Loading...
5.3. SR 06-28-1999 . . . Gi CoiiunityEducati;~.3. 'r/ l.ifelong \.e~~ 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 ~ 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 . . . Within a couple years, and following some disagreement between the Recreation Board and the Superintendent/School Board over compensation and who determines compensation, it was determined that the Recreation Board would determine compensation. Shortly thereafter the name "728 Area Recreation" was changed by the Recreation Board to "Community Recreation". The Recreation Board seemed intent on establishing its own identity, independent of Community Education and of the School District. Recreation Board member communities understandably wanted their constituencies to know that the Recreation program was funded by municipal and/ or township dollars, and the manner chosen to deliver the message was to make the identity distinct from Community Education. With these changes, I feel that the public became confused about who provided what. Rather than having a unified, integrated office where the two entities could thrive and help each other, what seemed most important was to point out the distinctions, the differences between Community Education and Community Recreation. The names themselves were so similar that people became confused by that as well. Separate clerical/receptionist functions were created, and the promotion of Community Recreation as a separate entity became very important as some member communities continually measured the program's success by how many local residents participated in municipally sponsored activities. A key component of Community Education is to not duplicate services. I feel that the current arrangement at a minimum duplicates a receptionist function, and that from a programming standpoint there has been considerable angst among staff over who does what. To be truly cost effective, duplication of services and effort should be reduced if not eliminated. At this crossroads for Community Recreation, I would hope that all options are open for consideration, so I suggest that possible outcomes for any reconstitution of the program include the following: -retain all current cooperative members and be open to expanding the cooperative partners to include other municipal entities or private non-profits -effective process for member communities to have their unique needs met through programming or administrative staff and to feel ownership -eliminate/reduce customer confusion over who offers what, and increase customer service with "one-stop" shopping -eliminate/reduce redundancy and duplication of services and functions and save dollars -maximize publicly supported indoor and outdoor facilities of all partners -use this opportunity to provide better return on tax dollars while improving the sometimes rocky political ground between public bodies -clarify programming responsibilities and parameters so that turf issues are minimal but programming efforts can still be aggressive -provide a staff climate of unified direction and shared resources from technology, access to facilities, shared employee pool and true collaboration in providing programs to a common audience There is incredible similarity of function between Community Education and Community Recreation. Both programs serve a regional audience, and all member communities in the current Community Recreation program are all a part of District 728. Both departments plan programs for youth and adults; both employ programming staff; both have secretary/receptionist functions; both have had directors or administrators; both programs use the same registration software; both advertise, promote and conduct registrations for programs; both evaluate programs; both engage in planning future programs; both are funded with public dollars. I'd like all member communities to not rush to any conclusions at this time, but to agree to give thoughtful discussion to the three options as well as any others that may surface. If our focus can be on what each community wants and needs, and the extent to which those needs can better be met, we'll all be better served. When I come on the 28th I'll be prepared to discuss with you the specifics of any of the options, but I'll provide more specifics on the third option. The proposal would provide a single jointly sponsored public agency which provides coordinated educational, recreational, social and cultural programming for residents of all ages while avoiding duplication of effort. I feel that if the School District's Community Education program were to be merged in some fashion with the municipal recreation programs that much of the costly and obvious redundancies currently existing could be eliminated. The total municipal dollars committed to recreation programming could be reduced while programming efforts could be expanded. Residents would receive quality programming and know that programs were sponsored by local governments. All local facilities would be fully used by partners with no strings attached, and the partners to the current agreement would be more likely to stay in the agreement. I look forward to our dialogue on the 28th. rei ---'\) ( )j tli< Item #5.3. MEMORANDUM FROM: Mayor & City Council Pat Klaers, City ~strator June 28, 1999 ~ DATE: 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 Jeffs 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 . . . Community Recreation June 28,1999 Pag-e 2 The youth organizations are a very high priority with Community Recreation. As such, these organizations receive a great deal of time, work effort, and attention from the Community Recreation staff. Because the youth organizations are a priority, I believe that things such as registration, field maintenance, and field scheduling for both practices and games are much better today than they were seven or eight years ago. A concern with having Community Education manage Community Recreation relates to how high of a priority the youth organizations would be in the total scheme of Community Education/Recreation. Additionally, there is concern about what happens in case of a conflict between goals/programs of Community Education (school) and Community Recreation (cities). History has shown that some conflicts do arise between the cities and the school district in such things as program goals, activities, scheduling facilities, etc., and the loyalty of school district employees may lie with the school instead of Community Recreation. Finally, there is such a thing as having too much work on your schedule and adding Community Recreation responsibilities to the Community Education department may amount to an "overload" of work responsibilities. One of the items frequently discussed with this issue is duplication of services. I concur that the Community Education and Community Recreation services are similar and some of the employee functions are similar, but I believe that Community Recreation offers different programs than what are offered by Community Education. In this regard we are providing different services to our residents. Having Community (or City) Recreation and Community Education both exist could be compared to having a city police department and a county sheriff department. The city is within the county and the sheriff provides police services for some cities, but Elk River is considered "too big" to have the sheriff provide police services within the community. (The issue with recreation is when is Elk River "big enough" to provide its own city recreation programs?) The same question regarding duplication of services versus each entity providing their own services can be seen when looking at the city and county for such services as building inspections, planning and zoning, code enforcement, street maintenance, etc. We both have staff that perform the same functions. Is this duplication or is this just services being provided at the local level that is closest to the residents? One of the ideas behind the city managing its own recreation services and programs, besides being more responsive to the needs of our residents, is that it gives us an opportunity to explore the need and structure of a park and recreation department. A city park and recreation director, versus a recreation supervisor, would allow the city to better coordinate park planning, development, and maintenance with recreation programming and Community Recreation June 28, 1999 Pag-e 3 . 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 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. . . 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 lfacilities 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 A: Multi-Community Joint Powers Agreement. (ex: Currently Cities of Elk River, Otsego, Rogers, NW Dayton, and Hassan Township.) . o Independent Department-Employees of the Joint Powers Group. o Shared Office Space in Community Education Building. o Reliant of District facilities for a significant amount of Programming. o Advisory Board with personnel, budget and other sub committees as needed. Positions: Director Program Coordinator Secretarial-Receptionist Position Seasonal-Part time Activities Specialists Concerns. Issues. and Opportunities: . . " Option B: . Contractual Agreement with a City (ex: City of Elk River Park & Recreation Department.) o 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: . . I- Option C: Joint Powers Agreement with School District (ex: Community Education & Formal Agreement on use of Facilities.) . o Expanded Community Education Department. o Share Office, Receptionist, and Front Desk. o Use of District Facilities for a significant amount of Programming. o Advisory Board Positions: Existing Director Expanded Secretarial-Receptionist Position Additional Program Coordinator Additional Seasonal-Part time Activities Specialist Concerns. Issues. and Opportunities: . . ~9 Nashua Avenue N.E. .: River, MN 55330 JiJl~ \ 7 19H OTSEGO ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD (612) 441-4414 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. These discussions on the future of the Joint Recreation Board have been precipitated by the Executive Director leaving for another job, not by any changes in the policy of the City of Otsego. Since some of other communities on the Board are more interested in change than Otsego, I think the best thing to do would be for those communities to decide what they want to do. Once they have made their decision, Otsego will continue to participate in whatever recreation entity that exists. . If you have any questions, please give me a call. cc: City Council Pat Klaers, Elk River Gary Eital, Rogers Charlie Blesner, Community Education Shirley Slater, Dayton Gary Morrison, Hassan . . . . r-_r-l___n_I- i ZIMMERMAN : FREOlONT AVE. 'rE g 219lH 10:= Vlu.r. IUIO. r.n RD. 22 r N . N I' ~ SCHOOL NAMES I ,ZIMMERMAN ELEM. 2. SALK JR. HIGH 3.\t\NOENBERGE JR HIGH 4.ELK RIVER SR, HIGH 5.L1NCOLN ELEM. 6. FMKER ELEM. 7.HANOKE ELEM. 8. ROGERS ELEM. . ELK RIVER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 728 ~ I o KEY' .GOd ,....' I -' - - - COUNTY BOUNDARIES - - - - - - TOWNSHIP BOUNDARIES ___u________ CITY BOUNDARIES Option 3: Unified entity--Muriicipalitiesltownships 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 . Participant Popula~on/'97 (Population x 2.61) (0/0 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 . 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 . $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 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? .