[MissoulaGov] FW: Committee Update 8-6-08

[Jason Wiener]

The statutory deadline for completing a budget is 45 days from when the
revenue number gets delivered from the Dept of Revenue. That clock
started on August 4 (a mere 35 days after the start of the fiscal year)
so there's some cushion built in to deliberate.

Depleting the ending fund balance to pay for things we'd like to see in
the budget is an option, of course, but with some internal financing in
this budget for CIP items and potential bond issues on the horizon, we'd
be prudent to avoid raising borrowing costs by lowering cash-on-hand. So
that's the balance to be struck. Regardless, efforts are ongoing to find
money to increase park maintenance and playground replacement.

J.

Jim McGrath wrote:

> RE budget shortfall and adoption-

> 

> I thought there was a statutory deadline for adoption, like the second

> week in August.

> 

> Keep in mind the city has a substantial cash balance which the mayor

is

> actually increasing in his budget proposal. Unless you have already

> dipped in to that, I recommend you use that for these "last minute"

> shortfalls rather than spontaneously slashing park's budget. 

> 

>  

> 

> ________________________________

> 

> From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com

> [mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Bob Jaffe

> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:31 PM

> To: missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Subject: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 8-6-08

> 

>  

> 

> Good Evening,

> 

> This morning we started with Conservation.  We had a presentation from

> the consultant working on the Fort Missoula Regional Park Master Plan.

> Several months ago there was an effort to get a levy on the ballot to

> raise some number of millions to develop the park. The council voted

not

> to allow the effort to go forward. One of the main complaints was that

> there was no plan as to how the money would get spent. We wanted to

know

> what was going to get built and how much it would cost. So we approved

> the expenditure to hire a consultant to develop a park master plan.

The

> presentation today represented the first portion of the work. They had

a

> layout of roads, buildings, and soccer fields.  The whole thing will

be

> soccer and rugby. No baseball. When asked about this Donna Gaukler

said

> that in their surveys and studies they have found that we have

> sufficient baseball and tennis facilities in the community. The

'Friends

> of the Fort' group also said they had made efforts to bring in the

> little league folks but they were not interested.

> 

>  

> 

> What I thought would be the most controversial aspect of the design

was

> the round-about entrance on South Avenue between Big Sky High School

and

> the guy with the big "go away city" sign in his yard. I wonder if he

is

> a fan of round-abouts?

> 

>  

> 

> In PAZ we covered two fairly simple items. First was a resolution of

> intent to annex for a twenty acre parcel David Edgel is developing out

> in the Mullan road area.  No controversy yet but we will see how it

> evolves.

> 

> The other was a phasing amendment for Magenta Meadows subdivision.

This

> was the first subdivision we did when I got on council. It was very

> controversial. They had proposed it in two phases. The first phase

would

> just have a few lots and would be on septic. The second higher density

> phase would get built after the sewer came in.  They accidentally

missed

> filing the first phase so they asked if we would just make both phases

> expire on the 2012 deadline. We were OK with that with the condition

> that the whole thing go on sewer since it is out there now.

> 

>  

> 

> In A&F we heard a little about the $250,000 shortfall in our number

from

> the department of revenue.  There is still some lack of confidence in

> the number. We are seeing a slow down in growth right now but the

> revenue numbers are based on the situation 18 months ago when things

> were still going strong.  They show a very large portion of the growth

> in taxable value falling into URD III. That means the money goes to

MRA

> and not the general fund. The DOR shows a $1.2 million increase in

> taxable value in URD III. Our own calculations show that number at

> $500,000.  So there is still some uncertainty where the chips will

land.

> 

> But in the meantime we are working on a budget that needs $250,000

taken

> out of it in the eleventh hour.  But that's not all... There is also a

> $103,603 shortfall due to an increase in our liability and property

> insurance.

> 

>  

> 

> The administration proposed a number of places to pull money from. We

> spent $46,000 less than budgeted on the Hells Angels weekend.

> 

> [Note: I would think it should be Hell's Angels with an apostrophe. I

> saw on this one guy's jacket he didn't have the apostrophe. I was

> thinking I should point that out but was advised against it.]

> 

> We can save $65,000 by postponing PC replacements. We can cut the

> aquatics subsidy by $133,000. There were a few other things but the

> aquatics subsidy was the focus of the discussion. According to the

> original estimates we have budgeted $188,000 per year in subsidy. In

FY

> 08 they only came short $55,000.  Parks proposed that they use the

extra

> $133,000 on $30,000 tile replacement for the currents bathroom,

$40,000

> for a UV filtration system, and put the rest in a reserve fund.  The

> administration proposal leaves that FY08 money intact but drops the

FY09

> subsidy to the $55,000 level. This will be OK if FY09 goes as well as

> FY08 except there won't be any reserve contribution.

> 

> We struggled mightily with trying to cobble together a proposal that

> moved $20,000 of impact fees into buying the UV system and then moving

> $20,000 back out of the subsidy to try to fund some of the parks

> maintenance budget that was already routed to make up for the budget

> shortfalls that were known from the beginning. We will try again next

> week.

> 

> It is possible that we will postpone the final approval of the budget

a

> few extra weeks to make sure there is enough time to sort everything

> out.

> 

> The other part of the discussion was about fee increases.  All of our

> various fees are set to recover the actual cost of service. The

> exception to this is OPG. The planning fees for developers are

> subsidized 50%. And this is only after a substantial increase in fees

> last year. So on the one hand this is an obvious place to look to

raise

> fees. But on the other hand those fees just had a dramatic increase

last

> year.

> 

>  

> 

> In Public Works we met with the consultant working on Parking for the

> downtown master plan. I believe his name is Dennis Burns. I can't get

to

> any of my links right now to confirm but this should work later:

> 

>

ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2008/2008-07-21/Referrals/MP

> C_PWreferral.pdf

> 

> There should be a link to the report on the referral.

> 

> There was a meeting tonight to discuss the proposal. They are talking

> about how the parking commission could best be structured to serve the

> community.

> 

>  

> 

> That was about it for today.

> 

>  

> 

> Thanks for your interest,

> 

>  

> 

> Bob Jaffe

> 

> Missoula City Council, Ward 3

> 

> bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us

> 

> 406-728-1052

> 

> 

> 

> 

>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

> 

> _______________________________________________

> Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula.

But posts to this list may be entered into the public record. 

> Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org 

> List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com.