Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/25/1986 Meeting - e e M I NUT E S City Council Work Session Valley River Inn--Rogue Room February 25, 1986 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Debra Ehrman, Acting Chair; Freeman Holmer, Emily Schue, Jeff Miller, Roger Rutan, Cynthia Wooten, councilors; Mike Gleason, City Manager; Warren Wong, Cathy Freedman, Dave Whitlow, Barb Bellamy, Susan Smernoff, Marge Beck, Gary long, staff; Kay Robinhold, Rachel Mordhorst, Eugene Budget Committee; Jim Boyd, The Register-Guard; Tracy Berry, KVAL. FY87 BUDGET PLAN/CIP FUNDING I. INTRODUCTION Mr. Gleason introduced the work session by to the memorandum dated February 20, 1986, entitled, "FY87 Operating and Capital Budgets." II. SERVICE SYSTEM REDUCTIONS--IMPACT STATEMENTS Mr. Gleason continued by referring to Table I, which lists the $1.2 million in reductions in the FY86-87 budgets. He commented that this will be the third major cutback in four and one half years. Table II reviews the service level cuts outlined on February 3, 1986, and ind- icates the impact of those cuts on the organization, according to Mr. Gleason. The total reduction is $1.5 million and 18 FTEs. This table was requested at the last work session by the City Council. Mr. Gleason did not recommend the cuts as outlined in Table II. Table III highlights potential new and enhanced revenue sources and a time line for implementation. Mr. Gleason proposed that these recommendations be impl emented. Mr. Whitlow added that all the new revenue sources are scheduled for implemen- tation by July 1, 1987, and that all the numbers are annual numbers. Mr. Gleason closed his report by saying that the budget the councilors will receive balances with two levels of capital proposed, Tier 1 and Tier 2. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session February 25, 1986 Page 1 e e - III. DISCUSSION/FURTHER DIRECTION Ms. Erhman asked for discussion and questions. Ms. Wooten asked if the $2,136,195 total in the left column of Table III was inclusive of all numbers in that column, and she received an affirmative answer from staff. Mr. Rutan asked if the FY87 reductions list represented people being laid off. Mr. Whitlow answered no, that the phasing out of positions is over a three-year period in order to work around vacancies. Mr. Gleason added that he has instructed all departments that there are to be no layoffs. Mr. Rutan continued by asking how much of the reductions represented actual cuts versus positions not filled through attrition. Mr. Gleason replied that the total service package as carried forward is essentially $1 million smaller. This is accomplished by deauthorizing positions and reorganizations. The cost of service systems was drawn down over 24 months, changing the quality and reducing the output of those systems. Ms. Ehrman asked about Municipal Court trial delays, and Mr. Whitlow responded that the cuts represented about one staff position and would, therefore, add about 30 to 60 days to trial dates. Ms. Wooten expressed appreciation for the information provided by the City Manager, as requested. She perceived that Table II identified some nondepart- mental cuts that can occur as incremental adjustments to the budget and com- bined with non-traumatic user fee options. She suggested that the City Coun- cil look at the user fees and try to save $200,000 to $300,000 in non-departmental cuts, which seem the least injurious to the service delivery system. Ms. Ehrman asked for clarification of the capital improvement figures agreed upon at the last meeting. Mr. Whitlow referred to the actual numbers in the handout. Ms. Schue summarized that the budget does not balance because of the increase in the capital funding amount. How to proceed was discussed. Ms. Wooten suggested taking a balanced approach by considering both revenue sources and cuts at the same time. Mr. Holmer and Mr. Rutan preferred to look at the cut side first. Mr. Rutan was especially in favor of looking at each of the cuts suggested in Table II, plus some others that might be suggested. Ms. Ehrman reviewed the process by which the cuts in Table II were chosen. Mr. Gleason reiterated that the cuts suggested represent both reductions in service and an impact on productivity. The org- anization is making about a one-percent increase in productivity a year, but this does not represent $1 million in savings. It is is not his prerogative to make recommendations for cuts; the list in Table II would have the least impact on the organization. It was agreed that the council would discuss each item in Table II. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session February 25, 1986 Page 2 e e e A. Automation Pool Ms. Ehrman asked what the cuts represented, and Mr. Gleason responded that the automation pool is used to carry out the automation program adopted several years ago in order to automate City services. Departments request automation projects, and the City would do less of those by $100,000. Mr. Holmer asked if the $100,000 investment would bring savings in increased productivity. Mr. Gleason said it would depend upon the nature of the request; automation of the cashier system in the courts would save considerable money. Mr. Whitlow added that at the Hult Center, reconciliation can be done at the end of each day now in 10 to 15 minutes instead of one hour. Ms. Ehrman expressed a desire to know specifically what department requests would be affected, and Mr. Gleason said that until the budget is adopted, analysis and choices would not be done. Mr. Long said that the automation pool included conversion from homegrown to mainstream software and that home- grown software is two to three times as expensive to develop as mainstream software, which is purchased. The impact of the cut suggested would be to delay the purchase of software and increase long-term costs. He said the cash management proposal would be dropped. B. Human Rights Program Mr. Holmer asked how workable a joint commission would be, and Mr. long replied that there is a model from 1975 and there are no legal barriers to doing so. There are two staff in the department (one professional and one-half clerical). C. Joint Social Services Fund The councilors shared technical information and discussed specific demands not being fulfilled. Mr. Holmer asked whether money could be allocated to United Way. Mr. Long explained that funds were allocated to 45 agencies, including match money for grants, many of which are not financed through United Way at all. Ms. Wooten asked if the Joint Social Service Fund was part of the Service Levell, and Mr. Gleason said yes, it is under Public Safety. Ms. Ehrman also explained that a 21-member advisory committee of clients, pro- viders, and others make recommendations to the Budget Committee. Mr. Miller asked how many applications made through the fund are turned down. Mr. Gleason clarified that the City cannot give money through United Way. D. Federal Lobbyist Mr. Miller said that even though Federal revenue sources are shrinking, it does not mean that none are to be had. There is an expectation that there be equal return for services paid for. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session Page 3 February 25, 1986 e e e E. Business Assistance Team Mr. Whitlow said that there are six and one-half staff on the BATeam. Answer- ing Ms. Wooten's question, Mr. Gleason said that the original BATe am staff was composed of people already in the organization and that their original jobs were not filled. Ms. Ehrman asked what the cut of $150,000 represented, and Mr. Whitlow said that the BATeam would not be able to service as many clients, that special projects would be eliminated, and that other services would be reduced. The Metro Partnership is a contractual agreement that is renewed annually. Mr. Miller asked if the Chamber of Commerce could pick up any of the services. Mr. Gleason pointed out that it is the perception of the Metro Partnership and the Chamber of Commerce that the City is not doing enough now. Some projects would be at risk, such as the newly opened Customs Sta- tion. The Metro Partnership does not do business assistance, only recruit- ment. Ms. Wooten reported that she and Mr. Rutan have prepared a memorandum proposing to reshape the Council Committee on Economic Development and to work with the BATeam to become more proactive. F. Metropolitan Partnership Mr. Whitlow explained that the reduction was in the actual contract to help support operations; the staff is above and beyond. G. Neighborhood Program The reduction, according to Mr. Whitlow, would eliminate the program, one staff position, and materials. Referrals will then need to be made by separate departments. H. Municipal Court Ms. Ehrman suggested that the traffic crimes, which are under State statute, be handled by the District Court. She also questioned why the City pays $45 per hour on their Public Defender Contract, while the State pays $30 per hour. Mr. Holmer agreed that both were worth exploring. I. Convention and Visitors Bureau Under this category, Mr. Rutan introduced Destination-Point Activities for reduction consideration. This area, which includes Cultural Arts, the Eugene Celebration, and the Destination-Point Program, is staffed by three full-time employees and costs about $200,000, according to Mr. Whitlow. Ms. Wooten asked how the DFI was started and its relationship to the Visitors and Conven- tion Bureau. Mr. Gleason said that two Parks staff were assigned to the pro- gram and one added later for the Eugene Celebration. The original money came from the Visitors and Convention Bureau. None of the three positions are new positions, but came from other program areas. In response to Mr. Miller's question, Mr. Gleason continued to explain that there is no duplication of activities of the Visitors and Convention Bureau and the OPA. The Visitors and Convention Bureau has revised its mission statement and has nothing to do the the Eugene Celebration. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session February 25, 1986 Page 4 e It was also clarified that the Eugene Celebration expenditures match receipts and makes money. Ms. Wooten addressed the Destination-Point Activities and reported that an economic impact survey is being done for all activities such as Butte to Butte, etc. Mr. Gleason added that economic development has been the number one priority adopted in the Six-Point Program. J. Parks and Recreation Program Areas It was clarified in discussion that some programs are self-sufficient, others are not, and all require some overhead administrative cost. Mr. Rutan asked if there could be a ten to fifteen-percent across-the-board cut. Mr. Whitlow said that most costs are recovered by fees, but a cut like this would cut positions, which would, in effect, cut the programs entirely. Direct costs are covered by fees, but some support costs are not covered. e K. Contingency Mr. Holmer suggested that it was far better to cut the full amount than to increase taxes to cover deficits. Mr. Wong said that a contingency is not legally required and that the $600,000 contingency figure represents 13 per- cent of the budget ending balance. Mr. Holmer's suggestion is not possible because other fund accounts cannot be used to cover emergencies. Over the past five years, 70 percent of the contingency was used and the balance trans- ferred to capital projects. The account is used for items like replacing a ladder on a fire truck, a back-up communication system in the Police Depart- ment, bulletproof vests, excessive-snow removal, special election costs, and the library roof. Mr. Holmer commented that the staff recommendation about the ending balance has been accepted. Recognizing the fact that it is an end- ing balance, the contingency fund will only be used if there is contingency; it would be appropriate to take the recommended level, reducing it by $600,000, and putting it in the contingency fund. There would then be the money needed for contingency without being subject to the legal restrictions Mr. Wong pointed out. L. Miscellaneous Reductions It was agreed that cuts in this area be considered, especially council and staff travel and training, as well as consultant and professional fees. M. Fleet Fund The discussion centered on productivity and the ability to maintain equipment at a level that is adequate. $1.1 million includes all areas and represents a figure to maintain, not to improve. It was also agreed that more information was needed in this area in order to make any decision. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session February 25, 1986 Page 5 e N. Additional Items Suggested by Councilors Mr. Rutan suggested considering the budget for Downtown Management. Mr. Holmer reported that he is trying to find out what the base is for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). He believes that this base could change if the City took over roads or streets now owned by the State or the County. This information is needed in order to make CIP decisions. His initial impression is that the City may not need to spend any more than is currently being spent on CIP, or at least as much as we have suggested. He is trying to find the numbers and will report at the next meeting. Mr. Rutan suggested that the councilors comment on each of the items discussed in order to get an indication of what should be passed along to the Budget Committee. Table III was introduced for discussion by the chair. Mr. Wong reviewed the table and provided the information which follows. 1. liquor e The license fees charged are not at the maximum and, if increased, could generate $6,000 to $9,000. 2. Fees and Charges a. Code Books Mr. Wong explained that this charge would be to those other than the general public who request copies for their business. Code books are also available at the Public library. A charge would be made if the City is requested to make a copy. It is not possible at this time, but could become so, that the public could have access to the codes through computers. b. Spay Neuter The proposed increase is five percent; there has been no increase since 1983-84. c. Copier There is no charge proposed for under five pages; a written policy will be developed for what can be charged for. The Public Disclosure Law provides some guidelines for when charges can be made. d. Planning The Planning Department is in the process of reviewing its charges and will come to the City Council with a recommendation in April. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session February 25, 1986 Page 6 e e e e. Fire Prevention This charge is for firefighters who make inspections for insurance purposes; no charges are made for base level inspections. The hourly rate is now $18 per hour; the proposed increase is $35 to $40 per hour. f. Police Services This item represents an increase in the existing hourly rate for services such as crowd control or traffic control at Autzen Stadium. g. Parks and Recreation The increases reflected are almost across-the-board; however, some charges are at a maximum, where an increase would result in a revenue loss (swimming pools and specialized recreation). All outdoor athletic classes would be included. h. Library This reflects overdue book charges and reserve book charges and does not include a library card fee or an increase in the nonresident fee. i. Other This includes over 100 items from all departments. 3. New and Enhanced Revenue Sources a. Rent This reflects increases in rent for properties which the City owns. b. PNB Franchise Agreement The projected increase will be passed along by PNB to the consumer. c. Utility Districts Mr. Wong described some examples of how these would work (infrastructure dis- trict, street light districts). The scope of such a proposal would need to be further defined and could cover a large range of possibilities. d. Parking The charge/fine per violation would raise from $2 to $5. Mr. Wong explained that the PNB Franchise, Fines and Forfeitures, and Parking proposals will come to the City Council as recommendations within 90 days. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session February 25, 1986 Page 7 e e e Discussion followed about the PNB Franchise. Mr. Holmer did not believe this to be a user fee, but a three-percent property tax increase, which runs coun- ter to the message in November. He would not like to think of this as a sub- stantial source of revenue. Ms. Schue commented that a raise was in order, if it can be negotiated. Mr. Gleason believed the franchise increase to be a user fee for the use of public right-of-way; the public is inconvenienced and the user is enriched by this use of the right-of-way. The increase would reflect what EWEB is being charged now. Discussion continued on how to proceed. Mr. Gleason explained that the pro- posed Executive Budget is balanced with a $1.1 million CIP fund. Tier 2 is above that and reflects the councilors' decision to have a $2.31 million CIP fund. User fees, as projected, would fund the CIP according to the priorities set by the City Council. Ms. Wooten suggested that the council establish recommendations to the Budget Committee in order to fill the $1.1 million funding between the proposed budget and the Tier 2 CIP. Mr. Rutan preferred to send all the items in Table II and Table III to the Budget Committee for consideration. Ms. Wooten believed the purpose of the meeting was to estab- lish parameters and priorities, not recommendations. It would not necessarily be appropriate to take all the cuts to the Budget Committee, but to establish some scenarios for filling the gap, using both the cuts and the revenues. It is the responsibility of the Budget Committee to consider and analyze cuts and programs. Mr. Gleason reminded the council that a discussion of line items should also include department heads in order to determine impact. Ms. Schue perceived that the process was started in order to do long-range planning in order to deal with the loss of Federal revenue sharing and increase the CIP. When the decision was made to increase the CIP beyond the proposed budget recommendation, then it became necessary to fill the gap created by that decision. She also agreed that it is the responsibility of the council to determine new revenue sources and that some cuts could be made, but decisions about cuts should not be made tonight. She suggested that the council could give the Budget Committee some latitude and, perhaps, a starting figure. Ms. Ehrman did not think it was encroaching on the Budget Committee to give it an agenda of things to talk about. Mr. Rutan agreed. Ms. Wooten wanted it clarified that the mini-votes taken would not preclude Budget Committee actions. Mr. Miller suggested looking at the income side first and establishing parameters, then looking at the reduction side in order to identify those things that would be considered. After discussion, it was agreed that minimum consensus votes would be taken on each item in Tables II and III; that these would be majority votes of members present; and that all vote tallies would be passed to the Budget Committee. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session February 25, 1986 Page 8 IV. POLL OF COUNCIL ON TABLE II AND TABLE III e Mr. Holmer moved, and Ms. Wooten seconded, to go forward with Licenses and Permits and Fees and Charges in Table III. Ms. Ehrman moved, and Mr. Holmer seconded, to amend the motion to delete the Spay/Neuter Program. The amendment passed, four to two (Mr. Holmer and Ms. Wooten dissenting). The original motion passed unanimously. Ms. Wooten moved, and Mr. Miller seconded, to move forward with the following under New and Enhanced Revenue Sources in Table III: Rent, Fines and Forfeitures, Parking, and Oregon Electric Railroad. The motion passed five to one, with Mr. Holmer dissenting. Ms. Wooten moved, and Ms. Ehrman seconded, to consider a $200,000 reduction in Contingency and a $200,000 reduction in Miscellaneous Reductions under Non-Departmental and Other in Table II at the discretion of the City Manager. The motion passed unanimously. Considerable discussion was held regarding the Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels of the proposed budget. e Mr. Rutan moved, and Ms. Erhman seconded, that a reduction of $100,000 in the Automation Pool be considered. The motion passed five to one, with Mr. Miller dissenting. Mr. Miller questioned whether this cut would provide a net loss in productivity. Mr. Rutan hoped that the Budget Committee would receive more information about the total impact of such a cut. Mr. Rutan moved, and Mr. Holmer seconded, to consider a $75,000 reduction in the Business Assistance Team. The motion failed, with Ms. Wooten, Ms. Ehrman, Ms. Schue, and Mr. Miller dissenting. Ms. Ehrman moved, and Mr. Miller seconded, to consider lowering the hourly rate paid to the Public Defenders and transferring traffic crimes to the District Court. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Rutan moved, and Mr. Holmer seconded, to consider delaying trials 90 to 120 days. The motion failed one to five; Mr. Rutan was the aye vote. Mr. Rutan moved, and Mr. Holmer seconded, to consider deleting the newsletter from the Neighborhood Program budget. The motion failed two to four, with Ms. Schue, Mr. Miller, Ms. Ehrman, and Ms. Wooten dissenting. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session February 25, 1986 Page 9 e Mr. Rutan moved to consider a cut of $62,500, or the equivalent of one day, in the library week. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Rutan moved, and Ms. Schue seconded, to consider a $100,000 cut in the Visitors and Convention Bureau Contract. The motion passed five to one, with Ms. Ehrman dissenting. Mr. Rutan moved, and Mr. Miller seconded, that reductions in expenditures for Downtown Management be considered. The motion failed three to three: Mr. Rutan, Mr. Holmer, and Mr. Miller, ayes; Ms. Wooten, Ms. Schue, and Ms. Ehrman, nays. Mr. Holmer moved, and Mr. Rutan seconded, that a $200,000 adjustment in the Destination-Point Activity budget be made. The motion failed; with three to three: Mr. Rutan, Mr. Holmer, and Mr. Miller, ayes; Ms. Schue, Ms. Ehrman, and Ms. Wooten, nays. e Mr. Holmer moved, and Mr. Rutan seconded, to consider cuts in the program areas of Parks and Recreation. The motion failed, two to four, with Mr. Holmer and Mr. Rutan in favor. Ms. Ehrman moved, and Ms. Schue seconded, to consider a $50,000 cut in the Metropolitan Partnership Contract. The motion passed four to two, with Ms. Wooten and Mr. Rutan dissenting. Mr. Holmer suggested that the consolidation of the Development Department and the Planning Department be pursued because they are closely related in func- tion, one being a rule-making body and the other an enforcement body. This might result in considerable organizational savings. Mr. Rutan understood this had been done through the Private Industry Council, and Mr. Holmer said that he was correct at one level, but not in other aspects. Ms. Wooten suggested that, because of the insurance crisis, Risk Management undertake an analysis of how we might reduce our stop loss or claim expendi- tures. In addition to the insurance program, the City needs to examine ways that it can produce new revenue, other than taxes or reductions. She asked about opportunities to save money or make money through expansion of admini- strative programs or entrepeneurial activities. A discussion followed regarding the letter to the editor in the The Reqister-Guard from Fred Miller of the State Transportation Department. Mr. Holmer has drafted a letter, and it was recommended that each councilor respond to him directly and that the Mayor be requested to respond on behalf of the whole council. Ms. Ehrman said that the recommendations given tonight by the City Council, with the absence of two councilors and the Mayor noted, would be passed to the Budget Committee for consideration. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session February 25, 1986 Page 10 e e e Mr. Long summarized that in the memorandum back to the council, he understood that staff was directed to actively examine existing programs, identify cuts where available, and target user fees and new revenue sources. He also reported that the PNB Franchise Report will be available in four to eight we ek s . Ms. Ehrman adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Re~,~e:tfu~ sUbmi,t,,/t,ed,/ ~p; / , , .f~~ r..~ ..,. Micheal D. Gleason Ci ty Manager .. -. (Recorded by Judy Jernberg) CF: pv /1 31 OS MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session February 25, 1986 Page 11