Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes MINUTES OF THE LONG RANGE FINANCE COMMITTEE JANUARY 5, 2011 ROOM 406 The meeting of the Long Range Finance Committee was held on Wednesday, January 5, 2011, in Room 406, at Oshkosh City Hall, 215 Church Avenue. The meeting was called to order by Chair Harold Buchholz, at 5:00 p.m. Members Present: Harold Buchholz, Bryan Schulz, Don Simons, Jeffrey Thoms, Burk Tower, Jeffrey Herzig, Jason Hirschberg, Bob Poeschl, and Doug Pearson Staff Present: Peggy Steeno-Finance Director, Lynn Lorenson-City Attorney, and Lori Burns–Administrative Assistant Others Present: None I.APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 1, 2010 MINUTES Motion by Thoms, Second by Schulz, to approve the Committee Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2010. Motion passed unanimously. II.INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMITTEE MEMBER Chair Buchholz introduced new committee member, Doug Pearson. Pearson briefly shared his working experience; over 34 years experience in Economic Development, 14 years with CHAMCO, and currently working the private sector in De Pere, WI. III.FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS / MONTHLY OR EVERY OTHER MONTH Discussion: Committee members discussed the need for regular meetings based on the nature of the committee and number of topics to be contemplated. Motion by Buchholz, Second by Simons to meet monthly with the option to hold additional mid-month meetings when a topic requires it. Motion passed unanimously. IV.INFORMATION SHARING / HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS (~5:05 - 5:25) a)Feedback from Fees Recommendation to Council th The Council received the Fees Recommendation on December 10, as an agenda th item for the December 14, 2010 Council Meeting. As planned, staff and committee/Council members presented the recommendation to the Council, provided a brief recap of the project and how the committee worked through it, and asked the Council to take some time to review and understand the proposal, with a plan to bring it back to them in 2011 for their consideration/approval. A suggestion was made to have Committee Chair Buchholz attend the upcoming workshop with Council. Timing of the workshop is still TBD as the Council has not yet scheduled it due to other pressing items. There will be a report back to the committee after the workshop has taken place. b)2011 Budget Distribution of Final Budget Finance Director Steeno gave an overview of the 2011 Final Budget and provided a copy of the document to each committee member. It was explained pages 1-22 provide a comprehensive overview of the entire document, while pages 23-284 contain the details that make up the totals. And, the Utilities and Agency Funds are shown on 287-311. Discussion followed regarding the potential of the committee participating in the structure and format of the budget in the future. Tower commented that staff has been working on the format and making improvements over the past couple years, and that is the appropriate place for those types of changes. He suggested that, instead, the committee should focus on the first 22 pages, the Executive Summary, and not so much on the details of each budget and review the long term financial issues surrounding the budget. Discussion continued on the committee’s role in the budget process and the need to look at it from a long term standpoint, and what the ‘big picture’ (3-5 year operations estimates) needs to look like as we go forward. Creating a sustainable budget is what will help us succeed in the future is imperative. All of the unknowns, including state aids, personnel costs, and commodities can have a large impact in future years. It was brought up that the consistency of this committee can compliment the Council and help to carry forward the need for strong, fiscally responsible budgeting. Buchholz suggested that the committee just receive an abbreviated version of the budget in lieu of the full version, and then get additional details only as needed. This will be considered in the future. V.CITYWIDE GIFT POLICY (~5:25 – 6:30) Review and Provide Feedback on Draft Policy Attorney Lorenson gave an overview of the draft policy, including the difference between a gift given for an existing program versus a gift given for a new program, and the three categories the policy is broken down into (real property, monetary, and non-monetary). Chair Buchholz framed the discussion by stating that the committee should focus on the financial implications of the policy. The discussion continued with questions/comments including: (1) where gifts go if they are not earmarked, (2) how necessary maintenance/ongoing care that goes along with the donation would be handled, and consider the possibility of the city becoming responsible for these costs even if the donor originally agrees to it…may default (3) the handling of the tough issues, (4) clarifying the sections with headings, (5) request for more specific examples, (6) repetition of words, redundancy, condense some of the bullets on pages 5-6, (7) it was stated that this is a great start…need to implement the policy and live with it for a year to evaluate and make improvements, (8) what gets included on the year end report and how comprehensive it will be, (9) make it mandatory to fill out the form if it is over a certain amount, keep it clear and easy, (10) add the statement of ‘conditional upon…’ to the form so that donors can make their wishes clear, (11) different process for real property, (12) consider public/private partnerships in the process, and (13) commercial naming and sponsorships will have their own process outside of this policy . The policy was created broadly so that it is flexible enough and yet provides some structured guidance. The City’s Museum has a policy that was also utilized in drafting this policy. The various forms that are part of the policy were discussed, and a recommendation was made to consider one form for all scenarios. A suggestion was also made to have a separate memo or letter stating the criteria of the gift for judging purposes that could be passed along to potential donors to make giving easier. All recommendations, including those received from other reviewers (i.e. Parks Board) and a revised draft will be submitted to Council for their review and consideration. Staff will also forward the revised draft to the committee. VI. EQUIPMENT/PROJECT REPLACEMENT FUND POLICY (6:30 – 7:00) Review Information Provided Finance Director Steeno gave an overview on the sheet previously distributed, “Capital / Equipment Replacement Fund”. Steeno did a lot of research, contacted several Cities and was not able to find any Cities with an actual policy, very few have funds. A lot of peers operate year by year, there are no extra funds. There was discussion on how much it is costing to keep a piece of equipment beyond its value, the need to define the policy for the fund, problems with deciding who gets what and the need for restrictions. Committee member Tower provided a broad historical overview on the history of the Equipment Replacement Policy from his years of experience on the Council. The committee decided they need more information / models before going on. The Committee would like to see examples from other Cities and Counties that seem more beneficial. Steeno will pick five examples and email them out to committee well in advance of the next meeting so the committee can review. Staff will also begin drafting a policy to be used as a starting point so that the committee has something to work off of for the discussion at future meetings. VII.FUTURE TOPIC SUGGESTIONS / ONGOING TOPICS LIST The committee will be discussing the Equipment/Project Replacement Fund Policy in more detail at the February Meeting. In addition, it was recommended that we add a 3-5 year budget process and the idea of growing the tax base to our ongoing topics list. VIII.MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT Motion by Simons, Second by Herzig, to adjourn. Motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.