11-08-1983 Meeting agenda and Sept minutes

Home Browse Search

The area of financial administration perhaps raises more questions than are answered. Unfortunately this is the area which precipitated the evaluation in the first place. Are we spending an inordinate amount on recreational facilities and programming? Are we getting what we pay for? The best approach to some satisfaction in this area is to list criteria usually followed in the budgeting process then attempt to make some comparisons with other communities. The first step is to identify desireable program elements based upon the needs of the community. One basis of the 1973,P1an was a user survey conducted by the Recreation Department. A one third to of respons o mai a ues t e it in esta ishing facilities. It is probably time to design a follow up survey with considera le emphasis on programming as a way to determine need as percieved by residents. If a reduction of program becomes necessary because of limited budgets, the least important unit or units can be removed while maintaining adequate financing for remaining programs. While donations have not figured prominently in the Park System, there should be a written policy co on the acceptance of gifts and bequests-to the City with assurance th that ey w- ue o e use y t e epartment. The fees received from recreation programs currently are designed to cover the cost of instructors, equipment and facilities but not necessarily the playground leaders and supervisors. Unit costs per program need to be reviewed to make sure that this objective is being met. As indicated in the June 27, 1983 memorandum to the City Council from its member • liaison to t e epartment, the'Lark and Recreation bud ets during the ost f r years have ranged between 6 and 8% of total city A comparison between of er c mmunities ranging in population between five and thirteen thousand indicates that ArdP �� The Community could expect the range to fall within the area of 10 to 12% as in Farmin ton a r e or p to as was s ent b the sties of Mounds View and Stillwater in 1983. The much larger City of White Bear La a on the other hand, has no budget for Parks & Recreation since grass mowing comes out of public works and all programming is handled by Community Educaton. The totals can be deceiving since the larger budgets include everything from year round hockey rinks, community pools or beaches adjoining natural lakes, community athletic complexes to parks oriented to serving the entire population. Arden Hills has access to all of these facilities but is only responsible for the acquisition and development of a neighborhood park system linked by trails. A city providing community wide facilities can easily justify park and recreation expenditures up to 10 percent. The lower bud et rovided by Arden Hills is ample for the type of facility provided even i and do provi a some o t e functions normally found in community parks. According to the 1983 Metropolitan Area Salary Survey produced by Stanton Associa- tes, the salary of the Director of Parks and Recreation approximates 84% of the ,�,✓� mpw"aa-r-Y for directors in metropolitan area suburbs 10,000 or more in population. The comparison is more favorable for communities under 10,000 in population. `a However, most of the communities in this category are smaller than Arden Hills. The park maintenance workers, on the other hand, are within 95% of the mean wage of comparable job titles in metropolitan area suburbs 10,000 or more in population. One