2009-10-27_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

to 160 various programs and services. Mr. Schwartz briefly highlighted the process used in ranking and providing value judgments from 1 - 5 and compiled by both staff and the City Council, and representing individual and composite rankings. Mr. Schwartz addressed the proposed 2010 budget increase at 9% of 2009 budget; defined Public Works' "other" category (Item #104) and what that represented based on time spent profiles applied to all General Fund areas; and the upcoming City Manager-recommended budget to be presented at the next meeting, that will take into consideration staff knowledge of those items necessary for day-to-day operations, but not necessarily ranked high by City Council members, as well as contractual obligations and new spending mandates. Mr. Schwartz noted the line item for inflationary expense for street maintenance materials, with that representing the amount of money submitted in May to get the City's pavement maintenance program fully funded again. Discussion included the BFO process and assumptions; imperative to return the PMP Fund to it's original endowment figure; limitations of the available budget; and potential revenue sources that could help balance the budget and still under discussion (i.e., street light fees moving out of the property tax-supported area and into a utility bill format, similar to the formula used for storm sewer utility, based on residential and commercial units); and how individual Council members had ranked various services and programs based on their perspectives, interest levels, and their perception of the ranking process itself. Further discussion included individual and collective ranking rationale; how the public survey information from the four community meetings was incorporated into the ranking process; the need to provide greater detail and description of each program for the ranking process before and after editing; level of understanding and additional education needed as the BFO process continues over the next few years; and the entire process being a learning curve for all parties. Mr. Schwartz noted several areas that staff may combine, such as project support for engineering, in future years to allow more refined project delivery cost representation. Additional discussion included employee costs assumptions (benefits, COLA); debt service; and projections on the Emerald Ash Borer and additional Dutch Elm diseased tree costs and impacts. 9. Agenda for Next Meeting -December 22, 2009 Chair DeBenedet noted that, even though it was Thanksgiving week, the PWET needed to meet for further refinement of the illicit storm water Page 13 of 14