeated. And, of course, say why. 5. Consider a planned, paid-advertising campaign to assure that citizens are accurately informed on these measures.