HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-10 Budget Committee Minutes
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
MAY 10, 2006- PAGE 1 OF 7
Budget Committee Meeting
Draft Minutes
May 10, 2006 7:00pm
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
The Citizen’s Budget Committee meeting was called to order at 7:01 pm on May 10,
2006 in Council Chambers at 1175 East Main Street, Ashland Oregon.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Morrison was present. Councilor Amarotico, Jackson, Silbiger, Hardesty,
Hartzell, and Chapman were present.Budget Committee members Bond, Mackris,
Stebbins, Levine, Thompson, and Gregorio were present. Committee Member Everson
was absent.
STAFF PRESENT: LEE TUNEBERG, AMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR
BILL MOLNAR, INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
ADAM HANKS, CODE COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST
MIKE BROOMFIELD, BUILDING OFFICIAL
BRANDON GOLDMAN, HOUSING PROGRAM SPECIALIST
RACHEL TIEGE, RECREATION SUPERINTENDENT
DON ROBERTSON, PARKS DIRECTOR
STEVE GEIS, PARKS SUPERINTENDENT
SCOTT WHITMAN, STAFF ACCOUNTANT
MARGUERITTE HICKMAN, FIRE & LIFE SAFETY CHIEF
CINDY HANKS, PROJECT MANAGER
BRYN MORRISON, ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of minutes from previous Economic and Cultural Grant Subcommittee meeting
dated:
April 05, 2006, April 06, 2006
Roberta Stebbins, Committee member questioned April 5, 2006 on page 1, the
$1,408,705. The accurate figure is $148,705 was available for grant funds.
Jackson/Thompson ms to approve the minutes as corrected. All Ayes.
PUBLIC INPUT
None
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
MAY 10, 2006- PAGE 2 OF 7
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Bill Molnar, Mike Broomfield, Brandon Goldman and Adam Hanks presented the
Department budget. Mr. Molnar spoke to the department’s responsibilities. He explained
that Planning has been operating at ¾ staffing level, and has the Development Services
Manager, Assistant Planner, and Director position currently unfilled. They have recently
seen large commercial and residential projects. They have been working on Council
priorities, the audit of the department and land use policies. He explained that proposals
have become complex in land use and on the building permit side. There are a number
of zoning and building codes, demands of staff are high and this puts burden on staff to
maintain compliance.
Mr. Molnar spoke to the Planning division. Prior to 2000-01, approx 20% of expenses
were covered by revenues. They restructured in 2000-01 to the goal of 75% expenses
covered by the fee structure. He pointed to the graph on 3-105. They have
accomplished 80-90% of expenses being covered by revenues in the last few years.
This year only 60% are expected to be covered by the current fee structure, due to lag
time in land use proposals. Many projects have gotten the land use approved but have
not gotten to the building permit stage.
He pointed to page 3-105, personal services has increased 4.5% and is attributed to
step increases and health care. Materials and Services has increased 9%, mostly in
internal service charges, the facilities cost for the new building and an additional license
for GIS. The Capital Outlay, $1,000,000 is new, and is for the Strawberry Lane land sale
and the purpose is to use it for affordable housing development. The Committee
questioned where the corresponding revenue for it was. Mr. Hanks responded they
have to show the appropriation to be able to spend it and confirmed the corresponding
revenue is shown in the budget. Councilor Jackson added that it is restricted for housing
programs.
Mr. Molnar spoke to the new items the Department has requested that are not in the
budget. They have asked for an Associate Planner but he is not sure if this year is the
appropriate time to fill this position with the Director and Development Services
Manager not filled. He questioned if the Department can effectively use the position at
this point and they could have a loss of efficiencies bringing too many people in at one
time. He had hoped to be at full staffing as approved last year and had implemented
the audit first. The second item is $25,000 for a rental assistance survey. Mr. Goldman
added that the department needs to know better what rental needs are, where
assistance should be directed.
Councilor Chapman asked about long term planning and phase two of the downtown
plan. Mr. Molnar responded that a portion of the funds for that will come from the
parking permit process. Mr. Tuneberg added that if it is determined to go forward, it
would be budgeted in the General Fund. A revenue stream would be existing from
community development fees or ticketing in the downtown district, but the revenue
would primarily come from general fund revenues, and the City would need to look at
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
MAY 10, 2006- PAGE 3 OF 7
what wouldn’t get done to make that happen. Councilor Chapman would like that added
to the parking lot list for future discussion. Mr. Molnar added that adding that project
would have staff consequences, requiring a minimum of .25 FTE to appropriately
manage the project. In his opinion, the update of land use ordinance would have to wait.
His experience is that staff would need to be available to assist the community along the
way.
The Committee asked to clarify the current staffing level in regards to Code
Compliance. Mr. Molnar explained that currently they have the Director and the
Development Services Manager open, which Adam Hanks has been assuming the
responsibilities of. A temporary employee has been added to assist in Code
Compliance this year but by the end of the fiscal year, will not longer be needed. He
explained that last year an Associate Planner position was approved and Assistant
Derek Severson was promoted. The second candidate was hired as the Assistant and
will start in two weeks.
The Committee asked to clarify the Housing Program Specialist position and where it is
funded. Mr. Goldman explained that $40,000 per year is funded by the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG)(.25 FTE) and the remainder is through the General
Fund (.75 FTE). Councilor Hartzell thought the program was supposed to be 1.4 FTE.
Mr. Molnar explained that roughly 1.4 FTE includes office staff help as well. Mr.
Goldman added that the program will continue to need assistance from Planning as well
as the Legal Department.
The Committee asked to clarify if the Associate Planner funds are included in the
budget. Mr. Molnar responded that they are not. The Committee questioned if the
Department had looked into contracting out for assistance. Mr. Molnar responded that
they have thought about it. If Council determines that there is a need for achieving long
range planning of a project, they would have to come back and ask for additional
funding. He explained that they base their budget on the priorities in City Council goal
setting. Councilor Jackson added that the budget does not include the downtown plan,
because others goals were given a higher priority.
The Committee asked staff to clarify the changes in positions recently. Staff will provide
detail.
The Committee asked why revenues had decreased. Mr. Molnar explained that is due
to the timing of when projects go from the land use approval to the building permit
stage. He added that revenue has just come in from issuing the building permit for the
Forensics lab. The Committee asked staff to clarify the fees for each process. Mr.
Molnar responded that first is the land use, then building permit process, then the
Community Development fee is charged. Councilor Hardesty asked if they would be
able to do the downtown plan if they contracted it out. Mr. Molnar responded they
would. Ms. Hartzell asked if they would provide where they would be able to cut to fund
the study.
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
MAY 10, 2006- PAGE 4 OF 7
The Committee questioned if the 75% revenue goal is still in effect and if there was
anything that could be done to flatten out the timing and predict better where the
revenues would fall. Mr. Molnar responded that the 75% is still a goal, but the way the
process is set up, is unable to be controlled. The Committee commented that some
projects have failed recently and asked if the process was the reason. Mr. Molnar
explained that some projects start the process and then are not able to be completed
within the required time period, then they have to ask for extensions. Some are not
allowed to be completed because of determinations by the City. He added there is still
considerable redevelopment potential in town. Mayor Morrison suggested Council
should look at the fee structure and charge according to the amount of work that gets
completed.
Mike Broomfield spoke to the Building division budget. He added that they now have a
full service fire life safety program and provide every service the City can provide for
inspections. Their goal is to provide the maximum service without impacting the general
fund. He spoke to the services they provide following the land use process. He spoke to
the amount of time they spend on non revenue generating projects. The City was
reviewed recently by the Department of Justice and received approval for being
compliant for ADA, which was a significant cost to the City.
He spoke that the City provides a presence on many state boards and has recently
adopted many new codes. He added that many electric installations are outsourced now
and the inspectors must make sure they adhere within compliance of the City codes.
The City used to see more single family homes, and now see more connected housing
and mixed use buildings, which are more complicated for code compliance.
The Committee questioned the divisions ability to respond to increased demands. Mr.
Broomfield responded that they do contract out for specific needs and this is budgeted
regularly at $35,000, and in some years they have over expended depending on the
timing of projects. They prefer to budget for a full team of experts in staff. They have
eliminated professional services because they have staff to do it.
Mr. Broomfield explained that when a project comes in, it gets evaluated then charges
are based on that valuation. The Committee questioned if departments are being
charged to upgrade the Council Chambers. Mr. Tuneberg responded that they are if
they use the facility and it is budgeted for $300,000.
Mr. Goldman spoke to the CDBG and that it is a federal program. The City of Ashland
receives a direct allocation from the government which is expected to be $213,509 in
FY 2007, down 10% from the current year. He spoke to many projects that have been
completed, through Ashland Community Land Trust and ICCA, which funded a housing
coordinator. In Ashland, those funds are designated to go to affordable housing. Last
year they modified the CDBG budget year to correspond to the fiscal year rather than
calendar year of accounting to more accurately account for the funds. Mr. Chapman
asked what percentage of Brandon’s time is in CDBG and why CDBG doesn’t pay
Central Service Fees. Mr. Goldman responded .25 and those funds are federally
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
MAY 10, 2006- PAGE 5 OF 7
regulated to benefit low income people. Mr. Hanks added it is not in the Central Service
Fund. The Committee asked if they expect those funds to continue to reduce 10% each
year. Mr. Goldman responded they do.
Bond/Morrison ms to accept the budget as presented. All Ayes.
The Committee took a break for 5 minutes at 8:20.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Rich Rosenthal, Chairman of Parks Commission presented the budget. He spoke to the
budget process within the Commission. He mentioned that staff discussed revenue
projections through the process. He spoke to the Commission goals:
Develop and implement a 5 year CIP and marketing plan for Oak Knoll Golf
Course
Continue the process of development at North Main Park property and Vogel
park property. Implement a process of facility planning as new properties are
purchased
Address the upper duck pond water quality issues
Review current parks and recreation facilities and evaluate all uses of land.
Identify any changes in land for resource protection, enhancement, and use
change
Continue the development of a comprehensive approach toward the
environmental maintenance standards and practices
Update the Open Space Plan to identify properties that are no longer attainable
or have bee retained
Evaluate Nature Center Staffing structure and recommend changes as needed
Develop a succession plan for staff. Identify future staffing needs; implement in
house training programs.
He spoke to the accomplishments in the current year and that demand and participation
in recreation has increased. He spoke to the activities in The Grove and that they have
tried to keep the focus on teen groups and multicultural activities. He believes the
Senior program being under Parks is an excellent match. He spoke to the activity guide
and how it improves program awareness.
He spoke to the projected $650,000 ending fund balance for next year, which supports
operation between when the year starts and when taxes are collected. He spoke to the
Darex ice rink that is in need of repair and they would like to raise $150,000 to put tubes
in the parking lot for FY 2008.
He spoke to the Parks 2005-06 amended budget compared to the 2006-07 proposed
has decreased 1.6%. He pointed to the Youth Activities Levy and that it is a direct pass
through of funds to the school district. He spoke to details of the budget and $1.5 million
in expenses are beyond their control. Mr. Rosenthal spoke to the Oak Knoll Golf Course
and the competition to maintain and update it. He added that if revenue at the course
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
MAY 10, 2006- PAGE 6 OF 7
increased, the obligation to the golf pro would increase. He spoke to temporary
employee wages that are budgeted.
Mr. Robertson spoke to the increase in operations, in program activities, to ensure
continued success within the Recreation budget. They have budgeted for contracted
instructors and contracted designers for the activities brochures. The Committee
questioned how Parks measures the success of the programs. Mr. Robertson
responded that they ask the participants in classes to review the instructors and have
done some formal surveys and they usually break even on costs. Some classes have
had to be canceled in the past due to lack of registration. They budget the revenue on
the conservative side to accommodate fluctuations in attendance.
The Committee and staff discussed the grounds maintenance of the schools and that it
is not included in the budget. The school district and Parks Commission are still in
negotiations for the grounds maintenance which would be approximately $126,000. Mr.
Robertson explained that it would cost approximately $28,000 to maintain Briscoe and
Lincoln and that the Parks Division could absorb it as part of the budget. The Committee
questioned if the YAL funds could be used for grounds maintenance. Mr. Robertson
explained that it is a contractual obligation between the City and the school district. Mr.
Levine added that the original ordinance stated that a portion of the levy be used for non
school related needs, and that is the portion that Parks retains. Mr. Robertson added
that it may be possible to use a portion of the YAL but only on athletic fields or
playgrounds.
Mr. Rosenthal spoke to the Commissions concern with long term funding available and
the need to reevaluate fees, funding sources, and SDC’s. He explained that SDC’s are
tied to new growth and Parks does not have reimbursement SDC’s at this time and are
looking at developing them. Mr. Robertson added that Parks utilizes the development
SDC’s and it can only go toward new development and is very restrictive. He explained
if the City expanded into the Urban Growth Boundary, they could use 100% SDC to
build parks because it would all be new growth. Reimbursement SDC’s takes into
account investments made into the parks system. It is tied to growth and allows them to
replace playground equipment and upgrade ball parks for example. He explained that
they would like to make a fund to account for reimbursement SDC’s and they will need
professional help to do that. They will put and in for an RFP and hope to have the new
SDC reimbursement by next year.
The Committee questioned the decrease on page 3-123 in contractual services. Steve
Gies, Parks Superintendent explained that the accounting staff was previously located
in that line item and now is reflected accurately in central services in. Mr. Robertson
spoke to the development of succession of staff planning. They have many staff that are
coming up to retirement. They will then reevaluate the staffing structure. Ms. Hartzell
asked if the Parks Commission goals could be put in the adopted budget.
Mr. Robertson spoke to the future ending fund balances in the long term section. He
added it may take a few years to turn around and improve. The Committee questioned
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
MAY 10, 2006- PAGE 7 OF 7
the declines in swim attendance. Mr. Robertson explained that the standards have
changed on the pass rate and they are using certified instructors now. He explained that
there is a higher satisfaction rate now. Mr. Rosenthal explained the history of the golf
course and that revenues have stayed stable due to an increase in fees. Mr. Morrison
asked about the maintenance of the golf course. Mr. Rosenthal responded that one of
his recommendations will be improvement in the maintenance which would improve
marketability.
Bond/Amarotico ms accept the budget as presented. All Ayes.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectively Submitted,
Bryn Morrison
Account Representative