Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-28-02 Finance Com MinutesDublin City Council Finance Committee October 28, 2002 Attending: Council Members Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, Chair Mr. Kranstuber Mr. Lecklider Mrs . Boring StaffMembers Ms. Brautigam Ms. Hoyle Ms. Gibson Mr. Price Ms. Leigh Ms. Grigsby Ms. Kennedy Ms. Uhl Mr. Gunderman Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., noting that tonighYs meeting has been scheduled to discuss two hoteUmotel tax Grant applications and for the annual cost study update. Ms. Gibson noted that the available hoteUmotel tax grant funds for 2003 is approximately $80,000. There are two applications which were submitted under the September 15, 2002 deadline. Dublin Youth Athletics. Inc. Jim Link ,Athletic Director of DYA and Roger Reeves, Board President represented the DYA. Mr. Link noted that this is the 13~' year of the CABA Tournament. The Tournament provides an opportunity for the DYA to undertake capital improvements in City parks, benefiting both the DYA and the City. This year, they hope to light fields 11 and 12 at Darree Fields; install safety fences on fields 8 and 9 at Avery Park; and are requesting City services for the CABA Tournament. This is a two-year phased project, and the total funding request is for $124,500. Last year, the Tournament attracted 26 teams, including 3 international teams. Their goal is to attract 30 teams next year. They have enjoyed great support from the City staff, especially the Parks Maintenance staff. Mr. Lecklider noted that the justification for this grant is that it funds public improvements of City parks. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher added that the Tournament also generates revenue for the City in terms of hotel/motel tax and has a general economic boost to the local economy. Mr. Lecklider asked for the estimates on the number of hotel rooms to be used and the economic impact of the event. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked that staff obtain this information from the DCVB. Discussion followed about the history of the Tournament and how it has grown over the years. Mr. Lecklider asked if DYA will have adequate fields to meet their needs in view of the continuing growth. Mr. Link responded that there may come a time when this will need review. They do suggest that the northeast quad park, currently being developed, house 4-5 smaller fields versus a fewer number Finance Committee of the Whole October 28, 2002 Page 2 of larger fields. It would better meet the needs. By lighting the existing fields, they are meeting additional needs for fields, as the fields can be used for extended hours. Mr. Reeves indicated that he has attended the World Series events at many venues around the country, and the Dublin facilities are equal if not better than any they have used. Mr. Kranstuber moved to fund the request for $124,500 over two years, with 50 percent to be allocated in 2003 and 50 percent in 2004. Mr. Reeves stated that they were hopeful of obtaining half of the funding for the lighting - $52,250, plus $13,000 for the fencing, plus the City services in kind for the Tournament in 2003. Mr. Link added that if this is not possible, they can front the costs of the project from their own undistributed capital account and then be reimbursed by the City grant in 2004. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the Committee would be more comfortable with allocating $62,500 in 2003, in view of the total of $80,000 available for bed tax grants. Otherwise, the Committee would likely support granting the entire funding in 2003. There is a desire to preserve some amount of bed tax funds for special opportunities which may arise. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. Mr. Link and Mr. Reeves thanked the Committee for their consideration. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the Committee's recommendations will be brought before Council at the Monday, November 4 meeting. Dublin Hieh School Basketball Classic Representing the DCVB were Joel Campbell, Scott Dring, Clay Rose and Mike Jenkins. Mr. Campbell stated that this event was prompted by the Bureau's need to fill hotel rooms in the December time period - a traditionally low occupancy time for local hotels. They came up with the concept of hosting a high school basketball tournament over the holiday period, hoping to draw initially some schools from outside Central Ohio. They would recruit teams from Cincinnati, Cleveland, Youngstown areas in order to fill the hotel rooms. They are working in cooperation with the high school athletic directors. The grant request is based upon the need to promote such a Tournament prior to its initiation in December of 2004. Teams plans their schedules far in advance, and a concerted effort would be needed with the athletic directors of the two high schools to coordinate this tournament. They are also planning on some corporate fundraising, but are seeking initial marketing dollars at this time. Teams who attend these kind of tournaments typically have some expenses borne by the local tournament host group, and these funds will have to be raised as well. They will need to create an entity separate from the DCVB to receive and disburse funds for the Tournament, and that is in process. Their concept is to sponsor the tournament for two consecutive years, and then determine if it should continue, based on its success. If it is not self- sustaining, there would be no desire to continue it after that time. Eventually, the tournament could grow to attract out of state teams, but initially they will focus on in-state teams. At this time, the plan includes the two high schools; eventually, they hope to add the new high school and the girls basketball teams. Their request, as outlined in the application is for $6,000 of essentially seed money to launch the tournament. They will also be seeking corporate funding and will set up a 503C corporation. The Finance Committee of the Whole October 28, 2002 Page 3 role of the DCVB would be with advertising and promotion of the tournament; the logistics would be handled by the high school athletic directors. Their preliminary budget is $10,000, as outlined in the materials. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if it is customary for incentives to be offered to participating teams for these tournaments. Mr. Campbell responded that this is very typical in order to have the better teams participate. Mr. Jenkins added that revenue also comes from concessions, advertising in programs and other sales, and this will provide funding for the second year. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked what is the expected total economic benefit. Mr. Dring responded that the estimate is $70,500, based on 150 rooms. Mr. Campbell noted that the tournament is scheduled in the time between Christmas and New Year's, and in 2004, these holidays fall mid-week. The other issue is the availability of teams during this period of time. This is why the work must begin now in order to initiate this in 2004. Mr. Lecklider moved to grant $6,000 for the Dublin High School Basketball Classic. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. The applicants thanked the Committee for their consideration. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the recommendation will be made to Council for the November 4 Council meeting. Cost Stud~pdate Ms. Grigsby gave background on this process, which began in the early 1990's. The City had not updated its fees since the early 1970's and felt it should be more accountable of the costs of producing the service. In the study, costs are identified, and Council can then decide what percentage of recovery is appropriate for various City services. Traditionally in cities, surveys are done to see what fees are being charged by other cities. The cost study allows the city to set the fees with a knowledge of what the actual costs for the service are to the City. The beneficiary of the service is identified, and Council makes a decision regarding whether to subsidize certain services with tax dollars. Another goal is to consider the long-term financial impacts of not raising the costs charged for services when needed. If fees are not increased over a long period of time, the services are subsidized with tax dollars. Instead of the City paying for general services such as roads and safety services, fees are then used to subsidize services for some segments. The first update to the cost study was done in 1995, and the fee study has been updated annually since that time. Staff reviews the past year's actual information for the basis of fee recommendations. The fees proposed for adoption beginning January 1, 2003 are based on actual revenues used to support services during 2001. In the past, there has been discussion of whether the fees should be updated each year or every other year. But the City continues to add staff and incur costs, so for the short term, staff would recommend an annual update to the cost study. Ms. Grigsby stated that a recap sheet has been provided with each service, including the current fee and the proposed fee for 2003. Finance Committee of the Whole October 28, 2002 Page 4 It was the consensus of the Committee to focus on the areas in which fees are being changed. The percentage of recovery is not changing, but only the fee based on the increased cost of doing business. Mr. Kranstuber stated that for any development-related fees, the recovery should be 100 percent. He does not support subsidizing development. Ms. Grigsby provided background information on this policy for development related costs. (The Committee reviewed all changes; minutes reflect those where there was substantial Committee/staff discussion and change/modification.) des 71-72 -Variance Application Review Ms. Grigsby noted that the recommendation is to increase the fee for "Others" to $1,970 to attain 100 percent cost recovery. The Director of Planning recommends adding language to the ordinance for a fee waiver/exemption for those properties located in the Historic District. Mr. Gunderman stated that frequently, a variance is required by the ARB. It is a hardship for small businesses in the Historic District to pay the BZA variance fee. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the total estimated revenue which would be lost with these waivers. Mr. Gunderman stated that approximately 6 are reviewed in this category per year. There was no objection from the Committee to waiver of this fee as recommended by staff. ~e 113 - Maior Building Revision Commercial Staff is proposing that the fee be reduced. The initial fee is more than the building permit fee for a 10,000 square foot building. There is no clear definition of major and minor revisions. The fee is currently $670 and they recommend reduction to $540. Because it is difficult to determine what constitutes a major revision versus a minor revision (which fee is $160), the major fee of $670 is seldom charged. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked why there is then a discrimination between major and minor if there is no definition. Mr. Price responded that the intent would be something such as a wall change versus a major building plan change. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff could better define these categories. That would help to clarify this. Mr. Price agreed to do so. He added that these can be defined on the basis of time involved or area involved -over 4 hours or over 10,000 square feet. There was no objection from the Committee to the reduction ofthis fee. des 123-126 - Buildine Inspection -Commercial Ms. Kennedy stated that Finance staff felt an increase was warranted, but the Building division has requested that an increase not be made at this time. Ms. Leigh stated that the volumes have decreased for commercial inspections, so it appears that the recovery is less. The fees were raised in 2002, but there has not been adequate time to assess that impact. Mr. Price added thatthe 9-11 event slowed commercial building permit activity in the last quarter of 2001. Finance Committee of the Whole October 28, 2002 Page 5 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that staff believes that when the actuals for 2002 are available, it will demonstrate that recovery of the costs is higher than is indicated in the worksheet. Is there a natural reason for an increase simply to cover the increased staff costs? Ms. Grigsby stated thatthis is a legitimate reason in and of itself-the cost of benefits has increased, the wages have increased, and it is a reasonable assumption that costs have increased. This is a case where perhaps the increase can be postponed until next year and reviewed again. Following discussion, the Committee indicated their support of having no change in this fee for 2003. It will be reviewed again in October of 2003. Pale 131 -Special Building Inspection Mr. Price noted that he is proposing a modification to the fee of $130 by instead charging $75 for a one hour minimum inspection, plus $60 for a written report if requested, plus the fully burdened hourly rate for a building inspector for service exceeding one hour. Ms. Grigsby stated that this is a valuable service to provide which involves reviewing a situation with residents and providing a verbal report to them. Finance staff felt it was unfair to charge them the higher fee and assume everyone wanted a report. Some only want a verbal reassurance. Mr. Price stated that thes change would give him more flexibility in how these inspections are administered. Ms. Grigsby stated that Finance staff did not recommend a system of charging for other than a flat fee -some may take one half hour and others 1-1/2 hours. The Committee indicated they would support the modification proposed by the CBO. Page 133 - Buildine Reinspection Service Ms. Grigsby stated that when this fee was first set, it was at a level to discourage contractors from calling for inspections before they were ready for the inspections. The $60 fee would recover the costs only -perhaps it should be raised to $100 to continue to discourage reinspections when unnecessary. Mr. Price stated that there is a punitive factor involved -the reinspection fee is charged when there is a series of calls for inspection prior to the time the project is actually ready for inspection. There was no objection from the Committee to the recommendation of a $100 charge. Page 155 - Buildine Plan Revision -Residential Mr. Price stated that last year, they experienced plans being submitted prematurely, as they were not complete. Staff wants to discourage applicants from multiple submittals and revisions. The fee proposed is set to recover slightly over 100 percent of costs. Ms. Grigsby added that contractors and homeowners often believe the City is at fault when delays occur. In reality, delays occur because of multiple submittals on the applicants part, prior to the time the plans are complete. Mr. Price noted that 40-45 percent of plans are rejected upon the first submittal They are implementing an education process in this regard. Mr. Lecklider asked if there are drawbacks to what is being proposed by staff. Mr. Price stated that this is a fee with a "disincentive" - he prefers to encourage people to submit the appropriate items the first time. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to implement the recommended $20 administrative fee and $50 per division review each time a builder submits a revision. Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion. Finance Committee of the Whole October 28, 2002 Page 6 Vote on the motion: Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. ~e 157-158 -Replacement Buildine Plans Mr. Price stated that he is proposing having the plans copied at a blueprint shop and marked and then passing along the actual costs to the contractor plus a fee of $30. This will be a more efficient process and will free up administrators for other matters. There was no objection from the Committee. ~e 161 -Special Inspection -Gas Line Permit Mr. Price stated that, previously, Columbia Gas inspected the gas lines installed into the building up to the furnace when it was set. CG's new policy calls for them to check whatever lines are in place - the minimum amount has to be through the wall. This is a safety issue, and he is proposing that the City step up to do the inspection and charge an appropriate fee. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if there is a special certification needed to inspect gas lines. Mr. Price stated that, currently, there is no certification required. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked why the gas company has discontinued these inspections. Mr. Price responded that he assumes that it relates to a liability and cost issue for Columbia Gas. They are required to be onsite only one time with this new system. Ms. Chinni-Zuercher asked what liability the City incurs by doing the inspections. Mr. Price stated that the City incurs more liability in not performing the inspection. There is a requirement that lines be tested, and Columbia Gas had been willing to perform these tests in Central Ohio. Now they are no longer willing to do so, but it is important for health and safety reasons to have the inspection performed. He would recommend that the City perform the inspections and set the fee to recover the costs. Mr. Lecklider stated that he believes it is a good thing that the City is doing these inspections, but he, too, would be concerned with the liability. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff can follow up with the Legal Department on this item, if desired. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked who would do the inspection should the City not opt to do it? Mr. Price stated that, ultimately, the builder would be relied upon to have it done -this would constitute a self certification. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if other Central Ohio cities are performing their own inspections. Mr. Price responded that Columbus and Delaware County are doing their own inspections. New Albany will begin doing their own inspections in January. Ms. Brautigam stated that she will have the Legal Department report back on this item at the November 4 meeting. ~e 163 -Homeowner Improvements Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this fee is proposed to be increased from $60 to $70 in order to continue to recover 50 percent of the costs. Mr. Kranstuber stated that this is a fee paid for by the residents for a remodel project. In the typical case, the homeowner remodels his basement and must pay these fees. Many projects are likely done without permits to avoid these costs. It is important to have the inspections for health and safety reasons, and he would not want to discourage them from obtaining a permit due to the costs. There are electrical, HVAC and plumbing permits over and above this fee which are also paid by the homeowner. Finance Committee of the Whole October 28, 2002 Page 7 Mr. Price noted that most home remodeling projects are done by contractors. Although the cost of permits is borne by the homeowners, he has no strong feelings about recovery of these costs. This is a Council decision. Mr. Kranstuber moved to set the fee at $50 instead of the current $60. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. Page 193-194 -Annexation Petition Processing Ms. Grigsby stated that staff is proposing increasing the fee from $2230 to $2310 to continue to recover costs at 100 percent. Mrs. Boring asked if the units where fees were waived were included in the computation.? This would seem to skew the numbers. Ms. Grigsby responded that for this, the unit cost was considered of $2309. The number of units was 9, including the Indian Run Drive petition where the fee was waived by Council. Mrs. Boring stated that waiving the fees for one then penalizes others in the future. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff will check onthis -the per unit cost is accurate, but the information from 2001 will be checked to make sure it is acurate. Page 199 -Engineering Reinspection Service Ms. Grigsby stated that this is similar to the reinspection fees for building and is intended to discourage reinspections. Mr. Price emphasized that the inspectors make every effort to treat people fairly and not to charge for reinspections, but there are times when people take advantage of this. ~e 211 -Police Photo Reproduction The Legal Department has advised that the current fee should be reduced, based upon the Public Records Act limitation of charging actual cost of photos or CD's. ($1/print or CD plus postage) The Committee concurred with the staff recommendation. ~e 223-224 -Court Service Mr. Kranstuber asked what is actually being proposed -the summary is confusing. Ms. Grigsby stated that there is an issue with the overall recovery of court costs and in which area it makes sense to increase the fees. The Court Administrator's preference would be to increase the fine processing versus the court services. Traditionally, the fee for court services has been set at the discretion of the Finance Committee. It has been increased incrementally over the years to recover additional costs. Finance staff felt the need to recover more costs for court services, but Mr. Colby's preference is to revise the fine processing fees instead. In the past, the fine processing has been increased by $2 intervals. This would apply to every ticket, not just those which go to court. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that at the end of 2001, Court Services reported a total accounts receivable of $56,000, and of that, $40,000 is listed as likely uncollectible. Ms. Grigsby responded that other courts in the area are now using a collection agency, and a meeting will be set up in the near future regarding retention of such a service. Mr. Kranstuber clarified that in actuality, 80 percent of those who have not paid on time will likely never pay. There is a large group who pay their fees on time. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked what kind of follow-up is done currently by the Court Administrator. Finance Committee of the Whole October 28, 2002 Page 8 Ms. Grigsby responded that they follow up with warrants, and they have done some tracking by phone. She believes that using the collection company maybe worthwhile. In addition, dispatchers have sometimes made calls to track these people. However, the current volume of activity of the dispatchers precludes this. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that the recommendation is to leave the Court Service fee at $15 and increase the Fine Processing to $12. Mr. Kranstuber so moved. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. Leisure and Cultural Services Ms. Grigsby stated that in Recreation programming, when the first cost of services study was done, it was determined that recreation has many benefits ,and therefore it is appropriate for the City to subsidize these costs at a 50 percent level. Overall, the cost recovery continues to be 50 percent and above. Some programs recover more than others, but the aggregate is 53 percent cost recovery. des 289-290 Community Hall Rental Ms. Kennedy stated that handouts demonstrate that the programs met the overall target of recovering 50 percent of the costs. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the newspaper article was somewhat misleading in terms of the "subsidy" paid to operate the Rec Center. It was a conscious decision to support this on the part of Council, and it was operated this way by design. Ms. Grigsby stated that this likely was prompted by the Upper Arlington Rec Center issue. She noted that the elements programmed in Phase I of the DCRC recover their costs; staff was aware that the components in Phase II generally do not recover their costs, but this was known at the outset. The recreation programming in Phase I recovers most of its costs; Phase II will recover about 30 percent; overall, the recovery in the past two years varies between 60-65 percent for the total facility. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher pointed out that the schedule on Page 290 provides the fees for various types of groups who rent facilities at the DCRC. If the Committee wants to make any changes, this would be the appropriate time. Currently, the not-for-profit category includes the school groups. Mr. Lecklider stated that in his view, the school groups do not receive a significant discount. Mr. Kranstuber asked about the utilization of the facilities -what percentage of time is used by various categories? If rooms are full, then a rental reduction to school groups is likely not reasonable, but if the rooms are empty, why not let the schools use them? Ms. Grigsby stated that staff can provide information on utilization of the meeting space, the community hall, and the classrooms. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the rental can be broken out by the category of group using them. Ms. Grigsby is not certain, but she will check on this. Mrs. Boring stated that anyone who uses school facilities for meetings is charged for janitorial services. If they can't meet in their school buildings because of these charges, why would the City not charge for the same meeting space? Finance Committee of the Whole October 28, 2002 Page 9 Mr. Kranstuber stated that this entire schedule of rental fees was acompromise - he would prefer that school district rates be set lower. Mrs. Boring stated that many community organizations may feel they deserve a similar reduction in fees as that given to the schools in view of their philanthropic role. Mr. Lecklider stated that in the document dated October 21, accompanying the ordinance, there was a note on the rec center rental rates which indicates that rental fees for gymnasiums, classrooms and park shelters are waived for some groups - he asked for clarification. Ms. Kennedy responded that what can be waived are fees for the outdoor park shelters, the classrooms and gymnasiums. Items not considered for waivers are the Pavilion, the upstairs meeting room, and the Talla I and II. Mr. Lecklider stated that Council should be consistent in the requests for waivers. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that, historically, Council (with the exception of Mr. Kranstuber who philosophically has taken a different position) has been consistent in their voting on these waivers. There were a couple of waivers granted earlier this year by Council to school groups, and those were not consistent with the adopted policy. Mr. Kranstuber stated that it does come down to an issue of utilization - if the theater or the meeting rooms are vacant 80 percent of the time, his direction would be to make them available to the community. But if they are 80 percent utilized, that is different. He has also had calls regarding the theater-that the fees are unreasonable and that entities are being charged for rehearsal time. The DAC receives funding from the City, the DAC then funds the theater group, and the City then charges the theater group for rental of City facilities. Dublin is still a small enough city where community groups should be able to use the facilities without charge. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that her understanding is that the only charge to theater groups is for technical people to handle the sound and lighting. Other rental fees for the theater are waived for who fall under the DAC umbrella Ms. Brautigam stated that the complaint she has received from the Emerald City Players is not related to fees - Mr. Foster of the Emerald City Players has complained about the fact that they cannot use the facility for late hours during their rehearsals. She also spoke with Ms. Hide who serves on the DAC Board, and the concerns she expressed were quite different than Mr. Foster's - she will need to reconcile these. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that there had been a conflict in the past between the City staff and the theater groups regarding meeting their needs -while it was nice to have the theater facility for children's programs, the goal is to build a community theater group and that requires a facility. Ms. Brautigam stated that she has proposed a theater visioning work group among staff to examine these issues. Mrs. Boring commented that Washington Township has provided some additional rehearsal time to the Emerald City Players at their Center. That has helped the situation. Finance Committee of the Whole October 28, 2002 Page 10 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that the waivers for recreation facilities which are available should be in the teat of the book as well as the ordinance. Mr. Kranstuber asked for a memo on utilization of the theater, the classrooms, and the Talla Rooms. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she has received some complaints regarding the gymnasium related to the time set aside for open gym. When patrons arrived, they found that the space had been rented for birthday parties and was not available for open gym. Ms. Grigsby will check on this. Generally, the open gym programming supercedes renting out the facilities for birthday parties. Mr. Lecklider stated that Mr. McDaniel has mentioned that he hopes to make meeting space available within the new Service Center to the general public without charge. This would help to ease the shortage of free meeting space, and there is parking available as well. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher suggested an article in Dublin Life or a CityManager column about available meeting space in City or other public facilities, i. e., the library, etc. The DCVB should also have this kind of information. Fees Charged by DSL at City Parks (Note 32) Mr. Lecklider stated that regarding ballfield usage and rental, it mentions that lining of fields and goal rental are provided by the Dublin Soccer League and that those fees are above and beyond City rental fees. He has had a discussion with Mr. McDaniel about concerns that the City has no ability to regulate the charges by DSL for these items, and therefore there is no oversight. There is nothing to prevent them from increasing their fees to an unreasonable level. Perhaps further discussion should be held in a different forum. They use the City facilities and are basically a monopoly, and yet there are no regulations in place regarding the fees. Mr. Kranstuber asked if the goals are owned by DSL. Ms. Grigsby responded that in many cases, they were purchased through bed tax grants. She is not certain about the percentage. Mr. Kranstuber agreed with Mr. Lecklider that a private entity using a public park should have some oversight. It is similar to the issue with MOSSL, where the concern is giving up City control over public fields to a private entity. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the cost of lining the fields, and if the City owns the goals, why is DSL charging a rental fee for them? Ms. Grigsby stated that staff will follow up on the goal rental issue to clarify this. For the cost of field lining, it is probably minimal. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that having the volunteer group do the field lining is probably a lower cost than if it were done by City staff. As the property owner, the City should be cognizant of and should approve any fees being charged in relation to use of the property. The City has a responsibility to request from DSLa list of all fees charged to users of the fields. Finance Committee of the Whole October 28, 2002 Page 11 Mr. Lecklider noted that there is a "field development fee" being collected from all soccer participants and this is the funding source to be combined with MOSSL's field development fees for the proposal before Council. What is to prevent them from raising this fee to an unreasonable level? Mr. Kranstuber agreed that there should be some ability on the City's part to control and have some oversight. Mr. Lecklider noted that Council has a responsibility to the citizens to look out for the welfare of all of the participants in these programs. Mrs. Boring stated that it is a also matter of being knowledgeable about the fees being charged in general -whether or not there is any ability to have oversight. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that in the orientation packet for new Council Members, it may be helpful to provide the history of these kinds of things which are unique to the Dublin community. She pointed out that it would cost the City much more to operate the recreation programs currently run by DYA and DSL -and they do reinvest their money in the community. Most cities now operate with some form of a volunteer association for youth recreation -they are not operated by City governments or school districts. Mr. Kranstuber stated that it is an issue of having public parks available for use by all recreational groups -and not only for select groups. A private entity making these decisions is not accountable to the public, as is Council. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff will follow up on these issues, but this information will be provided at a later date. Mr. Lecklider agreed that this is a separate issue, and perhaps the CSAC group has had this type of discussion in the past. At this point, Mr. Kranstuber left the meeting. Military Recognition Ms. Grigsby pointed out that PRAC has suggested that a military recognition event of some type be held at the DCRC where their families would be permitted free use of the DCRC for aweekend - perhaps Memorial Day weekend. While it is a nice concept, her concern is with other groups who may request similar consideration, i.e., police, firefighters, volunteers -and it could be difficult to administer and control. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that there are veterans groups whose mission and purpose is to recognize veterans. If that group proposed some special event and a fee waiver, that could be considered. A labor union could request consideration of a Labor Day weekend usage at no cost. She agrees that this could be problematic to administer and control. Mr. Lecklider agreed, adding that he would not want to endorse such a program at this time. Mrs. Boring agreed. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher thanked PRAC for bringing this to Council's attention, but the groups who represent these entities can pursue this further, if desired. Finance Committee of the Whole October 28, 2002 Page 12 Special Events and Performance Coordination Ms. Grigsby stated that these fees relate to special events and many of these are included in requests for City service cost reimbursement within bed tax grant applications. Mrs. Boring stated that she has received complaints about Dublin's high fees for these services. Ms. Grigsby stated that the charge is based on the actual costs, and in some areas a higher level of service is provided, i.e., the Police division. There has been some discussion about the number of officers at an event needed to provide the desired level of service, which maybe higher than that in other communities. On the other hand, many of these costs are reimbursed in the hoteUmotel tax grant process. Mrs. Boring asked if there is any way that the City can lower the number of officers required? Police officers volunteer to work these events, but they must tire of this service. Does staff have difficulty securing volunteers for this duty? Ms. Grigsby stated that at the end of the event season, she suspects it is more difficult to obtain officers to volunteer for this duty. Streets/Utilities and Grounds/Facilities did cut back on this and used more volunteers for the work. Staff can check on this and report back. Mrs. Boring stated that what she had heard is that event organizers felt that officers were being required where volunteers could have been used. Ms. Grigsby stated that the Police division would ordinarily determine the level of services needed to ensure a safe event. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the major City-sponsored events require City police officers for the work, and that would be a first priority. Other groups have learned that they can apply for hotel/motel tax grants to cover City services. She has not heard complaints about this issue, personally. Mrs. Boring pointed out that not every request submitted for tax grants is approved. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that in her view, the DCVB has been diligent in encouraging groups to pursue bed tax grants from the City to cover these services. The more important issue would be the overtime issue for departments in terms of the upcoming budget hearings. Sometimes in government, these costs are not easily discerned in the budget. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff can provide additional information about Police officer overtime for special events. In the City budget, overtime salaries are broken out separately by division, so this information is reviewed by Council. The recommendations of the Committee will be incorporated into the Ordinance for Council's review on Monday, November 4. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Clerk of Council