Mayor Nabours called the meeting of January 28, 2015, to order at 1:02 p.m.

Interim City Manager Jeff Meilbeck provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

 

• MEET IN THE MIDDLE
• “BUSINESS” REALITIES
• MEDIA AND COMMUNITY
• TRAITS OF SUCCESSFUL CITIES
• CONSTRAINTS TO TEAM
• SOLUTIONS
• STAFF AND COUNCIL PARTNERSHIP
• SUCCESS MODEL
• A PATH FORWARD
• HOW DO WE GET THERE

Mr. Meilbeck provided a PowerPoint Presentation that covered the following:

• REVIEW OF LAST WEEK ADVANCE

Mr. Meilbeck continued the presentation.

• MINI ADVANCE #2
• INFRASTRUCTURE, TECHNOLOGY AND STAFFING
• EMPLOYEE INVESTMENT

He introduced Public Works Section Head Rebecca Sayers who is serving as the Chairperson for the Quality Infrastructure Cabinet. Ms. Sayers continued the presentation.

• INFRASTRUCTURE

Ms. Sayers stated that the numbers presented are reflective of the current year’s budget and ongoing needs. She stated that there has been a lot of success but the organization still has large needs. She also noted that pavement preservation has been removed from the list as it is now funded.
 
Mayor Nabours asked if the Street/Maintenance Ops category was to distinguish between maintenance and preservation of streets. Ms. Sayers stated that the Street/Maintenance Ops is the day to day operations of the Streets Section.
 
Ms. Sayers continued with facilities; she thanked Councilmember Overton in leading the charge to provide facilities with additional funding. The Stop the Bleeding category was reduced by $130,000 and the Close the Gap category was reduced by almost $1 million because of the additional funding. With regards to IT, Ms. Sayers stated that there is a lot of work still to be done. She reported that Fleet is doing very well with their new replacement criteria and other one-time funding.
 
In regards to the Airport, the Close the Gap number of $22 million includes a parking garage and pavement preservation on Pulliam and the runway. The Utilities Close the Gap number of $74 million is already funded in their current rates; there is a current need of $23 million and a rate study is currently underway that is investigating how to work these rates into the five year plan.
 
Mayor Nabours stated that the Council has been told that Streets needs nearly $5 million per year to maintain and they have not been getting that for many years which is why streets are deteriorating and money was needed for preservation. Part of the promise to the citizens was that General Fund money would not be used for the maintenance or preservation of streets. He asked for clarification on the operations funding that is coming from the General Fund. Ms. Sayers explained that street maintenance is funded primarily from HURF which is housed in the General Fund so there is some money coming in from the General Fund. Public Works Director Erik Solberg further explained that the first five years of the pavement preservation project approved by Proposition 406, is going to concentrate on street rebuilds and the overlay program. The pavement preservation portion is part of the HURF funds with a $1.5 million transfer from the general fund to subsidize it.
 
Mayor Nabours asked how much is needed per year to maintain and where that funding is going to come from. Mr. Solberg stated that $4.2 million per year is needed; currently there is $1.2 million in HURF funds and $1 million in the General Fund that will be used and in year five of Proposition 406 there will be an ongoing additional $2 million. Mayor Nabours asked where the extra $2 million will be coming from over the next five years until Proposition 406 kicks in. Mr. Solberg explained that the plan is to use just the $2.2 million for pavement preservation because there will be a lot of asphalt work to be done first. Councilmember Oravits asked if this strategy will push the City further behind waiting until year five. Mr. Solberg stated that there is a lot of catch up to be done first; a lot of overlay and rebuilding has to be completed before preservation can even begin and the initial five years and the $2.2 million already allocated will allow staff to get these projects completed before the preservation dollars come in. Mr. Meilbeck added that the key thing is promises made, promises kept, and Council wants to make sure the funding is used for what it was promised it to be used for. Councilmember Evans also added that it is important to be clear about the concept of the roads; they were historically funded with HURF dollars and now that those funds have been cut so deeply by the State the City has to subsidize from the General Fund. It is important to communicate how the City got to where it is today with road maintenance.
 
Mr. Meilbeck continued the presentation.

• TECHNOLOGY ESTIMATES
• STAFFING REQUESTS

Mayor Nabours asked how the numbers were calculated for technology and staffing. Assistant to the City Manager Stephanie Smith stated that each Director put together a memo on staffing and technology outlining what they needed in each department. The Stop the Bleeding category is an estimate on keeping the organization where it is now and not falling further behind.

Mr. Meilbeck continued the presentation.

• A FRAMEWORK FOR STABILITY AND SUCCESS

Mr. Meilbeck stated that Council would like staff to evaluate the risk of drawing down the fund balance and come back with a recommendation. Mayor Nabours stated that for him it will be important for the recommendation to include context, meaning that if the fund balance is to be reduced, include the reasons and purpose for doing so. Additionally, he would like to know what would be gained and what would be given up if the Council says yes or no.
 
Councilmember Overton stated that the concept of needing to fix the structural deficit will take more than one year; he asked if staff can calculate or determine what a percentage of growth rate does to that and if it could be predicted. It is the projection of identifying a percentage point that is a direct connection between a growth rate and revenue generation. For example, if the City needs $5 million what gets it there, 15 new restaurants, 100 new jobs, etc.
 
Councilmember Putzova stated that it is interesting to think and talk about what Flagstaff’s economy expansion would give in terms of additional revenue. She urged caution because what is being heard is that the economy is driven by governmental services and a lot of budgets will be cut. It is important to consider contraction as the Council and staff make projections for revenue.
 
Management Services Director Barbara Goodrich stated that the questions raised may be good for the Rural Policy Institute (RPI) to do research on and help develop a work plan. Councilmember Brewster suggested that other agencies could join with the City to work with RPI such as the Chamber of Commerce and ECONA.
 
Mr. Meilbeck asked the Council for direction on increasing ongoing revenues. Mayor Nabours stated that the question is if the Council is committed to increasing property tax or user fees to generate enough money each year to give a 1% increase in compensation. The other side of that question is if the Council is committed to finding some way to increase revenue, not from growth or sales tax, by enough to commit to a 1% increase in compensation each year. Mayor Nabours, Councilmember Oravits and Councilmember Overton stated that they were not in support of increasing ongoing revenues through increasing property taxes. Vice Mayor Barotz stated that she would like to see what kinds of proposals may come through the process before making a determination and Councilmember Evans agreed. Councilmember Brewster stated that while she does not like taking anything off the table, to add a property tax on top of the new sales tax would be hard for her to support. Councilmember Evans stated that the intention is not to raise the property tax above what is allowed within Council’s right. Relying solely on sales tax is not smart and an entire budget cannot be funded on sales tax alone. If this is going to be taken off the table the Council should redefine its goals as additional funding is needed to achieve them. She suggested reviewing other department fees outside of recreation to see if there are areas that need to be readjusted. She suggested increasing the liquor license fees to better capture the staff time used to monitor the licenses.
 
Councilmember Putzova stated that the private sector is doing great and she does not see a reason why the Council should not pursue property tax increases. There are impact fees and other fees that should also be looked at. The community deserves a good level of service and for that good level of service there is a cost.
 
There was discussion about the Council goals and the priority of those goals within the context of revenue generation and how that determines forward movement in achieving the goals.

Councilmember Evans requested a memo from staff that lays out the revenue generated by the 2% increase in property taxes. Additionally, she requested information about what that looks like for the average homes in Flagstaff.
 
A break was held from 2:25 p.m. through 2:35 p.m.
 
Mr. Meilbeck moved on to the next question for Council to consider; whether or not they would like to reduce expenditures through program reductions to support the goals. Mayor Nabours stated that he is interested in seeing proposals of reduction. Councilmember Overton stated that this an exercise that has been done year after year and he does not believe that there will be any big changes. He explained that he would rather look at the division level for bigger dollars. Councilmember Oravits agreed stating that the return will likely be limited and he would also like to look at the division level or service reductions. Councilmember Brewster stated that service reductions will likely get heavy push back from the community and she does not think that these options are a good use of time. Councilmember Evans stated that she is not interested in this direction if it involves cutting employees and Councilmember Putzova agreed.
 
Mr. Meilbeck explained that the next mini retreat is scheduled for February 11, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. Staff will be presenting information on revenue projections, expenditure forecast and budget modeling scenarios.

The Mini Budget Advance of January 28, 2015, adjourned at 2:51 p.m.