Back to Homepage

Learn about the City's plan to construct and move the water treatment plant - Clean drinking water is an essential right

Agendas and Minutes

Budget Process Ad-Hoc Committee (View All)

Draft Budget Process Ad-Hoc Committee Minutes for Meeting #7

Agenda
Wednesday, November 15, 2017

DRAFT Budget Process ad-hoc Committee Minutes
November 15, 2017 6:00 p.m.
Community Development Building, 51 Winburn Way

Call to Order/Opening Remarks
Meeting called to order 5:59 p.m. by Chair Slattery

Roll Call
Present:

Garrett Furuichi
Paula Hyatt
Dennis Slattery

Mark Welch
Rich Rosenthal
Adam Hanks

Miles Furuichi (Non Committee Member)

Approval of Minutes from November 8, 2017

Garrett Furuichi, Committee Member asked a question of Mark Welch, Administrative Services Director in regards to the minutes. He asked for clarification on page 4 item 11 as to what was meant for what documents would be presented and not presented to the council. Welch noted that this will be the budget book. Furuichi clarified that this is the modification of the sample section and asked when this would be presented. Welch confirmed that this will not be part of the council document but that it would be long term.
Slattery asked when in the series of nine meetings that this would take place. Welch added that this would take place in March, he added that once the new book has been presented that “how to” that could be added to the reference guide. The committee confirmed that there is a vision for this. Furuichi added that it was a clarification about the discussion of the format of the layout and that an idea was proposed for a format, and that it will not go to the council or the committee.
Slattery added that the committee would be reviewing it and who the approving authority would be the budget officer and that it will be Welch’s book. He also noted that things can be reviewed and comments can be made and that review is different from approve and that if a committee member did not like what they saw they could have a discussion with Welch. He added that in a good teamwork atmosphere that discussion should be able to happen.
1. Furuichi added that one of his major concerns during the last budget cycle was the level of detail that was seen in the book for personal services. Slattery added that Welch was very in tune with providing ample amounts of details. Councilor Rich Rosenthal added that it seems like this will be a better product. Furuichi asked if suggestions for the upcoming book could be made. Committee Member Paula Hyatt added that suggestions can be made and that Welch would then be able to make a case for why the suggestion would not work or take the suggestion and adopted it. Furuichi asked of Welch what the level of personal service details would be in the budget book.
2. Slattery asked that that question be waited on until the budget book was available. Welch added that he knew that there would be a lot more than is currently in the book. Furuichi added that he would wait until the committee discussed the legal framework to ask more questions.

MOTION by Committee Member Rosenthal, SECONDED Hyatt to approve the Minutes of the November 8, 2017 Budget Process ad hoc Committee meetings. Carried unanimously, Committee Member Adam Hanks abstained as he was absent at the November 8 meeting.

Public Form: None
Review of City Council Presentation

Slattery started the conversation by adding that the presentation looked great and the committee has made great progress. And that the committee has a much better plan then they have had in the past. He then asked the committee for direction as to if any reviews needed to be made.
1. Rosenthal added that this was one of the number one things he was looking for in terms of wording and that he really appreciated the work that Hanks and Welch had put into the presentation document. He did comment that from a formatting and readability standpoint that fonts and sizes were all the same. He added that the legal section was tough to read in its current format and that someone with graphic design skills may be able to help with this. Slattery noted that this looks like a list of frequently asked questions, but that the answers are in a different place. He suggested have direct links for questions that people may ask, and that at times understanding these questions can be challenging. Rosenthal noted that these are very important questions that need to be answered and that he appreciated the work of Furuichi for bringing many of these questions forward, especially for those eager to dive into the budget process. He added that this will also work well to inform council members. Slattery agreed.
2. Hanks added that they were waiting until the document had been completed and that it was what the committee wanted, before adding the document legal questions and answers as an appendix’s. This documents he added would be more of an FAQ to which the document would reference. Furuichi added that Hanks was welcome to use guidelines document that has items stated very clearly. Furuichi added that the legal section was very technical and render only an opinion. He added that the committee need to get to something more simply stated, he added he agrees with the use of an appendix’s in a FAQ style. Slattery added that Dave Lohman, City Attorney has worked with the committee and what was presented was a product of this. He added that keeping it simple was good and that reference could be made so that if someone wanted to go deeper they could. He then went on to add that it was an opinion but this was the City’s legal counsel opinion. At the time he added that council adopts the information it becomes the Budget Committee’s “rules of engagement”.
3. Hyatt stated her questions had been answered and that answers had been pulled in nicely.
4. Welch added that from a staff perspective that they were very happy with how the process went and that many needs that were addressed in the last budget process. He noted that this will be a new process with new staff. He added that they recognized that it was not the best process and that changes will be made. If he added that process did not work that revisions could be made. Slattery added that this process gives Welch ownership and that it is a solid step forward. He added that it was not perfect and that adjustments will be made. Hyatt added that the time for adjustments were built into the timeline.
5. Hanks added that this book will evolve and be a living document that things will be added to. He noted that it was great that there is now a spot that adjustments could be made and built upon.
6. Hyatt asked of Welch which member of the team would have ownership of the training manual. Welch stated that it would be himself and Bryn Morrison, Administrative Services Manager.
7. Slattery added that he liked the committee had made a solid commitment to a meeting schedule and that people that read this, people that join the committee would understand that this commitment had been made, he hoped that this would not be an optional schedule. Hyatt added that having dates out there with enough lead is going to insure attendance. Slattery added that once there is approval of the document, the schedule will go on the look-ahead and that all who are to be involved are notified. At time he added all there would to do is notice and documents.
Furuichi asked if the committee was still speaking on the report presentation, as he would like to make some points on Lohman’s review that he believes need to be considered and put into a different format of language. He went on to ask of Welch if December 19^th was when the presentation would be made. Welch stated yes that would be the presentation. Slattery added the meeting was moved as the agenda was already full for earlier meetings. He also added that this committee did not need to keep meeting after this.
1. Furuichi added that he could communicate via email with the committee any other questions or changes. He stated that as the legal framework was part of the report to council that he had a couple of things that he wanted to note. His first was that a list of directives was given to staff and he did not think this has not happened. Welch added that one of the directives for staff would be the new budget book.
2. Slattery asked for a point of clarification and that he believed that the ad hoc committee had accepted the legal piece that would be included in the personation. Furuichi added that there had not be a vote on it and that he had been tasked to do was to return comments back to Lohman. He stated that he merged the document with a prior set and found 391 differences between them that he noted and some were not minor. He added that he wanted to look at the changes, as items had been moved. He also noted that tracking on the legal document has been difficult.
3. Slattery went on to state that at some point during the meeting that a vote would need to take place that the presentation would go to council. He added that he believed that committee would vote to move forward. At that point the committee would be dissolved. Furuichi added that was fine. Slattery clarified if the committee agrees on the work done by Lohman that the document will not continue to evolve.
4. Furuichi added that the committee needed more clarification and asked that the items be gone through as it is a good starting point for the ad hoc’s work to date. He then asked to dig into the details for Lohman’s legal opinion. Rosenthal added that he did not think that Lohman’s legal opinion was up for debate, as it had been established in previous meetings. Furuichi asked if he could go over one area in the legal opinion that he had concern over. Slattery added that he did know if they did not have any way to resolve it.
  1. Furuichi went on to ask for the opinion of the committee in regards to item 7 in the revised work of Lohman, including in the training manual, page 22 He read it as “must the budget document estimate for expenditures for personal service include classifications, salary and FTE for each position.” He added that the operative word is “must” and the law he noted allows or may have a narrative form of the budget but the beginning of the paragraph reads estimate of expenditures for personal services must include for each organizational unit or activity the total budgeted cost of all officers and employees and the number of full time equivalent positions. He added that this is at a departmental level layer that is allowed at the end of the paragraph. From this he stated that the word must should be included, as the word must allows it be a no answer. Slattery went on to answer that the must has been answered as no. He clarified that the next statement under (a) does allow for what is allowed. He added that what will this look like is on a department basis. He added that he did not understand what was incorrect about this. Furuichi asked if they would have salaries at the back end of the budget in a narrative format showing range that would require he flip back and forth between in regards to the departments program, the salary range and the FTE and will it be presented in one single form like it has been asked for before. Slattery added that this is a request not a legal issue and that the formatting is a different matter then what is being asked for. Furuichi disagreed stating that way the question is being framed is the way the legal opinion will be rendered and that they will not get a format different from what has been presented in the past. Hanks stated that what is being said is it not required to be shown at the position level. Furuichi asked if it would be shown at the position level and by department. Slattery stated that it would not. Furuichi went on to ask why it would not be.
  2. Rosenthal commented that this has been seen before, but he does not understand what Furuichi is looking for. He suggested that Furuichi give the committee a written example of the line item. Furuichi suggested an LB30 as a good starting point. Welch added that an LB30 would not be a good starting point. He suggested Furuichi working with himself to go over what he thought would be needed. He also noted that the problem with showing by division or department, would be that persons are not allocated to that department or division, to get one cohesive list he added would be to be done as a city not by department. FTE he noted would be easier to do, but overall salaries would not be easy to show. He would argue from this that it would not be transparent. Slattery and Welch agreed that it was presentation of the budget issue. Slattery went on to confirm that salaries by name could not be shown in the budget book. Hyatt went on to note that the key piece of information would be by name.” Slattery asked Furuichi what he would like that is not in 7 to be listed. Rosenthal also tried to clarify by asking that Furuichi was not looking for names and salary range, that he was just asking for position type. He added in the books he has seen that this information has been given. Rosenthal added that he believed that Furuichi had something different in mind. Slattery and Hanks added that this was not a legal issue. Hanks then went on to ask how this would get in the way. Furuichi responded by noting that there needed to be linkage and transparency. He added that it being written in the way of “must” and that allows it be thrown out. Hanks noted that this means that it can it just doesn’t have to. Welch then added that this was Lohman’s legal opinion and that there are two City Councilors that are saying they want it in the book, which would mean that staff would not default on this and that he had support in this. Slattery went on to explain that were things are put and that things can be discussed, he added that the committee wants to be transparent and that there is a line that has been drawn. Furuichi added that he is happy to prepare a sample for review of the format of different jurisdictions with Oregon. Slattery asked that Furuichi work with Mark on presentation of the book, and that the committee did not need to review these items. Furuichi added that item 7 would not be changed, Slattery noted that notes could be sent out, but that the committee would not meet to go over it.
  3. Furuichi also asked if items could be added to the list and that 294.358 paragraph three was skipped during the process, as it relates to documentation used to create the budget. He added that in Lohman’s work earlier on requests for information, that a claim could be made that a document does not exists if a document is not readily available. He wanted to make it clear that any document used to create the budget could be asked for under paragraph 17. He asked that this be added to the revision. Rosenthal asked that Welch explain what was meant by this. Welch explained that what was being said was that anything that was developed for the budget can be reviewed, which he added that staff would be using the MUNIS financial system in the next budget process. He added that this would be working papers as he can give community members read only access to the program and that OpenGov could also be included. He added that the issues with this is that it would not always tie to what is being seen, as it could take multiple documents to get to this account. This he added would take time, as he would want to provide correct information. Hanks noted that documents would need to be developed to assist in making sense of the working papers to make the information useful and that would get to what question 17 is trying to answer.
  4. Hyatt noted that she has previously done this work and has an appreciation and she understands that data can be sliced in many different ways and that if there is not a proper orientation to the reconciliation that it would just be numbers on a page and then be useless. She understands that according to the statue that there is a right to the information and that Welch would have the information but that there is a translation piece in the middle in order for the information to actionable and usable. And when that translation piece is looked at that issues of staff time. She then added that she does not know if this is a clear black and white issue and if it can articulated as a,b,c. She stated that she does see the point that it can be asked for and received and that she also sees that the papers will not make sense without a middle ground. Hyatt questioned were we could tie the two pieces to help move the conversation forward.
Slattery added that there is budget law from the state. He added that we will get to a place and time where the rule will have to be interpreted. He added that we have the rules and the overarching governance but he is not sure how to legislate this. He added that it can be asked when the moment arrives what it is that is not be provided. Furuichi noted that to Hanks point that it could be revoked if it took longer than two hours, but that it was his feeling that it was already prepared for the budget. Hanks added that to Hyatt’s point that this is a part were that data has to be explained and somehow made understandable to the committee to be useful, which gets back to item number 17 in the legal opinion.
Welch explained that what makes up salaries on this sheet which is used for the calculation of benefits is the deferred compensation, which is under benefits. He added that this line would then not be under salaries.
Slattery asked that the conversation about the budget book specifics be tabled. He added that the framework for how information will be provided is there.
1. Furuichi asked if paragraph 17 would be removed from the legal framework. Welch stated that by removing it would delay the timeliness of how questions are answered. Slattery added that he has never worked on a committee that did not have something like what is described in paragraph 17. Rosenthal added that this is part of due process. Furuichi added that he is still thinking about the accesses to information from the previous budget cycle, and that be believes that this codifies this. Slattery added that he disagrees with this and stated that there is recourse and the new model created by the committee makes it stronger.
2. Furuichi added that he agrees with the process but that he would like to see the review at a budget committee level and that a budget committee meeting be scheduled to go over this and he believes that there will be push back. Rosenthal noted that that this is not the proposer course of action and not within the scope of the budget committee and that it is a policy matter. Furuichi clarified by saying that it was about the access to information not a policy issue. Slattery disagreed stating that it was a policy issue in that it is how the access to the information will be given. Furuichi asked if it was all public information. Slattery responded by saying that it was but that that what they are working on are the rules within the context of a meeting, and that it is the group that works together. Furuichi agreed that this was in the spirit of budget law and that he would encourage a meeting of the full budget committee. Slattery added that at some point the committee will have a chance to take a look at the presentation, but that the policy part of it will be done by council. He went on to add that the question that has to be asked is if it is better then what was there before and that it cannot be mixed up with whether budget committee members approve or not.
3. Furuichi noted that there is not an issue with inclusion and that there should be a discussion. Slattery added that his form of a discussion differed in that there is review and then there is not liking something and changing it. He added that the later should not happen and that the first could. Furuichi noted that it was suggested that that this was a process and that the precedence of the budget committee has been inclusionary. Slattery noted that this process is much better than before, which Furuichi agreed was true, but that he still feels that it is top down, but accepts the role of the council.
4. Slattery added that the presentation could be put in everyone’s hands and that it was not intended to be kept under wraps. This information he added would go out in the council packet on December 12^th. Welch added that as it is part of the public meeting packet that it is public currently. Slattery stated that it would not be wordsmithed and that polices could not be challenged and that this is the job of council. If people that are part of committee he added do not like parts of it, it can be worked out. Hyatt added that this is where the importance of the post mortem is so important, and that the feedback from this would be critical.
5. Slattery asked the committee agree that they want this to work well and that this was the purpose, and that it will be in a state of continuous improvement. He added that the ideas are not trying to be forced but that they are trying to improve something.
6. Rosenthal clarified what the action would be, the committee agreed that it would contained the proposed meeting schedules, the glossary, the budget calendar, and the definitions. It would then be a motion of council to review and accept these documents. Rosenthal added that it would be a motion to recommend that guide. Rosenthal compared the committee scope of work, to what the committee had completed to make sure the committee was on target. The committee agreed future economic projections and the orientation of the budget documents were future actions. He added that it looked as if all the items had been achieved even if every item was not agreed upon.
7. Furuichi added that if a motion was being made to present this to council that he would like to recommend that it is presented to the full budget committee, which contains council. He added that this could be done in a format where the council would have their second meeting after the presentation had been presented. This he added would bring everyone up to speed and be inclusionary. The committee discussed a date for which this could be done it was agreed that 6:00 p.m. study session could take place, where the appointed budget committee members would attend, and then the regular council session would take place and include the formal recommendation for council to act on. The committee agreed that this would work. Slattery added that there may be things that get incorporated into the council discussion for approval and that some items may not get moved forward for approval.
8. Slattery added that the team has been very inclusive of the whole process.
MOTION by Committee Member Hyatt, SECONDED by Councilor Rosenthal that the committee move forward with the citizen budget committee reference guide as the work document of the Budget Process ad hoc Committee in the context of the memo that was included in agenda packet dated, November 15, 2017 and that it be brought forth first to the study session on December 19^th at 6:00 p.m. that will be a full Citizens’s Budget Committee meeting with the formal recommendation and approval by council at its7:00 p.m. regular business meeting.
The committee agreed that overall the process of the committee worked out well. Furuichi stated that if need he was willing to work with staff to help create the documents.
Rosenthal noted that some of these items are very fresh from the last budget season, he added that it was a living document and that it would be revisited and that as the committee moves away from it there will be more clarity. He added that he understands that there may be changes that Furuichi would like to make but that now might not be the best time to make those changes. Furuichi added that he agreed and that the process should allow for questions to be asked and information given. Slattery noted that there have been communication problems with asking questions in the past, but that the committee has moved passed this. He added that the rough spots with the legal framework will be smoothed out in time. He added that each member wants to be able to bring their skills to the table and get their questions answered. Rosenthal agreed that the committee is better off with what has been created.