Approved Minutes - 1999-05-05 CITIZENS' BUDGET COMMITTEE MINUTES May 5, 1999
The meeting came to order at 7:05 p.m in the City Council chambers. Members present included
Chair Eric Carlson, Councilor Bob Chizum, Councilor Jack Hoffman, Mayor Bill Klammer,
Councilor Tom Lowrey, Councilor Karl Rohde, Tom Ruttan, Councilor Bill Schoen, Lisa
Strader, and Patt Thomas. Gene Arnold, Jeff Gudman, Chip Pierce and Councilor Craig Prosser
were excused. Staff present included Doug Schmitz, City Manager; Bob Kincaid, Assistant City
Manager; and Richard Seals, Financial Planning Manager.
Minutes for the April 21, 1999 meeting were approved by unanimous voice vote of board
members who could vote on the matter. There were no public comments.
III. ISSUES & OPTIONS PAPER NO.3: LOCAL OPTION LEVY
Mr. Kincaid explained that in the wake of Measure 50 and the limits on property tax growth
to 3 percent plus new construction, the City's largest source of income would soon be
outstripped by costs. The issue paper discusses the pros and cons of a local option levy. As
noted at the last meeting, City reserves for property tax-supported funds are projected to drop
in the near future. A local option levy would shore up the City's finances. The issue is
timely because Measure 50 made passage of such taxes more challenging: in a general
election(November), a simple majority is sufficient, but in off-year elections a double
majority is required. Turnout presents one level of challenge, and the double majority
requirement is an additional burden. Paper No. 3 proposes formation of a subcommittee to
take an in-depth look at the local option levy in either November 2000 or November 2002,
versus cutback of expenses.
Mr. Carlson asked whether the county-wide library levy were folded into the county's
general levy, and was therefore vulnerable to cuts and elimination, and Mr. Kincaid affirmed
this was the case. Mr. Ruttan asked about the timing for the subcommittee to report back in
order to make a recommendation to the City Council so it could in turn place the matter on
the November 2000 ballot. Mr. Kincaid estimated February of 2000.
Ms. Thomas asked whether an adequate maintenance level budget had been calculated, how
the current budget pattern played out, and whether it could be summarized on one page. Mr.
Kincaid said there was a history and future trend line for each individual fund in the budget
document, but no one-page summary because the budget was too complicated. Ms. Thomas
urged a status report and model based on a 3 percent property tax intake, and Mr. Kincaid
responded that the draft budget indicates most reserves will be largely spent out by 2003-
2004. Mr. Carlson said a one-page summary might be misleading because some funds are
not dependent on property taxes and should be kept separate.
Councilor Chizum said he liked the subcommittee proposal, as long as the body examined
the matter from both directions: what the City might have to give up to maintain 3%
property tax revenue growth as well as the option of increasing taxes. Councilor Lowrey
agreed that a plan should be in place which assumes the City would have no further revenue.
Citizens'Budget Committee Minutes Page 1 of 10
May 5, 1999
Mr. Ruttan asked how this proposal related to previous discussions on how to raise money
for the street fund and street repairs. Mr. Kincaid responded that it was largely a separate
issue; gas tax involves street improvements and repairs as opposed to property taxes which
go to all kinds of other services.
Councilor Chizum moved to adopt Option 1 of Issue Paper No. 3, to examine both the
need for a local option tax levy and what would have to be reduced if there were no
levy,with the subcommittee to report by mid February 2000. Mayor Klammer
seconded.
The mayor suggested one issue the proposed subcommittee should examine is a library usage
fee for users outside the City. Ms. Thomas responded that local library patrons are part of an
entire county library system, and Lake Oswego residents can go to Multnomah and
Washington county libraries as well. Mr. Carlson said his sense of the proposal was that the
subcommittee's task would be to look at the need for a local option levy, and which services
could be set aside due to limited revenue, and then look at other sources of revenue.
Councilor Lowrey wondered whether this might not be an issue the entire budget committee
should address after the budget has been approved. Ms. Strader asked whether a quorum
would be required for decisions. Mr. Carlson responded that a quorum would not be
necessary at every meeting, for discussion purposes, but eight people would be needed for a
final decision. Considering the committee's ability to meet, he continued,perhaps one or
two meetings might be scheduled in the summer, and then several more times in the fall
before the holiday crunch. Mr. Ruttan said the entire committee appeared to have difficulty
getting together, but a smaller focus group could meet more often and then make interim
reports to the larger group.
Councilor Chizum asked for a show of hands from interested parties, and Mr. Carlson said he
would talk to people individually, under the assumption that the goal would be a balanced
group of three councilors and three citizen members.
A voice vote on the motion carried,with no nays and Mayor Klammer temporarily
absent.
V. HOTEL/MOTEL TAX DISCUSSION
Mr. Schmitz noted the April 14 meeting demand for backup information from both the
county Tourism Council and City staff on this matter. Councilor Rohde reported on what he
had learned at a seminar given May 5 by the county. The most important thing, he said, was
that TDC stands for"Tourism Development Council,"and that council's first consideration
with regard to any proposal is whether it will generate a significant number of visitors from
outside the county, as well as to what extent those visitors will "bleed off' into other parts of
the county. His impression was that Lake Oswego has not applied for many tourist grants
and has in fact not been particularly excited about making the town a tourist destination. The
hotel/motel tax was established by a county-wide vote for tourism activities, and the Tourism
Citizens'Budget Committee Minutes Page 2 of 10
May 5, 1999
Council spends a lot on advertising in national publications as well as activities within the
county as a whole. There is nothing that requires equity of distribution; cities in the county
that have no hotels or motels could still qualify for tourism funding. Lake Oswego should
angle its applications more toward attracting tourism.
Councilor Rohde said he suggested to the Tourism Council that towns whose downtown area
"looks like a dump"might merit funding for street trees, brick pavers, and benches to create
an environment that would attract more tourist and shopper traffic. The council was not at all
receptive to this notion, according to Rohde, but he countered with the example of
Leavenworth, Washington. Improvements there were based on the town's Oktoberfest, but
continued to draw traffic throughout the year because "it's a neat town." The Tourism
Council warmed a little to funding promotion of such events, if the community used the
money to enhance the experience of visiting tourists. Would a bench and brick pavers
accomplish that, Rohde asked the council. Yes, it would, he gathered.
Thus, if Lake Oswego wanted to do something like that,the City would need to justify the
request with some sort of hard numbers. The other option would be for it to act as a
facilitator for non-profits who apply for funding, since their applications appeared to have an
edge over those from government bodies. If Oregon Tilth had put forward the Luscher Farm
parking lot proposal, for example, it might have been regarded more positively.
Councilor Chizum asked Councilor Rohde whether he believed the Tourism Council was
doing a good job with the money. The latter responded in the affirmative; his marketing
experience indicated their efforts had been effective and they analyzed results fairly
extensively. Councilor Chizum asked whether the county required most grants be matched,
and Councilor Rohde said he didn't know but grants are probably looked upon more
favorably if matching is included to show community support for a project.
Councilor Chizum observed that the Hilton and Fairfield projects would probably raise Lake
Oswego's hotel/motel tax contribution to the county from $300,000 to $500,000—which
would represent 30-40 percent of the county's budget. Was there any way to put a cap on
either the City's contribution to the county, or the county's total budget? Councilor Rohde
said he did not think so. Mr. Carlson said there was a political aspect to the question and a
legal one: A governing body can change an ordinance adopted by the voters as well as one of
its own. He suggested the city attorney examine the matter, and Mr. Schmitz said it was
already being done.
VI. DECISIONS ON ISSUES & OPTIONS PAPERS
Councilor Chizum asked where the money for these proposals would come from. Mr.
Schmitz replied from contingency, or in the case of leaf removal,the street fund.
Regarding Issue Paper No. 1, leaf and tree debris removal, Councilor Rohde asked
whether the Surface Water Runoff fund could also be a source of funding, and Mr. Schmitz
said it could. Ms. Thomas asked if environmental requirements played a role, and Mr.
Citizens'Budget Committee Minutes Page 3 of 10
May 5, 1999
Schmitz said that point had not yet been reached. Mr. Carlson added that maintaining the
transportation system was a component.
Councilor Lowrey raised an objection that the committee had just been talking about running
out of money, and now they were considering spending more. Mr. Carlson reminded him
that street and surface water funds are not property tax based. But all the money comes from
the people, Councilor Lowrey persisted, and he was concerned about that. Councilor Chizum
agreed. I'm prepared to vote on all of these proposals, he said, once I hear what will be given
up in exchange for them. If one of these proposals would impinge on real municipal
necessities, Councilor Lowrey added, such as police, fire, street maintenance, even if not this
year but at some later time, then I have a problem voting for them.
Mr. Carlson asked how final the committee's vote was; did the committee's vote merely
suggest that the proposals be considered along with other budget items? Mr. Schmitz
responded that the immediate impact would be to reduce the capital budget's street
maintenance, or exchange for one of the projects in surface water, or to take the money out of
the general fund. None of these seemed wise, which was why "we've recommend this
program not be funded this year."
Several committee members expressed surprise. Councilor Chizum said, you're saying that
staff has not recommended any of the options? Mr. Schmitz said, "I think that's a fair
statement, since it's a staff proposal at this point";the leaf program,the transportation plan,
the library early hours, and the community forestry program are not included in the budget.
Councilor Hoffman asked about the library example; was that not recommended by the
library? Mr. Schmitz responded that early hours was a library director recommendation to
him and to the committee, but he had not included the request for $51,000 in the budget.
Councilor Rohde asked where the leaf removal proposal originated, and Mr. Schmitz said
maintenance services staff said it was a program the community should have.
No motion was offered on Issue Paper No. 3, and the committee moved on.
With regard to Issue Paper No. 2, traffic management plan and Lower Boones Ferry
corridor study, Mr. Schmitz noted the $140,000 for this proposal would come from either
contingency funds or reduction of preventive work this year. Ms. Strader asked whether this
work would have to be done at some point, and Mr. Schmitz said probably. Councilor
Chizum noted that funding was available for only a half to two-thirds of the projects already
approved by the City Council in the Transportation System Plan. He felt it made no fiscal
sense to pile on another study of more work. Ms. Thomas asked if this work involved
compliance with Metro design type boundaries, and Councilor Rohde said Boones Ferry
might, since it is designated a main street. He said he was more supportive of this proposal
because, unlike leaf removal, it was a one-time expense that would establish what needs to be
done, or what could be done, and at what cost so the citizens could then decide when, if, and
how to fund it.
Ms. Thomas asked whether there had been any pressure from the Lake Grove Neighborhood
Association to study transportation improvements in this commercial area. Not to me, Mr.
Citizens'Budget Committee Minutes Page 4 of 10
May 5, 1999
Schmitz responded. Ms. Thomas said it was her impression the association had no interest in
anything that would intensify activity at that end of town, so the committee should put the
issue on the back burner. Mr. Carlson asked where the Boones Ferry project had been
prioritized in relation to others. No one could say. Councilor Chizum said"pieces and
pokes"had been constructed on Boones Ferry.
Councilor Rohde moved that the Lower Boones Ferry Road corridor study be included
in the 1999-2000 budget. The motion died for lack of a second.
Councilor Rohde then moved that the Traffic Management Plan—the S40,000 first
portion of Issue Paper No. 2—be included in the budget. Councilor Hoffman seconded
and spoke in support of looking at the entire city and where traffic would be expected to go.
Ms. Strader asked whether$40,000 was sufficient for a city-wide traffic management plan.
Mr. Schmitz said the figure represented the Engineering Department's estimate, and Ms.
Strader thought it was"extremely reasonable."
Ms. Thomas said this proposal was another to put on the back burner, because the
community has tended to maintain current traffic patterns, and allowed jams to develop,in an
effort to divert regional traffic elsewhere until the people felt enough pressure to demand
change. Councilor Rohde responded that a plan would include a number of individual
projects which could be activated at lesser cost. Ms. Thomas said she thought such
adjustments were the responsibility of Neighborhood Traffic Advisory Boards. Councilor
Lowrey said he did not think people needed a$40,000 study to see the big picture. Mr.
Ruttan said stable financing for a fund such as road maintenance was needed to implement a
plan. Councilor Hoffman asked whether the Jean Road LID had freed up any funds. Mr.
Schmitz said no, because that was street improvement bond money.
Councilor Rohde stated that a lot of people go to parties and think they can plan them, too,
and yet his business has plenty of work. He said he trusted staff to cover all the issues of
traffic management, and he did not extend the same level of trust to a volunteer group
without professional training.
On a voice vote, the motion failed,with affirmative votes from Councilors Rohde and
Hoffman only.
Mr. Schmitz introduced Option Paper No. 5, relating to the Lake Oswego School
District's three-year serial levy of 1996, which was rolled into the permanent base as a
result of Measure 50. The City's intergovernmental agreement with the district expires on
June 30, 2000. On hand to represent the district were Superintendent of Schools Bill Korach,
director of finance Ron Smith, and business office manager Stuart Kessler.
Mr. Korach said the district would be asking the City to continue the partnership and thanked
the City for lending its taxing authority to support athletics and other after-school activities.
Even Lake Oswego's cut of Governor Kitzhaber's proposed $4.95 billion for education will
not cover the district's current costs. In 1990,the district spent$5,394 per child; now the
Citizens'Budget Committee Minutes Page 5 of 10
May 5, 1999
district receives $4,660 from the state, which is a significant adjustment given the effects of
inflation. If the district did not have the $1 million from the City, classroom needs would be
placed in direct conflict with athletics and other after-school activities, Mr. Korach said.
Mr. Carlson said if the recommendation were to put the matter on the ballot, he assumed that
would be advisory, and were parent groups prepared to campaign for it? Mr. Korach said a
major community effort occurred last time, and could be expected next time, even though the
district was asking that it not come to that. Councilor Rohde asked whether a decision was
necessary in this budget cycle. It is not necessary, Mr. Schmitz replied, but it is favorable to
the school district to campaign for the November 1999 ballot.
Councilor Chizum asked whether the school district's "Revenues and Expenditures
Scenarios" circulated for the April 21, 1999 budget committee meeting assumed the City's
million dollar contribution, and Mr. Korach said they did not. Councilor Chizum said the
spread sheet projected a$10 million shortfall in 2002-2003. A cumulative one,yes, Mr.
Smith responded. How will you respond to that, Councilor Chizum asked. The big unknown
is the amount of state school support, Mr. Smith said; the amounts in the scenarios reflect the
state's March estimate of$4.375 billion. But you will still be roughly $9 million in the hole,
Councilor Chizum persisted; that's 25 percent of your revenues. Mr. Carlson said the district
would have to cut programs. Mr. Korach and Mr. Smith said there would be multiple
strategies of response.
Councilor Chizum asked how much the Lake Oswego School Foundation contributes. The
amount varies: it was $400,000 last year, it may be $500,000 this year, and is not included in
the scenario figures either. Mr. Carlson said when he was on the school board, "we treated
that basically as a bonus because the number was too likely to fluctuate from year to year."
Councilor Chizum asked what the district was considering as a local option. Mr. Korach said
it did not currently have that authority, but had consulted with State Senator Randy Miller
about advocating for it.
Ms. Strader asked what an advisory vote would accomplish. Mr. Carlson said the Council
would not be bound by it, but it would reflect the sentiments of the community. If such a
vote went on the ballot, Ms. Strader continued, would it be for another three years or in
perpetuity? The consensus seemed to be in perpetuity. Ms. Strader said the issue was so
critical, she believed the budget committee and council had it within their purview to make
the decision without submitting it to the voters. Finally, she asked whether the district could
ever turn the $1 million contribution to costs other than extracurricular activities, and the
answer was no. Councilor Lowrey said it was illegal for the City to pay for general school
funding. Mr. Carlson said Measures 50 and 5 were governing; technically,the recreation
programs are City programs contracted by the school district.
Councilor Hoffman asked for an estimate of participation. Mr. Korach said roughly 50
percent of junior high and high school students were involved, or about 1500-1800 kids.
Councilor Hoffman asked about levels of entire community support for schools: how much is
raised aside from the Foundation? Mr. Korach estimated another half million.
Citizens'Budget Committee Minutes Page 6 of 10
May 5, 1999
Ms. Strader asked what would happen without the City's $1 million contribution. Mr.
Korach said a combination of solutions would be examined, such as increasing fees (which
would cut participation), cutting sports, leveraging everything else to develop a revenue base,
renting fields to raise dollars, and moving from school-sponsored to club-sponsored
programs.
Aren't we talking about whether to fund sports or not, Ms. Thomas asked; nothing else
appears to be funded by the serial levy. Mr. Kessler said in a sense that was true, but it
represents an arbitrary slice of the pie of all after-school activities because the City's
contribution approximates the cost of athletic programs. Mr. Carlson noted that total cost of
athletics is closer to $1.5 million.
Councilor Rohde said the real cost of an advisory vote is "the campaign that you're forcing
the school groups to mount on an issue that passed ... by two-thirds, a substantial majority,"
when the idea of continuing levies was not available. He thought the City should get some
sense of the community's views,perhaps via the "Hello, L.O."newsletter, and avoid the pain
and expense of another campaign. Mr. Ruttan said he doubted there would be much
response.
Councilor Lowrey asked the district what happens to the numbers if the Governor's $4.95
billion education budget passes. Mr. Smith said the time it would take to spend the carryover
would shift out two more years.
Whose decision is it to send out the matter to an advisory vote and to continue the
intergovernmental agreement, Councilor Hoffman asked. They are all City Council
decisions, Mr. Schmitz said. Councilor Lowrey said the people should vote on it. Ms.
Thomas agreed, but added that more financial information should be made available to the
voters from the City. Councilor Chizum said he was comfortable keeping this a Council
decision, and Ms. Strader said she agreed with him.
Councilor Chizum moved to send the district's $1 million request to the City Council
for the Council to decide whether to make the decision itself or put it to a vote of the
people. Mayor Klammer seconded.
Councilor Hoffman said he was inclined to vote no because he got the sense the committee
did not wish the matter to go to an advisory vote. Councilor Chizum said his motion
recommends continued funding, but left the mechanism open.
On a voice vote, the motion carried,with Councilor Lowrey and Ms. Thomas dissenting
and Mayor Klammer absent.
Mr. Carlson noted that citizens wishing to speak on the Pilkington Park matter had been
waiting for two hours and he asked whether the item shouldn't be moved forward for their
sake. Councilor Chizum suggested the meeting finish with Pilkington Park, and the rest of
the agenda, including the LORA meeting, would be postponed to the next meeting.
Citizens'Budget Committee Minutes Page 7 of 10
May 5, 1999
VII. NON ISSUES AND OPTIONS PROPOSALS
Mr. Schmitz referred to an April 29, 1999 memo from Parks & Recreation director Nancy
Bantz regarding the April 28 Parks & Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) meeting. The first
bulleted item in the recommendations on page two suggests that a tot lot/play area be
accelerated for construction in the north field if the community raised the funding.
Otherwise,the site would be developed as an open meadow area. The cost in 2003-2004 was
estimated as $35,000-$40,000 for play equipment. If the community came up with the
money, there would only be a few thousand dollars in installation cost to the City.
Laurie McNeese, of Childs Court, said the 1990 Master Plan had indicated the park would
serve the neighborhood and include parking, open play area, children's playground, picnic
area, shelter,trail system, and soccer field. After five acres were sold to the City in 1996,
residents learned the north and south play fields were modified to an"athletic complex."
Since the area is outside city limits, the City has no responsibility to build sidewalks,
crosswalks, lights, or stop signs, and there are no plans for sidewalks. Ms. McNeese said she
failed to understand how this included"the neighborhood concerns." With 3-4 teams playing
games, and 10-12 kids on a team, and projecting 10 cars per team, the neighborhood can
expect 700-800 cars to come through every Saturday. Though the City has no legal
responsibility to help the neighborhood with traffic and crowd control, as a show of goodwill
it might build a neighborhood park in the north field as described in the 1990 Master Plan. In
a meeting with the mayor and Assistant to the City Manager Chris Jordan, both stated that if
the space were not designated as a neighborhood park now, it never would be.
Susan Herald, of 18831 SW Taylor Court, said comments to the Rosewood Action Group at
the last budget meeting had been"somewhat disrespectful and condescending." One had
been that all these problems would be solved by annexation. She said 25 years before, she
had been told annexation would occur in about 10 years. Ms. Herald referred to politicians
who talk out of both sides of their mouths, and city leaders who do not stand by their words
and who ride roughshod over the citizens. She called for no development without
representation, and suggested talking to citizens in such a manner could be "political
suicide." Another response at the previous meeting had been: if you are not within city
limits, then why are you asking us to develop a park for your neighborhood; you should
consider forming a local improvement district. Ms. Herald said the City had chosen to come
into the neighborhood, buy property, and mislead the residents as well as the seller into
believing part of the development would include a neighborhood park. As a responsible
developer, the City should abide by the Master Plan. The neighbors pay school taxes and a
parks and recreation assessment, but cannot use the open spaces at River Grove Elementary
School and its playground because of scheduling of athletic events by the school district and
Parks & Recreation to accommodate Lake Oswego Soccer Club and Little League T-ball on
every piece of open ground at the school.
Mr. Carlson asked what the budget issue was. Mr. Schmitz said whether to move $35,000-
$40,000 in the Capital Improvement Plan(CIP) for 2003-2004 up to the coming year. The
tot lot is currently in the second phase of development, along with the sewer and restrooms.
Citizens'Budget Committee Minutes Page 8 of 10
May 5, 1999
Ms. Strader asked whether the neighbors had agreed to spend the money for the equipment.
Mr. Schmitz said that was not what he had heard. Is the playground equipment dependent on
the restrooms, she asked. No, Mr. Schmidt replied. If the City moved this expenditure up,
Ms. Strader asked, what would be cut? Probably nothing, Mr. Schmidt said; the money
would probably come out of contingency.
Councilor Hoffman said if the budget committee recommended moving the tot lot up, it
would be contravening PRAB's recommendation. I understand there was a full public
hearing and they deliberated a long time on it, he said. Ms. Thomas asked whether the tot lot
was already designed into the full plan or would it replace the open meadow. Mr. Schmitz
said there would still be open space.
Ms. Strader asked whether there had been a hearing on the change in the 1990 Master Plan.
Mr. Schmitz said the 1990 Master Plan, adopted by the City Council, contained
recommendations for acquisition and development of open spaces. It also had site specific
recommendations. The River Grove site was supposed to have four acres with a soccer field,
tot lot, parking lot, play area, etc. The City acquired five acres, went through design process,
consulted PRAB, and awarded a construction bid.
Councilor Chizum said he could not see how this matter was a budget committee item, but a
Parks & Rec board item. Mr. Schmitz said it's not in the budget now, so the committee
could make a recommendation to move it up from 2003-2004.
Councilor Hoffman asked whether development of the site as a meadow precluded its use as
a soccer field. Ms. Herald said the "meadow" would be a groomed playing field where there
would be a fourth or fifth 3D3 athletic field, and the neighborhood wants a park with a trail
system similar to Waluga Park.
Councilor Lowrey said the committee should get PRAB's input. Councilor Rohde remarked
that one great thing about the CIP was that it provided a structure, but making this proposed
change would indicate that anyone can break the structure by making a big enough noise.
Mr. Carlson noted that the City was creating an impact on the neighborhood, and he believed
it should moderate the impact at the time of the impact. The CIP was not immune to
exceptions, he continued, especially exceptions of this small magnitude. We are taking a
City facility to an area that had little if any role in the selection, development, and timing of
it, he said, and he thought it was not appropriate for the City not to mitigate it.
Amy Cushman, of 19065 SW Pilkington Road, said she wanted to hear the mayor speak on
the matter. According to her, Mayor Klammer had affirmed in two different phone
conversations with Melvin Taylor that if the property were not designated as a neighborhood
park now, and athletic activities commenced on it,the residents would never get it. Ms.
Cushman said the mayor had said twice that he would support the neighborhood. Mayor
Klammer responded that he had always sympathized with the neighbors' position and would
push in that direction as long as funding could be taken from some other project.
Citizens'Budget Committee Minutes Page 9 of 10
May 5, 1999
Mr. Carlson suggested the cost of the work could be paid out of contingency and would be
paid back by the Parks & Rec fund in the CIP in three to four years.
Ms. Strader moved that dollars be moved forward from 2003-2004 to pay for the tot lot.
Ms. Thomas seconded.
Councilor Hoffman strongly objected,not because of the project, but because the committee
would be overruling the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. This happened with the
Water Sports Center several years before, and he was mad then and would be mad now, if the
committee took action after hearing only one side of the story. Councilor Lowrey agreed.
Ms. Thomas said the committee was only accelerating one portion of an already adopted plan
in an attempt to mitigate an adverse impact. The committee would merely put the matter
before the Council and "see if it flies."
Councilor Chizum said he agreed with Councilor Hoffman as well, and added that
realistically, the Council was not going to consider this small matter in the context of a $96
million budget. This is not a budget committee item,he reiterated, and if the matter is going
to go before the Council, let them decide it. Councilor Lowrey said boards and commissions
give the committee advice on such matters, and it was disrespectful to make a decision
against their recommendation without hearing from them. But he thought this was a Council
decision anyway.
Ms. McNeese asked about the next move. Councilor Lowrey said the Council would hear
the neighbors and give PRAB an opportunity to give its side, and it would decide. Ms.
Herald asked why the Rosewood Action Group was asked to come tonight, and Mr. Carlson
said it was because there was a disagreement about which was the appropriate forum.
On a roll call vote on the motion, Carlson, Ruttan, Strader, and Thomas voted aye;
Chizum, Hoffman,Klammer, Lowrey, and Rohde voted no. The motion failed.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:44 p.m. The next meeting is Wednesday, May 12, 1999 at
6:00 p.m.
Res•ectful y sub ttetl,
David-J. L s
Recording Secretary
Citizens'Budget Committee Minutes Page 10 of 10
May 5, 1999