Budget Committee Meeting
January 17, 2002
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
Present: Cate Hartzell, Regina Stepahin, Russ Silbiger, Martin Levine, Chris Hearn, Susan Reid, Alan DeBoer, Jim Moore, Diana Goodwin Shavey, David Williams, Raymond Olsen, Cameron Hanson
Absent: Don Laws, John Morrison
Staff: Greg Scoles, Lee Tuneberg, Ken Mickelson, Kirsten Bakke
CALL TO ORDER
Levine called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.
Introductions were made.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of minutes from previous budget subcommittee meetings dated:
1/17/01 Budget Committee - Introduction
3/07/01 Economic and Cultural Development Grant Presentations
3/08/01 Economic and Cultural Development Grants Continued
3/14/01 CDBG Presentations
3/19/01 Social Services Grant Presentations
5/03/01 Full Budget Committee Meeting - Budget Message, CIP/Public Works
5/07/01 Parks, Finance, Community Development
5/10/01 Electric / AFN
5/14/01 Administration and Legal, Administrative Services, City Recorder
5/15/01 Municipal Court, Police, Fire
5/17/01 Full Budget Committee: Wrap-up/Budget Approval
DeBoer moved to approve all the minutes as written. Moore seconded. Voice vote: All Ayes. Motion passed.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Williams motioned to elect Levine as Chair. DeBoer seconded. Voice vote: All Ayes. Motion passed. Moore motioned to elect Williams as Vice-Chair/Secretary. DeBoer seconded. Voice vote: All Ayes. Motion passed.
Levine opened the meeting for public comment. There being none, the public portion was closed.
DeBoer discussed options for spending excess ending fund balance. He suggested providing $200,000 for the school district to provide funding for the school health plan and grounds maintenance. He suggested spending $300,000 for public transportation for next year and $100,000 for human services. He also proposed funding for crosswalk intersections and curb improvements.
The Committee discussed availability of ending fund balance funds. Tuneberg provided a Fund Balance Comparison handout. It was suggested that detail could be provided electronically.
REVIEW OF THE BUDGET DOCUMENT AND PROPOSED PROCESS
Scoles began discussing last year's budget process, stating that it worked out well and would be more effective this year. He said that the Council would meet February 1st in goal setting to discuss the kinds of issues DeBoer raised and others. He explained that today was a preliminary meeting, focusing on the assumptions that go into building the budget.
Tuneberg began by reviewing the Budget process walking the Committee through several handouts referring to appropriations, resource summary, revenues and expenditures.
There was a discussion about consolidating activities duplicated by Parks and the City: accounting, budgeting, payroll and human resources. The Committee asked about the timeline for the transition. Tuneberg said they'd move according to the schedule given, that they couldn't take over another agency's accounting without their help in doing it; there will also be a conversion in financial reporting that will happen during the same time frame, also in middle of doing RFP for a new auditor, which is done jointly with the Parks Department already. The Finance department of the City has more housekeeping to do before more volumes of invoices, time sheets, checks, PO's, and straight accounting can be introduced. Levine said Parks Department has a different system from the City, so training will be required.
Tuneberg continued with the Budget process, discussing the last section of the Budget document, last year's budget surveys, and training for committee members. He went on to explain potential changes to the Budget process.
Tuneberg described potential changes being considered about how to best use CDBG money to affect goals. The concern was that money is being spread among too many recipients, rendering the City less effective. The City has to report at the same level as much larger cities, which presents problems. No matter the size of the grant, the same amount of reporting is required. A potential change is that CDBG monies are appropriated through the regular budget process, but the recipient could be identified for multiple years and through a different process involving the Housing Commission. Scoles said that the Council would be looking at potential changes to that process. Hartzell clarified that any change to the CDBG process would not directly affect ICCA's ability or inability to be funded.
Tuneberg discussed potential changes to the Economic and Cultural Development Grant process comparing them to the Social service grants 2-year cycle, recommending that we alternate years with each grant. Silbiger suggested keeping the Economic and Cultural Grant on an annual basis saying it was a chance to be involved and connect with the public. Tuneberg asked if applicants normally on 2-year grants couldn't be funded and opt-out of second year funding if someone had a one-year project. Levine said they were mostly small organizations and two years was a long time for them. Williams said it seems appropriate to review their value to the community on an annual basis. Levine suggested offering those organizations that could come up with a 2-year proposal, they could be funded for two years but couldn't come back the second year and ask for a change.
Goodwin Shavey asked if they're talking about delegating the Community Development Block Grant process to the Housing Commission, would it be possible to delegate the Economic and Cultural Development Grant process to a similar kind of commission. The Committee continued to discuss the CDBG process.
Tuneberg informed the Committee that we now have authority from the State of Oregon to do a biennial budget. Scoles explained that this was the first year that a new statute allowed this to happen, informing the Committee in case they wanted to consider it during the next budget cycle. Reviewing appropriations each year. Levine questioned how it would affect the audit report.
Tuneberg went over the tentative budget calendar. He asked that the Committee members contact the Finance department to confirm which meetings they can attend. Olsen asked about the May 16th meeting suggesting that there may be a typo. The May 16th date on the calendar says, "Notices for June 5th public hearing." It should say "June 4th". The corrections to the calendar were made as stated.
Tuneberg spoke about the Budget in Brief, and handed out AFN quarterly reports and the Budget Assumptions Comparison. All are examples where past budget committee has asked for something extra. He asked for any additional input. There were none.
REVIEW OF THE 2002-03 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Tuneberg discussed the Annual Assumptions Comparison handout. It was confirmed that the inflation of 2.25% came from the CPI report for our area and the nation's 1.6% inflation rate generally runs lower. Tuneberg circulated a population chart. Levine asked why population growth is 1.5 or 1, and valuation based on growth is 4.5 and 3.5. Scoles said housing sizes are changing, so a unit that used to hold four people might now have two people, but the value of that home is still more expensive. The Committee continued to discuss the Annual Assumptions Comparison.
Tuneberg went over the Long-Term Assumptions Comparison handout. Reid asked about telephone franchise revenues. Scoles said there is a potential loss of revenue of $200,000 if Qwest prevails. There was continued discussion of the status of the trial process confirming that no ruling was expected for 90 days. The Committee questioned the continued distribution of property tax proceeds between the City and Parks given the assumptions explaining their need for added revenues in the Long-Term Plan. Mickelson explained the added $.21 per hundred to be used towards Capital Improvements. The Committee continued discussing the Long-Term Assumptions Comparison.
SIGN-UP FOR BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEES
Tuneberg reminded the Committee to email him with confirmation of the Budget meetings they could attend.
Meeting adjourned at 9:17pm.Respectfully submitted by Kirsten Bakke, Administrative Assistant