5.3. SR 06-28-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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