02/22/1984 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD
BUDGET COMMITTEE MINUTES
FEBRUARY 22, 1984
Fowler Junior High School
The Budget Committee meeting was called to order by Chairman Wally Hoffman at
7:38 p.m. Roll Call: W. Hoffman, D. Evans, G. Edwards, J. Smith, H. Duffy,
J. Cook, I. Scott, W. Bishop, K. Scheckla, T. Brian (8:15).
Staff: R. Jean, J. Widner, F. Currie, J. Hagman, J. McNurlin, J. Martin
(7:40) , S. Rivett (7:45), W. Avery (7:45) , B. Monahan (8:21).
Guests : G. Ball, L. Allen (8:00)
Item 3. Approve Minutes. G. Edwards moved to approve the minutes of the
2/15/84 meeting. J. Smith seconded. Vote: 9/0 passed.
Item 4. Staff Update. In addition to the packet material, R. Adams memo was
handed out to the committee.
Item 5. Community Development. R. Jean stated the major difference in Public
Works between the requested and proposed budget would be in Parks.
K. Scheckla asked about the Green Thumb program-renewal. R. Jean explained
the program would not be continued for the function we have available. F.
Currie explained that he and J. McNurlin were notified by Green Thumb that
funding for this program would not be continued next year.
Public Works-Frank Currie. He directed the Budget Committee to the summary
;, , pages and discussed the changes. Page 60-general fund dependency has been
decreasing-used mainly for parks and shop. Page 61-no changes. Page
65-Wastewater-adding 1 full-time person--maintenance worker.
H. Duffy asked Frank to elaborate on the personal services. Again, it was
noted the increased cost of benefits. R. Jean referred the Budget Committee
to the staff update report.
F. Currie explained that the OAI position is displayed incorrectly in the
utility worker salaries. 25% of the salary is in this section. He went on to
discuss the capital outlay request for a sewer cleaner for $71,000. This
cleaner is a small one to replace the current 16 year old equipment. D. Evans
asked about the life expectancy? 10-20 years with proper maintenance.
H. Duffy asked about how often sewer lines were cleaned in the City? The goal
is once every 3-4 years. How long has this program been in existence? Since
before Frank's employment with the City. Have all the sewer lines been
cleaned? No-partially due to cutbacks in funding and timing. W. Hoffman
stated that from the provided data, it looks like it would take 6 years to
clean all of the sewer lines. R. Jean asked how many more feet could be
cleaned by purchasing the new sewer cleaner? Response was that the capability
would be there to clean more lines.
H. Duffy asked if there were any guidelines for sewer line maintenance
available from USA or the State? Not at this time, however, the insurance
agent is most stringent with the question of risk. Are the service levels
comparable to other cities? Is there a benchmark with other cities? Frank
stated that he feels a goal of 3-4 years is appropriate for Tigard, however,
he will get estimates from other cities on how often sewer lines are cleaned.
K. Scheckla wanted to know who would be operating the new equipment and to
make sure they were properly trained before they would be using it.
G. Edwards stated that he would like departments to provide justification for
capital outlay high dollar items. This could include brochures, projections
as to what the equipment could do, how it will affect productivity, what will
happen to old equipment-will it be scrapped, traded-in or sold? Some proof of
maintenance costs on old equipment should also be provided. H. Duffy stated
he would like to see the dollar return for the service level gains-and
benchmarks from other cities if available.
Frank stated that if we had a fleet management program he could provide this
data more readily than now.
Page 69. Streets-OAI included in this section also. I. Scott asked about the
striping machine-could this be contracted out? Discussion followed regarding
the grader. D. Evans asked how many hours of grading did the 1942 equipment
do? Approximately one week per year. The grader is used in other areas as
well. I. Scott asked about consolidation with water district's equipment.
Frank stated that in the past, the district has not wanted to consolidate
purchases, however he has been working with John Miller to encourage the
combined use. For example, the City will be assisting in the maintenance of
the water district's equipment next year. These expected revenues have been
included in the budget.
K. Scheckla asked about the rents/leases line item on page 67. This is rental
of large equipment to clean storm drainage.
Discussion followed on the merits of the work level indicators and projections
for 83-84 and 84-85.
Page 73. Parks. Adds two people to maintain service levels in current parks.
Discussion of prior history of numbers of employees in this section followed.
Because of better equipment and the Green Thumb program the City was able to
hold back on new hires, but with the discontinuance of Green Thumb next year
will need the two new hires. Without these new hires, the mowing in Jack,
Woodard and Summerlake would not be maintained and Cook Park would not be
maintained at 100% either. The City did have volunteer help in the Englewood
neighborhood to get this in shape this year, however next year none of the
neighborhood parks would be maintained by the City.
In capital outlay three pieces of equipment are requested: a tractor, mower
and fertilizer spreader. This request appeared two years ago and was
approved, although the department held off with the purchase until the new
superintendent had an opportunity to determine what kind of equipment the City
needed. The requested budget includes a chemical sprayer.
Page 77. OAI included in this section. There has been a substantial increase
in service due to the mix of employees shifting. The Senior Center building
maintenance is done by this section, along with other City building
maintenance assistance. Page 80 includes a spray washing unit and tools.
Page 81. Engineering. - The difference is in adding a Engineer in Training
position and an Engineering Aide. This addition is primarily cost recoverable
through LID's. J. Smith asked if we were in competition with the private
sector? Frank stated that he had discussed this with consulting engineers and
they felt we were not.
PAGE TWO
R. Jean directed the Budget Committee to page xiii, which indicates that the
engineering division is virtually fee supported. Discussion followed on
engineering division, street lighting etc. G. Edwards left.
Page 120 Capital Projects. Frank reviewed the proposed capital projects for
wastewater, streets and parks.
The meeting recessed at 9:15. Reconvened 9:25 with the following people: W.
Hoffman, D. Evans, J. Smith, H. Duffy, T. Brian, K. Scheckla, J. Cook.
Staff: R. Jean, J. Widner, B. Monahan, J. Martin. Guests: L. Allen, G. Ball.
R. Jean reviewed the revenue sources of the Planning & Development Department.
B. Monahan stated the major change in his requested budget is the addition of
a half building inspector/codes enforcement officer. He reviewed with he
budget committee some of the recommendations being discussed by the codes
enforcement committee. Pointed out pages 95 - reallocate the proposed dollars
to include $2,000 for a hearings officer in contractual services. Total
proposed would not change; page 93 - work measurements indicate 360 hours of
compensating time for meetings by two planners; page 90 work measurements for
building permits. Revenues are up in both planning and building.
Discussion followed re: CDBG and codes enforcement. Several members of the
committee agreed that the codes enforcement is valuable i.e. , weeds and other
nuisances can quickly take over. R. Jean said that the OAI has been sending
letters to violaters and this sometimes works. K. Scheckla wanted to know
what's different from last year when the plans examiner position was cut. B.
Monahan stated that the position last year was top heavy and the plans
examiner was not a fielderson. The request this
p q year is for field work
assistance to free up the current inspectors to review plans. The OAI has
picked up the clerical assistance the former plans examiner position was
doing.
H. Duffy said its really up to the Budget Committee if they want to subsidize
this type of program.
TURA-B. Monahan explained briefly that the program is in the process of close
out and all that is needed next year is to repay the outstanding loan and to
reimburse the other taxing districts for any unused revenues.
General questions followed-H. Duffy asked about the assessed valuation
assumptions on page vi. This was discussed, along with service levels and
affording of same. R. Jean reminded Budget Committee that the proposed budget
is the bottom-line if a tax base does not pass. The Budget Committee agreed
with the comment that communication of this fact will be critical to the tax
base passage.
The meeting was recessed until February 29, 1984 at 10:15 p.m.
Wally Hoff n, a'
JLW:ms (0207F)
PAGE THREE