CCP 06-17-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ~ ~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 13, 2002 3.A TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Joe Lynch, City AdministratorJ SUBJECT: 2003 Recreation Program Budget Discussion Background: Staff and Council would like to have a more productive and positive discussion about Recreation Program Services and the funding thereof in 2003. Last year the discussion did not go well and we would like to avoid that again. . The real question at hand is finding a long term solution for the recreation program deficit. As we discussed last year, Charitable Gambling proceeds are down. The amount allocated to recreation is down and the deficit is growing. Continuing to try to get more money out of this source does not seem to make sense given the fact that we will have a large Fire Department expense in 2008, which will need the funding percentages restored to previous levels to achieve and the Park Comp Plan identifies $ 2.5M in capital improvements which may compete for some of this funding. How important is this to the council? Staff needs to know, on a continuum of decisiolls, is this important or are there others that are of a higher priority? If it is important, what do you want it to look like? Continue to offer all of the services and be competitive with neighborillg communities or scale back to those that seem to make the most sense or those that pay for themselves? How do you want to define success in Recreation? Can we measure that? I have taken the liberty of trying to identify some outcomes to consider in setting the agenda for the Recreation budget. e . Recreation programming that takes advantage of city amenities, i.e. trails, natural areas, City Hall, neighborhood parks, etc. . Recreation programming costs that capture 100% of the Direct and 40% of the indirect costs of that particular program . Recreation programming that takes advantage of cooperative or coordinated efforts between and amongst neighboring communities or other service providers