HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-22 Budget Committee Minutes
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
MAY 22, 2006- PAGE 1 OF 6
Budget Committee Meeting
Draft Minutes
May 22, 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 7:02 pm on May 22,
2006 in Council Chambers at 1175 East Main Street, Ashland Oregon.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Morrison was present. Councilor Jackson, Silbiger, Hartzell, and Chapman were
present. Budget Committee members Bond, Everson, Stebbins, Thompson, Levine,
and Gregorio were present. Councilors Amarotico and Hardesty were absent.
Committee Member Mackris was absent.
STAFF PRESENT: MARTHA BENNETT, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
LEE TUNEBERG, AMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR
MIKE MORRISON, PUBLIC WORKS SUPERINTENDENT
JIM OLSON, ENGINEERING SERVICES MANAGER
KEITH WOODLEY, FIRE CHIEF
CHRIS CHAMBERS, WILD FIRE FUELS PROGRAM
COORDINATOR
CINDY HANKS, PROJECT MANAGER
BRYN MORRISON, ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
PUBLIC WORKS
Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services Director, Jim Olson, Engineering Services
Manger, and Mike Morrison, Public Works Superintendent presented the budget. Mr.
Tuneberg spoke to the Capital Improvement (CIP) section first. He stated that the
Committee should focus on setting appropriations for the projects for next year however
the some projects extend into the future. The CIP is broken into several sections;
transportation, water, wastewater, storm drain, electric, administration, and parks and
recreation. He spoke to the summary of CIP for 2007, and the largest section is water.
Projects are identified throughout the section with the cost of each year and the total
project cost. Transportation projects are street related, local improvement districts, and
airport. He spoke to the Jefferson Street extension, $900,000 is budgeted to extend
Jefferson Street through an Oregon Economic and Community Development
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
MAY 22, 2006- PAGE 2 OF 6
Department (OECDD) grant for half and a loan to be paid back by the developer for the
other half. The Committee clarified that no tax rate increase will be used for this project.
The Committee questioned the railroad project and the funding that will be needed for it.
Mr. Tuneberg responded that the City will have to look into the priorities and decide how
to fund it.
Mr. Tuneberg spoke to the LID’s that are anticipated in the next year. He added that the
Committee could propose to use the funding from some of the LID projects that will not
be completed to use for miscellaneous concrete repairs. The Committee clarified that
the middle part of Clay street will not be a LID. Mr. Tuneberg spoke to the Water Fund,
and that the TAP project will need to be completed sooner than they expected. He
spoke to the waterline replacements, wastewater plant improvements, and storm drains.
He spoke to enclosing the equipment building for the Electric department. He stated
that it is an administrative project, but listed in the Electric section. It should be under
administration not electric since it will not be funded through electric rates.
Telecommunications is ongoing repairs and upgrades. Administration is the remodel of
Council Chambers and the Fire Station #2 construction dependent on the vote of the
people in November.
The Committee questioned if the archive building has to be separate from other City
buildings. Mr. Tuneberg responded that it is not a requirement and it needs to be safe
and protected. Parks Open space is normally budgeted at $200,000 and comes from
the CIP Fund and goes to open space acquisition for Parks. The Committee questioned
why computers were not included on this list. Mr. Tuneberg responded that the
scheduled replacement for computers is 3 years and costs approximately $1,500 and
does not meet the City’s capitalization policy. The Committee questioned if there was a
way to see what projects are funded through grants or other sources. Mr. Tuneberg
responded that the funding is shown on each project page. He explained that in the
administration section, except for the fire station, all will be funded through a portion of
internal charges. Improvement of Council Chambers will come from internal charges or
the City could borrow money. The Fire station will be the only one bonded by vote. The
Committee asked when the remodel of the chambers was authorized. Mr. Tuneberg
responded that he thought it was two years ago when the City started the process to
study it. The City hasn’t decided what the project is yet and whether it is a sound and
lighting remodel or a grander improvement. It has not been approved as a project yet.
The Committee asked when the archive building was approved. Mr. Tuneberg
responded that it was proposed through the City Recorder department for upgrades or
replacement of the current storage facility. Mr. Morrison explained that it is located at
the Cemetery and all records are taken there. The City is using only an insulated shed
and shares space with the Cemetery office. The Committee questioned why it would
cost $100,000 to evaluate if it can be expanded. Mr. Tuneberg responded that the City
will need to look at if they need an entirely new site or if the current site can be modified.
There is great need for a temperature control larger setting for the City’s required
documents that are required to be retained by law. The Committee questioned why this
problem could not be solved through electronic record retention. Mr. Tuneberg
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
MAY 22, 2006- PAGE 3 OF 6
responded that the City does use the Laserfiche system but not all documents are
conducive to that.
The Committee asked if the proposal to increase water rates 6% is for capital projects.
Mr. Tuneberg responded that the City is seeing pressures operationally that require a
raise in rates. Indirectly it may pay for revenue bonds to pay for debt service. Personal
Services and Materials and Services are driving the rate increase. The Committee
questioned the round numbers in the CIP and asked how many were rough guesses.
Mr. Tuneberg responded that the people with the experience working on these projects
make the estimates and that some years they have been above and some below. The
estimates are based on square footage and the true cost is not known until you have
the engineers report and get bid. The Committee suggested that staff revisit the costs
annually and readjust.
The Committee questioned the park and ride and if the City owns the land. Mr.
Tuneberg responded that the City can utilize the land. The City has received federal
grants and will receive contribution from RVTD. The City needs authorization from the
county to upgrade the parking area. Councilor Chapman added that he does not want to
spend $1 million for parking spots. The Committee asked if in the future, if the previous
years costs could be shown. Mr. Tuneberg responded that in each project, it show the
previous years costs.
Mr. Tuneberg gave an overview of the Public Works department budget. He stated that
the Public Works Superintendent manages operations while Engineering, GIS and
support staff are in another area of Public Works. He spoke to the mission statement.
One of goals is to maintain the infrastructure and facilities. Capital improvements are
the biggest swing each year. The Committee questioned what the transportation fee
was. Mr. Tuneberg responded it is the utility fee the City charges for the use and care of
the streets. The City is anticipating a 15% increase based on a flat amount per
household. Storm drain is proposed for a 100% increase.
Mr. Tuneberg spoke to the overall Personal Services increase due to a new position as
a Water Treatment Plant Operator and the Director returning being included in the
budget. The Directors wages were omitted in the previous year and Materials and
Services was increased to pay for contracted work in her absence. It was clarified that
the Directors position was included in the position profile in 2006, although her wages
were not.
Mr. Tuneberg spoke to the Airport Fund. The City has an airport and the fund has been
pretty stable between years. The budget is susceptible to projects that can be funded
through federal grants. The Committee asked if a goal is to encourage growth at the
airport and if the City had encountered noise problems. Mr. Olson responded that they
have noise controls for take offs and there have not been many complaints. He
explained that through the application of the land use, the City has a hold harmless
agreement where the City cannot enforce noise control. Mayor Morrison added that
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
MAY 22, 2006- PAGE 4 OF 6
there have not been many complaints and the match that the City receives on the
federal funding is 90%, but there are limits on what the funds can be used for.
Mr. Tuneberg spoke to the Street division. RVTD is budgeted in this division at
$290,000. He stated that the budget will need to be modified because the City has been
notified by RVTD that it could cost near $800,000 which there is no additional funding
for. The Committee questioned what the City is doing to leverage costs for sweeping as
shown on page 3-71. Mr. Tuneberg responded that it is his understanding that the City
is looking at maintenance programs to minimize costs. Mr. Tuneberg spoke to the
operations division and that it is somewhat driven by projects and some staff are shifted
to where the need is. The Committee notes that Public Works makes a substantial
contribution to central service fees. Mr. Tuneberg will provide a table showing all
departments contributions. Councilor Hartzell arrived at 8:06 pm.
Mr. Morrison added that he approves of the charges for facilities. For example the
water plant needs repair and by charging the facilities fees, the funds will be put aside
for it. The Committee spoke to the free rider program and questioned if there is a
contract with RVTD. Mr. Tuneberg added that the City has already been told that the
free ridership will end. The Mayor added that the contract says either party can
terminate.
Mr. Tuneberg spoke to the Grounds maintenance in the Street division. It pays to take
care of the plaza and the boulevard and the City pays Parks to do the work. The
Committee questioned where the income is shown in Parks. Mr. Tuneberg responded
that it is shown in the Parks and Recreation Fund in the long term section. The
Committee questioned the seventeen new accounts. Mr. Morrison responded they
include parking lots, the islands, and the downtown planters.
Mr. Tuneberg spoke to the Water division. He explained that the Water Fund is a very
significant enterprise fund. He pointed to the graphs showing comparison to population.
The budget growth cannot always be compared to population growth. Treatment
division increases include materials and services, and internal charges. Personal
services shows the new position treatment plant operator. He pointed to the need for
succession planning and coverage during training and absences. The Committee
questioned when the rate increase would take place. Mr. Tuneberg responded that they
will hold off on increases until August to see how they finish the year, and are hoping to
propose less than the 6% increase in August. The Committee questioned if TAP affects
this increase. Mr. Tuneberg responded that project will be paid through SDC’s or
borrowings. The increase is for staffing costs and a grant that went away for the forest
interface program. The Committee questioned if the portion of TAP that was moved
ahead by Council was for maintenance or emergencies, page 3-78. Mr. Tuneberg
responded that he would have to look into that. Councilor Hartzell added it was for
emergencies not maintenance. Staff will look into.
Mr. Tuneberg spoke to the Forest Interface division and that it is located in the Water
Fund, but operated by the Fire department. The budget includes the existing position
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
MAY 22, 2006- PAGE 5 OF 6
and benefits. Mr. Woodley added that the position has in the past been funded through
grants. The grant money has decreased significantly and they are proposing the City
pick up the remaining portion that the grant does not cover. Mr. Woodley gave the
history of the program and it was established without a funding source. He explained
that it is located in the Water Fund due to the great concern of the water shed. He
explained they have an annual contract with a forest consultant which will end this next
fiscal year. The Committee questioned how much of the grant remains. Mr. Chambers
responded $150,000 in total where 25% is only for the position. The Committee asked
staff to look into assessing a fee to help in the guarding of that area or other sources to
pay for it. Mr. Woodley explained that the City does not have legal authority to make
assessments outside the City limits, they would have to voluntary pay. The Committee
questioned the role of the position without the grant funding. Mr. Chambers explained
that he informs land owners, and they need to keep relationships established and
maintenance up. Councilor Hartzell stated that she is supportive of the position but
would like it to come back to them with fees proposed or other support.
Mr. Tuneberg spoke to the Wastewater division history. They still have a temperature
control issue at the plant and there is one project identified towards that. The Committee
asked what are the franchises. Mr. Tuneberg responded it is a fee for being in
operation, paid to the General Fund. The Committee asked if the loan for the plant has
a fixed interest rate. Mr. Tuneberg responded that it does. Councilor Chapman stated
that these numbers looked reasonable compared to the other budgets.
Mr. Tuneberg spoke to the Administration and Engineering divisions and that they are in
the Central Service Fund. The Personal Services increase is due to the return of the
Director as mentioned before. Contractual Services decreased from 2006 as well.
The Facilities Maintenance division was in the Central Service Fund last year, now in
Capital Improvement Fund. Departments pay rents to this division for maintenance,
records storage. The Committee questioned the facilities fees. Mr. Tuneberg explained
that he will provide a table detailing the fees. The Committee questioned what Rental,
Repair, and Maintenance was. Mr. Morrison responded that they pay for all the
electricity and utility bills for all the City buildings and the custodial contract. Mr.
Tuneberg spoke to the Cemetery division. He explained that they use temporary
employees through the peak season. The Committee asked to clarify the substantial
increase in wages. Mr. Tuneberg will look into it and get back to them.
Mr. Tuneberg spoke to the Fleet Maintenance and Acquisition division. Each
department pays into the fund to replace equipment. Page 3-98 identifies the pieces. If
a piece of equipment is needed and not part of program, the department pays for it and
then it becomes part of the fleet. They are looking at cost effective vehicles. The
Committee questioned if the IT department was doing the utility billing upgrade and if
the $250,000 was needed. Mr. Tuneberg responded that he will propose that as a cut,
they anticipated buying that from a third party and now the City’s programmers will
implement their own. The $250,000 will go to the fund balance. The Committee asked if
the City sells off existing stock and recognize it as revenue. Mr. Tuneberg responded
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
MAY 22, 2006- PAGE 6 OF 6
that they do sell surplus equipment with Council’s approval. The revenue is put back
into this fund and the departments that surplus was taken from, gets a credit toward
future purchases.
Councilor Silbiger expressed his opinion that the City needs to look at purchasing more
hybrid vehicles. The Committee questioned why more had not been purchased. Mr.
Morrison responded that in the Police’s case, they need the power that a hybrid would
not have. They are looking at retro fitting diesels, but it an expensive option. The City
needs the diesels for performance.
Mr. Tuneberg spoke to the handout for the aerial ladder. See attached. It is not in the
budget and the question has been raised if it should be part of the Fire Station #2 bond
issue. The Committee questioned if it was possible to have large facilities surcharge to
pay for it. Mr. Tuneberg responded it would be. The Committee questioned if this had
been part of previous budgets. Mr. Woodley responded that it was proposed in 1993 but
removed before it reached the budget committee. It has been part of public discussion
and in his research, Ashland is the only city in comparison that did not have this
equipment with equivalent buildings to the other cities. Ashland does not have
unordinary buildings. The Committee asked what type of ladder it would be. Mr.
Woodley responded it would be a 100 foot platform or ladder. The Committee asked if
some communities fund equipment like this in partnership with the owners of these
larger buildings. Mr. Woodley responded that some developers in other cities have
given money to purchase that type of equipment. It was mentioned that throughout the
budget, Council goals are not shown in each department. Mr. Bond expressed the need
for a significant discussion of the ladder truck at the next meeting before it goes to
Council.
Everson/Bond ms to accept the Public Works budget as presented.
Everson/Bond amended the motion to approve the budget less the $250,000 for
the utility billing software. 10 yes, Chapman opposed.
The Committee asked to clarify which position was included as an addition in the
budget. Mr. Tuneberg responded only the water plant operator, the forest interface
position remains, only the grant funding was eliminated. Mr. Tuneberg spoke to the
handouts for Wednesday night. See attached. He explained that he will try to have
bussing program options as well. Dee Anne Everson, Committee member asked about
the positions that have been asked for and the corresponding property tax rate
increase. Staff will provide.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectively Submitted,
Bryn Morrison
Account Representative
Memo
TO: Budget Committee
FROM: Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief
DEPT: Ashland Fire & Rescue
CC: Lee Tuneberg, Budget Officer
DATE: April 7, 2006
RE: Addition is Aerial Fire Apparatus
IN: General Fund
DEPT: Fire
DIVISION: Operations
FY 2007 IMPACT: $900,000
Justification:
During the August 2005 fire protection services review by the Insurance Services Office (ISO), the City
of Ashland received deficiency points toward our community fire protection services rating because the
fire department emergency vehicle fleet did not include an aerial apparatus (elevating platform or aerial
ladder). ISO establishes fire protection ratings for communities which are used by insurance companies
to set insurance rate schedule with our community. The purpose of an aerial apparatus is to improve the
fire department’s ability to confine fires occurring in larger buildings from spreading to adjacent
structures. Examples of these buildings where this risk is present are commercial buildings located
within the downtown business district, Southern Oregon University campus, Shakespeare Festival
grounds, railroad district, Safeway, Albertsons, Rite Aid, Bi Mart, Shop & Kart, YMCA, Ashland Street
Shopping Center, hotels and motels and large craftsman style homes and B&B’s. The fire protection risk
factors considered here are driven by square footage of roof area, as well as building height. Presently,
the maximum vertical height reachable by the fire department is 30 feet. Even assuming that some roofs
could be reached by firefighters working from fire department ground ladders, attempting to control
serious interior commercial building fires by placing firefighters on the roof of the building is a major
contributing cause of firefighter fatalities within the U.S. on an annual basis.
Funding:
The following funding options exist:
(1) Include in general obligation bond proposed to finance replacement of fire station no. 2.
(2) Enter into a lease-purchase agreement through a commercial lending institution.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5300
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Impact Following Years:
If the general obligation bond were not approved by voters, some other funding means would need to be
identified to fund purchase of this essential equipment. The addition of an aerial apparatus in the fire
department emergency response fleet will increase annual equipment maintenance costs by $2,500
annually. The City equipment replacement schedule would need to address replacement of the aerial
apparatus every 15 to 20 years.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5300
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 7, 2006
TO: Ashland Budget Committee
FROM: Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator
Lee Tuneberg, Budget Officer
RE: 2007 Budget Considerations
OVERVIEW
As part of our budget process we have identified departmental positions and programs that we did not
include in the budget because of financial constraints or timing. We would like you to consider these as
you review the proposed budget.
Below is a summary of each which is supported by an attached memo. The City Administrator and
affected Department Heads reviewed staffing requests as a team and identified priorities to be used in
additions to the budget. Two positions funded by utility rates were added to the proposed budget. Except
for the last item (Forest Interface Position) the items below (their costs and related revenues, if any) are
not included in the Proposed Budget.
2006-2007 Budget Considerations
Administration, Assistant City Administrator, add 1.0 FTE:
Provide administrative support to City Administrator to manage city issues at $150,000.
Department Head rated as Priority # 6.
Impact: Increase Central Service fees to other budgets.
Administration, Legal Department, Legal Secretary, add .5 FTE:
Provide added support to 2.0 FTE attorneys at $19,050.
Department Head rated as Priority # 5.
Impact: Increase Central Service fees to other budgets.
Administration, add Community Visioning:
This is the second budget year this project has been omitted. This could be budgeted in General Fund or
Central Service Fund. Estimated cost is $100,000.
Not rated by Department Heads.
Impact: Increase Central Service fees to other budgets or add $.052 property tax.
Administration, add Public Arts Master Plan:
This is new project suggested during the year to establish a proposed program. This could be budgeted in
General Fund or Central Service Fund. Estimated cost is $10,000.
Not rated by Department Heads.
Impact: Increase Central Service fees to other budgets or $.006 property tax.
Administration, add Ad Hoc Economic Development Commission:
This was identified as a goal in the 2006 process. This could be budgeted in General Fund or Central
Service Fund. Estimated cost is $2,000.
Not rated by Department Heads.
Impact: Increase Central Service fees to other budgets or $.001 property tax.
0
Administrative Services, Human Resources Division, Administrative Assistant, add 1.0 FTE:
May reduce overtime, temporary employees and other costs providing added support to Personnel and
Risk Management at $58,500.
Department Head rated as Priority # 3.
Impact: Increase Central Service fees to other budgets.
Police, Operations Patrol Division, Add 3.0 FTE Patrol Officers:
Provide added patrol staff and community support at $61,900 per officer, total of $185,700. This may
need to be deferred until a Chief is hired and other elements of PERF report implemented.
Department Head rated as Priority # 2.
Impact: Increase in General Fund property taxes of $0.11.
Police, Investigations, Add 1.0 FTE Detective:
Provide additional investigation effort at $78,500. This may need to be deferred until a Chief is hired and
other elements of PERF report implemented.
Department Head rated as Priority # 7.
Impact: Increase in General Fund property taxes of $0.047.
Police, Support Division, Computer Technician, Increase .5 to 1.0 FTE:
Proposed increase in time supports the MDC and other technology operations of the PD at $37,145.
Department Head rated as Priority # 9.
Impact: Increase in General Fund property taxes of $0.022.
Fire, EMS Division, CERT program, Increase .63 position to 1.0 FTE:
Provide full time service and maintain ongoing support for CERT at $20,000.
Department Head rated as Priority # 4.
Impact: Increase in General Fund property taxes of $0.012.
Fire, Operations Division, add Aerial Fire Apparatus to Fire Station #2 Project & Financing:
Hloqnud Ehqd Cdo`qsldmsŬr `ahkhsx sn bnmehmd ehqdr hm k`qfd athkchmfr- Drshl`sdc bnrs hr #8//+///-
Not rated by Department Heads.
Impact: Increase in General Obligation Bond and resultant property taxes.
Public Works, Street Division, Utility Worker, add 1.0 FTE:
This position will provide support to the maintenance and operations of street and storm drain projects and
divisions.
Not rated by Department Heads.
Impact: Increase to Street Utility Fees.
Public Works, Facilities Dvision Division, Utility Worker, add 1.0 FTE:
This position will provide internal support to the other departments in maintaining and managing buildings
and grounds.
Not rated by Department Heads.
Impact: Increase to (included in) Facility Use Fee paid by departments.
Community Development, Associate Planner, add 1.0 FTE:
This is to meet Council goals and is estimated at $68,000 but may need to be deferred until a Director is
hired and other elements of the Zukor report are implemented.
Department Head rated as Priority # 1.
Impact: Increase to General Fund Planning fees.
1
Sghr onrhshnm hr hm sgd V`sdq Etmc `r o`qs ne sgd EX 1//6 Oqnonrdc Atcfds9
Fire & Public Works departments, Water Fund, Forest Interface Program, Maintain 1.0 FTE position:
This position provides support and management of forest interface work and was previously funded by a
grant. The grant ended in FY 2006. The estimated cost for this position is $79,000 which is a 2.0% water
rate increase. Ongoing costs for the program in the proposed budget total $117,000.
Not rated by Department Heads.
Impact: A 6% water rate increase is already included in the proposed budget.
Please review these items and raise any questions you may have during the departmental presentations.
Respectfully submitted,
Gino Grimaldi Lee Tuneberg
City Administrator Budget Officer
2
Memo
TO: Budget Committee
FROM: Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst
DEPT: Administration
CC: Lee Tuneberg, Budget Officer
DATE: April 7, 2006
RE: Addition is Assistant City Administrator
IN: Central Service Fund
DEPT: Administration
DIVISION: Administration
FY 2007 IMPACT: $150,000
Justification:
There has been a ÐplaceholderÑ in the budget for an Assistant City Administrator on and off for a
number of years. The city last had an Assistant City Administrator in 2000. The position was never
filled during the administration of the last two City Administrators. The position is included this year
should the new City Administrator feel she needs the additional staff.
Previously, the Assistant City Administrator managed the human resource programs for the city,
provided policy direction and implementation to department heads and served as acting City
Administrator when needed. Generally, this position serves as a resource for the City Administrator by
providing broad general assistance. Potentially this position could serve as the point person for council
goals: economic development and the downtown planning process. This position may also serve to
alleviate the workloads of other departments.
$150,000 represents a starting base salary of $100,000, a figure halfway between a department head
salary and the city administrator salary, plus 50% for benefits. Finance uses 50% of salary to determine
salary plus benefits.
Funding:
Central Service fees
Impact Following Years:
Ongoing
Options:
Decrease in some other area of the budget and/or a combination of increases in rates, fees, charges.
ADMINISTRATION Tel: 541-488-6002
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Memo
TO: Budget Committee
FROM: Mike Franell, City Attorney
DEPT: Legal
CC: Lee Tuneberg, Budget Officer
DATE: April 7, 2006
RE: Addition is Legal Secretary from .5 to 1.0 FTE
IN: Central Service Fund
DEPT: Administration
DIVISION: Legal
FY 2007 IMPACT: $19,050
Justification:
We have had an unusually high workload over the past year. Because of this, we have been having
some difficulty in keeping all of our filing up to date. This has also resulted in reduced communication
to the City Council and in delayed response on some of the insurance claims work that needs to be done.
Another ½ time position would be used to assist in keeping up with the filing demands, freeing the Legal
Assistant/Claims Manager’s time to work on communications of department activity to the Council and
Insurance claims administration work.
Funding:
Central Service Charges
Impact Following Years:
This is proposed as a permanent position with ongoing and increasing personnel costs.
Options:
Accept a lesser degree of City Council communication until the workload slows down.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5300
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Memo
TO: Budget Committee
FROM: Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst
DEPT: Administration
CC: Lee Tuneberg, Budget Officer
DATE: April 7, 2006
RE: Addition is Community Visioning
IN: Central Service Fund
DEPT: Administration
DIVISION: Mayor and Council
FY 2007 IMPACT: $100,000
Justification:
A community visioning process is a council goal from 2005 and was the primary topic of the Mayor’s
2006 State of the City address. In it he identified the many issues facing the community, the importance
of integrating solutions and the recognition that resources are limited. He reminded the community that
issue can be solved, but not all at once and not without a vision and then a plan to implement that vision.
The process must be all encompassing and reach beyond the downtown to the entire community. It is
time consuming and expensive. “I believe that a common vision is the only way we can plan and
prepare for the future….it is the best way for us to get on track and to anticipate the needs of the future
before the future makes its demands on us.” (Morrison, 2006 State of the City)
$100,000 is a bare bones budget to begin the process. The most recent Oregon city to undergo a
community visioning process is Tigard. Their visioning budget is $150,000 plus an additional $50,000
in reserve for ancillary costs (printing, mailings and some publicity).
Funding:
General fund
Impact Following Years:
Depending on how quickly the process begins it is possible the project will extend into FY08 and
require additional funds, though likely a smaller amount.
ADMINISTRATION Tel: 541-488-6002
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Memo
TO: Budget Committee
FROM: Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst
DEPT: Administration
CC: Lee Tuneberg, Budget Officer
DATE: April 7, 2006
RE: Addition is Public Arts Master Plan
IN: Central Service Fund
DEPT: Administration
DIVISION: Administration
FY 2007 IMPACT: $10,000
Justification:
The council has suggested that a public art master plan is needed before considering funding requests for
public art. A master plan would define the purpose of public art in Ashland; identify viable projects,
locations, priorities, partnerships and direction and serve as the guiding document for all public art
projects. The plan will build on the belief that public art serves to create strong meaningful connections
between people and places that are important to community and civic life.
$10,000 will enable the commission is receive professional assistance in developing the plan,
conducting public outreach and creating a draft master plan for council review.
Funding:
General Fund
Impact Following Years:
None.
Options:
1) Use the transient occupancy tax
2) Reduce other parts of the budget.
ADMINISTRATION Tel: 541-488-6002
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Memo
TO: Budget Committee
FROM: Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst
DEPT: Administration
CC: Lee Tuneberg, Budget Officer
DATE: April 7, 2006
RE: Addition is Ad Hoc Economic Development Commission
IN: Central Service Fund
DEPT: Administration
DIVISION: Administration
FY 2007 IMPACT: $2,000
Justification:
The formation of Ad Hoc Economic Development Commission was identified as a council goal during
the 2006 council goal setting process. The council is interested in establishing this ad hoc group to
develop alternative strategies for economic development, to involve citizens and diverse stakeholders
and to produce a working economic development plan.
It is anticipated that $2000 would be needed to cover advertising, meeting space rental for large citizen
gatherings, packets of materials, mailings, printing costs etc.
Funding:
Central Service Fees
Impact Following Years:
Generally ad hoc committees complete their work within a specific time frame. It is likely that once the
committee is formed, they would complete their work within 1224 months. If the work continues into
FY08, it is possible that additional funds would need to be budgeted in FY08.
Options:
Add to the budget even though this is beyond a 3% increase.
ADMINISTRATION Tel: 541-488-6002
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Memo
TO: Budget Committee
FROM: Lee Tuneberg
DEPT: Administrative Services
CC: Lee Tuneberg, Budget Officer
DATE: April 7, 2006
RE: Addition is Administrative Assistant- HR/Risk Management
IN: Central Service Fund
DEPT: Administrative Services
DIVISION: Human Resources
FY 2007 IMPACT: $58,500
Justification:
The addition of this position would allow better performance and coordination of Risk Management,
Human Resources and other internal services.
Recruiting is more complex and at an all time high. This seems to be the trend and is expected to
continue at high levels. In 1998 the city had a .5 FTE risk manager in addition to existing positions. By
2000 Risk Management was spread between Legal, HR and Finance. For years the number of claims
and complexities of insurances, safety and litigation has grown. A preliminary review of the existing
programs calls for 2 FTE to make “whole” the risk management function.
Given the demands on the city for services and other much needed staff, the Risk Management team
chose to use an external firm to update and upgrade policies and procedures for the next 6 – 12 months
as the city goes through significant changes. However, the need for added support in the risk, personnel
and administration areas will continue and this position would allow highly skilled staff to work on other
issues.
Funding:
This position would reside in the Central Service Fund and would require an increase in internal charges
by FY 2007-08. There may be some savings in outsourced work and overtime. Increased internal
charges eventually result in an increase in rates, fees or taxes in other funds.
Impact in Following Years:
The impact in subsequent years would wage and benefit increases similar to any other positions.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5300
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Memo
TO: Budget Committee
FROM: Rich Walsh, Deputy Chief
DEPT: Police
CC: Lee Tuneberg, Budget Officer
DATE: April 7, 2006
RE: Addition is 3 Additional Police Officers
IN: General Fund
DEPT: Police
DIVISION: Operations
FY 2007 IMPACT: $185,700
Justification:
Additional Officers are needed to be able to meet minimum staffing requirements. The levels are below
standards due to vacations, sick time/injuries, comp time requests, and mandatory training requirements.
This allows us to provide service to the community at a consistent standard and allows officers more
discretionary time to thoroughly investigate cases. Currently a minimal amount of time is spent on day
to day cases. The positions will allow for the Chief to address the community’s concerns regarding
downtown enforcement pertaining to panhandling, drug enforcement, disorderly people, and bad
behavior.
Funding:
The positions can be funded through an increase in property taxes. A Police Levy could be looked at
which have been successful in other cities.
Impact Following Years:
The Police Executive Research Forum’s report has not arrived as of this writing but may give some
valuable information on the increase of personnel.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5300
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Memo
TO: Budget Committee
FROM: Rich Walsh, Deputy Chief
DEPT: Police
CC: Lee Tuneberg, Budget Officer
DATE: April 7, 2006
RE: Addition is Detective
IN: General Fund
DEPT: Police
DIVISION: Support
FY 2007 IMPACT: $78,500
Justification:
By adding a Detective to the division it would allow relief for both the Detectives assigned to sexual
assaults and the Detective assigned to financial and property crimes. A fourth Detective would give us
two teams of two, thus a cover unit and a witness when needed. An added Detective would allow us to
take on more cases from the patrol group, such as burglaries and car clouts relieving patrol from the
burden of trying to conduct follow-up, while staying on top of their day to day patrol duties. The
detective division has experienced more types of complex fraud investigations. And of course we
experience those times of bank robberies, homicides, and major assaults that can consume an
investigators time that takes away from his normal investigations. What we do know is that if our
detectives can make an impact on the drug trade then it keeps our property crimes down. If the
investigations unit doesn’t have time to deal with the drugs in our community then the property crime
rate goes up.
Funding:
This position can be funded through an increase in property taxes or a police levy.
Impact Following Years:
The Police Executive Research Forum’s report has not arrived as of this writing but may give us some
valuable information on the increase of personnel in this division.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5300
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Memo
TO: Budget Committee
FROM: Rich Walsh, Deputy Chief
DEPT: Police
CC: Lee Tuneberg, Budget Officer
DATE: April 7, 2006
RE: Addition is Computer Technician from .5 to 1.0 FTE
IN: General Fund
DEPT: Police
DIVISION: Support
FY 2007 IMPACT: $37,145
Justification:
The current position is a part time position. Technology demands for the police department are unique
and time consuming. A full time employee is needed to manage computers and software specific to the
police department and interact with Computer Services to ensure seamless operability. Having a half
time person creates lag time in getting equipment up and back into service. This can mean cars out of
service until equipment can be fixed. This person also works with Medford’s Computer Technicians to
problem solve on both ends. This person can also manage large technical projects and has a better
understanding of problem solving issues.
Funding:
This position can be funded through an increase in property taxes.
Impact Following Years:
I am not sure if the Police Executive Research Forum’s report addresses any of these issues.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5300
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Memo
TO: Budget Committee
FROM: Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief
DEPT: Ashland Fire & Rescue
CC: Lee Tuneberg, Budget Officer
DATE: April 7, 2006
RE: Addition is CERT Position from .5 to 1.0 FTE
IN: General Fund
DEPT: Fire
DIVISION: EMS
FY 2007 IMPACT: $20,000
Justification:
The C.E.R.T. Program is one of the most successful initiatives that the fire department has undertaken.
To date, the program has trained over 400 citizens in basic emergency preparedness and response
measures, and maintains a cadre of active, enthusiastic members who continue to work to strengthen and
expand the program in the community. The backbone of the program is the existence of a program
coordinator, who has continued to stimulate and maintain the interest and enthusiasm of the community
volunteers, as well as organize community classes and continuing education for team members. The
success of the program has driven the necessity of increasing program supervision by 15 hours per
week.
Funding:
This position has been funded within the Emergency Medical Services Division of the fire department
budget.
Impact Following Years:
The financial impact in future years will be the ongoing cost of (1) FTE in the CERT program budget.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5300
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Memo
TO: Budget Committee
FROM: Mike Morrison, Public Works Superintendent
DEPT: Public Works
CC: Lee Tuneberg, Budget Officer
DATE: April 7, 2006
RE: Addition is Utility Worker
IN: Street Fund
DEPT: Public Works
DIVISION: Street
FY 2007 IMPACT: $45,000
Justification:
Over the last few years the street department has slowly lost personnel to other divisions for various
reasons. One utility worker II went to Public Works as the Locator, he does do locating for the streets
but not as a full time worker. One Utility Worker III went to the waste water division as they now do
the cleaning maintenance for storm drains. This left one utility worker III in another division. In
addition to the actual losses of people we have one Utility worker III that has to spend the majority of
his time working on the Pavement Management software on the computer or measuring and checking
streets. This has to be constantly upgraded and checked so we are kept up-to-date on where we stand as
far as our Pavement goes.
With the addition of the Waste Water doing the storm drain maintenance you would think that this
would clear up some time for the street division with the storm drains, but this has proved to be just the
opposite. Yes the Street Division does not have to clean lines and boxes as in the past but they now
have more work repairing the drainage system. The Sewer Division TV’s the storm system looking for
trouble spots, and with the camera they have discovered a lot of problem areas. The Street Division is
then responsible for the repair and replacement of the piping they find. So rather than having more time
they have more repairs. This is not a complaint as the system is getting better each year, but there is a
lot of time and materials involved. On top of this, the Street department loses one full time Utility III
during the months of March thru October for the Street painting. We do hire two temporaries for this
but lose a full time utility worker. It is during this time that the Street division has to get ready for all
the Street slurry seals which includes removing all bad asphalt and replacing it with new. This is also
when all pavement work needs to be done for temperature reasons as it is weather driven.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5300
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
The Street Division is responsible for all alleys, dirt roads, roadside ditches, storm drain lines, manholes
and catch basins. They are responsible for all pavement related projects including potholes and sink
holes. They are responsible for all traffic and street signs throughout the City, which includes trimming
of trees and shrubs when property owners won’t. They are responsible for all sweeping of streets,
sidewalks, parking lots, parking garage and bike paths. During the fall we run two sweepers full time
just trying to keep up with the leaves. We are now responsible for trying to clean the storm system
where it runs through riparian areas, along with drainage ditches and catchment areas. While trying to
do the right jobs more by hand now than with equipment. The street department also seems to be the
catch all for other departments, such as City parades where they do the street delineations and then
cleanup. Responding to spills and accidents on City streets, dead animal pickup (thankless job),
grinding of sidewalks, railroad crossings most anything that the other divisions don’t do.
Funding:
Rates
Impact Following Years:
We will have to pay for the position each year but will get more work completed.
.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5300
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Memo
TO: Budget Committee
FROM: Mike Morrison, Public Works Superintendent
DEPT: Public Works
CC: Lee Tuneberg, Budget Officer
DATE: April 7, 2006
RE: Addition is Utility Worker
IN: Capital Improvement Fund
DEPT: Public Works
DIVISION: Facilities
FY 2007 IMPACT: $45,000
Justification:
The Facilities Maintenance Division takes care of all City facilities including maintenance,
improvements and janitorial services. 60 separate building are currently being taken care of by 1 ½
building maintenance personnel, this include the weekly janitorial cleaning of the Grove. The other ½
time is for working maintenance at the City cemeteries. We have discovered that we are responding to
crisis rather than getting the routine maintenance needed. We are currently in the process of putting all
the facility assets into a new database software program which will help with the required maintenance
needs of the city. Building maintenance has become the catchall for all jobs such as moving boxes,
records from City Hall to the Cemetery to changing out the light bulbs, it’s becoming a little
overwhelming for 1 ½ people.
Funding:
Rates
Impact Following Years:
I believe in the long run this will be a cost savings rather than expense as we will be able to respond to
needed repairs and maintenance rather than letting them go and costing more money.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5300
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Memo
TO: Budget Committee
FROM: Bill Molnar, Interim Community Development Director
DEPT: Community Development
CC: Lee Tuneberg, Budget Officer
DATE: April 7, 2006
RE: Addition is Associate Planner
IN: General Fund
DEPT: Community Development
DIVISION: Planning
FY 2007 IMPACT: $68,000
Justification:
The Planning Division Operational and Organizational Review was presented to the City Council in
February of this year and contained over 80 action items recommended for implementation over the next
twelve to eighteen months. A good portion of the review focused on staffing levels and workload as it
related to current planning, long range planning and the advancement of City Council goals.
Specifically, the report noted that the current number of Council goals related to the Community
Development Department was overly aggressive and beyond the ability of existing Department staffing
levels to fulfill.
Along with a variety of land use activity data and statistics from the previous three to five years
(planning actions, zoning and building permits, etc), the consultants conducted surveys of City staff, past
applicants, appointed commissioners and elected officials. Additionally, three different focus group
meetings were held to provide input on the needs of the Planning Division from citizens, developers and
contractors.
A reoccurring theme throughout the various forms of public input was the need for additional staffing.
In particular, the report noted that there is a clear need for more long range planning in Ashland.
Consequently, the recommendations of the report identified the need for approximately one to two
additional planners for current land use application processing and answering general questions, and at
least one or two additional planners for long range planning projects and comprehensive planning.
Based upon the recommendation of the Planning Division Operational and Organizational Review,
included in this year’s budget is an Associate Planner position. As noted earlier, due to the continuous
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5300
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
level of current planning application activity, the Department has been unable to accomplish as much
long range planning and this has been an ongoing concern of the Council, Planning Commission and
citizens. A refined work program would be developed for the position for the primary purpose of
advancing the Council’s list of long-range strategic priorities and projects.
Funding:
The Planning Division generates revenues from land use application and building permit fees. The
current fee structure is sufficient to meet the City Council target of recovering 75% of the Planning
Division expenses from those fees, with the remainder provided from the general fund. The primary
revenue tool for meeting the established target is the Community Development Fee, which is collected at
the issuance of building permits and is based on the construction valuation of the permit.
The Community Development Fee was recently increased to 1.1% of construction valuation (.011) to
fund the two positions that were added in the 05-06 Budget. Each tenth of a percent (.001) equates to
roughly $60,000 to $70,000.
An increase of one tenth of a percent would cover the costs associated with the new position.
Impact Following Years:
The Associate Planner is proposed as a permanent position within the Planning Division. Personnel
costs related to this new position would increase each year due to step increases in salary and associated
benefit costs. As construction costs increase, the Community Development Fee revenue should rise at
nearly the same rate providing a consistent long range funding mechanism.
Options:
Currently, the Community Development Department has potentially three position vacancies. An
Associate Planner and Development Services Manager position were approved as part of last year’s
2005-2006 Annual Budget. Both positions, however, were put on hold pending the results from the
Operational and Organizational Review. The report was fully supportive of moving ahead with filling
the Associate Planner position and making the Development Services position permanent. In addition,
the Planning Manager has been serving as Interim Community Development Director for the past nine
months.
Assimilation of the previously approved (2005-2006 Budget) Associate Planner and Development
Services Manager positions concurrently with adding an additional Associate Planner and filling the
Community Development Director vacancy may be extremely challenging. Another option would be to
first fill the previously approved positions, as well as the Community Development Director vacancy,
and allow some time for the new employees to be adequately integrated into the organizational structure.
This would provide an opportunity to assess changes in Department capacity and efficiency. During this
period, clear progress with long range planning projects could be assisted and accomplished by engaging
land use consultants through personal service contracts.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5300
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
It is our request that the Associate Planner be included and approved in this years budget with the
understanding that the proposed fee increase and the actual hiring of the position most likely would
occur in the second half of the upcoming fiscal year and possibly into the following fiscal year.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5300
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Memo
TO: Budget Committee
FROM: Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief
DEPT: Ashland Fire & Rescue
CC: Lee Tuneberg, Budget Officer
DATE: April 7, 2006
RE: Addition is Forest Resource Specialist Position (1.0) FTE
IN: Water Fund
DEPT: Water
DIVISION: Forest Interface
FY 2007 IMPACT: $79,000
Justification:
This position has been fully funded from grants that have not been renewed by the federal government.
This position currently creates and implements programs and tasks to implement the Ashland
Community Wildfire Protection Plan of 2004, and assists with City Council goals related to
management and protection of the City’s watershed. It is obvious at this point that the vegetative
conditions in the wildland areas in and adjacent to the City will require ongoing attention to retain
advances we have made in our efforts to protect the Ashland Watershed. This position coordinates work
with local and regional partners, helping to implement the Jackson County Fire Plan in the Ashland area.
Programs outlined for implementation by employee include coordinating wildfire fuels reduction
projects and monitoring of past fuels reduction projects on private and public lands, watershed and forest
monitoring, wildfire evacuation, wildfire tactical response planning, and funding of activities through
City and outside grant sources. Promote and support the implementation of the Ashland Forest
Resiliency Community Alternative in connection with Ashland Ranger District of the Rogue River
National Forest
Employee works with property owners to assess wildfire hazard and develop mitigation plans and
evacuation response. Uses GIS computer program to create maps of area, analyze data, and support
department activities. Communicates with public, local groups, other departments, media, and local,
state, and federal agencies. Writes and administers grants for fuels reduction, wildfire education, and
forest/watershed management activities. Maintains all essential program records.
Employee provides City employees with training and orientation for forest resource management issues and
wildfire prevention and mitigation. Prepares program statistical information and other documentation as
required by the fire department. Develops and presents community education and program operational
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5300
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
materials, conducts public tours of project areas and provides media liaison. Provides regular program
status reports for staff, elected officials and the general public as required.
Funding:
This position is proposed to be funded within the Forest Interface budget in the Water Fund.
Impact Following Years:
A water rate increase within the Water Enterprise Fund will be necessary to ensure future support of this
position.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5300
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
City of Ashland
2007 Budget Considerations
FY 2006-07 Proposed Budget
1-15
DepartmentFundAmountDescriptionPrioritize
Administration
AdministrationCentral Service150,000$Assistant City Administrator
LegalCentral Service19,050Legal Secretary .5 to 1.0 FTE
Community Visioning
Mayor and CouncilCentral Service100,000
AdministrationCentral Service10,000Public Arts Master Plan
AdministrationCentral Service2,000Ad Hoc Economic Dev Commission
$281,050
Administrative Services
Admin Assistant- HR/MR.
Human ResourcesCentral Service58,500$
Police
Operations PatrolGeneral185,7003 Additional Police Officers
Detective
Support InvestigationsGeneral78,500
Support Asset ForfeitureGeneral37,145Computer Tech .5 to 1.0 FTE
$301,345
Fire
EMSGeneral20,000CERT Position .63 to 1.0 FTE (in budget now)
Aerial Fire Apparatus
Fire OperationsGeneral900,000
$920,000
Public Works
Utility Worker
Street Street45,000
FacilitiesCapital Improvement45,000Utility Worker
$90,000
Community Development
PlanningGeneral68,000$Associate Planner
Total1,718,895$
Memo
DATE: April 27, 2006
TO: Citizen’s Budget Committee
FROM: Ann Seltzer
RE: Health Care Benefits for elected officials
CC: Lee Tuneberg
Committee Members:
At the committee meeting on Thursday, April 20 you requested additional information about city
council members receiving health care benefits.
I was the staff liaison to the Charter Review Committee and elected officials salaries and benefits was a
topic of discussion by the committee. Attached are some materials that you may find informative.
Article 3 Section 3 requires that changes to the level of compensation received by elective officers
(except of Recorder and Judge) be submitted to a vote of the people. Currently each city council
member receives $350 per year and the Mayor receives $500 per year. These compensation levels have
remained unchanged since at least 1976. There is no mention in the charter about health care benefits.
However, the Mayor and council do receive medical, vision and dental benefits and a small life
insurance policy that covers themselves and dependents. There is reference in the attached documents to
an ordinance or resolution regarding health care benefits for elected officials however neither the city
recorder nor the city attorney can find documentation of council action authorizing the elected body to
receive health care benefits. The city attorney believes that when the city switched to the current health
insurance provider elected officials were added to the policy.
The Charter Review Committee did considerable research on this topic and in the end their final
recommendation is “charter language that requires voter approval of all increases in council salaries
should be eliminated: salary levels should be established via a city ordinance”. This recommendation is
consistent with other recommendations by the committee which eliminates any budget
requirements/restrictions in the charter and that those items should be included in the annual budget
setting process. In addition, they also recommended that council members “consider assuming an
insurance co-payment equivalent to that paid by city employees”.
Attachments include:
Excerpts from Charter Committee agenda and minutes related to council compensation and
benefits
The Charter Committee Topic Discussion paper on City Council salaries and benefits.
A minority report from committee member on council salaries.
A chart illustrating how other Oregon cities compensate, or don’t compensate, their mayor and
councilors.
Note: The following is an excerpt from the Charter Review Committee agenda for
December 2, 2004.
Agenda
Charter Review Committee
December 2, 2004
Council Chambers 1175 East Main
7:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.
At the November 18 committee meeting, staff was asked to keep an on-going list of other
items/issues that the committee might want to consider. In addition, staff was asked to
keep an on-going list of possible guest speakers. This list will be updated as needed.
List of Other Items for Consideration:
Health benefits and salary for elected officials
Include periodic review of charter in the charter
******************************************************************************
Note: The following is an excerpt from the Charter Review Committee minutes of March
3, 2005.
Charter Review Committee
March 3, 2005
Regular Meeting Minutes
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
Pay Compensation for Mayor/Council
City Attorney Mike Franell noted that it is common to have a mechanism for establishing pay in
the City Charter. He noted that there is currently a mechanism for compensation in Ashland’s
current Charter; Article 3, Section 3, and noted that the current Charter requires that any salary
change other than the City Recorder’s be subject to a vote by the people.
The Committee noted that the Council compensation had remained the same since 1974, which is
$300 a year plus health benefits. Mr. Franell noted that the provision for health benefits was not
in the Charter, but was adopted through an Ordinance.
Suggestion was made that the compensation not be included in the Charter and this issue would
be best addressed through an Ordinance.
Carole Wheeldon/Laurie MacGraw m/s include the issue of Council compensation to the list
of discussion topics. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
1
************************************************************************
Note: The following is an excerpt from the Charter Review Committee minutes of April
14, 2005.
Charter Review Committee
April 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Minutes
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
V. PUBLIC INPUT ON STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT & COUNCIL
ELECTIONS/COMPENSATION:
The options for Council Elections and Compensation were presented by Michael Riedeman.
Council Elections Alternatives:
1.Status Quo (Charter language remains unchanged)
2.Maintain the existing system with the addition of instant voter runoff.
3.Implement a city-wide award system.
4.Implement a city-wide award system with the addition of instant voter runoff.
5.Eliminate position system in favor of city-wide at large election. Top vote getters would
win council seats.
Compensation Alternatives:
1.Status Quo (Charter language remains unchanged. Each councilor would continue to
receive $350 a year, the Mayor receives $500. The council and mayor would also
continue to receive health benefits.)
2.Remove the election requirement from the Charter. (The compensation decision would
be made by the Council instead of the voters.)
3.Implement a specific salary level in the Charter along with requirements for periodic
review and/or pay increases.
It was noted that compensation information was provided to the Committee by the City’s HR
Manager. Ms. Wheeldon explained it would cost the City $86,000 a year to pay the council the
living wage (20 hours per councilor, per week). Currently, the annual cost for just the benefit
package is $73,000 a year.
It was questioned if the City was in violation of the Charter because the health benefits were
established by ordinance, and therefore this compensation has not been subject to a vote by the
people.
Mr. Enders suggested that the Committee add the alternative of providing no compensation for
the city council or mayor.
2
************************************************************************
NOTE: The following chart was created at the request of the Charter Review Committee.
Benefits for City Councilors
June 2, 2005
City# of Salary/StipendMedicalOther Benefits
PopulationCouncilors
Grants Pass Mayor plus NoneNoneTravel/training
21,0006 council for city business
Klamath Fall Mayor plus $200 p/m Full medical Travel/training
25,0005 council $100 p/m for city business
Central Point Mayor plus $250 p/m NoneTravel/training
12,4006 council $125 p/m for city business
MedfordMayor plus NoneNoneTravel/training
63,0008 council for city business
CorvallisMayor plus $100 p/m NoneTravel/training
50,0008 council (mayor only) for city business
Bend7 council $200 p/m NoneTravel/training
57,000(councilfor city business
elects
Mayor)
HillsboroMayor plus $250 p/m/ NoneTravel/training
70,0006 council $175 p/m for city business
Forest Grove Mayor plus $100 p/m Mayor and Travel/training
18,0006 council council elected to for city business
use their stipend
to pay medical
employee
premium of 10%
which is
approximately
$56 per month
for single
coverage
Albany (left
voice msg.
5/26) no
response
43,000
Pendleton (left
voice msg.
3
5/26) no
response
16,400
Wilsonville
(left voice
msg.5/26) no
response
15,000
Lake Oswego Mayor plus $288 p/m NoneTravel/training
36,0006 council $128 p/m/ for city business
EugeneMayor plus $1,500 p/m Electeds can opt Travel/training
138,0006 council $1,000 p/m to purchase for city business
health insurance
through the city
and must pay
premium (ex: full
family coverage
premium is
$1100 p/m)
Salem Mayor plus NoneNoneTravel/training
120,0009 council for city business
Comments from Tina Gray, Human Resource Manager on providing health benefits to
elected officials.
1) Impact on Risk Pool - The City purchases our health benefits through City County
Insurance Services. We are part of a public employer risk pool that includes a majority
of the cities, counties and special districts in Oregon. City County Insurance has offered
many incentives to our employees to keep them healthy (Health Screening clinics,
healthy benefits incentives, 24-hour nurse line, etc.). Additionally, the City offers a
Wellness Program incentive to our employees. All of these Wellness initiatives are
directed at trying to impact our rates and keep our claim frequency and severity as low as
possible.
By adding elected officials into the mix, the City has less control over the impact this
small group may have on the City’s overall rate risk pool. The City has no control over
who is elected to the Council, and we do not conduct pre-employment physicals to
determine if they are fit to serve as a City Council Member. So, the City is accepting
whatever health risks the elected group may bring with them into our risk pool. City
County Insurance does use a rate smoothing process to prevent one catastrophic claim
from having a huge impact on the entity's rates, but this small elected group could impact
the City’s overall rates positively or negatively.
4
2)Cost Containment -- The City has worked to achieve a cost-share from employees to
help them understand that decisions they make regarding their health care have a direct
correlation to the rates that we pay. When the city paid 100% for health benefits, we
found that employee's took advantage of their "free" coverage and didn't make health care
decisions in the same way they do now that they have some out-of-pocket investment.
Currently city employees pay 5% of the monthly premium, Mayor and council members
do not pay this percentage. Providing a monthly stipend that elected officials they could
use to buy-in to the City’s health plan at their option would allow the City to budget a
fixed cost and help continue the City’s efforts toward cost containment on health benefits.
3) Additional administrative work - Although it is usually minimal, there is additional
Administrative work attributed with managing the elected official benefits. This group
isn’t as easy to communicate with on changes to the plans, Open Enrollment
requirements, etc. as our employee group. Everything has to be customized for the
differences in Elected Official benefits in order to eliminate confusion.
4)Group Plan Membership-Membership in a group health plan offers an elected
official the ability to continue to "buy in" to the group coverage under COBRA when
they leave office. Once they have exhausted their rights under COBRA, they also have
portability rights that may offer significant advantages over what they might have access
to on the open insurance market. This could be especially valuable for someone who fills
a vacant spot on the council and doesn’t get re-elected or someone who is appointed mid-
term and is not re-elected.
Until there is a change in the benefit package and/or parameters for Elected Officials,
health insurance is made available as an option to all elected officials regardless of how
long they serve, and they have the same rights to continued coverage and portability as
any employee of the City.
5)Adverse selection – Employees cannot waive health coverage even if they are covered
under different insurance through a spouse. This is in place to prevent adverse selection.
e.g. healthy employees who can opt out could do so, leaving a pool of less healthy
employees which could affect the number of claims compared to the pool and in the end
raise rates. Elected officials can opt out. This means that healthy electeds could opt out
if they have other coverage leaving less healthy electeds in the pool.
This can work for and/or against the city.In past years, some members of council have
elected not to take advantage of the insurance options. Each member of the current
council as well as the city recorder and judge is taking full advantage of the health
insurance, thus there is a significant increase in the budget to cover the increase in health
costs.
City of Ashland
5
Monthly Health Insurance Premiums
Note: Employees pay 5% of the monthly premium, Mayor and council do not.
$396.52 p/m single coverage
$818.15 p/m 2 people coverage
$1124.05 p/m full family coverage
************************************************************************
Note: Eachcharter reviewcommittee member was assigned a specific topic to research
and to develop a Topic Discussion Paper on that topic and present it to the full
committee.
TOPIC DISCUSSION PAPER: City Council Salaries
Pam Marsh, April 2005
ISSUE STATEMENT: Should the charter address salary issues for city council
members?
EXISTING CHARTER LANGUAGE: Article 3, Section 3 of the city charter requires
that changes to the level of compensation received by elective officers (except for
Recorder and Judge) be submitted to a vote of the people. Right now, each city council
member receives $350 per year and the Mayor receives $500; these pay levels have been
unchanged since at least 1976. However, elected officials also receive full medical, vision
and dental benefits and a small life insurance policy that covers themselves and
dependents.
Budget implications: It is likely that the charter election requirement discourages the
council from proposing pay raises for its members, thus minimizing budget impacts.
Accountability: City voters are required to approve all changes in council pay.
Community/Council impacts: Proponents argue that the existing system restrains the
council from enacting costly and/or inappropriate pay increases. Conversely, critics
claim: 1) that salary issues are best delegated via ordinance; and/or, 2) that council
members deserve to be paid for the work that they perform.
ALTERNATIVES:
1.Status quo. Charter language remains unchanged.
Budget, accountability, and impacts as outlined above.
2.Remove the election requirement from the charter.
Budget: No immediate impacts. Budget allocation for council salaries could
increase with future council action.
6
Accountability: Decision-making would shift from voters to the council.
Community/council impacts: Proponents argue that the council should be
allowed to administer salary increases without assuming the burden of a city
election; critics believe the voters should be the arbiters of council salaries.
3.Implement a specific salary-level in the charter along with requirements for
periodic review and/or pay increases.
Budget: Budget impacts will depend on the specific proposal. For example, if
council members were paid for twenty hours a week at the current living wage
level of $11.44/hour, the monthly bill would be approximately $7,207 (seven
elected officials each working 90 hours a month), or more than $86,000 annually.
Accountability: After initial charter approval, all pay raises would be predicated
on a specific formula or review process.
Community/council impacts: Proponents argue that more significant salary
levels would encourage prospective council candidates who now feel that serving
on the council is too much of a financial burden. Conversely, critics argue: 1) that
it is inappropriate to allocate extensive city funding to support elected officials;
and, 2) that substantive salary levels would encourage council members to
become too involved in city administration.
Regarding: Voter Approval of Council Salaries
Eliminated from Charter
(Minority Opinion by Michael Riedeman)
July 2005
The Charter Review Committee (CRC) voted to recommend that voter approval of all
increases in council salaries be eliminated from the charter, and that salary levels should
be established via a city ordinance. This would make councilors themselves responsible
for establishing their own salaries. I write to express that I do not concur with the CRC’s
vote on this matter. In my outlook, I feel it would establish an undesirable conflict of
interested for elected representatives to establish their own salaries.
My preference would be to establish salary levels for councilors in the charter based upon
an average number of hours councilors are required to dedicate to council duties,
multiplied by the city’s established living wage level. I feel that a councilor should want a
council position for the benefit of serving their communities. Yet beyond this, I feel the
challenging economic conditions in our region are such that many Ashland citizens could
not afford to dedicate the significant amount of time required by a council position unless
their time were rightfully (in my view) compensated. Therefore, I perceive that council
7
positions that compensated a living wage would greatly enable lower- and middle-income
community members to run for council. It seems likely that lower- and middle-income
citizens have historically been under-represented on council, and I would argue that this
is the primary reason: they can’t afford it.
The CRC also deliberated whether such compensation would be more appropriate as a
dollar value or in the form of health benefits. My view is that currency is the most equal
form of exchange we use in our society, thus I feel that money is more equitable than
health benefits. Health benefits may be of great value to some people yet worth very little
to others. I feel the goal should be to pay councilors equitably, and that money would be
a fairer exchange than benefits. This wage, then, could be used towards the purchase of a
health benefits package if any councilor would so choose. However, for those councilors
who would prefer to spend that money on something else, we should allow them that
option.
Also, the argument that it would be too costly to citizens to pay their elected
representative holds little water, in my view. Currently we pay councilors and the mayor
over $10,000 each annually for health benefits. From rough estimates discussed in CRC
meetings, it was estimated that a living wage would come out to approximately the same
cost.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Riedeman
************************************************************************
NOTE: The following is a section of the Charter Review Committee final report and
recommendation addressing council salaries.
ASHLAND CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE
Final Report & Recommendations
July 1, 2005
9.Charter language that requires voter approval of all increases in council
salaries should be eliminated; salary levels should be established via a city
ordinance.
8
Background: Article 3, Section 3 of the current charter requires that changes to the level
of compensation received by elective officers (except for recorder and judge) be
submitted to a vote of the people. Right now, each city council member receives $350
per year and the mayor receives $500; these pay levels have been unchanged since at
least 1976. However, elected officials also receive full medical, vision and dental
benefits and a small life insurance policy that covers themselves and dependents.
Discussion: Proponents argue that the existing system restrains the council from
enacting costly and/or inappropriate pay increases. Conversely, critics of the status quo
claim: 1) that salary issues are best delegated via ordinance; and/or, 2) that council
members deserve to be paid for the work that they perform.
Outcome: The committee endorsed the recommendation via a 7-1 vote, with one
member abstaining. Discussion that preceded the vote focused on the generous health
benefits package now extended to council members. The committee suggests that
council members consider assuming an insurance co-payment equivalent to that paid by
city employees.
(See Appendix IX: Council Salaries and Benefits)
9