Wednesday, July 20, 2022

7.19.22 Meeting Summary

The Council met last night and discussed a couple significant items:

- On the consent calendar was the appointment of an "extra help/Finance Director".  I asked that this be pulled so it may be discussed.  Previously the Council approved a 1 year limited duration employment for additional help in the Finance area at a rate of approximately $47/hr plus benefits, the vote for which was 4-1 with only myself voting no.  Because the city has been unable to source this position timely, the idea here was to fill the gap until such time that the approved one year position could be filled.  The Finance Director position that was being requested was to be paid approximately $68/hr without benefits.

I had asked if the time that the additional Finance Director worked would decrement the amount of time needed for the additional position that was previously approved - in other words, would the total time for this extra help exceed one year.  I was was informed that the combination of both positions may exceed the previously approved 1 year.  As a result and consistent with many areas of spending, this will likely exceed what was expected or communicated and approved by the Council previously.  

We as a city need to bring down spending but at every turn we seem to be spending more.  The vote to approve this action was 4-1 with only myself voting no.

- We discussed and approved the annual tax levy for the Clayton Benefit Assessment District (BAD) which covers 24 parcels east of Regency Drive primarily on Seminary Ridge and Promontory Place.  While the BAD provides that the annual assessment may be raised by a maximum of the lessor of CPI or 4%, the Council followed staff's recommendation and kept the assessment flat from prior year.  This was because the level of service is currently in flux as the city seeks to find a new service provider for various landscape and maintenance items.  In the interim the work will be contracted out on an as needed basis.

- The Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) also met and confirmed increases to real property assessments consistent with CPI of 5%.  The ultimate assessment is modified based on the type of parcel (single family, duet, multi-family).

As an aside, I have a scheduling conflict during the next scheduled meeting on 8.2.22.  As a result, I will not be able to provide an update prior to that meeting nor will I be in attendance.  I will review the meeting and post an update later that week.

Monday, July 18, 2022

Upcoming Council Meeting 7.19.22

Since we canceled the first meeting in July, it's been a little while since my last update.  We will meet tomorrow night to discuss a couple significant items:

- We will discuss the annual tax levy for the Clayton Benefit Assessment District (BAD).  This affects 24 parcels east of Regency Drive primarily on Seminary Ridge and Promontory Place. The levy is to cover maintenance, landscaping, drainage, etc. for these properties and was set up originally by the builder in order to have the costs for these particular parcels pay for themselves.  Self funding districts have been a preferable method of funding improvements as the assessments are levied on new developments as they are approved. 

This year the levy is expected to remain flat - no increase over the prior year assessment.  The BAD is similar to an HOA where reserves are built up over time to cover projected maintenance and replacement of items within the BAD's responsibility.

- The Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) will also meet to confirm real property assessments for the fiscal year, with increases consistent with Consumer Price Index (CPI) of 5%.  The type of the parcel determines the amount of the assessment.  CPI increases were contemplated with the inception of the GHAD and approved by voters.  The GHAD does not receive sufficient funds to do significant repair or improvements.  It's function is primarily to cover the cost of monitoring soil movement, some minor repairs, and over time has the potential to accumulate funds for some larger restoration work.  Typically these would require aggregation of multiple years worth of funding.

If you have any thoughts or questions on the above please let me know.