FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

 

MINUTES

 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2006

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Burke at 6:45 p.m.

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:  David Burke, Dan Fogt    Excused:  John Gore

 

OTHERS PRESENT:  Kathy House, John Morehart

 

AGENDA:

 

1.     Replacement of heating/cooling unit for City Hall

 

Ms. House stated the unit that serves the downstairs hallway, Courtroom and Court offices is ancient.  It is the opinion of the repairman that it could quit at any time.  An estimate for replacement is $17,000.  One option is to appropriate the money now so it’s there when we need it, put it in the 2007 Budget under City Hall maintenance or the least preferred option is to wait until the unit quits and act on an emergency.  She asked the opinion of the Committee.  Mr. Burke suggested appropriating the money now.  Mr. Morehart stated the repairman said this unit will take the stress off of the rest of the systems in the building.  Ms. House will get more information on the quote to make sure what the quote includes, a condenser or the whole unit.  She will also check to see if installation and warranty is included in the cost and get back with the Committee.  If the figure above does include everything, Finance will prepare legislation for the September 28th meeting. 

 

Mr. Fogt said there was some question on the real need for a replacement vehicle for the Assistant Fire Chief.  He suggested amending that legislation to replace the vehicle purchase with this appropriation.  Mr. Burke agreed.  Ms. House reminded the Committee that the proposed vehicle is larger than the current one.  It is able to haul more equipment than the current one.  Also, the current vehicle is starting on the downward trend for maintenance.  Also, would like to keep the vehicle since it’s still operational and give it to the Engineering Department for the new Assistant Engineer and City Planner.  Mr. Fogt said he would not propose the amendment after all.

 

2.     Sale/Purchase of property

 

Main Street House -  Ms. House contacted the individual who bid on the house.  The bid was $44,000.  Ms. House proposed the buyer paying the closing costs.  The perspective buyer wanted to look at it again before making a decision.  After looking at it, they are no longer interested in buying it at that price.  If they were to buy it, it would have to be at $10,000 less because of the increased cost in building supplies, especially copper.  That would end up being half the amount the City paid for it in 2002.  Mr. Lane Stillings suggested that when it was purchased in 2002, the Buildings & Grounds people rehab it and rent it out.  That option would have to be financially assessed.  Mr. Morehart figured it’d cost a lot to make it livable and would take years before the City could recoup it.  Ms. House said the City could rehab it, then sell it.  Mr. Fogt stated City staff should not be renovating the house; they have too many other projects to work on. 

 

Country Skillet Restaurant -  Ms. House stated she talked to the owner and the City was not interested in purchasing the property at the appraised value.  He asked what the City would pay, $100,000 or $120,000?  Ms. House offered $90,000/$95,000.  He was not interested in the offer.  He said a local realtor may have a client who is interested in the property.  The house was appraised at $177,000.  They purchased it for $86,500 at Sheriff’s sale. 

 

It was agreed to discuss the properties at a later date in Executive Session.

 

3.     Tap Fee Indexing

 

Mr. Burke prepared a document on Municipal Cost Index.  The information came from the American City & County Municipal Cost Index.  This is a generally accepted index in the United States and it does comparisons between Municipal Cost Indexing, Consumer Price Index and the Producer’s Price Index.  The idea is to attach this to our tap fees as a way to annually keep our fee structure in balance with the actual cost of doing business.  He noted some of the increases have been fairly significant.  He suggested everyone review the information and discuss it at a later date. 

 

4.     System Capacity Fee Incentive Policy

 

Mr. Burke reported that serious evaluation has been done on all levels.  He distributed a “draft” of the policy.  He suggested having an expert review this policy to get their input.  It was suggested Andy Brossart or John Mastraccio review the policy.  Ms. House noted this will enhance revenue to the General Fund rather than to the Enterprise Fund because it waives the tap fee.  A concern of Administration is how do we make the utilities, not necessarily whole, but …  Mr. Fogt stated it waives a portion of the tap fees.  Mr. Burke said the counter balance to this is the .7 meter equivalents on multi-family dwellings, which was not initially put in the meter equivalent rate on either side of the equation. Theoretically you should have excess revenue after the plant has been paid for that would accommodate something like this.   Ms. House sees this as one more tool to help attract a better variety of employers who may want to use this.

 

Mr. Burke will email the draft policy to Mr. Morehart so he can forward it on to Mr. Brossart for his review then set up a meeting to discuss Mr. Brossart’s input.   This policy will be back on the next Finance Committee agenda in hopes to be able to finalize it and prepare legislation for Council agenda.  Would like to have this program become effective January 1, 2007. 

 

Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.