Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-1029 Jt Parks-Council PACKET • CITY OF AGENDA FOR JOINT MEETING PARKS ASHLAND ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL ASHLAND PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION October 29, 2013 Siskiyou Room 51 Winburn Way 7:00 p.m. Joint Study Session 1. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. OVERVIEW OF SESSION IV. PUBLIC INPUT V. DISCUSSION OF ad hoc PARKS FUNDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS • 1. Clarify management responsibilities by memorializing them in a Memorandum of Understanding between city administration and the Parks and Recreation Department. 2. A revised budget process that ensures that P&R needs are understood and reviewed before and during the budget process. 3. Commit to renewed Council-Commission communication through joint meetings of both bodies, and/or via the establishment of a dedicated joint committee. 4. Dedicate the current Ending Fund Balance to a Special Reserve Fund. 5. Review and adopt an incentive policy to reward Parks management for creative programming and/or cost-effective practices. 6. Initiate a TOT study to assess the feasibility of instituting an increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax that could be dedicated to P&R funding (most likely Lithia Park maintenance and development). 7. Review existing policies and documents for consistency with current practices. VI. WRAP UP VII. ADJOURNMENT • In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Parks & Rec Commissioners and City Councilors - The three of us (Pam Marsh, Stef Seffinger, John Stromberg) have developed this document to help our two bodies process the recommendations of the P&R Ad Hoc Funding Committee that will be discussed at our joint meeting of Oct. 29, 2013. The emphasis in this meeting should be on discovering and confirming areas of agreement. We should also be directing subjects that need further work to appropriate next steps, for example: staff, subcommittee, separate Parks and Council meeting, etc. The meeting will be two hours long unless both Parks and the Council agree to extend it. The Parks' Chair and the Mayor will chair the meeting except when it's necessary for either body to act separately (vote, for example). The agenda will consist of going through the seven [six?] recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee in order. Note: All the recommendation documents are attached to this email. Respectfully, Pam, Stef and John Final Report Submitted to: Ashland City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission From: Ad Hoc Committee on Parks and Recreation Funding (Rick Landt, Pam Marsh, Rich Rosenthal, Steff Seffinger and Carol Voisin) Date: October 20, 2013 Introduction At its meeting on March 19, 2013, the Ashland City Council voted to establish an Ad Hoc Committee charged with examining funding options to support Parks and Recreation activities. Committee membership was set at three council members and two Parks and Recreation commissioners. Rich Rosenthal, Carol Voisin and Pam Marsh were appointed from the council, and Rick Landt and Steff Seffinger from the commission. City Attorney Dave Lohman was asked to staff the committee. The group's official Scope of Work stated: The ad hoc Parks Funding Committee is charged with assisting the City Council and the Parks Commission by examining short- and long-term parks funding issues in greater depth. Strategies and recommendations developed by the committee shall be reported back to a joint meeting of the City Council and Parks Commission at a date to be determined The committee shall, in the course of its work: O Provide arrple opportunity for public input, O Coradt with the city attorney to easureit -ecommendations are compliant with Oregon law; and O Presef 7t its reconrta-tdations in writing so they can be a9slyshared with the public. This report summarizes our work over the past five months. It includes an overview of our evolving discussions as well as a set of recommendations for consideration by the joint council and commission. A full set of committee documentation, including minutes, motions and working documents, is attached. Our process The Ad Hoc's initial assignment was to look at funding options that could be implemented in the 2013-2015 budget. However, given both the very short time line and unresolved policy questionsstill pending in the Budget Committee 1 regarding the allocation of property tax revenues to Parks and Recreation, we were unable to forward suggestions for the current biennium. Accordingly, we quickly turned our focus to identification and analysis of long term options. Step _1: Identification of funding characteristics We began by compiling a list of the qualities or characteristics that we believe should be present in any Parks and Recreation funding methodology. Critical characteristics include: • Transparency • Long term stability • Predictability • Growth curve • Incorporates public input • Maintains commission's budgeting powers • Supports prudent decision-making • Provides diversified revenue • Supports commission as a policy-making body • Consistent with the comprehensive plan • Consistent with accounting principles • Consistent with the city charter This list provided a template against which to measure any funding options that we might later identify. Step 2: Analysis of funding options Next we identified specific funding options (taxes, fees, etc.) that might be dedicated to Parks and Recreation.: • Utility fee • Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) • Local Option Levy • Recreation fees • OSF partnership - ticket tax • Naming rights • Entrepreneurial efforts • P&R Foundation fundraising • Amendment/expansion of meals tax • Development of a Parks District • General fund We used the following sample worksheet to assess each of these options. 2 , „ , ~ , . FUNDINGOPT ONSW~ORKSHEET ~U 1 tyTax ' „ How enacted? Who pays? Who allocates? Amount generated? How collected? Collection costs? Restrictions/ limitations? Renewal? Growth in revenues? Sustainability? Competition for funds? Politically feasible? Progressive/regressive? Notes 3 Detailed analysis regarding each option is contained in our June 24 minutes. After extensive discussion, we concluded that the general fund property tax is the only option that can provide sufficient revenue to sustain P&R, at least for the immediate future. An increase in TOT dedicated to Lithia Park could provide significant revenue in the future, although we would likely continue to be reliant on the general fund. Step 3: Addressing the Bans We recognized that budgeting for P&R from the general fund property tax raises two distinct issues: First, how will the current and future needs of Parks be weighed against other City demands? Second, will the decision-making authority of the elected Parks and RecreationCommission be compromised by imposition of the City budget process? We addressed these questions through development of three strategies: • Clarification of management structure. At our request, Parks Director Don Robertson and City Administrator Dave Kanner met to delineate the management responsibilities accorded to each entity. We believe this document should be memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding. While it is true that an MOU can be changed or abandoned by a future council or commission,a document that clearly spells out the responsibilities of both city administration and P&R could provide long term stability and substantively address concerns that the general fund budget strategy will undermine independent management of P&R. The management document is included as Attachment 1. • Amend the P&R budget process. A shift to a general fund based budget raises concerns that P&R needs/priorities may be undermined by competition from other city departments. Accordingly, we recommend adoption of an amended budget process to ensure that P&R requests receive advance review and are adequately represented throughout the budget process. The proposed budget process is Attachment 2 to this report.ln brief, it includes two opportunities for council-commission discussion of Parks goals and funding priorities, as well as the inclusion of the commission chair during internal budget review. • Parks-Council communication. We recognize that the council and commission need to develop a strong working relationship in order to build 4 trust in the budget process and to adequately serve the constituents we hold in common. Accordingly, we recommend that the council and commission establish a regular joint meeting schedule and/or create a permanent joint committee to address issues we hold in common. See Attachment 3 for more detail. Step 4: Additional budget recommendations The Ad Hoc Committee is also forwarding two specific budget recommendations: Ending Fund Balance. The current EFB for the biennium (approximately $587,000) is no longer needed to serve as beginning cash flow for the next budget period since P&R is now funded through the general fund. Accordingly, the Ad Hoc Committee recommends that EFB be dedicated for park purposes and placed in a Special Reserve Fund with expenditures to be determined by the P&R Commission and transfers out of the reserve fund approved by the City Council. This reserve fund could not be created until the 2015-17 budget cycle." Incentive policy. Affirming our desire to reward creative management, the Ad Hoc has developed three alternative schemes for instituting financial incentives that would acknowledge exceptional practices. These are detailed for your consideration in Attachment 4. Summary of Recommendations After five months of study, the Ad Hoc Committee acknowledges that there is no silver bullet that could provide long term, stable and dedicated funding to P&R. Instead, it appears that we will need to rely upon the general fund property tax as the primary source of revenue, augmented by fees and rental income collected by the department. However, we have prepared a package of recommendations for consideration by the joint council and commission. Taken as a whole, these actions will address the concerns generated by the move to general fund financing and ensure that P&R interests are respected and represented during the budgeting process. We believe that implementation of these recommendations will move the P&R general fund budget process closer to the ideal Funding Principles identified early in our process and identified on page 2 of this report. Our recommendations include: 1. Clarify management responsibilities by memorializing them in a Memorandum of Understanding between city administration and the Parks and Recreation Department. r 5 2. Adopt a revised budget process that ensures that P&R needs are understood and reviewed before and during the budget process. 3. Commit to renewed Council-Commission communication through joint meetings of both bodies, and/or via the establishment of a dedicated joint committee. 4. Dedicate the current Ending Fund Balance to a Special Reserve Fund. S. Review and adopt an incentive policy to reward Parks management for creative programming and/or cost-effective practices. 6. Initiate a TOT study to assess the feasibility of instituting an increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax that could be dedicated to P&R funding (most likely Lithia Park maintenance and development). Conclusion The transition to a general fund-based budget has stressed the relationship between council and commission over the past year. The creation of the Ad Hoc Committee was a good faith statement about the value of public process, and about our ability to sit down and talk together. We hope you will find value in our work. We look forward to the opportunity to present our findings to you in a joint council-commission meeting. In the meantime, if you have questions about our process or conclusions, please contact any one of us. f 6 .,At, MEMO TO: City Council and Parks Commission FROM Ad Hoc Committee on Parks Funding RE: Communication between the Council and Commission The Ad Hoc Committee was assigned to investigate short- and long-term funding options to support the Parks and Recreation Department. In the course of carrying out this assignment, we have realized that in order to accomplish this goal better communication was needed between both elected bodies. We believe the current liaison position needs to be replaced or supplemented with a mechanism that will ensure more direct and sustained conversation between council and commission members. We suggest two alternatives for your consideration: Option #1 joint Committee. The Council and Commission could establish a joint Committee composed of two Council members and two Parks commissioners. Council members would be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council; Parks commissioners would be appointed by the Chair. Meetings would be held quarterly or as determined by the members. _ Duties: The Joint Committee would: • Review parks short and long term goals for inclusion in citywide planning documents. • Identify common interests and concerns. These might include, for example, sustainability, conservation or beautification of public areas. Investigate how these interests and concerns relate to city goals and budget priorities. • Identify opportunities for education and cross training that will allow elected .:officials to understand the responsibilities and activities overseen by each body. • Review the proposed budget and spending priorities for Parks and Recreation. • Review the Parks and Open Space section of the comprehensive plan and recommend changes that reflect public input and funding opportunities and constraints: • Propose a schedule for full Council/Commission meetings. These should be scheduled at least annually, but as often as deemed necessary. • Invite and incorporate public input in decision-making. • Take on other issues as assigned. Option k2 Alternatively, the Council and Parks Commission could choose to establish a schedule of regular meetings of the full bodies. Meeting agendas could include any of the items listed above, with particular emphasis on budget and spending priorities. Meetings would be planned and conducted by the Mayor and the Parks Commission chair. As needed, the two bodies could create temporary ad hoc committees to take on specific projects or studies. Proposed Parks Budget Process 2015 - 2017 Biennium February 1. Joint Council-Parks Commission meeting to discuss goals and budget priorities. 2. Budget Assumptions: Delivered to Budget Committee by budget officer. Parks Commission invited to Budget Assumptions meeting. 3. Director to assemble budget estimates for Park Commission: Based on Commission goals, CIP needs, and public input. 4. Park Commission takes input and recommends budget to Budget Officer: Conducted at regular commission meeting. March 5. Park Commission requested budget delivered to budget officer by end of first week in March 6. Park Commission Chairand Director meet with Budget Officer to present budget: Occurs second week in March as a part of formal budget officer review. (Sweaty little room) March->April 7. Budget officer reviews proposed Parks budget in relation to overall proposed city budget and prepares budget document: Utilizes council/commission goals to guide his recommendations. 8. Director presents proposed Parks Department budget to Parks Commission: Done in regular commission meeting. Commission makes specific recommendations to be sent to Budget committee in advance of first budget meeting (but not in advance of the budget being delivered to the committee).Note: Budget document must be delivered to the printer approx. 10 days in advance of the first Budget Committee meeting in order to deliver the budget to the committee at least seven days in advance of the meeting and publish on City web site. 9. Joint Council-Parks Commission meeting to discuss budget concerns, if any. Late April May 10. Budget presentations made to Budget Committee: Director makes budget presentation at meeting. Commission recommends any modifications during presentation per V. 11. Budget document will not contain add packages in their traditional format: Budget committee may approve add packages based on city goals and objectives. Note:Red events are new additions to budget process. The Ad Hoc Committee believes that the Parks and Recreation funding system should include a financial incentive to reward creative management and innovative programming. We recommend that the Council and Parks Commission adopt one of three recommended policies: 1. Assignment of budget surplus: Monies budgeted but not spent during the biennium will be added to revenuesgenerated by the department (fees, rental income) that exceed budgeted amounts; the total will be evenly divided between the general fund and Parks and Recreation. P&R funds would be placed in the department's capital fund. Or 2. Assignment of revenue only: Parks and Recreation will wholly retain revenuegenerated by the department (fees, rental income) that exceeds budgeted amounts. Funds would be placed in the department's capital fund. Or 3. Assignment of excess Materials and Services revenue: Monies budgeted but not spent for Materials and Services would be placed in the department's capital fund. Management: Planning; Organizing; Budgeting; Directing; Evaluating Planning Parks City Master plans Comprehensive plan (Parks input) Functional plans CIP funding, including debt financing Capital improvement plans Create rules for use of park land and facilities Organizing Parks City Determine functional divisions Local Contract Review Board Allocation of appropriated resources Contract for services within limits Budgeting Parks City Recommend budget to Budget Officer Appropriate funds and adopt budget Set recreation fees and recommend rental rates* Refer tax measures, set tax rate * for Comm. Ctr., Pioneer Hall and The Grove CIP funding, including debt financing Establish other revenue streams Establish SDCs Directing Parks City Assign duties and responsibilities to Parks staff Establish priorities for Parks staff Procedural work policies Policies re park land maintenance Establish personnel rules and policies (with guidance from Legal, Finance, Personnel) Establish classifications and compensation rates Determine COLAs and benefits Evaluating Parks City Evaluate employee performance (supervisors) Monitor budget compliance Evaluate director (commission) Analyze program performance s. Monitor budget compliance Analyze and categorize physical conditions Motions by Council/Park Ad Hoc Committee: Anril 30 Park Commissioner Landt/SefSnger m/s to rescind prior motion from March 28, 2013 meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Park Commissioner Landt/Seffinger m/s that the committee propose to the Citizen Budget Committee that a new Park Reserve Fund be created with the purpose of these funds to be used for repair, restoration and improvements to Lithia Park. That the current proposed Ending Fund Balance of $750,000 be a "zero" balance and that this amount of $750,000 be the amount budgeted in the 2013-15 Budget for the Parks Reserve Fund. Voice Vote: Landt, Marsh, Voisin, Seffinger and Rosenthal, YES. Motion passed. June 10 Parks Commissioner Landt and Councilor Rosenthal m/s that the Ad Hoc Committee on Parks Funding requests that members of the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission initiate a joint discussion to review and address progress and findings to date by the Ad Hoc Committee. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion Passed. June24 Councilor Voisin/Parks Commissioner Landt m/s that the Ad Hoc Committee direct the City Administrator and the Parks Director to work out a management plan clearly delineating Parks / City responsibilities. Voice Vote: All YES. Motion passed. Aueust 19 Committee members Marsh/Landt m/s that the ad hoc committee recommends the Ending Fund Balance of approximately $587,000 be dedicated for park purposes through a Special Reserve Fund with outcome to be determined by the Park Commission. DISCUSSION: It was clarified that the Park Commission would determine the purpose and the Park Commission recommendation would be addressed at the upcoming joint Council/Parks meeting. It was determined that the auditors may need to determine if a transfer of Ending Fund Balance could be done within current budget cycle. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. September 4 Park Commissioner Landt/Councilor Rosenthal m/s to approve incentive document as presented adding Option 3 and adding Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to all options. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Councilor Rosenthal/Commissioner Landt m/s to recommend at the joint committee meeting to explore feasibility of TOT increase dedicated to Park & Recreation funding. DISCUSSION: Members discussed how the vote would be conducted at the joint meeting. Commissioner Landt/Councilor Marsh m/s to all for the question. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Vote on main motion: Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL/PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING MARCH 28, 2013 @ NOON PARKS OFFICE 0 340 S. PIONEER STREET Meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. in the Parks Office of 340 S. Pioneer Street. Councilors Rosenthal, Marsh and Voisin, Park Commissioners Seffinger and Landt, City Attorney Dave Lohman were present. Councilor Pam Marsh was elected as Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee. Discussion by group began by recognizing the need for an immediate recommendation based on Parks & Recreation Department Ending Fund Balance. Discussion points included budget assumptions included in a February 21 memo from City Administrator Dave Kanner, provisional approval of proposed budget by Parks Commission, how comfortable the Parks Commission was with the proposed Parks Ending Fund Balance, the theoretical and traditional process used for establishing the 2.09 rate for Parks Department and proposed in budget and how all is contingent upon the recommendation of this committee. It was stated that no assumptions had been adopted by the Budget Committee and clarification was requested on how the Budget Committee determines assumptions for the budget. Concern was raised that the "white paper" which was identified as "Working Draft - November 12, 2012 - Parks & Recreation Funding for FY2013-15" was being used by the City Mayor and City Administrator to base assumptions on for the Parks Department Budget. City Attorney Dave Lohman stated that he was unaware if the City Administrator was using this document as a tool for the budget. Committee discussed the need to understand the reasoning on how the 12.5% Ending Fund Balance (EFB) was determined, which was based only on operating expenditures rather than on the entire Parks budget, and how the Ending Fund Balance is determined. It was understood that the 12.5% EFB assumes the City would guarantee any short comings in the Parks budget. It was also noted that the Parks Department has a current policy to provide 30% ENF but may be supportive of changing it to 25% ENF. It was recognized that a policy should be made that rewards and supports incentives for strong fiscal management. Discussion was directed to recognizing any positives that the Parks Department may experience under the "city umbrella" which may include access to the Reserve Fund. Concern was raised on how accessible funds would be to the Parks Department through the City General Fund and how clarity would need to be made on the difference between Ending Fund Balance and Reserve Fund. Suggestion was made that set rules and regulations would need to be established on how the Reserve Fund would be used. Clarification on the policy for EFB was provided to the committee through Resolution #2010-05 which outlined the City policy for Ending Fund Balances. Continued debate and discussion on why the issue of EFB for Parks Department was happening at this time pointed to the expense associated with PERS (Public Employees Retirement System). There was concern raised that this is a one-time issue and that it was being used to set a process for all future Parks budgets. Challenges faced by the Budget Committee were acknowledged for the current budget as it pertains to the City General Fund. Comment was made that the committee should not assume what direction the Budget Committee may take. Long-term issues were identified as "autonomy" and "organization control" for the Parks Department. It was suggested that a "dedicated" Parks Reserve Fund be considered for the Parks Department. Mr. Lohman clarified that a "dedicated" Reserve Fund would require a continued revenue source through a 5-year levy or become a separate "district." JoAnne Eggers/221 Granite/Spoke regarding the atmosphere of mistrust and voiced concern with direction on Park Funds being transferred to the City General Fund and the issue of the Ending Fund Balance. She felt it would be better if there was trust and if there was the same ease and conditions for access to funds. The importance of the Park Commissioners being comfortable with the current budget proposal and that the budget was adequate for operations and deferred maintenance. It was understood that it may not be adequate for the long-term. It was noted that the Meals Tax has been renewed and can be used for rehabilitating which is an opportunity now that wasn't present previously. Additional long-term issues included the need to expand the existing park system and the need to continue with many projects that have not been completed. It was pointed out that the Parks Department had contributed to the City Reserve Fund in the past and it was questioned on how or if these funds could be returned to the Parks Department. Concern was raised on transferring Parks funds to the City General Fund and if the citizens were aware of these issues facing the Parks Department. Councilor Rosenthal/Park Commissioner Seffinger m/s to support current budget allocated for the Parks & Recreation Department and to establish an Ending Fund Balance of 12.5% for this biennial budget and that the City guarantee the Park & Recreation Operation Budget. To establish Parks Reserve Fund "total" commiserate to contribution made by Parks Commission to City Reserve Fund. DISCUSSION: Suggestion that $Imillion could be placed in the City General Fund, need to establish a long-term Reserve Fund, important that committee provide a recommendation, confusion on how Ending Fund Balances are being determined, recommendation that a Reserve Fund be established for the Parks Department in the amount of $750,000, concern with providing working capital, confirmation on amount of Ending Fund Balance and difficulty with projecting future revenue based on county projections by tax assessor. Commissioner Landt/Councilor Voisin m/s to amend main motion that $500,000 be transferred to a Parks Reserve Fund with funds coming from either past Parks contribution to City Revenue or reallocation of Parks Ending Fund Balance. DISCUSSION: Statement that there is still time to work on a policy for Parks Department Ending Fund Balance. Concern raised with the resistance that may result from an additional $500,000 Reserve Fund over and above proposed. Concern was voiced regarding the risk associated with funds being taken away from deferred maintenance Voice Vote: Rosenthal, Landt and Voisin, YES; Seffinger and Marsh, NO. Motion passed 3-2. Councilor Marsh/Commissioner Seffinger m/s to amend motion to include "or the projected 12.5% Parks & Recreation Department Ending Fund Balance or the current biennial Parks & Recreation Department Ending Fund Balance." Voice Vote: Rosenthal, Marsh, Seffinger and Landt, YES; Voisin, NO. Motion passed 4-1. Councilor Voisin left the meeting at 2:15 p.m. Commissioner Landt/Commissioner Seffinger m/s to amend motion to include "or the current biennial Parks & Recreation Department Ending Fund Balance." Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Amended Main Motion: Councilor Rosenthal and Park Commissioner Seffinger motion to support current budget allocated for the Parks & Recreation Department and to establish an Ending Fund Balance of 12.5% for this biennial budget and that the City guarantee the Park & Recreation Operation Budget. To establish a $500,000 Reserve Fund based on either what has already been contributed to the city Reserve Fund by Parks & Recreation Department in the past or the projected 12.5% Parks & Recreation Department Ending Fund Balance or the current biennial Parks & Recreation Department Ending Fund Balance. Committee agreed to allow Chair Marsh to summarize the discussion leading up to the recommendation made by the approved motion and submit to the City Administrator with a request that it be placed on the agenda for the Council Study Session on April 15. A future meeting was set for April 22 at 3 p.m. in the Parks Office. Meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Christensen City Recorder Motions by Park Commissioners regarding Resolution on Parks Funding "Landt moved / Shaw seconded approval of the resolution on Parks funding issues that's before us." Vote: All yes "Landt moved / Gardiner seconded approval to rescind the Parks budget approved by the Parks Commission at their March 25, 2013, regular meeting." Vote: All yes (Lewis abstained) "Landt moved / Gardiner seconded approval of the funding level for Parks operations for the FY 13-15 biennium as proposed by staff, with approval for the changes in Parks ending fund balance, as proposed by the mayor and City Budget Officer, not approved." Vote: All yes ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 340 SO. PIONEER STREET ASHLAND, OREGON 97520, COMMISSIONERS: Don Robertson Mike Gardiner q, Director Rick Landl r--y G Jim Lewis TEL: (541) 4885340 Stelam Sellinger ; r FAX: (541) 4885314 Vanslon Shaw r Oq8 p i' April 25, 2013 Ashland City Council Mayor Stromberg Citizens' Budget Committee Dear Councilors, Mayor, and Citizens' Budget Committee members: After the Parks Commission approved the attached resolution, commissioners and staff realized they overlooked discussing the title / introduction in terms of its relevance to the body of the document. The title does not match the body and I regret any confttsion this may have caused. I realize the commission would have preferred the title to simply read, "Proposed Parks Commission Resolution." Per City Attorney David Lohman, the title cannot be changed after the fact. I also want those concerned to know that the Parks Commission supports a cooperative working relationship with the City Council and City Administration. We all want what is best for Ashland. We may not agree on the current budget process but we do agree about working toward a positive solution to this issue. Sincerely, Stefani Seffinger, Chair Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Home of Famous Llthia Park RESOLUTION PROHIBITING SPECIAL REVENUE PARKS FUNDS BEING USED FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN FOR PARKS IN THE ELECTED ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON IN THE MATTER AUTHORIZING ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION TO RETAIN ITS RESTRICTED SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS FOR PARKS PURPOSES UNTIL Ashland Parks and Recreation THE CITY OF ASHLAND PROVIDES A FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE NECESSITY OF ANY CHANGES IN POLICY TO THE PUBLIC WHEREAS, Ashland has from its early days had a special relationship with its parks as evidenced by clauses in the City Charter in the early 201" century specifying that a portion of property taxes would be dedicated to Parks and that an independent, elected body, the Parks Cormvission, would preside over those funds and ensure that Ashland's Parks were well-funded in perpetuity; and WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan includes the goal that Parks, Trails and Open Space expand and the goal has not yet been realized; and WHEREAS, even though State law, created through the passage of Measure 50 in 1997, allows (but does not require) that money allocated in the Charter for Parks purposes could be used for other City purposes, City administrators since the state law changed, including Brian Almquist, Mike Freeman, Greg Scoles, Gino Grimaldi, and Martha Bennett had, by a "gentleman's agreement," continued to honor the City Charter and maintained the revenue stream specified in the Charter. Their reasoning was to maintain consistency with the City Charter, and to ensure the high quality of Ashland's Parks; and WHEREAS, no public discussion or vote has been held on the current City Administrator's plan of taking traditional Parks revenues to be used for other City purposes: over one million dollars for the next biennium; and WHEREAS, no public accounting has been made of how the money taken from Parks will be spent; and WHEREAS, no City Council or Ashland citizens' vote on this major change has occurred; and WHEREAS, the Parks ending fund balance/restricted special revenue fund is a byproduct of responsible fiscal management and the funds are one-time monies that are not likely to be replenished anytime soon; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes that include changing the way the budget is developed, moving it from the Parks Commission's development of the budget to the budget officer (the City Administrator's) development of it, in effect removing much of the Parks Commission's independence; IT IS HEREBY REQUESTED that the Ashland City Council, Mayor and Budget Officer refrain from taking special restricted revenue funds for purposes other than for the Ashland Parks and Recreation Conunission; either directly or indirectly, until: • A full disclosure of.the necessity forthe<change in policy is made public; • A vote of either the City"Council or preferably the citizens of Ashland has ratified this proposed change; and • The City Administrator has explained how the Paiks Commission maintains its Charter- created independence without contirol of its budget. Dated this 2~1_ day of 2013 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stefani Sef . ger; Chair Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Ad Hoc Parks Funding Committee Scope of Work 3/21/13 The ad hoc Parks Funding Committee is charged with assisting the City Council and the Parks Commission by examining short- and long-term parks funding issues in greater depth. Strategies and recommendations developed by the committee shall be reported back to a joint meeting of the City Council and Parks Commission at a date to be determined. The committee shall, in the course of its work: • Provide ample opportunity for public input; • Consult with the city attorney to ensure its recommendations are compliant with Oregon law; and • Present its recommendations in writing so they can be easily shared with the public. CITY OF ASHLAND Memo TO: ad hoc Steering Committee on Parks Funding FROM: Dave Kanner, city administrator DATE: March 26, 2013 RE: Proposed Parks budget I have been asked to clarify whether the budget presented to the Parks Commission by Parks Director Don Robertson and subsequently recommended by the Parks Commission will in fact be the budget officer's proposed budget. The answer to that question is yes. I have also been asked to explain how I determined the equivalent tax rate for Parks & Recreation in the 2013-15 biennium. If the City were to continue to budget a tax rate of $2.09/$1,000 in the Parks Fund, it would generate an estimated $9.4 million over the course of the biennium. The proposed budget will instead transfer approximately $8.8 million from the General Fund to the Parks Fund over the course of the biennium. Expressed as a tax rate, $8.8 million is between $1.97 and $2.02 per $1,000, depending on how much revenue is generated by a penny of tax. Please don't hesitate to contact me if 1 can answer any further questions. DAVE KANNER, CITY ADMINISTRATOR 20 E. Main St. Ashland, OR 97520=, 541-552-2103 dave.kanner@ashland.or.us Council/Parks Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Pagel of 3 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL/PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 30, 2013 @ 4 P.M. PARKS OFFICE 0 340 S. PIONEER STREET Chair Councilor Marsh called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. in the Parks Office of 340 S. Pioneer Street. Councilors Rosenthal, and Voisin, Park Commissioners Seffinger and Landt, City Attorney Dave Lohman were present. Staff present: Don Robertson, Parks & Recreation Director, Dave Kanner and City Administrator. The minutes of March 28, 2013 were approved as presented. 1. Review of Parks & Recreation action from Monday, April 22, 2013 Explanation on a motion, previously approved by the Parks & Recreation Commissioners, and the result of a Resolution was brought forward to the committee. It was stated that the rationale for this action were several that included the following: There were goals in the Comprehensive Plan that had not been reached; new process for funding and establishing Ending Fund Balances (EFB) had not been approved by the voters; request that the Council and Budget Officer refrain from using EFB until a policy was in place; assurance that the City Charter retains its directive as it pertains to Parks & Recreation Commission; approval to rescind approval of Parks & Recreation Budget and to not accept any EFB. A cover letter from the Parks Commissioners provided additional clarification regarding the title of the Resolution and the desire of the Commissioners to work positively with Citizen Budget Committee. Goal of the Commissioners was to protect the integrity of the Park Commission and City Charter language. The effect of Measure 50 was noted and that there had been many opportunities to change the City Charter to reflect this change. It was suggested that the committee request a change to the City Charter. Clarification and process for placing a charter amendment on the ballot was explained. City Administrator Dave Kanner answered questions and provided explanation on the Parks Budget for Ending Fund Balances (EFB). These included some of the following: EFB was determined to 12.5% but could also be determined to be 0%; new process guaranteed by City General Fund; agreed that percentage determination is political but also typical; Department budgets do not have EFB; Parks & Recreation is their own Fund, is part of the City, but has its own governing body. Council/Parks Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Page 2 of 3 Discussion was held on what type of entity Parks & Recreation is considering that they have their own Employee Identification Number (EIN) and PERS identification number. Parks & Recreation was described as a "unit of city government." Mr. Kanner continued to provide explanation on Ending Fund Balances and how Beginning Work Capital is determined. He stated that "add packages" would be considered by the Citizen Budget Committee and that the Parks Budget would eventually have to compete with other departments for these. Concerns were raised that the Park Commissioners would lose their authority for budgeting, deep staff knowledge and understanding the needs of Parks & Recreation. It was stated that the Park Commissioners have little ability for input of appointments to the Citizen Budget Committee. Members questioned what Parks funding would look like in two years and what the process for the budget would be. Mr. Kanner explained that the budget process would continue in the same manner as is current. He noted that the future is difficult to forecast due to issues regarding PERS and any unforeseen challenges. Mr. Kanner was asked if this "process for the budget" could be put in writing to show some assurance to the Parks Commission that the integrity of the Commission would not change. City Attorney Dave Lohman provided clarification regarding the City Charter and how Measure 50 changed the Park Commission independence. He stated that this had happened in many Cities and provided some examples. He understood that the past agreements between the Park Commission and Budget Committee had been "year to year" agreements. Discussion on the ability of the Parks Commission to access funds included a suggestion that a Reserve Fund be established in place of the Ending Fund Balance. It was clarified that Ending Fund Balances could not be spent as this becomes Beginning Cash Balance. Suggestion was made that a Special District be formed for the Parks & Recreation. Concern was raised on the difficulty the Parks Commission would have generating revenue. It was agreed that the decision to make the change regarding the Parks & Recreation budget was political. Members continued discussion on the current Ending Fund Balance and how the rate was determined. All agreed that further public input was important. 2. Review and discussion of motion passed at the last Ad Hoc meeting Several suggestions, along with pros and cons were made for consideration of change to the motion previously made. These included the following: Move EFB into a Reserve fund which could be used for Parks; use entire 12.5% EFB with any unused funds rolled into EFB; continue to fund the Reserve fund with projected Parks revenue; cannot use EFB; cannot replenish Reserve Fund; would be policy decision by Citizen Budget Committee on an annual basis; and consider using contingency fund. It was understood that the goal would be to make funds available for appropriations for the Parks Commission. Council/Parks Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Page 3 of 3 Continued discussion included acknowledging that the ultimate decision would be made by the Citizen Budget Committee for any changes to the Parks & Recreation Budget. It was also stated it may be possible for a process to be set up through political means, "political binding," that could make it difficult for future City Councils to make changes. Park Commissioner Landt/Councilor Rosenthal m/s to rescind prior motion of March 28, 2013 meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Park Commissioner Landt/Seffinger m/s that the Ad Hoc Committee proposes to the Citizen Budget Committee that a new Park Reserve Fund be created with the purpose of these funds to be used for repair, restoration and improvements to Lithia Park. That the current proposed Ending Fund Balance of $750,000 is a "zero" balance and that this amount of $750,000 be the amount budgeted in the 2013-15 Budget for the Parks Reserve Fund. Voice Vote: Landt, Marsh, Voisin, Seffinger and Rosenthal, YES. Motion passed. 3. Discussion of process for analysis of long-term Parks & Recreation funding Chair Marsh presented to the committee a suggested structure to follow for the long-term discussion. She asked that the future meetings are "hands on" and that members prepare using the following: • List of concerns, questions, arguments in regards to proposed changes • Criteria/Concepts for funding Parks mechanism - what needs to exit long-term • Brainstorming mechanisms to fund Parks • Consider criteria qualities in Parks funding • Consider how to change funding mechanism in order to respond Future meetings were set for May 28 @4:30 p.m.; June 11 @4:00 p.m. and June 24 @4:00 p.m. All meetings will be held in the Parks Office Building. Public Input Cyndi Dion voiced concern with proposed intergovernmental revenue in the budget and questioned fund transfers from General Fund. Allison Date shared that she volunteers for the Parks & Recreation and has concern for funding Parks. Mikey Cloney questioned how dollars are used and encouraged accountability and sustainability. Meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Christensen City Recorder I MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL/PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING MAY 28, 2013 @ 4:30 P.M. PARKS OFFICE 0 340 S. PIONEER STREET Chair Councilor Marsh called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. in the Parks Office located at 340 S. Pioneer Street. Councilors Rosenthal and Voisin, Parks Commissioners Seffinger and Landt, City Attorney Dave Lohman were present. Staff present: Don Robertson, Parks & Recreation Director; Dave Kanner, City Administrator. The minutes of April 30, 2013, were approved as presented. 1. Review of Budget Committee Action from Wednesday, May 22, 2013 It was summarized that at the Budget Committee meeting of May 22, the Parks Commission asked for the restoration of their $2.09 per thousand in assessed property tax revenues and for the retention of their Ending Fund Balance (EFB) in the FY 13-15 biennium, with a longer-term solution developed in the future by the Ad Hoc Committee for the next biennium. It was noted by the committee that council set policy, not the Budget Committee. It was further noted that the Parks EFB of $1.8M exceeded the City-mandated 25% EFB by $600,000 and the FY 13-15 City budget absorbed that amount, with the funds transferred to the City General Fund or used for critical maintenance in the parks system. Parks Commissioner Landt expressed interest in foregoing most of the Parks Department's critical maintenance projects or spending an estimated $85,000 for the most urgently needed projects, with the remainder of the funds directed to the City General Fund. Councilor Voisin expressed frustration with the Budget Committee's assumptions meeting in February 2013 in which it was requested that assumptions be removed from the Mayor's white paper. All of the assumptions were voted down at that time and no decision was made about the Parks $2.09. Councilor Rosenthal stated that the Ad Hoc Committee was now viewed as a vehicle for creating positive, proactive approaches and solving future problems. It was summarized that the Parks Commission approved and signed a resolution at their April 25 regular meeting that was addressed to the Mayor, councilors, and Budget Officer. The resolution laid out the history of funding for the Parks Commission, as outlined in the Ashland City Charter, and requested a full disclosure to the public about the necessity for any changes in policy; it requested a vote of either the City Council or preferably the citizens of Ashland ratifying this proposed change; and it asked the City Administrator to explain how the Parks Commission was expected to maintain its Charter-created independence without control of its budget. Chair Councilor Marsh said that from a council perspective, the Parks resolution was secondary to their May 22 request for the reestablishment of the Parks $2.09 millage, which was still pending. Councilor Voisin suggested ajoint meeting to deal with the resolution face-to-face along with any other remaining budget issues. Discussion was held on the Mayor's statement about two councilors not agreeing to place the Parks tax allotment (or removal of its historical $2.09 per thousand) on a council agenda, despite the Parks Commission's request for a vote on the matter, with the issue then transferred Council/Parks Ad Hoc Committee Meeting May 28, 2013 Page 2 of 5 to the Ad Hoc Committee. Councilor Rosenthal said he did not agree to place the item on a council agenda because of its timing. He said he would have preferred the resolution being addressed at the first Parks Commission meeting following the proposed budget's issuance; instead, the commission indicated their tentative approval for operations levels, which seemed inconsistent. It was now time to address how to move forward. It was stated that the funding issue was one concern and the process issue the other, and there had not been a good opportunity for process discussion. Chair Councilor Marsh said the Ad Hoc Committee was formed to pose and answer such questions and her preference was to give the committee an opportunity to work on them before scheduling a joint council / commission meeting. She suggested moving forward to the next agenda item: brainstorming about long-term Parks and Recreation funding options. 2. Long-term Parks and Recreation Funding Options: Brainstorming • Concerns/complaints/issues regarding this year's budget planning process o Charter mandate - relevance of Measure 47 & 50 o Threat to autonomy o Adequate funding assurance o Murky decision-making process o Threat to maintenance of CIP programs approved via Food and Beverage Tax o Undermining of the City's Comprehensive Plan o Lack of public input o Question of trust between officials and staff o Lack of opportunity to communicate with Budget Committee o Lack of transparency; closed doors o Fear re: diminished park system o Lack of clarity re: Parks policy-making; makes staff jobs harder o Use of EFB for operations expenditures o Lack of explanation for mandated changes o Impact of changes on future biennial budgets o Failure to maintain 25% EFB as stipulated in City policy o Issue of reserve funds in emergencies o Disrespect toward elected body (Parks Commission) o Minimal communication between elected officials • Identification of funding and process principles o Improve transparency in decision making Council/Parks Ad Hoc Committee Meeting May 28, 2013 Page 3 of 5 o Include values and incorporate public input o Provide justification for funding changes o Determine dependable and growing revenue source o Comply with City's Comp plan, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and City Charter o Be politically sustainable o Provide long-term stability o Establish clear policy-making power for Parks Commission o Provide opportunity for Parks Commission to recommend its own budget o Engage in sustained and meaningful communication between council and Parks Commission o Determine the kind / size of parks system Ashland can afford o Develop clear understanding of EFB and reserve accounts: their use / need o Develop clear understanding of all the roles Parks plays throughout community o Develop clarity about interconnection between Parks and other functions o Allow for diversification • Potential Funding Options o Utility fee: minimize impact on General Fund o Local option levy: minimize impact on General Fund o Create a Parks District (include Ashland / Talent?) o Redirect meals tax dedicated to sewage treatment (when sewage debt is paid off) o Fund Parks Department through City's General Fund budget o Gain access to TOT dollars o Charge recreation fees o Explore alternative mechanisms: o Tickettax o Naming rights o Explore entrepreneurial efforts 3. Development%of Funding Options Spreadsheet Chair Councilor Marsh said she would place the bulleted items into a spreadsheet. 4. Review Agenda and Date for Next Meeting The next meeting was set for Monday, June 10, at 3 p.m. in the Parks Office. Council/Parks Ad Hoc Committee Meeting May 28, 2013 Page 4 of 5 5. Public Input /Additional Brainstorming Bullet Points Alice Mallory, 438 Taylor Street • Hasty demise of long-term "in perpetuity" Parks budget/taken away too fast. • Not enough time for Parks Commission to process the change. • Concern about the autonomy / future of Parks and the parks system. • Parks Commission unlike any other in the state - makes Ashland unique. • Parks is understaffed; gave example of request for watering of non-native plants on the Plaza; Parks already understaffed in terms of maintenance and water issues. • Parks being punished for responsible fiscal management. • Restore the Parks $2.09 per thousand in assessed property values; it's what makes Ashland unique. • In CA, the "Brown Act" requires transparency; this did not happen during the 2013 budget season. • OSF pays the City $1 per year to operate their business on City / park land. If still true, revisit the arrangement. Create public / private partnership with City / OSF. Cyndi Dion, 897 Hillview • Match current City revenues to current expenses instead of using EFB dollars to fund next year's expenses: will allow for more privileges in terms of bonds. • If the Ad Hoc Committee decides to reinstate the $2.09 per thousand, offer a $600,000 loan, plus interest, to the City so the City can continue balancing its budget for the next biennial budget cycle. JoAnne Eggers, 221 Granite Street • Requested role clarifications, particularly for the Budget Committee but also for Parks Commission and council. • Concerned about the two-year temporary solution; could lead to the dictating / setting of future precedents. • At the end of the FY 13-15 biennium, what happens to CIP funds for Parks? Keep the funds with Parks. • Provide scenario for how things will be at end of next biennium. Council has its own business and responsibilities; thanked the Parks Commission for their efforts / attention to the parks system. Lija Appleberry, 704 Willow • Lack of understanding within the community, among the public and council, about how City budgets operate. Council/Parks Ad Hoc Committee Meeting May 28, 2013 Page 5 of 5 o Provide an educational component for community members and elected officials during each budget planning period. o Teach how funds can / cannot be used (restrictions). With no further business, Chair Councilor Marsh adjourned the meeting at 6:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Dyssegard Ashland Parks and Recreation MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL/PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING JUNE 10, 2013 3:00pm PARKS OFFICE * 340 S. PIONEER STREET Chair Councilor Marsh called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Parks Office located at 340 S. Pioneer Street. Councilors Rosenthal and Voison, Parks Commissioners Seffinger and Landt, and City Attorney Dave Lohman were present. Dave Kanner, City Administrator arrived at 4:10 p.m. The minutes of May 28, 2013, were approved as presented. 1. Review of City Council discussion/action. It was summarized that there wasn't any action taken by the Council other than a first reading of the Ordinance to Levy taxes. Parks commissioner Seffinger stated it was important that there was support on the long term Parks funding. Councilor Rosenthal encourages public input and stated that there is a genuine desire of the Council to find a funding solution. He stated that the more dialogue there is regarding this the better. Parks Commissioner explained that he would like to see the Parks ending fund balance restored to 25% and the $2.09. 2. Review and discussion of draft Funding Process Principles Review and discussion of Funding Options worksheet assignments. The ad hoc committee reviewed the Funding Options Worksheet, the Funding Options Master Table & the Principles Matrix. Councilor Marsh stated that her hope is that the group would go home with areas to research & then they would come back and analyze the findings at a future meeting. Some adjustments on the worksheets were recommended and Councilor Marsh would revise them and send them out to the ad hoc committee. The Funding Options Master Table assignments are as follows: Utility Fee- Rosenthal TOT-Landt Property tax-Landt General Fund-Marsh Local Option Levy-Rosenthal Parks District-Voison Recreation fees-Seffinger OSF partnership/ticket tax-Rosenthal Naming rights-Seffinger Entrepreneurial efforts- Seffinger , P&R Foundation-Seffinger Amendment/expansion of meals tax-Landt Councilor Voison would like to see some research on what other cities similar to Ashland are doing for Parks funding. Discussion was had regarding Ashland's unique situation and makeup and how there may not be any cities out there than are similar to the City of Ashland. ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~FUNDING?OPxTIONS WORKSHEET'",bhl~tyTax, P How enacted? Who pays? Who allocates? Amount generated? How collected? Collection costs? Restrictions? Renewal? Growth in revenues? Politically feasible? Notes n n o n y G r G f d od ~1 wo roc ed _oe o -c m , e7 O G1 y fD 'O r w y QOO N~ ~1 C C f~D o' ro a 0) 4i o y w c ~ F 'a a. b ti co ir z k' w p ~ fD h N ~ A A ~K K S a b 0 Z a~ a° ti 3 m a d a N _ S+~ d a p ~ °o cF. ~ N U N L k 9 O en C o C p a~i 7 6~ y w N O Y p A O " N 3~ 0 = G d y v,~ C ~C L O U O y O 7 O ~CC d a"7 ~ tC p O 6 ~ ~ O ~ A O' = d A k a~ O F " O s k~p v 'O m y 0 W A O O F d ~ d O C d ~ E E = a v a u A n ` ~ 9 `o ~ a z u d yuj N ~ G O {v Z ati d 0 e 5q ~ `zy eo xg Leo " S o L S Y aO¢ G C 3. Discussion of joint Council/Parks meeting After the initial conclusions are made on the funding options by the ad hoc committee they would suggest a motion. Parks commissioner Landt would like to see a more specific motion and Seffinger would like discussion on the Charter. Specifically they would like clarification on what policy making ability the Parks Commission has. Councilor Voison would like discussion on the potential breach of the Charter. City Attorney Lohman stated that an opinion in regards to Parks funding was provided by Harvey Rodgers previously and that the creation of an Ordinance could provide Clarity on the Charter. Parks Commissioner Landt and Councilor Rosenthal m/s that the Ad Hoc Committee on Parks Funding requests that members of the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission initiate a joint discussion to review and address progress and findings to date by the Ad Hoc Committee. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion Passed. It was discussed that the next few ad hoc committee meetings should be about funding mechanisms. 4. Public Input None 5. Meeting Schedule Future meetings were set for Monday, June 24, at 3:00p.m. and Monday, July 8, 2013, at 3:00 p.m. in the Parks Office. It was recommended that a joint meeting be held after July 15, 2013. With no further business, Chair Councilor Marsh adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tami De Mille-Campos Administrative Assistant MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL/PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING JUNE 24, 2013 @ 3:00 P.M. PARKS OFFICE 0 340 S. PIONEER STREET Chair Councilor Marsh called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. in the Parks Office, 340 S. Pioneer Street. Councilors Rosenthal and Voisin, Parks Commissioners Seffinger and Landt, City Attorney Dave Lohman were present. Staff included Don Robertson, Parks & Recreation Director; Dave Kanner, City Administrator. The minutes of June 10, 2013, were approved as presented. Review and Analysis of Funding Options Committee members outlined their findings in each proposed funding category and identified information sources. Fees for Parks and Recreation Programs and Services--Seffinger Source: Rachel Dials, Recreation Superintendent • How enacted: Payments generated from online sources and by phone; through mail-in registrations and in person. • Who pays: Customers using services • Who allocates: Parks Commission reviews fees annually and authorizes fee rates. • Amount generated: Recovery rates vary by category. Some programs self-sufficient; others heavily subsidized. • How collected: From individuals and groups using facilities, including for special events. • Collection costs: Parks staff wages and bank fees. • Restrictions / limitations: Limited to programs or services for which customers pay. • Growth in revenues: Commission working on updating customer fee rates. Fees set lower in previous years, with programs more heavily subsidized. • Sustainability: Adult programs and Calle space rentals are self-sustaining while other programs and services are subsidized either moderately or heavily. Nature Center environmental education programs previously supported by school district funding. • Competition for funds: Some from youth sports leagues. • Politically feasible? The commission subsidizes recreation programs for social, safety and educational reasons and the community supports those efforts. • Ideas for increasing fees: o Sponsorship of facilities; i.e, naming rights for pool, ice rink, ball fields, Nature Center, Senior Center, others o Increased rental fees, with possible elimination of non-profit rates o Elimination of special events o Increased fees for Nature Center school programs o Fundraising to support youth sports o Increased golf and ice rink fees o Transfer of Senior Center responsibility to the City (from Parks) o Increased community garden plot fees c Council/Parks Ad Hoc Committee Meeting June 24, 2013 Page 2 of 7 Robertson said fees and charges were approximately 15% of the Parks budget and the funds were deposited into the City's general fund. In terms of naming rights, Rosenthal said the ice rink previously had a name linked to a local business. Ashland Park Foundation (APF)-Seffinger Source: Don Robertson • How enacted: Established in 1995 as a 501(c)(3) under Oregon law. • Who pays? Gifts from donors • Who allocates? Board of directors • Amount generated: Approximately $50,000 in growth per year. Current investments total $500,000. • How collected: With assistance from staff volunteers. • Restrictions / limitations: The board grants funds (up to 50% of revenue growth) to Ashland Parks and Recreation as well as community groups. 2012 grants included the Senior Center Food and Friends lunch program, community youth sports scholarships, AHS Football team "Pacific Rim Bowl" scholarship, Nature Center classroom scholarships, recreation program scholarships, and others. • Competition for funds: Other worthy causes donors choose to fund. • Politically feasible? Yes Marsh said the APF had tremendous growth potential in terms of visibility in the community. Robertson said the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) provided semi-annual donations of one outdoor performance in profitable years only. APF was reported to be a separate entity from Parks with its own tax ID number. APF paid for its own audits and developed a policies and procedures manual. Rosenthal said the Medford Parks Foundation had the same structure and the Medford Parks Department received approximately $10,000 per year from its foundation. Seffinger asked if APF fell into the cultural trust category and suggested posting that information on the APF website. Park or Special District-Voisin Sources: Don Robertson and N. Clackamas County Parks and Recreation District Similar to a school district, a park or special district is governed by an elected board and has separate taxing authority and control over its own budget. It requires a broad tax base; allows for non-City control; and creates another layer of governance. Weakness: Ashland taxes are overwhelmingly sourced from residential property taxes, with few commercial and industrial property taxes. A special district could result in higher property taxes. Service District A service district borrows its legal governance from the county, including funding, approval of its budget, and shared resources and services. While the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission is elected, a service district has a county-appointed commission. A model would be the North Clackamas Park and Recreation District which has no new overlay of government with taxing authority; instead, it has a county-appointed district advisory board. Strength: Ashland currently has a service-district-like hybrid system. Council/Parks Ad Hoc Committee Meeting June 24, 2013 Page 3 of 7 Recommendation Voisin stated that neither option fit Ashland. Rather than spending a lengthy period establishing a service district similar to what currently exists, the Parks Director and City Administrator could review the management chart and present their findings to the Ad Hoc Committee. The committee could then solicit input from each elected body at separate study sessions, with results directed back to the Ad Hoc Committee. A subsequent joint meeting of both elected bodies could be scheduled. From that meeting, a chart of management responsibilities could be set by both bodies and memorialized in a binding MOU or charter amendment. Lohman said MOUs were binding documents as long as both parties agreed to them but they lacked perpetuity, as either party could back out and any future council or commission would not be bound to or by them. If allocations of job responsibilities were clearly spelled out, an MOU could last. Councilor Voisin/Parks Commissioner Landt m/s that the Ad Hoc Committee direct the City Administrator and the Parks Director to work out a management plan clearly delineating Parks / City responsibilities. Voice Vote: All YES. Motion passed. Park or Public Safety Utility Fee-Rosenthal Sources: Medford Parks and Recreation; City of Ashland Finance Director • How enacted: Ashland City Council approval • Who pays: Residents with City utility accounts (approximately 10,000 customers) • Amount generated: Billable units x 12 months • How collected: Finance Department working with subject business owners • Collection costs: None • Restrictions / limitations: Few • Increases: By City Council approval • Renewal: Ongoing unless modified or eliminated by City Council • Politically feasible? Plausible Notes: Regressive. In 2005, the City of Medford was the first community in Oregon to enact a Park Utility Fee for the purpose of creating a dedicated fund to help offset the cost of maintenance and beautification of city parks and municipal rights-of-way. Each developed parcel within the city limits is assessed a monthly unit fee. A unit is defined as a residential dwelling unit, business unit or tenant space. Medford currently assesses a $2.87 monthly fee. West Linn adopted a $10.70 monthly park maintenance fee in 2007. Gresham adopted a 50-cent monthly parks, fire and police utility fee in December 2012. Ticket Tax-Rosenthal Sources: Former Ashland Mayor Cathy Shaw; Don Robertson • How enacted: Ashland City Council approved an ordinance creating a new tax / surcharge • Who pays: OSF and potentially other theatrical businesses operating within the City limits, including movie theaters. • Who allocates: City Council / Budget Committee Council/Parks Ad Hoc Committee Meeting June 24, 2013 Page 4 of 7 • Amount generated: Depends on per-ticket tax. In 2011, OSF attendance was 391,542 • How collected: Finance Department working with subject business owners • Collection costs: A percentage or fixed rate of gross receipts retained by the business. • Restrictions: The equal protection clause in the 14`h Amendment of the Constitution requires uniformity of tax and regulatory laws. Consequently, the City would need to broaden the ticket tax scope to include all commercial theatrical performances in Ashland, greatly complicating the concept. The current long-term lease between OSF and the City would be difficult to terminate for the express purpose of assessing a tax on OSF theaters operating on City property (Elizabethan and Bowmer). • Increases: Determined and enacted by City Council action • Renewal: Determined and enacted by City Council action • Politically feasible? Questionable Notes: Not a regressive tax; similar to the Meals Tax. According to former mayor Cathy Shaw, the concept was originally considered during Open Space funding discussions in the early 1990s. She indicated "some felt it made sense because so many OSF visitors enjoyed and used Ashland parks, especially Lithia Park, where studies showed that visitors outnumbered residents 5-to-1 during the festival season." Shaw indicated a ticket tax was only discussed "because there was a local minority in town who felt the festival did not appreciate the City enough." Ultimately, OSF pledged a yearly contribution to the Ashland Parks Foundation; however, the contribution has become irregular in recent years. Robertson reported meeting with the OSF board president and the current APF president about making regular annual donations, with funds directed toward Lithia Park improvement projects for the benefit of both entities. The OSF president stated that donations could only be issued in profitable years when the festival was "in the black." In summer 2011, when the main Bowmer beam collapsed and a park lawn was used as a temporary "Bowmer in the Park" theater, OSF did not donate to the APF despite being charged only for direct costs. Local Option Lew-Rosenthal • How enacted: By voters after referral by City Council or by citizen petition • Who pays: Property owners • Who allocates: City Council / Budget Committee • Amount generated: Approximately $20,000 per one cent of property tax assessment • How collected: Via the county, through property tax collections • Collection costs: None • Restrictions: Requires approval by voters. However, Council could choose not to assess the full amount of the levy request or opt to increase levy assessments within voter- approved limits. • Renewal: Subject to voter approval after referral of the levy by Council action. • Politically feasible? Plausible Notes: A regressive tax. Current examples are the Ashland Library Levy and the Ashland Activities and Athletics Levy. This type of property tax could augment the City's general fund for a variety of prospective purposes, including capital projects or operational costs. Council/Parks Ad Hoc Committee Meeting June 24, 2013 Page 5 of 7 General Fund-Marsh • How enacted: City's general fund totals $45M for the biennium. Of this, $21 M is from property tax and available for general purposes. The tax rate is set by the Budget Committee and affirmed by City Council. Other revenue sources included in the general fund are largely allocated or restricted to specific purposes. • Who pays: Property owners • Who allocates: General fund budgets are drafted by Department heads, revised by the Chief Budget Officer (City Administrator) and reviewed and then voted on by the Budget Committee and then City Council. • Amount generated: $21M from property taxes in the biennium; $45M in total general funds. • How collected: Through the county appraiser, then distributed to the City. • Collection costs: Unknown; however, the collection system serves multiple entities so should be relatively efficient. • Restrictions / limitations: None for property taxes that comprise about half of the general fund. These revenues can be used for any purpose for which the district may legally expend funds. Other revenues sources are largely allocated or restricted to specific purposes. • Renewal: Ongoing • Growth in revenues: Stable and steady increases. Assessed value increased from $1.413 in 2003 to $2.113 in 2012. However, a tax levy is limited by statute and constitution. As of 2013, Ashland's tax rate is $4.20 per thousand. Its maximum levy of $4.29 could generate approximately $190,000 / year in additional revenue. • Sustainability: Excellent • Competition for funds: From other City departments or special projects. • Politically feasible? General fund approach raises two significant questions: first, how will the current and future needs of Parks be weighed against other City demands? Second, will the decision-making authority of the elected Parks and Recreation Commission be compromised by imposition of the City budget process? • Progressive / regressive? May be viewed as both progressive (people / corporations with more income own property) or regressive (ownership of property is not related to ability to pay taxes). • Notes: Possible strategies to ameliorate concerns could include development of an MOU delineating Parks authority and / or changes to the budget process (for example, incorporate Parks priorities with council funding goals). Property Tax-Landt • How enacted: Controlled by state law • Who pays: All City real property owners (except government agencies) • Who allocates: Budget Committee • Amount generated: The current $4.20 / thousand generates $9.5M over course of year. The mandated limit is $4.29 / thousand. Increasing the tax to $4.29 would generate $189,000 / year. • How collected: By county • Collection costs: None Council/Parks Ad Hoc Committee Meeting June 24, 2013 Page 6 of 7 • Restrictions / limitations: None • Renewal: Automatic • Growth in revenues: Limited to 3% / year • Sustainability: This tax is as sustainable as any • Competition for funds: Check out this City budget cycle • Politically feasible? Property tax increases are challenging • Progressive / regressive? Not as regressive as some, since renters only pay indirectly and when there is competition for renters, it is difficult for taxes to be added in. When rentals are scarce, the opposite is true. Very challenging for persons on fixed incomes. Expanded Meals Tax-Landt • How enacted: Voted on by citizens but may be changeable by vote of Council. • Who pays: Anyone eating at a restaurant within the City limits. • Who allocates: As described, must be used for park land purchases or development. • Amount generated: 5% generates $2.2M / year. Parks gets I cent (20% of the tax): approximately $456,000 / year. • How collected: By restaurants, who keep 5%. • Collection costs: Minimal • Restrictions / limitations: Must be used for park land purchases or development. • Renewal: 2030 • Growth in revenues: Grows with economy and tourism. • Competition for funds: Currently none • Politically feasible? Increasing the percent would attract opposition from restaurants. Reallocating from Sewer would likely have less opposition but could serve to increase utility rates. • Progressive / regressive? Sales taxes are normally considered regressive but since this one only affects restaurants, a mostly discretionary spending, it's relatively progressive. Transient Occupancy Tax-Land • How enacted: City ordinance • Who pays: Mainly overnight tourists • Amount generated: Current 9% tax generates $2M / year. Increasing it by 3% would generate an additional $666,000 / year. • How collected: By lodging industry; 70% has to be tourism-related • Collection costs: Lodging industry keeps 5% • Restrictions / limitations: Any additional tax must be for tourism-related use. Lithia Park does not necessarily qualify but probably does. • Renewal: Not necessary • Growth in revenues: As long as the economy is strong, growth would be expected. • Competition for funds: Would need to check with Kanner but could possibly be diverted to other uses. • Politically feasible? Lodging industry would likely object; would have to make the case that Lithia Park is a tourist facility. • Progressive / regressive? Tax would only rarely be paid by Ashland residents. In that sense, progressive. But regressive for recipients. Council/Parks Ad Hoc Committee Meeting June 24, 2013 Page 7 of 7 Marsh summarized the discussion and highlighted options with the most potential. She said none of the options came close to what had already been in place for Parks. Voisin said general fund priorities included Police and Fire over Parks. Since Parks was not considered essential in the eyes of council and the Budget Committee, harm would be done to Parks as property taxes leveled off and PERS costs continued to rise. Marsh said competition for Parks funds would continue. She talked about building safeguards or protections into the budget process to provide assurance about sufficient Parks funding. She said the committee spent time identifying issues and could now continue fulfilling its mission to find creative funding solutions for Parks. Seffinger said Parks was the first department to receive this type of scrutiny and other departments could receive similar close review in the future. Having real goals and a process for reviewing budgets in a transparent manner would show the public how taxpayer funds were used. It was also important to educate citizens about Parks' efforts toward fire prevention and other city needs. Rosenthal asked Kanner and Robertson to develop a process for the next biennial budget cycle to avoid some of the challenges from this budget cycle and ensure that future Parks budget processes and priorities were considered well in advance. Marsh and Seffinger agreed to meet and begin drafting a communication structure between Parks and Council. Seffinger recommended forming a steering committee toward that goal. Rosenthal departed at 4:43 PM. Public Input None Meeting Schedule The next meeting was set for Tuesday, July 23, at 3 PM - Parks office. Agenda: • Recommendations on management structure (based on Kanner / Robertson meeting) • Recommendations regarding creative adjustments to budget process • Council /Commission communication structure issues (based on Marsh/ Seffinger meeting) Research Joint Council / Parks Commission Meeting Marsh said she would talk with Seffinger and the mayor about scheduling a joint meeting by the end of August. Adjournment With no further business, Marsh adjourned the meeting at 4:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Dyssegard Ashland Parks and Recreation Council/Parks ad hoc Committee Meeting July 23, 2013 Page I of 5 MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL/PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING July 23, 2012 Parks Office 340 S. Pioneer Street Chair Councilor Marsh called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m. in the Parks Office. Councilors Rosenthal and Voisin, Parks Commissioners Seffinger and Landt, and City Attorney Dave Lohman were present. Staff included Parks & Recreation Director Don Robertson and City Administrator Dave Kanner. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the June 24, 2013 meeting were approved as presented. Review of work assignments • P&R management responsibilities City Administrator Dave Kanner and Parks Director Don Robertsop reviewed the Management: Planning; Organizing; Budgeting; Directing; Evaluating document (attached). They clarified that funding for Capital Improvement Plans went done through City Council; and that the City establishes personnel rules, which the Parks Department incorporates into a personnel handbook for their employees. It was noted that there is slight difference in the benefits City and Parks employees receive. Councilor Marsh thought the document was a good basis for the Memo of Understanding (MOU). Commissioner Landt expressed concern over who controlled Parks' Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) and with the City allocating higher COLA percentages than Parks. He thought these salary adjustments were inflationary instead of cost of living adjustments. Councilor Rosenthal noted the question stated on the Document: "Who should determine Parks' COLAs, benefits and classifications?" and suggested that Mr. Robertson and Mr. Kanner, with assistance from City Attorney Dave Lohman, separate these into three categories and list differences and issues with each one for the Parks Commission and Council to review. • Recommendations for budget process • Structure for City Council and Park commission communication Councilor Marsh and Commissioner Seffinger presented their draft proposal for the proposed Joint Committee of the Council and Parks Commission (attached). Marsh thought a smaller group would be more productive versus two full bodies. Councilor Rosenthal questioned whether a Standing Joint Committee was necessary and suggested 2-3 joint meetings with Council and the Parks Commission, although having a committee short-term might work. Councilor Voisin opposed establishing a committee, preferred joint meetings with the Parks Commission and Council and shared concern the committee had not found a solution for independent means of financing Parks. Commissioner Landt supported a committee that would provide reviews and recommendations. He was apprehensive about developing a 10-year plan and thought-the committee should address how the Comprehensive Plan pertained to Parks first. Councilor Rosenthal noted that the key element would be the result of the budget process as recommended by Mr. Kanner and Mr. Robertson. Commissioner Seffinger added that there is a need to include Parks in City decisions, especially ones that affect Parks directly or indirectly. Council/Parks ad hoc Committee Meeting July 23, 2013 Page 2 of 5 Changes to the draft proposal included: • Add to the Councilor Parks Committee, a Council liaison to the Concept paragraph, "Given the critical importance of communication between the City Council and the Parks Commission, the current Council Parks Liaison system will be replaced by a newly formed Joint Committee." • Second bullet: "Review short and long-term Parks goals for inclusion in citywide planning." • Third bullet: "Identify educational and cross training opportunities that will allow elected officials to understand the responsibilities and activities overseen by each body." • Fourth bullet: "Propose full Council/Commission meetings. These should be scheduled at least annually, but as often as deemed necessary by the Joint Committee." • Fifth bullet - removed: "Review and confirm the proposed budget and spending priorities for Parks and Recreation" The committee agreed to present options to City Council regarding forming a "standing" Joint Committee or to schedule annually ajoint Council-Parks Commission meetings. Councilor Voisin left the meeting at 4:11 p.m. Discussion of Ending Fund Balance Commissioner Landt explained why he thought Parks should retain control of their Ending Fund Balance (EFB). He did not think running the EFB to zero, not having a Parks EFB in the future, and incorporating Parks funding into the City was in the best interest of Parks. This would result in revenue that has not been budgeted for. The EFB would grow and he wanted to know what would happen to that money. Councilor Marsh clarified that no additional funds would accumulate in Parks EFB because the City would transfer money from the General Fund for Parks' expenses that have occurred. Mr. Robertson expressed concern that not having an EFB could affect the benefits of being efficient. Two questions were raised: One regarded incentives, and the second was whether the committee wanted to make recommendations regarding the $600,000 EFB currently appropriated to Parks. Mr. Robertson noted concerns from the Parks Commission that the funds would backfill the City's budget. Comment was made that this was part of the recommendations for the budget process that Mr. Kanner and Mr. Robertson would address. Mr. Robertson was asked to include recommendations for EFB and accumulating revenues as well. Commissioner Landt requested clarification on what was and what was not possible in their recommendation, along with the legal reasons why Parks cannot retain an EFB. • Potential funding sources in addition to property tax Clarification was requested on the advantages and disadvantages to reducing the lodging, property, and Food & Beverage taxes. Councilor Marsh felt that property taxes would not decrease and reducing other taxes would put Council in the position of creating a new tax. Commissioner Landt stated that by reducing property tax, while increasing the tourist tax, would not be a hard sell to the community. It was suggested that at the next meeting they go through the analysis from the last meeting and determine what items should go to Council for consideration. Councilor Marsh and Commissioner Landt agreed to meet prior to the next Committee meeting regarding additional funding sources for recommendations to the group. n. Joint Council/Commission meetin¢ It was announced that the Ad Hoc Committee would be ready for a joint meeting with Council and the Parks Commission mid to late September. Council/Parks ad hoc Committee Meeting July 23, 2013 Page 3 of 5 Public Input Cindy Dion/Thought secure funding was the task the Committee was charged and the discussion regarding a future joint committee seemed off task to her. In the current budget, the EFB would not experience growth. The City removed any potential for Parks to receive revenue and wound move funds to Parks as needed for expenses. It was important for the Committee to determine sustainable funding for Parks. JoAnne Eggers/221 Granite Street/Expressed concern the budget for the biennium might set a precedent for future budgets. Parks was not just another department of the City. It would require a review of the City Charter to make that change. Future meeting schedule/time The committee scheduled Wednesday August 7, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. for the next meeting with a back-up meeting August 19, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. if August 7, 2013 did not work. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dana Smith Assistant to the City Recorder ~ r., ~r Council/Parks ad hoc Committee Meeting July 23, 2013 Page 4 of 5 Management: Planning; Organizing; Budgeting; Directing; Evaluating Planning Parks Ciit Master plans Comprehensive plan (parks input) Functional plans CIP funding, incl. debt financing Capital improvement plans Create rules for use of park land and facilities Organizing Parks City Determine functional divisions Local Contract Review Board Allocation of appropriated resources Contract for services within limits Hire director Budgeting Parks City Recommend budget to Budget Officer Appropriate funds and adopt budget Set recreation fees and rental rates* Refer tax measures, set tax rate * exc. Comm. Ctr., Pioneer Hall and The Grove CIP funding, incl. debt financing Establish other revenue streams Establish SDCs QUEST/ON: Who should determine Parks' COLAs, henefrls and classifications? Directing Parks City Assign duties and responsibilities to Parks staff Establish citywide personnel rules and policies Establish priorities for Parks staff Establish city classifications and compensation rates Procedural work policies Policies re park land maintenance Evaluating Parks City Evaluate employee performance (supervisors) Monitor budget compliance Evaluate director (commission) Analyze program performance Monitor budget compliance Analyze and categorize physical conditions Council/Parks ad hoc Committee Meeting July 23, 2013 Page 5 ol'5 Draft Proposal Joint Committee of the Council and Parks Commission Council - Parks Proposed Communication Mechanism Concept: Given the critical importance of communication between the City Council and the Parks Commission, the current Council liaison system will be replaced by a newly formed Joint Committee. Membership: The Joint Committee will be composed of two Council members and two Parks Commissioners. Council members will be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council; Parks commissioners will be appointed by the Chair. Meeting schedule: Quarterly or as determined by the members Duties: The Joint Committee will: • Identify common interests and concerns. These might include, for example, sustainability, conservation or beautification of public areas. • Review short and long term goals for inclusion in citywide planning documents. • Facilitate educational efforts and cross training opportunities that will allow elected officials to understand the responsibilities and activities overseen by each body. • Convene and conduct full Council/Commission meetings. These should be scheduled at least annually, but as often as deemed necessary by the Joint Committee. • Review and confirm the proposed budget and spending priorities for Parks and Recreation. • Develop a 10-year planning document to guide parks development that respects comprehensive plan policies, incorporates broad public input and includes consideration of funding opportunities and constraints. • Take on other issues as assigned. Council/Parks ad hoc Committee Meeting August 7, 2013 Page I of2 MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIUPARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING August 7, 2012 Parks Office 340 S. Pioneer Street Chair Councilor Marsh called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. in the Parks Office. Councilors Rosenthal and Voisin, Parks Commissioners Seffinger and Landt were present. Staff included Parks & Recreation Director Don Robertson and City Administrator Dave Kanner. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the July 23, 2013 meeting were approved as presented. Review of onaoina work Materials for the joint meeting of Council and Parks Commission were in the process of being approved by the committee along with the Findings of the Ad Hoc Committee to determine if the committee has completed its assignment. Committee discussed additional recommendations and management responsibilities to include Cost of Living (COLA)/benefits and classifications and the ability for Parks to determine their own process for this within the budget. There is a current Memo of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the Parks that addresses issues under discussion. Committee discussed recommending some amendments to the MOU that includes current action and agreement between the bodies. City Administrator Dave Kanner and Parks Director Don Robertson provided to the committee a proposed budget process and budget calendar. The recommendations included the following: • Allowing the Park Commission Chair to accompany the Parks Director when meeting with the Budget Officer to present budget • Parks Director presents proposed budget to Parks Commission in a regular commission meeting - Commission makes specific recommendations to be sent to Budget Committee in advance of first budget meeting (but not in advance of the budget being delivered to the committee) • Parks Director makes budget presentation at Budget Committee meeting - Park Commission recommends any modifications during presentation. Committee discussed the opportunity for the Parks Commission to schedule a joint meeting with the City Council prior to the beginning of the budget calendar cycle in order to communicate any concerns. It was noted that communication is very important between the Budget Officer and the Parks Commission. Timing is serious and dates need to be upheld as any changes may have subsequent effects on other funds. Committee discussed the suggestion that the Parks Commission participate in the City Council annual goal setting process as budget items are based on goals and objections that result from these sessions. Chair Marsh provided to the committee, for review and discussion, a draft memo to City Council and Parks Commission regarding Communication between the Council and Commission. The memo outlined two options for the City Council and Parks Commission to consider: 1) Joint Committee comprised of two council members and two parks commissioners and 2) Establish a schedule of regularjoint meetings of the full bodies. /1 A Proposed Budget Process 2015 - 2017 Biennium February 1. Budget Assumptions: Delivered to all Department Heads by budget officer 2. Director to assemble budget estimates for Park Commission: Based on Commission goals, CIP needs, and public input. 3. Park Commission takes input and recommends budget to Budget Officer: Conducted at regular commission meeting. March 4. Park Commission requested budget delivered to budget officer by end of first week in March 5. Park Commission Chair meets with Budget Officer to present budget: Occurs second week in March as apart of formal budget officer review. (Sweaty little room) March->Aoril 6. Budget officer reviews proposed Parks budget in relation to overall proposed city budget and prepares budget document: Utilizes council/commission goals to guide his recommendations. 7. Director presents proposed Parks Department budget to Parks Commission: Done in regular commission meeting. Commission makes specific recommendations to be sent to Budget committee in advance of first budget meeting (but not in advance of the budget being delivered to the committee). Note: Budget document must be delivered to the printer approx. 10 days in advance of the first Budget Committee meeting in order to deliver the budget to the committee at least seven days in advance of the meeting and publish on City web site. Late Anril May 8. Budget presentations made to Budget Committee: Director makes budget presentation at meeting. Commission recommends any modifications during presentation per #7. 9. Budget document will not contain add packages in their traditional format: Budget committee may make add packages at their discretion. Yet To Be Determined Commission participation in mid-cycle budget adjustments. Should the Commission participate in the council Goal Setting? Commission will be responsible for fitting its process into an adopted budget schedule. MEMO TO: City Council and Parks Commission FROM Ad Hoc Committee on Parks Funding RE: Communication between the Council and Commission The Ad Hoc Committee was assigned to investigate short- and long-term funding options to support the Parks and Recreation Department In the course of carrying out this assignment, we have realized that in order to accomplish this goal better communication was needed between both elected bodies. We believe the current liaison position needs to be replaced or supplemented with a mechanism that will ensure more direct and sustained conversation between council and commission members. We suggest two alternatives for your consideration: Option #1 Joint Committee . The Council and Commission could establish a joint Committee composed of two Council members and two Parks commissioners. Council members would be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council; Parks commissioners would be appointed by the Chair. Meetings would be held quarterly or as determined by the members. Duties: The point Committee would: • Review parks short and long term goals for inclusion in citywide planning documents. • Identify common interests and concerns. These might include, for example, sustainability, conservation or beautification of public areas. Investigate how these interests and concerns relate to city goals and budget priorities. • Identify opportunities for education and cross training that will allow elected officials to understand the responsibilities and activities overseen by each body. • Review the proposed budget and spending priorities for Parks and Recreation. • Review the Parks and Open Space section of the comprehensive plan and recommend changes that reflect public input and funding opportunities and constraints. • Propose a schedule for full Council/Commission meetings. These should be scheduled at least annually, but as often as deemed necessary. • Invite and incorporate public input in decision-making. • Take on other issues as assigned. Option #2 Alternatively, the Council and Parks Commission could choose to establish a schedule of regular meetings of the full bodies. Meeting agendas could include any of the items listed above, with particular emphasis on budget and spending priorities. Meetings would be planned and conducted by the Mayor and the Parks Commission chair. Council/Parks ad hoc Committee Meeting August 7, 2013 Page 2 of 2 Committee comments regarding the draft memo included concern that the joint committee may supersede the Parks Commission and have unintended consequences and that the joint committee could provide smaller ad hoc committees with specific duties and functions. Committee discussed the pros and cons for smaller and larger number of members on committees and acknowledged that the goal is to commit to communicate between the two groups. Committee members agreed that there was value to both options and discussed a third option of a joint planning committee. Further discussion was held on who would provide the agenda for a joint meeting and who would chair ajoint meeting. Committee discussed again the suggestion that there be a joint meeting at the beginning of the budget process to discuss common goals after each group had conducted their goal setting session. Potential funding recommendations were identified as the following: • Property taxes • Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - determine if Lithia Park would qualify for State taxes • Meals Tax- possible use of this for parks in 2030 • Increase program fees - entrepreneur concept suggested Committee discussed the "entrepreneur concept" as to how this would work. Discussion included the flexibility it would allow for Parks that may generate additional funds and whether it should be considered citywide and if it should be allowed. City departments should be currently managing their budget in ways that would result in savings to the taxpayers. It was agreed that further discussion would be needed on this topic along with the continued discussion of identifying further funding sources for short-term dedicated funding sources. The committee would begin their next meeting with discussion on identifying further short-term dedicated funding sources and what happened in the prior budget process involving the Parks. Discussion would also continue on addressing and discussing the $600,000 Ending Fund Balance for Parks. Committee agreed that creating an understanding and providing communication tools for the two bodies is important and that all departments have adequate funding. The committee will meet again on August 19" at 4 p.m. Public Input JoAnne Eggers/221 Granite StreetNoiced support for a joint meeting of the two bodies and appreciated the discussion by the committee on the budget process. She felt that it was important to have a process in place and security that Parks would have necessary funding. Cindy DionNoiced support for finding sustainable funding for the Parks and hope the committee would continue with this discussion at the beginning of their next meeting Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 6:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Christensen City Recorder Council/Parks ad hoc Committee Meeting August 19, 2013 Page I of 2 MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL/PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING August 19, 2012 Parks Office 340 S. Pioneer Street Chair Councilor Marsh called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. in the Parks Office. Councilors Rosenthal and Voisin, Parks Commissioners Seffinger and Landt were present. Staff included Parks & Recreation Director Don Robertson and Accounting Manager Cindy Hanks. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the August 9, 2013 meeting were approved as presented. Committee reviewed and found consensus for the amended draft documents - administrative responsibilities, budget process and communication options. Discussion on Budget Issues Councilor Voisin proceeded with questions regarding the 2013 budget process. How Parks is identified in the budget, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Ashland and the Parks & Recreation, separate Employee Identification Number (EIN) for payroll and separate audits. She felt that Parks & Recreation has been recognized as a separate entity and that all factors indicate that Parks is a quasi-judicial independent entity. She requested explanation on why Parks is now under the General Fund when prior to current budget the budget for the Parks was clearer and with purpose. She requested that staff determine if there is any State law that would provide for making changes from a Special Fund with a "purpose." Accounting Manager Cindy Hanks explained that it was an error, caught be staff and verified by State Law that there should not have been a Special Revenue Fund for Parks. The municipal auditors do not review the budget, but only review to determine if the City is compliant with State Law. It was agreed that questions from the committee for staff would be put in writing and staff would respond and provide to all committee members. Staff shared the history of accounting type changes over the years between Parks and City, which were motivated by changes in staff and for better efficiency reasons. Committee discussed the possibility of creating a separate revenue fund and understood that it would be for future. use. Staff was requested to provide information on the possibility of presenting a special funding, levying of taxes to the voters. Ending Fund Balance Issue Committee discussed the current Ending Fund Balance (EFB) of $587,000 plus $50,000 contingency funds. Discussion on what happens with EFB at end of biennium budget year and if there was any possibility for the Parks Commission to have access to funds during the current budget cycle. It was clarified that the Park Foundation funds could not be used as it is funded by private funds. The possibility of moving funds to a Special Reserve Fund was discussed and the committee agreed that they would recommend that the Park Commission discuss this in order to protect these funds for Park use. It was understood that it is the Council's decision on how to manage the EFB but it would be good for the Park Commission to provide a recommendation, which could be considered by the Council when making the decision. Committee members Marsh/Landt m/s that the ad hoc committee recommends the Ending Fund Balance of approximately $587,000 be dedicated for park purposes through a Special Reserve Fund with outcome to be determined by the Park Commission. DISCUSSION: It was clarified that the Park Commission would determine the purpose and the Park Commission recommendation would be Council/Parks ad hoc Committee Meeting August 19, 2013 Page 2 of 2 addressed at the upcoming joint Council/Parks meeting. It was determined that the auditors may need to determine if a transfer of Ending Fund Balance could be done within current budget cycle. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Chair Marsh shared that she hoped the Park Commission would consider spending any funds on how make more funds. That they consider investing in projects that may create new revenue streams. Potential Budget Incentives Committee discussed way to build incentives in order to create new revenue streams where the funds would remain in the Parks budget. Suggestions included programs that are entrepreneur and support themselves; review of fees for programs, designate fee recovery as baseline and anything higher would remain in Parks budget, analysis of services based on the needs of the community. Discussion continued on how to balance the need for services without compromising the core value of the Park Commission. It was suggested that creating a way for allowing incentives would allow for creative and increase financial options. Concern that it was important not to disenfranchise what is currently being done and that it may be worthwhile to explore. Members continued to discuss the pros and cons of the proposed policy and whether it should be considered citywide rather than just for Parks. It was pointed out that Parks is not a business and staff is not trained in marketing of products, that the City experienced this through Ashland Fiber Network, and was not successful. Park Director Don Robertson explained to the committee how revenue is determined for budget purposes and that they are very conservative when budgeting. He gave some examples on how funds from a new program could stay in the Parks budget and did not feel it would be a negative to consider the discussed policy incentive. He felt that increasing revenue should be rewarded and that funds should not be placed in the General Fund or Parks operating fund. Committee considered allowing Parks to begin this type of program and after a trial period, it could be evaluated to see if it could be used citywide. It was noted that city departments operate by a master plan that sets service levels and budget is set through this process. Committee member Landt left at 5:07 p.m. Chair Marsh and member Rosenthal will work with Director Robertson to put together a creative, potential policy that encompasses the discussion of the committee and bring back to the committee for discussion and review. Public Input JoAnne Eggers/221 Granite StreetNoiced concern that there is no change in the traditional Parks funding method until there is a dependable dedicated revenue stream. Cindy Dion/Requested that the percentage of funds for Parks are restored to prior percentage and that a dedicated revenue stream be determined in order to provide a established revenue stream. Next meeting will be on September 4 at 4 p.m. in the Parks Office. Staff will look at meeting dates in October to set the Joint Council/Parks Meeting. Meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Respectfully, Barbara Christensen City Recorder CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Approval of a Memo of Understanding Regarding Shared Services and Costs Between the City of Ashland and the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Date: March 20, 2012 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg Department: Administrative Services E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Parks Secondary Contact: Don Robertson Approval: Dave Kanner Estimated Time: Consent Question: Will Council approve the renewal of a Memo of Understanding with the Parks Commission regarding certain services provided between the two organizations and the agreed upon costs? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve the attached document. Background: This agreement was last reviewed and approved in February 2010 for that budget year and the following one. It has an automatic renewal, renegotiation and cancellation provisions to provide both parties the ability to manage it, the services and costs covered within, and related operational issues as needed. As part of the annual audit the auditors have asked for the agreement to be more specific in certain areas so this document includes more detail in the accounting tasks and responsibilities area and is being brought back to both parties for approval. This agreement will go to the Parks Commission at its March 2012 monthly meeting. Attachments: MOU Exhibit A-Table of Services Exhibit R - Map of Mowing at Ashland Airport Exhibit C - Responsibilities for Parks Accounting c.. Page 1 of 1 1r, MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CITY OF ASHLAND AND ASHLAND PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION FY 2012-2013 Agreement made this _20th_ day of -March-, 2012, between the City of Ashland ("City°) and the Ashland Park and Recreation Commission ('Parks") are effective for the next adopted budget. RECITALS A. Local government may enter into agreements for the performance of any and all functions and activities that any party to the agreement, its assigned personnel or agents have authority to perform. B. City and Parks have successfully shared the cost of operations and staff at various levels including the use, operation and maintenance of facilities, landscaping, accounting and repair work for many years and desire to share resources and work collaboratively to jointly maintain and manage facilities, grounds and cooperatively provide services. C. City and Parks desire to formalize their commitment by entering into this agreement in the spirit of cooperation and with the understanding that the facilities and grounds shared and maintained and service provided will be done to provide cost savings and economies of scale to both parties. D. Attached as Exhibit A is a summary list of services provided between agencies for FY 2012-2013. E. City and Parks may agree to provide other services to one another, or to cost share other services, as part of this agreement without prior revision. Changes in identified services, service levels, payment for services and additional services will be agreed upon administratively and in writing in advance of providing the service. The specifics of such changes will.be addressed in the next revision of this agreement if warranted. The City and Parks agree: 1. Internal Services. The City provides Parks with administrative services via the Central Service, Insurance Service, Equipment funds and Facilities Division. These services include Administration and oversight, Legal, Human Resources, Risk Management, Budgeting, Purchasing, Accounting & Financial Reporting, Computer and Telephone Technology, Facilities Maintenance and other services as needed. The listed services are annually calculated and allocated based upon estimated benefit received to all departments of the City and Parks is charged their prorated share. Specific accounting tasks transferred to the City and responsibilities are identified in Exhibit C. 2. Other Services and Staff. Services are routinely provided between the City and Parks to meet various needs on an ongoing and sometimes on an ad hoc basis. Unless otherwise indicated, these services are treated as revenue and expenses in the budget in the General Fund and Parks and Recreation Fund on a monthly.basis. The following list identifies the agreed upon services for FY 2009-2010: 2.1. Central Area Patrol - The City Police Department provides security patrols to Lithia Park, Plaza area and the City is reimbursed by Parks for 50% actual wages to a cap of $51,000. FY2013 MOU 2-10-2012 Draft 2.2. Park Patrol - The City Police Department provides security patrols to Lithia and the outlying Park areas during April - October and is reimbursed by Parks at 50% to a limit of $30,000. The Police Department provides the equipment. 3. Facilities and Structures. Services are routinely provided between the City and Parks to meet various needs on an ongoing and sometimes on an ad hoc basis. The following list identifies the agreed upon services for FY 2012-2013: 3.1. Community Center & Pioneer Hall - The City reimburses Parks on maintenance and repair costs for agreed upon work. Parks provides all custodial labor and supplies for the Community Center and Pioneer Hall; handles small repairs such as fixing faucets, drapery hanging, and landscaping such as planting flowers, weed control, and shrub pruning. Parks also handles all scheduling and coordination for the buildings. In return, Parks receives and keeps all rental revenues from the facilities. All capital improvements such as roof repair, painting, and floor refinishing and replacement are the responsibility of the City. 3.2. Band Shelter - The City pays the Parks for maintaining and repairing the shelter as needed within the budgeted $4,800 ($1,200 per quarter). Maintenance involved at the band shell including cleaning and setting of park benches; cleaning the stage and storage areas. Parks is responsible for all landscaping in the band shell area. All capital repairs including painting, electrical, doors, and structural work are responsibility of the City. 3.3. The Grove - Parks coordinates access to the building and schedules. The City provides maintenance and repair work. Revenues for events accrue to Parks but some costs may be shared between agencies to minimize the impact. 4. Landscaping and Grounds Maintenance: Services are routinely provided to the City by Parks to meet various needs on an ongoing and sometimes on an ad hoc basis. These services are treated as revenue and expense between funds with a $197,000 annual limit that can be adjusted over time. The following list identifies the agreed upon services for FY 2012-2013: 4.1. The Plaza Downtown Entry Areas - The City pays Parks to maintain lawns and plants in the Plaza and entry areas to downtown. Parks provides all landscaping and irrigation maintenance at The Plaza, north entry, downtown. This includes all plant pruning, weeding, flower replacement and minimal tree pruning for visibility and safety, turf mowing and care, irrigation scheduling and testing repair as necessary. Any capital repairs such as planter replacement, complete removal, and large structural pruning of downtown trees is the responsibility of the City. 4.2. Siskiyou Boulevard & Ashland Street - The City pays Parks to maintain the plants and mow grass on these streets. Parks is responsible for all mowing, edging, fertilizing of turf, weed control in beds, pruning and replacement of occasional shrubs, litter pickup on a routine basis, and flowers replanted according to season, as well as irrigation scheduling and repairs as needed. Any major rework or complete change will be the responsibility of the City. 4.3. Airport - The City pays Parks to mow the grass at the airport. Parks is responsible for mowing areas around runway, taxi-way and hangar facility, as well as landscaping around FBO FY2013 MOU 2-10-2012 Draft building, including lawn area, shrubs, pruning, flower replacement, and irrigation scheduling and repairs as needed. (See Exhibit B - map) 4.4. Substations - The City pays Parks to mow grass at substations. At the substation on North Mountain Avenue the City pays Parks to maintain shrubs, control weeds, and irrigation scheduling and repairs as needed. 5. Fleet Maintenance. The City will provide fleet maintenance and repair for Parks and charge for services in a manner consistent with City Departments. Fleet operations overhead will be allocated to Parks in a prorated share based upon number and type of vehicles/equipment to be maintained and shared benefit of the Division. City will accept Parks employees dedicated to their shop program. City will maintain transferred positions for at least one year and employ transferred employees for as long as it is feasible based upon operations, budget and performance. 6. Other Services. The City and Parks will, on occasion, need to trade services or share costs and any sharing of expenses or potential payment of fees for those services will be negotiated at that time. 7. Length of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2012, and continue for a period of one year. It will automatically renew on an annual basis unless terminated by either party per this section. The City and Parks shall periodically review this Agreement and modify it as they mutually agree to be appropriate during the year. Changes in services and/or responsibility for costs or revenues will be agreed upon annually as part of the budget process prior to a proposed budget is submitted to the Budget Committee. Changes.to the proposed services may be done during the budget process with mutual agreement. 8. Termination. Neither.party may terminate this Agreement for a breach by the other party without first providing the other party written notice of the specific nature of the alleged breach and a reasonable opportunity to cure the breach. A reasonable opportunity to cure the breach shall be 30 days or such other lesser or greater time as is appropriate given the nature of the breach and the time necessary to cure it. Annual renewal of this agreement will occur unless either party provides written notice during the budget process but no later than 60 days prior to the start of a fiscal year. CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: FY2013 MOU 2-10-2012 Draft FY 2012-2013 MOU Exhibit A DEPTIORG FY 2011-2012 Method of SERVICE ACTIVITIESITASKS PROVIDER WHO PAYS AMOUNT Calculation All Administrative functions including but not limited to Human Resources, Legal, City of Ashland - Recording, Treasury, Applicable Purchasing, Technology, Departments in Risk Management, Internal Service Prorated share Internal Services - General Facilities, etc. Divisions Parks $340,000 established in budget Accounting functions including but not limited to City of Ashland Prorated share financial reporting, GL, Admin established in budget Internal Services - Finance PR, AR, AP- See Exhibit Services/Finance included in internal & Accounting C -Department Parks Included above services cha e - Maintains Downtown Central Area Patrol Area Security Police Parks $51,000 Park Patrol Maintains Park Security Police Parks $30,000 Set amount City of Ashland Building maintenance Admin functions agreed upon Services/Finance Prorated share Facilities Maintenance annually - Department Parks $45,000 established in budget Prorated share established in budget, Liability, Auto and Property Workers Compensation premiums & claims Insurance-Parks Insurance City of Ashland Parks $40,000 cost. Workers Compensation Workers Compensation Paid with payroll per Insurance Parks Insurance CQtyof Ashland Parks As caIClllaled state required rates + r f Sr ; kt'T,{~ i c.F rh- a r 1 r ~x City of Ashland Band Shelter Maintenance Parks Maintenance $4,800 Set amount Public Works- Airport Mowing Maintenance Parks a ort $4,300 Set amount Substation Mowing Maintenance Parks Electric $1,000 Set amount Substation, Fire Public Works- Grounds BoulavardlPlaza landscape and airport Street & Fire maintenance, Maintenance mowing Parks Dept $197,000 including supplies v +a~4~ p4 ~ t ~ y ~ +T ~i3."'r~--'~~,1 5a i ft -.JY~~ ytJ ~rl ki k`+rTFI 1 L"~Q i Maintains Park Fleet & Fleet Maintenance Related Equipment City of Ashland Parks $204,000 TBD C:Vocuments and Setingslshipletd%Local Settings\Tempwary Internet F1eACententOul1ook163KU614SWOU Exhibit A 3.20-2012 )ds IGA S=37J1912012 11:31 AM ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT } AIRPORT CONMUSSION MAP A - q 4 ,y P fU- t: a 1 SCALE: P'-40Y 100 0 100 IW 300 100 500 fi00 Feat ~If00~'r v F City of Ashland Accounting and Finance Services Provided to Ashland Park Commission Exhibit C IOF4 NOTE: Only accounting processing and necessary tasks have been transferred and are paid for. Responsibility for the audit, financial report, audit comments, responses to the auditor comments and i any other managerial issues remain with the Parks Director, consistent with those required of the City Administrator. The City Finance Department is a resource to Parks but cannot assume managerial or audit responsibilities for Parks Management. If, in the normal performance of accounting tasks or while processing accounting documents, City staff observes errors and/or documents that raise questions, Finance Mangement will contact Parks Manage- ment for clarification or action. Parks Management retains the responsibility to oversee, manage, train and review the work and processes in their areas, performed by their staff and volunteers, including, but not limited to: 1 Cash handling and documentation 2 Data input - 3 Software selection, use, updates and processing 4 Internal controls and risk management 5 Security of assets. TASKS TO BE PERFORMED BY FINANCE: Ongoing: All accounts payable: pay invoices, vendor maintenance All payroll: bi-weekly payroll, employee input and maintenance, payroll payables, quarterly taxes and reports Manage Youth Activity Levy fund (revenues and contractual transfers to Ashland School District) Other duties as assigned Daily: Deposits (Park Office, Community Centers, Nature Center) Spreadsheet updates: Daily cash, Oak Knoll, Daniel Meyer Pool, Ice Rink Bi-Weekly: Oak Knoll: calculate Golf Pro payment for daily receipts (payable through ap) Monthly: Oak Knoll: calculate Golf Pro payment for annual memberships (payable through ap) Journal entries: Revenues for Oak Knoll, Pool, Ice Rink, Tax turnovers (from City) City internal charges (central services, insurance, fuel, warehouse, misc. ap invoices paid through City) Interest allocation from City Balance Park to City cash (checks issued, cash receipts, clearings) Financial statements and Eden detail reports to Park Admin. Group: - Park combined statements Financials by department (Oak Knoll, Community Centers, Nature Center, Senior Center) Quarterly Invoice/Billing: City (Siskiyou Blvd and other City area maintenance) Ashland School District (Nature Center school programs, grounds maintenance (if applicable)) Ashland Community Hospital (grounds maintenance) Misc. items as requested from Park staff Payroll quarterly tax reports, workers comp reports, and all regulatory items as needed C:1Documents and Settings\shipletcRLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\63KU614S\MOU Exhibit C City-Parks Accounting 3-20-2012.xis 3/14/2012 City of Ashland Accounting and Finance Services Provided to Ashland Park Commission Exhibit C 20F4 Quarterly - continued Journal entries: Personal service allocation from Youth Activity Levy to Recreation Division Equipment replacement from Park and Golf Divisions to Capital Improvement Fund Transfer from Park Fund to Capital Improvement Fund Annual Event statements and record keeping (Bike Swap, 4th of July Run, Mt Ashland Run) Youth Activity Levy materials and service allocations to Recreation Division PIERS annual reports, W2s, 1099s Budget Audit CAM COLAs Gas tax refund application GFOA:award application C:\Documents and Settings\shipletd\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.OUdook\63KU614S\MOU Exhibit C City-Parks Accounting 320-2012.xls 3/1412012 m m c E O m N V C V d O ~ E m N a N L_ m 6 V ~ T 3 d U ~ N1 C n L :G a E m o° c m m n 'y a m 'a a o 'm U c v n d m O d O d ° N U T T m T . T'N d m m s m .a m° o v m u m .o c u.~d $ ~.o map m>mm " o c a dc~ E n u m d L m y 6l] d T d N m SY ° O.{ y m to m O T E M O T W t d m L a d E N m m nd u a ny LL m E o E ma c'm 12 E `M c td..a o E !'E a ai d° n u" mo-a « n n d O O jp m- ° T m O d n m d a n T J N m "cdv~.c csdie o>o 'Z'm Em .~vc ~m m m O° d d O O n ^m O 10 N m C L Ta C 0 > C a N> d .C d d Z 4. v a n @ c m 3 E n t c d T n n c 3§ v« v 'm n n > d d o m d N ° v o iE r m . ~?;70 m= y n d m n d a ° m a n o m 5 m umi d d n~ 5 'u d o. ~s~ E L m V m m m° E m m m ~ d v W>$5,c A«$c ~3~=c 3d c '=c o mom vniEom ~vaE E> >m ~o o.E ai°ua c Ny° _ m n o c q E o m m o d d c o o c m m m c o !a _ QUH Q U!- >m H W W LLF W m w w 0 V O Cl m ge'. d E a 5-5 m T A d E L y y m c a r 0 c 0 o m ~N £a° Ems. ~ LL O E>~ OE > -O > m « d v 3 ~ m c d u d (D o- ^'d o m r m y .d L° ° c o c ~ 'a d °1 0~ m d m c `m E ~.Q 'o o m n m w u> o ° c o m° « c ° ry m u o $ c m 9 [ v d C v N o n a ° 3_ o o d s= 3° ° m uv oA v!? E m yE do m m v ' V. c m y2 c aci u ~ a u E a v o a c._ E d o d E o « c° a netl d L^ c m ta an d d a .a ° d m -:cr, C d C V o° E m mEmo° d~dn« ~'emZ°S m-xa L.. m «E N "4 d N N l0 C V .dC -O N S L N W m ~ .mD t O d N yNncd 0 c--r c m0 3LLC o c'3 d ° o d W n a u m m N `moEc° y y o.2`c 12== ra ooc d«c c .2' n ah o' m n m- « m n n._ N. m is m YS^ c d C d d c c o W c C d d m N y d o c d m W K W r L w o W W W Z m w W¢ m 2 L m. Q m z W Y c a ~ L m i.T:;. C m d ~.O m c d '~:d d A oa 'o d :L} .O N O ' N'3 y D (0 > d O~ o N U C P .G R4. M - d in ° m _ N U m m m C d d G N G d O T •l0 ~ Q W p n p n u O n o L 0 0 d 0 d 0 v E G L . L a. L LL ¢ m N m C m m C' 'O O m C d C N (V m 2 O C ry ~1df P E C S+ C m x d c $ E o E Fm- - o m o {C m v t 5 a m .E w U m v m S n oa uT a E pia LL m c „N o rmE ~w m o = a m m c m .o m « m o u m c 02 :"y com omm oc mE o ~mLL v°n a o 'yo 0 a x m 'a 0 m o a m a m' m o m c m m _ ;n n m - m a u u m s m o `m m a E a m o o m to m `o t v n m m ta. my xxw vu €c>> ova 3a m r mda w pmo m m°.2`c5 dm a o m0EN ,Damn m°w66M mcaf m~aci°3c ac c E O oE~ ~n d C 0 22 C J 3 O m N N m] m Q m m m m c U 3 c w E ~ nw~ dad yip aci aE m3'E Dc m om~m m e Yn m m 9£ d m m o«« a 3 5 y, c@ @ u@ y m w E m > v Z E E (J d v vE m c w a a oc n. Eo m.m .d ?p ~dz'm UZ° HIo--F.: Ua`> > mmmo.¢a v 'o v az; v y .m d m' x a 93 0 y n 4 v 0 E m U 2 O ¢Y U m m d d U C m m U a U «R (jq c c m` d c m m Q m ~j0, m t c p CO V d m O m 13 `o a y _ o o w m 'G1 3 m€«~c E Um an d F5 c - i E m m m e m a o v m m a c E °1 v d m v._am y' U am c 0 oU O O ~•rnulpa rnA mo x y¢ « r a`iyc 3w o~ ca3 ~mrn ~QFm-y. m c O tc m N O m m G a LL m E- o o ~c > 5 -E o c > U.R m 15 f. W > V d D a m ~ m ~i N 622 N O C « > 7 m O R ¢ O'E d w m o O Y m m '4 p CI a « v.`' a as °m m v y QU ~R°c c E to } n v o. v m a m a m 3 d E m 3 o m m s d n :1:= C Y d m _ m N 'a.. m m E N d O a Y d E d U J E m Q N m m m m d 0 C7 o.~ xm Q(9¢UOCm ~QN U O QN a C ma_ U ~O (JU 2 O m O d O. m m a¢¢a mac-. °u Q hi L: y m yy c a ;v •C ~ ~ U +Qy O U a ~ K <d o m _ ~ •o v o n`, a°/' ml aI ~ MEMO TO: City Council and Parks Commission FROM Ad Hoc Committee on Parks Funding RE: Communication between the Council and Commission The Ad Hoc Committee was assigned to investigate short- and long-term funding options to support the Parks and Recreation Department. In the course of carrying out this assignment, we have realized that in order to accomplish this goal better communication was needed between both elected bodies. We believe the current liaison position needs to be replaced or supplemented with a mechanism that will ensure more direct and sustained conversation between council and commission members. We suggest two alternatives for your consideration: Option #1 Joint Committee. The Council and Commission could establish a joint Committee composed of two Council members and two Parks commissioners. Council members would be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council; Parks commissioners would be appointed by the Chair. Meetings would be held quarterly or as determined by the members. Duties: The Joint Committee would: • Review parks short and long term goals for inclusion in citywide planning documents. • Identify common interests and concerns. These might include, for example, sustainability, conservation or beautification of public areas. Investigate how these interests and concerns relate to city goals and budget priorities. • Identify opportunities for education and cross training that will allow elected officials to understand the responsibilities and activities overseen by each body. • Review the proposed budget and spending priorities for Parks and Recreation. • Review the Parks and Open Space section of the comprehensive plan and recommend changes that reflect public input and funding opportunities and constraints. • Propose a schedule for full Council/Commission meetings. These should be scheduled at least annually, but as often as deemed necessary. • Invite and incorporate public input in decision-making. • Take on other issues as assigned. Option #2 Alternatively, the Council and Parks Commission could choose to establish a schedule of regular meetings of the full bodies. Meeting agendas could include any of the items listed above, with particular emphasis on budget and spending priorities. Meetings would be planned and conducted by the Mayor and the Parks Commission chair. As needed, the two bodies could create temporary ad hoc committees to take on specific projects or studies. Proposed Parks Budget Process 2015 - 2017 Biennium February 1. Joint Council-Parks Commission meeting to discuss goals and budget priorities. 2. Budget Assumptions: Delivered to Budget Committee by budget officer. Parks Commission invited to Budget Assumptions meeting. 3. Director to assemble budget estimates for Park Commission: Based on Commission goals, CIP needs, and public input. 4. Park Commission takes input and recommends budget to Budget Officer: Conducted at regular commission meeting. March 5. Park Commission requested budget delivered to budget officer by end of first week in March 6. Park Commission Chair and Director meet with Budget Officer to present budget: Occurs second week in March as a part of formal budget officer review. (Sweaty little room) March->April 7. Budget officer reviews proposed Parks budget in relation to overall proposed city budget and prepares budget document: Utilizes council commission goals to guide his recommendations. 8. Director presents proposed Parks Department budget to Parks Commission: Done in regular commission mecting. Commission makes specific recommendations to be sent to Budget committee in advance of first budget meeting (but not in advance of the budget being delivered to the committee). Note: Budget document must be delivered to the printer approx. 10 days in advance of the first Budget Committee meeting, in order to deliver the budget to the committee at least seven days in advance of the meeting and publish on City web site. 9. Joint Council-Parks Commission meeting to discuss budget concerns, if any. Late April May 10. Budget presentations made to Budget Committee: Director makes budget presentation at meeting. Commission recommends any modifications during presentation per #7. 11. Budget document will not contain add packages in their traditional format: Budget committee may make add packages at their discretion. Note: Red events are new additions to budget process. Council/Parks ad hoc Committee Meeting September 4, 2013 Pagel of 3 MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL/PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING September 4, 2013 Parks Office 340 S. Pioneer Street Chair Councilor Marsh called the meeting to order at 4:12 p.m. in the Parks Office. Councilors Rosenthal and Voisin, Parks Commissioners Seffinger and Landt were present. Staff included Parks & Recreation Director Don Robertson, City Administrator Dave Kanner and City Attorney Dave Lohman. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the August 7, 2013 meeting were approved as presented. It was announced that the Joint meeting of the Council and Park Commission is scheduled for October 29 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Review of O&A's Discussion by members on the Internal Controls Policy that was approved by the Park Commission and the City Council included how the policy was developed and it identified responsibilities of the City and Park Commission. The committee questioned whether there were any other policies or documents to be included in further discussion regarding the Parks budget. City Attorney Dave Lohman stated that this policy or any others would have no effect on the need to follow Oregon Budget Law including the Budget Officer. It was noted that policies should be respected and could be changed if necessary. Frustration by some members of the committee that the process used to change Park budgeting procedure was not an organized way for government to act. It was suggested that staff would prepare a new policy to be discussed at the joint meeting. Potential Budget Incentives Two options were presented to the committee: 1. Assignment of budget surplus: Monies budgeted but not spent during the biennium will be added to revenues generated by the department (fees, rental income) that exceed budged amounts; the total will be evenly divided between the general fund and Parks and Recreation. Or 2. Assignment of revenue only: Parks and Recreation will wholly retain revenue generated by the department (fee, rental income) that exceeds budgeted amounts. Discussion by members on the proposed included: • What would keep the Budget Committee from keeping the funds - even if incentive is adopted • Cannot legally segregate Parks Commission • Work to find an agreement that would stay in place into the future • Amount of funds is unknown • Would provide a way for Parks Department to be creative • Consider different scenarios - incentive is reasonable alternative - need to adapt to staff changes • Incentive for when departments are achieving and exceeding their goals Council/Parks ad hoc Committee Meeting September 4, 2013 Page 2 of 3 Staff explained that the Park Commission and staff could present arguments in favor of their budget to the Budget Committee but none that would be legally binding. Committee continued to discuss the proposed incentive options and explained that this policy would be just an experiment that could provide guidelines for any other departments if it proved worthwhile. An Option 3 was considered as the following: savings in Material & Services would be moved to Capital Improvements as this may allow more control over Material & Services. Any surplus and retention of funds would be the responsibility of staff and Park Commission. Continued comments on options included that Option #1 may increase the independence of the Park Commission. Committee reviewed past discussion on Ending Fund Balances. Park Commissioner Landt/Councilor Rosenthal m/s to approve incentive document as presented adding Option 3 and adding Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to all options. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Review of documents created by Committee • Funding principals • Council/Parks Communication Memo • Proposed Budget Process • Confirmation of Management Responsibilities • Recommendation on current Ending Fund Balance • Incentive Policy Committee discussed if there was any other short/long term revenue proposals that could be explored and members offered some suggestions as the following: • Create new policy/agreement between City and Park Commission which would allow use of property tax for first few years but begin process of incorporating another revenue source - such as Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT • Citizen vote for Parks dedicated revenue stream that would include Lithia Park being eligible for TOT • Dedicated percentage of property tax to Special Revenue Fund for Parks - work toward increasing TOT by 1 % It was noted that it is hard to support a specific amount set aside for Parks & Recreation when there is a broader need to solving budget issues and that all budget issues should be addressed. These include changes in programs, growth of the community and many other issues. It was understood by the committee that when the time came for discussion on increasing the TOT for dedicated park funds, the discussion would include both the City Council and Park Commission. The committee felt that the use of TOT funds is the most promising for identifying long-term funding. Committee discussed pros and cons on restoring the 2.09 property tax as a dedicated revenue stream as some members felt this was in the spirit of the City Charter. Other members stated that this would not be a recommendation that would be considered and would rather have continued work on researching the possibility of increasing the TOT. Councilor Voisin motion to recommend that the council restore the 2.09 in the 2015-17 Biennium Budget and in the interim that staff work on increasing TOT by 1% to be dedicated to Lithia Park. Motion died due to lack of second. Council/Parks ad hoc Committee Meeting September 4, 2013 Page 3 of 3 Committee continued discussion on investigating the TOT as a potential dedicated option for funding in the next biennium budget process. Councilor Rosenthal/Commissioner Landt m/s to recommend at the joint committee meeting to explore feasibility of TOT increase dedicated to Park & Recreation funding. DISCUSSION: Members discussed how the vote would be conducted at the joint meeting. Commissioner Landt/Councilor Marsh m/s to all for the question. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Vote on main motion: Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Public Input JoAnne Eggers/221 Granite Street/Shared her concern on appointments to the Budget Committee. She felt that there should be training offered, more recruiting of citizens, description of the Budget Committee made available, explanation on the role of the Budget Committee and inform the Budget Committee of all policies that are pertinent. Cindy Dion/Directed her comments and questions to the City Administrator Dave Kanner regarding how things were in place prior to Measure 50. Councilor Marsh provided a response from the General Accounting Standards Board (GASB) regarding Measure 50 and restricted funds. The response included clarification that it is not necessary to close no longer use restricted funds. Chair Marsh concluded the meeting by offering to draft a report from the committee and would attach all documents that had been created within the committee to the agenda for the joint meeting. She would send the draft report out to the members for any comments. Consensus by committee was that there is no need to schedule any further meetings. Adiournment Meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Christensen City Recorder C I T Y OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: August 27, 2013 TO: Barbara Christebnsen FROM: Dave Lohman RE: Rick Landt's Question on Parks Funding Question: Could an Ashland voter approved measure legally dedicate a portion of property tax to be used exclusively by Parks? .Response: No. Note: This response and the discussion below assume the question concerns dedication of a set portion of the City's biennial property tax revenues generated from its operating tax rate for a period longer than the two-year budget cycle. Discussion: Oregon's budget law requires that the City's budget for each budget cycle be reviewed and approved by the City's budget committee and then City Council. A ballot measure passed by voters purportedly requiring, permanent dedication of a portion of the City's budget for a particular purpose would be legally void. Stated differently, even in compliance with a voter-approved measure, a budget committee and City Council decision concerning City expenditures beyond the two-year budget cycle not only would violate statutes but also would have no binding effect on subsequent budget committees and Councils. Such a measure probably would also contravene Oregon Constitution Article XI, Section 11 ("Measure 50") which clearly disallows any continuing, dedicated levy and arguably disallows any dedication of property taxes that functions like a levy, except for general obligation bond levies and limited term local option levies. Although Harvey Rogers was addressing an "additional levy for park purposes" in his February 26, 2013 memorandum [emphasis added), his conclusion on page 10 applies equally dedicated funding within the City's existing operating tax rate: The only permissible sources of dedicated funding for parks would be a five-year local option levy or a separate operating tax rate limit approved by the voters for a new, separate parks and recreation district. I David H. Lohman City Attorney Tex. 541-.200 20 East Main street Fax: 541-552-2092 Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800.735-2900 lohmand@ashland,orms Ad Hoc Committee Questions for Accounting from Councilor Voisin Parks and Rec is an independent entity given their EIN separate payroll, MOU with the city, separate PERS, an audit of its own, and an elected commission, upon these facts I base my questions and requests. First, Parks and Rec is not a separate, independent entity. It is a component unit of Ashland City government. Having some of the incidental characteristics of an independent entity (separate EIN, payroll, PERS account, audit, elected commission) does not make it legally autonomous. It derives its existence solely from the City Charter and is therefore exclusively a City entity. Only if it were an entity authorized by and created pursuant to state law (e.g., a county, municipal corporation or special district) would Parks and Rec have legal status separate from the City. Stated differently, Parks and Rec lacks characteristics essential to an independent entity, including creation pursuant to statute, capacity to sue and be sued, separate taxing authority, and separate budget oversight by its own statutorily prescribed budget committee. Parks and Rec is, and always has been, a unit of City government, regardless of whether the City or anyone else happens to label it "department," "division," "bureau," or anything else. The fact that it is overseen by a voter-elected commission makes it an unusual unit of city government, but not a unit outside city government. Therefore, questions below that assume otherwise begin with a false premise. 1. Please document how the City of Ashland can change a separate entity's fund designation in the separate entity's budget. Does the City have the authority to do this or is it the sole authority of the elected Parks Commission? Answer: As explained above, Parks and Rec is not a separate entity. The Parks Commission has no authority of any kind to designate fund types in the City budget. No entity other than the City itself can establish or alter a fund within its budget. With respect the City budget, the Parks Commission's sole role is to make recommendations for discretionary consideration by those designated by statute to have roles in the budget process: the Budget Officer, the Budget Committee and the Council. If Parks and Rec were a separate entity, it would have no role at all in the City's budget process (and no standing to be directly allocated City of Ashland funds). 2. Can you provide the minutes of the meeting in which the Parks Commission voted to change their fund type from Special Revenue Fund to General Fund? If the Commission did not vote to change this, why not? Is it under their purview as an elected body? Answer: 'The Parks Commission did not vote on this because it is not within its purview. Decisions about the City budget are the exclusive purview of the City Council (in conjunction with the budget committee). Whether something is a special revenue fund or a general fund is a matter of state budget law. Even if the Council were to designate something as a special revenue fund, state budget law would trump any Council decision. 3. It became clear at our meeting that City staff is saying that Measure 50 changed the fund type for Parks in 1998, and it was simply the title only that was not changed for many years in the budget. Given that fact, I would expect an accounting close in 1998 of the Special Revenue Fund and a subsequent opening of a Parks General Fund to reflect the state legislative change. Does the audit from 1998 reflect this? What was done with the restricted ending fund balance of the Parks Special Revenue Account when it was closed? Answer: The fund's designation changed, but the fund was never closed (nor was it necessary to close it) and the ending fund balance remained in the fund. 4. I also learned from our meeting that over the years, the City has step by step taken on more of the accounting for the Parks separate entity. The City continues to file all payroll and benefits under the separate federal ID number for Parks. Yet, the City now calls Parks a "department" in all 2013-2015 budget documents. I find this confusing. When did Parks officially become a "department" of the City? How could it be a department yet be independent and have an elected commission? I think that we need to re-acquaint ourselves with the original documents that set up Parks as a separate entity. Please provide a copy of the SS-4 for Parks and the Parks' application for separate entity status to the IRS. This information will provide answers to my and many others' questions. Answer: Parks is and always has been a City department, overseen by an independently elected body that also oversees a professional manager. Even the 1997-98 budget, the last in which the Parks and Recreation Fund was (as a matter of law) a special revenue fund, refers to Parks and Rec as a department. The Council, with the consent of the voters, has the ability to amend the Charter to create an independently elected body to oversee any City department at any time. That elected oversight does not change the department's status as a City department. Thank you. MEMORANDUM TO Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission FROM Don Robertson, Director DATE June 17, 2009 SUBJECT Internal Finance Controls Action Requested Provide staff direction Background During the past two audits, the auditors recommended that the City of Ashland and the Parks Commission adopt a standard policy for internal finance controls. Ashland City Council recently adopted this policy and staff recommends that the commission follow suit. ASHLAAID PARKS 8 RECREATION Internal Controls Policy Draft June 2009 Introduction Internal Controls: - A set of rules, procedures and practices developed and employed to facilitate the safeguarding of an entity's assets be they liquid (cash or investments) or fixed (infrastructure or equipment) or intangible (credit rating or information). The importance of internal control to an organization is determined by the level that its resources are directed, monitored, and measured. Resources include staff time and effort to protect all other resources through monitoring and measurement including steps to prevent and detect fraud. The goals and objectives of this Internal Controls Policy are to protect public assets and to foster reliance on public information for decision making purposes at all levels, both internally and externally. At the organizational level, internal control objectives relate to the reliability of financial reporting, timely feedback on the achievement of operational or strategic goals, and compliance with laws and regulations. At the specific transaction level, internal control refers to the actions taken to achieve a specific objective (e.g., how to ensure the organization's payments to third parties are for valid services rendered). Internal control procedures reduce process variation (inconsistency), leading to more predictable outcomes. Internal control is a key element of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of 1977 and the Sarbanes - Oaxley Act of 2002, which required improvements in internal control in United States public entities. Internal controls rely heavily on segregation of duties, which continue to be the core of establishing good internal controls. Accounting professionals have broadened the definition of internal controls to include establishing a control environment, risk assessment, the flow of information and communication, and monitoring. Internal Controls should be an integral part of any organization's financial and business policies and procedures. Internal controls consist of all the measures taken by the organization for the purpose of a. protecting its resources against waste, fraud, and inefficiency; b. ensuring accuracy and reliability in accounting and operating data; c. securing compliance with the policies of the organization; and d. evaluating the level of performance in all organizational units. Ashhnd 11orL; and kQctCalion Commis5ion Internal Cuntl'Ok Urall Naee I of9 Roles and Responsibilities All personnel should be responsible for communicating upward in the organization problems in: a. operations; b. noncompliance with the code of ethics (AMC 3.08.020); c. other policy or procedural violations; and d. illegal actions. Everyone within the City of Ashland has some role in internal controls. The roles vary depending upon the level of responsibility and the nature of involvement by the individual. The Chair, Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission, Parks Director, and Department Heads establish the presence of integrity, ethics, competence and a positive control environment. , The Park Director and other department heads have oversight responsibility for internal controls within their units. Managers and supervisory personnel are responsible for executing control policies and procedures at the detail level within their specific unit. Each individual within a unit is to be cognizant of proper internal control procedures associated with their specific job responsibilities. Elements of Internal Control 1. Control Environment: The control environment, as established by the organization's administration, sets the tone of a City and influences and increases the awareness of its people. Leaders of each department, area, or activity establish a local control environment. This is the foundation for all other components of internal control, providing discipline and structure. Control environment factors include: a. Integrity and ethical values; b. The commitment to competence; c. Leadership philosophy and operating style; d. The way management assigns authority and responsibility, and organizers and develops its people; e. Policies and procedures. ASIdand Pail., and Kccrcaiion Con niis:icon Inlerumd Colltrnh I ern tt 2. Risk Assessment: Every entity faces a variety of risks from external and internal sources that must be assessed. A precondition to risk assessment is the establishment of objectives that are linked at different levels and internally consistent. Risk assessment is the identification and analysis of relevant risks to the achievement of the objectives, forming a basis for determining how the risks should be managed. Because economics, regulatory and operating conditions will continue to change, mechanisms are needed to identify and deal with the special risks associated with change. Objectives must be established before the Parks Director can identify and take necessary steps to manage risks. Operational objectives relate to effectiveness and efficiency of the operations, including performance and financial goals and safeguarding resources against loss. Financial reporting objectives pertain to the preparation of reliable published financial statements, including prevention of fraudulent financial reporting. Compliance objectives pertain to laws and regulations that establish minimum standards of behavior. The process of identifying and analyzing risk is an ongoing process and is a critical component of an effective internal control system. Attention must be focused on risks at all levels and necessary actions must be taken to manage. Risks can pertain to internal and external factors. After risks have been identified they must be evaluated. Managing change requires a constant assessment of risk and the impact on internal controls. Economic, industry, and regulatory environments change as entities' activities evolve. Mechanisms are needed to identify and react to changing conditions. The City and Parks are required to perform a fraud risk assessment and assess related controls. This typically involves identifying scenarios in which theft or loss could occur and determining if existing control procedures effectively manage the risk to an acceptable level. The risk that senior management might override important financial controls to manipulate financial reporting is also a key area of focus in fraud risk assessment. 3. Limitations: Internal control can provide reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of an organization will be met. The concept of reasonable assurance implies a high degree of assurance, constrained by the costs and benefits of establishing incremental control procedures. As referenced in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, no control will cost more than the benefit derived. For example if the direct cost of the control is $100 to protect $50 worth, it does not benefit the Parks Commission to use resources for that purpose. ."»iilantl Parh> ;uid lrrcrrntio~; Cununi5~iou Intcrn.~l Coruroln Ci~3 tf Effective internal control implies the organization generates reliable financial reporting and substantially complies with the laws and regulations that apply to it. However, whether an organization achieves operational and strategic objectives may depend on factors outside the enterprise, such as competition or technological innovation. These factors are outside the scope of internal control; therefore, effective internal control provides only timely information or feedback on progress towards the achievement of operational and strategic objectives, but cannot guarantee their achievement. Internal control involves human action, which introduces the possibility of errors in processing orjudgment. Internal control can also be overridden by collusion among employees or coercion by top management. 4. Control Activities: Control activities may be described by the type or nature of activity. These include (but are not limited to): a. Segregation of duties: - separating authorization, custody, and record keeping roles to limit risk of fraud or error by one person. i. authorization function 2. recording function, e.g. preparing source documents or code or performance reports 3. custody of asset whether directly or indirectly, e.g. receiving checks in mail or implementing source code or database changes. b. Authorization of transactions - review of particular transactions by an appropriate person. c. Retention of records - maintaining documentation to substantiate transactions. d. Supervision or monitoring of operations - observation or review of ongoing operational activity. e. Physical safeguards - usage of cameras, locks, physical barriers, etc. to protect property. f. Analysis of results, periodic and regular operational reviews, metrics, and other key performance indicators. g. IT Security - usage of passwords, access logs, etc. to ensure access restricted to authorized personnel. 5. Control Categorization: The Internal Controls of the City of Ashland fall into two categories; controls that are approved as a formal policy documents by the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission, and controls that are administratively approved by the City Administrator and Finance Director. Day-to-day operational controls, such as specific Accounts Payable and Cash receipting are approved administratively, while larger, overarching topics such as the investment and fund balance policies are presented to the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission for formal approval. A\ Ifl•and Parks eud I. cie:;lion c=minis:ion Internal Conh-t~l.> Ora t l Pace a of (a) Accounting: t. The Parks Commission will maintain an accounting and financial reporting system that conforms to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Oregon Local Budget Law. The Parks Commission will issue a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (Audit report) each fiscal year. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report shows fund expenditures and revenues on both a GAAP and budget basis for comparison purposes. 2. An independent annual audit will be performed by a certified public accounting firm that will issue an official opinion on the annual financial statements and a management letter detailing areas that need improvement. 3. Full disclosure will be provided in financial statements and bond representations. 4. The accounting systems will be maintained to monitor expenditures and revenues on a monthly basis with analysis and adjustment of the annual budget as appropriate. 5. The accounting system will provide monthly information about cash position and investment performance. 6. Annually, the Parks Commission will submit documentation to obtain the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in financial reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). (b) Audit: 1. The Parks Commission undergoes an on-time yearly audit as required by ORS 297.425. As part of governmental auditing standards, the auditor must review and test the Parks Commission's internal controls and issue a separate opinion on the Parks Commission's Internal Controls. 2. The Parks Director is authorized to sign documents required by the audit firm in regards to the scope and representation of the Parks Commission audit. 3. All records are made available for the auditors to review. 4. Any and all unique situations are brought to the attention of the auditors. (c) Budget: 1. The Parks Commission prepares and adopts a balanced budget annually which is required by ORS 294. Refer to the budget document for specific step by step process. 2. The Budget Committee will be appointed in conformance with state statutes. 4~iilaml Psrk.4and Recrc;ciinn i:onunis>i~,u luiernsi C ontiols Urali P:,~e5u1N 3. The Budget Committee's chief purpose is to review the Parks Director's proposed budget and approve a budget and maximum tax levy for Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission consideration. The Budget Committee may consider and develop recommendations on other financial issues as delegated by the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission. 4. The Parks Commission will finance all current expenditures with current revenues. The Parks Commission will avoid budgetary practices that balance current expenditures through the obligation of future resources. 5. The Parks Commission budget will support Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission goals and priorities and the long-range needs of the community. 6. In contrast to the line-item budget that focuses exclusively on items to be purchased (such as supplies and equipment), the Parks Commission will use a program/objectives format that is designed to: a. Structure budget choices and information in terms of programs and their related work activities, b. Provide information on what each program is committed to accomplish in long-term goals and in short-term objectives, and c. Measure the degree of achievement of program objectives (performance measures). 7. The Parks Commission will include multi-year projections in the annual budget document. 8. To maintain fund integrity, the Parks Commission will manage each fund as an independent entity in accordance with applicable statutes and with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. 9. The Parks Commission will allocate direct and indirect administrative costs to each fund based upon the cost of providing these services. The Parks Commission will recalculate the cost of administrative services each year to identify the impact of inflation and other cost increases. 10. The Parks Commission will submit documentation annually to obtain the Award for Distinguished Budget Presentation from the Government Finance Officers Association. i. Once the Budget is adopted, the Parks Commission adheres to Oregon Budget law and brings any amendments to the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission. b. All Budget amendments are entered into the financial software system after the resolution is signed. c. At all times, the financial software system matches the amended budget. This is verified by !the auditors as well. .~~~hlauri p2rl.; ;rod Itccrcatiim i.'onunission hu::rnil (.:natrnlt I hatl Plea ri of 9 (d) Cash and Investment: 1. The general operating bank account, payroll bank account, payables bank account and various other bank accounts are reconciled within 10 working days of the following month by accountants that have no check preparation duties. Canceled checks are not provided to the Parks Commission. However, a CD of their images is received each month and stored until the audit is complete for the fiscal year. 2. The City Recorder/Treasurer does all the banking and investments for the City of Ashland and the Parks Commission. 3. All Parks Commission funds shall be invested to provide -in order of importance - safety of principal, a sufficient level of liquidity to meet cash flow needs, and the maximum yield possible. All monies not held for immediate use will be invested in the Local Government Investment Pool or other form of investment such as a CD. a. Please see the Investment Policy for further detail. (e) Documentation and Record Retention: 1. Provide reasonable assurance that all information and transactions of value are accurately recorded and retained. Records are to be maintained and controlled in accordance with the established retention period, as specified in the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) and properly disposed of in accordance with OAR and established procedures. (f) Purchasing: 1. The City will follow the purchasing requirements set forth in ORS 279 in addition to specific Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission approved purchasing policies, such as sweatshop free garment purchasing. (g) Risk Management: 1. The City will provide an active risk management program that increases staff and citizen safety and protects City and Parks Commission assets through loss prevention, insurance, and self- insurance. Flow of Information and Communication Pertinent information must be identified, captured and communicated in a form and timeframe that enables people to perform their individual responsibilities. Effective communication must occur in a broad sense; flowing down, across and up the organization. All personnel must receive a clear message from top management that control responsibilities must be taken seriously. They must understand their own role in the internal control system, as well as how individual activities relate to the work of others. They must have a means of communicating significant information upstream. :1 hland Pslrl.a and Iiccr~:aliUn C'imirni~ ii;;5 Internal C:or;hnl. llrati Pa.~sc 7 ..(,Y The Parks Commission provides accessibility of financial information to all levels of the organization to help ensure correct and complete recording of financial transitions. This is done in a variety of ways, including: a. All personnel who have been pre-authorized with Department Head level approval have "view-only" access to the financial system. They are able to view all transactions that affect their area of responsibility or function. b. The Finance Department closes the monthly activity on the 10th working day of the following month. The closing is announced to all personnel that manages their departmental budget. c. A Financial Report is produced and distributed to all Directors and the City Administrator. A transaction listing is also printed directly from the financial software and delivered to the Parks Director and Finance Director. This ensures that the data compiled in the Financial Report is consistent with the raw data in the financial software system and provides an additional audit safeguard. d. A quarterly Financial Report is submitted to Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission for their review. e. The annual financial report, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, is presented to the Audit Committee for their review and then presented to the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission. Monitoring Internal control systems need to be monitored - a process that assesses the quality of the system's performance over time. Ongoing monitoring occurs in the ordinary course of operations, and includes regular management and supervisory activities. and other actions personnel take in performing their duties that assess the quality of internal control system performance. The scope and frequency of separate evaluations depend primarily on an assessment of risks and the effectiveness of ongoing monitoring procedures. Internal control deficiencies should be reported upstream, with serious matters reported immediately to top administration and governing boards. Internal control systems change over time. The way controls are applied may evolve. Once effective procedures can become less effective due to the arrival of new personnel, varying effectiveness of training and supervision, time and resources constraints or additional pressures. Furthermore, circumstances for which the internal control system was originally designed may also change. Due to the changing conditions, management needs to determine whether the internal control system continues to be relevant and abio•to address new risks. Monitoring activities will be done at all levels: 4s11011d Parks and R__r:3lion C"ontmis;io;t Internal Controls I)rafr P.ceSA9 a. Finance department staff will investigate any anomaly. By backtracking with operating departments on small, possibly insignificant issues, operating department employees realize that the Parks Commission operates on tight controls. This helps set the tone and reinforces to the organization that the Finance Department monitors department financial activity. b. The Parks Director and Finance Director will submit a report annually in January identifying any changes and review of the Internal Controls. c. Any material breaks of the Internal Control will be brought forward to the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission by the City Administrator. d. Any deficiencies will brought forward as part of the approval of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Conclusion The employees of the City of Ashland's Finance Department take great pride in the City's and Parks Commission's financial record. They continue to strive to continue to maintain effective internal controls, consistent with professional standards and practices, in a very dynamic environment. Without the understanding and cooperation of all employees across Department lines, effective adherence of Parks Commission internal controls is extremely difficult and can place the Parks Commission in a less than optimum position. Referenced Policies: Financial Management Polices Accounting Method Policy Investment Policy Information Technology Policy (under revision and will be added when adopted) :AsbLanJ YarhS and Itccrcation Coinmis;;ou Imcinil Controls I)faR Pill;:c 9 ol') City of Ashland PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2009 ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Eggers, Gardiner, Lewis, Noraas, Rosenthal; Director Robertson; Superintendents Dials and Gies Absent: City Council Liaison Silbiger CALL TO ORDER Gardiner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Study Session - May 13, 2009 MOTION Rosenthal moved to approve the minutes as written. Noraas seconded the motion. The vote was: 4 yes - 0 no [Eggers abstained] Regular Meeting - May 18.2009 MOTION Eggers moved to approve the minutes as written. Lewis seconded the motion. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OPEN FORUM None ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA None UNFINISHED BUSINESS GARFIELD PARK SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST Dials said Passport2Ashland, in conjunction with the Strafford Inn, requested the use of Garfield Park on Saturday, August 1, from 1-4:00 p.m. for the Ashland Hullabaloo, an event featuring an inflatable bounce house, water safety instruction followed by a super soaker contest, face painting, a coordinated volleyball tournament, and free ice cream and popsicles. She said amplification was included in the request. Dials said event organizer Josh Hamik was not on hand to present his request and answer questions. Discussion Among Commissioners Commissioners discussed the event and expressed discomfort with the lack of firm details. One commissioner said the amplification might disturb neighbors and others voiced concern that the event was a commercial venture rather than a fundraiser. Since the organizer was not available to answer questions, commissioners discussed tabling the request until the July regular meeting. MOTION Rosenthal moved to table the Garfield Park special event request until the July regular meeting. Noraas seconded the motion. The vote was: Eggers, Lewis, Noraas, Rosenthal - yes Gardiner - no FY 2009.2010 BENEFITS FOR PARKS EMPLOYEES Robertson said city employees, with the exception of Parks, were offered two choices for deferred compensation-ING and ICMA-while Parks employees had just ING. He said providing an additional choice would bring Parks in line with other city employees and wouldn't incur additional expense or staff time. Discussion Among Commissioners Commissioners spoke in favor of adding ICMA as a deferred compensation option for Parks staff. MOTION Eggers moved to approve ICMA as a deferred compensation provider for the employees of the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission. Lewis seconded the motion. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no Page 2 of 4 Regular Meeting Minutes-June 22, 2009 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission NEW BUSINESS INTERNAL FINANCE CONTROLS Robertson said the city's auditors recommended, during the past two annual audits, that the city and Parks adopt a standard policy for internal finance controls. He said council adopted the proposed policy and Parks staff recommended the commission follow suit. He spoke of the importance of implementing documentation that matched cash handling practices, allowing staff to comfortably step forward to report irregularities. Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services and Finance Director, said all governmental agencies were firming up internal controls. He said the proposed policy provided a single document (with an associated reference document) for staff to use in standardizing accounting practices. He said the commission could adopt the proposed policy and make changes in future years as needed. Discussion Among Commissioners Commissioners questioned whether the documented steps would be cross-checked by auditors against actual practices and Tuneberg said staff was undergoing training to learn documented procedures and to demonstrate the steps to auditors. MOTION Noraas moved to adopt the internal finance control policy as presented. Eggers seconded the motion. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no PARKING PERMITS ON CALLE GUANAJUATO Robertson said several Plaza businesses regularly utilized private parking spaces along the Calle, including Websters and Tree House Books. He said Municipal Code 10.68.400 section B granted the commission authority to permit vehicle access during non-designated times "for property owners or lessees that have parking spaces on private land accessed through the Calle Guanajuato, or for other functions that are approved by the commission." He said the rules recently had been violated, resulting in the gate being closed and locked during non-designated times. He said the owner of a new restaurant in the vicinity recently raised concerns about safety and ambience in terms of outdoor dining combined with vehicle traffic. Public Inpul Muriel Johnson and Dona Zimmerman of Tree House Books and Websters said they regularly parked in private parking spaces located behind their businesses on the Calle. They said they had never experienced problems with parking in their private spaces during designated or non-designated times and they requested ongoing approval of their parking permits. Discussion Amonq Commissioners Commissioners asked that shop owners only park in designated spaces. They spoke of conducting year-to-year evaluations of the Calle and considered renewing parking permits, with staff handling day-to-day concerns. MOTION Noraas moved to approve a continuation of the private parking permits on Calle Guanajuato during non-designated times, per Municipal Code 10.68.400 section B. Lewis seconded the motion. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no NAMING OF "MIKE UHTOFF TRAIL" Robertson said a trail was developed in Siskiyou Mountain Park. It was suggested that the trail be named on behalf of Mike Uhtoff, a well-known local businessman and environmental advocate who was greatly involved in the development of the Siskiyou Mountain Park. He said the trail was developed cooperatively with the Ashland Woodlands and Trails Association and Southern Oregon Land Conservancy and both organizations felt that naming the trail in Uhtoffs honor would serve as an appropriate tribute. Discussion Among Commissioners Commissioners spoke favorably of Uhtoff's efforts toward the creation of the Siskiyou Mountain Park and expressed strong support for naming the trail in his memory. MOTION Lewis moved to name the new Siskiyou Mountain Park trail the "Mike Uhtoff Trail." Noraas seconded the motion. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Internal Controls Policy Meeting Date: June 2, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg Department: Administrative Services E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: Consent Question: Will Council approve the attached Internal Controls Policy? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve the attached policy document. Background: Due to upheavals in the financing and accounting industries, internal controls, their documentation and organizational use have become a leading issue for all entities, both government agencies and companies in the private sector. The financial community continues to struggle with the applicability, implementation and benefit of the Sarbanes-Oaxley Act but the Government Accounting Standards Borad has forged ahead with new, parallel requirements imposed upon municipalities and the municipal auditing industry for enforcement. Even though the City has had various controls and procedures in place, the new requirements call for better documentation and better adherence than ever before. Council may recall comments from the Audit Committee, Staff and the auditors regarding these changes. In their review of City procedures the auditors are required to evaluate compliance with the written word even if operational practices present a better control... so let it be written, so let it be followed! Since compliance now requires a written policy, adopted by Council, supported by written procedures and observations that they are followed by staff, there is better evaluation of the accounting processes to protect public assets. Additionally, to ensure compliance, the City having a policy and keeping it current will be an aspect of each annual audit. This means that the attached documents (updates and improvements of what may have been in place for years) will be monitored annually as part of the required audit and changes will be reported to Council for acceptance. The attached documents have been reviewed and accepted on a preliminary basis by the City's auditor. They sufficiently meet the audit standards at this time and are supported by existing operational procedures but other components will need to be drafted or improved and added to the list. Parks' acceptance of the attached policy and Telecommunications' policies and controls will be added as completed. These and other subsequent substantial changes will be forwarded to Council for consideration as they are drafted but immaterial adjustments may wait for the next annual review. 1AWN CITY OF -ASH LAN D Referenced within this document are Accounting Methods and Financial Management Polices that have been included in the annual budget document for years and the Investment Policy utilized by the City Recorder/Treasurer. Review and revision of these documents, and others, are likely to be elements of discussion as the staff works through the Council goal of Fiscal Stability during the next year or two. It is recommended that changes to those documents be addressed during that process. Related City Policies: Financial Management Policies Accounting Methods Council Options: Accept, reject or modify. Potential Motions: I move to accept the Internal Controls Policy as presented. Attachments: Internal Controls Policy - Draft ~r~ wnwtZ4 bz I* S-k The Ad Hoc Committee believes that the Parks and Recreation funding system should include a financial incentive to reward creative management and innovative. programming. We recommend that the Council and Parks Commission adopt one of two recommended policies: 1. Assignment of budget surplus: Monies budgeted but not spent during the biennium will be added to revenues generated by the department (fees, rental income) that exceed budgeted amounts; the total will be evenly divided between the general fund and Parks and Recreation. v Or 2. Assignment of revenue only: Parks and Recreation will wholly retain revenue generated by the department (fees, rental income) that exceeds budgeted amounts. Funding Principles Matrix: How did we do? p~sAY~~ Transparency Broad public input Dependable revenue Growth curve Long term stability Diversified revenue Supports Parks Commission as a policy body Maintains Parks budgeting powers Supports rational decision making Consistent with comp plan Consistent with GAP Consistent with charter Ad Hoc package includes: • Council-Parks Communication document • Proposed Budget Process • Confirmation of Management Responsibilities • Recommendations re: use of current ending fund balance and institution of incentive policy. 9//3 lopes ~ Management: Planning; Organizing; Budgeting; Directing; Evaluating &/kq Planning Parks CitV Master plans Comprehensive plan (Parks input) Functional plans CIP funding, including debt financing Capital improvement plans Create rules for use of park land and facilities Organizing Parks Citv Determine functional divisions Local Contract Review Board Allocation of appropriated resources Contract for services within limits Budgeting Parks Citv Recommend budget to Budget Officer Appropriate funds and adopt budget Set recreation fees and recommend rental rates* Refer tax measures, set tax rate * for Comm. Ctr., Pioneer Hall and The Grove CIP funding, including debt financing Establish other revenue streams Establish SDCs Directing Parks City Assign duties and responsibilities to Parks staff Establish priorities for Parks staff Procedural work policies Policies re park land maintenance Establish personnel rules and policies (with guidance from Legal, Finance, Personnel) Establish classifications and compensation rates Determine COLAs and benefits Evaluating Parks City Evaluate employee performance (supervisors) Monitor budget compliance Evaluate director (commission) o>, Analyze program performance Monitor budget compliance Analyze and categorize physical conditions