HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-04-30 Budget Committee Minutes
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
APRIL 30, 2007- PAGE 1 OF 9
Budget Committee Meeting
Draft Minutes
April 30, 2007 7:00pm
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Thompson called the Citizen’s Budget Committee Meeting to order at 7:01 pm.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Morrison was present. Councilors Hardesty, Chapman, Navickas, and Jackson were present.
Budget Committee members Heimann, Bond, Gregorio, Levine, Everson, Stebbins and Thompson were
present.
STAFF PRESENT: MARTHA BENNETT, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
LEE TUNEBERG, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/FINANCE DIRECTOR
DON ROBERTSON, PARKS DIRECTOR
STEVE GIES, PARKS SUPERINTENDENT
RACHEL TIEGE, RECREATION SUPERINTENDENT
DAVID STALHEIM, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
MIKE BROOMFIELD, BUILDING OFFICIAL
BRYN MORRISON, ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE
MIRANDA IWAMOTO, ACCOUNT CLERK II
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of minutes from previous Budget Committee meetings dated:
4/11 and 4/12/07 Economic and Cultural Development Grant Presentations.
Bond/Everson ms to accept grant presentations as presented. All Ayes.
4/19/07 Budget Committee Meeting
Heimann/Hardesty ms to accept the minutes as presented. All Ayes.
PUBLIC INPUT
Jack Opgenorth from the Aquatics Foundation of Southern Oregon spoke about the closing of the SOU
pool. Mr. Opgenorth said that the foundation may be looking for the City to provide year round
swimming if SOU is closed. Mr. Opgenorth commented that the Daniel Meyer Pool would be the choice
even though it’s not a competitive pool. He also explained that the foundation promotes aquatics and how
important swimming is to the community. Mr. Opgenorth said the foundation does raise money and is
putting that toward SOU at present.
BUDGET MESSAGE
Martha Bennett, City Administrator and Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services Director, started the
meeting with a discussion about how to deal with questions that come up during the budget process.
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
APRIL 30, 2007- PAGE 2 OF 9
Unresolved issues should be written on the easel. At the end of the process, there will be time to review
what is written on the easel. Mr. Tuneberg also explained that the Fire information in question is being
worked on and will be provided as soon as possible.
PARKS AND RECREATION PAGE 3-127 through 3-143
Parks Director, Don Robertson, and Chair of Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission, Joann Eggers,
presented the Ashland Parks and Recreation budget. Ms. Eggers explained that they typically begin the
budget process by focusing on the current year’s goals. Ms. Eggers listed the goals for FY 08 as park
development for the North Main Scenic Property and Ashland Creek Property, make Oak Knoll Golf
Course self-sustained, redevelop Darex Ice Rink, help find a solution for community swimming facilities,
develop additional community gardens and create a Recreation Master Plan. Ms. Eggers added that some
of the ongoing goals from the previous year will be re-evaluated to determine if they should be continued
or not. These ongoing goals include creating a new department logo, staff succession planning,
evaluation of energy consumption and the removal of non-native vegetation.
Ms. Eggers continued by discussing the structure of the Ashland Parks and Recreation Department (see
attached handout). The department’s 5 divisions include Parks, Recreation, Youth Activity Levy (YAL),
Golf, and Parks Capital Improvement. The Parks division is the largest division and provides the
maintenance/operation of the parks. The Recreation division provides the program elements of the
department.
Ms. Eggers explained that the next step of the budget process is to review the revenue and expense
projections. She explained that last year’s Citizen’s Budget Committee encouraged the commission to
start looking for additional revenues instead of relying on tax money. Due to that advice, the major
accomplishments of FY 07 include adjustment of various fees. The Parks division increased the annual
golf passes from $700 to $1000. The revenue generated from renting out facilities was also adjusted so
that Ashland Parks and Recreation Department (APR) would receive 30% cost recovery instead of 17%.
APR also implemented operational fee charges for Calle Guanajuato. Other accomplishments include
approving an Intergovernmental Maintenance Agreement with the Ashland School District, adding new
Lithia Park playground equipment and building a playground at North Mountain Park.
Ms. Eggers said that a graph was included to show performance records for Forestry, Trails and Natural
Resources (see attached handout). APR has an entire crew dedicated year round to the removal of
noxious weeds, fire prevention, and trail maintenance. Ms. Eggers also stated that the Ashland Parks and
Recreation Commission has adopted a Trail Master Plan.
A graph was also included for the Darex Family Ice Rink (see attached handout) that displays the number
of paid admissions, number of employees and accidents per season. Ms. Eggers spoke about how an oak
tree fell on the ice rink last season and therefore, will operate without a roof this coming year. Ms.
Eggers stated that they will submit grant requests to replace the roof for the following year. The
department is also looking for cooling coils to be built into the parking lot instead of using coiled mats.
Coiled mats require more water and also become misshapen each time they are laid down. Mr. Robertson
stated that grants will be sought for these coils and that the parking lot will have to be repaved. Mr.
Robertson also said that the commission did set aside $50,000 in its capital fund to entice contributions or
a possible grant match.
Committee member Levine asked about the increase in the number of employees vs. the decrease in the
number of admissions. Mr. Robertson answered that the number of admissions is dependent upon the
weather and that warm weather may close the rink earlier than expected. The number of employees was
increased for safety reasons so that they could have “more eyes on rink”, for tighter cash control and
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
APRIL 30, 2007- PAGE 3 OF 9
better customer service. Mr. Levine also asked about ice rink expenses vs. revenues. Rachel Teige,
Recreation Superintendent, stated that revenues and expenses broke even for the last 2.5 years with the
exception of the staff time devoted to putting the rink together and taking it down. Mr. Robertson added
that fees have been adjusted over the years and that more ice time was allotted to programs with a higher
rate of return.
Committee member Heimann inquired about how many of Calle Guanajuato merchants are from Ashland.
Mr. Robertson replied that each merchant is a member of Lithia Artisans Guild. He also stated that the
merchants are from the Rogue Valley.
Ms. Eggers continued by talking about the budget over time (see graph on page 4 of handout). Graph
depicts operational budget for APR and does not include 2.5 million YAL or $331,000 Capital
Improvement Fund. Ms. Eggers stated that the YAL will expire after next year. Ms. Eggers broke down
the 5.6 million budget:
$144,000 Senior Center
$327,000 Nature Center
$ 99,000 Community Centers
$222,000 Recreation Programs
$257,000 Recreation Admin.
$422,000 Golf Course
$161,000 CAP. CSO, Park Patrol
$217,000 Maintenance of Airport, Blvds, Plaza, Hospital
$393,000 Insurance, Facility Use
$ 35,000 Contingencies
$3,390,000 Parks Maintenance & Operations
Ms. Eggers reported that the department targets spending up to 95% annually, but typically spends 91%
of their budget. Ms. Eggers explained that they do not spend 100% because the department spends to
accomplish their goals on projects and improvements. She stated that it is not fiscally wise to spend
money just because it’s budgeted nor is it fiscally wise not to budget to full capacity of anticipated
expenses. Ms. Eggers went on to explain that money is sometimes left over because projects are not
th
completed by June 30, there is turnover in the department or projects had greater than anticipated cost.
Committee member Everson asked why if the department typically spends 91% why they budget 95%.
Mr. Robertson answered that demand may be greater than what they anticipate, therefore adding costs to
budget.
Ms. Eggers called attention to future projections which show APR going red in 2010. This is based on
100% expenditures of budgeted funds with the exception of Materials & Services (only 95%). Ms.
Eggers stated that the reality is that they are not negative nor have they been negative, however APR is
looking into the future. Ms. Eggers expressed her thanks for the assistance provided by Mr. Tuneberg and
his staff.
Mayor Morrison left at 7:36 pm
Ms. Eggers reported that the significant proposed budget changes include adding the new position of
Promotions Coordinator (1.0 FTE) and also adding 2 Park Workers (see attached handout). The
responsibilities of the Promotions Coordinator include the development of fliers, creating brochures and
activity guides, maintaining the webpage, and providing weekly press releases. APR has reduced the
contract services line item for promotions by $30,000. The net impact will be $40,000 because the
position will cost $70,000 (salary & benefits) with $30,000 savings. Mr. Robertson stated that the
additional position will improve customer service and therefore, will most likely increase revenue. The
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
APRIL 30, 2007- PAGE 4 OF 9
position will also assist with improved departmental communication. Mr. Robertson stated that the
projected revenues are not represented in this year’s proposed budget. Councilor Jackson asked if it was
appropriate for staff to monitor webpage instead of Computer Services. Mr. Robertson answered that
different staff have different responsibilities within APR and each of those individuals knows their
division the best. Therefore, the person who knows his/her division best can provide the timeliest
information and that timely information directly affects customer service and satisfaction.
APR also proposed adding 2 Park Workers due to the Intergovernmental Maintenance Agreement. Mr.
Robertson recapped the events leading up to the new maintenance agreement. Mr. Robertson stated that
over that past few years, the Ashland School District outsourced maintenance instead of using the Parks
division. This helped the school district cut costs but also decreased the perceived level of
service/standards. The school district and the Parks division then entered into discussions about how to
reduce costs but retain Parks’ standards. Under this new agreement, the parameters do not include certain
services, (i.e., lines for practice fields) and some people are unhappy.
Committee member Everson asked why the APR budget is jumping $433,000 as opposed to all the other
budgets which are staying flat. Mr. Robertson said the School District Maintenance Agreement is one of
the main reasons because it’s creating $150,000 in revenue, and the promotion coordinator position will
have a net cost of $40,000, increases in property tax and slight increases in fees. Mr. Levine asked if all
of the $433,000 will be offset by revenues. The answer was yes.
Committee member Stebbins called attention to the current year’s Materials & Services number being less
than budgeted. Mr. Robertson explained that the budget fluctuates depending on the demand for certain
services, classes, or projects. He stated that the budget will also fluctuate for variables such as vandalism.
The committee asked about the tax rate transferred to APR. Mr. Tuneberg answered it was 2.09. Mr.
Robertson elaborated that it was 2.09 for every $1000 of assessed value and that this revenue was
included in the proposed budget. Mr. Robertson also stated that as property taxes increase so do cost of
living standards. APR used a 5% COLA in its proposed budget.
Committee member Thompson inquired about the ending fund balance. It was answered that the ending
fund balance rolls over and becomes the beginning fund balance for the next year. Ms. Thompson also
asked how to take money away from APR. The answer was to increase fees and charges paid to the City
of Ashland or reduce percentage from 2.09 to something else. It was reported that the budget committee
sets the City of Ashland tax rate
Councilor Navickas asked about the impact of increasing fees and whether or not there were scholarships
available. Mr. Robertson replied that they’ve never turned down scholarships for those who have asked
for them. APR is willing to work with those who need assistance. The goal of increasing fees was to
recover 30% of the current cost instead of 17%.
Councilor Navickas also asked about the large police budget included. Mr. Robertson stated that paying
for CAP, CSO, and Park Patrol is a long term agreement with City of Ashland. APR pays 100% for CAP
and Park Patrol, only 50% for CSO.
Mr. Robertson emphasized that APR is beginning to look long term and are realizing that they have to
start looking for ways to increase or maintain revenue without the support of property taxes. Ms. Eggers
stated that the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission has examined the meeting point of where
revenues cross expenditures and they are focusing on how to combat it.
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
APRIL 30, 2007- PAGE 5 OF 9
The committee asked if there are any vacancies in the department. The answer was no and that at this
point there are no retirements either. However, Mr. Robertson can foresee 30% turnover in next few
years due to retirements.
Ms. Eggers reported on the challenges for FY 08 (see attached handout). The challenges include finding
a solution for the SOU pool, long term funding for capital projects, the operation of Darex Ice Rink
without a roof and preparing for the last year of the YAL.
Councilor Jackson requested a copy of the budget numbers provided on Mr. Robertson’s easel as they
relate to bar graph (page 4 of attached handout).
Everson/Bond ms to approve Ashland Parks and Recreation budget as presented.
Councilor Navickas was opposed. He stated that he didn’t think it was appropriate to fund public safety
via the APR budget.
Ms. Everson stated that she was also opposed because the budget seemed inflated.
The committee discussed the option of reducing the budget by a certain percentage. Mr. Robertson stated
that if presented with a request to decrease by a certain percentage then APR would propose to shift a
higher amount into the contingency fund. Ms. Everson replied that the inflexibility of the APR budget
was bothersome to her. Mr. Levine continued by discussing whether or not APR should be entitled to the
2.09 that has been standard in previous years. The committee asked how many dollars would be reduced
if the budget was cut by 5%. Mr. Tuneberg replied that 5% would be about $88,500.
Everson/Heimann amended ms to approve Ashland Parks and Recreation proposed budget with a
tax decrease from 2.09 to 2.04.
Discussion of the amended motion followed. Councilor Hardesty expressed concern over deciding a rate
decrease before knowing how it would affect programs and fees. Mr. Levine encouraged committee to
look at big picture of budget throughout the City before determining where the money is best spent. Mr.
Heimann encouraged the idea of future discussions about the tax rate citing the lack of discussion in
previous years.
Mr. Robertson stated that they would provide options for what to cut from the budget but that the Ashland
Parks and Recreation Commission has final say.
Councilor Navickas expressed concern over the fee increases and the time devoted to asking City Council
for approval of those fee increases or other additions.
Ms. Bennett told committee that it may be reasonable to ask APR to cut 5% and find out where that 5%
would be cut. Ms. Bennett expressed to the committee that the tax rate shouldn’t be decided right now,
and to focus on services not money at this moment.
Mr. Levine expressed concern over property tax increases on the community. Ms. Eggers encouraged the
committee to remember the history of the parks in Ashland and their importance to the community.
Councilor Jackson reminded the committee about the findings of the Charter Review Committee.
According to Councilor Jackson, the Charter Review Committee determined that the Ashland Parks and
Recreation Commission should remain a separately elected body and that the community feels very
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
APRIL 30, 2007- PAGE 6 OF 9
strongly about its parks. Councilor Jackson added that the APR budget appears to be the place to look for
monies since they don’t seem to use all of it.
Ms. Everson rescinded her previous motion.
Hardesty/Gregorio ms to tentatively accept the Ashland Parks and Recreation budget with an
exception that the department look at alternatives which may include bringing back to the
committee the proposed budget with as much as 5% cuts with an emphasis on capital outlay
expenditures. Bond, Chapman, Gregorio, Hardesty, Jackson, Stebbins and Thompson yes.
Everson, Navickas, Heimann and Levine opposed. Motion passed 7 to 4.
Recess
Ms. Everson requested that all discussions take place during meeting instead of during the break.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, CDBG PAGE 3-109 through 3-116
Community Development Director, David Stalheim, and Building Official, Mike Broomfield presented
the Community Development budget. Mr. Stalheim started with the major responsibilities of the
Community Development Department (see attached handout). The responsibilities include long range
planning, housing programs, building inspection and Fire & Life Safety Plan review. Mr. Stalheim
continued with the structure of department which is made up of two divisions (Planning and Building)
plus the Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG). CDBG is a federal program. Mr.
Stalheim listed the major accomplishments in FY 06-07 as hiring a new director, completing an
organizational analysis of the Planning division and expanding the Master Permit Program.
Mr. Stalheim summarized Planning permit activity (see table on page 3 of handout). Planning permit
applications have declined this year. Mr. Stalheim explained that Type I permits are those that do not
require public hearing, Type II require public hearings and Type III are legislative amendments such as
zoning and urban growth. It was pointed out that the table only depicts the first 8 months of the year.
Mr. Stalheim also provided the committee with a table summarizing Building permit activity. Like the
Planning permits, the Building permits are also decreasing. However, Mr. Stalhiem pointed out that the
number of permits will jump up now because it’s the building season.
Mr. Stalheim spoke about the budget over time (see attached handout). The 2008 proposed budget is flat
over 2007 amended. Mr. Stalhiem reported that the reason it’s flat is because of costs that are not within
their control. Mr. Stalheim also spoke about the CDBG budget over time. This budget fluctuates because
it’s a fund balance managed by itself. If the funds aren’t spent in one year then they are re-allocated into
the next year. Mr. Stalheim reported that they have approximately $15,000 from last year that they are
reappropriating for the 2008 budget.
Mr. Stalheim reported that 67% of the 2008 Planning budget and 58% of the 2008 Building budget will
be spent on Personal Services.
The Community Development presentation included a Permit Revenue vs. Expenditures graph (see page
5 of attached handout). The Council goal for Building was 100% fee recovery, however the actual was
about 50%. The Council goal for Planning was 75% fee recovery and the actual was approximately 40%.
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
APRIL 30, 2007- PAGE 7 OF 9
Mr. Stalheim went on to explain the significant budget changes (see attached handout). The Building
division was cut by 5% which will be a reduction of .4 FTE in Building Inspectors. This will amount to a
$42,000 cut. The Planning division was cut by over 10% which results in the elimination of the Associate
Planner position which amounts to $95,000. Professional services for Master Planning will also be cut
which reduces the budget by $80,000.
The potential service impacts of the cuts on the Building division were reported as (see attached handout)
the reduction of over-the-counter permit day (Thursday), decreased pre-application telephone
conferences, potential loss of same day re-inspection services, increased plan review time and reduced
frequency of inspections. Mr. Stalheim indicated that same day inspections provide good customer
service and allow work/projects to proceed in a timely manner. The service impacts for the Planning
division include a longer time to implement the Long Range Planning Program, limited ability to respond
to any new Planning Commission or City Council issues, no professional service money and therefore
fewer professional service projects. There would also be a longer response time for citizen questions.
Mr. Stalheim followed with the proposed add request package. The “adds” include the services of a Long
Range Planning professional. This professional would support existing staff on the Long Range Planning
Program. This position would cost $125,000. The next “add” is to restore the Building Inspectors to 1.0
FTE. This would cost $42,000. Mr. Stalheim explained that Mr. Broomfield has been working on
creating new revenue to offset this $42,000. The new revenue would be a State Intergovernmental
Agreement (IGA) for state planning services and inspections for Coquille. The next “adds” are to restore
the Master Planning Services and Associate Planner position. Mr. Stalheim clarified that after analyzing
the needs of the division, he determined that this Associate Planner should really be more of an Urban
Designer.
Mr. Stalheim recapped the revenue choices before the committee. The Building division choices include
the Coquille IGA to offset the Building Inspectors. This is estimated to bring in $58,000. The division is
looking into a change in valuation (how much to charge per square foot) from the national method to the
real cost of construction in this area. This is estimated to increase permit revenue by $40,000. Mr.
Stalheim also said they could increase the Master Permitting Program for an additional $20,000 and then
evaluate the fees for other services. Mr. Stalheim reported that the department is looking into increasing
development fees for the Planning division. The department is also going to review the appeal and
hearing fees. However, Mr. Stalheim stated that he didn’t think different appeal and hearing fees would
make a large impact on the budget.
Councilor Jackson inquired about planning applications and whether or not they generate revenue if the
building permits aren’t issued. Mr. Stalheim explained that every building permit has a community
development fee associated with it and a portion of that community development fee supports the
Planning division. Planning revenue is generated from land use permit fees and building permit
applications. Mr. Stalheim said that the community development portion is approximately 1.1% of the
building permit fee. Mr. Stalheim also said that revenue is generated from the planning permit
applications (Type I and Type II) but not for building permits if the project is not followed through.
Mr. Broomfield clarified that the department isn’t working for “free” until they get the building permit.
He explained that when a complete application comes in it is reviewed. The plan review and the building
permit are based on the valuation of the project. The plan review fee is 65% of the permit fee. A deposit
is taken from the applicant based on the valuation and the assumed plan review fee. However, part of the
plan review process is to determine the actual fee because the complexity of the building needs to be
taken into account.
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
APRIL 30, 2007- PAGE 8 OF 9
Mr. Stalheim followed up with the challenges of FY 08 (see attached handout). The challenges include
code changes, implementing rental needs analysis, and completing a fair housing analysis.
Councilor Jackson stated for the record that last year the Citizen’s Budget Committee increased funding
for additional positions and consulting fees for more comprehensive planning, especially for long range
planning. Councilor Jackson stated that there is a need for the revision of the downtown plan and other
city planning. Ms. Thompson said that she remembered raising taxes to pay for staff. Ms. Thompson
asked what happened to money that was levied for this year. It was reported that the funding was used to
fund other operations. Ms. Thompson also inquired about a $1,000,000 capital expenditure for land. Mr.
Stalheim reported that it is the Strawberry property that the City is selling and it’s being carried over from
last year. Council will evaluate bids in the future. Mr. Stalheim explained that it shown as both a revenue
and an expense because the money will be put into a housing fund.
Councilor Chapman asked if Housing Specialist position is paid by a grant. Mr. Stalheim answered that
25% is paid by CDBG. Councilor Chapman asked if it would be possible to have housing only 25% of the
time and/or any possible shared jobs. Councilor Chapman also inquired about sharing inspections with
the county. Mr. Stalheim explained that the Planning staff has a full workload. Mr. Stalheim also
indicated that the intention of the Coquille IGA is to keep Building staff working 100% of the time. Mr.
Broomfield stated that the City already has an IGA with the state. The Building division currently helps
with the state’s pre-fab program. Mr. Broomfield explained that the state needs the help and has
experience working with the City of Ashland. The work would begin in June and be completed here. The
state will have the plans sent (at the state’s expense) from Coquille to Ashland instead of from Coquille to
Salem. Ms. Thompson asked where the $58,000 number came from. Mr. Broomfield answered that there
will be an average of 60 plans per month, anticipate 2 hours per review for a total of 4 months. This
would reduce layoffs and keep Building Inspectors at status quo.
Committee member Gregorio asked about only spending $43,000 for contracted services in Planning.
Mr. Stalheim explained that amount represents the continuation of existing contracts and does not include
any new services. Mr. Gregorio asked if it was realistic to assume that the division won’t incur new
contract services. Mr. Stalheim said he would have to go to Council to identify the need. Mr. Stalheim
also said that if the $125,000 for Long Range Planning Program was added then they could have a very
good Long Range Planning Program.
Councilor Navickas asked how application fees compare with other communities. Mr. Stalheim answered
that Planning fees are unknown but Building fees are the same statewide. Mr. Broomfield said that
Building fees are set by administrative rule, and that increases have been applied for and received by
surrounding communities. The City of Ashland increased electrical and mechanical fees a few years ago.
Mr. Broomfield explained that increasing fees requires a state audit of the department and public hearing
by state in this area. Mr. Broomfield stated that the current fees are mid-range for this region.
Councilor Hardesty asked about housing and how the Housing Specialist participates in developing goals.
Mr. Stalheim said he is working with the Planning Commission on work plan goals and that he wants to
make sure there isn’t a disconnect between functions in the department. He said that it’s important for the
Housing Specialist to work with the Long Range Planning Program and that the Specialist is currently
helping to implement that program.
Bond/Everson ms to accept the Community Development budget as presented.
Councilor Jackson stated that she would like to restore the Urban Designer/ Associate Planner position
because that position’s area of expertise will be long range planning.
Councilor Navickas would like to look at increasing fees for development.
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
APRIL 30, 2007- PAGE 9 OF 9
Councilor Hardesty asked about smaller communities having larger fees. Mr. Broomfield said that
Central Point has higher structural fees and that Medford is about same. Councilor Hardesty agreed that
the department should look into increasing fees. Mr. Broomfield replied that the department can apply for
fee increases, but reminded the committee that the state controls the fees. A public hearing will need to
be conducted and the State of Oregon Building Codes Division makes the decision.
All Ayes.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:03 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Miranda Iwamoto
Account Clerk II
Ashland Parks and
Recreation
Proposed Budget for 2007-2008
April 30, 2007
Major Responsibilities of
Department/Division
Provide clean, safe facilities
Preserve open spaces
Provide wholesome recreational choices
Provide environmental education
opportunities
Ensure the quality of life within our
community
1
Structure of Department
Parks Division
Recreation Division
Golf Division
YAL Fund
Parks Capital Improvement Fund
Major Accomplishments in FY
2006-2007
Completed review and adjustment of golf fees
Implemented IGA with school district
Reviewed and implemented operational fee charges
for Calle Guanajuato
Completed fee and service costs review and
adjustment for facilities
Reconstructed two tee boxes at Oak Knoll Golf
Course
Developed staffing restructure plan for North
Mountain Park Nature Center / Recreation Division
2
Forestry, Trails, and Natural
Resources
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Targeted Actual Targeted
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008
Acres
treated/retreated 33.5 33.5 404545 4538 38
for fuel reduction
Number of piles 1,115 1,100+ 1,100+ 1100+ 1000 1000 750 750
burned/chipped 700
Miles of trail
maintained 1010+ 10+ 2025 2525 25
Number of
reported injuries 00010000
Noxious weeds
treated in acres 010 101212 1240 20
Weed abatement
program in acres 000017 1717 17
DarexFamily Ice Rink
20012002ActualActualActualActual
2003200420052006
# of Admissions15,84215,68512,38912,06912,29912,200
Accidents per Season441000
# of Seasonal Employees6668812
3
Budget Over Time
(Excluding YAL)
$5,667,321
$4,769,411
$4,540,597
$3,921,034
$4,118,412
2004 Actuals 2005 Actuals 2006 Actuals 20072008
92%92%90.1%Projected Proposed
89%
2008 Proposed Budget
$2,577,000, 31%
$3,241,970, 38%
$10,500, 0%
$664,000, 8%
P&R Personnel
P&R Materials & Srvices
Capital Outlay
Debt
$1,936,850, 23%
YAL
4
Significant Budget Changes
From 2006-2007
Added 1 FTE Promotions Coordinator
Eliminated $30,000 contracted services for
promotions
Added 2 FTE Park Workers (schools)
Experienced increased service demands
Challenges for FY 2008
Closure of the SOU Pool
Capital projects of park construction/long-
term capital funding
Entering into the final year of the YAL
Operation of ice rink without cover
5
Community Development
City of Ashland
Proposed Budget for 2007-2008
April 30, 2007
Major Responsibilities of
Community Development
Planning:
Long Range Planning
Development Review
Housing Programs
Building
Building Inspection
(full service: electrical, mechanical, structural, plumbing, fire)
Fire/Life Safety Plan Review
1
Structure of Department
Community Development has two divisions,
plus the CDBG program
Planning
Building
CDBG
Major Accomplishments in FY
2006-2007
New Director hired
Director completed organizational analysis
Building expanded Master Permit Program
2
Planning Permit Activity
2006/07
Permit Type2003/042004/052005/06
(ytd–4/13)
Accessory Residential Unit7844
Home Occupation Permit1*499561
Pre-application
Conference11911311568
Staff Permits25261814
Type I Permits42491819
Type II Permits710104
Type III Permits1410
TOTALS202259261170
* Home occupation permits not entered into permit system this year.
Building Permit Activity
2006/07
Permit Type2003/042004/052005/06
(ytd–4/13)
Additions1301469476
Electrical402409377267
Mechanical249252235156
Plumbing10411612382
Multi Family1616238
Single Family1191237549
Structural57656238
TOTALS1,0771,127989676
3
Budget Over Time
2,500,000
2,000,000
$811,211
$801,756
1,500,000
$668,663
Building
$604,693
Planning
1,000,000
$1,331,548
$1,313,591
$1,104,472
500,000
$877,670
-
2005 Actual2006 Actual2007 Amended2008 Proposed
CDBG Budget Over Time
700,000
600,000
$606,115
500,000
CDBG - City
Budget
400,000
$421,250
CDBG -
300,000
$227,300
Federal
Allocation
256,000
200,000
237,500
213,000
212,000
100,000
$128,409
-
2005 Actual2006 Actual20072008
AmendedProposed
4
2008 Proposed Budget
Building Budget
Planning Budget
Materials and
Services -
Planning
33%
Materials and
Services -
Building
42%
Personal
Services -
Building
58%
Personal
Services -
Planning
67%
Permit Revenue vs.
Expenditures
Fee Recovery
120%
100%
80%
Planning
60%
Building
40%
20%
0%
Council GoalProjected
5
Significant Budget Changes
From 2006-2007
Building Division (5% cut):
Reduction of .4 FTE in Building Inspectors($42,000)
Planning Division (10+% cut):
Elimination of Associate Planner (Urban
Designer) position authorized (but not filled) in
2006/07 budget($95,000)
Reduction of in Master Planning Consultant
($80,000)
Services
Service Impacts of Cuts
Building services will have to be evaluated and prioritized.
Potential impacts:
Reduction of over the counter permit process
Pre-application conferences (might need to charge for
consultations)
Same day re-inspection services could not be guaranteed
Increased plan review time
Reduced frequency of inspections
Planning Program
Longer time to implement long range planning program
Limited ability to respond to new Planning Commission or
Council issues
No professional service money for assistance
Longer response time for citizen inquiries
6
Budget Add Requests
Add Long Range Planning Professional
Services --$125,000
Restore Building Inspectors FTE --$42,000
Could be revenue offset by State IGA for Coquille
Restore Master Planning Services --$80,000
Restore Associate Planner (Urban Designer)
--$95,000
Revenue Choices
Building Fees:
Coquille IGA (+58,000)
Change in Valuation (+$40,000)
Increase in Master Permitting (+$20,000)
Review other Fee for Services
Planning Fees:
Increase Development Fees
Appeal and Hearing Fees (non-developer)
Other?
7
Challenges for FY 2008
Building:
2007 Oregon Structural and Mechanical Code Changes
Providing Building Services at the Same Level
Planning:
Implementing Priority Land Use Code Changes
Beginning Public Process for Comprehensive Plan Review
and Update
Housing
Completing an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Implementing Rental Needs Analysis
Developing Annual Goals and Work Program in Concert
with Planning
8