HomeMy WebLinkAboutDelete CITY OF ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Study Session OCTOBER 16, 2006 @ 7:00 PM
PARKS OFFICE 0 340 S. PIONEER STREET ATTENDANCE: D. AMAROTICO, EGGERS,
GARDINER, LEWIS, ROSENTHAL, ALL STAFF MEMBERS ABSENT;
CALL TO ORDER
Rosenthal called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
Executive Session: Pursuant to ❑RS 192.660 (2)(b)
ADJOURNMENT INTO REGULAR STUDY SESSION
FEES AND CHARGES DISCUSSION Teige reminded the commission of their review of the
material at the September study session and provided additional information to them.
She passed out reservation and policy information she gathered regarding field reservation
and policy information from around the state, including Eugene, Hillsboro, N. Clack Parks and
Rec. Lake Oswego, and the City of Medford.
Summarized: Most of the ❑rganizations have at least two organizational meetings a year and
for a committee from each league that makes the decisions for field allocations. Each agency
has at least one rep. Each agency has a priority usage list from which they ❑perate_ There are
no consistency with charging for field usages, although most charge for lights. We are the only
ones with a lighting policy (2 dark days — Saturdays and Sundays).
She also passed out packets re: historical information re: free and reduced usage of facilities.
She outlined the usages by facility: CC, PH, Hunter Park. Eggers asked whether the
freeloaders use the facilities at high demand times, when we could
be charging another group for their use. ❑awn said that, in most cases, the groups use the
facilities in non-high-demand times —with the exception of the pinochle group.
Ashland Folk ❑ancers using the CC at a discounted rate during prime rental time every Friday
evening from 7 AM to 12 PM — prime! The request was made to and approved by CC. They
can only get bumped if it's a city meeting. MG —what would happen if they were asked to pay
more?
DR — I sent a message to lee Tuneberg and Martha asking if we can change the rates or if it
needs CC approval — have not heard back. ,JE —we need to recup more for those facilities.
DR — if we have to go through CC, I can't see them saying "NO." RT —they own it, we
manage it. That's why they can call the shots.
MG — so do we set any of the rates? ❑R-we set the program rates/_
DR — we set The Grove rate also. MG — it seems like we should set all the rates. If the
dancers weren't there, would every Friday
night be rented out?
DL — probably — I'd probably have a lot more weddings on Friday nights. DA —what the
demand for The Grove on Friday nights?
DL — mostly hs groups and such — but some people don't really like it. For folk dancers, I
haven't asked them if they'd be willing to move over there. JE — I think we need to get some
rules of thumb that aren't as "squishy" as we have now. If
they dirty the place, they need to clean it. It's our job to raise the fees with notification — that we
have expenses related to the buildings that need to be covered. JL — but for some group like
the AARP, it seems like they're providing such a good service for the community that it might
be harder to charge them.
DL -They help seniors with taxes for free — and they bring their own computers. They use the
back room so I could rent the front part out for a quiet event. RT — next page — facility use and
rental rates. Gave samples of months of the year. This is just
rental use. Last page is budget information — including custodial time and misc supplies. We
spend $170,682 to operate these facilities while we take in only $38,801 —for a net loss of
$131 ,881.
How do we want to proceed with this process? JE — let's look for things that we recognize as
general guidelines about what is fair and appropriate and who should be subsidized.
RT - Let's start with field usage or Lithia Park. JE — it's going to take longer when we get to
facilities use, so if we allow for 1/3 of our time fore each section it will be broken down fairly in
terms of time spent thinking this through.
RT — as we go through this process and change fees we will ease the renters through the
process slowly. DL — I have mentioned to some renters that we may be raising our fees after
January 2007 — so they'll have a bit of a heads-up.
DR — We're losing $131 K per year, what % do we want to recover, then how long do we want
to take to get to that 100%? And then we can start figuring out how to ratchet up the
percentage. We could adopt a tiered fee schedule so that social service orgs pay 15%,
instructor pays 100% of hourly rate - and then set that hourly rate.
MG — some of the initial discussion is to look at the fees to see if they're out of line or in-line —
and then we may determine that the goal isn't to break even on the financial statement —
because we might consider that as part of our recreation program.
JE — what if we said that "this is our rate" but then let people apply for a discount.
DR — I think it would be a good idea to state a rate but to allow people to apply for discounts
would be an administrative nightmare. We could entertain special rates periodically if we
chose, though. It should be the exception, not the norm.
DL — most people who rent the halls are shocked that it's so cheap. JL — would it be helpful to
you if we could streamline some processes so that things could be lined up better? Oh, yes.
DL — I make a list on the back of my book, when people start calling, I'm in tune with the dates
in the back of the book so I don't give that date away because I know that some people have
already reserved the CC and I know they need a spot in LP in order to get married that day.
RR — so what should we do first next month to get this going? RT — let's take on field
allocations first next month and then tackle Lithia Park. I can work on that and give it to you
before the meeting so you can work through your questions in advance.
JE — it would be good for you to have rough costs in mind so we can have those in our minds.
RT —the model I really like is the City of Medford — so pay attention to that in your packet and
possibly N. Clackamas. They just redid their field usage rules. Proposed deadline — early in
new year— end of January — before we really get into the budget season. I have enough
information so I think we can really start working through this. JE —when are we going to
invite users into the process? We need to address their concerns up front, while there's still an
opp'y to hear their input. Is it appropriate to give a half-sheet of paper to people who rent
facilities? Or put an ad in the paper?
RT —we could send something out to our regular renters - invite them to study sessions — to
give them the opp'y to participate before we really get moving on the process. I'll get that
together this month.
SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL (YAL DISTRIBUTION) DR — at the last joint study session
two weeks ago, we heard from the SD Super who developed a proposal to renegotitate the
agreement between Schools and Parks re: the amt.
Of money retained by Parks —which is currently $139K. This is based on the fact that the OR
Supreme Court rules against the City of Eugene in regards to a levy that was similar to
Ashland's YAL. The ASD is proposing that whatever monies that are renegot— that we free up
other dollars to pay for their maintenance. That way, we will be receiving money in excess of
what it costs us to maintain the property, they can use money for school usage, and other
dollars..... DR — the easy response is to say that we will do our own thing — but I don't know if
that's the right response.
JE — They would like us to pick up all the maintenance around the schools — and I do not see
them as areas within the P&R jurisdiction and I'm uncomfortable with that. DR — the non-
recreational areas are a lot harder to maintain but those are some that we're
being asked to do.
MG — so is this memo b.s.? DR — no — this is what this is asking for, but this is not coming
from the ASD but from the
School Superintendent.
RR — 2 school board members have erroneous beliefs about what they think we're going to do
for them. This is their effort to shift to us what they want us to do.
DR — one way to offset that is to enter into a 5-year agreement, which will cover the costs of
our doing business with them. Five years would be the minimum amt of time to enter into a
contract with the ASD. JE — I want to simplify or eliminate "the shell game." I think we've been
willing to try to work
toward a solution in the interim, but this shell game is not a permanent solution. DR — when
you look at the budget with the YAL funds it makes our budget look inflated when so much of it
belongs to the ASD.
JE — do we need to make a timely communication back to the ASD — about what we're wiling
to do in the interim or in the future? RR — my sense is that the ASD needs to make some
decisions on how to proceed. Juli's memo is informative but we should wait to hear from us
about how they want to proceed.
MG —they're asking us to respond to them... but this really is a shell game — but it's saying
that Parks will have all the money they need to maintain all our grounds — but that's only for 18
months (until the YAL expires in 2008).
JL — but we'd be happy to do this service for them as a stop-gap — do we want to do that? If
yes, then there's a deal in here somehow. DR — yes, if conditions are correct, are we willing to
do maint. On behalf of ASD? If so, then we do one set of things. If the answer is no, then the
answer is no.
DR — we could say we would accept a 5-year agreement — neither of our budgets will change
in the next 18 months except the current YAL. However, after that expires, assuming we're
made whole during the 18 months, if they go out for another levy, then we would have to know
we could legally use that money for grounds maintenance.
MG —they want to save money so they hired Jackson CO. and they're inferior to us — but the
ASD needs to know that it's going to pay to maintain their grounds. Until they say that or
agree to it —we keep feeding them the same thing and they keep making us look like the total
bad guys. They need to acknowledge the situation —that they've paid JC to do an inferior job
and are losing money in the long run. DA — I went to a private school where we had to do
grounds maintenance — so what about making the kids do some of the work?
JE — there might be room in that territory for some creativity. MG — we've already stated that
we don't mind planning to do the maintenance, but if they don't want us to do it then it won't
break us.
JL — when we did take it over we got a lot of compliments about how good the grounds looked.
RR- they `re going to continue to foster that perception.
MG — people will say, "Why doesn't Parks just pay for it?"
JE — I love taking people at their word, but if we're going to take on a chunk of work then we
need to make sure we're getting paid to do it. If we're going to shift YAL monies for work, then
we need them to outline for us what areas we will be maintaining and how much it will cost to
do that.
JL - asked DR how we would structure a 5-year agreement? DR — we would rely on our
attorney. And we would give them an opt-out clause, giving us 6 months' notice. The last thing
I want to do is set it up, hire staff, and then have them change their minds.
RR — should we be worried about pulling weeds out of bushes next to parking lots? DR — 1)
it's a point of pride to be able to say that P&R maintains all the publicly owned land in the City.
2) Should we be doing that? There's a school of thought saying that we're set up to
handle that kind of word and we should be doing it. And we're taking care of our town. DR —
question becomes: if it's really not costing more money to maintain those lands, and there's
YAL money that's helping us out, and they understand they're obligated to pay during an
extended period of time, does it really make sense to not do that work?
JL — as long as we get paid, we're the experts at grounds maintenance, so why not do it? MG
— the ASB needs to acknowledge how much it will cost to pay us over the next five years.
DR — should I tell Juli that this is what we want to do? A five-year deal that does not screw us
over financially. MG — we happen to be a partner in YAL — but in 18 months if that doesn't
exist, then they will still owe us for the remainder of the five years. We're here to provide a
service to the ASD if
they're willing to pay for it. And Parks Dept. will determine fees as appropriate. JE — and we
will not divert YAL fees to maintain non-recreational areas — because that's not right.
DR — can I go ahead and start negotiating the deal, knowing that you're going to be against it,
JE? JE — I'm trying to think it through so we can do something that makes sense. I think we've
been bending over backwards to make this work for everyone.
MG — so why don't they take the YAL money and use it for what it's meant for and then find
other monies to pay for the maintenance? RR — where are the records about what we've paid
for through the years?
JE —are we at the point of a proposal already? DR — yes — not unanimously, though. The
majority of the APRC is asking me to draft a proposal. And then we'll have something on paper
to debate. JE — I want to spend more time on Juli's memo to get really clear on it.
ADJOURNMENT OUT OF REGULAR STUDY SESSION.
EXECUTIVE SESSION—Real Property ORS 102.660 (1)(e)
ADJOURNMENT