HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/18/2010, B2 - RESPONSE TO COUNCILMEMBER CARTER'S EMAIL REGARDING COMMUNITY GARDEN FEES .� �cicll!31f99�9��1U���18��J
counat memoRanbum
CoP C�tfFJlG�
I Ie-COUNCIL T CDD DIR
�fiRA�^4/N62 R FIN DIR
TO: City Council �A A--r$FIRE CHIEF
C2'Pw DIR
(TLERK/ORIG 215OLICE CHF
VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager I l D P�EADS 2 REC DIR
I "t
DIR C2'UTIL DIR
FROM: Betsy Kiser, Parks and Recreation Director
SUBJECT: Response to Councilmember Carter's Email Regarding Community Garden '01'7-!4k-A
Fees
This morning Councilmember Carter provided the Council and staff with a memo regarding Item
B2 on tonight's agenda— Community Garden Fees. Staff has reviewed his comments and would
like to provide the following additional information:
1. Comment. I plan to propose that the rates we charge for gardening follow the 30% cost
recovery scenario($24 base rate+9c per sq. ft.).
Soff Response: A 30% cost recovery goal is a policy decision for the council; however
one consideration is whether there might be attrition for those who are on low or fixed
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 base
garden fee in the Master Fee Schedule, which is automatically adjusted each year by the
Cpl.
3. Comment: 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 the opening of Meadow Park. It doesn't seem fair that certain gardeners
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 the .
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 staffs recommendation to
continue this practice.
RECEIVED RED FILE
MAY 18 2010 MEETING AGENDA
SLO CITY CLERK
pATE,1�1a ITEM #.a-2-
1
From: Carter, Andrew
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 8:03 PM
To: Council ALL
Cc: Lichtig, Katie; Kiser, Betsy
Subject: Garden Rates
As an FYI, I plan to propose that the rates we charge for gardening follow the 30% cost recovery
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 the
rate was first established at the current flat$24. According to Betsy Kiser,the annual rate has
been $24 since at least 1999. The average rate under the proposed 20% formula would be
$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 210
square foot lot. The 140 sq.ft. lots at the new Meadow Park garden would be just$36.60 per
year.
4)The fact that there were no complaints at the 20% ratio implies that we can raise the rates
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 the
opening of Meadow Park. It doesn't seem fair that certain gardeners should have large lots when
there are still folks on the waiting list.
Andrew Carter
Council Member
City of San Luis Obispo