05/16/2005 - Minutes City of Tigard, Oregon
Budget Committee
Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2005
Members Present: Mark Haldeman, Sally Harding (arrived at 6:35 PM), Katie Schwab, Sydney
Sherwood, Jason Snider, Nick Wilson, Tom Woodruff, and Susan Yesilada.
Members Absent: Mike Benner and Craig Dirksen.
Visitors: Gretchen Buehner, Jessica Carrier, Henrietta Cochrun, John Frewing, Kathy Meads, and Lisa
Hamilton-Triek.
Staff Present: Carissa Collins, Roger Dawes, Maureen Denny, Gus Duenas, Jim Hendryx, Tom
Imdieke, Craig Prosser, Brian Rager, and Michelle Wareing.
Call to Order: Mark Haldeman called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
Miscellaneous: The meeting agenda was modified to accommodate a request made by Gretchen
Buehner on May 2, 2005 that the Planning Commission will be allowed to provide public comment at the
beginning of the meeting.
Craig Prosser shared that Jason Snider was formally appointed by the City Council at its last regular
meeting as a voting member of the Budget Committee. Mayor Dirksen was out of town and Mike Benner
was ill. It was also Mike Benner's last meeting with the Budget Committee as his term expires in June
2005. He has been a member of the Committee since 1999 and his work was very much appreciated.
Handouts: Tom Imdieke discussed two handouts. The first memo from Margaret Barnes addressed the
question raised last week about Friday Night Music at the Library. The second handout was a General
Fund recap of enhancements by departments.
Approval of Minutes: The revised meeting minutes of May 2, 2005 and the meeting minutes of May 9,
2005 were approved. MSP
Public Comment: Kathy Mead and Gretchen Buehner spoke on behalf of the Planning Commission.
They discussed their desire to move ahead with the Comprehensive Plan update (Comp Plan). One
issue raised by the City Council in February 2005 was the possible conflict with the implementation of the
Downtown Improvement Plan.
The first year of the Comp Plan is considered an inventory-assessment--a gathering of information to
develop a public involvement program. Both representatives from the Planning Commission encouraged
the Budget Committee to recommend funding of the Comp Plan and hiring of staff to accomplish the
Comp Plan goals. Since it has been 20 years since the Comp Plan was last updated, they felt an
updated Comp Plan is needed as the population has more than doubled. It would allow for planning for
the anticipated growth for the next 20 years.
Community Development: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, presented the Community
Development Department budget. The Department is made up of four Divisions—Administration,
Building, Current Planning, and Long Range Planning. The Department is responsible for overseeing the
planning and growth of the community. The Department's objective is to "Shape a Better Community".
The Department goals are primarily regulatory from the standpoint of administration of building codes,
comprehensive plan, and the community's development. The Department is responsible for policy
development, which is carried out by the Long Range Planning Division working with the City Council,
what the City should look like, urbanization, annexation, and the Downtown Improvement Plan.
The proposed budget includes some increases. The Building Division has increases for Professional
Services for engineering structural review contracts, two vehicle replacements, and office furniture for
inspection staff and front office staff. There is also an increase for a public outreach program, Permits
1
Protect, advocates and encourages citizens to obtain necessary permits. There is a slight increase in the
Hearings Officer expense and advertising related to land use hearings. Long Range Planning will be
handling the public outreach for the Urban Renewal Plan element and the implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan Update. The budget includes two FTEs-a Senior Planner will be responsible for
assisting in the development and carrying out the urban renewal plan and economic development; and
the second position would be responsible for the Comprehensive Plan Update elements. Katie Schwab
asked for clarification in the budget that states there is a request for 2.5 FTEs. There is another.5 FTE in
the Building Division for records management. The Department has a .5 FTE currently and is recognizing
the need for a full-time position. These activities have been supplemented with outside part-time help in
the past, which is reflected in the Professional Services line item.
The major factors affecting the budget are the Council's goals which include completing and
implementing the Downtown Plan and the related public outreach and the urban renewal plan and
addressing growth by updating the Comp Plan.
Sources of funding for the Building Division is the fee-supported Building Fund. Current Planning is
funded primarily by the General Fund. Long Range Planning is supported by the General Fund with the
opportunity of expenses being reimbursed by the Urban Renewal Plan.
The Department will continue to provide the current level of building services, consistent planning, and
code enforcement.
The question was raised earlier regarding the County's discussion on assisting in the Comp Plan Update;
the County tentatively supports providing staff resources to help with the effort. Jim Hendryx feels this will
bring more to the process than funds. In order to develop a Comp Plan for unincorporated Bull Mountain,
the County has to stand with the City throughout the process to get it done.
There was an issue regarding the Urban Services Fund. The City provides urban services outside the
City to unincorporated Bull Mountain. There was a question posed by Bull Mountain residents whether
the City was being subsidized by Bull Mountain residents. Jim Hendryx distributed a memo with
information in response to the question. In summary, the revenue collected through the Urban Services
and the Urban Services TIF fund are used to support the planning, building, and engineering services
provided to the area. All revenue and costs are tracked through a separate fund, Urban Services Fund.
This effort by the City is neutral and supported by the fees and charges associated with the work
performed. This was the primary objective the County had when the agreement was set up. The City
recovers all of the overhead charges to reflect actual costs.
Councilor Woodruff asked if the Planning Commission had made any recommendations for the Comp
Plan to include the unincorporated areas outside the City limits. The County is responsible for the
planning for unincorporated areas. The County is not offering any funds; however there are discussions
about the County providing staff to assist.
Mark Haldeman asked for clarification in the Long Range Planning budget. The $40,000 discussed to
initiate the planning is in the Professional and Services line item and will be used for an outside contract.
The process has not been started for the Comp Plan portion. The Department is currently in the process
of selecting consultants to start the Urban Renewal program for public outreach and preparation for the
urban renewal plan. Due to budgeting and other factors, getting someone on board will not take place
until July 2005.
Councilor Woodruff asked what would be the consequences if both positions were not approved. Jim
Hendryx stated it would come back to prioritization of Council goals. The requirements for putting
together an Urban Renewal Plan require outside resources to meet the May 2006 election deadlines
Council has set. If both positions are not funded, Council must decide which position to fund and which
goals to delay.
Councilor Wilson acknowledged managing an Urban Renewal District involves a lot of work and asked if
the plan failed at the polls, would the position be needed in the future. Jim Hendryx stated if it failed and
the City decided not to go forward with the Urban Renewal District, the City could eliminate the position.
Craig Prosser suggested further discussion on the Urban Renewal District and economic development
with City Council would be recommended. The City Council has discussed in past years the need for the
2
City to be more active in terms of recruiting businesses and communicating with existing businesses.
This portion of the position is not dependant on the success or failure of the Urban Renewal District.
Jason Snider asked if either of these positions require more than two or three years in duration. Craig
Prosser stated the urban renewal/economic development position is probably a long term position. The
Comp Plan position is most likely a short-term position that would last about three years.
The total operating budgets for Engineering, Current Planning, Community Development Administration,
and Public Works Administration are budgeted in the City's General Fund. The total operating budget for
the Building Inspection Division is budgeted in the Building Fund. Based upon the level of activity and
expenses incurred, funds are transferred from both the Urban Services and Urban Services TIF Funds to
pay for the services provided. The basis of the transfer is set each year during the budget process based
upon the projected level of service. In addition, both the Urban Services Fund and Urban Services TIF
Fund will be charged their portion of City support programs that are budgeted in the Central Services
Fund and Fleet/Property Management Fund.
The activities provided by Current Planning, Building, and Engineering for the area covered by the
Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA) between the City and Washington County are fully supported by
permit fees within this program. These activities are not supported by the General Fund or other funds.
The charge to provide service to this program is based on activity levels. This is monitored throughout
the fiscal year and adjusted annually. A related memo was distributed showing the actual revenues and
expenditures into the two funds since 1997, when the City signed the Urban Services agreement with
Washington County. The only reason the memo does not show the amounts for FY 2004-05 is it is still
the current fiscal year.
Jim Hendryx stated if the City decided, in the future, to give the urban services program back to the
County the funds would be returned based on the transition periods.
Mark Haldeman asked if there would be cost incurred to eliminate the position related to the Comp Plan.
If the position was filled and then terminated, the employee would have bumping rights to another vacant
position within the City and there would be no additional costs. If there wasn't a vacant position, the City
would incur the normal unemployment costs. Mark Haldeman asked if the City looked at outsourcing the
position. Jim Hendryx stated the dollar per hour rate for staff versus outsourcing is substantially lower.
The cost was at least 50% more for outside consultants. Katie Schwab asked if the City had looked into
a contract with an employee for a limited time frame. Craig Prosser stated the City has not specifically
looked at it, but the City would need to be careful due to IRS regulations. Councilor Harding asked if the
position could be flagged as a short term position. Craig Prosser said this could be done.
Councilor Harding asked about the increase in the Office Supplies, Fees and Subscriptions, and the
Travel and Training line items. Craig Prosser stated the Office Supplies cost included desks and
equipment for the new positions. Tom Imdieke stated the Department is projecting additional costs for the
public outreach programs related to the Downtown Improvement Plan and the Comp Plan.
Craig Prosser explained training had been cut back significantly on training citywide and the City was
trying to restore some of the training. The increase in question was in the current fiscal year, FY 2004-05.
Engineering: Gus Duenas, City Engineer, presented the budget. Engineering has filled the Right-of-
Way (ROW)Administrator position. The Department is fully staffed for the first time in five years.
The Department is responsible for ensuring:
• Private developments are designed and constructed in accordance with the City's standards and
requirements.
• Public improvements are constructed to City standards through an inspection process.
• Projects the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan
• The City's transportation system is safe and efficient for all modes of travel.
• Enhances environmental quality and addresses potential health and safety issues by providing
adequate storm drain and sanitary sewer services.
• Keeps abreast of the regional and statewide transportation issues.
' • Supports the Council goals through the Department's efforts.
3
Some of the Department's accomplishments include the completion of the Gaarde Street project, Phase II
project, the completion of the new Library, and two major sanitary sewer districts.
Personal Services are up 6.8% and Materials and Services increased 5%. Major factors affecting the
budget are the Street Maintenance Fee revenue collected helped defray the street maintenance back log
of about$4 million. The Department anticipates the cost this year will be approximately$700,000 and
also at this level for the next fiscal year.
The purchase of the Hansen Pavement and the Streets modules are reflected in Technology budget.
This will assist in grading the street conditions. The last time this was done was in 1999 and it should be
done every 3-5 years. Pavement management will provide the Department information based on the
condition of the streets. The process will be handled in house. Gus Duenas stated the cost would be
about$10,000 in overtime versus contracting the service for about$30,000. This will also provide an
opportunity to train staff to recognize potential problems.
The Department upgraded the ROW program by hiring a new ROW Administrator in January. This new
position has helped with franchise issues, permitting issues, setting up fees, and working with Verizon on
fiber optic issues. The Department is also upgrading the AutoCAD 2002 to AutoCAD 2005 version and
will be getting a subscription for updates. A new laser printer is also budgeted as the current printer is
over four years old and average life is three years. The Department is also budgeting for a new plotter.
The current plotter is six years old and Hewlett-Packard no longer provides support.
The General Fund provides for two-thirds of funding, the rest is transferred from funds such as the
Sanitary Sewer Fund, Storm Sewer Fund, TIF Fund, and the Street Maintenance Fee Fund.
The Department is focusing on Council's goals by initiating projects dealing with congestion on 99W;
improve east-west circulation through the City, and projects related to the Downtown Improvement Plan.
Jason Snider asked what rating a street meant. Gus Duenas stated that it is a review of the conditions of
the street.
Katie Schwab asked what the impact on the budget would be if the City did not fix state-owned roads.
The Department is proactively seeking partnerships with ODOT and Washington County and for funding
for a 99W corridor study. Councilor Sherwood stated since the City has shown an interest in improving
state-owned roads, ODOT is being more responsive and willing to assist by providing assistance from
ODOT staff.
Councilor Harding asked for the cost of the Hansen modules. The Pavement module is$15,000 for
licenses. The Street module is$3,000 -$4,000 plus training for a total cost of about$30,000. Councilor
Woodruff asked what the modules did. It provides pavement management information to help the City
prioritize problem areas by providing tools to make the best decision. Since the City has other Hansen
modules, it makes it easier to share information within the City. Councilor Wilson noted the ROW program
is not meant to generate revenue; rather it is it to protect the City's investment in its streets.
Councilor Wilson asked if the City charged a street opening permit fee every time the street is opened.
The City does this to address the long term damage caused by opening the streets. He also asked if the
City was getting substantial revenues. Gus Duenas stated the fees are minimal and the Department is
proposing an increase. The current fee of$150 is not covering the City's actual costs. The Department
is also considering requiring internal permits for water and sewer as well.
Michelle Wareing pointed out the cost for the Hansen modules are reflected in the Technology budget.
Street Lights: Gus Duenas presented the Street Lights budget. The budget has increased by$25,000
to cover energy costs.
The Division is trying to hold down energy cost by fine tuning the system. There is a limit to what can be
done.
Capital Improvement Projects: Gus Duenas presented the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP
is developed through a process separate from, but parallel to the Budget process. The CIP process
4
begins in November each year with estimates of available capital resources in each fund prepared by the
Finance Department.
The City Engineer prepares a list of potential projects for each project category and presents the
information along with the estimates of available funding at a public hearing in January. The public
hearing provides citizens the opportunity to discuss the CIP proposal, add projects, and prioritize projects.
After input is gathered from citizens at the public hearing, the City Engineer develops the CIP showing the
list of projects to be completed in each future year for each project category. The draft CIP is then
presented to the City Planning Commission, which conducts a public hearing to solicit further public
comment on the program. After the Planning Commission review and input, the draft CIP is then
presented to City Council. The City Council provides input and direction on the CIP based on Council
Goals, City needs, and funding availability. The revised CIP list is then presented to the Budget
Committee in an informational meeting. In June, the Five Year CIP is approved by the Planning
Commission and then by the City Council after another public hearing. Approval by the City Council
designates the specific projects that will be completed in the coming year.
The Capital Improvement Program includes projects related to City Facilities, the Streets System, the
Parks System, the Sanitary Sewer System, the Storm Drainage System, and the Water System.
The total proposed budget for CIP is $19,969,288, which is a return to a level it was a few years ago.
Last year the budget was up for the reservoir that did not happen.
The Street Maintenance Fee has been a stable source of revenue, the Sanitary Sewer Fund is healthy,
and the TIF Fund is limited. The need for expansion projects exists and the funds will need to be used
judiciously. The Department will continue to look for additional sources of revenue.
Next fiscal year the focus will be on Council Goals—revitalize the downtown area, address congestion on
99W, and address growth. Some of the major projects are 99W and McDonald Street project and
initiating the 99W Corridor Improvements Study. A Transportation and Growth Management grant has
been prepared and will be submitted in the near future to help with the cost of the study. The study will
help identify projects along 99W that can be implemented over time.
Public Comment: Mark Haldeman suggested the agenda be modified and allow public comment. Craig
Prosser noted that Lisa Hamilton-Trieck, a Bull Mountain.resident, was not at the meeting during the
discussion of the Urban Services memo. She had previously expressed concerns about the funding for
the Urban Services Fund and how it flows to the General Fund. Craig Prosser asked Lisa Hamilton-Triek
if she had a chance to read the memo and if she had any questions. Lisa Hamilton-Treik asked how the
City accounted for subdivisions required to annex in exchange for permits and if the fees were calculated
as Tigard revenue or Urban Services. Jim Hendryx stated the revenue is reflected based on when the
property was annexed. Permits and activities occurring prior to annexation are reflected in the Urban
Services Fund, subsequent building permits after annexation are reflected in the Building Fund. He
referred to the breakdown of revenues in the attachment to the memo. Lisa Hamilton-Triek asked how
much revenue was generated from Bull Mountain. She said revenues are hard to track after they are
transferred to the General Fund. Lisa Hamilton-Triek asked why the funds were not used for the master
plan. Craig Prosser stated none of the revenues from the unincorporated area were intended for the
master plan. It was all to pay for the current planning, the permit applications, and the land use
applications. There were no fees charged for the master plan. None of that money would have been
appropriate to use for the master plan. Lisa Hamilton-Triek stated she would want to meet with the City
with additional questions.
Councilor Wilson asked when TIF fees are assessed. Jim Hendryx stated at the time of the building
permit; however, they can be deferred typically after annexation. Tom Imdieke suggested that they
review the memo as it addresses the initial questions on page 3.
Lisa Hamilton-Triek asked if the IGA gave Tigard planning authority over Bull Mountain. Craig Prosser
w stated it requires the City to administer the County's plan for the area. Jim Hendryx stated planning is a
policy level authority the County maintains. The City does not have a legislative authority to do planning
in unincorporated Bull Mountain, which is retained by the County.
5
Councilor Wilson asked if someone requested a change in Bull Mountain would the City have the
authority to administer the change. The City does not have the authority to change the zoning on Bull
Mountain or the Bull Mountain community plan. If Metro required a change to the Bull Mountain
'+wrw community plan, it would be the County's responsibility. The City would administer the changes as
directed by the County.
Discussion of the List/Technical Adjustments: Tom Imdieke reviewed the budget changes outlined in
the memo handed out. The General Fund overall projected revenue increase is 6%, including current
revenues and transfers. On the expense side, the budget is up 16%. The primary services in the General
Fund include Police, Library, and as well as smaller pieces of the operating budget. Personal Services
is up over 10% and some of the factors related to the increase are Police Department PERS retirement,
negotiated labor contract, cost of living allowance, and the overall benefits package. Materials and
Services is up 19% due to Police and Library. In the Police Department, new radios and capital outlay for
vehicle replacements are reflected in the increase.
The projected beginning fund balance for the General Fund for next year is $8.6 million. The projected
ending fund balance is $4.7 million; however there is a$1 million contingency. Hopefully the City will not
have to tap into the contingency during next fiscal year. This will increase the fund balance going into the
following fiscal year. Between the contingency and the ending fund balance of$4.7 million, the City would
have approximately$5.7 million going into the FY 2006-07.
Council Woodruff asked if$3 million of the fund balance would be used for projected expenditures this
next year. Tom Imdieke stated that was correct. He also stated the overall resource growth was 6% in
the General Fund, including the growth in property taxes. Tom Imdieke clarified he was talking about the
General Fund. Councilor Woodruff asked if the General Fund expenditures were 10% more than the
revenues and to account for that, the General Fund would be drawn down by $2.9 million.
The fund balance of$4.7 million plus the$1 million contingency assumes the Departments will spend
100% of the allocation. Historically this is not the case. The level of expenditures can fluctuate, usually
about 94%. The usage of the contingency in the current fiscal year is unusual. Craig Prosser stated that
the major hit to contingency was the cost of labor negotiations, settlements, and contracts. These were
not known at the time the FY 2004-05 budget was adopted. Normally, the contingency is rarely tapped
and a $200,000 use is high.
Tom Imdieke referenced a memo handed out discussing the operating budget amendments:
1. Additional Travel and Training Funding for City Council.
The Mayor and Council proposed budget includes $6,020 for three Council members to attend
the National League of Cities (NLC) conference in North Carolina. There is an opportunity for
Council to attend the Congressional City conference in Washington DC in lieu of the NLC
conference. The additional amount needed for three Council members to attend the
Congressional City conference is$722. For four Council members to attend, the additional
amount needed is$3,060. For five Council members to attend, the additional amount needed is
$5,398.
2. Parks and Grounds Division— Increase Materials & Services by $25,000
Public Works staff provided an issue paper on the Parks and Grounds Division providing
recreation grants to organizations that currently provide recreational or after school programs.
This grant program was envisioned to be a transitional plan until funding for a broader recreation
program is secured and to respond to citizens' request for recreational programs.
3. Street Maintenance Division— Increase Materials & Services by $25,000
Public Works staff provided an issue paper on the Street Maintenance Division providing Right of
Way (ROW) grants to property owners to assist them in their obligation to clean up/enhance their
ROW frontage. This grant program was developed to address the City Council's desire to
maintain and/or enhance the ROWs in Tigard.
4. Social Services & Community Events— Decrease Materials & Services by$3,200
6
The Tualatin River Keepers submitted two grant applications. One was originally submitted as a
Social Services grant and the other was submitted as a Community Event grant. The Social
Services Sub-Committee referred the social service grant submittal to the Community Events
review and also reduced the amount allocated for Social Services by the grant amount, so it could
be funded as a Community Events grant. During final proposed budget preparations, the amount
to be awarded for this grant was entered twice by Finance staff. Therefore, the amount to be
awarded to the Tualatin River Keepers need to be reduced by $3,200.
5. Social Services & Community Events— Increase Materials& Services by no more than $5,125
On October 12, 2004, the City Council adopted a resolution establishing a Residential Services
Agency Emergency Fund. The purpose of the fund would be to address limited, one-time or
emergency funding needs for agencies that provide food and housing services for Tigard
residents in need. The amount of grant set-aside cannot exceed five percent of the total
allocated for social service grants. A total of$122,500 was budgeted for social service grants;
however, $20,000 is for two existing City set-asides. Therefore, total social service grants
allocated is$102,500 and five percent of this amount is$5,125.
6. Citywide Personal Services Budget— Decrease of$82,516
The proposed budget included a 15% increase in health benefits; however, actual rates have
been received and the increase is 14.5%. A 2% COLA was also included for OPEU/SEIU and
professional/management staff. A 2.5% COLA was used for TPOA staff per their contract. The
CPI used for calculating the OPEU/SEIU COLA requires a 2.3% increase.
Professional/management staff traditionally receives the same COLA as OPEU/SEIU staff.
TPOA COLA will remain 2.5% per their contract. The net decrease between these two changes
is$82,516. The impact by fund is below.
• General Fund—($62,796)
• Sanitary Sewer Fund —($2,533)
• Storm Sewer Fund—($1,777)
• Water Fund —($4,692)
• Building Fund—($3,533)
• Central Services Fund—($6,345)
• Fleet/Property Management Fund —($840)
7. Water Fund and General— Decrease revenues by$80,000 in Water Fund and increase revenues
by $80,000 in General Fund Due to staff and workload changes, a developer fee will not longer be
charged for Water Division staff involvement in subdivision review. Instead, this review will now be
conducted by Engineering staff and the revenue will be placed in the General Fund instead of the
Water Fund.
The following are the Capital Improvement Projects Amendments:
1. Water CIP Fund—Carryover of$400,000 and add an additional $648,500
This is for the cost of construction of the Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR) well#2. It was
originally planned that the ASR well#2 would have a distribution capacity of 1.0 MGD during the
summer months. After testing, it has been determined that this well could have 2.5MGD
distribution capacity. Construction of the well started later than planned, so$400,000 of the
original budget in FY 2004-05 needs to be carried over and an additional $648,500 needs to be
added. The total project cost for this well in FY 2005-06 will be $1,048,500.
2. Storm Sewer Fund—Carryover of$37,500 and an additional $47,500
This funding is for the construction of a Storm Debris Process Center, which is a joint project
between Tigard, Tualatin, and Sherwood. Due to permitting issues, this project has been delayed
and will not be completed until March 2006. The carryover of$37,500 is the total amount
budgeted in FY 2004-05. The Storm Debris project was supposed to be included in the FY 2005-
06 CIP, but due to Storm Division staff oversight, it was not included. The $47,500 is amount that
should have been included in the FY 2005-06 proposed budget.
7
Mark Haldeman asked if there were any other issues not addressed in the memo. The Committee
members discussed the list. Concern was expressed about the difference in the 6% increase in
resources and 16% in expenditures and possible steps to close the gap.
Craig Prosser suggested that the Committee refer to the Council goals and cut what doesn't support the
goals. Katie Schwab stated she asked her neighbors what they wanted and was told they do not want to
fund additional Police positions, additional hours at the Library, or additional Cityscape publications.
Sue Yesilada stated her concern for spending down the General Fund balance by 30% and emphasized
looking at priorities. Craig Prosser reminded everyone what the Mayor had suggested in an earlier
meeting about having citizen members of the Boards and Committees meet with Council to determine
long-term adjustments and realign priorities. Councilor Sherwood stated the costs have mushroomed as
the City is catching up on capital outlay and staffing. The last three years these items were not funded.
Councilor Wilson noted he would like to see an issue paper on the cost of benefits.
Katie Schwab suggested the Committee go through the budget by program and see what reactions
members have to the changes. Mark Haldeman stated he needed to understand what made up the
differences in the revenues and expenditures, and which items could be controlled. Councilor Wilson
noted the overall increase in personnel costs is mostly for existing personnel. Tom Woodruff stated he
wanted to discuss the operating budget as opposed to the General Fund. The operating budget is only
up by 5.4%. Craig Prosser stated that the General Fund will be providing funding into Parks Capital
Fund for park land acquisition. This has not been done in the past and is in the budget per Council goals.
Councilor Wilson stated if the City does not make an effort to fulfill the Council goals, the City will continue
to decline. Tom Imdieke stated that in July, the City will have a much better idea of the ending fund
balance. In order to begin the acquisition program of park land, the City made a conscience decision
about how to fund the program. In the future a more permanent revenue stream will be identified to be
used as the additional non-SDC portion. Jason Snider asked if the City purchased land if it could be
sold. The land could be declared as surplus and sold. Craig Prosser noted the draw down of the General
Fund on paper is concerning, but the commitment to the future is necessary. There is a transfer of
$769,000 from the General Fund to Parks Capital Fund for parks acquisition. Sue Yesilada noted the City
is trying to increase assets, as well as make up for many years of cutbacks. Sue Yesilada asked if we
don't address these needs, how much it will mushroom in the future.
It was suggested the Committee start with the budget amendment list first, and continue on by
Department.
Final Decisions: The Committee went through the budget amendment list and made the following
decisions.
• Additional Travel and Training Funding for City Council—The Committee decided not to fund for
additional Travel and Training for City Council.
• Parks and Grounds Division— Recreation Grant—The Committee decided not to fund the grant.
• Street Maintenance Division— ROW Grant—The Committee decided not to fund the grant. The
Committee thought this was a good idea; however, it requires further discussion,
• Social Services & Community Events—Decrease Materials & Services by$3,200— It was agreed
to decrease the funds.
• Social Services & Community Events— Increase Materials & Services by no more than $5,125—
It was agreed to add in the funds.
• Citywide Personal Services Budget— Decrease of$82,516— It was agreed to decrease funds.
• Water Fund and General Fund—Decrease revenues by$80,000 in Water Fund and increase
revenues by$80,000 in General Fund due to staff and workload changes—The Committee
agreed to the adjustment.
• Water CIP Fund—Carryover of$400,000 and add an additional $648,500—It was agreed to
carryover funds and add the additional funds.
8
• Storm Sewer Fund—Carryover of$37,500 and an additional $47,500— It was agreed to
carryover funds and add additional funds.
The Committee discussed the budget by Program and made the following decisions:
• Police Department—Approve one of the two requested positions. Fund the remainder of the
budget as proposed. Chief Dickinson will make the decision regarding which position he will
add.
• Library— No additional positions were approved. Fund the remainder of the budget as proposed.
Margaret Barnes will make the decision regarding the open hours and staffing.
• Social Services/Community Events—Fund as proposed but review at one of the Budget
Committee quarterly meetings.
• Public Works—Fund the budget as proposed.
• Community Development—Approve the 2.5 additional FTEs. Fund the budget as proposed.
• Engineering—Fund the budget as proposed.
• Policy and Administration— Fund the budget as proposed.
• Finance—Fund the budget as proposed.
• General Government—Fund the budget as proposed.
• Capital Improvements Program— Fund the budget as proposed.
• Debt Services— Fund the budget as proposed.
Approve Budget: Jason Snider moved for approval of the budget incorporating the changes agreed to
by the budget committee with staff to incorporate exact dollar changes reflecting these decisions.
Councilor Sherwood seconded the motion. All Committee members were in favor with one opposed,
Councilor Harding. MSP
Craig Prosser stated the Finance Department will communicate with the Committee members with the
details of the decisions made and final numbers. The members will receive a memo two weeks prior to
the June 14, 2005 Council meeting.
Councilor Wilson moved for approval to levy the City of Tigard's permanent tax rate of$2.51310 per
$1,000 assessed value and to levy taxes necessary to pay up to$827,151 in debt service on the City's
General Obligation Library Bond. Councilor Sherwood seconded the motion. All Committee members
were in favor. MSP
Process Debriefing: Craig Prosser welcomed feedback from the Committee on what worked and what
didn't work in the budget process.
Jason Snider mentioned it would be helpful to have a better handle on which expenditures are
discretionary or non-discretionary in the budget document.
Role of Budget Committee in mid year: There are two items—the review of the financial forecast and
options for the City to be discussed over the summer. It will require formal direction from the Council.
Councilor Wilson suggested using the quarterly meeting for more in-depth discussion for specific service.
Topics mentioned were:
9
• Review alternatives for Police services, including response to alarms and not responding to some
types of calls.
• Review the Social Services/Community Events funding policy and procedures.
• Review City philosophy of what basic and discretionary services to provide and the level of such
services.
• Reassess and reevaluate Library services and open hours during the year.
Adjourn: The Budget Committee was adjourned at 10:35 PM. MSP
10