Fiscal Committee Meeting

MINUTES Tuesday, October 2, 2012 Fiscal Committee 4:55 PM Carnegie Town Hall 235 West 10th Street Members Present: Council Member Sue Aguilar, Council Member Dean Karsky, Council Member James Entenman, Council Member Greg Jamison Members Absent: None Staff Present: Lorie Hogstad, CMC, City Clerk; Jim David, Legislative/Operations Manager; David Bixler, Budget Analyst; Rich Oksol, Lead Internal Auditor Guests: Rex Rolfing 1. Call To Order Council Member Dean Karsky called the meeting to order at 4:55 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes A Meeting held on Tuesday, September 4, 2012 A motion was made by Sue Aguilar and seconded by Greg Jamison to approve the minutes dated September 4, 2012. Karsky called for a voice vote on that motion and all members voted yes. Motion Passed. 3. Reports and Updates A City Council Open House – Soliciting Public Input in the Budget Process by Jim David, Legislative/Operations Manager and Dave Bixler, Budget Analyst. Karsky stated the Fiscal Committee asked him and Council Member Greg Jamison and to look at the advantages of a CIP Budget Review Committee. Karsky stated the process has been evolving and increased their awareness of the community involvement including various organizations and institutions involved in putting the City’s budget together. The proposal is to make the budget an open process for public input. Jamison added the existing process includes the opinions of the Chamber of Commerce, Home Builders Association, IRAB Board, Sioux Falls Development Foundation and other organizations who participate in our City for long-term planning strategies. The goal is to get all parties involved in the budget and bring forth their vision. Jamison stated the Council would like to communicate their priorities prior to the budget being printed. Under this proposal, Council would approve a resolution outlining the Council’s objectives. The intent of these discussions is to determine the best method to inform the administration of what the Council feels is important for the long-term budget and that the budget reflects this. The goal and purpose is to have an open house shortly in an effort to get ahead of the whole cycle and communicate the budget objectives of the Council. Karsky stated that discussions on the CIP process included many hours of meetings and brainstorming sessions along with Jim David, Legislative/Operations Manager, and Dave Bixler, Budget Analyst, to determine if this will be brought before the full Council. David discussed Resolution No. 50-03 in which the Council identified their priorities for the short-, medium- and long-terms and looked at that process in meetings with the administration. The Council would hold an open house similar to those used for transportation committee meetings where individuals would visit with departments to gather ideas. The public would submit comment cards and staff would forward these to the Council. This would be followed up by asking for the Council's short-, medium- and long-term priorities. A resolution would then be prepared, adopted, and passed on to the administration and viewed as a living document to be reviewed on a yearly basis. Karsky added the scope of the open house would be to give Councilors an opportunity to receive input from constituents and to work together as a Council to bring our common ideas, business plan, and strategic vision together. The 2003 resolution presented a good example. Karsky referenced the last paragraph of this resolution. He feels that unless this is in the form of a resolution, Council will not know the vision. Council Member Jim Entenman likes the 2003 resolution as far as defining short-, medium- and long-term goals, but does not like the thought of putting a timeline on infrastructure, etc. as Council cannot assume what the City will need 25 to 50 years from now. Entenman does like the idea of an open house and suggestions from the citizens. David talked to members of the administration seeking input. He gave credit to the administration for producing the 2003 resolution. Administration is open to holding an October 18, 2012, open house from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. Council Member Sue Aguilar feels that the process is good, but that this will take more time than starting in October and expecting a resolution in November. Pursuant to Section 2-23 of the City Code of Ordinances, then-Mayor Dave Munson did not sign the resolution, meaning this went into effect without his signature. Aguilar does not feel the Council will be putting the time into the process itself as far as what Councilors need to know to put priorities in place. Aguilar feels there needs to be a variety of meetings for the public at different times so that there is availability for the citizens. Jamison added the October 18th open house date was an effort to get ahead of the administration's development of the budget. However, more time can be taken and still get this done in two to three months. Aguilar sees this as a process and suggests doing it right from the beginning so there is credibility to the process itself including the buy-in of the entire Council. The Council needs to be knowledgeable and able to answer questions from the citizens involving tours and meetings with the departments for the Council. Karsky asked Aguilar if she feels the October 18th date is too soon to hold an open house. Aguilar responded this was too soon. Until she saw the agenda, she wasn't aware this was the path that Karsky and Jamison were taking. Council Member Rex Rolfing addressed the Fiscal Committee and agreed with Aguilar. He feels the process could be good and should be part of the Council Operations Manual. He added the Fiscal Committee needs to determine what is needed to accomplish this goal. Mike Cooper, Director of Planning and Building Services, offered that the Directors can let the Council know what is anticipated in public and private development in the City and how that affects parks, public works, libraries, etc. Cooper and his team have spoken to service groups identifying major capital projects and private development, both residential and commercial. This would be primarily for the capital portion of the budget as opposed to operations. Entenman asked if this addressed all the City services. Cooper responded this presentation is a five-year summary of all major development. Entenman added this type of presentation is essential before the Council can gain the knowledge to meet with the public. Cooper suggested a team presentation be given to the Council and it was determined that an Informational Meeting would work best as the entire Council would be present. Karsky summarized the discussion at this point regarding the Informational Meeting presentation, but asked for input regarding the public input portion. Aguilar reiterated that she would like to have more than one meeting with the public and the meetings could either be held in the districts or at the Carnegie Town Hall. After the Council has seen the presentation by the directors, this could be the premise of the open house and the public will have a variety of ways to view the presentation made at an Informational Meeting as it will be online and available on CityLink. Karsky added that the discussion on an open house was to hold a two-hour informal session in the 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. time frame with information from the various departments available. This can be discussed again at the Fiscal Committee level following the Informational Meeting presentation. Entenman suggested following through with a Council Working Session after the presentation by the staff and having an opportunity to digest, discuss, and answer questions. The format could then be set as far as the number of public hearings including the date and time of the hearings. Entenman does not feel this will be completed this year and will stretch into the first quarter of next year. Aguilar feels the budget hearings in 2013 will be better as the Council and constituents will be more informed and be able to ask the questions that need to be asked. The process being suggested for putting together priorities is excellent. However, Aguilar is concerned about the timing. Jamison said he didn't understand in the beginning that educating the Council was part of the challenge. The whole intent was to gather input from public, including the citizens and various organizations involved in the planning and development of the City. Jamison feels it is perhaps time for somebody else to carry this ball the rest of the way and lay out the framework for this process. Aguilar does not look at this as the Council being reeducated on the budget just passed, but the next year’s CIP. The Council educating itself continually is an important part of being a City Council member and the public input is the most important part. The Council should also look at a better way to allocate CIP dollars when additional funds are available. Aguilar added the City Charter is clear that the development of the budget is the responsibility of the administration and the passing of the budget is the responsibility of the City Council. Karsky thanked all committee members for the interesting discussion that went beyond the expectations set forth by himself and Jamison. Karsky added that both of them were privy to more information regarding the budget process through the discussions held in formulating this proposed plan. A motion was made by Jim Entenman and seconded by Sue Aguilar to schedule a presentation led by Cooper at a future Informational Meeting and then to include this discussion at a future Fiscal Committee Meeting. Karsky called for a voice vote on that motion and all members voted yes. Motion Passed. 4. Open Discussion There was none. 5. Adjournment Karsky adjourned the meeting at 5:37 p.m. Lorie Hogstad City Clerk