Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBudget Advisory Commission - 06/23/2009 APPROVED MINUTES BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY,JUNE 23, 2009 6:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Heritage Room 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chair Don Uram, Vice-Chair Rick King; Commissioners: Annette Agner, Eapen Chacko, Jon Muilenburg, Richard Proops, Gwen Schultz CITY STAFF: Sue Kotchevar, Finance Manager Angie Perschnick, Recorder I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Chair Uram called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners King and Proops were unable to attend the meeting. II. MINUTES A. BAC MEETING HELD WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 2009 Chacko requested a few changes be made to the minutes from the May 27 BAC meeting. On page 3 in the last paragraph,he requested to see the words "an alternative" instead of"substitutes." On page 4,he requested the first sentence of the last paragraph be deleted. On page 5,he requested to have the second to last sentence in the first paragraph deleted. He also suggested removing the first sentence of the third paragraph on page 5. Additionally, Muilenburg suggested the word "act" not be partially underlined at the bottom of page 2. MOTION: Chacko moved and Agner seconded to approve the minutes from the May 27 meeting. The minutes were approved with a vote of 5-0. III. BAC WORK PLAN A. SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT Muilenburg presented the sub-committee's plans for the BAC work plan for 2009. Part of the purpose of the plan is to redefine what the BAC does. The sub- committee had a goal for the Work Plan of focusing BAC efforts and showing the BAC is consistent with the policy set by the City Council. The sub-committee Eden Prairie Budget Advisory Commission June 23, 2009 Page 2 discussed questions such as who does the BAC take direction from: residents in through the Quality of Life Survey or only the City Council? This could be specified specifically in the Work Plan or it could be left unidentified. The overall strategy the BAC is to "let the managers manage" and focus on the bigger projects or areas of financial impact. B. DISCUSSION/FEEDBACK Schultz noted the BAC discussed a lot of minutiae in the previous budget planning year. She wondered if a specific dollar value should be set for the size of project the BAC will spend time discussing. Uram and Muilenburg recalled discussing that a project could be reviewed if it comes in by a certain amount over budget. The threshold for reviewing projects would be those that exceed budget by more than five percent. Agner further clarified projects under$200,000 would not be reviewed, even if they are over budget. Uram asked how they will look at change orders. Kotchevar said all changes are budgeted since all change orders go through City Council for approval. Muilenburg stated he would like to keep projects from getting grossly overrun. Uram suggested stating that projects that are budgeted at$200,000 or more and are 5% or more over budget be reviewed by the BAC. Uram clarified when the BAC decides as a group to get down in the trenches and explore an issue, it refers to the majority of the group deciding to explore the issue. Schultz agreed this was clear to her in how the Work Plan was written, and she noted an individual citizen can still raise an issue even if the BAC as a group does not decide to study it. Uram questioned if the subcommittee discussed the timing of when information goes through City Council. Should the BAC put something in place regarding their expectations? For example, the BAC could provide monthly recommendations to the City Council or spend a specified amount of time on studying each chosen topic. Muilenburg stated he hesitates to put a timeframe on project reviews. Kotchevar noted on any Tuesday when the BAC's work product is in its final form, it could be distributed to City Council members in their weekly packet. Muilenburg asked what the BAC expects to have come out of each meeting. Schultz suggested as reports are prepared by the BAC, they could be distributed to City Council members. Uram would like to know the timeline for reviewing projects. Muilenburg suggested if a study is requested by the Council, the BAC could then request a timeframe for expected completion on that study. Schultz asked if the BAC needs to add this into the Work Plan, or if BAC members could just ask about the timeframe at the time a request is made from the City Council. Kotchevar noted a timeline may not be practical in all cases. Uram stated Kotchevar or Neal could ask a question about the City Council's expected timeline if a project is requested. Uram asked about the City Staff Work Plan review that the BAC plans to undertake during the December meeting. He asked if the BAC would make Eden Prairie Budget Advisory Commission June 23, 2009 Page 3 recommendations or if there is another plan for what they would do during that meeting. Chacko mentioned work plans are often more detailed than what the BAC sub-committee put together. The Conservation Commission's Work Plan included a lot of detail, and the City Council is used to receiving more detail. Uram asked if the BAC is interested in detail or only an overview level when reviewing department's Work Plans. Muilenburg noted he would rather not take a detailed approach to reviewing Work Plans in December. He would prefer a high level comparison of budgets to see if they are on target for their five year plans. Agner said she sees the general plan as an overview with a drill down option where appropriate. It was agreed this general overview approach makes sense for the December City Staff Work Plan review. Schultz asked if the "Special Projects/Assignments from City Council" meeting agenda for the BAC in July is just a general placeholder or if specific projects are known at this time or expected. The response was for now it is just a general placeholder. Chacko asked if the 2010 BAC Work Plan would be expected to have sections III (Meeting Plan) and IV (Working with and Reporting to the City Council) included also. With these sections included,he interprets this document as broader than a typical Work Plan (which will likely change from year to year). Muilenburg expects the Work Plan to largely remain static,but it is a living document that may change as needed. Agner stated she is a bit confused by the Appendix, and Kotchevar recommended removing the Appendix from the Work Plan. Muilenburg clarified he wanted to discuss the possibility of removing the Appendix at the BAC meeting to see what others thought. Schultz stated the Appendix seems like a reference rather than a part of a Work Plan. Schultz and Agner agreed an introductory statement would be needed if the Appendix were left in the Work Plan. The sub-committee included the Appendix as a way to ground the BAC in the City's philosophy so they can be consistent with it. Chacko asked if the Appendix is adding anything or if it is redundant. Agner stated the BAC is affirming the statements in the Appendix by including it. Uram said he is challenged by the Appendix because the BAC studies issues that fall outside of the Quality of Life survey results, and the BAC provides factual, apolitical recommendations. Agner noted King showed a preference for including the Appendix, and she wondered if the group should discuss this topic at a meeting he is able to attend. Kotchevar added King stated in an email that he is fine with taking out the Appendix. Schultz said she sees the Appendix as an add-on, and she would prefer to take it out. Muilenburg added he is also fine with removing the Appendix. Uram liked the idea of including the Appendix as part of the BAC's guiding principles,but he was not prepared to discuss guiding principles for the BAC at this meeting. Uram asked Kotchevar if the BAC needs to give the Work Plan to the City Council soon. Kotchevar replied July would be a good timeframe,but August would Eden Prairie Budget Advisory Commission June 23, 2009 Page 4 probably be okay too. It was noted the BAC would provide feedback regarding the 2010 and 2011 budget to the City Council at a Council Workshop in August. Chacko said he would rather see the Work Plan given to the City Council in July. Uram stated he could present the Work Plan to the City Council at their meeting on the third Tuesday in July. Schultz and Uram noted the sub-committee did a lot with the Work Plan. MOTION: Schultz moved and Muilenburg seconded to approve the Work Plan. There was no discussion on the motion, and the Work Plan was approved with a vote of 5-0. IV. CHAIR AND STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS Kotchevar said the general budget direction given by the City Council is to have no budget or tax levy increase for the 2010 and 2011 budget. Kotchevar noted Neal is using a repurposing process so that money not spent in 2009 can be identified and the dollars can be captured through that process. Uram asked if there will be any noticeable reduction in service, and Kotchevar said she does not expect that to happen. Kotchevar said they are planning a 0% staff wage and budget increase in the first year(2010) and a small increase in the second year(2011). Uram asked if the 0% wage increase planned for 2010 included benefits numbers or not. Kotchevar clarified it did not. Schultz asked if a reduction in the budget will be asked for, and Kotchevar said it will not. She noted a $1 million reduction just happened recently. Muilenburg said it is about 2.5% of the budget. Chacko asked about the Senior Center presentation at the last City Council meeting. Jay Lotthammer gave a presentation at that meeting, and there was a discussion. All five City Council members agreed to keep the Senior Center open for the foreseeable future. Uram noted the City Council members are not interested in considering this issue anytime soon. Kotchevar added that Lotthammer discussed which Senior Center services would not be able to be duplicated at the Community Center, and there were a number of them. Chacko noted City staff came up with the facts and presented the analysis that Proops had requested previously. Chacko wondered how the BAC could have gotten the information better without so much acrimony. (BAC members had feedback on these comments which are reflected in the 07/28/2009 meeting minutes.) The next BAC meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 28 at 6 p.m. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting ended at approximately 6:58 p.m. Muilenburg moved and Chacko seconded the motion to adjourn.