Finance Committee Agenda and Packet 2024 09 19

Home Browse Search

allocated it entirely to parks going forward. His recollection is that this was projected to cover Parks as a structurally balanced fund going forward. He feels that adding another almost $300K to the Parks fund feels like a big increase, that he doesn't feel was we discussed when the split of the funds was determined. The Director of Parks, Recreation and Open Space commented that his understanding is that that the General Fund transfer has always gone entirely to the Parks fund, noting that changing of the amount is a result of the escalator as included in the financial policy. Staff will research and follow up on this with the committee. Councilmember Hoefner commented that it would be helpful to understand what was missed when this was reviewed a few months ago as there were extensive conversations on how to deal with the fund transfer and such a large shortfall was not anticipated. The Financial Analyst added that one of the reasons which hasn't been mentioned in relation to this item is the slowing of sales tax growth which does impact these numbers. The $290K gap is a result of looking at the actual sales tax revenue we've been seeing and then estimating from those numbers. Councilmember Kern commented that we had some big capital fund increases in Parks and asked if something got impacted in the general fund because of additional staffing or anything in parks into 2025? The Director of PROS responded that there isn't anything that we are aware of. Councilmember Hoefner agreed that adjusting the overhead allocation makes sense in the medium to long-term, likes the idea of looking at credit card fees subject to Councilmember Kern's comments to ensure projections include a possible switch to alternative methods of payment. Councilmember Hoefner doesn't have strong feelings on the newspaper publication of ordinances, since most folks find that information on the Internet. He suggested that fees in general seem like a place we might want to look to see if there are any fees that have not been adjusted and whether any should be adjusted for 2025. The Interim City Manager commented that there are some fees that staff can review as part of the consideration and asked if the committee's direction is for staff to continue to find a way to bridge the $500K gap. Councilmember Kern responded that we need to find a way to close the $500K gap, and she wants to avoid closures and elimination of existing positions. Councilmember Hamlington agreed with Councilmember Kern in focusing on maintaining our services and staff as much as possible and not negatively impacting retention of staff. Councilmember Hoefner agreed and underscored that city staff are the most important long-term asset, and he feels no one is looking for cutting staff positions or pay. The Interim City Manager commented that staff will continue to work on finding a structural balance to the budget while maintaining services and staff while considering fees and efficiencies as potential solutions. Councilmember Hoefner asked what the dollar amount is for Parks capital projects. The Financial Analyst responded that, for 2025 it's about $578K. Councilmember Hamlington asked for information on the benefits and risks of moving parks capital projects to the CIP fund. Is there a possibility that the parks projects would be de -prioritized because they would be competing with all CIPs? The Financial Analyst responded that, if left in the parks fund the projects could not be completed because there is no money in the fund for them. Moving parks capital projects into the CIP fund will allow council to review parks projects with other CIP projects and prioritize accordingly. Councilmember Hamlington asked if any fund is able to similarly move capital projects from 6/251