Finance Committee Agenda and Packet 2024 09 19

Home Browse Search

The person in the open position got another job and we haven't filled it. Community Development has maintained the response time with this position open. He noted that the permitting volume is much less than previously and while inspection volume is really high right now it is expected to go down. Councilmember Kern expressed concern over Community Development charging credit card fees, expecting that it wouldn't result in $50K of revenue. She commented that the city might see people using different forms of payment which might have the effect of increased costs rather than saving money. She expressed appreciation to staff for continuing to do more with less while still providing services to the community. Councilmember Hamlington asked for confirmation that the removal of the Recovery and Resilience expansion and EDI Manager position from this budget cycle doesn't mean those positions would be indefinitely off the table. Interim City Manager Fox responded that the removal of the Recovery and Resilience expansion doesn't reduce any positions; these were additional items proposed above and beyond what we are currently doing in this department. She noted that these positions were hired without dedicated funding to do the work and that there is still a net increase for the Recovery and Resilience program. She also commented that a determination on the EDI position is up to council and the organization, noting that it is currently a vacant position. City Staff feel we can have the value of EDI translating through our services without having a dedicated position. If we get into 2025 and the future looks brighter, we can do a budget amendment to look at the items that have been reduced. Councilmember Hamlington asked about where the increased fund transfer to the Parks fund is coming from, noting that the committee worked very hard to ensure that ballot measure 2C did not negatively impact our parks and she didn't recall the amount requested being part of the original conversations. Interim Finance Director Ostrom responded that a lot of staff are paid out of the parks fund and market and merit adjustments will increase the budget needed for those positions. It's possible that the full picture wasn't known at the time the original discussions took place. She added that the parks fund does a lot to ensure the community has places to go that are in in good working order, noting that costs have increased, and they can't do the work with the 50/50 split of tax revenue. The Director of Parks, Recreation and Open Space commented that what is shown is the shortfall as a result, as was discussed as we went into the ballot measure. We had 6-7 years of good operations spending history data as it relates to the 3/8 tax with the overall allocation historically being split with 54-56% going to the Parks fund and 44-46% going to the Open Space fund. The overall allocation of the tax ended up being closer to a 50/50 split between Parks and Open Space when a few high dollar capital projects were included. The 2024 budget was proposed without the assumption that the percentage split would be 50/50 between Parks and Open Space. When the committee and council received the budget amendment delineating the separate accounts for Parks and Open Space to allow for allocation of the revenues into separate funds, the shortage in the parks fund is a result of using a 50/50 split of the revenue between Parks and Open Space. This cuts the parentage out of the Parks operating budget and increases the Open Space operating budget. There is not currently a reasonable alternative to offset the 50% split and the most reasonable approach is to increase the general fund for this budget. Councilmember Hoefner reviewed what was discussed when the committee originally discussed the funds, noting that we took entire general fund transfer that had been going to Parks and Open Space and 5/251