Brent
05-07-2004, 12:33 PM
Citizen Budget Review (“The People’s Money”)
Fourth Meeting 05/06/2004
Participants:
(* indicates attendance at this meeting)
Robin Joyce (helped facilitate first meeting only)
Adam Arnold (covering some meetings for the Cary News)
* Mike Dodson
* Matthew Danielson
* Brent Miller
John Finn
Katherine Haney
Daryl Baker
Josh Mills
Ray Czarnecki
Bynum Walter
Matt Walter
* Ron Woodard
Ken Elowitz
Darryl Black
Tom McCuiston
* Cathy Heath
* Don Hyatt
* Don Frantz
* Kelly Commiskey
* Lynne Loots
Betty Pickett
June Schmidt
Anita Porter
* Cas Nowak
* Karen Griffin
Spencer Combos
Mike Heath
Council members present this meeting:
Jennifer Robinson
Michael Joyce (briefly)
Julie Robison
New Participants since previous session:
None this time
Notes Since Last Meeting:
· Don Hyatt has set up a forum and e-mail list on the carypolitics.org Web site for use by the group for general discussion (thanks, Don!). We need to make more effective use of this resource.
Opening Remarks
· Michael Joyce: thanks to everyone; we are interested in your input; reiterated that this is not about politics
· Jennifer Robinson: thanks for the invitation; interested in what we have to say. Usually we have 2 or 3 people speaking out on the budget; it’s nice to have a group looking at the budget ahead of the process
· Julie Robison: Interested in hearing our observations.
Agenda:
· Determine high/low priorities for various areas of the capital and operating budget (similar to our exercise at the last meeting for PRCR)
Requests for Information:
Brent will consolidate these on behalf of the group and send to appropriate staff members to ask for more data:
· No new ones
Questions/General Observations:
· Raleigh/Cary have agreed to take over SAS Soccer park. This is introductory comment about how we might deal with fiscal issues: things that are (1) mandated by law; (2) “required”/expected; (3) discretionary. How about we brainstorm on some of these items toward coming up with our budget priorities (some we can agree on, some we may not). We should try to achieve a consensus on services that are discretionary.
· Just curious: who is paying to drain the lake (and associated things)
· We could be of most help to Council if we provided input on budget decisions that are upcoming. However, we have only the FY ’04 budget to work with, we do not know what proposals are coming forward in the FY ’05 budget
Discussion/Brainstorming:
· Mandated by law: Building inspections (how does this relate to, e.g., inspecting tree protection fences, given the recent incident?)
· Expected services: Police, fire, emergency medical, water, sewer, information services (offices for citizens to find out things about the town), roads, transportation, public parks, health/restaurant inspections (provided by county), pest control, trash collection, planning & zoning, “meet state regulations”, economic development [some feel that this is discretionary], fiscal administration (budget/finance), general administration (legal, clerk), maintenance/operation of all of the above where they apply
· Discretionary services (or have a large discretionary component): law enforcement (e.g., SROs), “sewer stuff” (see below) parks, trash pickup, revitalization, transportation
· Prefer tax increases to fee increases (tax increases are deductible)
Breakdown of the above categories:
· Expected services (unless otherwise noted, unanimous agreement that these are “expected” services from local government; some do have “discretionary” components that are further discussed later):
o Police (1 dissenting voice – “sheriff’s department could handle this)
o Fire (1 dissenting voice – could be a shared service with other governments, e.g., county)
o emergency medical
o water
o sewer
o information services (offices for citizens to find out things about the town)
o roads
o transportation
o public parks
o health/restaurant inspections (provided by county)
o pest control
o trash collection
o planning & zoning
o “meet state regulations”
o economic development [some feel that this is discretionary]
o fiscal administration (budget/finance)
o general administration (legal, clerk)
o maintenance/operation of all of the above where they apply
Ranking of these: high priority: roads, police,
· Strong discretionary component [see discussion/ranking below]:
o Law enforcement (especially SROs)
o Sewer “stuff” – e.g., maintenance on private property
o Parks
o Trash pickup (only 1 person is in favor of privatizing trash pickup)
o Revitalization
o Transportation
High priority decisions from a council member’s perspective: Rankings are the group consensus/average, out of a possible rank of 10, with 10 being the highest:
· Police:
o How important is it to have an SRO in every HS? 9
o Every middle school? 10
o Elementary schools? High, but not necessary to have one SRO dedicated to a single school 6-8 Are we willing to spend $900,000 to $1.2M to keep the current elementary school SRO program? Yes
· “Sewer stuff”:
o Should the town take over private sewers in Cary (the portion of the sewers on private property)? No clear group consensus (high priority for those affected, low priority for others). But this is based on an incomplete understanding of the situation; need more data on this (about what constitutes “private” sewer and what the town should maintain vs. what HOAs are responsible for vs. what individual owners are responsible for?). Suggestion: set aside a portion of the water/sewer fees to address general problems with water/sewer throughout town. Suggestion: charge different rates if there are in fact different levels of service.
o Open space preservation (from a portion of sewer fees): high priority. Expecting about 18% fee increase for sewers (4% of that is for open space acquisition). Is the 4% difference worth it to the group (i.e., 18% increase with open space acquisition vs. 14% increase without)? Yes, high priority.
· Stormwater: high priority, especially if considered along with other sewer items above
Parks: [minutes from last meeting copied here:] #1 priority is maintenance (unanimous in group) – maintain what we have. Other priorities among the group: Renovate existing parks (especially Lexie Lane), complete projects in process (before starting new ones), get out of money-losing ventures, land acquisition (don’t need to build parks today, but acquire the land today), build a dog park, preserve open space, connect existing greenways, especially in older neighborhoods, support a low-cost recreational pool (minority view that one person supports the aquatics center – “exactly what the Cary voters approved in the bond issue”). We ought to look at the five options that have been proposed for the aquatics center and see if prefer any specific ones of those. Lowest priorities are aquatics “super center” as defined (much more support a low-cost center that was recreational in nature and for citizens), public art, public takeover of failing parks & recreation facilities (e.g., Tennis Center)
· TCAP/redevelopment: “dynamic downtown”: Anything done downtown should appeal to the “broad community”, not a “special interest” and be some sort of “active use”. Lots of ideas on all kinds of things that might be done with the old Cary Elementary building. Priorities for various downtown options:
o Support for preserving old Cary Elementary building: 8
o Parking: 8
o Sidewalks/streetscape 8; one dissenting voice for much lower ranking.
o Incentives/lower fees 7; one dissenting voice for 4 ranking)
o New downtown park land acquisition: 6
o Stormwater remedies: support for a “canal” system downtown as a stormwater remedy? Some, but some uncertainty about this. What is the support for spending $5M - $8M to address stormwater problems in general? 9
· Transportation: Rail: Cary does not put any money into this.
o CTran: 8. Suggestion that we have a different fee structure that is very cheap for disabled/elderly, etc., even to the point of charging more for other riders. Also have more structured/regular routes.
· Volunteer organizations: ($78,000 given per year, divided among about 10 or 12 organizations.Requests this year exceed available funds). Suggestion that whatever money is available be equally divided among all qualifying groups. 4 people think we should not fund any non-profit groups whatsoever. Overall ranking not quantified, but was low.
· Public art: very low priority (1 person at 5 ranking; all the rest are 2 or below
· Trash pickup (subsidized about $10/household for trash & recycling; recycling services actually make money back): What is priority of service level vs. fees charged? Support for increased fees? Support for money-saving collection mode (e.g., street pickup rather than back yard)? [need to rank this one]
Ideas Going Forward:
From previous meetings:
By approximately May 5[now past], we should have a general report on group consensus on “general principles” for the capital budget (as input to the Council Budget work session for the capital budget on May 12) and similar input for the operating budget by approximately May 18, for the Council Budget work session for the operating budget on May 25.
We can follow this up with specific recommendations for the FY ’05 budget once it is available
Growth management needs to be a future discussion topic
Next Steps:
· Request any follow-up information from Staff (none new)
· Schedule for next meetings
o Thursday, May 6, 6:30 p.m.: Topic: TBD. Location TBD (we will choose a date/time/place and notify everyone by e-mail)
· Don Hyatt will e-mail the entire group with these minutes and encourage more on-line participation/discussion via the carypolitics.org forum
· Brent will produce a consolidated report of what we have done so far
Please note any omissions or corrections.
Fourth Meeting 05/06/2004
Participants:
(* indicates attendance at this meeting)
Robin Joyce (helped facilitate first meeting only)
Adam Arnold (covering some meetings for the Cary News)
* Mike Dodson
* Matthew Danielson
* Brent Miller
John Finn
Katherine Haney
Daryl Baker
Josh Mills
Ray Czarnecki
Bynum Walter
Matt Walter
* Ron Woodard
Ken Elowitz
Darryl Black
Tom McCuiston
* Cathy Heath
* Don Hyatt
* Don Frantz
* Kelly Commiskey
* Lynne Loots
Betty Pickett
June Schmidt
Anita Porter
* Cas Nowak
* Karen Griffin
Spencer Combos
Mike Heath
Council members present this meeting:
Jennifer Robinson
Michael Joyce (briefly)
Julie Robison
New Participants since previous session:
None this time
Notes Since Last Meeting:
· Don Hyatt has set up a forum and e-mail list on the carypolitics.org Web site for use by the group for general discussion (thanks, Don!). We need to make more effective use of this resource.
Opening Remarks
· Michael Joyce: thanks to everyone; we are interested in your input; reiterated that this is not about politics
· Jennifer Robinson: thanks for the invitation; interested in what we have to say. Usually we have 2 or 3 people speaking out on the budget; it’s nice to have a group looking at the budget ahead of the process
· Julie Robison: Interested in hearing our observations.
Agenda:
· Determine high/low priorities for various areas of the capital and operating budget (similar to our exercise at the last meeting for PRCR)
Requests for Information:
Brent will consolidate these on behalf of the group and send to appropriate staff members to ask for more data:
· No new ones
Questions/General Observations:
· Raleigh/Cary have agreed to take over SAS Soccer park. This is introductory comment about how we might deal with fiscal issues: things that are (1) mandated by law; (2) “required”/expected; (3) discretionary. How about we brainstorm on some of these items toward coming up with our budget priorities (some we can agree on, some we may not). We should try to achieve a consensus on services that are discretionary.
· Just curious: who is paying to drain the lake (and associated things)
· We could be of most help to Council if we provided input on budget decisions that are upcoming. However, we have only the FY ’04 budget to work with, we do not know what proposals are coming forward in the FY ’05 budget
Discussion/Brainstorming:
· Mandated by law: Building inspections (how does this relate to, e.g., inspecting tree protection fences, given the recent incident?)
· Expected services: Police, fire, emergency medical, water, sewer, information services (offices for citizens to find out things about the town), roads, transportation, public parks, health/restaurant inspections (provided by county), pest control, trash collection, planning & zoning, “meet state regulations”, economic development [some feel that this is discretionary], fiscal administration (budget/finance), general administration (legal, clerk), maintenance/operation of all of the above where they apply
· Discretionary services (or have a large discretionary component): law enforcement (e.g., SROs), “sewer stuff” (see below) parks, trash pickup, revitalization, transportation
· Prefer tax increases to fee increases (tax increases are deductible)
Breakdown of the above categories:
· Expected services (unless otherwise noted, unanimous agreement that these are “expected” services from local government; some do have “discretionary” components that are further discussed later):
o Police (1 dissenting voice – “sheriff’s department could handle this)
o Fire (1 dissenting voice – could be a shared service with other governments, e.g., county)
o emergency medical
o water
o sewer
o information services (offices for citizens to find out things about the town)
o roads
o transportation
o public parks
o health/restaurant inspections (provided by county)
o pest control
o trash collection
o planning & zoning
o “meet state regulations”
o economic development [some feel that this is discretionary]
o fiscal administration (budget/finance)
o general administration (legal, clerk)
o maintenance/operation of all of the above where they apply
Ranking of these: high priority: roads, police,
· Strong discretionary component [see discussion/ranking below]:
o Law enforcement (especially SROs)
o Sewer “stuff” – e.g., maintenance on private property
o Parks
o Trash pickup (only 1 person is in favor of privatizing trash pickup)
o Revitalization
o Transportation
High priority decisions from a council member’s perspective: Rankings are the group consensus/average, out of a possible rank of 10, with 10 being the highest:
· Police:
o How important is it to have an SRO in every HS? 9
o Every middle school? 10
o Elementary schools? High, but not necessary to have one SRO dedicated to a single school 6-8 Are we willing to spend $900,000 to $1.2M to keep the current elementary school SRO program? Yes
· “Sewer stuff”:
o Should the town take over private sewers in Cary (the portion of the sewers on private property)? No clear group consensus (high priority for those affected, low priority for others). But this is based on an incomplete understanding of the situation; need more data on this (about what constitutes “private” sewer and what the town should maintain vs. what HOAs are responsible for vs. what individual owners are responsible for?). Suggestion: set aside a portion of the water/sewer fees to address general problems with water/sewer throughout town. Suggestion: charge different rates if there are in fact different levels of service.
o Open space preservation (from a portion of sewer fees): high priority. Expecting about 18% fee increase for sewers (4% of that is for open space acquisition). Is the 4% difference worth it to the group (i.e., 18% increase with open space acquisition vs. 14% increase without)? Yes, high priority.
· Stormwater: high priority, especially if considered along with other sewer items above
Parks: [minutes from last meeting copied here:] #1 priority is maintenance (unanimous in group) – maintain what we have. Other priorities among the group: Renovate existing parks (especially Lexie Lane), complete projects in process (before starting new ones), get out of money-losing ventures, land acquisition (don’t need to build parks today, but acquire the land today), build a dog park, preserve open space, connect existing greenways, especially in older neighborhoods, support a low-cost recreational pool (minority view that one person supports the aquatics center – “exactly what the Cary voters approved in the bond issue”). We ought to look at the five options that have been proposed for the aquatics center and see if prefer any specific ones of those. Lowest priorities are aquatics “super center” as defined (much more support a low-cost center that was recreational in nature and for citizens), public art, public takeover of failing parks & recreation facilities (e.g., Tennis Center)
· TCAP/redevelopment: “dynamic downtown”: Anything done downtown should appeal to the “broad community”, not a “special interest” and be some sort of “active use”. Lots of ideas on all kinds of things that might be done with the old Cary Elementary building. Priorities for various downtown options:
o Support for preserving old Cary Elementary building: 8
o Parking: 8
o Sidewalks/streetscape 8; one dissenting voice for much lower ranking.
o Incentives/lower fees 7; one dissenting voice for 4 ranking)
o New downtown park land acquisition: 6
o Stormwater remedies: support for a “canal” system downtown as a stormwater remedy? Some, but some uncertainty about this. What is the support for spending $5M - $8M to address stormwater problems in general? 9
· Transportation: Rail: Cary does not put any money into this.
o CTran: 8. Suggestion that we have a different fee structure that is very cheap for disabled/elderly, etc., even to the point of charging more for other riders. Also have more structured/regular routes.
· Volunteer organizations: ($78,000 given per year, divided among about 10 or 12 organizations.Requests this year exceed available funds). Suggestion that whatever money is available be equally divided among all qualifying groups. 4 people think we should not fund any non-profit groups whatsoever. Overall ranking not quantified, but was low.
· Public art: very low priority (1 person at 5 ranking; all the rest are 2 or below
· Trash pickup (subsidized about $10/household for trash & recycling; recycling services actually make money back): What is priority of service level vs. fees charged? Support for increased fees? Support for money-saving collection mode (e.g., street pickup rather than back yard)? [need to rank this one]
Ideas Going Forward:
From previous meetings:
By approximately May 5[now past], we should have a general report on group consensus on “general principles” for the capital budget (as input to the Council Budget work session for the capital budget on May 12) and similar input for the operating budget by approximately May 18, for the Council Budget work session for the operating budget on May 25.
We can follow this up with specific recommendations for the FY ’05 budget once it is available
Growth management needs to be a future discussion topic
Next Steps:
· Request any follow-up information from Staff (none new)
· Schedule for next meetings
o Thursday, May 6, 6:30 p.m.: Topic: TBD. Location TBD (we will choose a date/time/place and notify everyone by e-mail)
· Don Hyatt will e-mail the entire group with these minutes and encourage more on-line participation/discussion via the carypolitics.org forum
· Brent will produce a consolidated report of what we have done so far
Please note any omissions or corrections.