|
Work Session Minutes of the
Town of Present: Mayor Ernie McAlister, Council Members Marla Dorrel, Mike
Joyce, Jennifer Robinson, Julie Robison and Nels Roseland Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Jack Smith Mayor
McAlister called the work session to order at Town
Manager Bill Coleman recapped the decisions made in the capital budget
work session. Council was provided with a copy of a May 31st
memo regarding the fiscal year 2006 multipoint budget input session
(attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit
A). Budget
Director Scott Fogleman referred council to the Summary of Adjustments to
Requested FY 2006 Capital Improvements Budget Resulting from May 19, 2005
Capital Worksession #2 (attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit
B). He stated that the first table at the top shows a grand total for
general and utility capital projects of $60,994,601; through work session
adjustments staff was able to reduce that amount by $9,894,850 with the
adjusted amount of $51,099,751. This is a reduced debt in streets of $6.5
million and in parks of about $3 million. Mr.
Fogleman stated that midway in the bottom box shows the Mrs.
Robison stated that the shift if more for flexibility rather than savings.
Mr. Fogleman confirmed. Mr.
Roseland asked about using utility funds. Mr. Coleman stated that $1
million is being transferred from revenues from the utility fund as the
source of cash. Mr. Coleman stated that staff wanted to ensure that
council was aware of this as it was an item in the discussions regarding
the open space question on the referendum this past year. Mrs. Robison
stated that the program is not being changed in terms of funds flow this
year. Mr. Coleman confirmed. Mr.
Roseland stated that when the obligation bonds are due debt service will
be from the General Fund. Mr. Coleman confirmed, stating that it will
probably be at least a year’s lag. Ms.
Dorrel asked if we are doubling the amount for open space. Mr. Coleman
stated that in 2005 $1 million cash from the utility fund was budgeted for
open space; in the previous year it was $1.7 million; and before that
it was $2.5 million. He said that this year staff left the $1 million
transfer to open space in the proposed budget because it was previously a
council policy decision in the budget. Given the results of the Mayor
McAlister stated that some council members understood that if the open
space bond referendum was successful it would become a funding mechanism
for open space going forward, not the $1 million transfer out of the
Utility Fund. He said that a premium is put into reconsidering the $1
million transfer out of the Utility Fund to moderate the increase in the
year that utility rates are budgeted to go up 9 percent and that he
doesn’t know how to do that and still double the amount for open space.
He was a concern when talking about funds for open space in capital
improvement budget. Mr.
Roseland disagreed. He said that if council budgets $10 million for open
space next year, debt service one year later on a 20 year term would be $1
million in debt service as needed. Hypothetically, if we budget that
amount, expend it, acquire the land, and sell bonds the following year to
recover that full $10 million in year one expenditures, then we would have
$1 million in debt service for the next 20 years. He said that if the $1
million budgeted for next year is reduced by one-tenth, then the following
year we would need $100,000 in debt service. Mr. Roseland stated that in
looking proportionally at taxpayer pockets he can see reducing the Utility
Fund by $100,000 but not creating a total wash on open space funding. Mr.
Joyce stated that the Town has $3.5 million set aside for open space. He
asked if the Town has site acquisition in FY06 for the $3.5 million and
questioned why money is being put in and not spent. Mr. Roseland stated
that acres developed versus acres being preserved six to one. Mr. Roseland
stated that over $400 million has been inventoried in open space and that
$14 million has been budgeted over the last four years. He said that on
looking at the rate of development versus preservation it is still out of
balance when looking at the raw numbers. Mayor
McAlister expressed concerned with the double dipping aspect. He stated
that $10 million in open space funding was approved in the May referendum
with the understanding that it could add a penny to the tax rate when
fully implemented. He asked if the $1 million per year from the
utility fund is being thought of to service that debt because both cannot
be done. He is concerned about doubling the amount and while continuing to
subsidize from the utility fund. Mr.
Roseland clarified stating that $1 million was budgeted for passive open
space last year, whereas the current recommendation from the budget is $1
million each for active and passive open space. Parks,
Recreation and Cultural Resources Director Mary Henderson stated that
staff tried to purchase parkland adjacent to open space priorities to make
larger parks and part of the parks would be open space. Mr.
Joyce suggested taking money from Mrs.
Robinson asked if Mr. Joyce was suggesting spending money to acquire land
for open space instead of on developing parks. Mr. Joyce confirmed and
stated that it would postpone debt. Ms.
Dorrel stated that through development plans we are also preserving open
space with a different kind of mechanism. She suggested keeping the $2
million in the budget to have this discussion and determine how to fund
it. It was her understanding from council discussions that the plan that
the Utility Fund contribution would go away when bond funding began. Ms.
Dorrel is interested to see what the utility rates look like with the $1
million removed. Mr. Coleman stated it would be about $6.5 million or $6.7
million instead of $9.1 million. Ms. Dorrel stated that she is reluctant
to raise utility rates and keep utility money for open space funding with
the bond approval. Mayor
McAlister stated that it is a question of priorities due to the amount of
current debt. He said that the Town has seven years to use the money with
the referendum. Council needs to balance out what is necessary. Mrs.
Robison stated that reducing the amount for open space as a dedicated
revenue stream from the Utility Fund does not buy that much in terms of
offsetting increases in the Utility Fund rates. She said that it is a
small impact over time when you consider the existence of the rise in
utility rates regardless of open space allocation. Mr. Coleman concurred.
Mrs. Robison stated that to make a policy decision to discontinue the
dedicated revenue stream gained from the Utility Fund for open space for
short term gain is short sighted. She wants to maintain the dedicated
revenue stream to ensure long term vision and consider utilizing more bond
referendum funding when we can more comfortably afford associated debt
services. Mr.
Joyce said if we leave the $1 million from the Utility Fund in place it
would in effect raise fees 2.4 percent. All other council members
disagreed, stating it’s been in place since 2002. Mrs.
Robinson asked if council wanted to spend money to develop parks or
acquiring land during tight budget times. She stated that it is good to
acquire the land now and develop later due to escalating land costs. She
asked what would be lost if money is taken from Bartley Park phase 1 and
what would be gained that money is used to acquire land. Mrs. Henderson
responded that phase 1 includes a large playground, picnic areas,
restrooms, trails, dog park, and road improvement. She stated that the
Town owns the land and the park has been designed. Ms. Dorrel added
that construction has already been delayed for a year. Mr.
Joyce asked about Middle Creek amenities. Mrs. Henderson stated there are
four softball fields from phase 1. Mr.
Roseland stated that it is worth exploring the double dipping comments. He
said that average Town of Ms.
Dorrel stated that the average bill including open space would be $5.11
for 7,000 gallon per month to maintain Utility Fund revenue stream. Taking
out open space would reduce that by $1.33 per month (or would be $3.78 per
month for the increase) for a 7000 gallon a month user. Mrs. Robison said
she doesn’t think the savings are worth giving up a dedicated revenue
stream. Mayor McAlister agreed, but stated that not doubling in a year
that would cause a compounded debt. Mayor McAlister suggested keeping the
Utility Fund and not using the bond money this coming year. Mr.
Joyce wants to take the Mayor
McAlister stated that hears an agreement from council to stick with the
status quo for now and in the future when the Town is not as challenged
with debt to start drawing on the bond money. He said to fund $1 million
per year for open space using the Utility Fund, which is going from $2
million to $1 million. Mrs.
Robinson wants to explore park development versus park acquisition. Mr.
Roseland is in the minority. ACTION: Use the Utility Fund this year instead of bond money. Mayor
McAlister stated that Mrs.
Robison said that there needs to be a separate detailed discussion if
talking about reprioritizing using the Ms.
Dorrel stated that all of the answers do not lie in Mrs.
Robinson wants to keep the $1 million dedicated from the utility fund and
consider finding money from existing park development money for parkland
and open space acquisition. This does not mean that she is in favor of $1
million instead of $2 million, but she doesn’t want to use the bond
money. Mr. Roseland stated this could keep the Town at the $2 million
level. Mr. Joyce wants to use Mr.
Roseland stated that the goal is to find $2 million for this year. Mayor
McAlister stated that can be done if they are able to find $1 million in
existing park funds to divert to open space. He said they are not prepared
to answer that today. He stated that they will definitely not use open
space bond money in coming year and instead will move forward with using
$1 million from the Utility Fund for open space. Mr.
Coleman moved into the operating budget, general fund and utility fund
budget. He referenced a summary of the information in materials. (A copy
of the draft budget is attached to and incorporated as an exhibit to the
May 31, 2005 council meeting minutes.) Mr.
Coleman stated that budget projections for this year include about a 6.2%
increase in general fund revenues the solid waste collection fee is
changed. He stated that there is still a small revenue growth regarding
tax base and sales tax is coming back some. Those are the revenue
restrictions in the general fund budget. He said that given the escalating
expenses and limited revenue growth staff tried to approach the budget to
maintain service levels, limit new debt but still allow flexibility to
pursue implementation of some of the thoroughfare and parks master plans,
identify opportunities to create service efficiency for the future to
control future costs, look at how the Town charges for services and
improve those methods, and try to create a foundation of business
principles to move the budget into future. He said that staff tried to
limit growth in personnel and decrease operating expenses (staff has been
given direction to decrease operating expense by at least 3% and travel
and training by 10%). In addition, any time a position is vacant a review
is done of that position to see if it is necessary. Staff has tried to
limit capital growth as matter of an expense source in the budget. Mr.
Coleman stated that the recommended overall General Fund operating budget
increase is about 11.6 percent; however, debt service and capital projects
make up about 7 percent of that increase. He said that there is only about
a 4.6 percent increase in actual operating expenses if certain increases
in debt service and capital expenses are eliminated. Staff has been going
through the list of capital purchases in the operating budget looking to
significantly reduce that amount and will have that list by next work
session. Mr. Coleman stated that the Primary drivers for the General Fund
budget are increase in debt service, which is a cost we can’t do
anything with, and personnel costs (listed review of all new positions
recommended for funding). He stated that only 18 positions out of about 36
requested are recommended for funding; of those 18, all but 2 of the full
time positions are related to new facilities or new programs. He stated
that the two new positions not related to facilities or programs are in
the clerks and public information offices and are workload driven. Mayor
McAlister stated that there are 9.7 employees per 1000 citizens, which is
as low as it’s been in past 10 years and assumes adding those new
positions. Mr. Coleman concurred. Mr.
Joyce asked about landscaping greenways and about the percentage of work
force contracted out. Public Works Director Mike Bajorek stated that all
general turf maintenance is contracted. He said that in FY06, there is
$507,000 in general landscape maintenance. Mr. Joyce asked what
landscaping is taken care of by the Town. Mr. Bajorek stated there are
about 400 developed acres with 8 teams of 3 people for a total of 24
people responsible for doing beds, trimming trees, safety issues, in
addition to repairing fences, playground safety, etc. Mr.
Joyce asked if any required landscapers are due to the new parks and
greenway network. Mr. Bajorek stated that the vast majority of the
work is done by contracted services. However, if there is an erosion
problem, damage, or a problem that will take less than a week and is cost
effective for staff to do then it is done in house; otherwise it is
contracted out. Mr. Bajorek stated there is one addition person in the
request for landscapers this year to help with landscaping around the town
hall complex. He said that three of the workers are being driven by Middle
Creek and, if that project is postponed, those positions will not be
needed. There is almost 17 acres per person of landscaping. Mr.
Roseland stated there are two to three requested positions in USA Baseball
going to the operations committee and that he saw a staff report stating
it would be 16-18 months before it is constructed. Mr. Bajorek stated
staff is not hired until there is a need. Mr. Roseland suggested
reprogramming the existing positions instead of asking for new ones. Mr.
Bajorek stated that could be done or the three positions can be dropped
off the chart and brought back in a future year. Mr. Coleman stated that
the main reason not to do that is because if positions are added to work
in a specific facility and that facility is not built then those positions
are not hired. Mr. Coleman said this is done in order to avoid the
perception that positions are hired twice; if additional personnel is
needed for other facilities it is dealt with separately in order to
alleviate any confusion with personnel issues in the capital projects. Mr.
Fogleman added the FY06 funding for those three USA Baseball-related
positions is taken out and is only shown on staffing documents. Mr.
Joyce asked about overtime. Mr. Bajorek stated the Town is already paying
overtime. Mr.
Joyce stated that automated trash collection will result in internal staff
looking for jobs and asked if there would be an opportunity for one of
those staffers to fill the job. Mr. Coleman stated yes. Ms.
Dorrel asked about public information office position and stated that one
option is to say service standard at this time is sufficient. Mr. Coleman
asked Public Information Officer Susan Moran to provide information on
goals staff is attempting to me with regarding the media, public
information using channel 11 public TV, the website, the amount of
material to update, and goals for turnaround keeping information up to
date and providing new information. (A copy of the General Public
Information Work Program Analysis is attached to and incorporated as Exhibit
C.) Ms.
Moran stated that Mr.
Joyce asked what the public information office has done with oasis. Ms.
Moran said something was done on BUD TV, comprehensive communication plan
including articles, and news releases. Another employee would help to
provide more information about Oasis. Ms.
Dorrel stated it is a values issue and she is comfortable with the request
for the two administrative positions. She said that each time council asks
for another public input session, outreach effort, etc., which are highly
prized by citizens, it puts more pressure on staff. All
council members indicated that they are okay with the two requested
administrative positions. Mr.
Coleman stated that one of biggest issues in the proposed budget is the
change in the solid waste collection method and fee. He stated that the
primary reason for making the recommended change is to look at solid waste
collection, disposal, and recycling differently. He said that staff is
proposing an enterprise fund to account for the expenses and revenues
separately and tie the two together. He believes that this is a cleaner
way to establish the service and fee, and account for it in the future.
Mr. Coleman said that one of the biggest problems in the future will be
maintaining backyard service. The Town has lots of problems and issues
that occur every year with recruiting and retaining employees, and it will
become more difficult with exposure to danger and workers compensation
claim. He said that it is clear from experiences in Mr.
Coleman stated that a similar proposal was made 13 years ago and staff has
worked thru that system since then. He said that given the state of the
industry, the issues related to workers compensation and controlling cost
in future, staff feels it is time to make that change. Mr.
Bajorek provided copies of the modification of solid waste service staff
report presented at the council/staff retreat on Ms.
Dorrel stated that budget committee will discuss the solid waste
collection issue and some questions may be deferred to the committee to be
brought back to the whole council. Mr. Coleman stated it needs to be
reviewed by the entire town council and any detailed questions or
proposals for changes can go to the committee. Mr.
Bajorek stated the Town has a unique opportunity over the next several
years because trucks must be replaced in near future. He said it is time
to consider a shift to a more cost effective type of collection. The
recommended program will change yard waste pickup from Monday to the day
of the garbage collection and for most citizens their collection day will
not change. He stated that staff will work four 10-hour days, which is
industry standard, even though staff currently staff works five 8-hour
days. Collection will start at Mrs.
Robinson stated that people will complain about not having yard waste
picked up on Monday, after spending all weekend doing the work. Mr.
Roseland is opposed to asking people to do more work and doubling their
bill. He said council needs more time to set objective and asked when the
conversion would take place. Mr. Bajorek stated it would take place after
carts are delivered. Mrs.
Robinson stated that this decision is predicated because staff needs to
replace trucks. Mr. Bajorek concurred. Mrs. Robinson agrees with Mr.
Roseland about the funding issue. She asked staff to provide information
on the cost to citizens, as is, with a fee instead of property tax. Mrs.
Robinson is concerned with yard waste not being collected on Monday. Mr.
Bajorek stated that staff looked into and the cost was over $350,000
additional to do yard waste on Mondays. Mayor
McAlister stated that $18.80 is full cost recovery if they continued with
back yard collection. He asked if that included support from the General
Fund. Mr. Bajorek stated that it assumed $550,000 from the General Fund to
subsidize and that that the convenience center is also supported. Mayor
McAlister stated that council can’t just look at one part of this
without looking at everything. He said if the Town moved to an enterprise
fund with backyard collection the cost would be $18.80 as opposed to the
current $7.67 now with the General Fund subsidy. He stated that the
business community is paying this in their tax rate and subsidizing
everyone with no benefit to them. He said it is unfair to double costs and
cut back on the service; costs are being put on the users and not taxes. Mr.
Roseland is okay with the fee increase if property tax decreases by same
amount. He doesn’t want the subsidy eliminated only to use it for other
needs in the budget. He could support the objective of going to the
automated service, but needs more time to get public input and feedback.
He said it is also important to explore privatized services, put out a
request for proposal and get bids and wants to see a proposal on the table
before a decision is made. Mayor
McAlister asked Mr. Roseland if he was suggesting a separate enterprise
fund for police and fire. Mr. Roseland stated that if the objective is to
eliminate subsidies, eliminate all of them and make them user fee based. Mrs.
Robison echoed Mr. Roseland’s concern about the policy goal stating that
council needs more discussion. She said if the driver is an equity issue
in favor of the businesses not receiving solid waste collection services
and subsidizing residential out of property taxes, then this is a policy
goal statement. She does not like the fact that it puts the burden for the
share equally on all residents and is not prorated based on volume or
value of the house. She said that a benefit being is being lost and the
burden shifted. Mrs.
Robison asked if an enterprise fund would operate like the Utility Fund so
that funds would never be transferred and would basically charge to run
the enterprise what it costs. She asked if the same thing can be achieved
through an accounting system. Mr. Coleman stated yes. Mrs. Robison
asked why a goal of matching revenues to expenditures be achieved through
a policy goal stating that a certain percentage will come from the General
Fund in order for the fee to be less regressive. Mr. Coleman stated
that it can be done through accounting, but he does not know the impact it
will have to the extent the fee is regressive. He said that revenues and
expenditures can be counted to give a reasonable picture. Mr. Coleman said
that the proposal for the enterprise fund was simply a way to set it apart
from the budget and make it clearer and easily comparable from year to
year in the long term. Mrs. Robison stated that it is a good goal for full
cost recovery. Mr. Coleman stated that long term accounting is not as
clear as enterprise fund but that it can be done. Mayor
McAlister asked about the current proposal in the budget. Mr. Fogleman
stated that staff prepared statements using the same General Fund approach
and that all costs and revenues are included in the General Fund for
comparison purposes. He said if pulled out and made part of an enterprise
fund, then the General Fund would decrease by the amount being put into
the solid waste enterprise fund. It would mean moving dollars and revenues
over and at $15.50 it would not be 100 percent cost recovery; there would
still need to be a general fund subsidy for the convenience center and
other things. Mayor
McAlister stated that the $18.80 referenced in the staff report is to keep
backyard pickup. Ms. Dorrel stated that the full cost recovery is 86
percent. She sees this as a course correction stating that council made a
significant policy shift in 2001 for the FY02 budget and they are now
re-examining that policy. Ms. Dorrel said that one question is whether
that shift should be taken all at once for the 86/14 split or if it should
be done in phases. She sees it as a way to return to a more equitable
situation and remembers some of the discussion at the time of change. The
other piece is that this does generate additional revenue. She said that
if they don’t want to see this as a revenue producer, then they must
find expense cuts on the other side. Ms. Dorrel stated that the budget
committee has been discussing this issue and hopes to look into it in the
future. Mr.
Joyce stated that moving to a user base situation is a full cost recovery
by a contractor plus profit to the user. He said that by not privatizing
the Town saves 86 percent. Mr.
Roseland wants honest discussion about other needs instead of redirecting
the money. He $3 million is being injected into the garbage program
freeing up a subsidy that is moving to other parts of the budget to help
with the public information officer and other needs outlined in the
budget. He said it is not full cost recovery because it is currently being
paid for with property taxes. Mr.
Joyce asked what happens if the system is kept as is and the Town just
buys new equipment. He stated that a tax deduction would be good but as
the Town grows and adds more back yard service it increases staffing needs
for solid waste collection. He asked if any certain subdivision can be
phased in to be controlled by automated front yard service and then add
everyone else in slowly over the next 10 years. Ms.
Dorrel stated that there is the shift from the property tax to a full cost
recovery system and a change in the method and they are not inseparable.
She said that the shift in method to curbside is proposed at a three year
phased method, but the rate is not phased and some people will not see a
change in method until the third year. Mr.
Coleman stated that staff is trying to make council aware of costs,
revenues, and opportunities now and for the future. He said that the issue
of how we pick up trash is separate from how we pay for it. Staff believes
that in the long term the Town will be in the best position for providing
consistent, dependable and cost effective service if delivery service is
changed. He said that how it is paid for includes a lot of policy issues
whether or not it is subsidized. Staff has pointed out the history and
payment of solid waste collection and disposal. The information provided
is precise, clear, and presents an honest evaluation of choices and
options. Staff has looked at volume based collection issues and curbside
collection presents future opportunities for more precise charges.
Breaking solid waste collection down into measurable units is difficult;
administratively it is much more costly and time consuming. Going to
curbside collection provides future opportunity to greater break down unit
costs. This change gets us closer to past council direction. Mr. Coleman
stated that it is pretty clear from the state of the industry that if the
Town stays with backyard service it will be difficult, if not impossible,
to get any one private contractor to bid on this. He said that those are
some of the issues reviewed by staff. How we pay for it is to clearly
identify the cost and policy and value decisions with one method over
another and it is a council decision on what to do with the policy. Mr.
Roseland stated that he didn’t intend to imply anything dishonest going
on. He said there are a lot of financial and program questions and
discussion needs to occur. Mrs. Robinson stated that council discussed the
issue at length at the previous retreat. Mrs.
Robison asked staff to provide council with two different options that
would fulfill or support the staff recommendation. She also asked if a
budget decision could be made without deciding the method. Mr. Coleman
stated that the fee would have to be increased, a tax increase would be
needed, and expenses would have to be reduced by some amount of money. Mrs.
Robinson stated one option is to create the enterprise fund, start
charging $15.50, and then subsidize the balance of $3.30 from the General
Fund until the decision is made. She said that would decrease the tax
increase; otherwise, if kept in the general fund with backyard pickup a
small tax increase will be needed if expenditures are not decreased
anywhere else in the general fund. Mr. Fogleman stated that the most
direct way to do this would be with a solid waste fee increase to $15.50;
if at some point a further decision is made to leave in back yard
collection the rate could be raised at that time. He said in order to
continue with the current service level backyard service is more expensive
than curbside. Mr.
Joyce stated that he agrees with Ms. Dorrel that we are correcting what
was done in the past. Mr.
Roseland stated that truck replacement is a one time cost and the Town
could look at garbage fees or the fund balance. He said that the t\Truck
replacement cost is $690,000. He asked to be provided with a scenario to
keep the rate as is for a year, look at the fund balance to buy the
trucks, and move towards the objective of automated curbside service. He
said that subsidizing garbage collection will prevent a certain amount of
property tax increases. He would like to see a one time hit to the general
fund to replace trucks and keeping fees as is. Mr.
Fogleman stated that part of the way the fee was developed was to look at
cost recovery realizing capital costs implications, knowing that some
years trucks won’t need to be replaced. He said that an enterprise fund
approach allows you to see the specific amount of fund balance which might
be generated in one year when no equipment is replaced. Mr.
Fogleman stated that transitioning service in three years is more behind
the scenes in terms of fleet truck replacements. He said that everyone
town-wide would see the service change to curbside all at once. Mr.
Joyce asked about having two different fees. Mr. Coleman stated it can be
done, but staff has not made that proposal. He feels that council wants to
look at a volume based system and that from an administrative standpoint
staff wants to avoid changing the system every year due to costs and
confusing to the population. He said they want to start with the automated
system and then bring recommendations to council in the future about
volume based service. He said staff could look at the 90 and 65 split
initially if council is interested. Mr.
Roseland asked about having two to three tiers on garbage based on a
one-time study, i.e., 1500 square feet charged one amount, etc. He would
be open to a fee structure that is more equitable than one size fits all. Mr.
Joyce wants to offer people choices on what they want. Mrs. Robinson
agreed. Mrs. Robison concurred and stated we don’t need to do a study.
Mrs. Robinson stated that smaller homes sometimes generate more trash than
people in larger homes. Mayor
McAlister asked if automated trucks can load either size bin. Mr. Bajork
responded yes. Mr. Coleman stated that staff has done some research on
this. Mr. Bajorek talked about some of the issues related to the 65 versus
90 and stated that with volume based will look at again. He said we are
fortunate in Mrs.
Robison stated that it is more economical to collect the same amount of
volume from everyone because landfill costs are low compared to other
parts of country using volume based systems. Mr. Bajorek stated results of
a study show that Mr.
Joyce stated said that instead of setting two fees based on volume the fee
could get smaller. Mr. Bajorek stated it is easier to give a 96 gallon
cart up front. Going to a curbside service provides costs savings in terms
of reduced labor and flexibility by collecting in a semi-automated manner,
with two people on one truck instead of three or four. He said that
residents creating more than one 96 gallon can of garbage can ask for an
additional cart; likewise, residents using less could get a smaller cart. Mayor
McAlister stated that the issue would be taken up at the upcoming budget
committee meeting. He said that there is a diversity of opinions and asked
that the committee work through the issues and provide council with more
clarity to help them make decisions for the budget prior to the June 6th
work session. Ms.
Dorrel stated that a decision tree is needed to outline questions, because
there are a number of policy questions. Mayor
McAlister hopes the group will make recommendations on timing based
decisions—what must be decided now in order to move the budget forward
and what can be postponed to a later date. He left it in the budget
committee’s hands and expects to hear from them at the next budget work
session. Mrs.
Robison wants to clarify that what she hopes to get back is information on
what needs to be decided now to move the budget forward but not
necessarily tie that to the method or policy issues needing to be
discussed. Ms. Dorrel said there is the policy issue of the method and the
subsidy and their balance. She stated that may be a key budget decision
but approach and method would not. Mrs.
Robison thinks citizens will want to be part of the discussion. She said
council should consider some type of short term ad hoc committee involving
citizen stakeholders in the discussions. She stated that once the policy
is determined the methods will be adopted without a huge amount of
resistance from public. Mr.
Coleman stated that the budget subcommittee is looking at the following to
report back to council on June 6: issues related to span of control in
staffing with regard to ratio of supervisors to other employees;
identification of cash and existing park projects related to the open
space issues; quantifying issues related to revenue generation related to
business licenses; identification of cost issues related to fire
operations; identifying staffing options and any options to change the
staffing; comparison between station operating costs between us and
Raleigh or another municipality; a business model for inspections and
permits where we can look at fee recovery; recommendations for parks and
recreation fee increases; looking at issues related to delaying some of
the fleet replacements identified for this year; changing level of service
for street sweeping frequency, mowing and maintenance of medians,
maintenance of greenways, and other landscaping activities; changing
frequency of sweeping for parking garages; and changing level of service
with regard to contracted janitorial services for all town facilities.
Those are all expense related issues to be brought back to council. He
stated that the committee also reviewed other issues wrapped up in expense
and cost reductions: privatization and contracting efforts; efforts at
reviewing and reducing staffing during the course of the year prior to
budget; and staffing at community centers. In addition, the committee also
looked at the pay plan and 401k issues and will bring all of that
information back to the full council. Ms.
Dorrel hopes the committee can provide information to the full council in
a concise format to answer questions instead of generate more. Mr.
Joyce asked about the proposed $29 million in new debt and the options.
Mr. Fogleman stated that based on the timing of all of the documents and
related schedules, the information in the recommended budget represents
the capital requests submitted at the April capital work session. He said
that the changes from that capital work session will be factored into the
capital changes and open space discussion is reflected in Exhibit A. Mr.
Joyce stated that they never discussed non-profit organizations and he
sees more added to the list. Mr. Fogleman stated that cultural arts may
have added one or two more. Mrs. Henderson stated $89,000 is requested for
cultural arts groups versus the $96,000 requested last year. Work
session adjourned at
|