Police Facility,
Tuesday,
February 3, 2009, 4:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
The mayor led in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmember
PUBLIC HEARING: COST FOR SERVICES REVIEW
City Finance Director Gayle Whittle
advised that this is the second work session scheduled to continue the cost for
services discussion. After the work session on January 6, 2009, staff was asked
to bring back the current fees for each of the existing services.
Ms. Whittle discussed the following:
Proposed
New Fee Based Services
Ms. Whittle advised that these were new
fees that the departments feel need to be established or fees being charged by
the departments that were not included in the fee ordinance. She noted that the
council needed to make a determination as to whether the fees need to be
recovered at 100 percent, if they need to be partially subsidized, and the
funding source if they are to be subsidized. The fees include the following:
Council
Determination
Percentage
of Recovery
S-586 Utilization of Fire Department Training
Facility 100
percent
S-125B Liquor License Acquisition of
Control/Agent Change 100
percent
S-128 Extension of Premises/Patio Permit 100
percent
S-581 Fire Flow Pressure
Ms. Whittle
explained that currently, there is no fee charged for this service. The cost to
the city to provide the service is $2,503. Chief Dennis Mueller explained the
fire flow pressure reading process. Mayor Nexsen felt $2,503 was a lot of
money. Chief Mueller explained it was all the man hours involved, the
apparatus, and fuel costs. Mayor Nexsen asked if a fire engine was needed for
the process, to which Chief Mueller explained that every fire engine has a pump
on it that can pressurize the system. Mayor Nexsen wondered if a portable pump
could be purchased so that a fire engine doesn’t have to be used. He also
thought there were other companies besides fire departments that could perform
the work. Mr. Kaffenberger asked what
the fee would be if a fire truck was not used, to which Ms. Whittle replied the
fee would be $101, which was the labor portion of the work.
Councilmember
Barlow thought that the city should not be performing the work at all. Mayor
Nexsen agreed that maybe a private company should be performing the work.
Councilmember
Callahan then wanted to know what would happen if the building does not have
the proper pressure readings, to which Chief Mueller explained that the
occupant would not receive the Certificate of Occupancy. He added that the fire
department’s goal is to allow the business owner to occupy the building and
that the building is safe for occupancy. Councilmember Callahan thought since
the city’s equipment is not used that often to perform this service, it seemed
to him that the fee could be decreased somewhat. Mayor Nexsen also thought
another solution would be for the city to purchase a portable pressure device
so that a fire engine does not have to be used. He believed that may save a lot
of money.
Ms. Whittle
suggested, as another option, instead of setting a flat fee, a job cost work
order summary could be prepared that includes the Fire Department’s fully
burdened hourly rate to provide the service. She also suggested setting a cap
or a percentage of recovery less than 100 percent. Chief Mueller noted that
other cities charge for fire flow inspections.
Mayor Nexsen
thought the city should receive some cost recovery; however, he also felt the
city should try to figure out a way to perform the work more cost effectively.
Chief Mueller also explained that the fire crew has to be subject to call, so
if a call comes out in the middle of a test, they have to be prepared to go. He
also said he would rather have the crew in the building to learn it so that if
there is a fire, they know how to operate and maneuver through the structure.
He further thought that buying a vehicle with a pump could possibly be cost
effective; however, at this point in time, they are trying not to purchase
additional items. Mr. Kaffenberger said staff could find a smaller vehicle.
Councilmember
Callahan asked if two fire inspectors could perform the test, to which Chief
Mueller replied they could. Chief Mueller recommended that council allow him to
discuss it with the fire marshal and bring it back to council. Councilmember McAtlin
thought that some responsibility should also lie with the registrant who
designed the system if it is not meeting the pressure requirements.
Ms. Whittle
suggested that staff do a little more research and bring it back to council at
the time the ordinance is brought back. She thought there would be a few more
items similar to this that staff will bring back for final disposition at the
time staff is ready to present the fee ordinance.
Councilmember
Barnes thought since there was no fee currently being charged for this service,
going from no fee to $2,503 would be a big shock to a lot of people.
S-582 Carnival Inspection:
Mayor Nexsen
thought the city should collect a fee for carnival inspections that is
commensurate with what other cities charge and bring it back to council.
S-583 Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR)
Class:
Ms. Whittle
explained that the fire department conducts about 100 classes per year, and
each class costs $324. The current cost to the city is about $32,000, and the
city charges $20 per person and is recovering about $2,000. Chief Mueller noted
that the American Red Cross charges $60 per person.
Mayor Nexsen
thought the class should be discontinued since the Red Cross conducts the class,
and if it is four hours per class, 100 classes, and two employees, it equals
out to a half of a year of employee time just to conduct this one class. He
didn’t see how it could be justified. He said he was not just talking about
this one class; he was talking about all the classes. Chief Mueller stated that
CPR was offered elsewhere throughout the city. Mayor Nexsen thought it was a
good service for the community; however, he said he was speaking from the
standpoint of the need to make adjustments. He added that there has to be an
expectation by the citizens that there will be less service, and the council
cannot be asked to cut budgets by 25 percent and expect the same level of
service. Therefore, there needs to be a reduction in services. He said this was
not a critical service; they services are nice when the money is there, but the
money is not there. It was the consensus of the council to discontinue the CPR
Class.
S-584 First Aid Classes Discontinue
the class
S-585 Home Safety and Babysitting Class: 100
percent
It was the
consensus of the council to leave this class in place to recover 100 percent of
the costs and see how it goes. Mayor Nexsen thought the parents should pay for
the class, and a class will not be formed unless there are 15 or more
participants.
S-587 Junior Firefighter/Paramedic Program Discontinue
the class
S-588 Fire Sprinkler System Repair/Alteration 100
percent of costs
Major Alterations
Minor Alterations
Major Repairs
Minor Repairs
S-450 Forensic Computer Examinations 100
percent of costs
S-451 Polygraph Exam – Employment 100
percent of costs
S-452 Polygraph Exam – Investigative 100
percent of costs
S-453 911 Audio Recordings 100
percent of costs
S454 Mohave Mental Health Transports 100
percent of costs
S-091A Aquatic Classes (new proposed subtype):
Summer
Swim League
Councilmember
Barnes didn’t think there would be many participants at $313 per participant.
Mayor Nexsen agreed; however, he thought the flip side to that was that the city
spends $25,000 on 88 people who participate, out of the 56,000 residents. He
felt that even though the programs were valuable for kids, the council needed
to justify a city expenditure of $25,000 that was only benefitting 88
participants. Ms. Whittle explained that it costs the city $311 per person in
labor costs to conduct this class.
Mr. Plaza
explained that currently, Parks and Recreation staff were reviewing ways to
reduce their budget. One suggestion that was made was to reduce staff time by
getting parents to volunteer for some of the programs. However, when parents
volunteer for aquatics, parents need to be well trained. Mayor Nexsen believed
that was the perfect solution, because parents would be involved and
participate in their child’s programs.
Mr.
Kaffenberger asked the council if they wanted to set aside some services that
could be considered at a later time, to which the council agreed.
S-091G Lifeguard Training/Water Safety Instructor:
Lifeguard Training
Water Safety
Instructor
Mr. Plaza
explained that in order to recruit lifeguards, training was held throughout the
year, and after they are trained, they can apply for lifeguard jobs. Mayor
Nexsen suggested that the training be provided to only those lifeguards who are
hired and not provide the training to the general public.
S-091H Miscellaneous Services:
Showers
Locker Rentals
Point-of-Sale Items
Single-Use Locker
Rentals
It was
the consensus of the council to recover as close as possible to 100 percent of the
costs of the miscellaneous services as a group.
S-092 Spring Frenzy Dinner Dance 100
percent recovery
S-099 Recreation Equipment for Non-City Use:
Set-Up and Tear Down
(Equipment)
Tables
and Chairs
Ms.
Whittle thought that this category could be included as part of the Facilities
Use Policy that will come back to council.
Councilmember
McAtlin thought that if the equipment is used by others, the wear and tear on
the equipment needs to be factored in.
S151 Laboratory Sample Analysis – Level I Market
Rate
S-152 Laboratory Sample Analysis – Level II:
Interim
Public Works Director
Councilmember
McAtlin agreed, because he felt the costs to replace the equipment needed to be
factored in.
The
council agreed that the city could charge in excess of 100 percent recovery.
Mr. Clark suggested that a comfortable level of surcharge would be about 5 or
10 percent to begin with, and staff could come back next year with more detail.
Mayor
Nexsen thought since there seemed to be a market for these types of services,
he felt the city should charge what the market was charging.
It was
the consensus of the council that the city charge market rates for these
services.
S-153 Non-City Owned Pump Station Checks 100
percent recovery
S-154 Pump Station Wet Well Cleaning 100
percent recovery
S-155 Private System Sewer Line Cleaning 100
percent recovery
S-156 Sewer Discharge Sampling 100
percent recovery
S-157 Septage Treatment Fee 100
percent recovery
S-104A Cross Connection Control Device Monitoring:
Mr. Clark
suggested increasing the irrigation meter fee on a monthly basis. Ms. Whittle
advised that if this was included in everyone’s rate fee, it would amount to
approximately $0.31 per month per water customer. If it is included just on
those accounts that only have irrigation meters, it would be probably a couple
dollars for each one.
Councilmember
McAtlin asked if commercial customers had the same requirement, to which Mr.
Clark replied they do. Councilmember McAtlin then thought it would have to be
spread to all customers. Ms. Whittle replied that they would do that.
S-108A Horizon Site – Monitoring 100
percent recovery
Tax-Supported Services
Ms.
Whittle explained that the departments have identified certain services as tax-supported
services. She reminded council that at the council retreat, the council was
shown a chart on how much the city should be spending versus how much the city
spends on certain things. She added that the council needed to prioritize the
services, which would give departments direction building their budgets,
because all departments need to significantly reduce their budgets.
Mayor
Nexsen thought a lot of the larger dollar functions were administrative
functions, which he felt the department heads, city manager, and finance director
would have to deal with separately. He didn’t think it made a lot of sense for
the council to jump into those functions, because the council does not exactly
know what is included in those functions.
Ms.
Whittle reminded the council that they stated at the council retreat that they
wanted to preserve the After‑School Program, Parks Maintenance, and the
$3 million transfer to the Wastewater Fund. The mayor advised that everything
else was on the table. She hoped that council had an opportunity to review the
list of services and prioritize which services they felt were important to keep
and which services they felt were not as important.
Upon
question by Mayor Nexsen as to which funds the tax-supported services are comprised
of, Ms. Whittle explained that they are mostly provided by the General Fund,
HURF, Airport, or some of the improvement districts. Mayor Nexsen asked if the
annual costs were being double counted because of overhead, etc., to which Ms.
Whittle replied they were not. She further explained that some of services were
not included in the cost for services, such as the Partnership for Economic
Development, Convention and Visitors Bureau, and services funded with grants,
even though there are administrative costs.
TAX-FD9 Training
Program:
Ms.
Whittle explained that this particular category includes the training programs
that are not associated with any special firefighter team training.
Mayor
Nexsen asked how many firefighters there were, to which Chief Mueller replied
there were 78 line firefighters.
Councilmember
Barnes thought since Chief Mueller was the professional with regard to the Fire
Department, it seemed that he would know more about the items that could be
eliminated or reduced than the councilmembers would know. Councilmember Nyberg
agreed. Ms. Whittle interjected that staff still needed direction from council
as to a priority order for the services so that department heads know how to
allocate their resources.
Mayor
Nexsen pointed out that the training costs are $1,870,152, which equates to
$18,700 per person. Ms. Whittle explained that factored into that amount
was the wear and tear on the equipment, etc. She wanted the council to be aware
that those things need to be factored into the costs because the equipment
needs to be replaced on a regular basis. She further added that the costs
reflect staff time that firefighters spend in training versus fighting fires,
which was the fire suppression category.
TAX-FD4 Airport
Rescue Firefighter (ARFF) Program:
Mr.
Kaffenberger advised that staff has completed the preliminary phase of the ARFF
Program and will submit it to council once approval is given from the
International City Managers Association (ICMA). It was found that in terms of
the number of hours that firefighters are actually working on fire-related
things at Station No. 6 are about 38 minutes in a 24-hour period at a cost of
$187,000. He thought this was something that council may want to look at.
Mayor
Nexsen commented that when business is slow in his office, for example, but he
wants to maintain the same level of staff, he has them train internally.
However, if he chose not to do that, he would end up dealing with less people.
He said his concern with the $1,870,152 in training costs is that even though
it represents man hours, it is not the firefighters’ primary purpose; it was
fighting fires. He said in his own business, if it continued to be really slow,
he would conduct his business with less people, because he cannot afford to
train them year after year, and they are not using that training for what they
were hired to do in the first place. He stated that he was not suggesting there
were too many firefighters; he was just suggesting that maybe they should be
doing something else.
Mr.
Kaffenberger added that there may also be a more effective utilization of
personnel doing other things. He further explained that the firefighters have
been utilized in other areas. Chief Mueller advised that the firefighters were
doing other things, such as fire hydrant repairs, apartment inspections, etc.
Chief
Mueller explained that when the information was provided for this report, it
was based on the training that is required for the firefighters. He said there
is also training that is mandated by the city and personal fitness that is
included in the training costs.
Ms.
Whittle explained that staff was seeking information from the council as to
what they feel are more critical functions than others.
Tax-Supported
Services - Special Events:
Mr.
Kaffenberger advised that the Special Event function is something that has been
difficult for the Fire Department, Police Department, Parks and Recreation, and
Public Works over the last year. He explained that at one time, the city had a
separate fund to track what the actual costs were related to special events.
That was taken out of the budget for Fiscal Year 2008-09. He said if the
special events are to continue, he would like to figure out some sort of mechanism
to pay for them. Councilmember McAtlin also believed that the economic impact
to the city needed to be determined.
Ms.
Whittle stated that the departments identified how much it was costing to
provide special event support, and between the Fire Department, Streets
Section, Parks Maintenance, and miscellaneous Special Event Permit costs, it
was costing $659,000 per year. She said that did not include police costs,
because those were not identified separately. She further added that there were
also recreation-provided community special event costs that totaled $183,000.
Therefore, the city spends almost $850,000, not including police time, in
supporting special events throughout the city.
Ms. Char
Beltran, Executive Director of the Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB), explained
that the CVB funds quite a few special events; they received about $250,000 in
requests last year for funding, and their committee allocated over $100,000 to
do so. She said there were also community events in the community for the
community that are not visitor-generated events. She added that they were trying
to relieve themselves of the funding and production of those events, because
they are charged with going and getting the visitors to pay for what takes
place in the city and to provide visitor spending to cover some of the city
services. Therefore, a good deal of allocation of their resources was to stay
on focus with that.
Ms.
Beltran advised that a lot of the events are put on by event producers. She
thought some of the events were truly good for the community and bring a great
economic impact through direct expenditures. She felt that needed to be
measured. She further added that the CVB is spending almost $20,000 for a
professional firm to measure the direct expenditure in economic impact of the
Winterblast and Desert Storm events, because they were two of the biggest
events in the city. She felt if it was determined that the events brought in a
tremendous amount of tax base, it might be worth looking at waiving some of the
fees.
Ms.
Beltran thought they may be able to negotiate with some of the event producers by
stipulating that if they receive funding from the CVB, part of the funding
allocated by the CVB must be used to measure the economic impact of the event,
and without that, there would be no funding by the CVB for the next year. She
said they would also require them to allocate some of the funding to cover the
city services, such as police, fire, and all of the additional services the
city would be providing. She thought if they worked with the Finance Department
close enough, they might be able to determine ahead of time what the
approximate costs would be and try to build them in.
Ms.
Beltran said they were currently revising their event policies and event
application. She hoped to have them revised and approved by the CVB Board by
March. She wondered if the event promoters were using the non-profit
organizations as a means to get the fees waived or if they were actually
providing a percentage of the take from the event to the non-profit
organizations.
Councilmember
Barlow thought special events were very important to the city. Ms. Beltran said
they were charged with visitor-producing events. She didn’t think that
community events that are in the community and for the community were a CVB
function; however, a lot of the events funded by the CVB are good for the
community, but they don’t know what kind of value dollar they bring to the
city. She thought if they were required to show the economic impact and dollar
expenditures, better financial decisions could be made with regard to events.
Ms.
Whittle thought that since event promoters exaggerate a little about how much
their event makes and how successful their events are, she felt it was an
excellent idea to require some of the promoters to actually prove the economic
impact that their event has on the city. It would also provide a more realistic
figure of how much they actually do produce.
Ms.
Beltran added that she was suggesting that in the promoter’s application for
funding from the CVB, they would be told that part of the funding they receive
from the CVB will pay for city services that are provided, which she believed would
eliminate the double dipping factor from the CVB and the city.
Mayor
Nexsen also thought another option would be to subtract the cost of city
services from the amount of the funding.
TAX-ATTY1 Victim Rights Advocate:
Councilmember
Barlow asked if the $88,582 in costs was to employ one full-time position, to
which Assistant City Attorney Kelly Garry replied it was to fund one full-time
position plus the additional costs factored into that position. Ms. Whittle
added that position is partially grant funded. Ms. Garry pointed out that the
city was expecting to receive some grant funding for this position again this
year.
TAX-FD4 ARFF Program:
Councilmember
Barlow asked if the figures for Fire Station No. 6 justify keeping the fire
station open. Mr. Kaffenberger replied not in his opinion. Councilmember
Barlow then wanted to know what the cost savings would be if Station No. 6 were
closed. Mr. Kaffenberger replied about $187,969. Ms. Whittle added that there
would be additional savings related to facilities maintenance and other line
items, and staff would be reassigned to other locations. Councilmember Barlow
advised that he would be interested in looking at closing Station No. 6.
Councilmember
Nyberg wanted to know how much time Fire Station No. 6 employees spend on
medical and fire calls, to which Mr. Kaffenberger replied 38 minutes in a
24-hour period. Councilmember Barlow asked how that compared to calls at other
stations, to which Mr. Kaffenberger replied the average time was 144 minutes
in a 24-hour period.
Tax-Supported
Services - Parks Maintenance:
Mayor
Nexsen advised that at the beginning of the meeting, Ms. Whittle stated that
there were three things the council said they wanted to preserve for funding;
one of those items was park maintenance. Mayor Nexsen realized that some of the
parks were very highly utilized, and they needed to be maintained; however,
there were a couple of parks he did not know much about. They included
Parks and
Recreation Director
Councilmember
Nyberg wanted to know what was costing the city $1,000 a month at the dog
parks. Mr. Mulcahy replied they were spending $1,000 a month for plastic
doggy bags citywide. He added that staff was looking at a donation program and
possibly getting sponsors for the doggy bags.
Mayor
Nexsen thought a lot of the line items under Tax-Supported Services had more to
do with staffing than anything else. He said the council was perfectly willing
to discuss them, but he understood that it was something that would be handled
by department heads and the city manager, and not the council.
Tax-Supported
Services – Streets:
Mr. Clark
stated that the Public Works Department will only perform those services that
are absolutely necessary. For example, they will probably bring forth a budget
that does not include slurry seal and only a minimum amount of chip seal.
Councilmember
Barnes wanted to know if street striping could be stretched to two years, to
which Mr. Clark replied it probably could; however, the city will receive more
complaints related to low-visibility conditions, such as nighttime driving and during
rainstorms, etc. People will not see the service level that they have seen in
the past. He added that they will concentrate and focus all of their efforts on
the main avenues and boulevards. He indicated that if the council prioritizes
the work, staff would be happy to make the changes.
Mayor
Nexsen said that he could pick some of the services in each department, but
every time he picks one, it has more to do with the decisions that the
department heads make. He felt the department heads could figure out how best
to deal with which services have more priority.
General Fund Subsidized Services
Ms.
Whittle explained that council decided in the past that if the city were to
charge 100 percent cost recovery, the fees would be so high that people
couldn’t afford to participate. Most of the fees relate to aquatic and
recreation programs, which contribute to a higher quality of life in the city;
however, one of the problems is that the city is subsidizing a lot of money to
run the programs. She noted that staff needed direction from the council on
whether to continue to subsidize some of the programs at the same or increased
fee, and if so, which ones have priority. She further added that if it was
council’s desire to stay with the same fee, some of the programs would have to
be eliminated, because the city cannot afford to pay for everything.
Ms.
Whittle advised that she provided the council with the current percent of
recovery on the fees, and if council feels the recovery percentages for the
fees are still appropriate, then the fees will be increased to the current cost
recovery level with that percentage; however, if council feels that the
percentage of recovery needs to be lowered to maintain the current fee, staff
would have to prepare a new ordinance, and the departments would have to make a
decision to eliminate some of the programs. She added that staff included no
revenue, no new fees, or no increased fees for the General Fund as part of the
revenue projections.
Councilmember
Barlow stated that some time ago, the council went through a long period where
they examined the fees in minute detail for the
S-094 After-School Program/Intersession:
Ms.
Whittle explained that if you take the total revenue in that program and
compare it to the total expense, the General Fund is subsidizing that program
to the tune of $1,032,548. She said since the total Recreation budget is
targeted to be less than $2 million, half of all of their expenditures support
this particular program, which means that the remaining $1 million must come
from the other programs. She stated that this was a choice council must make,
because the department head needs to know what is important to the council in
order to prepare the Recreation budget.
Councilmember
Barnes asked if there was any way the Parks and Recreation Department could
become more cost efficient in operating the After-School Program, to which Mr.
Plaza replied that there were things they were doing and other things they were
looking at to cut costs.
Mr.
Mulcahy thought another thing the council needed to be aware of was that even
if the time of the program was reduced, the city would still have to pay the
$800,000 in water as part of the intergovernmental agreement with the school
district. He noted that was included in the Recreation budget.
Councilmember
Barlow thought if the fees were increased and made it more difficult for
parents to pay, it would add other problems.
Mr. Mulcahy explained that the recreation programs mainly target the
children and the older people, and neither group has any money. He said he
understood the economic situation, but those were the people who were using the
recreation services, and it could create difficulties for families.
Councilmember Barnes thought it could also produce other problems in the city
if the kids are not in the After‑School Program.
Ms.
Whittle also pointed out that the city was currently recovering approximately
27.5 percent of what it costs to conduct all the programs. If it was council’s
decision not to increase the fees, the ordinance would have to be amended to
only recover 21 percent of the revenue. If it was council’s decision to keep
the percent recovery the same, the fees would have to be increased somewhat.
She noted that when the fee study was first conducted in 1994, the After-School
Program was at a 50 percent subsidy; the parents paid one half, and the city
paid one half. She said over the years, the council wanted to keep it
affordable and not raise the fees; therefore, the city has been subsidizing the
program more and more.
Councilmember
Barlow wondered what would happen if the fees were increased by $10. Councilmember
McAtlin thought the fees should be based on income, and those who can pay,
should pay, and those who can’t, should not have to pay the fee increases. Ms.
Whittle pointed out that the current cost was $140 for the ten‑week
program, which was $14 per week. She understood there were people in the community
who needed help, and perhaps, some of the lower-income people could get help
paying for the program. She said parents love this program because they are
saving about $800 to $900 per month by switching their kids from day care to
the After-School Program.
Councilmember
Barnes said he was personally against increasing the fees for the After-School
Program. He thought the two groups of people that should be taken care of in
the city were the very young and the very old.
Councilmember
Callahan asked Councilmember Barnes if he would be agreeable to keep the fees
at the 27.5 percent recovery. Ms. Whittle explained that if council was
agreeable to keeping the fees at the 27.5 percent recovery, people who
were currently paying, for example, $60.00 would be paying $64.00; if the fees
were to stay at $60.00, the subsidy would be changed to 21 percent, which meant
the city would be picking up 79 percent of the cost, and the participant would
be paying 21 percent of the cost.
Councilmember
Barlow stated that he didn't personally have a problem increasing the fees
some, because he thought the current costs for the program were incredibly
cheap. Councilmember Nyberg said she would prefer to increase the fees rather than
to lose other programs.
Mr. Plaza
said he has been talking with the adult softball group for the past two seasons
with regard to the anticipated budget reduction. He said a lot of cities were
eliminating their adult sports programs. He said next year, the Parks and
Recreation Department will propose to eliminate the adult sports program and
work with adult organizations to take over the adult sports program.
Councilmember
Barlow wanted to know if there would still be fixed costs if the adult programs
were turned over to adult organizations. Mr. Plaza explained that the Parks and
Recreation Department would still have to maintain the fields. He further
thought that the city would charge them a nominal field rental fee to help with
the maintenance costs.
Councilmember
Callahan asked what the fee would be for the After-School Program if the cost
was increased to 30 percent recovery, to which Ms. Whittle replied it would be approximately
$65.50.
Mayor
Nexsen wanted to know if “income-qualified” for the After-School Program meant
that there would be no fee, to which Mr. Plaza thought it meant there would be
a reduced fee. He added that currently, there was a income-qualified program
through the Havasu for Youth organization. Mayor Nexsen then asked if that
meant the burden was being shifted to Havasu for Youth. He thought that would
depend on the new rate, because currently, they were getting a reduced rate on
the current cost. Mayor Nexsen then wanted to know if there were available
federal funds or other grants for the After-School Program, to which Mr. Plaza replied
they have tried to obtain grants in the past, but most of the grants are
awarded to the inner cities.
Ms.
Whittle wanted to know what the source of funds is for Havasu for Youth to pay
for its program, to which Mr. Plaza thought it was through donations and
fundraisers for Havasu for Youth.
Mayor Nexsen
wanted to know how much a parent who was income-qualified would currently be
paying. Mr. Plaza thought it would be about 27 percent less than the current
costs. Councilmember Nyberg thought one of the problems was that some of the
income-qualified parents have more than one child.
Councilmember
Callahan asked if the rates would increase significantly if each of the
programs were paying for themselves, to which Ms. Whittle replied they would,
which was the reason none of these types of programs started out at the 100
percent cost recovery. She added that the council and staff recognized that
there would be no participants if the costs were at 100 percent cost recovery,
and that it should be something that is provided by the community to enhance
the quality of life for living in this city. However, the city was now to the
point where it needs to pick and choose which services the city will provide, because
other communities around the state have had to cut the hours of service for
what they provide. She added that the city cannot afford to provide all the
services to the community any longer.
Councilmember
Barnes wanted to know what the impact of participation would be if the costs
for open swim increased from $2.50 to $4.00, to which Mr. Plaza thought there
would be a reduction in local participation. Councilmember Barnes thought under
those conditions, the council was just beating a dead horse. Ms. Whittle
pointed out that the open swim admission price was currently $5.50 for 18 years
and older; $4.50 for 5 to 17 years and seniors; $2.50 for the hot tub
admission. Ms. Whittle pointed out that the city was subsidizing $677,000 for all
aquatic programs.
Mayor Nexsen
thought it boiled down to cutting programs or raising fees. If council does not
do it, it meant that money would have to be taken from another department, such
as Police, Fire, Public Works, etc. While he understood that the young people
and seniors need to be taken care of, the question was to what expense should
that be done and should recreation services be provided at the expense of
police and fire services.
Councilmember
Barnes thought Councilmember Callahan’s suggestion of raising the recovery
percentage from 27.5 to 30 for the After-School Program had merit, and if more
is needed, staff should decide what programs should be eliminated or kept. Ms.
Whittle said the departments can make the decisions if council gives the
direction. She added, as an example, if the city was spending more than $50,000,
and it was serving less than 50 people, that is something that should
probably be targeted.
Mayor Nexsen
thought the city should be receiving close to 100 percent cost recovery for
private events at the
Mr. Plaza
pointed out that the city was currently charging $20 per week, $8 per week, or
$3 per class for the Spring Frenzy Program. He said it was currently proposed
for $78 per week, and he felt the fee increase would dramatically impact the
participation. Mayor Nexsen thought there was no doubt that the fee increase
would dramatically impact the participation; however, the city was now in a
position that if people cannot afford it, the program may have to be deferred
to a later date until the economy is stronger. He said he would like to see all
of the programs remain open, but council needed to decide at what point does
the council need to say “enough,” and at what cost. Mayor Nexsen thought another
alternative would be to close the parks and fund the programs.
Mr.
Mulcahy advised that staff would continue to work on the fees and determine
which programs should be eliminated, etc., and what the fees should be on the
remainder of the programs, and run it through the Finance Department before
bringing it back to council. The city council agreed.
S-113 A, B,
C Transit Program:
Ms.
Whittle advised that the city provides a General Fund subsidy, and the city was
required to provide a match for the Transit grant. She added that it was costing
the city a lot of money, because it is capital and labor intensive.
Transit
Division Manager Gary Parsons advised that last year the city paid $42,000 for
$904,000 worth of fixed-route buses that will be in use for about six to seven
years. Mayor Nexsen thought they needed to take a hard look at the different
routes.
Mr.
Parsons explained how the grant funding works. He said with regard to the
operating costs, which consists of drivers’ salaries, fuel, and maintenance,
the city receives a grant subsidy of 58 percent, and the city contributes 42
percent. He further explained that with regard to the administrative costs,
which consist of his salary, the transit supervisor’s salary, the dispatchers’
salaries, pens, paper, insurance, printing costs, etc., the city receives a
grant subsidy of 8 percent, and the city contributes 20 percent. He said about
the only thing that is not grant refundable is the interfund debit, which was
$232,000 for this current year.
Ms.
Whittle pointed out that the city was currently providing a $760,000 subsidy
from the General Fund. Mayor Nexsen wanted to know how the subsidy could be
reduced. Mr. Parsons stated that they have reduced their costs for the past
three and a half years. He added that in the past three and a half years, they
have reduced 12,000 labor hours, reduced 160,000 miles off the fleet, reduced
dispatch hours, and are not filling vacant positions. He said they were down to
the point right now that the only way they could reduce any further is to cut
services and lay people off. He said the grant requires that if they have a
fixed-route service, they must provide curb-to-curb service for the disabled
for the same hours. He stated that they would have to eliminate some fixed
routes or eliminate a day of service in order to accomplish that. Mr. Parsons
said if they eliminate Saturday service, which was the weakest day, the actual
savings to the city would be about $50,000, because the rest of it is all grant
money the city would lose.
Mayor Nexsen
said he assumed that Mr. Parsons analyzed the routes and riderships in each
route. Mr. Parsons explained that if a route was eliminated, the current policy
of providing curb-to-curb service for people who qualify, such as disabled and
seniors, would allow them to actually call for a curb-to-curb ride in the area,
which would add a cost back to the city for that service. He added that one
thing they provide, which was a policy decision by the council when they went
to the fixed-route service, is curb-to-curb service anywhere in the city for
the elderly, disabled, and people who live outside of the fixed-route service.
He pointed out that the federal law states they only have to provide
curb-to-curb service for those people within three-quarters of a mile or on
either side of the scheduled routes. If they implemented that, it would
severely limit senior and disabled travel within the city. Mayor Nexsen
wondered what the impact would be of combining the less used routes with other
routes, to which Mr. Parsons explained that their routes are 100 percent
Mayor
Nexsen wanted to know what the ridership costs were, to which Mr. Parsons
replied they charged $1 for the fixed route, and $2 for the curb-to-curb
service. He added that the federal law states they cannot charge more than
double for curb-to-curb service than for the fixed routes. He further added
that the $1 fee was the standard for rural transit in
Mr.
Parsons advised that ridership is increasing by about 20 to 30 percent over the
previous year. He further indicated that they will finish out the fiscal year
on June 30 by about 30,000 rides ahead of last year. He stated that ridership has
been growing by 1,800 to 2,200 rides per month, yet the strange thing is
apartments are vacant.
Mayor Nexsen
asked Mr. Parsons how he would suggest finding $700,000, to which Mr. Parsons
replied when it comes to transit, that was difficult to answer, because there
was not a transit agency in the world that makes money. Mayor Nexsen then asked
Mr. Parsons how he would suggest finding $350,000, which was 50 percent of the
subsidized amount of $700,000. Ms. Whittle reminded the council that in order
to have a transit program, the city will have to provide 42 percent of the
costs for the operating side, because the city was required to provide a match
for the grant. Ms. Whittle explained that as part as the budget exercise this
year, staff will be taking a hard look at some of the interfund debits, and it
may be able to be restructured to put more direct costs in the Transit
Division’s budget that would be eligible for the grant reimbursement.
Mr. Kaffenberger
said that transit was a service the city will always be providing and subsidizing;
however, it is also a revenue generator because the people who get on the buses
go to the mall, the grocery stores, etc., so there are sales tax revenues that
are not included in the transit service calculations. Mr. Parsons added that
people get on the buses for two reasons: to make money or to spend money, and
there is revenue being generated by someone, either a doctor or a retail store.
Mayor Nexsen
said he doesn't disagree, but he wondered if there was some way to get the
buses full. Mr. Parsons said anytime a person has to wait longer than an
hour, the service is ineffective, because people will find other means of
transportation. He indicated they will provide 115,000 rides this year, and it
will increase next year, which indicates that more and more people are
dependent upon the transit services on a monthly basis. Mayor Nexsen agreed,
but either costs have to be reduced or fares have to increase.
Councilmember
Barlow wanted to know how much the fees would have to be increased to solve the
problem, to which Mr. Parsons thought about $3 or $4. Councilmember Barlow then
wanted to know what the impact would be by doubling the fares. Mr. Parsons
replied that a $3 fare for a fixed-route service was pretty much unheard of,
because people expect a lot more service for $3 than having to walk to a bus
stop. There are shuttle and taxi services in town that only charge $5. He
thought the revenue would decrease because they would not be able to maintain the
same ridership. Mr. Kaffenberger reminded council that the seniors and disabled
are very much dependent upon the transit services. Mr. Parsons indicated that most
of the Transit Division’s budget consists of labor and benefits.
Mayor Nexsen
asked how the advertising revenue was doing, to which Mr. Parson replied it was
tough because the businesses were not spending the money.
Councilmember
Callahan asked Mr. Parsons if he had any other suggestions for reducing costs,
to which Mr. Kaffenberger replied they have been cutting and reducing
costs. He added that they currently have two vacant full-time positions and
eight vacant part-time positions.
Councilmember
Barnes asked Mr. Parsons how much of an increase in fares he would suggest be
implemented if the council decided to increase fares, to which Mr. Parsons
explained that fare increases are typically done in $.25 increments. He said
they would try an increase to $1.25 and determine the impact. Mr. Nexsen
said if he understood the schedule, it would add about $20,000 in revenue.
Mr.
Parsons stated that
Mr.
Kaffenberger suggested that the city council, Mr. Parsons, and he take a hard
look at the transit services and see if there are some hard recommendations. He
stated that they do a tremendous job for the community. Councilmember Barlow
suggested that they look at some sort of an increase in fares. Councilmember McAtlin
also suggested that they take a look at other potential grant opportunities.
Fee Based Services
Ms.
Whittle wanted to know since the council has had a chance to review the fee
based services, if council felt any of the fees should not be recovered at 100
percent. She stated that some of the fees will be minimally increased, and some
will be increased substantially based on revised processing and analysis on
what it takes to actually perform the service.
Councilmember
Barnes said it seemed that some of the fees were being increased 400, 500, and
600 percent; for instance, Response to Request for Setback Information was
currently $10, and the proposed new fee is $219, which was a 2,019 percent
increase. Development Services Director
Mayor Nexsen
said that when he looks at the numbers, most of them are very minor variances,
but two things jump out at him: 1) business license fee of $50, which should
possibly be higher; and 2) the permitting and inspection process, which needs
to be commensurate with the activities.
Ms.
Whittle explained that one of the reasons the per-unit cost was so high was
because the number of units was abnormally low compared to an average number
that might be experienced over the year. She added that the amounts were based
on actual figures for the last fiscal year, which was below normal in the
development area. Mr. Didion commented that cost recovery comes closer to the
break-even point as the number of units goes up, and there is an unheard of
lack of activity in this community right now. Mayor Nexsen also commented that
activity needs to be balanced with costs.
Mr.
Didion said that his department recognized that when this type of economy hits,
the Development Services Department better get lean very soon, and his
department has already done a lot in recognition of the position it is in. He
said that when he comes back with the overall budget program, the council will
see where his department has achieved the goal of making sure that the revenues
and expenditures are balanced to the best possible extent.
Councilmember
McAtlin said the construction industry is going to change with the economic
situation as well, and he thought there would be different types of
construction with mixed-use development, etc. Mr. Didion also thought there
would be a shift in the type of residential development in the future such as
tract homes.
Councilmember
Barlow asked if any consideration was given to combining the functions of the
Fire Department’s fire inspections and the Development Services Department into
one department. Mr. Kaffenberger said that has not been actively pursued
at this time, but there has been discussion regarding a centralized development
center approach (one-stop shopping), and making some of the Development
Services Department personnel available for fire inspections. Councilmember
Barlow thought there were many functions that could be done by the Building
Division or the Fire Department. Mr. Didion advised that he will be looking at
different ways to conduct the different inspections functions.
Councilmember
Barlow said that the business license fee should be increased from $50 to $75.
Mayor Nexsen suggested increasing the fee to $100, to which the councilmembers
concurred.
S-112 series
Councilmember
Callahan asked if the fees at the airport were set. Ms. Whittle said that the
rates were set in the last Airport Rates and Fees Study, although they could be
changed. Airport Manager
S-439 Animal Control Contract:
Mayor Nexsen
said he did not view the animal control contract as a subsidy, because the cost
would be considerably higher if the city were to take over and run the animal
control program.
S-086 Park Reservations:
Ms.
Whittle advised that there are more than 6,000 reservations per year at a cost
to the city of $315,000 for staff time and parks operations and maintenance.
The fees for the various parks facilities were discussed.
Mr. Kaffenberger
said there were other fees in the Parks and Recreation Department that were
also being discussed by city staff, and those fee recommendations would be
presented to the city council at a future budget meeting. Mayor Nexsen thought
the fees seemed low for such a high demand. He thought this was also a
discretionary item.
S-440 and
S-551 False Alarm Responses:
The
council, Police Department, and Fire Department discussed the current tiered
schedule of fees. The city council agreed to increase the fine to $150 after
the third false alarm for both Police and Fire Departments.
Mr. Kaffenberger
advised that staff will be coming to council in the near future about things
the city should be charging for, and one of the things that the International
City/County Management Association (ICMA) study pointed out is with regard to
ambulance calls. If a city is the advanced life support (ALS) first responder,
then the city should be billing and receiving reimbursement from Medicare and
the insurance companies for those people who have insurance or who have
Medicare. Chief Mueller said he would have an answer for the city manager by
next week.
Mayor Nexsen
opened the public hearing. There being no comments, he closed the public
hearing.
CALL TO THE PUBLIC
There were no requests to address the
council.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m.
__________________________________
Carla
Simendich, City