Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 3/19/2007City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Advisory Board West Senior Center Monday, March 19, 2007 Meeting Minutes Board Present: Ed von Bleichert, Todd Bryan, Chad Julian, Norm Murphy, Suzanne O'Neill, and Stu Stuller Board Absent: None Staff Present: Stacy Cole, Ariel Calonne, Sarah DeSouza, Colleen Fitzgerald, Jan Geden, Lisa Green, Alice Guthrie, Matt Hickey, Abbie Novak, Teri Olander, A1 Quiller, Jamie Sabbach, Jay Sanford, and Steve Whipple City Council Present: Suzie Ageton, Deputy Mayor Meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. II. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public Comment was opened. No comments were presented. Public participation was closed. CONSENT AGENDA No items were considered for the Consent Agenda. IV. TTEMS FOR ACTION City Attorney Calonne was introduced and discussed the policy making authority of the PRAB. A. Public participation and consideration of a motion regazding the Core Services Business Model and providing additional subsidy to not-for-profiUcommunity organizations. Geden introduced the item followed by a presentation to the Board by Sabbach. Von Bleichert asked bout the reduction of $330,000 per year, and whether it is a cumulative drop. He asked how many of the over 100 community groups have been impacted by over $2500. Sabbach indicated that four aquatics organizations, fifteen sports organizations, and between ten and twenty organizations at the Reservoir have been impacted. She further clarified that most of the rentais are pools, turf azeas and the Reservoir. Von Bleichert questioned whether the 100% of the costs that the department is asking rental groups to cover includes all of the department's costs. Sabbach indicated that the costs only include facility use chazges. No other wsts associated to the fees and charges aze being passed along to the groups. Von Bleichert asked whether there are costs associated with running facilities that are not currently being applied. Sabbach indicated that the superintendent salary is currently not being included, nor are other indirect costs. Von Bleichert asked whether there are other narrow or deep cuts that would not close a facility or eliminate a program. Geden indicated that as city budgets are created, the City Manager asks departments whether reallocation of funding is possible. The City Manager recommends pursuing narrow but deep cuts, due to the fear of establishing a system where a lot of things are being done, but none very well. Von Bleichert asked whether Option D would be an additional request from the General Fund for more monies. He also asked whether making such a request would be appropriate. Geden indicated that she was not aware of how this type of funding request would relate to requests made by other departments. She asked the Board if this is the direction it would like to take in the event that additional monies be allocated to the department or if action plan funding is achieved. O'Neill indicated her support for direcf action plan funding for under-served populations. She also said that she wasn't sure that enough information has been provided or discussed on this topic. Geden stated that it relates to the city's action plan. She indicated that if new dollars are requested, the action plan of the Master Plan states that additional funds will be directed to under-represented populations (within the RAF). Julian indicated that the Projected Fund Balance chart is conceming to him. He said that it assumes that the CSBM is not in place. Stuller indicated that the fund balance is negative in 2012 and that this does not consider the sunsetting sales tax. Stuller asked how much funding the department receives from the .25 cent sales taac? Bryan indicated that he does not see an option where the department might consider partnering with non profit groups to lower the rates allowing them to build their membership base and thereby restructuring their rental contracts. He suggested that the department and the groups could benefit from partnerships. He indicated that the options presented in the packet appear very dire. Bryan said that all the options involve closing facilities or eliminating programs. He indicated that there should be an option where the department and groups benefit from growing the groups. He indicated that he would like to see an option that involves lowering the prices charged to the groups. Bryan suggested that if the groups grow, the department benefits From the increased size of the group. He stated that currently, some of the groups do not feel that there is a true partnership between the city and the groups. Von Bleichert indicated that there are opportunities far the groups to lower their costs citing the ability of groups to close and open pools. Bryan indicated that this is not much of a benefit as it does not lower costs enough. Bryan indicated that there is an historical implication that the way recreation centers operated was not fair. He stated that in 2004, a decision was made to begin to divide up facilities and assess costs to the direct user. He suggested that prior to 2004, the department operated very differently and the approach used then was more equitable with more equitable assignment of costs across all programs. He indicated that the policy now is if you use the pools; you pay for the pools. Sabbach stated that with the decline of General Fund dollars, the challenge is how to pass along the costs to the users. She indicated that there was a somewhat azbitrary pricing policy prior to 2004. She stated that currently, the cost of operating different types of facilities has to be addressed. Sabbach stated that it's difficult to chazge the soccer players the same as the swimmers due to the significantly different costs associated with doing business. Public Comment: Kathy Anderson, 4437 Coolidge Pl., Boulder, CO, spoke about the cost of swimming on the Boulder Swim Team and how the costs have gone up significantly over the years. Anna Scott, 3877 15`h Street, Boulder, CO, spoke about the high costs associated with being involved in swimming in Boulder and that it will be unaffordable if the private route is pursued. Kristi Anderson, 3727 Bazbados Pl., Boulder, CO, spoke about the Boulder Swim Team program and how important it is to her life and about the pool fee increase. Dan Freemont, 3975 17`h Street, Boulder, CO, spoke in support of Boulder Aquateens and how the team could attract more youth if it were not being charged at the highest level. James Richey, 5679 Boulder Hills Drive, Longmont, CO, spoke abouf the high cost of renting pools in Boulder. Jean Scraggs, 1585 Bradley Dr., Boulder, CO, spoke about the high cost of renting pools in Boulder. Rick Werner, 2040 Grape Avenue, Boulder, CO spoke in support of Boulder Aquateens and the need to find creative ways to support organizations like the Aquateens. Jim Best, 828 Spruce Street, Boulder, CO, spoke in support ofthe Boulder Swim Team and the value the community gains from the participation of the youth in swimming. Mike Browning, 3186 Galina Way, Boulder, CO, spoke in support of $oulder Aquateens and the need to classify all youth non-profits in a non-enterprise category. Mazgo MacDonnell, 2160 Linden Avenue, Boulder, CO, spoke in support of Botilder Aquateens and her concerns about the cost increases the group has recently experienced. Mary Anne Mahoney, Boulder Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2440 Peazl St, Boulder, CO, cautioned the PRAB to consider the impact of providing subsidy to one specific group or groups and the needs and wants of future groups that will desire a similaz type of subsidy. Francie Lee, P.O. Box 19523, Boulder, CO, spoke in support of Boulder Aquateens and her concern regarding the high costs associated with renting city pools in order to engage in this activity. Larry McKeogh, 2322 Spruce Street, $oulder, CO, BAM City Liaison, spoke of his desire for the PRAB to move BAM and other aquatics groups into a lower cost recovery tier within the CSBM. He feels that BAM members are contributing more to the community than just the BAM associated costs. Francis Hartough, 3186 Galena Way, Boulder, CO, spoke in support of Boulder Aquateens and voiced her concern that the current cost recovery policy is moving in an elitist directing pitting one group against another possible resulting in the exclusion of specific populations. John Rigg, 8321 Pawnee Lane., Niwot, CO, president of the Boazd, Boulder Swim Team, spoke of misrepresentations of pricing information in the February packet. Linda Soderlund, 5134 Gallatin Pl., Boulder, CO, stated that the City should have facilities that support youth making it attractive to young families. Paula Pail, Louisville, CO, spoke in support of the Boulder Swim Team and the concern that the Swim Team may have to move out of the state. Bryce Anderson-Gregson, 3727 Barbados Pl., Boulder, CO, spoke about the pool fees. Jaclyn Best & Amy Flynt, 828 Spruce St., Boulder, CO, spoke about the hearing regarding the Core Services Business Model. Public Participation was closed. Sabbach clarified the rates for the Boulder Aquateens. She indicated that benchmazking analysis was accomplished in cooperation with the aquatic staff at each of the identified facilities. She clarified the point of "shared costs" and the fact that when groups are using the space, it impacts the ability of the general public to use that space at the same time. Bryan disclosed that he is a BAM member. He stated that he believes in the power and community value of groups. He stated that the idea of exclusive use of a pool does not hold merit as there aze always pools available to the general public. Von Bleichert suggested that while Bryan does not see this as a barrier to the general public, others may indeed view it as a barrier as they would have to drive to get to a different aquatic facility. Bryan indicated that all aquatics groups aze doing a tremendous amount of driving anyway. He suggested that it does not negatively impact people to have to use a different pool. He stated that general lap swimmers have 1500 hours per week of swimming time but that BAM has one tenth that amount. Bryan indicated that the department should reward groups that efficiently use a facility. Von Bleichert asked why so many of the other recreation facilities cited in the example do not have availability during regular operating hours. He indicated that some swimmers have spoken of the appeai of the Boutder facilities being open during regular hours. Bryan distributed a copy of a transcript he prepared of the December 19°i meeting and read it to the Board. Stuller indicated his desire to address the questions presented in the packet. 0'Neill indicated that she did not feel comfortable addressing question number three at this time. Von Bleichert stated that he appreciates it when people come and present to the PRAB as it shows the passion of the community. He stated that he agrees with what he heard during public comment. He suggested that what gets "lost" in the process is all the other groups that the Board and the department is trying to protect; many or all of them having similaz values. Von Bleichert indicatetl that in the last seven years, the department has been through a lot and there are many obstacles presented by the budget. He indicated that the department is in a very difficult budget situation. He stated that the bottom line, is that any time money is added from one place, it is taken away from somewhere else. He indicated that some areas within the recreation organization aze currently making 120 percent cost recovery and aze expected to remain this way. Von Bleichert indicated that City Council has asked the department and Board to look at intemal measures before asking for more city-wide funding. He indicated that he supports the effort to review the relationships with not for profits and community organizations. He stated that it is difficult to develop criteria to determine which organizations would be worthy of receiving the higher subsidy. He believes that not every community group is alike and that different not for profits/community groups have very important roles in the community. He stated that there are different values of the various groups and he feels the problem is that the department isn't adequately funding the programs that we need to and want to (seniors, youth, persons with disabilities). He stated that in order to support some of the groups that came forwazd tonight, would mean reducing the support for some of the other groups that we know are not currently being funded adequately. Von Bleichert indicated that in the event that an additional subsidy is given, he does not see funding BAM and Boulder Swimming equally. He questioned the fairness of holding two aquatics groups out of the cost recovery expectations. O'Neill indicated that she did not think that City Council meant to single out two aquatics user groups. She said that it was because those were the two groups that were there on the evening of December 19th. She feels that it was helpful to have spent the last two to three meetings on the fairness and equity issue. Bryan indicated that policy decisions to divide up the facilities and allocate the costs, have been made by staff. He believes that what was a fair and equitable process prior to the implementation of the new cost recovery tool, has been changed by staff without being publicly reviewed. He stated that if City Council said that this is a fair and equitable process for pricing facilities, he would be accepting of it. He indicated tkat there is a consequence to passing this decision on to the next yeaz and new Board. He feels that the scope of work of the working group will be limited by the new PRAB. Bryan indicated that the placement of tbe community groups in the CSBM is the issue. Stuller stated that the development of policy options is staff's job. He indicated that staff has come to the PRAB and is asking for the recommendation of the PRAB. Stuller indicated that he supports option F and the continued implementation of the CSBM. Julian indicated that staff and the Board spent a lot of time on the Master Plan and it was approved. He stated his support to have a working group look at this issue. He asked what City Council is directing by removing BAM and Aquateens from the designated cost recovery expectations these two groups out. Julian asked whether the CSBM could still be implemented if the groups were taken out of the model. Geden indicated that if the fees of two groups are held back, this will raise questions from other groups. Von Bleichert suggested that if he were a member of a group where fees had gone up, he would think that the previous method of establishing fees was more equitable. He stated that he did not think it was fair to increase charges to some groups and hold other groups at a different, lower level. O'Neill questioned whether there are functions performed by the Parks and Recreation department that should be provided by other departments. She also asked whether there are efficiencies that could be identified thaY could result in other monies far the department. Geden indicated that many of these issues were presented in the Master Plan. Stuller indicated that he was disappointed with the City Council conversation on the Master Plan. He stated that the conversation focused on three small components of the work of the department and that the department got very little guidance with respect to "big" issues. He indicated that it is the role of the PRAB to make sure the department can focus on the lazger challenges. He feels that it is important to put together the working group and reevaluate the CSBM in two yeazs. Murphy indicated that he does not share Stuller's opinion of the City Council discussion of the Master Plan. He stated that the brevity of the conversation with City Council showed the confidence they had in the Master Plan. He indicated the he does not believe that any of the PRAB members are not in support of looking at the aquatic programs. He indicated that the "fair and equitable" discussion keeps azising. He believes that the Board needs to develop creative solutions to this problem through a working group system. Von Bleichert indicated that through the master plan process, the Budget 101 and 201 sessions educated City Council about the department's budget. He stated following the master plan approved, the PRAB discussed drafting a resolution to go to City Council regarding the various sunsetting sales taxes and other issues (silo effect of the budget). Bryan indicated his concern that the PRAB has limited its discussion of placement of programs within the CSBM in terms of financial constraints. He stated that the programs that are being discussed used to be city sponsored program. He indicated that if they were still city programs, they would be situated differently within the CSBM. He stated that he did not know why the aquatics programs were divested from the city. He stated that when BAM took over the program it assumed the cost of the coaching, but then also had to pay far the increase in fees. Geden indicated that when BAM left the city, the organization itself wanted to pay the BAM coaches more than the city could pay. This resulted in potential conflict of interest and BAM voted to divest. He stated that the Planning and Development Services Division has also moved to a direct, indirect and subsidy approach to costing. Bryan indicated that the choice that BAM was given was either to privatize or not allow the group to provide additional subsidy to the coach. Bryan made a motion to modify Option F. The motion was to establish a not-for-profit working group to develop and apply objective and fair criteria to be used in a recommendation by the working group to the department, PRAB and City Council regazding the placement of not-for-profit organizations in the Boulder Parks and Recreation DepartmenYs Core Services Business Model. The motion was seconded by von Bleichert. Von Bleichert indicated that this motion does not address how it will allow the CSBM to move forward relative to contracts of the two groups. Bryan indicated that he did not think that it is fair to hold up the two aquatics groups. Stuller indicated that he would like to allow staff to develop the chazge for the working group and present it to the PRAB. Geden stated that she can not commit to getting this work done by the end of August. Bryan stated that the initial discussions suggested that this wark would begin after the partnership work group had completed its task. Geden indicated that there aze other priorities that were identified in the Master Plan that need to be accomplished this year. O'Neill stated tbat she would support Option F model coupled wiYh the workin~ group (convened during the second quarter this year). Von Bleichert indicated that he is comfortable with the working group having a rich discussion on what the group would do. O'Neill stated that it was her understanding that the working group would convene in April, Geden indicated that this had been mentioned as an option. Bryan's motion was voted on but did not pass. Stuller made a motion to support staffls recommendation (Option F) to move forwazd with the CSBM. The motion was seconded by Julian. Bryan indicated that he would support the motion as long as it included discussion on the placement of groups in CSBM. Murphy indicated that the placement of groups should be considered as a part of the charge of the working group. Bryan made a friendly amendment to the motion to amend the last sentence of the third paragraph of Option F as follows: 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 the other existing programs or services OR TO DETERMINE THEIR PLACEMENT IN THE CSBM. Stuller accepted the amendment The motion was seconded by Julian Stuller indicated that staff could continue with their recommendation, but it does not preclude looking at the placement of groups in the CSBM. Bryan stated that he is trying to prevent the exclusion of conversation and that there has to be the possibility of groups looking at their placement in the CSBM. Geden asked whether this involves the placement of individual groups, or group categories. Bryan suggested that there has to be a public process to determine where groups are placed in the CSBM. He asked whether the public process is in work plan, or if it is a group like the partnership working group. Be stated that if a collaborative process is structured correctly, it could involve representation from all 100 groups and would be an instructive process. Von Bleichert indicated that this is different from his interpretation. He asked Bryan if he thought that the working group should be responsible for placement decisions. Bryan indicated that this is what he wants, but that it is not what the motion stated. The motion indicated that it does not preclude the working group from addressing these issues. Stuller indicated that it could take to years to accomplish. Von Bleichert questioned Bryan if it is acceptable if it takes two yeazs to have a fair and equitable process. The motion, with the friendly amendment, passed 6-0. V. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: None VL MATTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT None VII. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD Stuller thanked Von Bleichert and O'Neill for their years of service on PRAB. Von Bleichert addressed the issue of lighting at the skate park. O'Neill thanked the department for working on the flower program. VIII. FUTURE BOARD ITEMS AND TOURS • Monday, April 23, 2007 - PRAB Business Meeting IX. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 9:54 p.m. APPROVED BY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD: ~-~- ---~- Stu Stuller, Boazd Chair Attest: 10 ~~ ~ r ~~,~.L~~ I Olr 't'~~ Z~' Sally- Diete~h Acting - Recording Secretary 11