Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-16 Government Operations Committee Minutes ' GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE ' MINUTES ' April 16, 2003 ' Councilors Present: Gerry Palmer, Richard Greene, Nichi Farnham, Dan Tremble ' Staff Present: John Hamer, Bob Farrar, Frank Comeau, Brian Enman, Mary- , Anne Chalila Other Present: Ken Buckley, Jerry Jarrell ' The meeting convened at 5:00 p.m. ' 1. Continued review of age limit policy for Junior Member status at Bangor Municipal Golf Course. , Comeau noted that the Committee had previously requested information from staff regarding options for membership status. He said that we currently have t ' 20 family memberships, which include a total of 42 juniors. There are 40 additional individual junior memberships. An individual junior membership costs , $225 per year, and a family membership which may include any number of junior members costs $765 annually. Comeau described the various options. Option 1 is to increase the age at which , a junior qualifies for adult membership from the current age of 18 to 19, 20, or 21. Under this option, any junior could remain on the family membership for an , additional 1, 2 or 3 years. Additionally, the age limit for which an individual Junior Membership could be obtained would be increased. These would both result in an extension in the length of time that an individual would qualify as a � junior. From a financial standpoint, this option would have a negative impact on the Golf ' Course revenue stream. On an annual basis, we estimate that the Course would lose between $3,875 and $ 4,650 based upon juniors either remaining on the ' Family Membership or qualifying for a Junior Membership for an additional 1 to 3 years. This approach also raises the concern of cost fairness between membership � classes. Currently a Single Membership is $550 per year, and a Couple � , ' , Membership is $720 per year. A Family Membership is $765 per year, which ' under this option could include one or more juniors up through age 21. Singles and Couples could view the expansion of the junior age limit as unfair to them from a pricing standpoint, particularly when one or more juniors were part of the , same Family Membership. ' Option 2 would create a college student membership classification. Under this approach, full-time college students up to age 22 would qualify for this classification at a rate of$350 per year. This classification would still be subject ' to the current junior rules and regulations, i.e., time restrictions, etc. Although this option would not provide as much income as the current arrangement (+18 requiring Single Membership), it would at least provide some revenue, and would ' be more financially appealing than Option 1. Based upon current membership, there are six to eight individuals who would qualify, generating between $2,100 and $2,800 in annual revenue, a loss of $1,200 to $1,600 from the single rate. A , concern with this option is that it could raise fairness issues with parents of part- time college students, non-traditional students over 22 or other children in that age bracket not attending college. , Option 3 would incorporate the suggestions made by Mr. )arrell at the March 26�' Committee meeting. Under this approach any full time college student age 18 or ' older who is living at home and who is being supported by one or both parents would be able to continue on the Family Membership with no additional ' cost. It would be the responsibility of the college student and/or parent(s) to provide sufficient information to clearly document that the student qualified for continued Family Membership inclusion. Based upon current members, there are ' approximately six to eight individuals who would qualify under these guidelines. By changing this membership rule, if those six to eight were paying the single rate ($550/year) and were allowed to move under the Family Membership, the ' financial impact would be in the range of $3,300 to $4,400 per year. Finally, with this option, the possibility exists that other +18 year olds could feel unfairly treated as they would be required to pay a full Single Membership rate because ' they are not full-time college students. Option 4 reflects the current Junior Membership policy. When an individual turns , 18, he/she is not allowed to continue on the Family Plan nor continue under the individual ]unior rate. At this age, if continued membership is desired, an Adult , Single Membership is required. As outlined above, options 1, 2 or 3 would change the current policy with respect ' to Junior Membership. Under any of these approaches, the Golf Course would stand to lose revenue. The Golf Course is established as an Enterprise Fund, supported in whole by the income generated through its operation. No taxpayer � , ' ' dollars are required. It is also important to note that over the years, the Golf Course Fund has been able to contribute to other general fund projects, most , recently, the Sawyer Arena expansion. Again, any decline in revenue affects the ability of this enterprise fund to participate in the funding of other recreation based projects. Options 2 and 3 involve differential pricing for individuals who � are the same age, which could be problematic. After carefully reviewing ail of the options detailed above, and taking into ' account the opinion of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee, staff continues to believe that the current membership structure is generally � equitable, has worked well over the years, has generated very few complaints and should be retained. Should the Committee choose to modify the current structure, we would recommend that Option 2 be adopted. This would establish ' a reduced rate for full-time college students, but would limit revenue loss for the Course. Greene wanted to clarify the junior rules of option 2. Enman said that the , regular membership has unlimited play Monday through Sunday. A junior in a Junior membership or in a family membership are restricted to after 2 p.m. on ' weekends, and no tee ofF between 4:30 and 6 p.m. weekdays. Farnham said that the other distinction was full-time college students, and ' why did we stipulate full-time only? She also wanted to know how we would encourage this age group to continue to purchase memberships, considering at ' this age people do not usually have a lot of disposable income for entertainment. Comeau said that a lot of people take one college course, and we established some guidelines. Tremble said that he thought that this age group would have ' more disposable income than any other age group for entertainment. He thought that we should change the age, not the policy. Enman said that we should pick an age range rather than full-time student versus not being a , student. Farnham suggested a young adult membership. Mr. Jarrell said that he was pleased that the Ciry had put so much time and ' effort into this situation. He said that in each option we discuss how the membership is unfair to another option. He said that there is no way that we are ' going to find a program that will please everyone. He said that the City of Bangor provides a very top-notch golfing facility for all of us at a very fair price. If the decision is made that the $550 fee is what we have to live with, then he is ' going to accept it. Greene wanted to know the financial impact of the City if we changed the age , limit. Enman said that the impact could be substantial. Palmer said that perhaps giving a price break to this age group might be beneficial in retaining long term ' ' , � memberships. Comeau said that this might be more acceptable. Enman said ' that if we went this route, then we should keep this category out of the cap for budget purposes. Enman said that we could expand the age to 21 on or before April 21�`. Enman said that there are restrictions for reduced memberships. � Farnham wanted to know if Enman thought a young adult membership would attract more people. Enman said historically not a lot of junior members buy , adult memberships. ' Palmer wanted to know what was a fair discount for the 18, 19 and 20 year olds, and recommended $350. Hamer said that an intermediate level rate with all people being treated fairly would be the best way to go, rather than based on , college status. Tremble urged the Committee to keep the policy as is, due to the fact that they , are not going to be able to make everyone happy. Farnham wanted to know if we had the option of trying a new classification for � awhile. Enman said that this was up to the Committee, that they would work with whatever policy has been set in place. ' Greene said that he like the idea of the young adult category. He moved for option 2 with $375 as the fee, with a new classification of young adult up to age ' 21 on or before April 215t. Farnham wanted to know what type of restrictions would be put in place, and clarified that this would not fall under the membership cap. Enman said that we could try this for a year and then review ' the membership for restrictions. The Committee voted to add the young adult category with a membership of ' $375 annually. Mr. ]arrell noted that he was pleased with the discussion and result. ' 2. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Update. ' Hamer said that this act was passed by Congress in 1996, and took effect Monday, April 14th. He said that this act requires healthcare providers to protect medical information. Part of the act will apply to the Ciry in terms of the fire ' department and their ambulance service, and to Health and Welfare. In order to comply with the federal regulation, we have designed several policies and forms , that they will need to start using, some of which are mandatory and others that are beneficial in obtaining compliance. � ' ' i We have established an appeals process for people to go to Chief Cammack, Mary-Anne Chalila or ultimately Bob Farrar. ' Hamer said that HIPAA has several sections, and this is the first of the three. Greene wanted to know if everybody that is going to be affected by this going to � be informed. Hamer said that there has already been a two year lead time. 3. Proposed Rent Schedule increases— Park Woods transitional housing , program. ' Chalila said that it has been two years since the rent has been increased at Park Woods. Due to increased costs associated with oil, electricity, water and sewer, ' we need to increase the rent to keep up with fair market value. She presented a proposal for rental increases at Park Woods at or below the HUD Fair Market Value suggested rental rates. � Farrar said that the proposed rental increases will enable us to reduce the amount of money that we will need to take from the trust fund, with the overall � intent to eliminate the subsidy from the general fund. He noted that at the moment, there is no general fund subsidy, and with this rent increase, we are hoping to forestall this. , Farnham thanked Chalila for bringing this forward. She stated that she was , grateful that we have this program available and moved staff recommendation. The Eommittee recommended approval of the rental increases for Park Woods to , the full Council. The meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. ' ' 1 ' , ' ,