Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes MINUTES OF THE LONG RANGE FINANCE COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 2, 2011 ROOM 406 The meeting of the Long Range Finance Committee was held on Wednesday, February 2, 2011, in Room 406, at Oshkosh City Hall, 215 Church Avenue. The meeting was called to order by Chair Harold Buchholz, at 5:05 p.m. Members Present: Harold Buchholz, Bryan Schulz, Jeffrey Thoms, Burk Tower, and Jason Hirschberg Members Absent: Don Simons, Jeffrey Herzig, Doug Pearson, and Bob Poeschl Staff Present: Peggy Steeno-Finance Director, and Lori Burns–Administrative Assistant Others Present: None I.APPROVAL OF JANUARY 5, 2011 MINUTES No discussion/changes. Motion by Thoms, Second by Schulz, to approve the Committee Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2011. Motion passed unanimously. II.CITIZEN INPUT None III.INFORMATION SHARING/HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS Discussion: Committee request / staff provided updates on current status of the Proposed City Wide Gift Policy, the Proposed Fee Policy, and budget timing. Staff shared that the City Wide Gift Policy will be revised and presented to Council soon. The modified version that is going to Council based upon the feedback received to date will be forwarded to the Committee. The Proposed Fee Policy is not yet on the schedule, however staff plans to present to Council in March/April timeframe. The budget process typically starts in mid-June and goes to Council Members in October. The hope is to move this up 30-60 days, and provide more up front information to Council as we move through the process. Committee will also be discussing state budget information in the near future as the state releases this information. Budget Survey – Being Undertaken by Students at UW-Oshkosh (~5:10-5:50) Staff shared the history of the three different surveys that were completed in 2008, 2009 and 2010 and what UWO intends to do annually. Members made many suggestions and shared ideas for the survey and the bonus question. The Committee presented three hot topics items, automated garbage collection – Are you willing to make a larger investment up front in order to save on operational costs?, burying utility lines – If you have to pay an extra ($$ range), would you be interested in the City burying power lines whenever streets are reconstructed?, and Chickens in the City - Should they be allowed? (in this order) for their recommendation regarding the bonus question. The Committee also discussed the four major City planning items: Visioning Study, Strategic Planning, U W O Survey, and the Budget Process, and the need to tie these four things together and add $$ to them so that people could respond knowing what value each option has. For example, everyone loved the visioning questions, but would they still have if the costs were attached to those initiatives? In additions, there were recommendations to add things such as tree planting and beautification, make questions #4 and #5 more clear, and the possibility of making this an electronic survey that could be accessed with a ‘key code’ to increase the number of responses. Staff will bring recommendations back to the City Manager for his discussion with University staff who will be conducting the budget survey. City Bond Refunding. (~5:45 – 6:10) Staff shared the information on the upcoming refunding (refinancing) borrowing. Discussion followed on the difference between public purpose and taxable bonds, the timing of the refinancing, the relationship of the refinancing compared to the new money borrowings for 2011, how our rating is decided, and the savings the City will see by doing this refunding. The Committee urged staff to publicize this savings so that citizens know what is being done. Staff will follow-up on this. 2011-2015 Five Year CIP (Future) ( ~6:10 – 6:15) The CIP process is complete except for the final printing of the approved plan document. Staff hopes to be able to share this document with members at the March meeting. IV.EQUIPMENT/PROJECT REPLACEMENT FUND POLICY (Ongoing) (~6:15–6:55) Discussion: a broad discussion was held about basic pieces of the policy, what it could be used for, who would decide if / how the funds could be used, if the funds could be diverted for other uses, and how the uses would be defined. The Committee asked staff to do some research on how to define ‘capital equipment’ and how it is differentiated from other capital items. The Committee would like to have this discussion prior to discussing any other part of the policy. This will include setting boundaries for the types of items and dollar values of items to be included. Staff will work on getting some definitions and guidelines to the members. In addition, staff will start gathering City wide equipment replacement schedules (from each department) so that the committee can begin making decisions on building and maintaining the fund, use, and other criteria. V.FUTURE TOPIC SUGGESTIONS / ONGOING TOPICS LIST VI.MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT Motion by Schulz, Second by Hirschberg, to adjourn. Motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.