10.B.5. PRSR 07-14-1999 ITEM #10.B.5.
�y Ttu°u�k 1445TWATION
DISTRICT 728
•
c
ri "0" CommunityEducation
d�d`ongte:?' O 1230 NW School Street • Elk River,Minnesota • 55330-2506 • (612)241-3520
18 June 1999
To:Elk River Mayor,City Council Members and Pat Klaers
CIPA
From:Charlie Blesener,Administrator of Community Education
Re:Community Recreation Program
With the resignation of Jeff Asfahl as the community recreation director,communities involved
in the joint powers agreement and the Recreation Board have discussed various options for continuing
the program. While no decision has been made yet,the Elk River City Council has notified the
Recreation Board that it is seriously considering withdrawing from the program and establishing its own
program.
At its June 14 meeting the Recreation Board discussed three options:continuing the current joint
powers agreement,contracting with the City of Elk River,and combining the program with the School
District's Community Education program. There are likely additional options or combinations of
options also possible.
Before a final decision is made by the City of Elk River,I hope the council can become fully
informed of all three options,and discuss them to see to what extent the needs of the city would or
would not be met by them.
To that end I will be at the June 28,1999 council meeting,and I will ask that you remain open to
other possibilities that meet the needs of the City of Elk River while retaining/improving upon
important and significant partnerships between public entities.
It seems to me that it is important to ask what do any of the participating entities want? What
• are desired outcomes from a partnership or from a stand alone program? Among the things I think
member communities have wanted/valued are:
•a variety of recreational programs for residents,especially youth
•quality programs that are affordable
•programs that help increase public use and awareness of municipal parks
•credit and visibility as the provider(co-funder)of the programs
•assistance to parent-run youth athletic programs
•shared responsibility for jointly funding recreation programs to a regional audience
•fiscal responsibility to constituents
•access to school district indoor and outdoor facilities for programming
By the same token,the past eight years of partnering with other entities have had some frustrations too,
most notably different levels of commitment to recreation programming from different member
communities,resulting in challenging but not impossible budgets,and some impatience with
cooperation and collaboration.
History/Background:
In February,1991 at a Community Education Certificate of Compliance meeting attended by
numerous municipal and township officials and by citizens representing youth athletic associations,the
topic of providing recreation was discussed. Prior to that time the City of Elk River paid an
administrative fee to Community Education to supervise and provide recreation programs. The idea
presented at that 1991 meeting was a joint agreement between several municipalities and the school
district in which funds would be merged and a staff person would be funded to provide for the
recreation needs of all member communities. By March 1992 Jeff Asfahl was hired. He reported to me
on a daily basis for work performance,and was ultimately responsible to the Community Recreation
Board. The division of labor and responsibilities between Community Education staff members and
Recreation staff were pretty clear,but not without some"grey"areas.
•
Serving the communities of:
Elk River• Otsego•Rogers•Zimmerman•Hassan• Livonia•Dayton•Ramsey• Big Lake Township •Frankfort•Burns •Albertville
Community Recreation
June 28, 1999
Pagel
• activities. A park and recreation director would allow the city to better plan
its future park and trail system and implement its comprehensive Master
Park and Recreation Plan. This park planning and development need in Elk
River should not be overlooked in the discussion of Community Recreation
options.
In dealing with options for the future, it is very difficult to say with any
degree of certainty that one option will work better than another for "x, y, or
z reasons." Nonetheless, I sense that going back to the way things essentially
were eight years ago with Community Education managing the city's
recreation programs is not a step forward for providing services to our
residents. This option may be cheaper, but it may not be better in the long
run. I sense also that the city will have less direct control over activities and
priorities by having school district employees supervise local recreation
programmers and activities.
In looking at the three basic options, it is my recommendation that the city
continue to pursue withdrawing from the Joint Powers Agreement and
provide its own recreation programming with an offer to contract services out
to other local units of government, much like the existing organization
operates. If this is not acceptable, then I recommend that the city continue
4111 as part of the Joint Powers Agreement even if this means paying slightly
more due to the budget concerns of Otsego and the possible withdrawal of
Dayton.
•
ty of MEMORANDUM
1kj4jver
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Pat Klaers, City d 'strator
DATE: June 28, 1999
SUBJECT: Community Recreation
Prior to the creation of the Community Recreation Joint Powers Agreement
and organization, there was a great deal of concern in the city of Elk River
about two issues. One issue was that the city was having Community
Education manage its city recreation programs and children throughout the
school district were participating in these programs, but without each local
unit of government financially participating. The second area of concern was
the youth associations and how services could be improved so that the
volunteers could concentrate on what they wanted to do, which is coaching,
and not be bogged down in administrative work for such things as field
maintenance, field scheduling for games and practices, registration, etc.
. Prior to creation of the Community Recreation organization, these were the
two major areas of concern and these two areas of concern have since been
addressed.
Over the past seven years, I think everyone in Elk River, from the staff to the
Park and Recreation Commission to the City Council, got comfortable with
having Jeff Asfahl as our recreation director in dealing with school
field/facilities issues, working with the youth organization, and managing the
recreation programs. Jeff was very creative in working with the Mayor and
Council on the "youth initiatives" program, developing the youth center (now
called Emporium), helping to program activities at the ice arena complex,
and especially in working with the youth associations. I was Jeff s supervisor
on behalf of the Board and, consequently, saw Jeff on a daily basis.
At this point, I am still recommending that the city go on its own and develop
a city recreation (park and recreation?) department. The city would still
work closely with Community Education in programming activities, field and
gym scheduling, and providing services to the youth organization. If the city
simply did its own recreation programming and employed a receptionist, a
recreation supervisor, a programmer, and some part time help, it is believed
that the cost would be comparable to what our expenses are currently for
membership and services as part of the Community Recreation program.
• This assumes the contracting out of some services to neighboring
communities.
f:\shrdoc\council\crparagh.doc
13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • TDD & Phone: (612)441-7420 • Fax: (612)441-7425
Review of Options for Providing
• Community Park and Recreation Services
Option A: Multi-Community Joint Powers Agreement.
(ex: currently Cities of Elk River, Otsego,Rogers,NW
Dayton and Hassan Township)
Option B: Contractual Agreement with a City.
(ex: City of Elk River Park and Rec. Department)
Option C: Joint Powers Agreement with School District
(ex: Community Education and Formal Agreement on use
of facilities)
Mission Statement of Community Recreation Program:
To provide, develop, and initiate year-round recreation programs, services, and
facilities that enhance the lives and increase the enjoyment and well-being of all residents
of the Community Recreation Board.
Community Recreation Board's 1998
GOALS & OBJECTIVES:
•
Option B:
• Contractual Agreement with a City
(ex: City of Elk River Park &Recreation Department.)
0 Expanded park and Recreation Department
o Likely Official within City Facilities
o Reliant on District Facilities for a significant amount of Programming
o City Park&Recreation Board with Potential Advisory Sub Committee
Positions:
Department Head(Director or Supt.)
Secretarial-Receptionist Position
Program Coordinator
Seasonal-Part time Activities Specialist
Concerns. Issues. and Opportunities:
•
•
CITY OF J A 1 7 1993
OTSEGO
.9 Nashua Avenue N.E. ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD (612) 441-4414
River, MN 55330 Fax: (612) 441-8823
June 15, 1999
Michelle Bergh
Community Recreation Board Interim Director
1230 School Street
Elk River, MN 55330
Re: Joint Recreation Board
City of Otsego Participation
Dear Michelle:
At the request of the Otsego City Council I am writing this
letter to clarify Otsego ' s position on working with our
neighboring communities on joint recreation issues .
Otsego wants to remain a part of any joint recreational
effort. Otsego also wants to keep its costs from increasing
much more than inflation over what they currently are now.
• If the Joint Recreation Board continues to function as it
has been, Otsego will remain a part of the Board.
If the Joint Recreation Board wants to expand its
recreational offerings as some members have discussed,
Otsego will remain a part of the Board and work with the
board members on structuring Otsego ' s participation so that
recreational offerings are expanded and so that Otsego ' s
costs remain similar to what they are now.
If the functions of the Joint Recreation Board are taken
over by the School District ' s Community Education
Department, the City of Otsego would continue to participate
in the new organization. Otsego ' s participation would be
governed by the policy I have outlined above .
If the City of Elk River decides to run its own recreation
program, the City of Otsego would enter negotiations to
contract with Elk River along the lines of the policy stated
above . Any discussions of what Otsego would want in a
contract with Elk River would be premature because Elk River
has not yet made a decision. If Elk River does go on its
own, I am sure that a mutually satisfactory agreement could
be reached.
•
S ... ,
..._,
g .
A
r 11
ZIMMERMAN r REMWT
,
i FREMONT iNE CO no 4
• •
•
•
-., .I• .. 1 rAansvo
.
8 ...,,
R.rwFoc( r 1,..
i UVONIA
U TWP 8
245111 NE CO it
• - CO RD 45
2371t1
A
e A I ,fr
CO RO.32
2 ----- -it. —.,,,tTo\,— ——,,c.1.., #, , t,
&ROI
- U
6 ....t!,-: SHERBURNE5:0'. ...:":'..,..,,,,,,
tO LAKE 0 218
P .,,, . 1 ,..
mni
'%. ., r NORmS LX.NO
BIG LAKE
TWP-. 206IM WE
ilL , , , ELK RIVER
1. , ,.. „,
I 414 's '''.,'".„ ' \‘,. ...
r . s\
., 'on 13 A BURNS
„ -
TWP A.
x GOOSE,
- • , .
81 .
I 2
0 ' ■- * ''''7'...,.. .,:-2 .. \ - 2\ I 8
.
,, • TWIN
ce,7LAKE
C) LAKE
LAKE
hEmS 11.111 III HO, 22
ussil
'''...
\ ti ANOKA CO.
i
i, ,_,— P.-, — -.0' RIVER . ••• .. : s‘ .. r 8
IITORIMI
■47-1.. k,
i
.,.N.4.-..-.,_u, •-„
CC RD RD ao,-... 1-.-
.-.)..--- HISSISS4%.._ , ,. ■, 11151
MST NE
- - . (1
I151M 1
.2 co *0 31: ) i a
CO RO 63
g '•'.. ''‘ V '.
. 11:SEY
.,
'.:... I
WRIGHT co. 1 • =
.. `,..,,,, .., '' , qo -i■ to , -.
I'. ,
Z.; •,„ , s.,:‘.. '' , 4, SCHOOL NAMES sk, c..1 '14/ Aa•
,91':.' ... 6,0,4:-......-..,mu: 'aid — A '”
r wit LAIC, :, 65e4 ST ' - I.ZIMMEROAAN ELEM.
4/0: 1 -...,,, 'I"', Al 2.SALK JR. HIGH
ALBERTVILLE '.......,_: NA - ...V 3.VANDENBERGE JR HIGH
lig
tosn-Rik
: owzr
.-\ ,
, 4.ELK RIVER SR HIGH
5.LINCOLN ELEM.
FRANKFORT ()
6 PARKER ELEM
• t kt, • Aram ic 7.HANDKE ELEM.
TWP N ' %., , - ''' 7 1 A 8.ROGERS ELEM.
;;; 7
36 4■ -, \ -s„, \ 1.,
. 14
'4' ''
,,, „ot, .4, , , — ELK RIVER INDEPENDENT
• - +
1 ) SS1\,1, t:N _S--__-N filfta SCHOOL DISTRICT 728
0 TWP. NI\.-\ 'NI ., , iippr....
iOGERS LAKE , ,........"-...-...7-"'l
\\\H 4W. , tk.14.4,k,1C\N ' rit
\
k.,. t: \ N sr,1 1/4 .,e ‘ iNe ''
. N. N- N 'N ' 1 ;.- -
I \HENNEPik CO. \ \ -,...., ft, °
KEY. •0,4
.......■
.... .....
----- COUNTY BOUNDARIES
TOWNSHIP BOUNDARIES
CITY BOUNDARIES
\ \\ 4-*% : .1,'?„ ..*, •
.1e, ''.1 . k.-. . N
-
A -. , _ - .
Option 3: Unified entity—Municipalities/townships and School District
• Goal:
Provide a single jointly sponsored public agency which provides coordinated educational,
recreational, social and cultural programming for residents of all ages in the most cost effective
way while avoiding/reducing duplication.
Details:
•School District continues as fiscal agent. Providing Community Education services since
1976.
'History of successful collaborative projects.
•Qualified professional staff.
•CE Administrator provides administrative functions for the joint program. Administrative fee to
be negotiated (flexible).
•Retain current Community Recreation staff and add another programming staff. Staff report
to CE Administrator.
•Municipal/township partners pay costs of programmer and clerical salary and annual admin.
fee.
•Revenues and expenses for program activities are all handled through the fiscal agent
(school district). Revenues create fund balance--a factor in subsequent year's financial
participation.
Governance:
"Administration rep. from each community together with CE Director and recreation staff
• develop annual budget/plan.
*Each member community appoints representatives to the CE Advisory Council to provide
program planning input and direction (membership could come from current park and
recreation commissions or from general citizenry or from elected council members).
Outcomes:
•Unified sense of department--all member communities are joint partners in all that appears in
the brochure---Community Education, ECFE and Recreation programs.
'Duplication is eliminated.
•All partners get credit and visibility for providing good, solid, quality programs in the joint
brochure.
•A seamless system for customers--they want quality programs and tend not to care who
provides what. Easier for customers.
•Very cost effective--potentially less costly than current arrangement.
•Turf issues disappear.
•Volunteer youth athletic programs benefit by participation of several cities, townships and the
school district in the same organization--fewer contacts needed for field maintenance issues,
etc.
•Opportunity for comparable fee structure among all youth programs--recreation and
community education.
•
Actual 1999
Revenue
0 Participant
Population/'97 (Population x 2.61) (% of$36,900)
895 Dayton $2,336 + $849 = $3,185
15,000 Elk River $39,150 + $22,878 = $62,028
2,221 Hassan $5,797 + $2,509 = $8,306
5271 Otsego $13,757 + $6,125 = $19,882
1821 Rogers $4,753 + $4,465 = $9,218
Program fee Surcharge $12,900
Non-Residents $8,125
25,208 (53.2%) $65,793 (46.7%) $57,851 = $123,644
Actual identified registrants as of 7/27/98 = 4646
0
Expenditures
1997 1998 1999
Personal Service $96,820 $105,710 $111,885
Office Equip/Supplies $800 $800 $800
Trans/Training/Dues $2,300 $2,400 $2,600
Advert/Broch/Print $5,800 $5,500 $5,500
Postage $900 $900 $1,000
Support Staff Cont. $300 $800 $1,200
0', $106,920 $116,110 $122,985
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 ISD 728 is not a partner.
2. Duplication 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, ISD 728
is a full partner in the agreement, and Community Recreation has the same priority access to
ISD 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 ISD 728
facilities. In 1998, Community Recreation programs used ISD 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 government 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?
•