The sixth meeting of the Financial Review Team (FRT) was convened by Chair Steve Magyary at 7:40 pm at the El Cerrito Open House Senior Center.
The Agenda was reviewed and set as follows:
Item A: Continue Redevelopment Debt Analysis/Repayment
The following individuals were present:
Al M. suggested a focus on the items that have a direct bearing on the subject of the deficit, since that is what the CotW was chartered to review. The other issues, such as budget presentation format, are important, but can be done later, after the budget deficit question has been addressed.
George A. reminded us that a deficit is created when expenses are greater than revenues. So we have to review those items that will enable us to understand why this situation exists, if it exists.
Evelyn K. asked if we can get the monthly reports prepared for the Councils new monthly review of expenditures. Steve will check to see how.
M. Selph wants to ask several questions on specific line items in the new budget.
Steve M. said we can address this subject under Agenda Item D.
Discussion of Agenda Item A: Continue Redevelopment Debt Analysis/Repayment
Chair Steve M. introduced this item by reviewing actions taken by Redevelopment Agency (RDA) in June when they decided to use the $605K to repay loans from the City. The RDA voted to pay off the City Santa Fe Right of Way loan and use the balance to make payment on the outstanding balance of the City loan for staff support. He also pointed out that since the Santa Fe loan was to buy a fixed asset, this repayment, by City Policy, should go into the Capital Reserve Fund. The other payment amount would be returned to the General Fund.
George A. said he has given Howard S. a formal request (he will put it in writing) to determine the legal requirements of all agreements between the City and the Agency relating to loans. This determination to include what percent interest applies for what years over what principal.
Steve M. pointed out that the FRT was in general agreement with City staff on the size of the loan before the recent payments; about $1,100,000 at 3% and about $300,000 (the Santa Fe) at 10%.
Peter L. took issue with this saying that the current discussions have not addressed any of the Project costs, which he believes he has data showing an amount up to $600,000 or more is involved.
Steve M. suggested that the Project costs were more in the $40-50K range, but that to address this issue, we needed to wait to see what the legal position on the loan is; i.e., did the agreements cover project costs or not. We will wait for Howard's report.
George A. said that, since the immediate financial problem is with the General Fund, he thought the RDA/Council should have agreed to repay all of the $605,000 on the 3% loan. This would maximize the value of the repayment to the City. Besides, the money for the loans all came from the General Fund, so they should all go back to the General Fund.
A general discussion on what action the RDA/Council took and how they made the decision. Interest rates on the different RDA loans were talked about. How binding the policy for one time funds/ capital assets to be returned to the Capital Reserve was discussed. George A. passed out his suggested recommendation to the CotW for specific comments.
M. Selph asked a question about Police & Fire Capital items being purchased from capital fund. Steve M. said we would discuss that under Agenda Item C.
Peter L. mentioned that because of the pending legal problems of the RDA, they might need funds to settle with or pay damages.
Brad C. commented that he believes there are two issues involved in this discussion:
Addressing issue #2, he offered that , after receiving the funds, the Council can transfer them to any place it wants. One example of benefiting the General Fund while honoring their policy of using one time funds for one time expenses, they could use the one time A.T.&S.F. money for the one time cost of updating our General Plan. This would eliminate the draw down of city reserves (the current source of funds for the update), which in turn would strengthen the General Fund balance.
George A. reiterated the all the money for the loans came from the General Fund, so he believes that any repayments should be returned to the general fund.
Steve M. added that another advantage to the City and the General Fund if the RDA repaid the 3% loans first. is that the 10% loan generates about $30K/year interest income. Having this income for a few more years would help compensate the City for the below market interest that has been charged on the 3% loan for all these years.
M. Selph asked what was the actual amount repaid. Steve answered $605,000 plus the interest earned on this amount from last December.
George A. moved (Linda B. seconded) the following recommendation be sent to the CotW:
The City has lent General Fund moneys to the Redevelopment Agency
The Agency acquired $605,000 in the course of re-financing its tax allocation bonds in 1997.
The Council directed at its 22 June meeting that a portion of that money should be used to retire the Agency's AT/SF note to the City.
That portion had to be placed in the Capital Reserve as being from thesale of an asset.
We are told that it is the General Fund that is in jeopardy,
We, therefore, hereby urge the Council to reconsider its 22 June decision and adopt, instead, a mechanism that will place the entire $605,000 in the General Fund so as to reduce the near term problems in the fund which covers our basic services.
For the Council's consideration, we also recommend that the AT/SF note be kept as an Agency obligation (thereby retaining a modest cash flow to the City) and to use the portion that was applied to that note to reduce, instead, the Agency's debt for borrowings from the General Fund and for unpaid interest on those borrowings."
The City has lent General Fund moneys to the Redevelopment Agency.
The Agency acquired $605,000 in the course of re-financing its tax allocation bonds in 1997.
The Council directed at its 22 June meeting that a portion of that money should be used to retire the Agency's AT/SF note to the City.
That portion was placed in the Capital Reserve as being from the sale of an asset.
We are told that it is the General Fund that is in jeopardy.
We, therefore, hereby urge the Council to reconsider its 22 June decision and adopt, instead, a mechanism that will place the entire $605,000 in the General Fund so as to reduce the near term problems in the fund which covers our basic services."
George A. again submitted his original motion listed above. The vote was taken and the motion was passed, Ayes = 7; Nos = 3; Abstentions = 0.
Steve M. will present both recommendations to the CotW at the 7/21 meeting.
8:50 pm (about)
Discussion of Item B: Status Report of "City Budget Style/Format" Subcommittee.
George A. reported that Janet A. has reviewed City of Albany Budget. George has reviewed Hercules', and Ernie has looked at San Pablo's. The committee believes all are much clearer that ours. Most clearly address policy issues up front, and use much more detail than ours(one even listed depreciation schedules for each vehicle). They separate salaries and benefits (about 39%, mostly for PERS). The Hercules budget is 125 pps.
Steve M. asked the subcommittee to select the features they think merit our consideration and make recommendations at the 7/28 FRT meeting.
George A. said they would and announced that their next meeting is on 7/22 (call him for time and place).
Peter L. restated his long standing request for individual files for each RDA Project.
Steve M. identified the following items for the subcommittee to review:
Steve M. moved and Anne D. seconded the we ask the City to reimburse Linda and Janet for cost of obtaining the budgets used in their review. Motion passed with 10 ayes, 0 no and 0 abstentions.
9:20 pm (about)
Discussion of Item C: Discussion of budget issues to be addressed.
Steve M. listed the following items:
George A. summed things up by stating that to determine if a deficit exists we need to look at the overall expenses and revenues and then break them out by department to see how support the various services performed by these departments. To do this we need to have the most recent numbers as they are submitted to the council. Since we have the proposed budget, we need to get the numbers in the approved budget.
Larry D. suggested that the 8/3 City Council Meeting is probably the first chance we will have to see the revise budget sheets as a "passed budget". The packet for this meeting, containing these sheets, might be available a week before this meeting.
After a general discussion on the need for these numbers and how we could get the newer ones as they are worked up for the monthly expenditure reviews the Council will be conducting, Steve M. and George A. said they will request these numbers from Jay Corey as they meet with him on related matters.
The need to focus our work on the General Fund related items was mentioned. It was agreed that the General Fund is the number 1 priority, followed by RDA items. We also reiterated the need to establish a method to ensure all questions submitted to theFRT/CotW get answered and the answers get back to the people who submitted the questions.
M Selph asked several questions on line items in the proposed budget:
Because of the late hour, this item will be addressed at our next meeting.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:00 pm.
Next meeting was set for Tuesday, July 28 at 7:30 pm at The Open House Senior Center.
Go back to the Home Page of
the Committee of the Whole