Item 12 Additional Material posted 1-14-21M EMQRAN DLJ M City of Poway
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
(Agenda Related Writings/Documents provided to City Council or Staff after distribution of the
Agenda Packet for the January 19, 2021 Council Meeting)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CONTACT:
January 14, 2021
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Vaida Pavolas, City Clerk
(858) 668-4535 or vpavolas@poway.org
SUBJECT: Item 12 -Adoption of a Resolution to Amend the Charter for the Budget Review
Committee
Attached please find correspondence received after the agenda posting deadline.
Reviewed/Approved By:
Wendy Kaserman
Assistant City Manager
1 of 2
Reviewed By:
Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
Approved By:
City Manager
January 19, 2021, Item #12
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Jan 13, 2021
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
Chris Cruse
CiUQerl<; Daye Grosch: cavliâ–ˇ Frank; John Mullin.: Steve vaus
Chris Cruse
Poway Council Meeting 1/19 Item 12 Adoption of a Resolution to Amend the Charter for the BRC
Wednesday, January 13, 202111:50:58 AM
To: Poway City Clerk
Re:Poway Council Meeting 1/19 Item 12 Adoption of a Resolution to Amend the Charter for
the BRC
Council Members,
I am opposed to the charter change for the Budget Review Committee.
Retaining the current chair and vice chair for an extra year in order to have staggered
appointments is a bad idea for several reasons:
1) The staggered appointments would be very inefficient for the staff who would have a new
crop of people every year instead of every 2 yrs. They would need to do twice the explanation
and review of how the budget words, format, etc.
2) The committee members that were appointed during the 2nd year of a 2 yr budget would
have a hard time getting up to speed without the staff starting over from scratch. They would
also have to grasp one 2 year budget, then serve their second year when a new 2 yr budget is
reviewed. This would make their first year on the committee difficult, as the committee
members are doing different things in the 2nd year of a 2 yr budget than the first year of a 2yr
budget. The new committee members would be immersed in budget changes before they had
time to review the budget format and language.
3) The primary purpose of the committee is to "review the operating and capital budgets and
make recommendations "to improve the readability of the budget documents." They are supposed to
"review the terminology used in the budget such that it may be easily understood by all interested
readers". It is hardly likely that members who have been on the committee for 2 years will be better
able to notice problems in the format or readability of the budget than someone with a fresh pair of
eyes would. In fact, having members serve for a 3 year would likely hamper the committee from
making the budget understandable to "all interested readers".
4) The appointment process appears to be more political than meant to serve the purpose of the
committee. For example, if the Committee's purpose is to give feedback to the staff so that the
budget is understandable by "all interested readers "why are there no women on the committee?
Why was no one from district 4 selected to be on the committee? Shouldn't "all interested readers"
be more inclusive? Retaining the chair and vice-chair for a third year makes it less inclusive.
Please scrap this charter amendment and appoint 5 people to the committee that will serve the
purpose of the Budget Review Committee.
Sincerely,
Chris Cruse
2 of2 January 19, 2021, Item #12