HomeMy WebLinkAbout3A - Minutes, March 19, 2007City of Boulder
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
West Senior Center
Monday,lVlerch 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 Colonne, Sazah De5ouza, 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 AGENDr~
The agenda was approved.
II. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public Comment was opened. No comments were presented. Public patticipation was
closed.
CONSENT AGENDA
No items were considered for the Consent Agenda.
IV.I1'EMS FOR ACTION
City Attorney Calonne was introduced and discussed the policy making authority of the
PRAB.
A. Public participation and consideration of a mouon regarding 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 yeaz, 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 spoRs organizations, and
between ten and t~renty organizations at the Reservoir have been impacted. She further
clazified that most of the rentals 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 departmenYs costs.
Sabbach indicated that the costs only include facility use chazges. No other costs
associated to the fees and chazges aze being passed along to the groups.
Von Bleichert asked whether there are costs associated with running facilities that aze not
currently being applied.
Sabbach indicated that the superintendent salary is currently not being included, nor are
other ind'uect 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 deparUnents
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 aze
being done, but none very well.
Von Bleichert asked whether Option D would be an addi6onal 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 awaze 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 direct 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 dollus 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 CSBivI is not in place.
Stuller indicated that the fund balance is negative in 2012 and that this does not consider
the sunsetting sales tazc.
Stuller asked how much funding the department receives from the .25 cent sales tu~?
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 appeaz very dire. Bryan said that all the options involve closing
facili6es or elimina6ng programs. He indicated that there should be an option where the
deparUnent and groups benefit from growing the groups. Bryan suggested that contracts
not be tied to the membership size of the groups as this seems like a disincentive. He
indicated that he would like to see an option that involves lowering the prices chazged to
the groups. Bryan suggested that if the groups grow, the department benefits from the
increased size of the group. He stated that cunenfly, some of the g~oups do not feel that
there is a true partnership between the city and the groups.
Von Bleichert indicated that there are opportunities for 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. ~Ie 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 arbitrary pricing
policy prior to 2004. She stated that cunently, 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 significandy over the years.
3
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 Barbados 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 chazged at the highest
level.
James Richey, 5679 Boulder Hills Drive, Longmont, CO, spoke about the high cost of
renting pools in Boulder.
Jean Scraggs, 1585 Bradiey 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 of the 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 Boulder 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 Boulder
Aquateens and her concerns about the cost increases the group has recently experienced.
Mary Anne Mahoney, Boulder Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2440 Pearl 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 regazding the high costs associated with renting city pools in order to engage
in this activity.
Larry McKeogh, 2322 Spruce Street, Boulder, CO, BAM City Liaison, spoke of his
desire for the PRAB to move BAM and other aquatics groups into a lower cost recovery
tier witlun 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, Louisvilie, CO, spoke in support of the Boulder Swim Team and the concem
that the Swim Team may have to move out of the state.
Bryce Anderson-Gregson, 3727 Bazbados Pl., Boulder, CO, spoke about the pool fees.
Jaclyn Best & Amy F1ynt, 828 Spmce St., Boulder, CO, spoke about the hearing
regazding 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 aze
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 aquadc facility.
Bryan indicated that all aquatics groups are 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
rewazd extremely aquatics 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 appeal of the Boulder facilities being open during regular
hours.
Bryan distributed a copy of a transcript he prepazed of the December 19`~' meeting and
read it to the Boazd.
Stuller indicated his desire to address the questions presented in the packet.
O'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 heazd
during public comment. He suggested that what gets `9osY' in the process is all the other
groups that the Board and the department is trying to protect; many or all of them having
similar values. Von Bleichert indicated that in the last seven years, the department has
been tluough a lot and there aze 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 eise.
He indicated that some azeas within the recreation organization are currently making 120
percent cost recovery and aze expected to remain this way. Von Bleichert indicated that
City Council has asked the department and Boazd to look at internal 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 aze 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 forward tonight, would mean reducing the support for some
of the other groups that we know aze 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 that
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 [he community groups in the CSBM is the issue.
6
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 t6e recommendation of the PRAB. Stuiler
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 tkus 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 aze 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
tha[ he did not think it was fair to increase chazges to some groups and hold other groups
at a different, lower level.
O'Neill questioned whether there aze functions performed by the Pazks and Recreation
department that should be provided by other departments. She also asked whether there
are efficiencies that could be identified that could result in other monies for the
departrnent. •
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 larger challenges. He feels that it is important to put together the
working group and reevaluate the CSBM in two years.
Murphy indicated that he does not shaze 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 aze not in support of looking at the aquatic programs. He
indicated that the "fair and equitable" discussion keeps arising. He believes that the
Boazd 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 departmenY s budget. He stated following the
master plan approved, the PRAB discussed drafting a resolution to go to City Council
regazding the various sunsetting sales taxes and other issues (silo effect of the budget).
7
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 aze being discussed used to be ciry sponsored program. He indicated that if they
were still city programs, they would be situated differendy 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 tt~e coaching, but then aiso
had to pay for 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
regarding 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 Augus[.
Bryan stated that the initial discussions suggested that this work would begin after the
partnership work group had completed its task.
Geden indicated that there are other priori6es that were identified in the Master Plan that
need to be accomplished this year.
O'Neill stated that she would support Option F model coupled with the working group
(convened during the second quarter this yeaz).
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 staff s recommendation (Option F) to move forward
with the CSBM.
The motion was seconded by Julian.
Bryan indicated that he would support the mouon 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 ofthe working group.
Bryan made a friendly amendment to the motion, "...or to deternune 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 whe[her this involves the placement of individual groups, or group
categories.
Bryan suggested that there has to be a public process to determine where groups aze
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
sWctured correctly, it could involve representation from all 100 groups and would be an
instructive process.
Von Bieichert 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.
9
}` .
Stuller indicated that it could take to yeazs 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
VI. MATTER5 FROM THE DEPARTMENT
None
VII. MATTER5 FROM THE BOARD
Stuller thanked Von Bleichert and O'Neill far their yeazs 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.
VIIL FUTURE BOARD ITEMS AND TOURS
• Monday, Apri123, 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:
Sally Dieterich
Acting - Recording Secretary
10