LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on August 27, 2007, at 5:30 p.m. with Chairman Slavin presiding. Members present were Mr. Salters, Mr. McGlumphy, Mrs. Jones, and Mr. Shevock. Members of Council present were Mr. Carey, Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Ruane. Mayor Williams was also present (arrived at 6:27 p.m.).
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried.
Budget Process Post- Mortem/Review
Having recently completed the budget process for this fiscal year, Mr. Slavin suggested that members provide staff feedback in order to improve, enhance, etc. the budget process.
Mr. Slavin stated that there should be an earlier opportunity for Council involvement, such as setting priorities. Noting that there are two (2) civilian members of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee, who are charged with overseeing the budget of the City, he felt that they should be invited to all budget hearings and be compensated for their attendance. He also felt that there should be an opportunity provided for a “mark up” session that takes place after the initial budget hearings. Mr. Slavin suggested that the budget schedule be published during this time of the year for the next budget hearings to allow for Council to plan accordingly.
Mr. McGlumphy felt that the Charter should be reviewed as it relates to newly elected members of Council and the budget cycle. He explained that the “hard core” review of the budget begins after the new Council members are sworn in. He suggested that rather than placing the burden on newly elected members, that the budget process begin one (1) month earlier.
Mr. Carey stated that as he had previously suggested, assigning departmental budgets to a particular time worked well, which allowed department heads to schedule accordingly. It was his opinion that three (3) consecutive nights of review is too much which causes the review to become cumbersome. He suggested that there only be two (2) consecutive nights to allow members time to digest the information provided.
Mr. Hogan concurred that having staff scheduled for particular times worked well. He suggested that staff include the “what if” scenarios. With regards to newly elected members of Council, it was his opinion that the problem is with the date of the election and time that new members take office, which would require a Charter change.
Mr. Ruane relayed his disappointment that the City Manager sends out guidance to departments prior to Council’s input. He felt that Council’s input should come prior to the direction given to departments. As it has been in the past, he felt that it makes the budget document more difficult for Council to challenge. He suggested that Council’s budget goals scheduled for January should be developed prior to any direction sent to department heads.
Mrs. Jones questioned if the budgeting process is based on a strategic plan (5 year) and if the departmental budgets are developed in concert with goals and objectives for a period of time. Responding, Mr. DePrima stated that the Capital Improvement Projects are a part of a plan and that a strategic plan was updated a few years ago, which was the result of a Council exercise. Mrs. Tieman stated that the Council has developed a vision and mission for the City and that these are updated every two (2) years. She stated that as a result of the goal session (Council Retreat), some of the issues are incorporated into the budget for the upcoming year, otherwise, they are included in the next year’s budget. She stated that there are critical success factors, such as customer service, revenue protection, etc., that are used to develop the budget.
Mr. Slavin noted that the City is planning to institute a third Council Meeting each month and suggested that the first Council Meeting in November be assigned to discuss issues facing the City that would be drivers to the budget such as healthcare costs, as well as goals that were discussed during the Council Retreat and not included in the budget and any new goals that were not previously considered. This information could provide staff direction in developing the draft budget.
Responding to Mrs. Jones, Mr. DePrima stated that each department has the ability to request new positions during the budget process; however, he stated that there is a hiring justification form that must be completed that includes a cost and benefit section, which is then reviewed by the budget team. Although some of these requests are the result of the department reacting to their own needs, the efficiency of the department, workload, etc., sometimes such a request is the result of a Council directive. There have also been instances when the Council has approved a program which resulted in additional staff.
In response to Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. DePrima stated that he has been tracking each departmental budget to assure that they are within five (5) percent of their budget, which is reflected in each department’s goals.
Mr. Slavin requested that Mr. DePrima prepare a tracking report to be submitted to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee for their review.
Budget Schedule for FY2009 Budget (For Publication by September 1st)
Members were provided a tentative Budget Schedule for fiscal year 2009. Mr. Slavin noted that comments regarding the previous item were relative to the budget schedule, and questioned if members had other comments or suggestions other than the addition of another Council session in November.
Mr. Salters felt that three (3) hours is a long time and suggested that it be reduced to two (2) hour sessions, feeling that it would prove to be more sufficient. Responding, Mr. DePrima felt that the three (3) hour sessions, with a recess, worked much better. He assured members that staff can poll Council to determine their preference as well as the possibility of providing a break that was suggested by Mr. Carey.
Mr. McGlumphy suggested the possibility of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee reviewing the departmental budgets that do not have a large budget, which would allow for Council to concentrate on the budgets involving electric and public works.
Referring to the Revenue Review Committee, Mr. Ruane felt that members of City Council should also have a role in this process.
Mr. Slavin offered to meet with Mr. DePrima and Mrs. Tieman to re-work the schedule to address the concerns relayed by members.
Overview of Allocated Services Departments
Mrs. Mitchell, Treasurer/Finance Director, reviewed and explained the Administrative and Service Department Allocations and the methodology. She stated that these allocations guide what is charged to the utilities for services provided, which is identified in the budget as inter-fund service allocations.
Discussion - Council Policy Statement Regarding Cost of Living Allowances (COLA)
As a result of the recent discussion during the budget hearings with regards to a cost of living allowances (COLA) for retirees, Mr. DePrima advised members that the Human Resources Director has been directed to develop alternative means, other than an “across the board”, for providing a COLA to retirees. He stated that this report will be submitted to the Pension Board and the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee for their review. He also suggested the need to revisit the requirement for the Pension Board to review and submit a recommendation to Council with regards to a COLA. It is his opinion that the Pension Board should not be making recommendations to the Council if it involves using fund money (General, Electric, and Water) to support the COLA. If the pension investments can support a COLA, due to a surplus of money in the investment funds, then it would be legitimate for the Pension Board to make a recommendation on a COLA based on the funds in their investments. Mr. DePrima further explained his opinion that the function of the Pension Board is to manage the funds of the pensioners to assure their security and that it is not the position of the Pension Board to make recommendations on what is affordable in the budget.
Mr. Slavin stated that this matter will remain as an open agenda item pending the report to be presented by the Human Resources Director.
Mr. Salters moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 6:51 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Timothy A. Slavin
Chairman
TAS/TM/jg
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20078-27-2007 LF&A.wpd