Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4A - Public hearing and consideration of a motion regarding the Core Services Business Model and proCITY OF BOULDER PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: March 19, 2007 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a motion regarding the Core Services Business Model and providing additional subsidy to not-for-pro6t and community organizations. PRESENTER/S: Jan Geden, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation Jamie Sabbach, CPRP, Superintendent of Recreatiou James Reasor, Budget Manager, Finance Department EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this agenda item is for the Pazks and Recreation Advisory Boazd (PRAB) to review, discuss and provide a recommendation to the Pazks and Recreation Department regarding the relationship of not-for-profit and other community organizations that rent facilities from the department and the request from some organizations [o adjust their position in the Core Services Business Model (CSBM) and/or receive additional subsidy from the community. Preliminary details about the departmenYs work with not-for profit and other community organizations have been presented to the PRAB, including information regarding the approach the department has pursued. At previous meetings, staff recommended returning to the PRAB with an evaluation of current agreements with not-for-profits and community organizations that exceed $2,500 per yeaz, developing an incremental financial analysis to show the costs of lowering fees for these groups, and outlining the financial implica6ons relative to providing subsidy. Staff also recommended considering the development of a working group similar to the Partnerslup Working Group (recreation facility development) to determine a methodology for evaluating mutually beneficial relationships between the department and not-for-profit and community organizations. The PRAB is being asked to make a recommendation regazding the continued implementation of the Core Services Business Model (CSBM) and whether some or all not-for-profit and community organizations within the model should have their cost recovery expectations adjusted. Key Issues Identification: A key objective for the department is to have a fair and equitable process to sustain programs and services in the Recreation Activity Fund (RAF). The CSBM, described in the Parks and Recreation 2006 Master Plan, is a tool to AGENDA ITEM # PAGE_ 1 assist in meeting this objective. Some community organizations have requested that their cost recovery expectations within the model be lowered, impacting the RAF and the sustainability of programs and services. There aze many not-for-profit and community organizations in Boulder. Some provide services that align closely with the departmenYs mission while others do not. All of these organizations bring value to the community in their own way. COUNCIL FILTER IMPACTS: Economic: The departmenYs long term outlook for finanCial sustainability emerged as one of the critical issues of its master plan. One of the master plan goals is to "become economically sustainable." A key element of this will be to develop sustainability for the Recreation Activity Fund. The programs and services included in the fund have a complex intenelationship. Changes in cost recovery policy or in the CSBM could jeopazdize the sustainability of the fund or negatively impact other programs in the fund. Environcnental: No direct impact. As always, the department strives for environmental sustainability in all of its programs, services and facilities. Photovoltaic panels wntribute to the energy supply necessary to operate the aquatic facilities at the North Boulder Recreation Center. Social: One of the departmenY s master plan goals is to "engage a broader range of the community especially under-represented populations." To achieve this goal the departrnent will: • Value the contributions made by community groups to the community at- large; • Pursue a fair and equitable process for dealing with community groups; • Strengthen community relationships and encourage community groups to reach out to under-represented populations; • Ultimately increase programs that meet City Council and master plan goals. OTHER IMPACTS: Fiscal: Information on the financial impacts of the various options is included with the options. Other: If additional analyses aze requested, additional staff time will be required, and the staff workplan will have to be re-prioritized. BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL FEEDBACK: At the November 13, 2006 business meeting, the PRAB made a motion to approve the Ciry of Boulder Parks and Recrea6on 2006 Master Plan. During the discussion, a concern was articulated by a PRAB member regarding how for-profit and 501(c)3 not-for profit organizations aze categorized in the CSBM. Questions were raised regazding whether the ciry should have a different cost recovery rate for 501(c)3 not-for-profit and community organizations and their placement in the CSBM. The PRAB requested that AGENDA ITEM # PAGE_2_ the department address these issues in an agenda item at its January business meeting, and subsequently the motion to approve the master plan passed unanimously. At the December 19, 2006 City Council meeting, a mo6on to accept the City of Boulder Pazks and Recreation 2006 Master Plan was amended to include delaying contract negotiations with Boulder Aquateens and Boulder Aquatic Masters (BAM). In addition, City Council requested an analysis of 501(c)3 organizations that currently contract with the department and the criteria for evaluating the relationship of these organizations' goals with those of the department and the city. The amended motion to accept the master plan passed unanimously. At the January 29, 2007 PRAB meeung, staff presented preliminary information about the departmenYs work with not-for profit and community organizations including the RAF and service delivery methods. Since the department works with over 100 not-for- profit and community organizations, staff recommended coming back to the PRAB with an evaluation of all current not-for-profit agreements that exceed $2,500 per yeaz, developing an incremental financial analysis to show the costs of lowering fees for these. groups and outlining the financial implications relative to providing subsidy. At the February 26, 2007 business meeting, PRAB requested additional infortnation regazding cost swcture for recreation programs and services, pricing methodology, and aquatic benchmazking information. BACKGROUND: Communitv Values The relationship that the department has with not-for-profit and community organizations is very important in that it allows for not only sustaining department programs and services, but extending recreation services to a broader range of the community. The unique qualities and community values of Boulder outlined in the departmenYs master plan support the need to have relationships with not-for-profit and community organizations. These relationships strengthen the quality of life in the community and allow for maa~imum service provision. Residents expect that these relationships are a part of responsible government. Residents also expect government to be as efficient as possible. Part of achieving operational efficiency is through fair and equitable decision making. Balancing values and decision making related to fees and charges, especially in a fiscally constrained environment, will con6nue to present challenges. The department currently works with. more than 100 not-for-profit and community organizaGons. The missions of many of these groups support the work of the department, create informal social and recreational networks within the community and provide services that enhance what the department can currently afford to provide. There aze also many not-for-profit and community organizations in the city of Boulder that do not currently work with the department. Establishing the value and priority of organizatioqs to the community and detemuning cost recovery expectations is complex. AGENDA ITEM # PAGE_3_ Fundine In order to discuss the fees and charges assessed to not-for-profit and community organizations and their placement within [he CSBM, a background in how the department and the Recreation Division are funded, as well as the sustainability of the financial framework of the department is being provided. The Pazks and Recreation Department is funded through a combination of six funds (Attachment A): • General Fund • Permanent Pazks and Recreation Fund • .25 Cent Sales Talc Fund • .15 Cent Sales Ta1c Fund • Lottery Fund • Recreation Activity Fund The Recreation Division is funded by: • Recreation Activity Fund • .25 Cent Sales Ta1c Fund • .15 Cent Sales Tax Fund The RAF is the primary source of funding for recreation programs and services. It is a special revenue fund used to account for the revenues and expenditures related to the provision of recreation centers, pools, pottery lab, recreation programs, Boulder Reservoir and Flatirons Golf Course. The RAF 2007 budget is $9.5 Million. It is funded primarily by a projected $7.8 Million in user fees and a$1.7 Million subsidy from the General Fund. The .25 Cent Sa1es TaY Fund, a dedicated funding source for the department through December 31, 2015, provides some funding for the Recreation Division. The fund is primarily used to pay debt service on a land acquisition bond. In addition, significant funds aze directed towazds capital improvements, pazks and forestry maintenance. On an annual basis, specific funding for recreation includes: • Turf management staff - $90,000 • Capital improvements and refurbishment for recreation facilities -$380,000 • Ongoing and major maintenance for recreation facilities -$400,000 The .15 Cent Sales Taa~ Fund is a city-wide fund from which the department receives approximately seven percent of the overall revenues. The 2007 allocation for the Recreation Division is $276,000, funding maintenance and operations at Pleasant View Fields and Stazio Ballfields. The 15 Cent Sales Taac expires on December 31, 2012. Recreation Activitv N~nd Historv In 2001, the RecreaUOn AcUvity Fund was established to account for the revenues and expenditures associated with recreational programs and services. Prior to 2001, recreation services were funded through the overall General Fund allocation to the department. The fund was established to provide the ability to carry over excess revenues AGENDA ITEM # PAGE_4 from yeaz-to-yeaz in order to provide a safety net when revenue generation dces not meet projected goals due to inclement weather or declining demand for services. Thus, the RAF balance will vazy each yeaz based on economic trends, weather and consumer demand. To ensure the solvency of the RAF, revenue generation must grow at the same rate as expenditwes. In recent years, operating expenditures have increased significanUy primarily due to costs related to personnel, fuel and utilities. In 2004 and 2005, the departmenYs revenue growth was insufficient to offset operating expenses and the fund balance declined to 2.5 percent compared to the General Fund's minimum ten percent requirement. Between 2002 and 2005, all city General Fund supported programs and services were impacted by budget reductions resulting from local and nauonal economic decline. Specifically, since 2001 the General Fund subsidy to the RAF has been reduced annually by an average of $330,000. In addition, the departmenYs ability to generate sufficient revenue to offset increased operating costs was negatively impacted by the local economy and increased competition from private businesses and neighboring communities. The chart below represents the RAF fund balance volatility. Recreation Activity Fund Balance History ssoo.ooo seoo,ooo a~oo,ooo Seao,ooo g ~ ssoo,ooo ~ ~ saoo.ooo ~ LL $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 ~ seoa.ooo $575,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year The financial position of the RAF has improved in 2006 as a result of greater_than anticipated revenue generation. To increase revenue streams, recruit new business and AGENDA ITEM # PAGE_5_ retain current business, new practices have been implemented since 2004 to provide improved customer service and outreach. These practices include: • Implementation of a pricing methodology for programs, activities and services; • Implementation of the annual pass Monttily Payment Option intended to give payment flexibility to users and to make purchasing an annual pass more affordable; • Implementation of a discount program for the purchase of annual passes aimed at employees of businesses that belong to the Boulder Chamber of Commerce; • Implementation of special promotional programs that tazget existing and potential customers; and • Hiring a Marketing Manager to centralize arid evaluate marketing efforts with an interest in effectiveness and increased return on investment. In 2006, the fund balance in the RAF increased by $292,000 due to a ten percent increase in revenues from the previous yeaz. However, the long-term sustainability of the fund is uncertain and being monitored. The department projects the performance of each individual fund for a period of six yeazs. As shown in the RAF Fund Financial (Attachtnent B), the fund balance will be insufficient to cover required reserves by 2011. The graph below also represents the difference between the current projected fund balance and the city's preferred ten percent reserve tazget. Recreation Activity Fund Projected Fund Balance vs 10% Fund Reserve Target ,,zoo.ooo i,ooo.aoo 800,000 600,000 C 7 ~ 400.000 Q 200,000 (200,000) (400,000) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year 1,011.OOD 1.042,000 1,073,000 953.000 982.000 895,000 1,000 0.000 96,000 34.000 ~, ) (208,000) -~-Projected Fund Belence t7py, Fund Balance Terget AGENDA ITEM # PAGE 6 The long term oudook for financial sustainability of the RAF emerged as one of the critical issues of the master plan. Restructuring the RAF was identified as a necessary action to create a more sustainable financial framework. The master plan introduces the CSBM, a methodology to detemune cost-recovery expectadons for recreation programs and services, as the means for restructuring the RAF. The Core Services Business Model (CSBM) A core services model is becoming a standard business management method in the parks and recreation industry. Many communiues such as Vancouver, Washington, Portland, Oregon, and Davis, California aze adopting cost recovery models to establish a baseline for determining which programs should recover more of their costs versus ones that should be highly subsidized. In an environment of diminishing resources, a determination should be made about what services are provided to whom and at what cost. In the master plan, the CSBM (Attachment C) represents how the departmenYs cost recovery ders of basic, merit, enhanced, specialized and enterprise-like align with the city's business plan categories of essential, desirable and discretionary. There is a distincdon between the CSBM tiers and the city's business plan categories. The CSBM specifically categorizes the deparUnenYs cost recovery and subsidy rates while the city's business plan model provides a city-wide context for funding decisions. The overlay of the business plan and the CSBM tiers shows a clear correlafion, with the main difference being the inclusion of multiple business plan categories within most tiers of the CSBM pyramid. The tiers in the CSBM reflect cost recovery goals that specifically represent the situation in Boulder and aze based on the existing levels of support from the General Fund, tugh community demand and the departmenY s desire to meet this demand. The model was created not only to align with the city's business plan goals, but to support the goals of the department's master plan including: • Maintain and protect our pazks and recreation facilities and programs; • Become economically sustainable; • Engage a broader range of the community, especially underrepresented populations; and • Enhance our quality of life. The departmenYs master plan, including the CSBM, was presented for acceptance to City Council on December 19, 2006. At that time, staff recommended the following elements relative to the adoption of the CSBM: • The model will be reviewed every two yeazs. • The model is intended to be flexible to respond to changing community and department needs. AGENDA ITEM # PAGE_7 Full implementation of the CSBM will occur in the action plan of the departmenPs master plan. The CSBM attempts to provide fair and equitable fees and chazges to the community. ANALYSIS: Determinine Costs for Recreation Pro¢rams and Services The two major costs of providing recreation programs and services aze: • Facility use costs • Program costs To deternune facility use costs, an extensive cost analysis is conducted on an annual basis for each recreation facility within the system. The analysis is conducted in the second quarter of every yeaz to allow for accurate uulity readings and charges from the previous year and to assist in establishing revenue and expense projections for the upcoming budget process. 'The facility use cost analysis takes into account the costs of managing and operating each recreation space such as gymnasiums, sports fields and pool lanes. The costs associated with the maintenance and operation of each site for a particulaz activity aze based on the quality and expectation of caze for each facility. The methodology calculates each facility's operations, maintenance, replacement and renovation costs, and then divides the squaze footage of the facility into the total to detemune a cost per square foot. Program costs, the costs associated with department programs, activities and services, aze deterrnined on a per program basis and include all direct costs, such as an instructor's salary and benefits, and indirect costs, such as a portion of the program manager's time. Programs that are not managed by the department aze only assessed facility use costs. Department-managed programs aze assessed both facility use and program associated costs. For example, a deparUnent-managed gytnnastics class will account not only for the facility use costs but also costs associated with the class instructor and supplies. A non- department managed program, considered by the department as a rental, will only account for facility use costs. This methodology provides a framework for identifying the cost of doing business at each site, and allows for fair and equitable distribution of a portion of operating costs to department and non-department managed programs based upon the type and location of the program, activity or service. Department Pricin2 Methodolo¢v Beginning in 2007, and with the ongoing implementation of the CSBM, the department's pricing methodology assesses both direct and indirect costs. The pricing methodology includes [he following: AGENDA ITEM # PAGE_8_ • Indirect costs - the costs incurred regazdless of whether or not a program is offered o Administrative staff o Registration o Mazketing Direct costs - the costs that may be traced directly to a specific program o Instructors o Supplies Direct costs can be considered fixed, changing fixed or variable as outlined below: • Fixed direct costs - the cost remains the same regazdless of the number of participants o Rental of the facility o Sound system o Administration Changing fixed direct costs - the range or threshold where costs aze increased 0 1-10 participants per instructor 0 25 teams per league per gymnasium Variable fixed costs - the costs related to the program that vary proportionately to the number of participants o Supplies o Clothing o Trophies To determine pricing, all direct and indirect costs aze calculated. Once the overall cost of each program, activity and service is deternuned, a subsidy and/or cost recovery rate is applied based upon its placement in the CSBM. Benchmarkin2 Recreation Facilities Each yeaz, staff conducts a facility and fee analysis of susounding communities and organizadons to benchmark regional trends in cosUng and operations that could impact the departmenYs service standards and delivery. The following communities and organizations aze contacted each yeaz for data: • City of Broomf'ield, Paul Derda Recreation Center • Town of Lafayette, Bob L. Berger Recreation Center • City of Longmont, Longmont Recreation Center • City of Louisville, Louisville RecreaUon Center • City of Westminster, City Pazk Recreation Center • Fiatirons Atliletic Club, Ltd. • Rallysport Health and Fitness Club Aquatics benchmazking information, included as Attachment D, provides recreation facility information with an emphasis on aquatics. AGENDA ITEM # PAGE_9_ Not-for-aroft and Communitv Oreanizations In order to understand how fees and charges aze determined for not-for-profit and community organizations, it is impoRant to understand how the department approaches recreation services delivery. The recreation industry uses various service delivery methods to best serve the needs of entire communities. By utilizing different types of delivery methods, there is a greater chance of extending services to a broader range of the community. The following four delivery methods aze typically used within the pazks and recreation industry and aze used by the city of Boulder's Pazks and Recreation Department: • General Supervision • Structured I.eadership • Facilitation • Indirect I.eadership As discussed with the PRAB in January, the definitions of these delivery methods are provided as Attachment E. Most not-for-profit and community groups that rent facilities from the department have missions that reflect the same or similaz values as those of the department, and provide valuable services to the Boulder community. Indirect Leadership Indirect leadership is the service delivery method most commonly associated with the not-for-profit and community organizafions that rent facilities. Many of these community organizations find merit in being volunteer-managed or self-directed. Because they aze self-directed, their use of department facilities is through rental agreements, paying for facility use costs only and not program costs. To many organizations, this reduces the cost to deliver these services. Most of these organizations work with specific departrnent staff in program or facility azeas based upon need. For example, a group wishing to rent a soccer field will work with the Sports staf£ These groups typically have an interest in three primary azeas: sports field rentals, Boulder Reservoir rentals, or indoor or outdoor pool rentals. Examples of some of these rentals are outlined below: Rental Scenario 1: Boulder Force Soccer Club wishes to rent multiple practice fields at East Boulder Community and Hazlow Platts Parks for practices. Department cost obli ag tions East Boulder Communi[y and Harlow Platts Park fields aze maintained at a basic level of care. Basic turf maintenance practices aze less intensive than those at other sites due to the fact that these fields are intended primarily for team practices and general public use. Direct costs are assessed for basic maintenance. No program costs aze assessed. AGENDA ITEM # PAGE_10_ Rent¢l Scenario 2: Boulder Rugby wishes to rent Pleasant View Fields for a weekend toumament. ~artment cost obligations Pleasant View Fields is a state-of-the-art, sand-based complex that contains ten fields. The direct costs associated with maintenance for this facility aze higher than in Scenario One. They typically include more extensive maintenance practices including specialized mowing, frequent irrigation, field grooming such as lining and moving goals and/or standards, intensive weed management, and may include refurbishment of damaged playing azeas after use. Direct costs are assessed for the higher level of maintenance. No program costs are assessed. Rental Scenario 3: Boulder Valley School District wishes to rent the South Boulder Recreation Center Pool for a Fairview High School swim meet. Denartment cost obli a~ Uons South Boulder Recreation Center contains a 6-lane, 25 yard lap pool. The direct costs associated with maintaining aquatic facilities include maintaining extensive infrastructure, including chemical and filtration management systems, and high energy demand. Addiuonally, lifeguards and/or other water safety personnel aze required on deck for all aquatic programs and services due to the high risk nature of water-based activiues. Direct costs aze assessed for the cost of maintaining the facility. No program costs assessed. Boulder Aauateens and BAM Boulder Aquateens and BAM are specific examples of groups that currendy have rental agreements with the department. Like rental scenario three, the rental costs associated with these groups aze the mos[ expensive due to extensive infrastructure, energy and safety costs. These organizations have expressed concerns about their position and cost recovery expectations in the CSBM. In both the city's Business Plan and the department's CSBM, these programs aze considered Discretionary and Enterprise-like services, respectively, putting their expected cost recovery goals at 100 percent. Historically, both of these organizations were managed by the department. Boulder Aquateens became a stand alone program because city-wide policies could not support the interests of the program at that time. In 2003, BAM voted to become membership- based and self-directed, due to vazious factors including costs of doing business, interest in paying coaching staff more than pay rates for city staff, and interest in self- management. If Boulder Aquateens, BAM or any not-for-profit or community organization requested becoming department-managed, a cost analysis would need to be conducted to detemune the exact costs and pricing for the department to manage the service. This analysis would consis[ of applying the depar[ment's pricing methodology to deternune user fees, charges AGENDA ITEM # PAGE_l l and subsidy, if applicable, and would be consistent with how fees and chazges aze established for existing department managed programs, activities and services. AddiUonally, the program or activity would also have to be evaluated to deternune whether it is part of the exisung continuum of services provided by the department and whether it meets the goals of the department's plan. The complexity of this topic reflecting these issues and other considerations are represented in Attachment F, Program Analysis Matrix. Oations for Allocatin2 Subsidies to Not-For-Profit and Communitv Oreanizations At its March 19, 2007 business meeting, the PRAB is being asked whether some or all of the not-for-profit and community organizations within the CSBM should have their cost recovery expectations adjusted. The following aze the options are presented to the PRAB for consideration. Option A: Reallocate subsidy within the RAF This option would require subsidies to be re-directed from existing programs, activities and services to not-for-profit and/or community organizations. The department would need to develop criteria for deternuning which organizations would be eligible for subsidy, potentially allocate a specific dollar amount available for subsidy, and then create a process for approved organizations to apply for and receive subsidy. Once the dollaz amount of subsidy is deternuned, dollars could be reallocated within the RAF. Through the evaluation of its current financial agreements, the department has quanUfied the costs relative to lowering any fees and cost-recovery goals for not-for-profit groups. Within this analysis, staff has examined all current not-for-profit agreements that exceed $2,500 per yeaz. Using the $2,500 as a threshold, staff has developed an incremental financial analysis to show the costs of lowering fees for not-for-profit community groups by 10%, 20% or 30%. The financial analysis and potential impacts of changing current agreements for aquatics, sports or Boulder Reservoir rentals is shown in the following table: Facility Rental Current Costs 10% Fee Reduction 20% Fee Reduction 30% Fee Reduction A uatics $241,000 $24,100 $48,200 $72,300 S rts $152,000 $15,200 $30,400 $45,600 Boulder Reservoir $28,000 $2,800 $5,600 $8,400 Total: $421000 $42100 $84,200 $126,300 Due to the delicate balance of the RAF, a reallocation of funds based on a detemuned level of subsidy would require a reduction in another area of the fund. The city's business plan process provides a framework for the department to use in making these types of reducUons. The business plan suggests pursuing "narrow but deep" reductions of entire programs, services or facilities, whenever possible, to minimize the lowering of service standards by taking a percentage of reductions "across the board". The department must consider whether the program or service is categorized in the business plan as essential, AGENDA ITEM # PAGE_]2 desirable or discretionary, how it supports the city and master plan goals, and deternune whether to pursue a"narrow but deep" or "across the boazd" reduction. Potential impacts "Narrow and deep" reductions such as closing facilities or eliminating entire programs is an option for reallocating funds. During the master plan process, these ideas were diswssed with the community, PRAB and City Council. Council indicated that staff needed to pursue other options and was clear in their direction regarding keeping all of the existing department facilities open. General "across-the-boazd" reductions in funding to recreation programs and services are another option and would require redirecting a percentage of dollars from all of the existing programs, activities and services. If this option were chosen, it is important for the PRAB to discuss and recommend which existing programs, activities and services should be affected by these reductions. An "across the board" reduction in recreation services would provide unique challenges that could have unanticipated consequences for the RAF. For example, if a reduction is made by eliminating an instructor from a program, it is unclear how that would affect the program; s ability to achieve its cost recovery goals. The majority of department programs in the RAF are currently over- perfornring in their cost recovery goals. If a program began to under-perform, it could necessitate further reducdons in the fund. Optipn B: Reallocate subsidy within the depart~nent's overall budget For 2007, the departmenYs overall General Fund allocation is $3.8 Million funding department administration, general pazk maintenance and forestry. Reallocating funding from the department's overall General Fund allocation is an option and would require re- directing General Fund dollazs from these areas to the RAF. Potential imnacts In developing the 2007 budget, the departrnent eliminated a Superintendent position (Planning and Construction) in an effort to streamline administration and redirect dollazs back to park maintenance. Although the reducuon ocwrred outside of the General Fund, it was designed to augment the General Fund dollars allocated for pazk maintenance. The depaztment also received an additional $39,500 in General Fund dollars through the city's business plan process, resulting in approximately $100,000 in new ongoing funding for parks maintenance. Redirecting dollazs from parks, although possible, would not align with the goals of the master plan, specifically the goal of maintaining and protecting our parks and recreation facilities and programs. Reallocating dollars from forestry and administration would most likely necessitate reductions in staffing or programs in those areas. Optiort C: Do not implement fee increases or the Core Services Business Model The department could maintain the current fees and chazges assessed to all of its programs and services and discontinue the implementation of the cost recovery goals of the CSBM. AGENDA ITEM # PAGE_13_ Potential impacts The RAF will see increased expenses in 2007 and beyond due to higher cost projections related to day-to-day business, increased staffing, utilities and other operational requirements. As a result, the gap between revenues and expenditures will continue to grow. The master plan outlines very specific actions for the financial sustainabiliry of the department, including: • I.everaging resources • Pursue state and federal grants • Partner with the business community and volunteer groups • Collaborate with other city department • Increase department efficiencies o Implement the Core Services Business Model o Restructure the Recreation Activity Fund The CSBM is a method that will assist the department in maintaining the quality and quantity of the programs and services it provides. If current fees and chazges remain the same and the CSBM is not implemented, the department would have to develop a new methodology for pricing programs and applying subsidy. If no fees increases aze implemented, the department does not anticipate a shortfall in the RAF in 2008. Potential reductions have been mitigated by a one-time transfer of dollazs from the .25 Cent Sales Ta~c Fund, made possible by the transfer of Lottery Funds from the Open Space/Mountain Pazks Depar[ment. Beyond 2008, the RAF Fund Financial indicates an increase in revenues but a greater increase in expenses, resulting in a projected fund deficit of $208,000 by 2012. Option D: Request addiliorta[ General Fund dollars within the Action Plan of the 2008 budget In the 2008-09 budget process, all city departments will update their fiscally constrained business plans and revise their Action Plans. Although budget guidelines are still being developed, the business plan will continue to serve as the tool to determine how limited resources can be used to best meet the community's needs. As a component of the budget process, departments will submit an Action Plan to identify their highest priority needs. The business plan incorporates two methods to achieve Action Plan funding; reallocations or new funding. Through reallocation, the business plan encourages departments to transfer funding from lower priority items to higher priority items. The business plan also provides a framework to allocate new funds with the goal of improving city-wide delivery of essential programs and services. As part of its Action Plan submission, the department could request additional funding that would be used to lower fees paid by identified not-for-profit community groups. Any request for additional funding would be evaluated through both the business plan and City Council sustainability filters. For 2008, a City Council Budget Committee will be developing an Action Plan that will be considered with departmental budget submissions and evaluated through the budget process. The city manager will evaluate AGENDA ITEM # PAGE_14 the Action Plan submissions in the broader context of city-wide needs and funding availability. The action plan recommendations of the master plan identify funding needed to lower facility and program fees. This funding recommenda[ion could be directed to lower general public access fees such as recreation centers, outdoor pools or community organizations that use recreation facilities. Even if the not-for-profit Action Plan funding request is approved, the funds will be insufficient to subsidize all community groups. Thus, a set of criteria would need to be developed to ensure that the funds aze used in a manner aligning with the departmenYs master plan, city goals and objectives. It is anticipated that the disbursement of these funds would use an annual grant process to evaluate all requests. The criteria may include such considerations as: • Alignment with departmental mission statement and master plan • Serving under-represented or at-risk populations (non-English speaking, recent immigrants, seniors, and people with disabilities) • Health and safety-related recreational programs • Impact to public access • Youth programming • Provision of recreational services desired by community • Recreational services that the city is incapable of providing due to resource limitations or lack of infrastructure If this option is chosen, staff would need to develop and present the grant application and criteria procedures for consideration by the PRAB. Potential impacts Even if addidonal monies aze identified, there is no guazantee that an item submitted for Action Plan funding within the city's business plan process will be funded. The department's master plan focuses the direction of new or additional funding for recreation, identified as a priority in the action plan recommendations, towazds identified azeas of need, such as programs, activities and services for underserved populations. If funding is allocated through the city's business plan process, the PRAB would need to consider recommending whether new funding for recreation programs and services should be initially prioritized according to the recommendations outlined in the master plan or if subsidy for not-for-profit and community organizations should receive new funding. Option E: Raise Fees Additional fee increases could be imposed on users of existing departrnent programs, activities and services to help subsidize not-for-profit and community organizations. This approach could provide additional funding to be utilized to offset community organization fees or department programs and services. As an example, all adult program cost-recovery rates could be raised five percent and the additional funds could be directed to offset costs for not-for-profit and community organizations. AGENDA ITEM # PAGE_15 Potential im~ts This methodology could provide some additional funding, but may also raise concerns relative to fairness and equity. Staff would also need to provide additional analysis to see if the mazket would support increased fees. Option F: Continue to implement the Core Services Business Model During the course of the adoption of the master plan, concems were raised regazding the distinction made between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations that are in the CSBM and the ques[ion of whether the city should have a different rate structure for not-for- profit and community organizations possessing a 501(c)3 status. The department offers more than 1,000 recreation programs, including: o Visual and performing arts o Team and individual sports leagues o Toumaments and clinics o Fitness classes o Swim lessons o Water activities such as boating and sailing o Special programs and events The CSBM is a tool for establistung a baseline for deternuning which of the large number of department and non-department managed programs should recover more of their costs compazed to those that should be highly subsidized. It does not preclude the department from working together with not-for-profit and community organizations to establish programs and activities where these organizations can participate to help reduce fees without impacting other existing programs or services. The PRAB and City Council adopted the CSBM as part of the master plan. Both PRAB and City Council requested reviewing the relationship of not-for-profits and community organizations with the department and deternuning whether fee structures should be revised. Staff committed to returning to the PRAB and City Council in two yeazs with information regazding a review of the CSBM. Potential Impacts No additional subsidy would be provided to not-for-profit and community organizations at this time if the department continues to implement the CSBM. If no additional subsidy is directed to these groups, some organizations may chose not to continue to use the departmenYs facilities. This could result in an immediate loss of revenues. In the event that Boulder Aquateens and BAM chose ro discontinue their relationship with the city of Boulder, their current contracts for pool use equate to approximately $113,000 combined. The departrnent continues to be contacted by new organizations about potential facility availability. The department believes that other public uses could be programmed and/or other organizations could contract for the use of the available space. AGENDA ITEM # PAGE_16_ The department values its relaUOnships with not-for-profit and community organizations and does not want any user group to discontinue use of city facilities because of this process. Reseazch suggests that the department is pricing its services at mazket rates for compazable levels of quality, and is allowing rentals during operational hours when some other providers do not. In instances where facility rentals are less expensive, the quality of those facilities allows for rates that aze much less than those charged by the department and other regional parks and recreation deparUnents. STAFF RECOMNIENDATION: Staff recommends that the PRAB support pursuing Option F, to continue to implement the CSBM. This recommendation is based on the assumpdon that the CSBM, while not perfect, provides a fair and equitable approach to decision making related to cost recovery and subsidy for the departmenYs programs. Changing the cost recovery expectations in the CSBM would require such actions as raising fees, eliminating programs, seeking additional revenues or subsidy, or a combination of these options. Staff requests that PRAB consider a recommendation based not only on whether to provide subsidy to not-for-profit and community organizations that currently have contracts with the department, but also for those not-for-profit organizations that may work with the department in the future. Staff also requests that PRAB consider a recommendation regarding prioritization for new funding for recreation programs and services. ' CONCLUSION: The issue of the departmenY s relationship with not-for-profit and community organizations and whether or not to subsidize these organizations is extremely complex. Further complicating the issue is the department's current fiscally constrained budget that requires new funding to achieve a sustainable RAF. The department has chosen the CSBM as a tool to achieve the goals of the master plan and to fulfill the department's goal to provide fair and equitable program and service delivery to the community. The department continues to value the role of not-for-profit and community organizations in providing recreation programs and services within the Boulder community. QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD: • What option does the PRAB recommend regarding the Pazk and Recreation Department's relationship with not-for-profit and community organizations and the request for providing additional subsidy to any or all of these organizations? • Does the PRAB support the continued implementation of the CSBM? • Does the PRAB support the master plan recommendation to direct AcUOn Plan funding to under-represented populations? NEXT STEPS: The department will present the PRAB and staff s recommendauon to City Council at its April 17, 2007 business meeting. AGENDA ITEM # PAGE_17_ Approved By: Jan Geden Department Director ATTACHIVIENTS: A: The Six Pazks and Recreation Funds B: RAF Fund Financial C: Core Services Business Model D: Aquatics Benchmarking E: Service Delivery Methods Definitions F: Program Analysis Matrix AGENDA ITEM # PAGE 18 Attachment A ~4~~+~wd~~c ~ - The S%~c ~arles awd R.e~reati,ow ~u.wds Parks and Recreation Funds - 2007 Budget -$22.8 million Novemfx~r 1, 200G I.i.,h6;h~~:l i~~ iinancr.~nd .rcrnunl for tl~r ti~n~n,J ~_ nuo fin~d ia.u <,~nm ioi (~.~pi~.~l u ~~unrn~ innJ rst.dJis6~~d i~~ . ~.~. r,r ~~ r ~ivul drdi~.a<~I i<~~ 1'.u<~..~nd ~p~~u.J ~. ~~ ~~-IunJ ~~,nn .vl~~d i,~ ~~,.- ~ ~~ Sprd:J n,w•rnur twul acrounn foi t.~ ,. ~ ~.~ i ~ it.~l ,m t~v t~c,.,nd fl~n~unnc_ i n,n~ „I upa:~tiom u1 u cn•.n n~~ i.~~~d .~. y,u~: i, ~~p~r ~rmrnt:. nJ d~ ~ I 1:, <<. t~ ~n I I~c ~.~ .•, i.~v «.~ , p~~ ,~d L~~ ~,u~~~u, iJ, c4~~.: P;r ~. ~ i~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ •~. 1 ~~,,u. v,~tmn truvt iunA prot~~rAa. prngrams and iac~diUi•.. ,~~~ m•ni nf park uiJ r~. - Y m L~<ililirs :uae. m 19'J'; I<tt a 20-y~:v ptinirxl. .v I udJc anJ ti6~no Italitivld., ant Vu , \ , ... , , "~ ~ ~._ . . ....„_ ,i,.., ---".•-'~ _ I ' ~. . ~ ~,...., ~ ' _ : . ~ ~~'., ,. ~ , ~_.. ~~ .,.~ ~,.~ - I I I fir~~.~~~~l~u•~ ~ .. - .... . .. ~..,.. ~ ... ...~.... ~~ .... .. i.. .. . . .. . . . ...~. ..... ~. 4k.1 31:4/~n ii~~ _ i..._I. ~ ~i ~ni ~_ . 3 845 000 9 720 U00 $1 980 000 6 209 UOQ 276 000 965 OUO ,_,, .. .., , ~ ~ . ... _.., . , ,, . ,.. ,. , ,,,,. , J -, . ,,, 4 ~` _ ,., . , _ ~~ ^ ,___ _ , f ., . , .. - - - ,,: _ ~ .+ r-~- ~' ~ „_. , l . I , . , ~ `~- ~ ~;, ,---~ ~/ ~, $3 84S 000 $9 533 000 $2,047,000 $6 014 000 $276 000 $1 100 000 15irk, Facililies Urbl $rrvice Uebl Srrvi~~~• Alhl~•fia~ Cbmplvx Mainlcn.m~ e 1)ebl Servire f`I.~yrm nd hl,iinu~nan~r Nortb F4nuldrr Httmeiinn Crn~rr f)cbl S~~rvirr Urbt Itrymiyin on Iinnds Pir.i,.un \'i~~~e f u•Id~, h~.iin~rnan~~r Or!>[ Srn~irr nn 1 and Arqui.ltinns I IurOcull~~rc. Iurf .md Ini~,aiion Ma6it C w l I ti l i ii l Lisl UoiJder liecmalinn (-antr•r l ld B R Arquicilion and Uevelopmenl i ' O~w~r.dionsa,ul Mainlenanrn d ' l Si.vl~~ 14allh,dd nl:nn~~•nanc~~ Maintenan~r ~na ;~mr~u and n Nalural I andx A1 icv ys nmp cr n ga on em Fc.trn~m an I Sh l • ht i Snul ~ oa rr ecmatimi Ccnl~v F' l l S C ~ f' l S Aa qui.itinn u f aik 1~inJ ' l ~ •I l o i .v . Mdintcnarn r an I rorsiiy l l l . E M:iii~~ei~incc < i~ ~ a ntcnancc ii iil 51 ~1ai~ and Bmdde. Cnrk 1' Pr th oo .i~n .arpci~ti ru~ ~~iucc cnl~ r tirnns Golf C fl mrs n f ;v : I iti i ~y~inciit u atM d R ( bi f l R N:pi~r:i e ( ~m.~~ini~~ I:~~ii llfmld M m mr H Capilql Impmw•mrnts . r a trash and Sno~.~ Fi.rioval a c e BoulJcn c~scrvoi~ m v n yn e u~ s ~men Urb.~n V.vk Aonne.rtiun and hr~iubiah a a ien. r I.xi6~y Ungoing hlain~an.~n~~r IIAht~ n An in thr I`.uk Gcncral P.vk Maint~narxc ~~ Mngmt I'ourn~ lab ~~il fard~y~ hia~nr MaiNrnan~r ~I.\MI c~ C.~pl!.il Improct~inrnlsAllor.tliun fnrr.Iry Pir.rant Vic+v f iitids hrnv.~tlnn t:u Iliiy Fennca~inn :md ~ Renwalion anA Nrfurbicl~m~•nl 1~ vo P~uning 1nd PLmting $laiio. Maplrlon:~n~l 19 $alrlltlr Itallfiolds R~iurhi~:hm.~ni o ud~an 1'ork .~nd It~•~ r~~aiinn f.~cdu~. I f.~r:vdous 7Fer Rrninval pru~rams Ulhrr Capilal Imprwrnn~nls Nnte: In addltinn lo the f~)'~II.OOQ annua{ lliti / Lor Inc~ntnry Gym~ asYic.. 1'oga, Dancc c'o~d Allooihon / Imm6•rv tu ~~~hr~ I'.v{, 17rw~rlopn rN tr~.idPel, a St yu,0U0 annnal alloration ~s ~ Admini.tralive tiuppnrl Srrvices Ihcvajx•utii~ Ferrcation IGKPANDI f uods o f lislmic and (:uhwal f arilili~x ,rerrnvay.. tian,ferrod tn Irlbucuy ( Ilu~iix<c.ind I mmeaJ Ms~aP.s'~~~e•nt ~qualVi s. Addetice. I'o~tcry and A~ts o ('iv e(~rnd•~ Complcx I'olic~ nd Ininrnia~ion Scvvi~cs li~uth Uutrcach Notc~. In .~dJmon, S~IUp,pUO ix Ir,msirvtcA tn I loahlvl5'rllnns IAh1 Irn larihl ~ rn.~inlrnanrr. 16~~ c 6•nrml Fund ~Ibaztion was ral,ib' Lsta6lishrd to wnd Il~e npcralions ol rccrc- ~~pF"oprialions ol d~e lun<I rnusi hr ap- fu !~e u.ed prirmxily to p.rv d~~bl sviviro on { unding is nserv<el inr n~.uw<7tenc~~ af I undinF ran be unal lor Iho a~~qui~ilinn. i~~d in (inanco ihc l~.~sic wnctinns ol F.vks ation p~oh~ams, w.+vice,. and Lvi6iitw p+~~•.`~I by Ihe PR.\I3. i! c u~nd shall not 6c hrnui~ usttl tn .ic-yuim I.~nd, and c~rondanl}' Pirasan+\5r~r i irlda inJ Stann Hallhrl<la. drvrlopmcN, and neiintonan<o nf n~~rv md Rccreatlon. Noie: The Gcneral fund's usnllor any purposr oihcr i6an acquirinF; ~~n p.vk in.anl.. urban p.nk rr(urb.. Io crn~- consr.rv~ieion siles oo for capi6J .~Iln~.-nion rl ~iimted tnr Recroaiion is now park I.vid w penuanontl~ improving p.7~A +o-uci ui ~rnov.iic r~c lacilidc•,. ~:~onls, uA~an improvrrvnr~u> eu maintrnanc•• for p~~ v~~drd ihrough an anm.ial Uansirr lo thr ~od n•crcatinn (ariliiic•, ~~arks, his~orid<~uln~ral i.~rillhes, ~~Ivic <~ontcr rn-rcarinnnl puqx>scs nn a~ry puidic silc. , Hr~ ication Activiq~ f uncl. rnpirx. devido~~ment of aIl ntt~y!nrios ol ~ '', ~ ~ds. R nwv rcao.uinn facilitics. f und ~cnnates ~rvcnuc ~7H r~ in ?007i fron~~ S:~L~, iae. prnperty tax. feeK pwgr.~ni liti~s and iacilily chaip,es. f und ma•ivcs nwrni~r 6om a I und nY-rrvet dodiralyd _' S('rni I un<I rot orvi~ drduaNe! .1'~ Crnt ScJc: lae, Slate u( Color.ido distrib~dn rtwrnur to .iral other ~:i~rs. S~ipplen;eni.il (undln~,177".~o Ifl )~i 114 l~Cl~l[~ll[Y~ ,Q Illl~~ rl(1~1('~Iy' I~IY. ti~l~Ci I~.ir. ~vl~icl~ is.~llu~.itnl in v.~ri<~i~s c ~ty eligible a•ntilian on a~+cK~c.~pitn b~sis. ~)~OVi(IM~ VIV IIiL` (~CI~Cf:II ~11~1(~.lil(I IItS' f~M'CIDF)II1CI11 f'%flif' I.1%h~ .111(~ lI('~.llllllt'IIIS. .)~ ~~~'1115~t~C5 ~.l% ~UII(~. (~(~Il.llln~l?- Ihe fundmg frum dw S~atc of Colo~ado Lot- I OO°;, pnrtion is a permanrnl salrs Lix. A Annual redur~ions map ~xc ur d~c to l~undinN r, pcnuanent accordin~, in S,~Icc ta. rcF~in s m~ I?/11/.?01 S, tiale. tnK capo~er, nn I?/i 1; )01 J. tcv}~ is st.iblr. ~IFiccunent (und-sharing ~~ iH °b ~f0l110~1 S>~~IlM Oil 1.'./31!)011. struclure ot icmd and li~r a~companying e-ily d~ertce ~Ercemen~ ~vith OSMP and Trihut~ry Grcem high ~ast-rcemrry ~x•ed;. va~s i•spiros 1n?006. 2006 atioa ~aster Plari q~~en~~X ~~ Ej p~ r k s a n d R e c r e Attachment B CITV OF BOULDER 2007 FUND FINANCIAL RECREATION ACTIVITY FUND UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE Beginning of the Year SOURCES OF FUNDS Recreation Revenue Golf Revenue Reservoir Revenue Interest Income Transfers from the General Fund Transfer from the 25 Cent Sales Tax Fund Trensfers from Worker's Compensation Fund Trensfers from Transportation Fund TOTAISOURCES OFFUNDS USES OF FUNDS Recrealion Administration Golf Reservoir Pleasanlview Total Opereting Uses of Funds Transfers To Othe~ Funds Transfer to lhe General Fund Total Trensfers ToWI Debt Service TOTAL USES OF FUNDS TOTAL FUND BALANCE Pay Period 27 - 2013 Reserve Operahng Reserve Total Reserves 2005 2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 2077 2072 ACTUAL REViSED APPROVED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED 414,951 223,365 490,721 677,704 558,506 432,943 300,622 161,948 4,753,558 5,355,637 5,409,762 5,572,055 5,739,217 5,911,393 6,088,735 6,271,397 1,512,442 1,545,000 1,532,400 1,578,372 1,625,723 1,674,495 1,724,730 1,776,472 748,919 751,000 721,000 742,630 764,909 787,856 811,492 835,837 16,371 - - - - ' - - 1, 297, 390 1, 336, 325 1, 663, 782 1, 713, 695 1, 765,106 1, 818, 060 1, 872, 601 1, 928, 779 - - 300,000 - - - - - 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 8,421,680 9,080,962 9,719,944 9,699,752 9,987,955 10,284,804 10,590,558 10,905,484 6,571,321 6,830,135 7,463,550 7,687,457 7,918,080 8,155,623 8,400,291 8,652,300 99,156 104,410 111,635 114,984 118,434 121,987 125,646 129,416 1,203,915 1,264,560 1,326,114 1,365,897 1,406,874 1,449,081 1,492,553 1,537,330 637,881 515,254 522,868 538,554 554,711 571,352 588,493 606,147 84 620 99 248 108 794 112 058 115,420 118,862 122,449 126,122 8,596,895 8,813,607 9,532,961 9,818,950 10,113,518 10,416,924 10,729,432 11,051,315 8,613,266 8,813,607 9,532,961 9,818,950 10,113,518 10,416,924 10,729,432 11,051,315 223,365 490,721 677,704 558,506 432,943 300,822 161,948 16,118 ~zs,ioo~ ~5a,2oo) (e~,soo~ (~is,aoo~ ~ias,soo~ (i~a,soo~ (50 000) (50 000) (50 000) (50 000) (50 000) (50 000) (50 000) (50 000) (50,000) (50,000) (79,100) (108,200) (t37,300) (166,400) (195,500) (224,600) UNRESTRICTED FUND BALANCE 173,365 440,721 598,604 450,306 295,643 134,422 (33,552) (208,482) Attachment C CORE SERVICES BUSINESS MODEL BOULDER'S PARKS, FACILITIES AND RECREATION PROGRAMS Boulder Reservoir (except park land at reservoir); Flatirons Goli Recover Course; Private Lessons (all kinds); Personal Training; Community ~ ~o°~ of Gardens, Harbeck House; Special or Dedicated Use Groups; Rentals costs Flyers Gymnas~ics; 17anc~• ExFirc`5510f15; Pnttery l.ib; Adult Sports; Andrews Arborctum Adult Recreation Instruction; Pleasant View fields; Fitncss and Wcllness Classes 5outli fioulder Recreation Center, Norlh [ioulder Recreation (:erner; Ecast Bnulder Community Cc:nter; Mapletcm Complex; St~zio Cc~mplex; Yc~udi Rr.crcatiun Instructic~n and Youlh Sports; Sprucc Pc~l; Do~ Parks Pirk Shrllers; Salellilc• BaUfic~lclt ~lnnual Plowcr Program; hccrc~tion Cc~ntcr ~icility Dro~~-in Expand (noninclusion); Pearl Stree~ Mall; Leam to Sm~im S~x•cializcd services ar facilitics should recovcr 70-10(1°I af COSIS. F;nhancect services or f~cililir.s shotdd rerrn~- EN rr S ;JO'%. of rnsts. Merit scrvices or facili- ties should mcover 15- 35°!o af costs. Programs; Scott Carnenter Ponl Columbia Ccmetcry Park Restrooms; f~irk facility Rrpl~cemen~; Skitcpirk; Multi-pw~xx~ Pricticr Basic services or facilities should recover 0-15';~0 of Ficlds (soccer, focath~ill, ullimatc fritihcc); Youlh Scrviccs Initiativc rnsts. F'arks and F'ark Infrastructure; I'faygrounds; Maintenance (mowing, snow and trash removal); Wood~~ Horticulture and Urban Forestry; Park Shop ancl Equipment; Expand (inclusion); Pi.dalic C)pen Swim; Boulder Creek Path; Business Plan Calegories Chautauqua Park & Historic• Distric•1 DISCRETIONARY ii[5ictnisi i ESSENTIAL ENTERPRISE-LIKE ALtZED MERIT BASiC See page 30 for definitions o( these calegorics `~ V Attachment D Aquatics Benchmarking - March 2007 AdultPrices Le Pools Hoursof0 eration Rentalloformatioo Dail R/NR AonualPauR/NR lndaor OuWoor Communiq FadliUp . _ . - ' ~ .. . 9. - _ ~~ , _ _ ~ .'. , . . ~ - f ~in Lomsville Rec Centec §5 00 $396/5421 One 6 lane 25 yd M- TH 5 45am 9pm 1. No mntals during open hours F 5 45am-7pm 2 Vanes by group, limited ava~labJity Sat 7em-6pm 3 Ezample: BoWde~OutdoorCenter EI00/ 2 hr efier hours, no guards Sun 8am-6 m 4 H VSD 535 for 45 minu4s before ~he ol o ns m am, no rds Longmont Rec Cenrer S4/aS $325/5406 25 One 61ene 25 merer M-F Sam-9 30pm 1 No mntals dunng open hours Sa[7atn-530pm 2 E30/hrforwholelappool+staficosts Sun 9am-5 30 m 3 Gmited avadabih Sun evenm , Sat evenm when w Kids Ni t Oul Centenmal Pool S4/SS 5325/5406 25 One 5 lane 25 yd M-F 6em-8 30pm l U55 Swim Team has a wntract for ~he yeer and pays a monthly fee. Longmont Sat 7-Spm 2 E25Aane/hour Sun I-5 m Paul Derda Recrtahon Cen[er E4 5/E6 E350/E440 One 31ane 25 yd M-TH Sam-9 30pm I No renlals Broomfield F Sem-6pm Sat 7am-Spm Sun Sam-6 m Bmomfield Community Cen[er E3 5/E4 5 E245/5335 One 6 lane 25yd MW 5 30am-9pm 1 No rentals dunng open hours 7'A'H7am-9pm 2 E50/hrforpool+stat£cas~s F 5 30am-7pm 3 S25/ hr Por IY2 pool + sta(f costs Sat 8am-4pm Sm-Closed City Park Rec Qnter E4/SS 50 E310/$435 One 81ane 25 yd M-F 6em-9pm 1. IGA Por school use Westmmster Sat 7am-7pm 2 Limrted aveJab~Lty, S15/lane/hr plus staffcosts Sun9am-7 m Bob L Berger Rec Center E4 50 $350 One 61ane 25 meter M-F Sam-8:30pm L[GA for High School Sw~m Team, oNy pay for a buddmg supervisor. Lafayette Sat Svn-6pm 2 Club Sw~m Team 58 SOAane/hour Sun IOamb m 3 No mom for other rentals PrNaro Hulth Cluba . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ . ~ r•.. ~ , . ~. ~ -•, ~ ~ - - - • _ _ ~ .,; : . - . _. - - _ ~ Ftelly Spon NO memberships reqwred E87/month+ One 41ane 25 yd One S lene 25 yd M-F Sam-t tpm NONE miha~ion 5400 ~o go month ro monlh Sat 7am-8pm ~mha~~on 5200 6 month comract Sun 8am-Spm ~mha~ion51001 earcontract Flanron Athletic Club NO SI50 ~mt~atmn+ y78/momh One 5 lane 23 yd One 5 lane 25 meter M-'!H 5 30am-11 30pm NONE F 5 30-IOpm Sat-Sun 730am-8 m Ci - olBoulderFrcilitied' _ . , _ ~ - - ~, _ ' -- - - - - d ~ On Goin Reobls One Time Renbl NBAC One 81ane 25 yd M-TH 6am-9pm S9 58/lane/hr One t~me rental S20Aane/hr F 6am-6pm Set 6.30am-6.30pm Sw 7 30-'730 m EBRC One 8 lane 25 yd M-F 5.30am-9pm S9 014ane/hr One t~me rentel E20Aane/hr Sat 730am-5 30pm Sun 8 30am-5.30 m SBRC E6 25 $473/$592 One 61ene 25 yd M-TH 6am-9pm 510 58/lane/Iv Oce t~me rentel E20/lane/hr F 6am-830pm Sat 7 30am-1 30pm Sun Sam-0.30 m Swit Ca enter Pool One 61ane 50 d 5:45am-9 m $26 9l/lane/hr One time rental E40Aane/hr S ruce Pool One 8 lane 25 yd 5 45am-7 m 512 45flanehr One hme mntel 520flene/hr Attaclunent E Service Deliverv Methods Definitions The following four delivery methods aze typically used within the pazks and recreation industry and are used by the city of Boulder's Parks and Recreation Department: • General Supervision is the most common in both the public and not-for-profit sectors and provides only for general supervision as people use various spaces within a system. o This practice is commonly used by the Boulder Parks and Recreation Department. An example would be the general oversight of a weight room in one of the three recreation centers. • Structured Leadership refers to the direct face-to-face leadership of an activity. o This practice is the most prevalent used by the Boulder Pazks and Recreation Department. All classes, lessons and camps aze based upon Structured Leadership. The department hires staff and manages or directs the programs and assumes all financial responsibility for the program. • Facilitation services are provided to individuals and small groups to simulate and assist them in becoming independent and in control of their organization or activity. The goal is for these users to become self-sustaining and fuliy capable of managing their own recreation. o The Boulder Pazks and Recreation Department is often asked to oversee, manage and operate programs for the community. As it is not realistic for the department to provide every type of recreation or leisure service to the communiTy (e.g., chess clubs, book clubs, swim clubs), the department may reasonably assist organizations in beginning or sustaining their program, if possible. This allows the community access to various types of services, not all managed by the department. • Indirect Leadership often augments recreation opportunities by providing equipment and other services for rent (a "rental" is considered any use of any pazks and recreation facility by an external user, whether it be an individual or group.) o The Boulder Parks and Recreation Department provides significant Indirect Leadership to all facets of the community including approximately 100 not-for-profit/community organizations. These include but are not limited to field rentals to groups and organizations such as North and South Boulder Little Leagues, Boulder Junior Soccer, University of Colorado Intramurals; Boulder Rugby and the YMCA; pool rentals to both Fairview and Boulder High Schools; facility rentals to Boulder Community Hospital, and MESA (Movement to End Sexual Assault) PROGRAM ANALYSIS MATRIX At tachment F d ~ m ~ u, o ~ w ~ v a ~ d~ N ~ Z d R d ~ r w aai Z m R ° a d ~ ~ m h y a E y ~ y d ~ ; N ~ Q ~+ V Yl ~ y ~ E a i Q v y j ~ o Cf ~` O L • O . C C= d N d~0 V O • ~ y C N ~~ " O. C +~ ~ d ' 7 'O Ol ,d ~ m V 0 ~ m m > ~ '{6 O 10 m ~ d ?~ C Ot ~ ~ O O r• a N d yr 01 tll 7 Q 10 N p) y G w O 01 > T + + 16 ~ V N 'O d C C O 0 ~ ~ ~ ~~ 0 L F d C a J C ~ ~ f .1 • • • ~ Y .+ ' R ~ '~ m .~ l E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` Y O N y N ~ R p O d ~ 0 N LL d N ~ 7 •~ p •` a ~~ ~ a 7 Z O ~ N c~ fq C~ C) m ~ E x ~ t~ O. O n Z fn a } INTERNAL PROGRAMS (Department provides space for and manages program) - • Ex ressions Dance Y 2, 4, 6 Y Y N N Y Y Y M/F Y 70 0% Specialized 100+% Structured • Flyers Gymnastics Y 2, 4, 6 Y Y N N Y Y Y M/F N 140 0% Specialized 100+% Structured RENTALS (Organizations pay fee for use of Department facilities) • Aquateens Y 2, 4, 6 Y N Y Y Y Y Y F Y 35 0% Enter rise-Like 100% Indirect • Boulder Aquatic Masters Y 2, 4, 6 Y N Y Y Y Y A M/F Y 250 17% Enterprise-Like 100% Indirect • Boulder Count Force Soccer Y 2, 4, 6 N N Y Y Y Y Y M/F Y 900 und Enterprise-Like 100% Indirect • Boulder Swimming Y 2, 4, 6 Y N Y Y Y Y Y M/F Y 80 0% Enter rise-Like 100% Indirect • Boulder Tennis Assoc. Y 2, 4, 6 Y N Y Y Y Y A M/F Y 400 und Enterprise-Like 100% Indirect • BV Girls Softball Y 2, 4, 6 N N Y Y Y Y Y F Y 350-500 und Enterprise-Like 100% Indirect • BVSD Swim Teams Y 2, 4, 6 Y N N N Y Y Y M/F Y 260 0% Ente rise-Like 100% Indirect • MESA 5/10km Race N 2, 6 N N Y Y Y Y Y/A M/F Y 800 0% Enterprise-Like 100% Indirect • South Boulder Little Lea ue Y 2, 4, 6 N N Y Y Y Y Y M Y 750-800 und Enter rise-Like 100% Indirect • YMCA Field S orts) Y 2, 4, 6 N N Y Y Y Y Y M/F Y 250 und Enterprise-Like 100% Indirect EXTERNAL PROGRAMS (Not served by the Department) • Boulder Valle Lacrosse Y 2, 4, 6 N N Y Y Y Y Y M n/a 80-100 n/a n/a n/a n/a • Boulder Volleyball Club Y 2, 4, 6 Y N Y Y Y Y Y F n/a 120 n/a n/a n/a n/a • Mesa Swim Team Y 2, 4, 6 Y N Y Y Y Y Y M/F n/a 150 n/a n/a n/a n/a * 2= Become economically sustainable; 4= En a e a broader ran e of 4he community es ecially under-re resented populations; 6= Enhance our quality of life "* Does service dis lace other ro rams? - If facilit /s ace were not bein used b this rou , could it be used b the eneral ublic or for other ro rams?