Council Member Elwell stated the majority of his questions were answered at the previous meeting but he didn’t get a chance to ask all of his questions. He is very pleased with the new budget. It has been a thorn in his side for quite a few years because it seems like everytime the Council gets a budget, something is different and it seems things weren’t where they were before. It makes it almost impossible to track those items. He hopes this format sticks around for awhile. He referred to the Capital Projects Fund on page 8. In light of what was indicated by Alan Rae previously regarding capital projects had been funding certain things and the streets and it is no longer there. As he reads what is on page 8, it seems to read that those things that were going on was appropriate and inquired if that needs to be altered. Judy Gubler replied that regarding format, the line items in this budget have not changed in the last ten (10) years. Sometimes accounting adjustments are made from one fund to another. The account numbers are the same and she gives the Council a history. For example in Public Safety, because it’s a department, the budgets were combined one year but found that it made it almost impossible to track. The budget has gone back to separate divisions for Law Enforcement, Fire/EMS, and Animal Control. She understands why the budget is confusing and the City makes every attempt to be absolutely transparent and as consistent in the format as the City can be. Council Member Elwell referred to Total Bond Debt on page 12 and suggested that the City’s bond debt position be included in the text of the budget. Council Member Elwell referred to page 39 and stated there appears to be a very positive trend and inquired if the 13.23% growth included the sale of Pond Park and Judy Gubler indicated that was correct. Council Member Elwell took the sale of Pond Park out because that isn’t going to happen every year and that still left the City with a healthy growth of just under 3%. He thinks the City is on the right track and carried that through to the proposed projections for next year, which are even greater. He sees that everything balances and then he referred to the beginning and ending balances and indicated in the unreserved amount, there seems to be $115,281 more and inquired where the $113,000 came from. He stated he knows where it came from but the budget indicates it came out of transfers to other funds although he is confused because the transfer is still in the same fund. He found this situation in two other places and questioned why it was necessary to do that when the numbers above actually balance. Judy Gubler stated that without having any time to study Council Member Elwell’s question, she can only respond that the revenue from the park came in and it was unexpected revenue and it had to go to repay a loan where the City had borrowed money from the water impact fees. She will research his question further and respond. Council Member Elwell indicated $115,000 is shown on page 50 under Budgeted Increase Fund Balance and inquired how that happened because in the proposed budget that amount is taken away even though everything above it balances. Judy Gubler indicated that because there was revenue over expenses, that $115,000 is transferred to the fund balance and then it is in revenue on page 41, budgeted to be used in 2012. What isn’t spent in 2011 is moved forward to be spent in 2012. Council Member Elwell stated his problem was when everything above balances, you should be able to look down and see a balance and if it comes out zero then the starting and ending balance are the same. Judy Gubler indicated it has to balance which is why there is an entry that shows that it went to fund balance so it can be spent next year. An option that could be included in the budget is a "from and to" map. Council Member Elwell referred to page 50 where it identifies three items that comprises the $613,821 transfer to debt service fund of $61,959 which also is shown in the debt service funds. His problem is the $436,581 that says "transferred to Capital Projects Fund" isn’t recorded in the Capital Projects Fund. Judy Gubler stated she believes that is an error and will discuss with Alan. Council Member Elwell referred to transfers from other funds on page 41 and indicated everything seemed to go where it says it’s going with the exception of a transfer from the sewer fund of $103,092 and on page 70 the Sewer Fund does not show that transfer to the General Fund. Judy Gubler referred to page 70, line item 52-42-600. That transfer came out of the Sewer Fund and went into the General fund. Council Member Elwell referred to a transfer on page 41 transfer from Capital Projects in the amount of $124,000 and stated the Capital Projects Fund didn’t show that transfer on page 62. Judy Gubler indicated she will discuss that with the Director of Finance. Council Member Elwell referred to the Capital Projects Fund on page 60 and referred to the City being transparent. He stated there was a history that occurred before was there was a City Manager for Ivins. There were some members of the community who just knew that the Water Fund was being raped, that monies were allocated to go elsewhere and never repaid to the Water Fund. There was a lot of suspicion created at that time relative to water. Council Member Elwell was concerned to have had some knowledge of what’s going on with the $500,000 loan from the Water Fund for the purchase of the park property. That does not seem to be reflected and the only area that he can see the receipt is in the Parks Fund received the proceeds of that loan. He inquired if the Capital Projects Fund should show a transaction and recorded in some way. Judy Gubler stated that is reflected in the financial statement. There are a number of things in financial statements that are not in the budget. The CAFR (Certified Annual Financial Report) contains the detail of financial transactions and suggested making reference in the budget to the CAFR. Dale Coulam indicated the CAFR was presented to the accounting organization GFOA (Government Financial Officers Association) that regulates government accounting and Ivins’ CAFR did receive an award. Ivins City’s CAFR was recognized as meeting that organizations high level of standard. Alan Rae is attempting to follow GFOA’s recommendations on budgets and for what is required for GFOA to recognize and certify that the budget meets their standard for budgets as well. Some of the language and text in the budget that has been added have been required by GFOA as part of that process. Council Member Elwell indicated it is imperative that it be easily shown that the $500,000 loan plus interest was repaid to the Water Fund.
Mayor Hart requested he and the City Council receive updated copies of the budget electronically. Council Member Elwell referred to the Habitat Impact Fund Fee on page 59. It was budgeted for revenue of $1000 and another $3750 but nothing came through and he inquired as to why the City is not receiving that revenue. Judy Gubler stated those impact fees are paid on subdivisions and apparently there haven’t been any paid but she will research that with Alan Rae. Council Member Roberts referred to the Street Maintenance Fund amount of $338,621 and indicated he had a different figure of $379,000. Judy Gubler indicated the figure of $338,621 is for routine expenditures. The figure of $379,000 is for projects. All of the items above in the budget, with the exception of line item 10-60-515, all of those other items including the street sweeper are what make up the $338,621 figure. Council Member Roberts referred to the street sweeper and recalled the cost of that being approximately $300,000 and Judy Gubler indicated that was correct but that the budget proposes a lease to be paid over time for the street sweeper. Mayor Hart stated the street sweeper purchase is partly in response to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) license and the current street sweeper is not effective for what is required. Judy Gubler referred to new projects and grants and stated there is future maintenance when the City receives a grant for anything and the City plans for that.
The Mayor and City Council discussed the budget as it relates to Public Safety. Chief Bob Flowers indicated the Public Safety budget is a lean budget and he acknowledged that the City Council has always backed the Public Safety department since Bob has been Chief, whether the request is to support a grant for an officer or similar requests. Two (2) years ago he approached the City Manager and asked her if he was able to identify efficiencies and save money in personnel in the Public Safety department, could he use the savings to purchase equipment and the City Manager said yes if there were savings and if the City Council approved that. The process started with Ivins City Fire Chief Pete Kuhlmann. When Pete Kuhlmann left, the Public Safety department backfilled with part-time employees and it made the hours look like the hours were going up but the department had a full-time backfill with the part-timers. Jon Holladay then left the department and the department needed some flexibility in the budget because the City has an aging fleet and there would likely be equipment needs down the road. Chief Flowers was tasked with identifying where budget cuts would come from. Approximately 85-90% of the Public Safety budget is in personnel and you have to look at personnel when it comes to budgeting. He decided to look at the way Ivins runs the EMS program and his directions have been very clear that as he does that, to be careful not to reduce the services. He had a meeting a few weeks ago with the fire personnel and announced the City was making a proposal to go to a stipend pager system to save those personnel costs in the budget. He and the Fire Chief agree there are budget savings that are significant. If individuals are responding from home, they have to go to the fire station to pick up the ambulance which could double the City’s response times. Chief Flowers also discussed with the Fire Chief and Lieutenant Randall possibly allowing the ambulance to be taken home, the use of the City’s police officers and a number of other things. There’s a whole package that he’s not sure the public safety department has investigated fully and understand all of the issues to immediately implement the changes. The Public Safety department is well staffed during the day with officers who can respond as EMTs. Chief Flowers is confident the City can have a part-time individual on during the day and still staff the ambulance without sacrificing public safety and response. There are some unknowns with how the stipend system would work. He proposed that the public safety department try this in a more deliberate fashion where there will always be two (2) individuals in the fire station. There are some other options he would like to explore where the employees are taken care of and the service is better. He suggested holding off on the training of law enforcement officers to EMT-I, look at the hours, cover the shifts during the day with full-time employees and at certain other times backfill later in the evening with part-time employees and try it for thirty (30) days and then report back. Judy Gubler requested Chief Flowers address why he requested that Code Enforcement be a part of the Public Safety department and why Sergeant Tracy Marrott is handling code enforcement. Chief Flowers stated Code Enforcement is an indication of a lot of things. Code Enforcement is a bid deal when the neighbors’ weeds are a blight or hazard. There are issues with cleanliness, health and a number of other issues that are law enforcement issues. It could be a drug issue, a neglect issue and sometimes code officers miss things that a police officer would see. The reason Sergeant Marrott is handling Code Enforcement is because he has a special skill with talking to people and obtaining their compliance and at the same time reducing complaints. Chief Flowers wanted a quality person in a new position and Code Enforcement needs to stay with the Public Safety department for now. Code Enforcement is tied into fire, law enforcement and animal issues and it makes perfect sense to maintain it through the Public Safety department. Judy Gubler indicated that as far as the budget is concerned, Council Member Elwell was correct that Code Enforcement was previously handled by a part-time individual. The part-time employee is not in the budget and was absorbed by an existing position and a portion of that position is coded to code enforcement. Another thing that occurs with code enforcement is that they are dealing with private property and often there is a problem that is on the public streets. Previously the part-time Code Enforcement individual was often working with the Public Safety department to assist with the issues. Dale Coulam agreed that Code Enforcement should be handled by the Public Safety department due to the police officers being aware of private property issues and knowing when a warrant is required to enter onto private property. Additionally if the Code Enforcement officer is wearing a uniform and badge, there is a better response to the issues and fewer hearings. Regarding the EMT level of service and budget, he mentioned previously that in establishing that service and obtaining the license, that it was proposed at a level of two (2) EMTs responding. The Council has never changed that policy and as a budget, the City is always trying to come as close to that as possible because City staff is required to follow the policy established by the City Council. Procedurally it is the Council’s policy determination as to level of service and the funding for the cost associated with the number of individuals responding. The City Council determines how much of a burden is placed on the tax payers. That is a balance that the City Council is elected to decide and the Council has that exclusive jurisdiction to make those decisions. On average there have been at least six (6) individuals responding on every EMS call this past year. The Public Safety department is trying to reduce that and get it closer to two (2) or three (3) individuals responding and if more are needed, they can call on more. Mayor Hart stated that at present, the Council established a service level two (2), meaning there are two (2) responders to each call and someone could be called in addition to that if the need is there. The nature of the response is based somewhat on the nature of the call. Chief Flowers indicated the City now has a formal policy that says the City will only pay for those responding that are necessary to be used.
Council Member Elwell stated he was here when all of these things were presented to the City Council relative to the intermediate transport and it was his recollection that it had nothing to do with response, having two (2) EMTs, but in order to transport the City was required to have two (2) EMTs. It had nothing to do with who and how many respond. You don’t know what you’re getting no matter how you categorize your call. Regarding responses, Alan Rae indicated that started immediately that the City would start one (1) man on the unit during the day and one (1) of the on-duty police officers who is an EMT would respond as the second man and inquired if that is still happening. Chief Flowers indicated there will be two (2) EMS individuals in the fire station getting in the fire truck and/or ambulance to respond with backup from law enforcement. Council Member Elwell referred to the City Council Minutes and stated that the Minutes indicated was that one of the solutions would be to have one (1) on the truck. Chief Flowers indicated that was one of the options that was explored but has not occurred because the Chief was not comfortable with that until further information is obtained. Mayor Hart stated it is important to note that all of the discussions were exploratory, looking at various solutions. Council Member Elwell agreed but it was stated in the Minutes that was to start immediately and he had great concerns with that. Chief Flowers indicated Council Member Elwell was correct in that the City had discussed starting on June 1, 2011 and the Fire Chief thought the City ought to re-think that decision. Judy Gubler stated the direction was given in December, 2010 or January, 2011 to cut back the number of individuals who were responding and there are a number of reasons why that wasn’t done. At some point the City has to evaluate response. The City had EMTs say it gets confusing when too many individuals respond. Maybe two (2) responders is not the right number. That was discussed with the City Council and was a part of the application approved by the City Council. If this City Council directs that three (3), four (4) or however many EMTs the Council wants to respond, the budget will be adjusted accordingly. She has ten (10) years of experience running as an EMT and they ran with two (2). The City’s intent is not to lower the level of service. It’s intent is to organize and better utilize the individuals the City currently has. Mayor Hart indicated they all recognize this is a critical service to the community and the City does not want to experiment where people's lives are concerned. The ideas that have been talked about will tell a story and they will either work well, not very well or not at all. It’s wise to try some of these things and make sure the response is not compromised and then report back how effective these ideas are. Chief Flowers stated that in his conversations with the part-time employees, members of the community and Fire Chief, they felt that the Public Safety department can do this. They are going to do as much as they can with the full-time employees, make an assessment after thirty (30) days and report back to the Council.
Council Member Rusick indicated she is satisfied that the Council has gotten the answers they wanted. The Council wanted to hear from Chief Flowers that service would not be cut by cutting the budget. She asked Council Member Elwell if he wants the service increased and stated if he wants the service increased the Council needs to stop talking theoreticals and Council Member Elwell should put forward the number he would like responding and then the Council address it. Nothing is the perfect situation. Council Member Elwell does not recall where the City limited two (2) to respond. The City identified and in order to fulfill the contract to transport, the City had to have two (2) on the bus. He does not recall the Council setting a policy that no one else was to respond. It takes as many as necessary for what is happening and you’ll never know that until you get there. He has responded to way too many calls to find out that what was happened was well beyond what the call was called out to be. Lives passed away because the proper personnel and the proper number were not present. He related a story that occurred early in his career where he responded to a rescue call that was a rescue call and no other evidence of a crime reported and as it turned out there were no other crimes. Keep in mind that when the other EMT who happens to be an on-duty officer and when he arrives, he inquired if he is really an EMT or an officer that has to check for crimes, secure the crime scene, preserve evidence, preserve and store that evidence, crowd control, people control and the like. If the EMTs, officer included, are doing the EMT service, he inquired who is doing what the officer was supposed to do even though the officer is cross-trained. When Council Member Elwell responded to the response call, there was a fire truck and paramedics on scene. A seven (7) year old girl had run through the house and thought the sliding glass door was open and it wasn’t and she severed her femoral artery. At the hospital the emergency room doctor relayed to him that the little girl was going to live because the difference was seconds and not minutes. When the Council is looking at these things, the City needs to keep in mind they are talking seconds as the difference in life or death. Council Member Elwell stated that if Chief Flowers is comfortable with the direction, then he is okay with it too, although he does have reservations. Mayor Hart indicated it is important to note that the majority of the perceived cuts are not at all related to the issue that has been discussed. 75% of the cuts have to do with equipment that does not need to be re-purchased. The City is not talking about a $200,000 cut. Council Member Jolley stated that taking care of Ivins people is paramount and he is concerned with the atmosphere of the people that are the Police Chiefs and the Fire Chief's staff that they see everyday and it so important that those people are happy and that they feel like they are being taken care of. If they don’t feel like they are being taken care of, after awhile, even subconsciously, they quit giving their best and the level of competency is bound to go down. Chief Flowers encouraged the Council Members to talk to the Public Safety employees. There is some concern with the part-time employees and change is difficult and there are still some unknowns there. Council Member Jolley indicated he has every confidence in Chief Bob Flowers and Fire Chief Kevin Gildea. They are the right people in the right place. Council Member Roberts echoed what Council Member Jolley and Council Member Elwell said. He stated that he is not satisfied with this because he looks at the Council’s purpose. They are there to protect the welfare and safety and that takes priority in what he thinks the Council’s job is. When the City is looking at cutting something because there isn’t enough money for equipment down the road, it shouldn’t be that way when all of the other City departments are getting what they want. When the Council discussed budget priorities, the other departments are getting a chipper, lawn mower, a street sweeper to all of those other departments and the City needs those things but those are not the priority. He is willing to sacrifice a street sweeper, a lawn mower and a chipper to get the extra people on if that’s what needs to be done and re-do the budget so the City doesn’t have to experiment and wonder. He personally thinks the Council needs to re-evaluate the priorities and look at salaries down the road and not just freezing budgets and salaries to maintain. He doesn’t want to lose all of that training and experience. Judy Gubler indicated ultimately approving the budget is the Council’s decision and reminded them of the process. The process is that there are requests and the Council prioritizes those requests. Everything in the budget that the Council sees was at the direction of the Council to include it in the budget. If the Council wants to continue to fund the number of EMTs that have been responding, the Council has to decide where the funds come from. The freezing of salaries was at the City Council’s direction. There was no increase for salaries. The equipment in the other departments was at the City Council’s direction. The cuts in the budget are due to some inefficiencies. To ignore that, that there are some inefficiencies, does a disservice to every employee in the City. There are some inefficiencies in the public safety department that can be corrected without sacrificing service. Judy Gubler stated she is as dedicated from the beginning to the end on not sacrificing service and sees her job at the City Council’s direction to be cost effective in every department. For three (3) years every department has held on equipment except for Public Safety. There hasn’t been a budget request for Police, Fire, EMS or Animal Control that has not been put in the budget. If the Council wants to retain the current level of service, the Council needs to add approximately $130,000 to the Public Safety budget just for that and identify where the money will come from. Council Member Rusick indicated the budget can be re-opened at anytime, money can be shifted around, the City can borrow money and bond for money if the City decides to do that and suggested the City Council wait for thirty (30) days and see what happens. Thus far there haven’t been any disasters in emergency response and it’s all running well. Council Member McDonald understands that the direction of Chief Flowers is sufficient to cover calls the City has had thus far. Chief Flowers said that is correct. Judy Gubler indicated it’s a recommendation for 2012 that the City keep the law enforcement salaries the same as budgeted in 2011. Council Member Elwell inquired if the figures in this budget will remain the same. Judy Gubler referred to page 44 under Law Enforcement, line item 10-54-110. The estimate to complete in the second to the right hand column is $548,000. That is more than the City will use because the City has not had Officer Jon Holliday for half a year. The City has used some of that for reserve and she is proposing to take the actual and that included not having that position at all. The budget was reduced to $514,000 but she is recommending that not be reduced and kept the same to give some flexibility.
Council Member Elwell referred to overages and stated that as a Public Safety department they came in under budget. His concern is that when he looks at the March 3, 2011 City Council meeting as far as prioritizing and there is $270,000 for streets and then you look at the cuts in the Public Safety department and there is suddenly $379,000 in streets, to him that came strictly on the back of EMS, Fire and Law Enforcement. He is not comfortable with that all. It seems to him that the first thought with $270,000 may be more appropriate. It’s hard for him to buy that the overage that was strictly assessed to the EMT services was so great and it made him wonder how many of those are peace officers. His figures indicated a law enforcement budget cut of $49,653. He took into consideration the taxes, the benefits and the overtime and factored in the $32,000 because of the grant that the City received. His figures say $81,653 but only $32,000 is being put back into the Public Safety budget. He isn’t sure that is sufficient. The rest of City staff, all of the departments, has a $40,377 increase in the same wages. He is assuming that is absorbed or counted in some manner relative to the increased medical costs. If that is true, there are additional funds that are being cut from law enforcement because they are under the same gun. Judy Gubler indicated she is confused and without being able to prepare and know what numbers to respond to she can't respond. The grant is not reflected in the expenditure side. The grant is reflected, because it’s revenue, in the revenue side so there is less revenue. She referred to the Revenue section on page 40 under "State Grants" line item 10-33-400. A $105,000 received this year, projected to be $42,000 next year. That’s where the reduction in the officer comes from. It has nothing to do with the expenditure side. What she is proposing in the law enforcement division, rather than cutting anything in salaries so it’s the same in 2012 as 2011, that provides some cushion. There are some additional things that are being undertaken and the rest of the cut is in vehicles that were purchased this year that the dept has not requested for 2012. Council Member Elwell stated he is strictly talking wages. Judy Gubler indicated if he’s just talking wages, her proposal is that the wages in law enforcement be the same in 2012 as 2011, which included an officer that the City does not now have so there is some flexibility. In the wages for Fire Rescue, she proposed a cut of roughly $110,000 and that was to correct some inefficiencies, to try a new way and possibly some more law enforcement and if the City Council wants to change that or if they want to give Chief Flowers thirty (30) days, no time or if they’re ready to make that decision now, she takes direction from the City Council. What is proposed is what came from the department in what efficiencies can be found. The benefits and employer taxes would have to be adjusted accordingly. Council Member Elwell stated he is still confused on the grant which expires December, 31, 2011. That means in January this budget will be responsible for roughly $32,000, half of the grant $64,000 and inquired if the $32,000 has to be in the budget. Judy Gubler indicated this is where the difficulty is in explaining this. You have revenue and you have expenditures. Currently the officer is being paid for and included in the line item. His full salary is included there. What changes is the revenue because the revenue goes away. It’s only the revenue side that changes. The expenditure side stays the same. Revenue separate, expenditures separate. Nothing changes in the expenditure side.
Mayor Hart stated it is important to note that the City has sacrificed for at least three (3) years, other things that are needed. In any department, wasteful spending if there is any, that is something anybody on the City Council would prudently say should be addressed. The City Council can’t allow for the continuing deterioration of the City’s roads. The City has allowed roads to go unimproved for a long enough period of time now that the City is looking at potentially huge expenditures over the next ten (10) years simply because maintenance has not been adequate or budgeted for. It’s a balancing act. The City doesn’t just get phone calls on public safety related issues. He has had a number of emails and calls asking when the City is going to fix the roads. Regarding the street sweeper, with the required terms of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) permit to keep the roads clean. If the City violates that then the City is not doing the right thing for the city in that regard because the City will suffer the penalties for that, which are significant and costly. The City Council does not want to damage the Public Safety department in terms of personnel or in terms of its capability to respond to the residents.
Dale Coulam suggested a final budget be prepared and given to the Council Members with the changes that were discussed and then that would be before them at the next City Council meeting to adopt in a final form. They could still make changes but no action is required tonight. Mayor Hart recommended to the City Council that if there are questions or confusing numbers or anything like that, it would certainly be helpful to have some time for preparation on the part of staff to be able to respond to those. To the extent those can be communicated via email or a phone call or stopping in and talking with either Judy or Alan, he thinks that would be beneficial to the Council as a whole because it’s a little bit difficult for something as complex as this to be responded to totally off the cuff by Judy or Alan. Council Member Elwell suggested that since there is a hard fast timeline, that the budget process start earlier and that there is more specific dialog as to what the City will be faced with. Judy Gubler stated the time line is established by law. The City can get into more detail at the budget work meeting. Had she known Council Member Elwell had the questions he had at the prior meeting, she would have arranged her scheduled to be there. She requested prior notice so staff can be prepared and more efficient to provide them with the answers and information the Council needs to make the policy decisions. Council Member Elwell referred to a report of the census adversely affecting the City. He requested that the Council Members receive a breakdown on what Ivins City’s portion of tax is and how much Ivins City depends on. Judy Gubler will provide that and indicated that population does not affect property tax but that it affects sales tax.