Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 5/20/2003 *PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the Workshops, Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council. MINUTES GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP SESSION 5850 West Glendale Avenue May 20, 2003 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Thomas R. Eggleston and Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet, and Manuel D. Martinez ABSENT: Councilmember H. Phillip Lieberman ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City Manager; Rick Flaaen, City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 BUDGET PROCESS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Chris Zapata, Deputy City Manager; and Pilar Aguilar, Acting Budget Director. This is the final scheduled City Council workshop to review the proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2003-04 Annual Budget. Over the course of these workshops, the City Manager presented his recommended balanced budget for FY 2003-04. Budget presentations focused on budget reductions, cuts and service impacts, alternatives to address these service impacts and discussion of supplemental requests submitted. Today's meeting will include a wrap-up of outstanding issues raised during previous workshops, the completion of the City Manager's report regarding the plan for FY04-05, and the employee compensation and benefits package. The November 15 City Council Goal-Setting Retreat was the first step in the FY 2003- 04 budget process. At that meeting, staff presented the economic forecast for the city and the Mayor and Council discussed the national and local economies and their effect on Glendale's FY 2003-04 budget. At the retreat, the City Manager discussed the measures the city has implemented to address the revenue shortfall for both Fiscal Years 2002-03 and 2003-04. These measures included citywide budget reductions and revenue enhancements. 1 Department heads presented their departmental budgets to the Leadership Team at a series of administrative review meetings in March. A series of City Council budget workshops have been held throughout April and early May to discuss the FY 2003-04 budget. The agenda for this City Council workshop has been posted and all legal requirements for notification have been met. The City Council has reviewed the FY 2003-04 budget at workshops during April and May. The recommendations made at these workshops will direct staff in preparing for final City Council budget review and adoption in June. The recommendation was to review the FY 2003-04 Proposed Annual Budget and provide staff with direction. Mr. Beasley recapped previous meetings, stating the city's FY 2003-04 budget is balanced. He said, despite the fact that the city has already addressed an $18 to $20 million deficit, the city still faces a future deficit of $6 to $7 million. He suggested the challenge presents the Council with the opportunity to change its business practices, allowing it to better respond to the changing economy. He said the budget process has been revised, providing Council with more opportunities to review the budget and ensuring the business plan is consistent with Council's goals. He said the business plan was also evaluated in terms of each department's core function and their ability to meet the Council's goals and priorities. He stated a total compensation plan is also being developed and will be tied into the budget process. He explained, in an attempt to meet both legal and moral responsibilities, staff is developing a workforce reduction plan that explains how the business plans tie into the core function of the city, identifies opportunities for retraining employees and determines when functions are no longer needed. Mr. Beasley explained staff is researching opportunities for cost stabilization and revenue generation. He stressed the importance of reconciling revenues and expenditures to ensure projected revenue streams are able to meet anticipated needs. He said, throughout the year, Council will be presented with revenue structuring options, such as false alarm fees, rental property fees, public safety taxes, property taxes and sales taxes, in an effort to create stabilization for the future. Legislative Issues Ms. Miryam Gutier, Intergovernmental Relations Director, reviewed Legislative issues that could potentially impact the city in FY 2005 and beyond. She stated the Legislature's and Governor's budgets are fairly far apart, noting consensus has not been reached on any items that impact municipalities in either budget. She said they feel fairly safe with regard to State Shared Revenue, however, until a budget is actually enacted, they cannot be assured a reduction will not occur. She stated the city could be negatively impacted in FY 2006 if a special census is conducted in the fall of FY 2005. She explained higher growth rates in surrounding communities could result in $3-$4.5 million less in State Shared Revenue for the city. She noted better estimates will be available as FY 2005 draws closer. She assured Council staff is working closely with MAG and the League of Cities and Towns to ensure the estimates are accurate. 2 In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Ms. Gutier stated the issue is still being discussed, however, most cities agree a survey would be the most effective and cost efficient way to conduct a census. She expressed her opinion the census will occur because the cities who are experiencing high levels of growth will need an increase in State Shared Revenue to provide services to their communities. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the FY 2003/04 budget includes $371,000 for the city's anticipated cost for the special census survey. Ms. Gutier agreed. Councilmember Clark stated Glendale has to participate in the survey in order to ensure the numbers for Glendale are accurate. Ms. Gutier stated, while a special census was conducted in 1995, most cities believe another special census should be done in 2005 to ensure State Shared Revenue allocations are accurate. Total Compensation Plan Ms. Alma Carmicle, Human Resources Assistant Director, stated Human Resources brought forth several recommendations at the May 6, 2003 workshop in regards to the employee benefits renewal. She said Council raised questions with respect to why insurance costs have increased and the amount paid by retired city employees as compared to the State Retirement System. She stated increasing medical costs and the aging city employee population makes funding decisions difficult. She said, historically, the city has allowed retirees to participate in the city's insurance plan with other city employees. She explained retirees have to be 50 years old or older and have at least five years of service with the Arizona State Retirement System to be eligible for inclusion in the program. She said, in the past, approximately 90 percent of employees moving into retirement have opted to keep the city's medical plan, noting they expect that percentage to increase in the future. She pointed out the number of retirees and their dependents enrolled in the city's medical plan has increased from 210 in 2000 to 376 today. She stated retirees participating in the plan have the option of staying on the plan for life, although the city's plan will become secondary to Medicare insurance when a retiree reaches 65 years of age. Ms. Carmicle said the Arizona State Retirement System pay retirees an allowance to subsidize their costs for medical benefits. He explained a retiree with single coverage receives $150 per month and a retiree with family coverage receives $260 per month. She stated, after age 65 when Medicare becomes a retiree's primary insurance, they receive $100 per month for single coverage and $170 per month for family coverage. Ms. Carmicle discussed the differences between PPO and HMO plans, explaining someone who elects a PPO can choose which doctors they will use whereas HMO participants are required to select one of the plan's primary care physicians. She said the city currently charges both employees and retirees with single coverage $260.05 per month for the PPO option. She said a retiree's subsidy of $150 per month, brings the cost to the retiree down to $110.05 which is billed directly to the retiree. She pointed out the retiree's cost for PPO coverage on the State Retirement Plan totals $925.42, minus their $150.00 subsidy, for a total of $775.42 per month. She said, therefore, retirees who choose to stay with the city's plan save $665.37 per month for single coverage or $1,303.18 each month for family coverage. She explained the city's plan is less expensive because the risk associated with retirees is spread across all employees and retirees in the group. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked at what point does Medicare become the primary 3 insurance. Ms. Carmicle said, once a retiree reaches age 65, they will still be responsible for paying the city's rate, however, Medicare will become the primary carrier. In response to Councilmember Clark's question, Ms. Lupe Sierra, Employee Benefits Manager, explained retirees receive a reduced rate once they reach 65 because Medicare becomes the primary carrier. She noted, however, the Arizona State Retirement System subsidy is also reduced slightly. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked who utilizes the Arizona State Retirement System's plan. Ms. Carmicle explained retired employee's who worked for a city that does not offer coverage to retired employees would have to join the state's plan. Mayor Scruggs asked if a retiree could choose to carry their own insurance. Ms. Sierra explained qualifying for private insurance gets harder as people age. She said, therefore, the state's plan is basically their only other option. Councilmember Martinez asked about the disparity in rates with regard to PPO and HMO coverage. Ms. Carmicle stated the rates are based on the number of people participating in the plan. Ms. Carmicle continued her presentation reviewing impacts of increasing benefit costs on the city's budget. She said, based on their analysis, they can make the following assumptions: 1) that future rate increases will be based on medical trends, demographics and utilization; 2) contribution rates for both employees and retirees will continue to increase; 3) the ASRS subsidy will not increase; 4) if retirees and current employees were separated or "unbundled", the retiree rate would increase 72.7 percent and the employee rate would increase 7.3 percent, as compared to an 11.5 percent increase to both if kept together. She stated, if unbundled, the cost for retired employees would increase to $498.26, minus the $150.00 subsidy, for a total of $348.26 per month. She explained PPO participants would actually receive a 91 percent increase, however, the overall increase would equal 72.7 percent. Councilmember Goulet asked if an employee or retiree who opts out of the city's plan is allowed to rejoin at a later date. Ms. Sierra stated a retiree who opts out of the plan cannot return. Ms. Carmicle said, once the benefits renewal is approved and all participants have been enrolled, staff will begin working on strategies to mitigate future costs associated with benefits. She said they plan to analyze various options and costs through an actuarial study and will consider other options suggested by Council over the years. She said they will also provide opportunities for discussion with employees and retirees. She stated staff is recommending that no employee contribution increases be implemented until the actuarial study has been completed. Councilmember Frate asked who will conduct the actuarial study. Ms. Carmicle said the city typically commissions a benefits consultant firm to conduct the study. She stated the study will project costs for the next three, five and ten years. In response to Councilmember Martinez's question, Ms. Carmicle explained employees do not currently make any contributions to their plan. She said, therefore, their recommendation is that no contributions be required of employees and that no further increases be implemented with regard to retirees. 4 Ms. Carmicle clarified for Vice Mayor Eggleston that the city will absorb the $580,000 cost increase in insurance. Mr. Beasley explained the rationale behind staffs recommendation, stating they do not currently have the data to support a particular contribution increase. Mayor Scruggs asked if the city will send a letter to employees and retirees once the actuarial study has been completed, outlining the percentage increase they can expect in future years. Ms. Carmicle stated the actuarial study will provide factual information, upon which city management will make decisions with regard to how the costs will be passed on to employees and retirees. She said Human Resources will then create a plan for all employees and retirees. Mayor Scruggs pointed out many private companies have decided not to offer insurance to retirees. Mr. Art Lynch, Chief Financial Officer, discussed the purpose of the Employee Benefit Internal Service Fund, explaining it was created to use annual unspent health benefit premiums to provide a restricted use fund for catastrophes, illnesses and unexpected expenses. He stated the fund is comprised of two primary resources, employee contributions and the city's contributions. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the fund is similar to the Risk Management Fund. Mr. Lynch responded yes, explaining its acts as a reserve to protect the city in times when claims activity increases. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if Blue Cross Blue Shield is the underwriter or administrator of the funds. Mr. Lynch stated the city is the underwriter. Councilmember Frate asked if the $25.00 previously proposed employee contribution will now be taken out of the Employee Benefit Internal Service Fund. Mr. Lynch answered yes. In response to Councilmember Martinez's question, Mr. Lynch stated the balance of the fund currently totals $3,230,531, $1,375,382 of which has already been committed. Mr. Lynch explained for Mayor Scruggs that the committed amount covers the one year run-out period, during which time claims can still be submitted. He said the actual liability owed out of the fund balance is shown at the end of every year. Mayor Scruggs asked if active employees pay a premium for family insurance. Ms. Sierra stated the employee pays one-third of the dependent premium. Mr. Lynch confirmed the one-third paid by the employee goes into the Employee Benefit Internal Fund. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked why the city writes checks to Blue Cross every month. Mr. Lynch explained the city pays Blue Cross Blue Shield an administrative fee to cover fixed costs and reimburses them for claims paid on the city's behalf. Mayor Scruggs asked what other funds go into the Employee Benefit Internal Fund. Mr. Lynch explained all premium contributions are accumulated in the fund and all employee and retiree claims or fixed overhead costs are paid out of the fund. Mayor Scruggs asked if the ASRS subsidy the city receives for each retired employee is placed into the fund. Ms. Sierra responded yes, stating bi-weekly contributions go into the fund from the General Fund, noting the city is paid by the state and collects from retirees on a monthly basis. Mr. Lynch continued his presentation, reviewing what occurred during the current year. He said negotiations with Blue Cross Blue Shield began on January 28, 2003. He stated costs were negotiated down from $15.6 million to $12.6 million for FY 2003/04, with the final negotiated offer received April 21, 2003. He explained the offer resulted in 5 unanticipated savings of approximately $1.6 million. Councilmember Clark asked if the negotiated premium represents an 11 percent increase over last year. Mr. Lynch responded no, explaining administrative costs went from $1.9 million down to $1.6 million. He said they also asked Blue Cross Blue Shield to look closely at the claims activity they projected. Councilmember Clark asked what did the city pay Blue Cross Blue Shield last year. Mr. Lynch stated the claims activity and administrative costs for the current year are estimated to be $10.6 million and $1.6 million, respectively. He said, as of April 30, the city's total cost is $9,460,889, including claims activity and administrative overhead costs. He offered to provide to Councilmember Clark the amount paid last year. Mr. Lynch confirmed for Vice Mayor Eggleston that the administrative charges were negotiated down by approximately $335,000. He pointed out they also negotiated a cap on the increase in administrative costs for FY 2004/05 of not to exceed 3.4 percent. Councilmember Clark clarified the savings identified by staff is actually a reduction to the budgeted increase. She expressed her opinion the city should proceed with the actuarial study. Ms. Aguilar explained the original $14.2 million budget allocation was based on a 15 percent increase over the current year's budget. Mr. Lynch clarified the actual amount of negotiated administrative cost was $1.9 million and the total cost proposed was $15.6 million. He said, however, the negotiations resulted in Blue Cross and Blue Shield adjusting the real cost down to $12.6 million. Mr. Lynch confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that the administrative costs are included in the $12.6 million. Mayor Scruggs asked if Council will see a sample FY 2004/05 budget highlighting how staff proposes they address the potential $7 million gap. Ms. Aguilar offered to provide a worksheet. Councilmember Clark pointed out the measures proposed by staff will be done on a one time basis and not built into the base budget. Mr. Beasley said, while staff can provide a worksheet identifying issues that will have to be addressed, they will not begin building the budget until next fiscal year. Mayor Scruggs asked how they know the city will begin the year with a $7 million deficit. She questioned how they can make decisions as to what to add to the budget, without knowing how they will pay for the deficit next year. Ms. Carmicle clarified for Councilmember Martinez that Council can choose to do a one-time compensation increase that is outside of the range. She said a one-time general wage increase could be made to all employees without being put into the base budget. She said, however, putting the increase into the base budget would increase the pay range. Councilmember Martinez asked if the city has ever given one-time merit increases. Ms. Carmicle said in the 1980's the city used to give performance bonuses to employees who had topped out of their range. She said those who had not topped out of their range received regular increases based on their performance. Mr. Lynch explained the 3.4 percent cap on administrative costs will provide stability in FY 2004/05, with claims activity being the only variable. Mr. Beasley explained Council has the option of utilizing the $1.6 million saved through negotiations with Blue Cross Blue Shield for an ongoing or one-time merit increase. He clarified an ongoing increase would be added to the base budget and become part of 6 the $7 million deficit in FY 2004/05. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the $1.6 million could be put into the Contingency Fund. Mr. Lynch responded yes. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the $25 contribution employees will not be required to pay is considered a pay increase. Mr. Beasley characterized it as a cost savings. He said, however, the city will not be able to continue to absorb the costs and will have to identify the fair share every employee will have to pay in order to meet future costs. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the city offered merit increases last year. Mr. Beasley confirmed cost of living and merit increases were given. Vice Mayor Eggleston pointed out the city was unable to offer raises for four or five years during the early 90's. Mr. Beasley reviewed three one-time merit increase options, noting each has an impact on the General Fund and overall budget. He said the first option, a four percent increase for eligible employees, would have a total cost of $1.9 million. He stated the second option would provide a two percent/two percent merit increase to eligible employees and cost $1.4 million. He explained this option would give Council an opportunity prior to the January increase to consider economic factors and other trends to determine if the second increase should be given as planned or redirected to another program. He said a third option would provide a two percent one-time merit increase, which could be given to all employees, at a cost of $2.4 million. He explained this option would reduce the $7 million deficit to approximately 6.4 million, while still giving Council an opportunity to look at economic factors to determine if the increase should be redirected elsewhere. He noted $220,000 of the $700,000 in one-time money available for this fiscal year would have to be utilized to fund the increase. He stated the second and third options appear to provide more flexibility and the third option would not go into the ongoing base budget. Ms. Aguilar confirmed for Councilmember Clark that the city has 1,677 employees, of which, 1,156 are eligible for pay increases. Councilmember Clark stated approximately 500 employees, or one-third of the city's workforce, are not eligible. Councilmember Clark said a two percent, one-time, across the board merit increase would have a $1,136,537 impact on the General Fund. Ms. Aguilar agreed. Councilmember Martinez pointed out an increase given to all employees would not constitute a merit increase. Ms. Aguilar explained only those employees who meet or exceed standards would be eligible for the increase. Councilmember Frate asked if Council could decide to offer a merit increase later in the year if it chose now to put the $1.6 million into the Contingency. Mr. Beasley clarified there is $6 to $7 million in the Contingency Fund. He agreed pay increases could be done in January. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion a lower percentage, one-time, increase should be given to all employees. Councilmember Martinez agreed a two percent, one-time pay increase should be offered, pointing out employee's are going to have to pay higher ASRS contributions. Mayor Scruggs stated the projected $8 million deficit for next year was based on a $1,563,000 employee benefit increase which, when subtracted out, leaves a deficit of $6.5 million. She said, under Councilmember Clark's option, the deficit would be further reduced by $1.5 million. 7 Councilmember Clark stated the Council values all city employees and wishes pay increases could be higher. Mayor Scruggs pointed out Public Safety will not pay the 3.2 percent increase in ASRS contributions. She said, therefore, Public Safety employees would realize a two percent pay increase as opposed to all other employees who would actually see a 1.2 percent pay decrease. Councilmember Clark suggested they look at the issue again in January to determine if additional increases can be given. Councilmember Goulet questioned what could happen between now and January that would allow Council to authorize additional increases at that time. He said he is inclined to approve the two percent increase offered in Option 3. He also saw merit in option 2. Mayor Scruggs asked what is the current city sales tax collection. Ms. Aguilar said approximately $42 million. Mayor Scruggs pointed out it would take a 20 percent increase in city sales tax collections to close the $8 million deficit projected for next year. Ms. Aguilar stated the city has realized an average increase in sales tax collections of 5 percent. She suggested Council establish specific targets that have to be met to trigger additional pay increases, stating, otherwise, employees will assume the increases are forthcoming. The meeting recessed for a short break. Councilmember Martinez proposed a two percent, one-time, increase for all employees based on their salary for the first six months of the fiscal year. He said continuation of the increases beyond December 31, 2003 would be dependent on the status of the budget in January 2004. Councilmember Goulet suggested a two percent merit increase, with the remaining funds placed in the Contingency Fund. He asked if a prorated percentage could be offered to employees who have not earned a full merit increase. Ms. Carmicle said, under the city's current system, all eligible employees would receive the full two percent increase. Councilmember Clark voiced her support of Councilmember Martinez's suggestion. Councilmember Frate suggested they defer the issue of pay raises and identify specific budgetary targets which could then be used in January to determine if a one-time pay increase is possible. Ms. Aguilar confirmed Council could set appropriations at a certain level and transfer the funds out of Contingency at a later date. Mayor Scruggs asked Councilmember Frate if he proposed the increases in January would be retroactive to July. Councilmember Frate responded no. He restated employees would not receive an increase if the budget targets were not met. Vice Mayor Eggleston expressed his opinion Council does not have enough information to make a decision right now. He said, therefore, he supports Councilmember Frate's suggestion. In response to Mayor Scruggs' question, Mr. Flaaen clarified three of the six Council members present could represent a consensus if the other three members are split. 8 Mayor Scruggs said, while both proposals have merit, the enthusiasm created by Councilmember Martinez's suggestion would be short lived and employees could end up with no increase at all under Councilmember Frate's proposal. She asked if the $8 million deficit expected in FY 2004/05 takes into account the 15 additional police officers the city hires annually and the possibility that the city could lose the COPS grant. She said, because of the uncertainties facing the city with regard to the FY 2004/05 budget, she will support Councilmember Frate's suggestion. She stated, however, Council and staff will meet to identify the specific budget targets before Council vacates in August. Furthermore, Mayor Scruggs said, despite her concerns, she will not support adding money to the Street Overlay program at this time. She asked staff to do an assessment of the program before Council reviews the budget in January, looking at whether the program is the best one for the city, if it should be funded at a different level, and what it would take to get the program back on track. Councilmember Martinez pointed out his suggestion would ensure employees receive an increase for at least six months. With regard to the Streets Overlay program, he said it was his understanding Council had reached consensus to add funding to the program. He expressed his opinion Council should also revisit the Cemetery Fund and Art Fund to determine if the funds could be better utilized elsewhere. Councilmember Clark agreed employees should receive a one-time increase now, with the possibility of an additional increase in January. She said she also believed Council had achieved consensus to add $255,000 into the Streets Overlay program. She further agreed Council should revisit the Cemetery Fund. Mayor Scruggs clarified that she was the third vote on the Streets Overlay program, however, she has since changed her mind. She asked if Councilmember Frate has made up his mind with regard to his position on the Streets Overlay program. Councilmember Frate stated he will hold off until January to make a decision on adding money to the program. Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager, clarified for Councilmember Martinez the Streets Overlay program was scheduled to overlay 14 miles this year, however, the proposed budget reduces the number of miles for next year to nine. Councilmember Martinez asked if the program would be able to schedule additional miles if funds were added into the budget in January. Mr. Reedy responded yes, explaining all of the overlay work is done by contract. He pointed out overlay work is not typically performed during the coldest months of the year. Councilmember Martinez reiterated his position that $255,000 should be added into the program. Mayor Scruggs said she believes a more complete analysis could identify a more streamlined way of distributing funds. Vice Mayor Eggleston reiterated his position that the entire $700,000 should be left in Contingency. With regard to the Cemetery Fund, Mayor Scruggs expressed her opinion the descendents of the people buried in the cemetery should be contacted if the city considers utilizing the irrevocable trust. Councilmember Martinez pointed out his Grandparents, mother and three brothers are buried in the cemetery, stating it would not bother him if the trust funds were utilized. He said the city would not allow the cemetery to be maintained at an unacceptable level. Mayor Scruggs directed staff to: 1) look at all funds to see where available funds might 9 be found; 2) clarify the FY 04/05 budget; and 3) put $727,000 into the Contingency Fund. She said Council and staff will work together to identify specific budget targets that can be used to measure the city's performance and identify how much money is available to build into the base budget in the future. Councilmembers Martinez and Clark clarified that, while that was the consensus, they did not agree. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. 10