Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budgeting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews parts maintenance fee (Ordinance No. 1466), SDC allocations and staffing trade-offs
Summary
Canby advisory members reviewed the parks maintenance fee ordinance and budget: fee revenue line is $570,000, staff reported $1 million in SDC funds for Maple Park (only ~54.7% eligible), a $600,000 restroom was discussed, and members debated whether 20–30% of fee revenue should be used for personnel versus parts and maintenance. The committee flagged the ordinance's expiration and plans to present an amendment to council.
Committee presenter David Tate reviewed the parks maintenance fee budget and the associated ordinance (No. 1466), telling the advisory group the fee line is budgeted at $570,000 for the year and that year-to-date receipts are roughly $290,000.
Tate said staff are seeking to reclassify a larger share of SDC (system development charge) dollars to make more capital work eligible for SDC funding; he described a $1,000,000 SDC allocation intended for Maple Park renovations but said only about 54.7% of some proposed expenses currently meet SDC eligibility rules. He cited an example: "I'm trying to buy a $600,000 bathroom up there. I can only get 54.7% of it paid for," and said staff are working with consultants to increase the eligible percentage so capital projects could be fully covered by SDC dollars.
The presenter walked the committee through three budget buckets—personnel services, materials and services, and capital—and noted parks staffing is paid from a combination of the general fund and the maintenance fee. Tate said the maintenance-fee ordinance originally intended the fee to support deferred maintenance and not to fund the entire parks staff; committee members raised concerns that the fee has increasingly been used to pay personnel costs now covered by the general fund.
Members discussed how to protect maintenance-fee dollars for parts and maintenance while recognizing some labor is required to perform maintenance. Committee members proposed fixed-percentage approaches (examples raised ranged from 20% to 30% of fee dollars going to wages) and asked staff to model options. One committee member recommended the advisory group ask the city council to amend ordinance language and restore the ordinance’s intended general-fund contribution level so the fee could be used more for maintenance projects rather than recurring personnel costs.
The committee also discussed the ordinance’s term: the parts maintenance fee had been established with a five-year sunset in a prior vote, and the five-year period ends this year; staff advised that the fee will require council action to continue or change its terms. The committee asked staff to double-check calculations, the ordinance anchor language tied to CPI adjustments, and whether automatic perpetuity language should be removed or clarified before a council presentation.
No formal vote to change the ordinance was taken at the advisory meeting. The committee agreed to prepare recommendations and supporting fiscal models for a future council work session and to clarify SDC eligibility percentages with consultants before presenting to council.
