2013-06-10 Regular City Council Session

Home Browse Search

department heads or from City Councilmembers, either you spend it or you don’t spend it. He noted to make a distinction between a budget surplus based on a budget submitted by department heads and then say there are operating expenditures that will be taken from the reserves but still call it a budget surplus, did not strike him as correct. He asked how there was a budget surplus in bold print of $137,200 based on the line above submitted by all departments and then there is City Council or citizens saying by the way the City is going to fund the following things of $235,000 in addition to operating expenditures of $235,000 and $3,555,000 in Capital Improvement projects that puts the City at $3,652,800 of expensing more funds than brought in. Mr. Crow’s first question was how a budget surplus is defined based on department heads and then have Council come in and spend another $235,000 and not call it a deficit. To his colleagues the one question he has if they would go from year 2000 forward, you are voting on a budget that has a larger deficit than every budget passed since 2000. Mr. Crow noted that the City will be spending 15% more than what they are taking in, and are spending more than every deficit budget since 2000. Ms. Carr expressed her gratitude to Mr. Walker and to Ms. Charumilind for all the time they spent with her on the budget. She first addressed the painting of the Sutter Meyer house saying she liked the house and had once joined the Society and she was a big fan of museums but the City has a contract with the house that was passed unanimously by Council in April 2008. Ms. Carr quoted from a previous cover sheet stating, “The Sutter Meyer Society will undertake all renovations and on-going maintenance with its own funds”, which was in exchange for a $1.00 lease rental. She said it is a contract and did not know how the City can circumvent this and is also the policy of the Council; the contract states, “Relationship of the parties, it is understood that the lessor should not be deemed a partner or a joint venture with the lessee in the conduct of the lessee’s operation or activities”. Ms. Carr stated that before this money is voted on, the Council should determine whether they want to go back and rewrite the contract or if the city wants to maintain the ownership and not lease. She did not want to put money in the City’s budget, which violates its contract. Ms. Forster, City Attorney said the lease agreement does require the society to be responsible for the maintenance and the repairs, so the Council/City has three options if the society defaults: 1) repossession of the house, 2) terminate the contract, 3) the City shall have the right but not the obligation to perform such maintenance, repairs or replacements. If the City decided to choose the later, they would seek reimbursement from the society with a 5% interest charge. Ms. Carr noted that at this time the painting of the Sutter Meyer house should be removed from the budget until the Council decides what they exactly want to do. She said when Council votes on this budget, they are setting forth a policy, so if the money is put in the budget; it has been set that the City will pay for it. Ms. Carr said until Council addresses the issue of the contract and the status of the Sutter Meyer Society with regard to how they will move forward, she did not believe it should be in the budget. She stated the second issue was the budget where total General Revenues of $26,614,586 and expenditures are $137,200 less than revenues but there were items to be funded by the reserves, especially the operating expenditures. Ms. Carr stated that Capital expenditures were a good use of the City’s reserves especially if it has a long term benefit. She noted that these operating expenditures should be 6