HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDkiserb2council mEmottan0u m
COUNCIL n-CDD DI RE'rM Alert E -FIN DI RCity Council la-Ae T3/nc-FIRE CHIE Fti [ ATTORNEY 1 PW DI RlaLERK/ORIG C2'POLICE CH FVIA:Katie Lichtig, City Manager !-]DEPT HEADS [ 'REC DI RCi!Z?UTIL L)I R
FROM:Betsy Kiser, Parks and Recreation Director Tj2['~HR DI R
This morning Counciltnember Carter provided the Council and staff with a memo regarding Ite m
B2 on tonight's agenda — Community Garden Fees . Staff has reviewed his comments and woul d
like to provide the following additional information :
1.Comment:I plan to propose that the rates we charge for gardening follow the 30% cos t
recovery scenario ($24 base rate + 9c per sq . ft.).
Staff Response : A 30%cost recovery goal is a policy decision for the council ; howeve r
one consideration is whether there might be attrition for those who are on low or fixe d
incomes and in most need of the program .
2.
Comment:That we build in some sort of CPI escalator as we do for other fees .
Staff Response :The resolution that Council is being asked to adopt places the bas e
garden fee in the Master Fee Schedule, which is automatically adjusted each year by th e
CPI .
3.Comment:That we direct staff to divide in half any existing garden lot of 400 square fee t
or more . That means 3 lots at Laurel Lane and 6 lots at Broad Street . We will still have a
waiting list after the opening of Meadow Park . It doesn't seem fair that certain gardener s
should have large lots when there are still folks on the waiting list .
Staff Response:Staff has found that gardeners who have gardened in one space for 8
years or more become very attached to their plots and treat them like their own backyards .
With that in mind, our current process is to grandfather all users and plot sizes into th e
system . As they are released by their current renter, plots over 400 square feet are divided
into smaller plots .In the past year, staff has divided six larger plots into 14 smaller plots ,
allowing an additional 8 gardeners to join the program . It is staff's recommendation to
continue this practice .
TO :
l /L/774165 Couit .?CtC_
SUBJECT :Response to Councilmember Carter's Email Regarding Community Garden 'may 41612--
Fees L'[C~'C
RECEIVE D
MAY 1 8 201 0
SLO CITY CLERK
RED FIL E
MEETING AGENDA
PATE '71 00,ITEM #
From :Carter, Andrew
Sent :Monday, May 17, 2010 8 :03 PM
To :Council_AL L
Cc :Lichtig, Katie ; Kiser, Betsy
Subject :Garden Rate s
As an FYI, I plan to propose that the rates we charge for gardening follow the 30% cost recover y
scenario ($24 base rate + 9c per sq . ft .)
Here are my reasons :
1)The proposed 20% cost recovery ratio ($24 + 3c per square foot) doesn't cover CPI since th e
rate was first established at the current flat $24 . According to Betsy Kiser, the annual rate ha s
been $24 since at least 1999 . The average rate under the proposed 20% formula would b e
$30 .33 . Per CPI, $24 in 1999 would equal $31 .24 today . If the $24 rate existed well before 1999 ,
then the gap vs . CPI is even more significant .
2)The 20% cost recovery ratio would still leave us near the bottom of the comparison cities ,
particularly when accounting for the size of our lots .
3)The 30% cost recovery would mean an average price of $42 .98 per year for the average 21 0
square foot lot . The 140 sq . ft. lots at the new Meadow Park garden would be just $36 .60 pe r
year .
4)The fact that there were no complaints at the 20% ratio implies that we can raise the rate s
further and still remain in the "bargain" range .
I also plan to recommend the following :
1)That we build in some sort of CPI escalator as we do for other fees .
2)That we direct staff to divide in half any existing garden lot of 400 square feet or more . That
means 3 lots at Laurel Lane and 6 lots at Broad Street . We will still have a waiting list after th e
opening of Meadow Park . It doesn't seem fair that certain gardeners should have large lots whe n
there are still folks on the waiting list .
Andrew Carte r
Council Membe r
City of San Luis Obispo