Council Budget & Finance Committee

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Budget & Finance Committee met on November 29, 2011, at 1:00 p.m., with Mr. Chair presiding. The committee addressed three agenda items during the session, including a monthly budget report presentation, discussion of the Board of Architectural Review fee structure, and a review of items referred to the committee. The meeting included eight public comments and resulted in one vote. Two of the three agenda items were informational in nature, while the Board of Architectural Review fee structure discussion was deferred for further consideration.

Attendance

The following individuals were present at the meeting on November 29, 2011:

• Vice Mayor Gordon
• Mr. Sinnott
• Mr. Lane
• Mr. Stinnett
• Mr. Myers
• Mr. Beard
• Mr. Schoeniger
• Mr. Farmer

No absences or late arrivals were recorded.

Votes and Decisions

Motion to Remove Economic Contingency Ordinance from Committee Consideration 1:05:30

A motion was made by Mr. Farmer and seconded by Mr. Stinnett to remove the economic contingency ordinance from committee consideration. The motion passed by voice vote.

The following members voted in favor of the motion: - Mr. Farmer - Mr. Stinnett - Mr. Lane

No members voted against the motion.

The body noted a condition associated with this decision: the economic contingency ordinance may need to be revisited if a budget shortfall occurs after December.

Budget and Financial Actions

The meeting included discussion of three requests for proposals (RFPs) related to billing and administrative services:

• Banking and Account Fee Review: An RFP for consulting services to conduct a banking and account fee review

• Sewer Landfill Water Quality Fee Billing: An RFP for third-party billing and collection services for the sewer landfill water quality fee

• Project Management Services: An RFP for a project manager to oversee the sewer landfill water quality fee billing project

No specific dollar amounts, vendor names, or resolution identifiers were provided for these financial actions at this meeting.

Public Comment

CAFR Timeline Concerns

Vice Mayor Gordon opened public comment by expressing concern about the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) being completed after half the fiscal year had passed [0:05:36]. Gordon urged earlier completion and suggested that partner agency deadlines be tightened to improve the timeline.

Mr. Sinnott echoed these concerns about late CAFR completion [0:09:26], emphasizing the need to speed up the process to make it useful for fiscal planning purposes.

Mr. Lane asked about technical or personnel issues delaying the CAFR [0:10:34], noting that auditor transition and accounting standard changes appeared to be contributing factors to the delays.

Historic Preservation Permit Fees

Dr. Blues raised questions about historic preservation permit fees [0:32:39], asking how to justify fees to residents and whether fee-charging municipalities had experienced negative consequences such as increased unpermitted work.

Mr. Stinnett clarified that the original request was for a simple $25 application fee to cover operations, not a full permit fee structure [0:47:27].

Mr. Beard questioned the equity of a flat fee structure [0:53:31], asking whether small jobs like replacing a storm door should incur the same fee as large renovations.

Vice Mayor Lane asked whether fees would discourage historic district development [0:55:43] and whether a tiered application fee system could be feasible. Vice Chair Lane later suggested a two-tiered application fee system based on job complexity [0:56:13], proposing $25 for simple tasks and higher fees for complex reviews.

Contested Items

Historic Preservation Permit Fees

Council members were divided on the question of whether to implement fees for historic preservation permits. The disagreement centered on several concerns raised during the discussion.

One key concern was the potential impact on homeowners and preservation efforts. Council members worried that implementing fees could discourage people from pursuing historic preservation projects. Additionally, there was concern about the possibility of double fees, as homeowners might face charges from both the historic preservation permit process and the building inspection process.

Fairness to homeowners was another point of contention, with council members questioning whether it was equitable to impose these fees on property owners seeking to preserve historic structures.

Rather than reaching a definitive resolution, the council reached a compromise. They agreed to revisit the issue at a future time with a revised approach: a tiered application fee structure. This structure would allow for differentiated fees based on the complexity or scope of preservation applications, rather than a flat fee across all cases.

Monthly Budget Report (1-15)

0:00

Finance staff presented updates on several financial matters during this informational segment.

Topics Covered

The presentation included progress on the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), as well as updates on Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for banking services and sewer billing services. Streetlight funding was also discussed. The staff reviewed current revenue and expenditure trends.

Financial Performance

Revenue increased in October, primarily due to timing differences in when payments were received. Expenses were reported as slightly above budget, which staff attributed to historical spending patterns and timing variances rather than overspending.

Key Speakers

Mr. Chair, Ryan, and Bill participated in the discussion.

Outcome

This agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal action taken.

Board of Architectural Review Fee Structure — General Government Link (16-28)

Ms. Kerr presented research on historic preservation permit fees conducted across 70 cities. Her presentation proposed implementing a $25 administrative fee and a $50 design review fee for Board of Architectural Review applications.

The council discussion centered on concerns about the proposed fee structure and its potential impacts. Council members debated the fairness of the fees, with particular concern raised about the possibility of double fees when applications also required building inspection review. There was also discussion about whether the proposed fees might discourage property owners from pursuing historic preservation projects.

Key participants in the debate included Dr. Blues, Vice Mayor Lane, Mr. Stinnett, and Mr. Beard, who raised various perspectives on the fee proposal.

Rather than adopting the proposed fee structure, the council determined that the issue required further consideration. A motion was made to revisit the matter with a revised approach: a two-tiered application fee structure that would presumably address some of the concerns raised during the discussion.

The item was deferred, indicating that no final decision was made at this meeting and the matter would return for future consideration with the alternative fee structure framework.

23:58

Items Referred to Committee

Mr. Schoeniger provided an update on items that had been referred to committee 1:03:49.

Actions on Referred Items:

• The economic contingency ordinance was removed from committee following a voice vote
• Local vendor preference and minority business recruitment initiatives were merged with the procurement task force
• The itinerant merchant matter was transferred from the Public Safety Committee to the Budget & Finance Committee

Participants:

The discussion involved Mr. Schoeniger, Mr. Farmer, Mr. Stinnett, and Mr. Lane.

Outcome:

This item was presented as informational, providing the body with status updates on the disposition of previously referred matters.