| 9. |
Economic Development Agency Fund |
| 10.Mu |
nicipal Building Authority Fund |
Alan Rae reminded the Council of the budget process. The City Council received the tentative budget at the meeting on May 5, 2011. Once the Council approves the tentative budget, the budget will be available for the public to review and a Public Hearing will be held at the next City Council meeting on June 2, 2011. The budget would then be adopted as the final budget at the City Council meeting on June 16, 2011. Legally the City has to adopt the budget by June 22, 2011.
Council Member Elwell referred to some grammatical changes and requested those be made. He stated that he would not vote in the affirmative for this budget and stated it was offensive to him. There are a lot of things he was not pleased with that may be in error and if not in error, an explanation needed to be made to clarify things. Council Member Elwell referred to page six (6) "Streets - Maintenance program and work plan - FYE 2012 includes $379,959 for road maintenance and replacement projects" and page fourteen (14) under "City Council Goals and Priorities - Streets - Maintenance program and work plan - FYE 2012 includes $270,280 for road maintenance and replacement projects" and inquired why the figures are different.
Alan Rae explained the $270,280 figure was the original figure when staff met with the City Council and what was thought that the City could afford. The City needs over $1 million dollars in road repair and as staff met with the City Council and worked through the budget, the figure of $379,959 is what the City was able to accomplish in the budget. Alan will look at the two figures and determine if they should be the same.
Council Member Elwell referred to page five (5) under "Expenditures - The following are included in the FYE 2012 proposed budget" and page six (6) under "General Fund Expenditures" and indicated the expenditures on the bar graph are suppose to represent 2011-12 budget but it does not. It overstates Public Safety’s role in money and budget and understates all of the other departments. Alan Rae stated he will look into that.
Council Member Elwell referred to the pie chart on page thirty-eight (38) and indicated the General Fund Expenditures shows Public Safety as being 50.45% when in fact it should be 36%. Alan Rae stated he did not believe so but Council Member Elwell may be comparing that with just law enforcement. The Public Safety Department includes Fire, Safety, EMS and Animal Control. Council Member Elwell indicated that is correct and that figure should be 36%. Alan will verify the percentages. Council Member Elwell referred to page seven (7) "Nuisance Abatement and Code Enforcement" and inquired if the time and resources for that is charged to Public Safety or to the appropriate entity, which should be the Building Department. Alan Rae stated currently it is all in the budget for Building and Code Enforcement. The City has an interesting situation where the City has a Public Safety Officer doing Code Enforcement and his time for doing that is being billed to Building and Code Enforcement.
Council Member Elwell asked if when the Code Enforcement officer is doing code enforcement, does he drive a Public Safety vehicle? Alan Rae indicated "yes". Council Member Elwell inquired if the maintenance and fuel is charged to the Building Department. Alan Rae stated the Public Safety department divides the expenses. The City does not have any employees that only work in one department.
Council Member Elwell stated the City should consider the fact that the City is taking a Sergeant and vehicle from the resources available to the Public Safety Department and a Sergeant’s pay with all of the benefits going to a code enforcement program that was previously done by a part-time employee with no benefits. That doesn’t seem to be an appropriate use of expensive resources.
Council Member Elwell referred to page seven (7) "Public Safety - The Ambulance Transport provided by the Public Safety Department is currently being reviewed in detail to capture additional cost savings" and stated that when he looks at the fact that in this budget, Public Safety as an entity was cut by almost $200,000, to look at information that suggests even further cuts, does not work for him. When he sees that the cut in Public Safety is approximately $90,000 less than what was funded in 2007 and 2008, which was before ambulance transport and he is very concerned. Alan Rae indicated the City is reviewing the ambulance transport but does not believe there is any idea of proposing further cuts but one of the things the City is looking at is the level of service. Currently the ambulance is providing two (2) on-duty EMT’s 24/7. The City is evaluating if there is another or better way to do that. Alan has been reviewing the number of calls and there are some interesting things coming out of that review. From 11:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m., nearly half the hours of the service, only seven percent (7%) of the calls occur. That is one (1) call during that time every eight (8) days but the City has two (2) full time employees. The City is looking at options to do call outs or to use police officers on those times to cut the costs. When the ambulance service costs the City five (5) times what the City collects in revenue, there may be a better way to staff and pay for it. Part of that is using the City’s full-time employees to work different shifts, doing on-call, during the daytime shift one full time ambulance individual backed up with a full-time police officer who has the same EMT training. The challenge is making a service in the City that the City can afford without cutting service.
Council Member Elwell appreciated that and applauds the City for looking into that but his concern is just because the City has times in a 24 hour period where the City has very few calls, if there is a delay because the ambulance was not staffed appropriately during those times that could potentially cost the life of the human being, then it is not worth it. Dale Coulam provided additional information and indicated that he was involved during the licensing process for the ambulance and for the State required level of service and for the budget as it was originally designed, the City budgeted for and planned on two (2) people responding with the ambulance and that was a 24/7 service. What has happened this past year has been that not just two (2) respond, but six (6) or eight (8) people are also responding. The two (2) that are on shift are going with the ambulance but then there are off duty EMT’s who hear the call and respond and there might be six (6) to eight (8) EMT’s on scene, which recently occurred when Snow Canyon High School was hosting the softball tournament and girl got hit in the throat. There were six (6) to eight (8) EMT’s responding to that, all getting paid to be there and the level of service and the budget was for two (2). The dilemma is how does the City get back to what was originally designed, the original level of service that the Council approved and the original budget level that was authorized. Alan Rae stated the City also has an officer responding to every one of those calls who is also a trained EMT. At the very minimum there are three (3) responding and sometimes many more than that. Ivins has looked at all of the other cities around Ivins from Iron County down to Mesquite, Nevada and what they’re doing with their ambulance service. It is typical for a City to subsidize an ambulance service of approximately twenty-five percent (25%) but Ivins City is subsidizing four (4) times that. He understands Council Member Elwell’s concern. The City is looking for a way to have the ambulance service without affecting the service but at a rate that the City can afford it.
Council Member Elwell appreciated that but his concern is the statement regarding reviewing the ambulance transport to capture additional cost savings, in addition to the $200,000 cut. He referred to page eight (8) "Staffing Levels" - Currently the staffing for EMS services is being re-evaluated and should result in significant savings" and indicated a City can’t make such cuts of $200,000 and then find more cuts in this area. Alan Rae stated the response is actually explaining how the City is going to cut $200,000. The City is not saying by that that the City is going to cut more than the $200,000. The staffing is the way the City is looking at getting to the $200,000 cut as Dale Coulam referenced.
Council Member Elwell stated he is confused as to the format then with the budget indicating even though the City presented a $200,000 cut that the City is currently studying this and hoping to re-evaluate and hoping to find significant savings. Alan Rae indicated the Public Safety Department Head believes that by changing the staffing model, that $200,000 is a realistic reduction. The Fire Chief, Police Chief, City Manager, Mayor Hart and himself have been meeting almost daily trying to figure out how the City can adjust schedules etc. and one of the things that is going to start immediately is that there will only be one (1) person assigned with the ambulance during the day time when the City has three (3) EMT police officers on duty. Just that one thing saves 168 hours a month at $20.00 an hour. The goal is to make this kind of savings without affecting the service and he thinks that is possible.
Council Member Elwell hopes that is true but has concerns that the licensing as Dale indicated is two (2), if the City expects to respond with officers on duty but what if they are already tied up and there is only one (1) that responds. Dale Coulam stated from an HR perspective, he was seeing a part-time person with nearly full-time hours and then a very high call-out stipend. Such call-outs need to be reflected as hours worked since stipends apply only to volunteers and not employees. He was also seeing that same person with twenty-five (25) call outs in a month where there were no fires. Everybody else in the department, most of them have stipends in the range of three (3) to four (4) call outs and those call out include their training meetings as well. Therefore these additional call-outs must have been for medical calls. He then stated that there have been instances where there were six (6) to eight (8) EMTs responding rather than the required two (2) EMTs that were budgeted for. Alan Rae indicated that when the City filed for the license in 2008, the budget for labor in the ambulance was $106,000. This year the budget for labor in the ambulance is $300,000 and the proposed for next year is $195,000. The City is still budgeting way above what the City originally proposed in the license and what the City agreed to. Some things have gotten out of hand and the Public Safety Director has agreed with that and they’re working on changing some procedures. The City feels that two (2) ambulance personnel and a police officer or one (1) person on the ambulance and a police officer can give similar service to the number the City is getting responding.
Council Member Rusick inquired if there is an option for the individuals responding to call out for additional help. Alan Rae indicated "yes". Council Member Rusick stated it does not seem like all of the EMT’s need to be responding just because there is a call-out and indicated that is a house keeping item. Alan Rae agreed and stated the idea is not to cut the service in any way but what level of service is it that the City needs to provide and what can the City afford. One of the things to look at when looking at the total of $200,000 cut over what the City was looking at a few years ago is the City is down one (1) police officer and the City also has Officer Randy Hancey working both ambulance and police on a daily basis.
Council Member Elwell indicated that explanation helps somewhat. He referred to page 7 "Salaries and Benefits - In 2001 Ivins City employed 16 full-time employees with one of those being the dog catcher involved in public safety". He indicated this does not point out there was already a police and fire presence and by not indicating that the City has a Town Marshal who hired off duty Sheriff’s Deputies to provide law enforcement here and that the City had a full volunteer fire department is misleading to the public. The next statement of "In 2011 Ivins City employs 34 full-time employees with 15 of those involved in Public Safety" seems to indicate a fifteen (15) to one (1) ratio that law enforcement outpaced hiring for the rest of the City.
Council Member Elwell referred to page twenty-eight (28). Regarding the $64,000 decrease in State Grants for an officer, he thought that was paid through December, 2011 and not December, 2012. Alan Rae indicated that is correct and will make that change. Council Member Elwell stated in his mind the budget cut of $200,000 is now $230,000. He also referred to the $48,000 for the increase in computer software and the current software no longer being supported as of December, 2012 and inquired if that date is correct or if it is December, 2011. Alan Rae stated the December, 2012 date is correct. The reason that item has to be in this budget is there is at least a three (3) month waiting period to start on the transition and nine (9) months for the transition to occur.
Council Member Elwell referred to page 41 "Miscellaneous Revenue" and inquired what the budget for Art Around the Corner was for. Alan Rae will check on that. Council Member Elwell referred to the Animal Shelter Donations recalls the Public Safety Director reporting on an increase in donations but those do not appear in the line item. Alan Rae stated that most donations are not cash and what’s in the budget is only cash.
Council Member Elwell referred to the EMT CPR Class Fees and inquired why there is no revenue projected for 2011-2012. Alan Rae indicated the class will not be offered because there was not enough interest. Council Member Elwell referred to the breakdown of each of the departments and without fail each one of them is plus in the allocated funds for this budget and when he looks at that and some of the other healthy and quite healthy budgets, it’s hard for him to resolve that the City is doing all of this for all of the departments, balancing the budget, squarely on the back of Public Safety. Even though the Public Safety Director may be okay with the budget, how much of it he thought was appropriate or how much he acquiesced to pressure, Council Member Elwell does not know but he knows how meetings go. Having been in similar meetings with his duties with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and told the Council to not let anyone, including the Public Director, tell them that services will not be impacted by a $200,000 cut because it will. It may not be something that is seen immediately but the case loads will become too great because there isn’t the manpower to successfully and appropriately do the job.
Council Member Elwell read from a prepared statement, a copy of which was not provided to the City. He stated that cuts as deep as the 16.6% from the Fire/EMS budget, which is $93,688 and the Law Enforcement budget by 9%, which is $103,291, a total of almost $200,000, will affect services, such as training and certification. He inquired if 24/7 coverage will still allow for training? Will 24/7 emergency service lag while the City struggles to find hours for training? It’s not just the City finding an overload in people responding, it’s what happens with the cuts when the City no longer has the manpower to fill positions and still be able to take people out of the field for the required training. Will response times increase? Will responders have time for appropriate scene evaluation, collection and preservation of evidence and timely follow-up? Will investigations lag because time is not available or the case load too great? Many otherwise solvable crimes go unresolved due to the lack of time, personnel or resources and when that happens the victim is victimized once again. If the Public Safety Director believes the proposed cuts can be done without affecting service, that is fine but until he does, Council Member Elwell will not vote to pass this budget with the Public Safety budget cuts. Alan Rae indicated the City is not cutting any labor in law enforcement. The only place that labor is being cut is in the ambulance which is believed to be over staffed. Part of the big cut in law enforcement is last year there was a $50,000 ambulance payment and the City purchased two (2) police vehicles which the City does not need to do this year. That was $104,000 of the difference between last year and this year’s budget and this year’s budget.
Council Member Elwell appreciates what the Public Works staff does but his concern was aggravated more when he sees a 35% increase in their budget over what they actually used last year and he looked at the previous budget and see that was a 66% increase over the previous year and $150,000 wasn’t even used. Alan Rae stated all of road repairs had been done in the Capital Projects Fund until this last year. That was improper to do so they were moved. If you look in the Capital Project Fund, the road repairs history is in that fund and it was moved to the General Fund which is the proper way to do it and because of that there isn’t an accurate comparison. The $150,000 was budgeted last year as an MPO grant and $150,000 was budgeted to pay for the engineering of the roundabout. It wasn’t used because the City did not get the grant. What happened is the Federal Government is paying the Engineer directly. The $150,000 is no longer in the revenue and no longer in the expense.
Council Member Elwell leaves open the opportunity for the Public Safety Director to indicate he is fine and does not expect problems with the cuts in the Public Safety Department. Council Member Elwell thanked Alan Rae for answering his questions. Council Member Elwell is comfortable with the budget, with the exception of the Public Safety portion. The Council Members thanked Council Member Elwell for his review of the budget and requested the Public Safety Director be present at the next City Council meeting to answer questions they or the public may have.
MOTION: Council Member Roberts moved to approve the Tentative Budgets for Fiscal Year Ending 06/30/2012 and Estimate to Complete Budgets for the Fiscal Year Ending 06/30/2011 with the minor corrections
SECOND: Council Member Jolley
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Council Member Elwell |
AYE |
| Council Member McDonald |
AYE |
| Council Member Jolley |
AYE |
| Council Member Roberts |
AYE |
| Council Member Rusick |
AYE |