Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – OCTOBER 19, 2020 3 <br /> <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden proposed to do that instead of having another separate public hearing. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung said he would agree with that as long as they were moving forward <br />with changes. If they decide not to make changes to the ordinance he would want to have a public <br />hearing. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden felt they should wait for the survey results to come in before they <br />decide. <br /> <br />After discussion regarding items on the November work session, Mayor Grant instructed staff to <br />add chicken survey results to the November work session. <br /> <br />C. Recreation Program Discussion <br /> <br />Finance Director Bauman stated that staff was requested to provide information on Recreation <br />Programs related to the percentage of costs being covered by revenues. At the January 21 work <br />session, staff was directed to meet with FPAC to look at all the factors related to Recreation <br />Programs and develop a recommendation for Council. The first meeting with FPAC was in <br />February and a significant amount of information was reviewed at this meeting. Concern was <br />raised over the increase in the allocation of full-time personnel costs to Recreation Programs <br />beginning in 2015. FPAC requested that city staff review the job descriptions and report back on <br />where the allocations should be based on current workload. FPAC met again on August 6 via <br />Zoom. An approximate estimate of time spent on different job duties by the Recreation <br />Coordinator and Recreation Programmer was provided by the Public Works Director. It was <br />noted that the allocation currently being used was Recreation Coordinator, 90% Recreation and <br />10% Building, and the Recreation Programmer was 100% Recreation. The detailed breakdown <br />showed the actual allocation should be Recreation Coordinator: 45% Recreation, 55% Parks, and <br />Recreation Programmer: 80% Recreation, 20% Parks. <br /> <br />Finance Director Bauman noted that applying the more accurate allocation of wages to the 2020 <br />Budget was shown on Attachment A. This more accurate allocation of wages is also being used to <br />prepare the 2021 Budget. These full-time wages are part of indirect costs, not direct costs. FPAC <br />now felt they had a better understanding of the costs of programming and allocation of staff time. <br />The committee came to a consensus that a range of 95% - 105% was an acceptable level for <br />coverage of direct costs by program revenues but felt the council needed to make the decision on <br />indirect costs. <br /> <br />Finance Director Bauman said unlike street plowing or public safety, there is no requirement for <br />cities to offer recreation programs, but FPAC members felt the community would be negatively <br />impacted for not maintaining some level of parks and recreation programs. FPAC felt these <br />opportunities bring communities together as participants get to know each other and build <br />connections. A comment was made that putting tax dollars toward parks and recreation was along <br />the same lines as tax dollars going towards schools. It may not be utilized by all, but the <br />community as a whole benefit from it. FPAC felt that Council needed to decide how much <br />taxpayer money, or discretionary dollars, they wanted to put into Recreation Programs as a policy <br />decision for the community. One extreme would be to have programs pay for themselves. The <br />other extreme would be for city taxes to cover all costs. The answer is somewhere in between.