Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 421-07City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 6 FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES NOVEMBER 26, 2007 CMR: 421:07 FROM FINANCE: RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CLASS COST RECOVERY POLICY APPLICABLE TO COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT CLASSES AND CAMPS (SEPTEMBER 18, 2007) RECOMMENDATION The Finance Committee recommends that City Counci! adopt a resolution approving the Community Services Department Class Cost Recovery Policy covering fee-based classes and camps. COMMITTEE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS At its September 18, 2007 meeting, the Finance Committee voted unanimously (4-0) to recommend City Council adoption of a resolution approving a Class Cost Recovery Policy. Also included in the Committee’s motion was a recommendation for staff to further explore facility utilization costs. Facility utilization costs are those costs the City incurs in maintaining buildings and facilities used for classes and camps. Staff will further explore recovery of facility utilization costs upon implementation of the Class Cost Recovery Policy and will return to the Finance Comrnittee in the summer of 2008. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommendation in the report is consistent with current City policies. Adoption of a Class Cost Recovery Policy will provide consistent direction to staff in determining an appropriate program mix, fee setting, mad budget expenditures. ATTACHMENTS Attaclm~ent A:September 18, 2007 Finance Committee Minutes Attaclmaent B:CMR: 356:07 CMR:421:07 Page 1 of 2 Prepared by: LAM DO Senior Administrator, Community Services Department Department Approval: City Manager Approval: JAMES Director of Community Services EMIL~( HARRISON Assistant City Manager CMR:421:07 Page 2 of 2 Regular Meeting September 18, :2007 Chairperson Morton called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present:Beecham, Klein, Morton (chair), Mossar Absent:None 1. Oral Communications None. Staff Response to the Palo Alto Airport Working Group Report and Options Regarding the Future of the Palo Alto Airport, 1901 Embarcadero Road (CMR: 361:07) MOTION." Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Morton recommend to direct the City Manager to begin negotiations with the County on early termination of the lease. Motion Failed: 2-2 Klein, Morton voted yes, lVlossar, Beecham voted no MOTION-" Vice Mayor Klein moved seconded by Morton recommend to go to Council without recommendation from the finance committee. MOTION PASSED 4-0. Recommendation to Council to Adopt a Resolution Approving a Class Cost Recovery Policy Applicable to Community Services Department Classes and Camps (CMR: 356:07) 09/18/07 FIN:I MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Morton, that the Finance Committee recommend that staff explore the facility utilization charge in the cost recovery and that Council adopt a resolution approving a class cost recovery policy. MOTION PASSED 4-0. 4.Audit of SAP Payroll Controls MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Beecham to accept report as stated MOTION PASSED 4-0. Discussion for Future Meeting Schedules and Agendas ¯November and December Meeting Dates ¯October 2, proposed marketing, TOT, Clan Distribution Program ¯October 16 sustainable budget ¯November 6 & 20 cancelled ¯December 4 cancelled ¯December 11, 2st qtr 07/08 & long range, Cal PERS trust AD]OUP, NMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m. 09/18/07 FIN:2 City Mmaager s Repor TO: ATTN: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FINANCE COMM[[TTEE CiTY MANAGER SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 RECOMMENDATION TO DEPARTMENT: COUNCIL COMMUNITY SERVICES CMR: 356:07 TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CLASS COST ~COVERY POLICY APPLICABLE TO COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT CLASSES AND CAMPS RECOMMENDAT!ON Staff requests the Finance Committee recommend to the City Council adoption of a resolution approving a class cost recovery policy (Attachment A). BACKGROUND On October t7, 2006, the City Auditor presented to the Finance Committee an "Audit of Con~nunity Services Departmem Class Cost Recovery". This audit covered fee-based classes and camps encompassing recreation, arts, sciences, open space, and interpretive programs for youth and adults. The audit findings concluded the Community Services Department (CSD) recovered 97% of direct costs and 73% of full costs. "Direct cost" is defined as instructor contracts, staff saleaies, benefits, and supplies and materials. "Fu!l cost" is inclusive of depm-tment and city’wide overhead. Approximately $2.1M of $2.9M of ful! cost was recovered tlcrough program fees, leaving about $750,000 in Genera! Fund subsidy. The audit findings resulted in a need for a policy choice on whether or not the City should subsidize classes and, if so, to wha~ level. The audit recommended that CSD should propose, and the City Council adopt, a resolution regarding a cost recovery policy that includes cost recovery goals for broad categories of CSD classes. Included for each category should be: (1) a minimum level of acceptable cost recovery, (2) a target level of cost recovery, and (3) other fee setting considerations. At its October 17, 2006 meeting, the Finance Committee questioned the level of subsidy provided by other ci~ies and the fees.charged by Palo Alto. The audit did not specifically address the levels of subsidy by other cities, but did compare fees. During the audit, staff visited several cities, including the City of San Mateo, which has implemented cost recovery targets by category of classes. Palo Alto has set prices higher than other communities based on what the market would support in comparison wiih o~her municipalities. CMR:356:07 Page 1 of 3 In accepting the audit, the Finance Commktee concluded that there is a need for a structured policy to be in place. At the same thne, the Finance Committee suggested staff propose a policy with appropriate levels of subsidy, to be brought back to the Finance Committee. In addition, the Committee voted unanimously to direct staff that $250,000 of the current subsidy: be recovered. Staff addressed this direction tMough fee increases in the 2007-09 Adopted Operating Budget. An excerpt of the minutes from the October 17; 2006 Finance Committee meeting is in Attacl~-lent B. DISCUSSION The proposed policy is based on a collaboration of CSD staff and is modeled on the City of San Marco’s cost recovery policy. Staff has developed the policy in consultation with the City Auditor’s Office; Administrative Services Department, and City Attorney’s Office. On February 27, 2007, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed a draft of the policy, asked questions, and offered feedback and support for the policy (Attachment C). The policy consists of four broad categories of CSD programs, each with minimum and target cost recovery levels. The four categories range from community benefit to personal benefit, representing opposite ends of a cost recovery spectrum. Programs of Community Benefit are those that provide a value desirable for the health and development of the Palo Alto community. Some characteristics of community benefit programs are environmental stewardship, cultural understanding, safety, and youth and teen development. Programs of personal benefit are those that provide a value to individuals such as financial enhancement, leisure time experiences, and professional development. Programs classified as being of community benefit will cost-recover less than programs classified as being of personal benefit. The cost recovery minimum and target levels are established in relation to a percentage of direct cost, with 15% and 35% above direct cost representing department and cit)~vide overhead (indirect costs) respectively. Upon policy implementation and as program costs are evaluated, cost recovery levels and percentages may be adjusted Over time. RESOURCE IMPACT Over the next two years there is potential to cover 100 percent of direct costs and more than 35 percent of City overhead. In the longer term it’s difficult to estimate cost recovery levels due to the ever changing economic environment, but the goal of the Community Services Department and the intent of the policy is to, at the least, sustain cost recovery levels attained at the end of two years, and, optimally, maximize cost recovery levels wifl~out jeopardizing participation and ~he quality of the programs. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Adoption of a Community Services Department Class Cost Recovery Policy will provide consistent direction to staff in determining an appropriate program mix, fee setting, and budget expenditures. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This recommendation is not a project under the California Environmental Quality. Act. CMR:356:07 Page 2 of? Attachment A: AUac]~ment B: Attacb_ment C: Attachment D’ Resolution Draft Class Cos[ Recovery Policy Exce@t of Minutes from ! 0117106 Finance Committee meetin8 regarding C,~m.~_um~, Services Department Class Costpresentation of Audit of ~" .m, ¢y Recover}; Excerpt of Minutes from 2t27!07 Parks and Recreation Commission -ne,.uno mclumn~ presentation of Draft Class Cost Recover), Policy P~PA~D BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: LAM DO Senior Administrator, Community Services DepaKment RICHARD Director qf/~i’mmunity Services ETq:I!LY HAR~KIS ON Assistant Cit); .-Manager NOT YET APPRO D RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF PALO ALTO APPROVING A CLASS COST RECOVERY POLICY APPLICABLE TO COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT CLASSES AND CAMPS WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto, through its divisions of Recreation & Golf, Arts & Sciences, and Open Space & Parks, provides fee-based classes and camps, which the Community Services Department (the "Department") offers as a part of its recreation, art, science, and open space interpretative programs; and WHEREAS, the Department’s strategic plan includes an initiative to concentrate its financial and budgetary resources on sustaining and enhancing core s~rvices to the community; and WHEREAS, the Department has developed a Class Cost Recovery Policy (the "Policy") that has guidelines directing classes and camps into cost recovery groups, each of which has minimum and target cost recovery levels; and WHEREAS, the Policy places classes and camps into one of the four cost recovery groups, namely, Group I, community benefit, Group II, majority community benefit, Group I~, equal community benefit and personal benefit, and Group IV, majority personal benefit, such that the programs falling in the community benefit group will cost recover less than programs falling in the personal benefit group; and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission provided to the Department its feedback on the development of the Policy at its regular meeting held on February 27, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Finance Committee at its regular meeting held on September 18, 2007, provided its comments to City staff and approved such Policy, and any amendments thereto, by a vote of 4-0. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves of the Community Services Department’.s Class Cost Recovery Policy, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as "Exhibit A". SECTION 2. The City Manager or designee is authorized to continue to establish and implement recreation, art, science, and open space interpretative programs, classes and camps in accordance with the Class Cost Recovery Policy. // // 070904jb 0072920 1 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. constitute a project under the California environmental assessment is required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AB STENTIONS: ATTEST: The Council finds that the adoption of this Environmental Quality Act, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mayor APPROVED: Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager resolution does not and therefore no Director of Community Services Director of Administrative Services 070904 jb 0072920 2 A tachment B Class Cost Recovery Policy The .Community Services D:e~_.artment (CSD) offers a variety of programs within its various divisions such as recreational activities, arts and sciences classes, and open space interpretive programs. The following Class Cost Recovery Policy is to be used as a guideline to establish cost recovery targets for fee-based classes and camps within the divisions of Recreation & Golf, Arts & Sciences, and Open Space & Parks. Included in CSD’s Strategic Plan is an initiative to "focus energy and (budgetary) resources on sustaining and enhancing core services". Through implementation of this Class Cost Recovery Policy, the department aims to establish cost recovery levels while providing core services and meeting the social needs of the community. The policy takes into consideration: (1) minimum level of acceptable cost recovery, (2) target level of cost recovery, and (3) fee setting considerations. Cost recovery levels are inclusive of direct and indirect costs. Indirect costs include both department and City overhead. Although each program has set minimum and target cost recoverylevels, other fee setting considerations may factor into the pricing of registration fees. Fee setting considerations may either increase or decrease fees and place cost recovery outside of the minimum and target levels. These factors include, but are not limited to, market rates, programs for those with special needs, new programs still being established, and population served. However, within each of the three divisions offering fee-based classes, the division-wide cost recovery should meet minimum cost recovery levels. Once a program is determined to be within the purview of the Class Cost Recovery Policy, program fees are to be established using the Class Cost Recovery Model and adjusted as needed. The model is included in the pages to follow. Each fee-based class or camp is placed in one of four Cost Recovery Groups. The groups range from Community Benefit to Personal Benefit, representing opposite ends of a cost recovery spectrum. Programs rated as Community Benefit will cost recover less, while programs rated as Personal Benefit will cost recover more. This cost structure is in line with the department’s mission statement: "Engaging individuals and families to create a strong and healthy community, through parks, open space, recreation, social service, arts, and sciences." The four Cost Recovery Groups are: Group I: Group I1: Group II1: Group IV: Community Benefit Majority Community Benefit Equal Community Benefit and Personal Benefit Majority Personal Benefit Division managers, along with input from program coordinators and supervisors, determinethe value of a class or camp for placement within one of the four groups. Draft Each group has a cost recovery range inclusive of a minimum cost recovery and a target cost recovery level. This detail is reflected in pages to follow. On an annual basis, programs are to be reviewed to ensure the established cost recovery levels are met and adjustments made. Recovered Costs Direct costs are expenses incurred in correlation to a class being offered. These costs would not be incurred if a class were not offered. Typical direct costs are instructor fees and supplies and materials. Department indirect costs cover overhead costs incurred by the department for administrative support, program supervision, utilities, and some maintenance. Some of these costs would probably be incurred regardless whether a class is offered or not. City. indirect costs encompass citywide overhead, administrative, and facility maintenance costs. Some of these costs would probably be incurred regardless of whether a class is offered or not. Department indirect cost is estimated to be 15% of direct cost while both department and City indirect costs are estimated to be 35% of direct cost. Theses estimates are subject to change as programs are reviewed and to reflect changing overhead costs. 2 Draft ~isss Cost Re,.,o~v...ry Mode~ This _model is to be used by Program Coordinator.s:, Supervisors, and Division Managers to plan, evaluate program cc~st recovery, and determine expenses, revenues, and course registration fees. [ IRetool Program reduce costs;:~ : Lowe{ Cost: Recovery Targeti-¯or Eliminate :P~ogPam :i Based on Communi~ Demand,sUp~t~, ~ ~(Does oovemment need to ~eToo High ? ’i Unsuccessful ? Draft C~ass Cost Recovery Guidelines In conjunction with the Cost Recovery Model, the following guidelines are to be used to place classes and camps into one of the four Cost Recovery Groups. Process: 1) 2) 3) Set a cost recovery range for each Cost Recovery Group, with minimum and target recovery levels. Evaluate and place each existing program in a Cost Recovery Group. Determine guidelines to be used to ~lace future new programming into a Cost Recovery Group. Parameters: 1)Apply to fee-based class and camp programs. 2)Generally, cost recovery for children’s programs will be less than adult programs. 3)Some programs may cost recover less than the minimum level. However, other programs will need to make up for the difference. 4)Approximately 15% above Direct Costs covers Department Overhead, subject to adjustment. ~ 5) Approximately 35% above Direct Costs covers both Department and City Overhead, subject to adjustment. 6) Other fee considerations should be taken into account, such as, but not limited to, market pricing, competition from other service providers, new program being established, and population served. Cost Recovery Groups. Cost Recovery Minimum. and Cost Recovery Targets: Group I: Community Benefit Cost Recovery Minimum: Cost Recovery Target: Less than Direct Cost Direct Cost Groupll: Majority Community benefit Cost Recovery Minimum: Cost Recovery Target: Direct Cost 115% Direct Cost Grouplll: Equal Community and Personal Benefit Cost Recovery Minimum: Cost Recovery Target: 115% Direct Cost Up to 135% Direct Cost Group IV: Majority Personal Benefit Cost Recovery Minimum: Cost Recovery Target: 135% Direct Cost 135% Direct Cost Draft Characteristics of Community! Benefit vs. Personal Benefit pro.qrams The four Cost Recovery Groups represent a cost recovery "spectrum". Programs classified as being of Community Benefit wil! cost recover less than prograt,-ns classified as being of Personal Benefit. Division managers, along with input from program coordinators and supervisors, determine the value of a class or camp for placement within one of the four cost recovery groups. Group I: Group I1: Group Ill: Group IV: Community Benefit Majority Community Benefit Equal Community Benefit and Personal Benefit Majority Personal Benefit Below are characteristics to define Community and Personal benefit, opposite ends of a cost recovery "spectrum". The opposite ends are represented by Group I and IV. As most programs have aspects of both benefits, they are placed within the spectrum in either Group II or II!. Community Benefit Characteristics Youth and Teen Development I Safety Early Childhood Development Environmental Stewardship Fitness/Healthy Lifestyle for youth Connecting / Involving People wl Community Service Back to Community Encourages Volunteerism Cultural Understanding Cross-Generational Understanding Unique Experiences not provided by other organizations Life Skills for Self Independence Diversity of Experience Community Policing - Public Involvement Sustaining our Resources Personal Benefit Characteristics Leisure Time Experiences Financial Enhancement Stress Reduction Mental/Physical Health for adults Professional Development Competitive Sports for adults Personal Enhancement Weight Loss Fitness for adults Fashion/Beauty/Personal Enhancement Classes already provided by other organizations for adults Life-Long Learning Skill Building Social Networking / Contacts for personal gain Draftu Excerp, from October 17, ~00 / Finance Committee Meeting Minutes Attachmel]t C Regular Meeting October 17, 2006 AD.]OURNHENT" 1,Oral Communications .........................................................................................2 2.Audit of Community Services Department Class Cost Recovery ................2 3.Recommendation Regarding Rent Charged by the General Fund to the Refuse Fund on Unopened Portionsof Landfill ..............................................5 4.Options for Enhancing Revenues and Decreasing Expenses in the General Fund with the Desired Outcome of Increasing Funding for Infrastructure and other City Priorities ...........................................................9 Discussion for Future Meeting Schedules and Agendas ...............................17 The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m .........................................18 I_0/17/06 FIN’1 Chairperson Kishimoto called the meeting to order at 7"05 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present:Kishimoto, Beecham, Klein, Mossar Absent: None 1.Oral Communications None. 2.Audit of Community Services Department Class Cost Recovery City Auditor Sharon Erickson said the purpose of the review was to determine to what extent the charges covered the cost of classes offered by the City of Palo Alto. Staff found charges from the Community Services Department (CSD) classes covered approximately $2.1 million of the $2.9 million full cost, which left approximately $750,000 in unrecovered costs. The result was a policy choice as to whether or not the City wanted to s.~bsidize classes and to what level. Staff’s recommendation was that the policy choices go to the Council, the targets be set, and staff would adjust class prices. Staff found three other subsidiary issues: 1) the large number of refunds and transfers impacted staff work load; 2) minimum enrollment targets were not always consistently set or met; and 3) the differential that Palo Alto charged for nonresidents fees was sometimes lower than other cities. Senior Accountant Renata Falk said the Auditor’s Office reviewed 18 broad categories of classes using data from fiscal year 2004-05. Eight categories recovered direct costs, and one category recovered the full costs. Reference was made to pages 11 and 12 of the Audit of Community Services Department Class Cost Recovery, which listed the 18 categories. The Auditor’s Office found a cost recovery policy would be helpful on providing guidance as to what type of classes the community might like subsidized versus classes that participants should bear more of the cost. The recommendation is that CSD should propose, and the City Council should adopt, a cost recovery policy that includes goals for broad categories of Community Services classes. :included for each category would be: 1) minimum level of acceptable cost recovery; 2) a target level of cost recovery; and 3) other fee-setting considerations. The Auditor’s Office recommended the CSD should annually review and document the actual cost recovery results for broad categories of classes and use the data for setting prices accordingly. Another recommendation is that CSD do the following: 1) set prices that take into consideration the cost recovery policy adopted by 17/06 FIN’ the City Council; 2) provide staff with updated templates to facilitate price- setting; and 3) retain price setting templates to document the assumptions underlying pricing decisions, The Auditor’s Office found the number of cancelled classes increased the number of refunds, Refunds generated work and administrative services where a check needed to be issued. The Auditor’s Office recommended the CSD should reduce the number of cancelled classes and track the percentage of classes offered that are canceled, Another recommendation was that CSD should decide on a reasonable amount of time classes remain open in the CLASS system after a quarter ends and ensure the system is closed timely, The Auditor’s Office looked at minimum enrollment targets and. found there were minimum targets for each class but they were not consistently met, The recommendation was that CSD establish minimum enrollment levels that relate to cost recovery goals and criteria be documented to be used to decide whether to offer a class that does not meet its minimum enrollment requirement, The Auditor’s Office found the differential Palo Alto charged for nonresident class participants was lower than that of several nearby cities, and recommended that CSD consider increasing the class price differential for nonresidents, when it was reasonable, in the context of market pricing and reliance on nonresident enrollment. Director of Community Services Department Richard ]ames said the most significant recommendation was for the Council to set a cost recovery policy, The fee reduction program was in place, l~]oney was lost when people took the reduction in price, Council Member lVlossar clarified the direct costs included salary and benefits, Ms. Falk said the direct Costs included salary and benefits if the costs were relevant, i.e., a City employee teaching a class. Administrative Services Director Carl Yeats said only the portion of costs included in the allocated cost being sent to the department were in the budget. klr. Benest said prices would go up if 100 percent if cost recovery were added. lVls. Erickson said future costs were not included. Council lVlember Klein questioned whether other cities subsidized classes to the same level as Palo Alto, 10/17/06 F]:N "3 Ms, Fail< said staff did not look specifically at the level of subsidies in other cities but only looked at prices of classes, Ms, Erickson said staff-visited the City of San l~]ateo, who was implementing the cost recovery targets by category of classes. Council Member Klein questioned whether the Council or the department made any conscious decisions about the level of subsidy, Ms. Fatk said the last policy in Palo Alto was in the early !990s, which appeared to be a Citywide policy approved after an extensive cost recovery study. Council Member Klein questioned why Palo Alto’s prices were higher than in other communities. Mr. James said the prices were what the market would support. Staff checked prices in other communities on a regular basis and, traditionally, prices were set higher than other communities. Ms. Erickson said the Auditor’s Office did not make a recommendation as to where the City should go. The first thing necessary to be done was to decide, as a community, what types of classes should be subsidized. That was a policy decision the Auditor’s Office could not determine. Council Member Mossar questioned when the Finance Committee should have the conversation about the target for the next year, Council Member Beecham said the Finance Committee needed to talk about the overall policy on the General Fund subsidy for individuals. Council Member Klein said his suggestion was that Mr. James makes a proposal to the Finance Committee as to what CSD felt were appropriate levels of subsidies, Chairperson Kishimoto clarified the Finance Committee would make a recommendation on a macro target, Council Member Beecham said a scheme that provided rationale was needed. One approach was that the General Fund subsidized individuals and the classes, Council Member Mossar said AYSO paid a small portion of what it cost the City to maintain the fields that AYSO used. 10/17/06 FIN:4 Chairperson Kishimoto said she noticed only 40 percent of classes were .s.!gned up online and questioned whether there were incentives to sign up online. Mr..]ames said availability of signing up online at any time was an advantage. Online registrations cost the City less because less staff would be needed. CSD aimed for50-60 percent online registrations. Chairperson Kishimoto suggested CSD staff look at incentives for getting more people to register online. She also noted that Palo Alto was one of the only communities with an Art Center and questioned whether there was any regional pooling or marketing of classes. Mr..]ames said Palo Alto was in the top of the country as far as variety of programs. Council Member lVlossar agreed a policy was necessary but suggested asking fqr the course offerings, the goal, and the purpose, Mr, _]ames said the Strategic Plan addressed many of Council Member Mossar’s questions. Ms. Erickson suggested the Finance Committee accept the report and staff would follow through with the recommendations~ The Auditor’s Office followed up once a year with open audit recommendations. Mr. _lames hoped to implement the recommendations during the next budget cycle. MOTION; Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Mossar, that the Community Services Department come back to the Finance Committee with an allocation scheme to recover $250,000 in the budget from the current subsidy, showing what impact it would have on the classes, and that the Community Services Department provide rationale for the recommendation through the policy. NOTION PASSED 4-0. Recommendation Regarding Rent Charged by the General Fund to the Refuse Fund on Unopened Portions of Landfill, Director of Administrative Services Carl Yeats said staff brought an audit recommendation on collecting past land fill rent, which was the rent on 10/17/06 FIN:5 © Playing Areas - Charleson & Losch Culture of Fitness - Trailer Strategic Funding - Losc-h APPR 0 VED Appointment of Commission representative to the Plannin~ and Transportation/Park and Recreation Commission review of the Draft FY2007- 2011 Capital Improve~nent Proiect Bud2et Staff Botts requested a volunteer from the Commissioners who would be interested in being a representative for the PARC. The first meeting is scheduled for April 12m from 3pro - 5pm. Commissioner Losch volunteered and Commissioner Charleson volunteered to be alternate. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCE~’~.NTS: 1. Staff Botts announced the ribbon cutting for the Arastradero Gateway Educational Facility. There will be an Open House on March 3rd from Noon - 4pro. 2. Staff Botts announced that there were five more candidates for the open PARC commissioner positions. The Commissioners were encouraged to advise the council with any recommendations. The names and dates for interviews would be sent to the ’existing commissioners when announced. _3. An invitation for all Commissioners to attend a meeting on Roche Emergency and Sustainability programs was handed out. The date wil! be February 28, 2007 at 4pro. 4. Staff Botts announced that the Commissioners would be receiving a request to fill out the annual Form 700 - Business Conflict of interest statement. The deadline for this is set for April 2. Staff Botts reminded the Commissioners that they would need to send back signed even if they didn’t have anything to claim. 5. Date for the Joint Council Study Session is set for April 23, 2007. ~TTENTATIVE AGENDA FOR MARCH 27. 2.007 ~ ~[EETIN G 1. Election of Chair, Vice Chair- Postponed until the April meeting 3. Advocacy ~..~ 4. Status repo~ on 10,000 Step Challenge 6.Activities Coordinated by Canopy which suppo~ Parks, Open Space and Golf Facilities ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 8:20 pm February .30, 2007 APPROVED PARC Minutes 2