|
Nancy Steward, Superintendent of Recreation, presented the staff report.
Councilmember Howe asked staff what were the amount of funds anticipated over the next fiscal year for Community Development Block Grant Funds. Robert Paternoster, Director of Community Development, stated he anticipated a reduction in the funds by about 10% in the coming year.
Councilmember Howe stated that up to 15% of the funds are available for various non-profit organizations and asked staff what the 15% amount will amount to for the next fiscal year based on what staff is anticipating they will receive. Director Paternoster stated the amount would be approximately $180,000 for outside group funding. Councilmember Howe stated that sounded low and City Manager, Amy Chan clarified that staff was reporting on the Block Grant funds, but that in addition traditionally money also comes from program income and is included as part of the outside group funding. Councilmember Howe confirmed with Director Paternoster and City Manager Chan that they anticipate $200,000 to $250,000 for next fiscal year.
Councilmember Howe asked if the fee waiver program was eligible for the Block Grant 15% funds. Director Paternoster stated that because the City is already offering the fee waiver program, staff cannot use Block Grant Funds. The City would have to stop the fee waiver program for a few years in order to actually use Block Grant Funds for the fee waiver program.
Councilmember Chu asked about the usage of the fee waiver program over the last several years and wanted to know if the increase in the average cost of participant hour was a result of City fees increasing or that more participants actually are in the program. Superintendent Steward stated that there are a number of factors involved such as recreation fee increases, although the maximum amount per eligible individual (which is inflated on an annual basis to keep up with the inflation associated with participant fees), was not increased this year due to budget constraints.
Councilmember Chu asked staff if in the past the City had reduced the percentage of the waiver, such as reducing the waiver to 90% and then asking the participant to contribute the 10% difference. Superintendent Steward confirmed the participant did pay a portion of the fee until a few years ago at which time the fee waiver program was revamped for easier use. She stated during the early years of the program the program was not being actively used due to a perceived idea that it was too complicated. Superintendent Steward stated that the study issue coming before Council in the fall will address whether participants should pay a portion of the fee in conjunction with the fee waiver.
Councilmember Hamilton referenced Option 5 which states: (youth sports organizations would absorb 50% of each fee waiver issued to one of their participants) and asked staff if they had approached the youth sports organizations about this option. Superintendent Steward stated that staff has not approached these organizations, but her expectation would be that the organizations would have concerns about the request and the short notice. She stated that staff expects to explore this option as part of the study issue process in September. Councilmember Hamilton asked staff if there was leverage with the youth sports organizations due to the agreement they signed with the City which states, “the league shall provide all activities and programs associated with the planning, organizing, scheduling and hosting of league games, practices and associated activities at no cost to the City”, if Option 5 were pursued. Superintendent Steward confirmed that was correct language, but the practice has been that the City continues to reimburse these organizations. She stated the organizations were previously co-sponsored by the City and that when the City eliminated co-sponsorship (and went to special use agreements) the City continued to reimburse for co-sponsorship per the previous agreement.
Vice Mayor Lee confirmed with staff that a participant must be in the Very, Very Low or Very Low Income category in order to apply for the program and that the Low Income category is excluded from participation at this time.
Vice Mayor Lee confirmed with staff that Alternative No. 1 in the staff report states that once money for the program runs out, that would end the program for that fiscal year. Superintendent Steward stated that currently 78% of the budget (at 62% of the year) has been expended, and that the highest use of the program will be during the last three months of the fiscal year.
Vice Mayor Lee confirmed that the Senior Lunch Program was part of the fee waiver program. Superintendent Steward stated that once the Senior Center moved to the Community Center, the use of the fee waivers by seniors increased dramatically.
Vice Mayor Lee confirmed that $250 is the cap on a fee waiver for summer youth camp per child.
Vice Mayor Lee asked if the increase in the use of fee waivers by citizens over 50 years of age (which increased from 5.5 to 22%) came from the Senior Lunch Program and Superintendent Steward stated that was a portion of the increase.
Mayor Swegles opened the Public Hearing at 7:41 p.m.
Nancy Tivol spoke in favor of the fee waiver program.
Vice Mayor Lee asked Ms. Tivol if reducing the subsidiary per person would be preferable to reducing the total program budget. Ms. Tivol stated that if the per person allowance were lowered, participants could decide on the most important recreation programs they wanted to get involved with, but regardless of Council’s decision it would be important that the City continue the current funding (in the spirit of fairness to all groups) until next year rather than lowering funding in the middle of the year.
Councilmember Chu asked Ms. Tivol if there would be a hardship on the families if there were only a partial subsidy. Ms. Tivol stated that the income is pretty low and stated the average monthly income left over for these families is $30 to $70.
Mayor Swegles asked Ms. Tivol if she knew about the two church-sponsored senior lunch programs and asked why it appeared that the City’s lunch program is more desirable. Ms. Tivol stated that she was aware of the church lunch program, but stated that the seniors do not feel as comfortable due to the homeless also being at those centers. She stated that the City has a better atmosphere, environment and probably a better lunch.
City Manager Chan stated that if Council reduced the program from $250 to $180 per person similar to last year, they will still have to add money to the program. She stated that last year, Council reduced the per person share and still had to add about $46,000 to the program. City Manager Chan told Council that this was not specifically called out in the staff report; therefore Council would need to assess the amount they would add to the program, even if they reduced the waiver maximum per person.
No one else in the audience wished to speak and Mayor Swegles closed the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m.
Councilmember Hamilton asked how much of an impact on the overall program would it make should seniors be asked to pay a $1 or so for their lunches. Superintendent Steward stated that option would not allow the program to keep within the existing budget, but that it would make some impact.
Councilmember Hamilton asked if it would be feasible if Council reduced the per waiver amount in the budget, but instead offered the family an allocation to be used among the family members. Superintendent Steward stated that they could do that, but it would not be fair to larger families.
Councilmember Hamilton clarified and stated that her intention was to give an allocation to the family (at the new per-person amount times the number of family members) with the intent being that if one child wanted to go to several programs, the family could enroll that child by pooling the money from the entire family allocation, rather than limiting the child to their individual portion.
Superintendent Steward stated that staff could change the program, but was not sure that would save money unless the amount per person was significantly reduced.
In reference to Option No. 2 (where the proposal moves $76,000 from the General Fund Non-recurring Events Reserve to the Community Recreation Fund) Councilmember Chu asked what was the balance in the Non-recurring Events Reserve.
City Manager Chan stated she does not have the information on hand, but stated that the funds are one-time funds and Council would need to think about where they would get the money on a long-term basis.
Vice Mayor Lee moved and Councilmember Hamilton seconded to approve Alternative No. 4: To reduce the potential $76,000 over-expenditure from continuing the Recreation Fee Waiver Program, immediately change the eligibility criteria for the Recreation Fee Waiver Program to reduce the maximum amount of fee waiver allowed per individual from $250 to $180 and to limit income criteria to “very low” and “very, very, low” income categories as was done last fiscal year. Leave this change in place until completion of the 2006 Study Issue to Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program.
With the following element added: Require participants to pay $1.00 to the Senior Lunch Program (per person-per meal) for both income categories.
City Manager Chan asked for clarification from Council that if the motion were approved, would Council be approving a budget modification.
Vice Mayor Lee clarified his motion to read:
With the following (clarified) elements added: Also require participants to pay $1.00 to the Senior Lunch Program (per person-per meal) for both income categories and approval of a Budget Modification in the amount needed to cover any over-expenditure.
Councilmember Hamilton asked what the amount of the budget modification would be and Vice-Mayor Lee stated they will not know until they reach that point.
City Manager Chan suggested that Council put a limit on the motion for the budget modification and stated that staff suggested a maximum of $76,000 from the General Fund to reduce the over-expenditure.
Vice Mayor Lee agreed to add this to his motion to read as:
With the following (clarified) elements added: Also require participants to pay $1.00 to the Senior Lunch Program (per person-per meal) for both income categories and approval of a Budget Modification, not to exceed $76,000 which will be taken from the General Fund to offset the Community Recreation fund, for any over-expenditure in the program.
Councilmember Spitaleri stated he did not agree with reducing the waiver amount plus charging seniors a dollar and stated that any reduction would be a hardship.
Councilmember Howe clarified with Superintendent Steward that staff’s estimate of the program shortfall was about $19,000 a month.
Councilmember Howe made a friendly amendment to state specifically where the funds will come from for the over-expenditure and appropriate through September 2006 with the budget modification limit increased to $133,000 and keep the per person limit to $180 into the next fiscal year through the end of September 2006.
Vice Mayor Lee accepted the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Hamilton declined the friendly amendment. She stated she would support taking a look at it through the budget process, but is not comfortable with committing funds through September 2006.
Councilmember Howe stated he would replace the second if Councilmember Hamilton removed her second. Councilmember Hamilton stated she will not accept the friendly amendment, but is not withdrawing her second.
Mayor Swegles stated that the friendly amendment failed due to lack of an acceptance by the second.
Councilmember Howe stated he would like to make a formal amendment to this effect and Councilmember Moylan seconded the formal amendment.
Councilmember Chu made a friendly amendment to the formal amendment to have the budget modification include an additional amount of $57,000 (taking the program though September) and be listed as a direction within the budget process scheduled for May 2006.
Councilmember Howe did not accept the friendly amendment.
Mayor Swegles asked Councilmember Howe to restate his formal amendment for voting purposes.
Councilmember Howe stated that his formal amendment was to allocate $19,000 a month between now and the end of September of 2006, which would be allocated from the Non-recurring Events Reserve.
Motion carried 5-2 (Councilmembers Hamilton and Chu dissented).
Councilmember Spitaleri made a friendly amendment to the original motion to remove the $1.00 charge to seniors. Vice Mayor Lee accepted the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Hamilton did not accept the friendly amendment and the friendly amendment failed.
Mayor Swegles called for a vote on the original motion:
Vice Mayor Lee moved and Councilmember Hamilton seconded to approve Alternative No. 4: To reduce the potential $76,000 over-expenditure from continuing the Recreation Fee Waiver Program, immediately change the eligibility criteria for the Recreation Fee Waiver Program to reduce the maximum amount of fee waiver allowed per individual from $250 to $180 and to limit income criteria to “very low” and “very, very, low” income categories as was done last fiscal year. Leave this change in place until completion of the 2006 Study Issue to Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program.
With the following (clarified) elements added: Also require participants to pay $1.00 to the Senior Lunch Program (per person-per meal) for both income categories; approval of a Budget Modification of $76,000 to be taken from the Non-recurring Event Fund; and the reduction in the fee waiver to $180 per person shall not change until Council takes official action.
Motion carried 5-2 (Councilmembers Spitaleri and Hamilton dissented).
|