Loading...
Budget Advisory 1996/03/20MEMORANDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DATE: APRIL 17, 1996 TO: CITY CLERK FROM: CHARYL MC CULLY SUBJECT: BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES The attached Budget Advisory Commission Minutes from the March 20, 1996 meeting are being submitted to you for filing. i BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 20, 1996 - 3:30 P.M. SIXTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Gene Brewer, Jeff Farano, Phil Knypstra, Dan Van Dorpe, Jimmie Kennedy, Shirley McCracken MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: David Morgan, Bill Sweeney, Edward Zacherl, Jeff Stone, Charyl McCully GUESTS PRESENT: Albert Geiger, Business Records Corporation, John O'Malley, Orange County Employees Association The meeting was called to order by Chairman Brewer at 3:35 p.m.. APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES: Mr. Van Dorpe moved that the Minutes of the February 21, 1996, be approved as submitted. There was a second by Ms. McCracken. MOTION CARRIED ( 6-0-0). PRELIMINARY FINDING FROM DATA PROCESSING REQUEST FOR INFORMATION Mr. Sweeney reported that the City received ten responses to the Request For Information (RFI). They are being evaluated by a team from the Information Services Division. A matrix will be developed to synthesize data for the Privatization Subcommittee's review. Some respondents addressed the total program, while some addressed only specific elements. The general cost involved can be ascertained, but the information needs critical examination. The City is still very competitive relative to services in this field. Data Processing has reduced its staff substantially. According to Mr. Morgan, in many cases when outside sources are sought, internal staff finds ways to improve its operation, to become more competitive. The process of such review is conducive to "internal cleansing". The City is working diligently to get critical programs, including CIS (Customer Information System) up and running. Mr. Van Dorpe suggested that the Subcommittee divide the responses for review. Mr. Sweeney reminded the Commission of the complexity and importance of contract structure when outsourcing. Bids must be as clear as possible, with no confusion, especially if any cost element is higher than the internal cost for that function. It is also necessary to isolate those components currently in the private sector from the entire operation, and evaluate on that basis. It might be worthwhile to compare privatization of the whole program to privatization of various components. In response to Mr. Knypstra, Mr. Sweeney explained that no consultant has been brought in at this time to review responses to the RFI, but such service may be necessary should the City initiate the RFP process. Mr. Sweeney indicated that we will probably need the second bid process (RFP), because the data might not be clear enough without it; but there will be a restricted field of ten respondents. In response to Mr. Van Dorpe, Mr. Sweeney indicated that only those who responded to the RFI will be approached for cost information, if doing so conforms to the regulations governing this process. Mr. Morgan stated that, without a material change, we Budget Advisory Commission, March 20, 1996 Page 2 will probably not approach other companies. In response to Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Sweeney stated that the RFI did not include specifications; rather, companies were asked to respond to the City's data processing environment. We may pick certain elements for bid. It may be prudent to isolate those segments of the operation currently provided by the City, that are available from the private sector, and request bids on those and for the entire operation, so there are only a few numbers to look at. INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN: Mr. Sweeney explained that the Indirect Cost Allocation Plan refers to the City's overhead, and that we retain a consultant to build the annual plan. Enterprise funds are charged the full amount for service on a cost basis. Edward Zacherl, Assistant Finance Director, explained that the plan, by David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd., is a two-year, five -hundred page plan costing $15,000. The plan is prepared according to specific guidelines, and is updated for the second year.Originally devised as a tool for identifying reimbursable Federal grant administrative costs, it also identifies indirect interfund (administrative) costs for all City programs and departments; reimbursement of State mandated costs (SB -90); full cost of providing municipal services; and reimbursement of some administrative costs associated with emergency response and recovery activities. A discussion followed regarding the diversity in budget documents among cities. It was concluded that there is wide disparity among cities, and financial reports usually cannot be accurately compared. Interest was expressed by the Commission in taking an active role in encouraging standardization. Mr. Morgan reported that the International City Managers Association is attempting to develop reporting standards. In response to Mr. VanDorpe's question regarding the necessity of including overhead costs in privatization efforts, Mr. Sweeney stated that it would only be necessary if doing so were material to the bottom line. Mr. Van Dorpe indicated that a policy should exist regarding the inclusion of indirect costs in privatization considerations. Mr. Sweeney urged the Commission to disregard these numbers if immaterial. Chairman Brewer indicated concurrence. Mr. Morgan suggested that such costs be considered, but not necessarily included, because, in each case, the issue of scale needs to be considered, in addition to size analysis. It is important to understand what portion can be cut in each case. Mr. Sweeney stated that whatever cannot be cut should be added to the outside contract. Mr. Sweeney stated that of the Indirect Cost Allocation Plan total, approximately $4 million is charged to the enterprise and grant funds. All activities stand alone, and the program must withstand the audit process. The enterprise funds reimburse approximately fifty percent of the Accounting operation. While Departments often appeal their charges, Mr. Zacherl stated that much of the cost allocation is objective and backed with actual numbers. He went on to say that the allocation is a dynamic process which is reevaluated and changed periodically. Interviews are held, and department input is considered. Some charges are direct through the internal service funds. Mr. Sweeney indicated that, over the last five years, administrative overhead has been substantially reduced. Mr. Zacherl stated that the plan is better viewed over several years. Averaging makes numbers meaningless, and is not an option. We have revenue coming into the General Fund as a recapture of costs. There will be more information on this when the budget is discussed. Mr. Knypstra indicated confusion between internal service charges and cost allocation. Mr. Van Dorpe asked for a comprehensive list of all indirect costs. Mr. Morgan suggested showing the information on an organization chart. Mr. Sweeney will furnish list. a Budget Advisory Commission, March 20, 1996 Page 3 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. O'Malley requested, and was given, a copy of the data processing privatization RFI. Mr. Geiger introduced himself and his company. He requested a list of companies that sent responses to the RFI, and was assured that one would be sent to him. He indicated that the RFI process was a good measure of the technology and services available in the market. AGENDA ITEMS FOR APRIL MEETING: Election of a Budget Advisory Commission Vice -Chair, and preliminary budget information update. ITEMS BY COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Brewer inquired as to the status of a new appointment to the Commission to replace Katherine Freshley. The Secretary will check the status with the City Clerk, and report to the Commission. Mr. Knypstra inquired about the Arena budget. Mr. Sweeney explained that the debt issue has been refunded. The Budget includes a separate fund for the Arena debt service principle and interest payment. The property tax payment is currently being contested. There are three parties involved: Ogden, the City , and the Project. Debt service, property taxes, audit fees, and some miscellaneous costs are budgeted. Approximately 1% of the Transient Occupancy Tax is being transferred from the General Fund to the Arena Fund to take care of costs. In the following discussion, Mr. Morgan gave an update of the Stadium situation vis a vis the sale of the California Angels, indicating that, although initial talks did not result in an agreement, the opportunity for future discussion remains open. In response to Mr. Knypstra, Mr. Sweeney stated that payment from the Rams will continue until the year 2015, at which time, the City would have realized payment in full. OTHER BUSINESS: None ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. by Chairman Brewer. Respectfully submitted, Charyl McCully Secretary to the Commission WP/BAC/MINMAR96/CPM