Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br /> <br />Recreation Coordinator: 90% Recreation; 10% Building <br />Recreation Programmer: 100% Recreation <br /> <br />The detailed breakdown showed the actual allocation to be: <br /> <br />Recreation Coordinator: 45% Recreation; 55% Parks <br />Recreation Programmer: 80% Recreation; 20% Parks <br /> <br />Applying this more accurate allocation of wages to the 2020 Budget is shown on Attachment A, <br />second column from the right, titled Revised Allocations BUDGET 2020. This more accurate <br />allocation of wages is also being used to prepare the 2021 Budget and is included in the figures in <br />the last column to the right on Attachment A. <br /> <br />These full time wages are part of indirect costs, not direct costs. FPAC now felt they had better <br />understanding of the costs of programming and allocation of staff time. The committee came to a <br />consensus that a range of 95% - 105% was an acceptable level for coverage of direct costs by <br />program revenues but felt the council needed to make a decision on indirect costs. <br /> <br />Unlike street plowing or public safety, there is no requirement for cities to offer recreation <br />programs, but FPAC members felt the community would be negatively impacted for not <br />maintaining some level of parks and recreation programs. FPAC felt these opportunities bring <br />communities together as participants get to know each other and build connections. Connections <br />make communities stronger. A comment was made that putting tax dollars toward parks and <br />recreation was along the same lines as tax dollars going towards schools. It may not be utilized by <br />all, but the community as a whole benefits from it. <br /> <br />FPAC felt that Council needed to decide how much taxpayer money, or discretionary dollars, they <br />wanted to put into Recreation Programs as a policy decision for the community. It is a statement <br />of who we are and what we value as a City. One extreme would be to have programs pay for <br />themselves. The other extreme would be for city taxes to cover all costs. The answer is somewhere <br />in between. <br /> <br />There doesn’t appear to be much room to increase fees as you will lose participation. You need to <br />find the sweet spot where you charge enough to maximize revenue but not too much where you <br />scare off participation. The committee wants to see the user charges kept at a high enough level <br />that meets with the approval of the majority of users and utilize grants and scholarships through the <br />Arden Hills Foundation to assist with costs for those that can’t afford to participate. <br /> <br />Items for the City Council to consider: <br /> <br />x Is the range of 95% - 105% an acceptable level of coverage of direct costs by program revenues? <br />x Do you want to look at coordinating with other cities for any of our adult programs? <br />x What programs do you want to make available and what user charges will the market support <br />to run them? <br />x Is there an amount of taxpayer dollars the council is comfortable with for allocating toward <br />recreation programs? What total amount of indirect costs is the council comfortable with <br />covering?