Laserfiche WebLink
Community Recreation/Community Education Discussion points: <br /> •1. Semantics of "recreation", "enrichment", "leisure"--invites turf issues unless very clearly <br /> identified. Unless there is a clear understanding of who does what, and a real commitment to <br /> not duplicate program services, turf issues will be a major problem. The turf "competition" <br /> would include programs, employees, facilities, revenues, etc. An issue for all three options, <br /> but more so with option B because ISD 728 is not a partner. <br /> 2. Duplication of similar services--providing "programs" to the public. With services so similar, <br /> is the tax paying public well-served with the creation of a parallel publicly funded organization? <br /> 3. Access to school district facilities (indoor and outdoor) With current arrangement, ISD 728 <br /> is a full partner in the agreement, and Community Recreation has the same priority access to <br /> ISD 728 school facilities as Community Education. Options A and C would continue that <br /> priority. Option B would lower the priority status for Recreation program access to ISD 728 <br /> facilities. In 1998, Community Recreation programs used ISD 728 indoor facilities for 2000 <br /> hours. <br /> Facility access is an issue for Youth Athletic Associations which need to coordinate use <br /> and maintenance of outdoor facilities for summer league practice and play. Creating multiple <br /> separate recreation entities complicates that process for the associations vs. a unified <br /> approach. An original tenet of the 1991 proposal was to assist volunteer youth athletic <br /> programs. <br /> 4. Cost effectiveness. Are quality services provided in the most cost effective way, or are <br /> costs and positions duplicated? <br /> 5. Customer service. How well will resident needs be met with the model? Can participants <br /> register for all similar programs at a single location? Are policies/procedures and quality <br /> expectations consistent for programs? <br /> 6. Cooperation between/among all public entities. Opportunity for continuing/improving a <br /> partnership and improving relations between public entities. <br /> 7. Non-participating local governments. Current non-resident fee structure would likely be <br /> retained in any of the three models. The extent to which local government needs are met by a <br /> given model will be the best predictor of long-term success. <br /> 8. Needs of each municipal partner. What do you want? What are your expectations? Is <br /> there more than one organizational model that can provide what you want? <br /> • <br />