Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-15-05 Minutes, Study CommissionMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDY COMMISSION November 15, 2005 The Study Commission met in regular session in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 15, 2005. Present were Chair Loren Olsen, Marilou Turrentine, Brian Close, Bill Hayward, and John Trull. Also present was Secretary of the Study Commission Celeste Janssen, facilitator Jim Madden, Neighborhood Coordinator Tracy Oulman, City Commissioner Jeff Krauss and City Finance Director Anna Rosenberry. The meeting was called to order by Chair Loren Olsen at 7:03 pm. Call to order at 7:03 pm Public comments Deb Stober came on behalf of the Northwest Neighborhood Network board, which she said was in the second phase of being officially recognized. She said the Neighborhood Program is a wonderful tool, but the meeting agendas and the coordinator's role should be better defined. Ms. Stober said she has been unsuccessful at obtaining information from the INC coordinator, who has a huge work load and receives directions from many different people. Ms. Stober says that she often gets referred to other staff members, who then are put in an awkward position (her example was her attempt to get a list of properties.) Anna Rosenberry clarified that the City is restricted on providing mailing lists by state statute and would only be able to provide this information to an agency of the city. There are questions about how the neighborhood groups fit into the city. Deb Stober said only two neighborhoods were able to meet standards and all the rest were grandfathered in. Tracy Oulman clarified to say that all the new neighborhoods meet the criteria, with the exception of two. SENA has not yet worked out all the details. Brian Close said he feels very strongly making the neighborhood groups comply with open meeting laws. Deb Stober would like to do so at one annual meeting. Ms. Stober stated her concerns about not having access to City Commission meetings and agendas until the Friday before the meeting, because it hinders planning for the meeting. Deb Stober requested having another roundtable meeting between the Study Commission and neighborhood groups. Tracy Oulman said there were some issues that the INC should review before this time. Deb Stober thanked everyone and left the meeting. Discussion on the second Citizen Panel Chair Olsen asked Jim Madden to give a review of second Citizen Panel. Mr. Madden said it went very well. He acknowledged that the background was a bit difficult for people, but it helped to have the Study Commission narrow down to the specific questions to focus on beforehand. Celeste Janssen went over the evaluation responses for the second Panel. The responses were very positive and had some good feedback. Page 1 of 7 There were different comments on the second Citizen Panel. Loren Olsen said that he had not been thinking of changing the form of government, but the second Citizen Panel made him start thinking about having a strong mayor (or at least that is what he heard from the citizens.) Marilou Turrentine responded that she didn't hear citizens `requesting a strong mayor. Brian Close heard a desire for more commissioners. John Trull noted that prior to Marsha Youngman's remarks on mayoral election, the vote was much different: four for okay as is, five said just let the commissioners choose. Loren Olsen said that although it was appropriate to ask Ms. Youngman to describe her duties as Mayor, she hadn't been prepped on not giving strong opinions to sway the group. Celeste Janssen commented that that people held their own on a technical topic. Jim Madden said the hardest issue to balance was if the at -large or ward systems. John Trull commented on the consensus that higher population should trigger wards. Brian Close said he has never supported a pure ward system, and he believes wards should be large enough to generate candidates. Both Mr. Close and Mr. Olsen thought that another half hour could have been spent on this topic with the Second Citizen Panel. Brian Close offered to try to find mixed ward systems, and Loren Olsen liked the idea. Marilou Turrentine asked to return to evaluating the second Citizen Panel to respect Jim Madden and Tracy Oulman's time. Brian Close suggested adding commentary from the NCL to the Charter, in order to create a mayoral job description. Tracy Oulman asked if the meatiness of the topic was too much for the timeframe. John Trull answered by saying the first panel went better because the second Panel had too much and Ranked - Choice Voting was too much. Loren Olsen said there could have been separate panels on all of the separate topics. However, if there were separate topics, there would need to be more background information. Jim Madden asked the Study Commissions got results that indicate a direction. Bill Hayward said there were more ideas from the first Panel, and the second Panel was more of a poll. Brian Close said there is decent support for going to seven commissioners. Loren Olsen said that the Study Commission will need to discuss the results more before there is a clear direction. Marilou Turrentine thought the best part was the enthusiasm from the participants, and she would like to see the City Commission using this process. Brian Close noted how much time it took to define the topic, select citizens, create unbiased background information, and plan with the facilitator. Bill Hayward said that seven out of eleven wanted five commissioners earlier, but at the vote it was two to nine. Many citizens talked about increasing the number as the population went up. Mr. Hayward doesn't think the Study Commission should work on an issue that isn't an issue. Loren Olsen commented that no one wants to draw ward boundaries, and he isn't sure he wants to pick the population line. John Trull said the first Citizen Panel was better at soliciting opinions than the second Panel, which was more effected by outside opinions from everyone. Jim Madden said clearest dissatisfaction was concerning how the mayor is selected. Tracy Oulman if the Citizens knew how the mayor was selected before the Panel. Jim Madden answered that it was hard to know, but some people said they had no idea Bozeman had a City Manager. Loren Olsen guessed that perhaps a third were unaware. Jim Madden asked if taking votes was useful. John Trull said yes, but he really noticed how the vote totally was skewed. Bill Hayward suggested having a secret ballot, because the eleventh person has heard everyone else's opinion. He also suggested having the same straw poll several times Page 2 of 7 throughout the night to see how opinions change Jeff Krauss informed the Study Commission that he already has had Jim Madden facilitate a part of the City Commission meeting. He sees the process as being useful early in land -use discussions. Anna Rosenberry said Tracy Oulman has done a good job of telling department heads about the Citizen Panel process. Chris Saunders was very excited about the process and was very positive about Jim Madden's work. Brian Close said it is interesting that the Commission is trying to find new ways to interact with citizens. Jeff Krauss urged caution at putting something in the charter because as the City of Bozeman grows larger, it will be harder to do a facilitated meeting. The Study Commission took a break at 8:03 pm and reconvened at 8:18 pm. Jim Madden and Tracy Oulman left the meeting. Discuss Paul Luwe's email and charter Brian Close noted that the Study Commission has two emails from Paul Luwe, the first one being on Ranked -Choice Voting. Mr. Luwe sees the issue as being illegal in Montana and he wants to know if he should still pursue the Attorney General's opinion. John Trull would like to get the opinion and noted that are statewide ramifications to the opinion so the issue might be clarified for other municipalities and Study Commissions. Marilou Turrentine, Brian Close, and Bill Hayward said they see additional work as a cost to the taxpayer for an issue where the Bozeman public has not responded well. Loren Olsen asked for opinions from the public. Jeff Krauss liked Mr. Trull's thinking regarding statewide ramifications. The opinion might waste a bit of the Attorney General's time, but save Study Commissioners time in the future. John Trull motioned to continue to seek the Attorney General's opinion, and Loren Olsen seconded. Loren Olsen and John Trull voted for the motion, and Bill Hayward, Marilou Turrentine and Brian Close opposed the motion. Loren Olsen will email Paul Luwe in order to tell him that the Study commission is not going to pursue the issue. Brian Close suggested John Trull speak to Senator Hawkes about the issue. Section V of the Charter Bill Hayward led the Study Commission through Section V, the financial section, of the National Civic League Charter. He planned to look at the document from a practical standpoint and then go back and talk about political implications and length of the section. Bill Hayward explained that he played with dates and how that would affect the authority to spend money. He suggested a "minimum unrestricted general fund reserves to be set by ordinance." Mr. Hayward noted that the Chamber has a theory that one can't spend money until there is an approved budget. Anna Rosenberry suggested scrapping the section on an audit because it is covered by state law. Bill Hayward stressed the importance of a budget because it is a financial plan. He and Ms. Rosenberry explained that the City doesn't know revenue before the end of the year because they must wait for the state to tell them the property tax revenue earned. There is no way that Bozeman can adopt a budget until the Bozeman has this number. Jeff Krauss said the primary budget can only be the best guess of the Finance Director. Anna Rosenberry did not redo the budget with actual numbers this year. Bill Hayward would like to set dates rather than use "timely matter" language. John Trull liked "timely matter." Jeff Krauss believes the financial section draft is too long. He urged caution with dates, because Bozeman could end up having an unconstitutional budget every year. Brian Close asked if the Study Commission should just make a distinction between the actual budget and the preliminary budget? Jeff Krauss disagreed and said it might be good to have a budget Page 3 of 7 ordinance. Loren Olsen reminded the Study Commission that their primary concern was the capital improvement plan, the gap between the fiscal yearend and the approved budget, and also having a budget that the public can understand. Bill Hayward asked about either adopting a preliminary budget before July 1 or continuing on last year's budget? Jeff Krauss and Anna Rosenberry prefer the former. Bill Hayward likes temporary budget better than preliminary. Bill Hayward asked about language that would force Bozeman to adopt a budget in a certain number of days. Jeff Krauss said that Bozeman is always automatically two months late instating the year. The latest he has seen was October 1st. The budget MUST be done by October 31st, when some numbers are due to the county. Depending on how the revenues come in, the Commission is always arguing what to cut or what to what to spend on. Bill asked if the preliminary budget called for new cops, would Bozeman wait to hire them until the numbers come in. Jeff Krauss answered that there is a difference of opinion. Bill Hayward asked if there should be a regular budget hearing in the spring? Anna Rosenberry explained past processes with hearing on the City Manager's recommended budget or the actual budget at different times of the year. John Trull asked if the Study Commission should require the budget be set by October 31st and Jeff Krauss answered no, that is way too late. Bill Hayward explained that Section 5.03 is broiler plate and could be cut out later to shorten the section. Anna Rosenberry said there is nothing in the section that Bozeman can't do, but there are a couple of things that aren't currently being done, like talk about revenues or summarize city's debt position. John Trull said that he doesn't like limiting expenditures (last section of three). Jeff Krauss explained you can't budget a fund to go in the hole. Anna Rosenberry said that big expenses like the waste water facility plant can be budgeted for with cash on hand, impact fees, and borrowed money. John Trull withdrew his objection. 5.04 Bill Hayward asked to talk about his penciled in comment. Jeff Krauss responded that some city governments are broke and have a negative fund balance. Jeff Krauss said there are conflicting ideas on having reserves, but if you spend all the reserves then expenses will come from the general fund. By having an ordinance, there must have a 60 day process and amendments to the ordinance could slow things down. Anna Rosenberry added that having access to that money at the times needed is very important. Requirements for reserves is interesting, and maybe there is a good solid way that is acceptable. Bill Hayward asked if "not less than 10%" would be good language. Anna Rosenberry replied yes, or for more flexibility the it can just be required to be set in the City Manager's Recommended budget (and then up to Commission to adopt it or not.) Bill Hayward agreed the idea should be flexible. Loren Olsen asked if prudent city governments have a minimum of 10%? Bozeman is growing, our budget is growing, but what if things turn around? Jeff Krauss said that would be a bigger argument, based on what is the minimum level of responsibility. John Trull said he likes the flexibility of having it set by the Commission. Jeff Krauss reminded him the Commission could vote for zero reserves. Jeff Krauss noted that "reserves" should be moved to "balance" and that the reserve fund balance is where you actually promised it. Jeff Krauss said 10% is not unthoughtful. Brian Close wants to make sure, so as to not tie up money unnecessarily, and still not have an insignificant amount. Anna Rosenberry answered that the GFOA (Government Finance Officers Association) recommends 5-15%. Ms. Rosenberry noted that this year Bozeman burned through 2 million in the first quarter of this fiscal year. Page 4 of 7 If Bozeman had set reserves at 10%, it would have been burnt through it Brian Close asked what is the risk if we set it too high. Jeff Krauss said Bozeman would be constraining itself needlessly. Loren Olsen asked what would be the ramifications if the reserves were set and then not met. Jeff Krauss said this is just budget, so during the year the reserves will fluctuate. Brian Close asked if the GFOA recommendations set by a board (answer was yes) and then he suggested saying the reserves be set "pursuant to GFOA standards." John Trull and Anna Rosenberry voiced support for the idea. John Trull asked if this issue would be a sticking point with anyone? Jeff Krauss said the City Manger agrees with GFOA, and he so sees no problems. Loren Olsen suggested fifteen to twenty might be too low. Marilou Turrentine asked if it is difficult to reach ten? Anna Rosenberry said that the reserves are almost always higher than ten percent, and Bill Hayward added that it has been over twenty at some point. Brian Close doesn't like number because a vote is needed to amend it, but he doesn't want something vague. Loren Olsen suggested requiring Bozeman to comply with the high end of GFOA range. Bill Hayward asked if Section 5.05 would apply to both the City Manager's recommended budget and the final budget? Anna Rosenberry said that budget hearings are noticed, published in paper, and no one shows. From a practical standpoint, hearings are not making a difference. Brian Close asked about state law requirements. Ms. Rosenberry answered there must be one hearing on adoption and a hearing on establishing the levy, both of which the Commission usually does in the same night. There is a publication requirement regarding the total mill levy. The meeting is published for two weeks prior. Mr. Hayward asked if the hearing is the on recommended or final buget? Anna Rosenberry said this year the hearing was on the final budget, but past City Managers have had hearings only on their recommended budget. Bill Hayward asked if "as soon as practical" was plausible language. Jeff Krauss suggested using "forty-five days after receipt of state certification of values." Brian Close said we should recognize that Bozeman is already doing two budgets. Anna Rosenberry said she can see City Manager's recommended budget being the temporary or preliminary budget, but preparing a separate document would wasting time and money. She said there is a published City manager's document. Bill Hayward noted that he couldn't find them in the library. Section 5.06 Brian Close asked if there is an appropriation ordinance and Anna Rosenberry responded yes, and a resolution on the temporary budget (which is preferable). John Trull asked if this section is covered in state law and Jeff Krauss said no, state law doesn't have the same level of detail. Anna Rosenberry said there would be no problem adopting the language, because all of the detail is in the financial document itself. Jeff Krauss found and read the Montana Local Government Budget Act 7.6.4001- 7.6.4036. He noted that some of this is authorized by state law, and so not necessary in the Charter. Current law doesn't address transparency concerns. Montana law does address CIP a bit, but current financial year only. Jeff Krauss said the entire Section 5.05 could just refer to the Montana State Budget action. Also 5.06 and 5.07 are covered by State law. Section 5.09 is not in state statute. Anna Rosenberry offered to put state statute into a PDF for the Study Commission. Jeff Krauss explained that departments work on their budgets in February, and all of them present at Page 5 of 7 public meetings. There usually isn't much interest from the public in the City Manager's Recommended Budget. He found state statute referring a hearing within 45 days and adoption within 45 days. 5.07a and supplemental appropriations are covered in Montana State statute 40.31. 5.09 Bill Hayward, Anna Rosenberry, and Jeff Krauss talked about what Bozeman currently has regarding a CIP. Projects that are coming up are semi -prioritized. There are about 300 projects, some of which are privately paid for. The document is not updated continually and has never formally been adopted by the Commission. It has more import than just "someday we'll do this" because things high on the list get impact fees. The documented is edited, not redone every year. Some years different people get together and remove obsolete projects from the CIP. Brian Close asked if the CIP document looks at both the bureaucratic interests and long term goals. Jeff Krauss said that in the past a citizen task force was worked on long range plans. Loren Olsen suggested a new hire to work only on the CIP if necessary to have it accurately updated on an annual basis. Brian Close suggested a project manager and Jeff Krauss agreed. Bill Hayward said the document refers to multi -year, and presumably that is only two or more years. Brian Close suggested a updating a six year plan every year, which would hopefully create a built in mechanism to look at the big picture. Bill Hayward said current system is nice because it is unscheduled, and he likes the multi -year language. He also said that Bozeman needs to look down the line and have them in black and white. Jeff Krauss suggested addressing items in access of five or ten million in the future. John Trull asked about the time and cost. Loren Olsen again suggested hiring someone if necessary and Jeff Krauss responded that was not necessary for every year. Jeff Krauss doesn't like the February 15th date because then a new Commission has only six weeks before they would consider the CIP, and they would not yet have been involved in a budgeting process He would prefer the date to be in the last quarter, like December 15tn Loren Olsen asked if it should be necessary to jump through hoops to get something not on the CIP. Jeff Krauss asked if something is in the CIP, do you have to jump hoops to stop the project from happening? Bill Hayward noted that the current year has been on the schedule for five years, and before it is actually incorporated into the budget. Anna Rosenberry explained that on the current CIP document, only priorities are incorporated into the city budget. Loren Olsen asked if big items should be prepared for ten years in advance. Jeff Krauss asked what happens if you change your mind in nine years? Anna Rosenberry noted that doing funding in advance is political, but selling bonds guarantees the people who pay are the people who benefit. On the other hand, if you don't ease into a big item, you may face rate shock. Minutes — November 1, November 8 This agenda item will be posted until the next meeting. Review of City Commission Election This agenda item will be posted until the next meeting. Future timeline Celeste Janssen asked for the Study Commission to begin to set dates for meeting in 2006. The Study Commission unanimously agreed to add two more meetings to the calendar. The new updated schedule is: Page 6 of 7 12/6/2005 Charter, City Commission prep, carryover from Nov. 15 12/12/2005 Meeting with City Commission 12/13/2005 Charter, more on Section Article V 1/10/2006 Review Charter Draft (Release charter to public) 1/17/2006 Review Charter, Vote for going for June deadline 1/24/2006 Review Non -charter issues for draft New business There was no new business at this time. Confirm date for next meeting December 6th at 7pm in the Conference Room of the Municipal Building Adjournment at 9:00 pm There being no further business at this time, it was moved by John Trull, seconded by Brian Close, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried unanimously. LOREN OLSEN, Chair ATTEST: CELESTE JANSSEN, Secretary of the Study Commission Page 7 of 7