Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2017 10 11

Home Browse Search

Open Space Advisory Board Minutes September 13th, 2017 Page 3 of 5 very good for Sales tax, but trending down for Building Use tax. The analysis also projected the budget and expenses for the OS&P Fund and for the Conservation Trust/Lottery Fund for 2018-2021. Kevin cautioned that these budget numbers are always a work-in-progress and Helen asked to have the spreadsheets shared with OSAB as they are updated. The board discussed how some trail connection work specified by the Wayfinding Plan, was initially slated for 2017 but has now been pushed to 2018. Kevin told the board that the percentages in the spreadsheet represent what portion of the project is being funded by the OS&P Fund (as opposed to other sources in the City's budget). He reported a discussion between City Council and the acting City Manager about transferring money from the General Fund into the OS&P Fund, to restore the Fund's balance after the Mayhoffer purchase. Kevin felt that the most important slide was the graph showing the revenue, expenditure, and total balances of the OS&P Fund from 2001-2018. In 2012 there was a high point set with a balance of $7.9 million. In 2018 the balance is projected to be $700,000. The minimum set by Council for funds is 15% of operating costs. The balance has gone way down from 2015-2018, which is why there is the suggestion of transferring $1.5 million from the General Fund into it. Kevin's thesis is that the OS&P Fund cannot sustain the current operations/acquisition/CIP demands being placed on it, without being propped up with transfers from other sources. Mike asked for an estimated number for operation expenditures from the OS&P Fund for 2018. Kevin's calculations were: $2.8 million total ($1.7 million towards Parks, $800,000 towards Open Space, and $300,000 for staff salaries). Kevin showed that back in the early 2000s, all of Open Space and Parks operations expenditures came from the General Fund and the OS&P Fund was mostly reserved for acquisition. But during the economic downturn of 2008, the City started using the OS&P Fund for operations. By 2014 the General Fund wasn't directly funding any Open Space or Parks operations; meanwhile the growth in other expenditures from the OS&P Fund had also gone up a lot. This supported Kevin's claim that the OS&P Fund cannot support the current expenditures. Jeff pointed out that the General Fund has been making some transfers for operations from the General Fund into the OS&P Fund, which conceals how much the General Fund actually contributes. Mike suggested that funding operations solely from the OS&P Fund may put operations in jeopardy if the OS&P Fund tax ever fails at the ballot box. The was some discussion about whether there should be a minimum balance maintained in the OS&P Fund that allows for the simultaneous purchase of the top three properties (estimated to be about $1.3 million— which the Fund is currently way under). Jeff pointed out that there is a massive one-time City cost coming up in 2018, due to the budget short-fall of the Recreation and Senior Center remodel/expansion project. He thought maybe the City should not use the General Fund to replenish the OS&P Fund yet. Mike expressed frustration that the City keeps reaching into the OS&P Fund during pinches, using it for more and more of the routine maintenance issues that were traditionally funded by the General Fund. Jeff pointed out again that the General Fund does put money into the OS&P Fund, and didn't want to leave the board members with the idea that the City doesn't care about the OS&P Fund. Fiona asked for a high-level summary. Helen suggested that this discussion is helpful because it helps the board understand the strategy and trends of how Open Space and Park funding work. Helen and the board were concerned that the OS&P Fund is 4