Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBudget Advisory Commission - 10/26/2010 APPROVED MINUTES BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2010 6:00 P.M., CITY CENTER 8080 Mitchell Road EDEN PRAIRIE, MN COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chair Don Uram, Vice-Chair Rick King; Commissioners: Annette Agner, Eapen Chacko, Jon Muilenburg, Richard Proops, Gwen Schultz CITY STAFF: Scott Neal, City Manager; Sue Kotchevar, Finance Manager; Tammy Wilson, Finance Supervisor; Steve Sinell, City Assessor; Gene Dietz, Director of Public Works; Jeff Fletcher, Intern; Jan Curielli, Recorder I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Vice Chair King called the meeting to order to 6:05 PM. Agner and Proops were absent. Uram arrived late. II. MINUTES A. BAC MEETING HELD TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2010 (Item II.A. moved--follows Item V.) III. 2011 OPERATING BUDGET Neal gave a PowerPoint presentation of three matrices that were developed to show where we are in the discussion of the operating budget. He said the first row of each of the three matrices is labeled "Option 1" and shows the default levels of spending increase and tax levy increase that were authorized by the City Council at the September 7th meeting. Uram arrived at 6:10 PM. Neal said the columns headed "Outputs" indicate the tax dollar amount and percentage change on a Median Single Family Residential Taxpayer(MSFRT), the General Fund operating deficit for 2010 and the General Fund operating deficit for 2011 for each of the options listed in the matrices. He reviewed the ten scenarios presented in the matrices. He noted that Option 4 is not a viable option because it includes a tax levy of over$2,000,000, which exceeds the authorized tax levy of$751,932; however, that option was included to show what we would have to do in order to have no deficit spending. Eden Prairie Budget Advisory Commission Minutes October 26, 2010 Page 2 Schultz noted the matrices are very helpful and help to clarify the matter. She asked if staff has looked at where the cuts might come from for those options that include a decrease in spending. Neal said we haven't looked at specific cuts. King noted Options 5, 6 and 7 include some major areas of increased spending. Neal said the items listed would be part of the increase that is new spending. He said the question is when we say we want a flat budget, what numbers do we want flat. It is important to be specific when we talk about a flat budget. Chacko asked if the City Council has gone with Option 1. Neal said that is the increase in spending that was tentatively approved by the City Council at the time they set the tax levy,but at that time they also said they wanted a flat budget. The direction wasn't specific on what they want to be flat. Chacko said some of the biggest costs are relatively fixed and he was curious how they thought a flat budget was going to happen. Neal said it is hard to speculate on that. King said there was at least one Council Member who wanted the tax levy to be zero, and that is represented in Option 2. He thought there were those who felt the 2.8% spending increase should be zero. Neal said it is going to be difficult to not increase the levy, to not have a deficit and also to not make cuts. King said there are some fund balances that can be used for the general operating deficit and some that cannot. He recalled there was some development activity that took place that had some fund balance. Neal said a good share of that is to cover the infrastructure costs to make that development take place. Kotchevar said that is included in the CIP projects. King asked if we can look at fund balances other than the Budget Stabilization Fund (BSF) because we don't want to empty that. Neal said at some point we need to catch up and have current revenue pay for current expenses without depending on reserves. That is what we strive for and what we have done in the past as part of our financial policy. He said the tax levy required to catch up will get bigger and bigger each year. Uram asked if Option 4 would be about$1,500,000 over what we are legally allowed to levy. Neal said the cap could have been set higher than $751,932. Uram said even with Option 4 there would be a two-three year process to catch up. Chacko said he understood Option 4 would be politically unsalable,but we should also think about the fact we have been under-spending on capital improvements and we must add other things into Option 4. Neal said the number to keep in mind in Option 4 is the $2,300,000 increase in the tax levy that would cover the proposed increase in the 2011 spending plan. He said the greater that levy catch-up number gets the more painful it will be. He said the property tax system in the state is very inelastic, and there is no benefit from sales or income taxes as the economy rises or falls. The $2,300,000 can only be eliminated by budget cuts or revenue enhancements. Uram asked if we have the initial recommendation we forwarded to the City Council. Kotchevar said we recommended a flat budget. King said he thought we also made some Eden Prairie Budget Advisory Commission Minutes October 26, 2010 Page 3 statements about the tax levy. Neal said Option 9 is a zero increase in spending and a zero increase in the levy. He said if we had a zero spending increase and kept the levy at $751,932 there would be less deficit spending. Muilenburg noted that would be a double pronged approach. Uram asked if the commissioners have changed their thoughts from our initial recommendation to the Council. Chacko said we talked about the spending, not the levy. We also made a comment about the future and not continuing to draw down the BSF, which would mean we would have some increase in the levy to begin turning the corner on the deficit. King reviewed the motion made by the Commission in July recommending a budget that would take into consideration the wage increases, which meant it would not be a totally flat budget. He noted the motion was approved by a 5-0 vote. Neal said the wage increases are about$450,000. Uram noted the PERA increase was mandated. Muilenburg said he was not sure how that works. If the State legislature determines what the payout will be and increases the percentage proportionally, he didn't like the fact that Eden Prairie has no say over that. Neal said it is not unusual compared to any other state public retirement system. The Commission then discussed the 2% COLA increase, the pay steps, the two new Police Officers and the addition of the duty crew. King said we could do an Option 5a with a zero spending change, a$751,932 tax levy change (2.61%), a $47 tax increase on a MSFRT (4.36%), and a$600,000 change in the operating deficit. Neal said he would run that scenario and the Commission could use a presentation like this to help explain the relationship of spending to the tax levy. King said this is a good and simple way to look at it. He thought there may be a couple of options we could eliminate or put in as an appendix as a way to simplify it. Chacko asked if we could find the sort of cuts needed to keep the spending change to zero but also include the COLA. Neal said it would be difficult and we will need to keep refining the number. Schultz said it would be helpful for the City Council to see the costs of the items such as the COLA and the duty crew. Chacko said what happens to the fund balances appears to be a source of controversy, so it would also be helpful to include that information in the matrices. Muilenburg said there are still some questions as to what the target fund balances are. Chacko said it would be helpful to see what happens if we continue to draw down the balances, especially the BSF. Chacko said he heard Mr. Neal say the deficit is going to be better for 2010. Kotchevar said it is hard to say for sure but it should be better. She said tax revenue collection is somewhat better this year, and there has been more taken in for development revenue. King asked if there is a way to present all the different fund balances we can look at and identify the ones that are restricted to only certain expenditures. Kotchevar said the two main funds with which we have some flexibility are the BSF which is currently at $5,500,000 and the Capital Improvement Fund (CIF) of about$4,300,000. King asked Eden Prairie Budget Advisory Commission Minutes October 26, 2010 Page 4 about the Economic Development Fund. Kotchevar said that is at about$3,000,000. King thought we might add a row in the matrices to show the effect on the fund balances for each of the scenarios. Dietz said spending fund balances still means you are talking about deficit spending because fund balances are one time revenues and we can use them for only a short period of time. King said he just wanted to know what they are, and he agreed it is not a way to resolve the imbalance. Muilenburg asked about the overall cost increase for benefits. Kotchevar said it is $175,000 for health insurance and $156,000 for the pension and FICA. Neal said there is an employee side of the equation for health insurance. We show what it will be for the City itself,but there is a proportional increase for the employees. Muilenburg thought adjusting that might be a place to find some cuts. Uram said the question for the Commission is whether we want to move forward with a recommendation or wait to see what the actual numbers are. Schultz said we aren't meeting before the 16th so we need to do something tonight. MOTION: Schultz moved, seconded by Muilenburg, to forward to the City Council the following recommendation for the 2011 operating budget: Zero change in spending from 2010 to 2011 (0% change); $751,932 increase in the tax levy from 2010 to 2011 (2.61% increase); and an operating deficit of approximately $600,000. King asked about the likely revenue increase in 2010. Uram said staff said it is approximately $400,000. King asked if that would go into the BSF. Kotchevar said we try to maintain 15% of next year's budget in the BSF. Chacko asked if that means the $976,000 operating deficit expected then becomes $576,000. Kotchevar said we are confident the additional revenue will be at least that amount. Chacko thought we should include that kind of information for the workshop. Neal said it is a balancing act of how much information we can put on one piece of paper. He said they looked at the idea of putting in use of non-tax revenue. Chacko thought it is logical to show that rather than getting the question and not having any answer. Uram asked if he was suggesting an amendment to the motion. Chacko said we should make the information available, either as handouts or as part of the presentation because it is important information to understand. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried 5-0. IV. PLAN FOR WORKSHOP WITH THE CITY COUNCIL Uram said the workshop with the City Council will be held on Tuesday, November 16, at 5:30 PM. He asked if it will be a half hour presentation and if it will include the budget presentation and the CIP discussion. Kotchevar said it will. Uram asked if the Commission would want to discuss the primary purpose of capital improvements first. Schultz asked if there will be time to discuss both. Kotchevar said it depends on how Eden Prairie Budget Advisory Commission Minutes October 26, 2010 Page 5 much we want to talk about. Neal noted the Council will see the budget matrices before the workshop. Chacko asked what the purpose of the workshop is. Kotchevar said it is to meet with the City Council and give our recommendations on the budget and the CIP. Chacko said we have already passed a recommendation to them so he thought we could make the budget recommendation somewhat self-explanatory and spend more time on the CIP. Schultz said if they have seen the information already they may not need a lengthy explanation. Chacko thought we could shrink the number of scenarios so the discussion might not be as complicated as tonight's discussion. Schultz thought we could shrink it down so it will take a half hour. Kotchevar said it will be in the Friday Council packet. She said the Commission could also just review the recommendation with them and then have staff work with them through the end of the year. Neal thought the Commission would want to present the one the Council authorized and the one the BAC recommended. Uram said we might want to show one of the options that shows an increase in the deficit. Chacko said we have a short amount of time and he thought we could talk about the options in the context of what we are recommending. Uram asked if we should discuss some of the ideas staff presented about funding ongoing expenditures. Neal said the idea was that the BAC's prioritizing of which project needs to be done isn't of great value. The BAC should give policy guidance to the City about how we want to pay for capital improvements such as street repairs. He said there is some possible policy involved that would be worthy of the Commission's input to the Council, such as using the tax levy for the CIP and needing to look at new sources of revenue for capital improvements like franchise fees. Chacko said we talked about franchise fees in a workshop and got strong pushback that those aren't transparent. He noted Mr. Neal made a point at the beginning of the meeting that you can't make a decision to hire more people,have better quality of life and freeze the tax levy without having a budget increase. This scenario presentation can show why that is true. We can't do all that without draining the BSF or postponing capital improvements. He was wary of getting into policy recommendations and noted we have broached some of these things before. Uram asked how we should approach the CIP piece. Chacko said we should make the point that we didn't have a formal recommendation as to ratios or levels of spending. King said he thought we did have a view on the CIP proposal for 2011. Uram said the discussion centered on the maintenance aspect, which is 90-95% of it, so he thought there isn't much flexibility if maintaining the infrastructure is really important. King asked if we would endorse the current CIP which is at least 90% allocated to maintenance and also state we have concerns about maintaining that funding level. Dietz said there is $13,000,000 in the CIP, and $10,300,000 of that is maintenance of the Eden Prairie Budget Advisory Commission Minutes October 26, 2010 Page 6 existing system street system over the next five years. He said there was a time when we were putting $1,000,000 per year into the CIP fund,but that was reduced to $400,000 with the idea it would go back up. He thought we are up to $600,000 per year at this point. We need to get back to putting $1,000,000 per year into the CIP or get funding from franchise fees or special assessments. Muilenburg said part of the discussion is to task someone to find funding sources. We should have some information on what the impact will be on individual taxpayers to see if those are sustainable options. Uram said we could indicate support of the five-year CIP but also encourage exploring alternative sources. He thought we could evaluate whether this needs to be put back into the general tax levy based on the current funding which will compound the issues in the current operating budget. King said we could mention revenue sources such as franchise fees, but he didn't think adding CIP money from the general fund is a great option in the short run. He said we need to determine the most critical use of our funds. He asked for a recap of what we covered at the last meeting. Kotchevar said we generally supported the CIP spending over the five-year period and recognized it is primarily maintenance. With the current funding sources the fund is not sustainable so we would like the Commission or someone to look into possible funding sources for the future and also possibly consider increasing the tax levy when the economy rebounds. We would also consider franchise fees and a special assessment policy. King said there are only two things to present at the workshop and asked if the Council will get those before the meeting. Kotchevar said we should be able to coordinate that for November 16. V. UPDATE BAC APPOINTMENT PROCESS Neal said three members of the Commission have terms that expire at the end of the year. Gwen Schultz' term expires, and she has told us she declines to continue to serve. Annette Agner would like to continue to serve. Dick Proops has said he wants to be reappointed but because he has served two full terms as a BAC member under our appointment system, a commissioner must have a unanimous vote of the City Council to serve a third term. Neal said the City Council discussed whether they wanted to re-interview incumbent candidates for the Commission and decided they do not want to. There are currently nine non-incumbent candidates for the Commission, and the Council will interview them on November 9th. The appointments will be made at the November 16th meeting. King said the first time commissioners were appointed to the BAC we were appointed to two-year terms. For the second appointments some went to four-year terms and others to Eden Prairie Budget Advisory Commission Minutes October 26, 2010 Page 7 two-year terms. He said it is an interesting interpretation that someone who served two two-year terms has served his full number of terms and his interpretation is that Mr. Proops has not served two full terms. Neal said he posed that question to the City Attorney and that was his answer. He said our rules talk about full terms as three-year terms so Mr. Proops is reaching the end of his full number of terms. King noted the full term is a four year term. Neal said other commissions have three-year terms. Schultz noted new appointees are four-year terms and asked how Ms Agner's term came to be a two year term. Neal said she was filling the two-year term of Kathy Kardell. II. MINUTES (taken out of sequence) A. BAC MEETING HELD TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2010 Uram said Page 2, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2 should be changed to: "...about $4,000,000 per year to account for depreciation." MOTION: Muilenburg moved, seconded by Chacko, to approve the minutes of the meeting held Tuesday, September 28, 2010, as amended. Motion carried 4-0- 1, with Schultz abstaining. VI. ADJOURNMENT Kotchevar said we are meeting with the Council on November 16 and asked if the commission would like to have another meeting in November or December. Uram said he would recommend that we cancel the remaining two meetings of the year after the November 16th meeting with the Council unless something pressing comes up. King asked if we would need the second meeting in November to recap the November 16th meeting. Uram said that would mean we would keep the November meeting, subject to cancellation, and go ahead and cancel the December meeting. Chair Uram adjourned the meeting at 7:45 PM.