The URL can be used to link to this page

2024/06/04 City Council Agenda Packet1w2F3 fix# r "We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow. " rirt,K�=� SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A JOINT SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION will be held on Tuesday, June 4, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. MEETING LOCATION: COMMUNITY CENTER MULTI -USE ROOM 5401 Snyder Lane, Rohnert Park, CA PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The Rohnert Park City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission welcomes your attendance, interest and participation at its joint special meeting scheduled on Tuesday, Tuesday, June 4, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Provides an opportunity for public comment on items related to this agenda only (limited to three minutes per appearance with a maximum allowance of 30 minutes allotted per comment period, with time limits subject to modification by the City Council in accordance with the adopted City Council Protocols). Please fill out a speaker card prior to speaking. Members of the public may also provide advanced comments related to closed session by email at publiccommentg!pci ..or Comments are requested by 1:00 p.m. on the before the meeting, but can be emailed until the close of the Agenda Item for which the comment is submitted. The emails will not be read for the record but will be provided to Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission. Please note that all a -mails sent to the City of Rohnert Park are considered public records and subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. City Council agendas and minutes may be viewed at the City's website: www.p2city.org. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed on this agenda. If you challenge decisions of the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission of the City of Rohnert Park in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Rohnert Park at, or prior to the public hearing(s). RIGHT TO APPEAL: Judicial review of any city administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be had only if a petition is filed with the court no later than the deadlines specified in Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits the time within which the decision may be challenged to the 90th day following the date that the decision becomes final. CITY COUNCIL GOALS: On May 14, 2024, the Rohnert Park City Council adopted the following multi -year broad goals (listed below in no particular order): 1. Long Term Financial Sustainability 3. Planning and Infrastructure 2. Community Quality of Life 4. Organization Well Being 1. JOINT SPECIAL MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL City Council: (Elward Giudice Sanborn Hollingsworth -Adams Rodriguez Parks and Recreation Commission (Born Vacant Thompson Jordan Barrios 2. CITY COUNCIL FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM & WORK SESSION • Public Comments • Workshop Discussions. • Closing, thoughts, comments, questions. 3. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Time shown for any particular matter on the agenda is an estimate only. Matters may be considered earlier or later than the time indicated depending on the pace at which the meeting proceeds. If you wish to speak on an item under discussion by the Council which appears on this agenda, please refer to page 1 for more details on submitting a public comment. Any item raised by a member of the public which is not on the agenda and may require Council action shall be automatically referred to staff for investigation and disposition which may include placing on a future agenda. If the item is deemed to be an emergency or the need to take action arose after posting of the agenda within the meaning of Government Code Section 54954.2(b), Council is entitled to discuss the matter to determine if it is an emergency item under said Government Code and may take action thereon. AGENDA REPORTS & DOCUMENTS: A paper copy of all staff reports and documents subject to disclosure that relate to each item of business referred to on the agenda are available for public inspection at City Hall, 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, California 94928. Electronic copies of all staff reports and documents subject to disclosure that relate to each item of business referred to on the agenda are available for public inspection on https://www.!pcily.org/cily hall/citycouncil/meeting central. Any writings or documents subject to disclosure that are provided to all, or a majority of all, of the members of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda after the agenda has been distributed will be made available for inspection at City Hall and on our website at the same time. Any writings or documents subject to disclosure that are provided to the City Council during the meeting will be made available for public inspection during meeting and on our website following the meeting. AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT ACCOMMODATION: Any member of the public who needs accommodations should email the ADA Coordinator at jcannon(a»rpcity.org or by calling 707-588- 2221. Notification at least 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the ADA Coordinator to use her best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the City procedure for resolving reasonable accommodation requests. Information about reasonable accommodations is available on the City website at https://www.rpcity.org/city hall/departments/human resources/a d a and accessibility resources CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Sylvia Lopez Cuevas, City Clerk for the City of Rohnert Park, declare that the foregoing agenda was posted and available for review on May 31, 2024 at Rohnert Park City Hall, 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, California 94928. The agenda is also available on the City web site at www.rpcity.org. Executed this 31 day of May, 2024 at Rohnert Park, California. Sylvia Lopez Cuevas Office of the City Clerk Item 2 City Council Financial Sustainability Program & Worlq Session The day's schedule 8:30-9:00 AM: Arrival & continental breakfast 9:00 AM -Noon: Program delivery Noon-12:30 PM: Lunch break 12:30-3:30 PM: Program delivery The agenda Welcome & Introductions Then & now Common language & understanding Ethics, economics, & equity Growth & stability Investment, value & return Designing strategy Closing, thoughts, comments, questions NOTES: Item 2 PRB The Hard Truths of Youth Sports A look at the economics, ethics, and equity By: Jamie Sabbach January 2023 Human nature makes it difficult to acknowledge deficiencies or inadequacies about what we like or love when it conflicts with what we want to believe. Such is the case with me and youth sports. The harsh reality is that, while youth sports are celebrated and considered a must -have in most communities, youth sports also have their downsides. We simply need to keep our eyes and hearts open to the realities, as well as the possibilities and disadvantages. Among the most consequential issues associated with youth sports today are economic assumptions involving taxpayer investments (subsidies). This is not to suggest that youth sports should not receive any taxpayer support. To the contrary. What is at question is the degree to which investments are made based upon incomplete or inaccurate claims or based upon social pressure. This has led to youth -sports facility development and program -planning decisions which have, in certain cases, had significant consequences for communities across the country. These include: oo Subsidy (taxpayer) investment in youth -sports facility -development projects, presupposing a return on investment that is based on economic -development interests. Do High subsidies gifted to youth sports in comparison to other types of activities/ services that may serve a greater common good. cc Divisions that have resulted from economic disparities in many communities in terms of who participates in youth sports and who does not. Economically, we now live in a vastly different day and age than we did just two years ago. Inflation is at a 40-year high with no signs of slowing, and its effects are not limited to individuals and families. Organizations are likely already feeling the effects of inflation, including diminished purchasing power and elevated supply, equipment, and labor costs. That means basic expenses of youth sports, like turf maintenance and trash removal, are or soon will be more costly. In addition, interest rates are increasing, so for every debt assumed, it will cost more to repay. Simply put, if we are not paying cash for that brand - spanking new facility, we should prepare for the debt load and total payment to be higher. It is time that we ask these fundamental questions regarding youth sports and answer them with both our hearts and our minds. Do Are economic -development interests clouding sound judgment? When is enough, enough? oo Who is really benefiting from investments made in youth sports today? In The Name of Economic Development The often -used phrase made popular by the movie Field of Dreams suggests, "If you build it, they will come." It has become synonymous with the idea that if we invest resources into making a vision a reality, people will flock to it. There are communities today that see investment in new youth -sports facilities and complexes as a panacea to economic -development interests. Seeking ways to generate more revenue by way of youth sports is a phenomenon that has gained significant traction and support. The tried-and-true playbook used to pressure towns, cities, counties, and special districts to pony up money for new youth -sports facilities has become the standard —and one needing re -assessment. Economists have warned and continue to warn that paying for youth sports- facilities —especially with public money —has long been a boondoggle. To camouflage the ultimate liabilities a community assumes on behalf of taxpayers when choosing to build these facilities, youth -sports groups are known to step up to the plate and donate money and/ or time to offset the costs of a project. Regardless of whether donations are made in the name of goodwill or are used as a way for a facility to come to life sooner than later, these contributions are often insufficient in relation to the total investment a community will make in constructing and maintaining the asset over its useful life, the infrastructure needed to support these facilities, and the environmental costs (e.g., water). This includes not only the debt current citizens will face, but also the debt the citizens of 2050 will assume as well. "Decades of academic studies consistently find no discernible positive relationship between sports facilities and local economic development, income growth, or job creation," authors of a Brookings Institution report wrote in 2016. If local communities were to do the math based upon the total investments made to build and maintain these properties, as well as the adjacent infrastructure required (water, roads, etc.), they would find that these facilities earned nothing close to a reasonable return on the investment of taxpayer dollars. While examples of park and recreation systems that have chosen to construct youth sports facilities exist, what is important to note is the regularity with which there is an absence of complete analyses before breaking ground. Further, in cases where economic - development studies are conducted that suggest new youth -sports facilities will generate millions of dollars in return, common missteps include: the analysis is commonly commissioned by those expected to be the greatest beneficiaries of the project, and the calculated costs of these assets are not representative of all costs; therefore, the comparison of real cost to perceived economic benefit is misrepresented. Considered one of the most prolific activities in the history of the leisure profession, the Olympic Games provides a provocative case study relative to critical errors made based upon perceived economic impact and return on investment. According to the article, "Are the Olympic Games a Bad Deal for Host Cities?" in the July 2021 edition of The Economist, calculating the economic impact of mega -events like the Olympics can be tricky. Organizers and critics argue over which costs are actually incurred by the Games, and which are investments that cities would have undertaken anyway. But one near certainty is that the Olympics blow the budget. Alexander Budzier, Bent Flyvbjerg, and Daniel Lunn of Oxford University found that every Olympics since 1960 has overspent by an average of 172 percent in real terms. In 2013, the price -tag for the games was $7.5 billion. By late 2019, the official budget had risen to $12.6 billion, and Japan's audit board reckoned that the actual cost was twice that for the Tokyo 2021 games. Rather than tourism and prestige, the Olympic Games have left the citizens of the host cities not much more than high debt, wasteful infrastructure, and onerous maintenance obligations. The financial stressors the Games place on communities are an excellent example of the conflicts that exist between short-term satisfaction and long-term consequences. Facebook, Linked In, and other social -media outlets have become the platform for park and recreation professionals to participate in a game of show -and -tell, as they celebrate new builds such as youth -sports facilities and complexes. On occasion, construction costs are mentioned, but what gets little airtime is where the money will come from to maintain these assets. What we are seeing is a dangerous "arms race" with a hint of, "If they are building, we should, too!" or "If they have one, why can't we?" When Is Enough, Enough? The economic factor does not stop there. Local youth sports organizations (e.g., Little League, youth soccer associations) that facilitate play in communities across the country, in the majority of cases, do not own the facilities (other properties) required for practice and game play. The local communities do. These organizations find themselves dependent upon their town, city, county, or special district to provide and maintain the facilities so the activities can exist. All too often, however, there is an expectation that these governmental entities will not only provide the spaces but also maintain them at low or no cost to the youth -sports organization and its participants, while taxpayers assume the burden of cost. What is almost certainly forgotten is that governmental entities are choosing to subsidize these organizations and the children and families who benefit. While some may suggest these subsidy (taxpayer) investments are good for the community as a whole, it is important to understand what this means in monetary terms in order to either rationalize these investment choices or challenge them. It is not only a matter of whether or not to subsidize, but also the degree to which to subsidize in order to ensure equitable and just investment for the users and the greater community. For example, a local park and recreation department finds itself subsidizing a local youth - sports organization to more than $250,000 per year —charging just $25 per field rental. This same department may suggest it needs more funding to do a better job of addressing community needs and is having a tough time taking care of its existing infrastructure (a common plight today). Is this $250,000 investment in one youth -sports organization justifiable given the other responsibilities the department has? What if the department chooses to continue to subsidize, if warranted, but to a lesser degree? Imagine what might be accomplished if the department halved the subsidy to $125,000—still a sizeable investment but one that might allow the department to have a greater impact with a different investment choice. Item 2 The Economic Divide — Who Is Really Benefiting? Driving by a youth -sports complex in middle -America usually looks like this..manicured grass that is lush and green, a large scoreboard laced with corporate -sponsor names, and players in color -coded uniforms. Along the fences are team bags with the same color coding. And all of this grandeur can cost a lot of money. The question is, "Who's paying?" Data show that the rising cost of organized youth sports has created an economic divide in which children from lower - income homes are increasingly priced out of any game. "Kids from homes earning more than $100,000 are now twice as likely to play a team sport at least once a day as kids from families earning less than $25,000," says Tom Farrey, the executive director of the Aspen Institute's Sports and Society Program. To compound the issues of economic and racial/ ethnic divisions nationwide, sports participation rates for white children exceed those of children of color (Aspen Institute) as the barriers to participation, including registration fees, transportation, equipment costs, and access to play spaces, continue to exist. A common defense used by some towns, cities, counties, and special districts to support the decision to invest taxpayer dollars in youth -sports facility development assumes these facilities are open play spaces accessible to all who may want to use them. However, when a youth -sports facility is groomed early in the day in preparation for formalized team and tournament play or is restricted for a particular use or user group, this naturally does not afford just anyone the opportunity to use the facilities at any time. What results is the select few benefiting while those with little or no access are relegated to the sidelines. Most sports facilities tend to be spaces designed for a particular purpose, with rules of specific games and activities in mind. For example, a baseball diamond has a skinned (dirt) infield and base paths, an elevated pitcher's mound, and an outfield fence. Apply this example to other sports facilities, and we find that specialized play spaces serve a unique purpose, foster exclusive use, and can sit idle for weeks or months at a time, inhibiting their capacity to be of benefit to a broader community. This helps explain what is happening in various communities across the country. By subsidizing youth -sports programs and facilities to the degree certain park and recreation organizations have, large subsidies are directed to those benefiting from specialized activities serving specialized interests. In the case of today's youth -sports programs, the beneficiaries are predominantly those who are white and whose families have an ability to pay (Aspen Institute). In his 2017 book Dream Hoarders, the economist Richard Reeves wrote that economic mobility in the U.S. has been declining in the past few decades in part because of "opportunity hoarding." For example, rich parents may pull special levers to get their kids into hyper -select schools, or elite internships, or exclusive entry - level jobs. In so doing, they--�n effect —snatch precious opportunities away from those who may need them most. Those who can pay have advantages over those who cannot. Making The Greatest Impact When we choose to forgo the daily Starbucks run in order to invest that money in our children's education savings account, we have made the choice to invest where we believe we will have the greatest impact. Gum paring Open Access Services To Athletic Field Service Subsidies 2019 Orpolration Perowtage Of Total Subddy i Open Access Services Percentage Of Total Subsidy i Athletic Field Services Percentage Percentage Of Total Of Total Subsidy 1 Subsidy ! All Other A]I other Services Services Stalls All Orgs GO ORG 41 32% 49% 20% -16% TX ORG 42 21% 35% 44% -14% OD OK #3 4% 17% 79% -13% UT ORG 44 12% 18% 70% -6% CA ORG #5 29% 28 44% 0 A2 ORG #6 13 10% 77% 3% 00 ORG #7 40 34 26% 6 VT ORO 48 18% 7% 76 11% IL ORG 49 18% 7% 75% 11% CA ORG HO 23% 11% 66% 12% IL ORfi 911 23% 11% 66% 12% TX ORG 412 36% 20% 44% 15% IL ORG #13 25% 9 66% 15% IL ON #14 25% 8% 67% 16% CT om #15 50% 27% 2370 22% DR ORG 416 38% 12% 50 25% OD ORG #17 46% 209E 34% 26% OR ORG 418 42% 10% 49% 32% OD ORG #19 46% 13% 41% 33% TX ORG #20 47% 12% 41% 35% IL ORG #21 42% 5% 53% 39% OO ORG 922 47% 9% 44% 38% OR ORG #23 41% 2% 57% 39% CO ON #24 48% 10% 42% 39% CA 09 #25 44% 3% M 40% VT ORG #26 48% 4% 47% 44 IL ORG #27 49% 3% 49% 45% MA ORG #28 57% 12% 31% 46% OR ORG #29 52 6% 42 47% OR I ORG 431) SPI, 4% 38% 54% AVERAGE 36 14% SIM U% MEDIAN 40% I 10% J U% 1 24% Tsbke 1. Comparlson between opera sreess,. sports Yield, ,10 v(her service subsidy inyvVment, Gaping inequality, an aging population, and the enormous maintenance backlogs many park and recreation organizations face due to building when times are good, with little concern for how to pay for maintenance, should be enough for park and recreation professionals to re -think their choices when it comes to investing precious subsidy dollars. In our work at 110%, working alongside strategic partner Amilia, we analyze, among other things, how local park and recreation organizations are choosing to spend and invest taxpayer dollars, and whether these subsidy investments are justified. This includes, among other things, the amount of the subsidy that park and recreation organizations are investing in maintaining youth - sports fields, how these investments compare and contrast to other services afforded a broader community, like parks and trails, and how organizations may re -think Percee Of Total Cost 2019Organization R overy- Athletic Field Perceetap Services (Ball Of Total Cast DMVmnce i Qiamands & Rmovarf ! WNW Field RecfanguWr All Other Services vs All State All Gigs Sports Fields) Services Other Services CO ORG$17 3?: 43% •40X CA ORG #10 3% 19% -16% OR ORO #23 3% 30% N% yr — ON #26 4 41% -38% Co ORG 41 5% — 32% -27% TX ORG 912 7% 56% •49 OR ORG #29 8 35% -27% OR OROM 9% 31 •22% CA ON #5 12% 36% -24% TX ORG #20 13 44 -8 OR ORG 930 16% 23% -7% OR ORG #18 16% 24% -8% CA ORG #25 16% 31% -15% AZ ORG #6 21 37% -15% CT ORG 415 23t _ §M -74% IL DRG *9 25% 59% 34% CO ORG #19 26% 47 -21'Y TX 0RG 42 27% 67% -40% CO ORG 43 28% 6116 •33% VT ORG 48 30% 66 •37% IL ORG #11 31% 71% •40% IL ORG 914 31% 46 -15% MA ORG #28 35 60% -25% CO ORG 47 35% 38% •3% UT ORG #4 36 81% -45 IL 11RG 013 42% 72 -307L c0 ORG424 44% 59% •15% CO ORG #22 50% 70% -2D% IL OR0421 50% 72% •2ZX IL ORG #27 79% 44% 35% AVERAGE 24 51 -27% MEDIA14 24% 47% ,26X Tattle 2_ Comparison of cos) recovery performance betwwaan spurts Beads arrd affather services their choices to better serve the common good. While leading financial- sustainability efforts for U.S. park and recreation organizations, we compared the investments made by 30 organizations with whom we worked in 2020-21. Table 1 contrasts subsidy investments made in open -access services such as parks, trails, and open spaces, with those made in sports fields and all other services. As noted, the first four organizations listed invest more taxpayer money in youth -sports fields than in parks, trails, and open spaces. In Table 2, the contrast between the cost -recovery performan cesfor sports fields withal I other services paints a more graphic picture of the subsidy -investment choices being made by some park and recreation organizations today. While both Table 1 and Table 2 provide compelling data and information, what only matters are the actions taken in response to what is learned. When we consider the value that society places on sports over other types of endeavors in the U.S., perceived social values seem to be enough to justify and rationalize the significant investments we make. We know youth sports contribute to the social, emotional, and physical development of those who participate. But are there other things that do as well? Where does that leave those who appreciate and value activities outside the lines of sport? Is it fair and just to invest millions of dollars in youth sports at the expense of strengthening the arts, community gardens, parks, and open spaces that are more accessible and serve a greater good? What if we simply expected youth -sports beneficiaries who have the ability to pay to cover more of their costs, freeing up subsidies to be invested differently in order to have a greater impact on today's communities? These types of provocative questions are exactly why this complicated issue continues to fly under the radar in communities today. Questioning taxpayer investment in youth sports or any special -interest area presents an opportunity for park and recreation professionals to raise the bar and level of intellectual analysis. Being smart and responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars is paramount. What is trendy or popular seems to fascinate us and consume our precious time. As humans, we tend to put energy and resources into things that excite us —but, ultimately these fads, trends, and whatever he/ she said was important fast become flavors of the day where impacts are likely not that great. All fun stuff but with a dated shelf life. Concerning ourselves with issues like intelligent and considerate investment of taxpayer dollars is where we have the greatest opportunity to make the greatest difference. While youth sports will always be near and dear to me, I am at a crossroads in terms of what it has become, who benefits, and how we need to think differently about how best to see that they continue. I am hopeful we will keep our eye on the ball so we do what's right on behalf of those who get to play but all who trust us to do what isjust. Jamie Sabbach has served the public park and recreation industry for more than 30 years as a practitioner, educator, advocate, and consultant. Her current work with 110% focuses on helping park and recreation professionals cultivate financially responsible and sustainable organizations. Reach her at jamie.sabbach@110percent.net. Ice Would be NicePRE -7 but what about the common good? By Jamie Sabbach ANUARY2024 Photo: Wally Dever Arena, Belleville, Ontario I live in a small town reeling like many places. Lots of conflicting interests. Increasing demand for more services with little appetite to pay. A desire to live here but a lack of affordable housing. A preference for green grass in the midst of a water shortage. The need for a fair shake in what can feel like a rather unfair reality. And then there are those who want an indoor ice rink. Yes, in spite of the many social, environmental, and economic challenges we are experiencing in our little corner of the world, the flavor of the day that consumes the editorial section of our newspaper and council agendas month after month is the "need" for an indoor ice rink. So, I figured I would choose to write to my local city council and provide what would likely be a different perspective than what they were hearing from others about the "need" for a rink. Below I share excerpts from that very letter. As you read on, feel free to consider the ice rink as a metaphor. Could be a recreation center, more sports fields, a pickleball complex, etc. And while each of these may be considered as nice to have, the questions really come down to what can be afforded, should investments in these amenities trump the imposing interests and issues that affect the greater good, and ultimately, where should government's reach end. Distinguished Members of City Council... The abstraction of community has become increasingly problematic when it comes to rationalizing and justifying special interest expectations and resulting investments. When a small but vocal group of individuals suggest the "community" will benefit from whatever it is that represents their interest (in this case, an ice rink), it bears deeper analysis including understanding that this abstraction can lead to poor decisions on behalf of the real and broader community who are eventually expected to foot the bill. It's funny how a small contingent of vocal people can wield influence under the mantle of "community." Let's start with the ice rink and basic economics. A continuing song is being sung by local special interests suggesting our town needs an indoor rink that this community, frankly, cannot afford. Indoor ice rinks are among the biggest infrastructure liabilities any public entity can assume; therefore, would not be a sensical investment choice for our fair city. And this is only half of it. When facility construction and other human habitat costs such as roads/access, parking lots, and water and sewer, and the ongoing operational and maintenance costs for the life of a physical asset are calculated, this would be an unsustainable investment. Across the country, limiting perspective only to construction estimates leads to unrealistic and dangerous investments that have stretched public systems beyond what they can afford - particularly when made to satisfy small portions of today's residents yet paid for on the backs of 2050's citizens. Assuming long- term liabilities that overextend capacity are now being called out more than ever as irresponsible, damaging, and unethical, and have ultimately left some communities once prosperous and focused on having something for everyone on the brink of bankruptcy. Of course, these would be moot points if the City Council expected an indoor ice rink to recover all of its costs so as not to pass on these expenses to all taxpayers and compromise community investment in more pressing needs. It has been said that politicians cannot have the pleasure of spending without the pain of taxation. It is easy to dig holes and cut ribbons — and, while less popular to do the math and understand and accept limitations, telling people "no" may ultimately be the responsible and smart choice. All who represent governments at any level have the pleasure and burden of being a steward of taxpayer dollars. Each and everyday employees and the City Council consider and make decisions to spend taxpayer dollars. The expectation is that these investment choices are thoughtful, intelligent, and consider immediate as well as long term impacts on the financial sustainability and livability of the community. Should the city be in the business of providing "everything for everyone"? In what types of services should the city invest and what is it that should be left to the non-profit and private sectors? A common rationale we've heard throughout ongoing discussion and debate is that the city should build the ice rink as it would not be a smart business decision for other sectors. Well, isn't that interesting. PICK TWO There is a great model and Venn Diagram known as "Pick Two" used in contemporary livable community planning. Simply, one circle represents density or quantity. A second circle represents high levels of service or quality while the third represents stable taxes and fees. Only two of these circles can be chosen as it is not possible to have all three. For example, if someone wants high quality of service and stable taxes and fees, they will have to accept that the quantity offered needs to be less. Alternatively, if they want more while keeping taxes and fees stable, quality of service will suffer. And, if their desire is to have more and a high quality of service, they will have to pay more. So, if an ice rink is to be added to the city's menu of services, which of the two remaining circles will be compromised? Will overall service levels be impacted due to fragmentation of resources now that a new facility has been added? Or, will fees/taxes be increased to pay for this rink (either ice rink users will pay for the construction, maintenance, and operations of the facility for as long as it stands or these costs will need to be passed along to all who live in our community for the life of the rink)? You have to choose. s � J i Go.0 * f 4 ! t i 0 VOL Photo: Northern Nevada Ice If the past 15 years taught us nothing else, we should know by now that the economy is volatile and unpredictable — and is dependent upon and influenced by human behavior. When intelligent decisions are made, rewards tend to follow. When poor choices are made, there is often a price to pay. How much is paid depends on how poor and shortsighted the decision happened to be. It's hard not to appreciate where we live. The first creative arts district in the state, small business centric with few chains, ground -breaking public health initiatives, a beautiful downtown steeped in a rich history, an outdoor playground surrounded by 680,000 acres of public lands and an iconic river that runs through town that is the most commercially rafted in the US, 300+ days of sunshine, and a year-round tourism scene. These characteristics and others speak to the uniqueness of this place. And while these qualities sound wonderful on the surface, what makes this town special has also contributed to its most daunting economic, environmental, and social challenges. More remote workers, an older population with fewer and fewer young families, an influx of cash buyers from other states that has led to out of reach housing prices that have left many unable to keep a roof over their heads, business owners struggling to find and/or retain employees, a semi -arid and ever changing climate that continues to contribute to wildfire threats, and liabilities which exceed revenues speak to a complex reality. So, what should our investment priorities be? As you contemplate whether an indoor ice rink is the most responsible and ethical investment choice for the city and its taxpayers in light of all that is happening, I respectfully request that each of you ponder the following. Are you as a City Council member willing to stand up and step away from agendas that are self-interest driven and set a standard for our community that begins and ends with focusing on what is best for our collective "common good" and not just those who think that ice would be nice? Jamie Sabbach is President & Principal with 110% Inc., a consulting firm which focuses on ethical decision making, adaptive leadership, and the financial sustainability of public parks and recreation. She can be reached at jsabbach@lIOpercent.net -I"qq 31ME Supplemental Item lw" 0 Financial OHNE RT -77 Sustainability in public parks & recreation PARK TH E FR IEN DLY CITYE 44,]k .At, y. Ole Welcome 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility 1 PaQ�L-,�), rks & ec n mics 0% 1:;11L believe in possibility How we manage finite resources. SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. "A collective understanding of financial and business concepts intends to foster intelligent decision making and help us better consider the consequences of our actions. This is essential if we are to hav a financially sustainable future for parks and recreation." SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. 10% p 1 0% believe in possibility When was it we started to pay attention? SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. 1 The Great Recession's Profound on Parks & Recreation 110: Imct By: Nicholas Pitas, Ph.D., Austin Barrett, Ph.D., Andrew Mowen, Ph.D. 1W 4 ON %0% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. bellewe In possibility 100% 50% Parks Recreation Spending Source: The Great Recessions' Profound Impact on Parks & Recreation 2018 SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. 1 Total Expense $35.5B Operating $23.5B (66.2%) Capital $12B (33.8%) 2000 0% bellewe In possibility Total Expense $40.7B Total Expense $32.5B Operating Operating $28.9B $25.9B (71.7%) (79.7%) Capital Capital $11.8B $6.6B (28.9%) (20.3%) 2008 2013 EMEMP-A Operating & Capital Expenditures 2000 - 2013 Source: The Great Recessions' Profound Impact on Parks & Recreation 2018 2023 SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. A lack of financial discipline s a� v ca 00 r N .� 1 PORTLAND PARKS & RECREATiOfd Healthy Parks, Healthy Portland °/o s Ar �Xp erd��'�ce Revenues +13% 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in pottibilily ➢ Then & now ➢ Common language & understanding ➢ Ethics, economics, & equity ➢ Growth & stability ➢ Investment, value & return ➢ Designing strategy ➢ Closing, thoughts, comments, questions 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility Then & now 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility r - •_ � __ _ � _ +t +may. •�Z } _ 1 r - ;��• ti�ti -� t�r� r�•-� ij ti• _ . _ � � • _tir L' tit_ r � . •` ti � •�~ti � � � _ - � � i y _ r stir, _ ti� �-�•�� _t-s „. _' - -ti : _ 'ems-, r_�a ti-.r _.� _r, r• } •�Y.•}�+1,'��rl.: •�-kti� r = Y��-'•t- - r �!'.�' � . L-4 ;I-- .' _ tom•=,{_ -- �ti� �� ref _ �1 � : The Birth of Public Spaces Boston Common was the first public space or "commons" in the United States allowing for self directed leisure. -1� ti r- � - P.,rn%, MWr All,AWL �+!° J� ! j I. fI � ` t AK -NV11QN Vol Aft _di lip +- �y . 14 �-�'s:_1'�. � � I - �� 4r^ll �. ��1 � ,,�d.I � • L � r � _ - ,�' t ��► �- _ -I <��`�� - :f'A' III ,� -�,� f j+; is � ,a �', €•• �- r � __ ,. �- - •• � �e ssion matured a"nd diversified- �f philosophy shtifted, away from a --- �' social 'wIfareiodel.lo rvices for all model. IsAl OKI 'Gf x -00,4; i - ' n i ct ions n M• ff.. in dt�a - Public health crisis'. Community disparities Housing insecurities f�. pa'rhs:,& .4 Lack of revenue diversification Growth & development •�- • ';�.. ` {i r/�"' ; -!r .,flu: o - ri, y' • dF - _ '�-� a� . � � r • .mow,• r r �}a�.'F � _ - tion toda ...and torriorrow. . . . . . . . . . ��:.'ems• :.rs�'. . - ... .- - ':�. *wj 'er _ . Increasing infrastructure maintenance demands ' N., Conflicts b/w community demands and needs Stdeficiencies_..- �` '��4... - -_• -.- � . affing.. _ Environmental impacts Economic volatility... r. incl: climate threats A` h r L 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility Common language & understanding 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility f Build Howl — 0"0 row tog Common language and improved understanding leads to a more informed and better prepared community of her professionals, advocates, and policy makers. 1 V% bellewe In possibility SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. 1 Financial Alphabet Soup in Parks & Recreation �S u 0% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility cco nting 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility If 1 Gave You One Hundred Dollars How Much Money You Have? 10% ould SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. Cash account You have $too ✓ $100 in the bank 19 ✓ Ignore the $25K credit card debt 10% XA SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. Accrual accounting You have -$24900 ✓ $100 in the bank vp ✓ Include the $25K credit card debt 10% NO�pER PR SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. osts 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in pottibilily DIRECT COST? Direct costs can be traced directly to the provision of a service. This cost would not be incurred if the service ceased. 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. bellewe In possibility INDIRECT COST? Indirect costs are incurred with or without the provision of a service. These costs are not traceable to any particular service, benefit the system as a whole and do not benefit any one single service. 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility ost recovery 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility COST RECOVERY... recovering or offsetting the costs (expense) of delivering services. 10% r � SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. SUBSIDY... a benefit given by the government; typically to remove some type of burden, and often considered to be in the overall interest of the public. 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. bellewe In possibility ssential 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in pottibilily 1 essential absolutely necessary; extremely important synonyms: crucial •necessary • k� •vital •indispensable ..needed •required 0% belle�e In possibility essential servicips These services are critical to preserving life, health and basic social function and if interrupted, would endanger life, personal safety, and/or the physical and mental health of our community. SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. Self- I actualization 1 j , • Achieving one's full potential Esteem Respect, confidence, feeling of accomplishment Belon in Healthy relationships, friends Safety Security of body, finances, resources, family, property Physiological Food, water, shelter, sleep 0 eed 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in pottibilily need requirement because it is essential or very important. synonyms: obligatory •requisite •required •compulsory •mandatory •imperative F1 community • ner� discrepancies between a present state or condition and a desired state. These discrepancies inflict undue hardship on member(s) of our community. (poverty, poor health indicators, unemployment, educational attainment, etc.) 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. bellewe In possibility yY .L 42 #lq3 q"!NSI WVTAL PRANIX Ad drtiona I foot lea ll/soccer aac sse rkeid s 30 56 34 31 22 173 14 Additional retrgation [i�ntef 13 22 42 43 34 154 15 Additional senior center 31 2G 29 21 32 133 16 Additional basketbalI courts $ 31 74 20 17 100 17 Additional softball fields 10 77 21 13 14 85 19 New indoortennis Center 15 13 1.9 11 17 75 19 Now disc of f cou rse 7 12 7 1 a 19 58 20 Additional tennis couits 3 13 9 L 16 16 67 21 New BMX track 4 5 15 A 10 48 22 New inflow pickle ball court 4 7 10 $ 7 36 23 Additional skate pqrk 4 4 5 9 11 33 24 Additional outdoor pickle tell courts 2 4 12 5 'a 1 32 25 • pport nity Cost 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility Opportunity cost is the value or potential benefit of what is lost when choosing one option over another. 'Juay hole r RESTAURANT IWI— . .. 5. O% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. bellewe In possibility 1 artnersheip O% believe in possibility IF SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. 1 PARTNERSHIPS = OO/0 believe in possibility 0 ,STREET SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. PARTNERSHIPS Reci*procal Benefit If your organization is giving and not receiving something . - of equal value in return, you are a granting organization (this is not a partnership). 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility nd 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in pottibilily 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in pottibilily I ni 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. belieee in pottibilily Tdwr�T-�'� 4 _ i � s L _ - 4 Ab. Addition of pickleball courts is not the question. While the fastest growing sport, the question is the degree to which an investment in pickleball is made given its lifespan and current target markets. NOTE: Each court provides ^'10-12 hours of play per day (seasonal) x 7 days = 84 hours of play per court users per hour = ^336 players per court per week. W- SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. nfair Competition 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility re df FL 36 op de 77707 kr— Com"tition is generally considered a good thing — it elevates performance resulting in better services, and fair prices. 5 h #.: competition, This is cooperative _ p SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. And then there is dest unfair competition. cw_z 10% .6-01 -Ox-e-ik THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. 1 O% believe in possibility 1 111ingness to pay SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. Willingness to Pay Ability to Pay Ethics, economics, & equity 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility 1 TRAGEDY of the COMMONS Individual exploitation of common resources invites overall ruin. The conflicts between personal interest and the O��o belle�e In possibility common good. SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. 1 benefits all members of a community, contrasts with things that benefit only specific individuals or sub -communities. often requires a degree of individual sacrifice. a "we" or "us" way of thinking and doing. The r,,ommon Good O��o belle�e In possibility SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. 'he Abstraction of Community 1 -{..•r }'K..r.�T .rl VRIS lanuani 20T Ord Truths 0f'y°uth C o rts 'rhi e4�lf tikaar �p,nptT'Pi�G'3e �GS, �n� i�aehaut+n�hat•we 3t th a and YOU th spa". A WO V d e defician�s the m belie4e Such iderad a moat -hay and heats nature maksa it di{Ficult to ac sports are aelebratad and cons d to keep ❑ur oY y,rhan it rAntaiM trwha. l eta simP!Y nee love is that. �^ hi you e the. do Wsidea- me harsh rsalityStso end dissdMentegga saumPuons outhaP°rta oaaiGilitiea areecorwmica �mmunitiea. Y ll as the P crts tod � aPprts should notrec$�ve open to the 1eelitias. as Well wvlth Youth sp rhat io nts are made dated eat whi�chinveatS. Zp►ia is not to sum a tee tc uth- ongit)gmoat WnaeyuantiaLiasbsi aria son lathe d-g This has led mYc ants taubsidijaja reasur in o!uin�texPaYsra Totb,cantmtY- ��msorbaseduponsac1 hheve.incertain,;seas.had u any t�aYSr suPP . ccurata isrons wh' late Of roam-Planningdec based uPon IncemPoPm ,t and P thR countN- apQrtafac��tY deue ovmrnunmes acn�ss oaini;a ,tum on sequences for acts, PreeupP significant r3on loprnent pro) uth�,Porta �illty-dv�e �3t meY �rv'e include: n ant interests itisseservices (bass r�x1�r} iatment in develop bar types of ecr .Subsidy ( is based on a errs in comPansork whc imrestment mc that ed to Youth sp communitiaa in terms of wign subaidiera 9ocd • nomio diapaririae in many a 611ater cam tied #rom erx� •pntiaiane th�et heue reau and ,%bo dae8 net. 3,,f C pataa in Youth sports h What do you think after reading the article? Did anything you read resonate with you? Did anything you read make you uncomfortak Your key takeaway? L -.,00 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility Growth & stability 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility 1 h With the growth and prosperity this country has experienced, WHY do our governmental entities struggle to pay fo, basic services including maintenance? O��o believe in possibility SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. Obsession with the race to be the bigger & better IF r rj#4 • '4 r ' { 46 .� • f J �3 .004' A-1 }., ... r. Ah' � 1 JF h ,� 4. NKINRL �i dang � J- % 0 belleee In pottlbillly Post WW2, the pursuit of fast growth with little consideration for the long- term impacts (fiscal, environmental, social) came into fashion. SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. Growth Average age of infrastructure Population ---o. i0000 The illusion of wealth & the cycle of decline Time S5�" ri A erred maintenance Th�cost of work needed to bring a structure to good condition. 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. bellewe In possibility Amenities Benches 1,788 eadh 33° 0% 5 % 9% 2% Bleachers 36 each 0% 30% 55% 10% 5% CarbageCans 1519 each 27% 0 47% 25% 1 Bike Racks 217 each 65% 0% 28% 7% 0% Tables 334 eadh 19% 0% 40% 34% 7% Pathways Asphalt 222,033 sq. rn. 37% 18% 8% 16% 21% Concrete 10,441 sq. m. 9% 48% 1% 8% 34% Crusher Dust/ShaIe 81,308 sq. M. 37% 23% 39% 1% 5% Pavers 24,838 sq. rn. 17% 42% 3% 2% 41 % Parking Lots Gravel 56,876 sq. m. 14% 17% 6% 8% 55% Paved 30,400 sq. m. 0% 3% 5% 0% 92% Roadways Gravel 22,053 sq. m. 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Paved 9,473 sq. m. 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Fencing Bollards 57.0Db eadh 38% 0% 57% 4% 1% Stone 4,246lin.m. 0% 15% 40% 25% 20% Chainlink 14,157lin.m. 6% 17% 26% 15% 36% Omega 140lin.m. 15% 20% 35% 15% 15% Irrigation/Oninage Irrigation/Drainage 515 ha 10% 17% 13% 9% 51 % Pools and Water Features "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is its inability to understand the exponential function,," Dr. Albert Bartlett Professor Emeritus, University of Colorado at Boulder Arithmetic, Population & Energy No 0 t Ir 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility i _7r -Al �L ei, -j SINKING TREASURE Cour+ti� Parks' q look at the Milwaukee troubled finances and potentlai solutions MILWAUKEE COUNTY mmomm KS - $500M backlog '" VJISCC?NSIN i 11 POLICY FpRUh11 • 1 OO bellewe In possibility Spending on the parks is the same today as in 1989 (despite inflation) and staffing has plummeted $ 0M $45 fah $40 M $5 $ 30 M $5 M $0 M $15■M $ 10 IYI 5 M $0 M =Budgeted Expenditures --Budgeted FFEs # • • iw TATFTC 1.200 _Qw 00 SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. The parks rely far more today on earned revenues 0 40 $30 $0 $10 $0 as property tax support has declined r Lever a Other Revenue 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in pottibilily The capital picture is ominouswith the cost of future projects vastly outpacing previous spending 50 40 $ 0M 0 M $10 $0 2013 2014 2015 Parks Department ■ Projected Parks Department 2015 2017 2028 4019 2020 A 2021 2022 2023 2024 202 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in pottibilily 1 O��o believe in possibility $113+ backlog SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. BUSINESS- FINANCE TRAVEL- CARS+ BIKES+ LIFESI "Despite ups and downs in the Pennsylvania Park system, the Pennsylvania Bureau of State Parks was recognized; winning the National Gold Medal Award for Excellence in Park and Recreation Management by the American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration who partners with the National Recreation and Park Association." 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility - f jp ej _ r• rrA .00 -p - ! •r r rb J. 4 It Ix I J. $11e9B backlogs PATIONAL PARK SERVICE C� r� -. J7 O% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. b.... e M p.,,.bMty JK I t H * E 4-10 B A C K L 0 l Ideas to Address the National Farb Deferred Maintenance Problem 10% $11.913 backlog? in 2012? 2014? 2016? SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. The Great Insufficiency of The Great Outdoors Act "Fully" and permanently fund the Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) @ $900M peryear. Provide $9.5B over 5 years ($1.9B annually) to address the maintenance backlog of the National Park Service. 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility ROHNERs: PARK* 1� �.. A Is T u E FR rENOLY CITY 'b r• 10% City of Park Roh nert Facility Condition Assessment Final Report Mk SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. r * � N"ce .lice d" but tit about the coMm° n good? gy:larrtie Sab�ch l own — I ii�a in a smal t 1eelims like Fes.`' places_ -Inavasmg g derma for mare Senice, v,-b littl desire awe6te to pay. to live bere b"t a lack of aordable housing- A efere'nce faor green grass Fi b the need water -ItcQtag - . hat can feel like a rod% m�fait reality Ald then are those who -,hit an indoor ice rink. Menges We are eacpenens�€ �+L —, — consumes me eartarial section of our �{es, F} 4£ the man{ social? v° ice rink. of the u orld, the larar of the da{ that .`need' fol: an indoor in o„¢ little comet enclas month after month is the neti�-spaFer and cauncrl ag 61 and P1a�1de ,neat �i r ind W�k hA local city others aboutthe for a rink, figured I v;aul d r_haase to wtheto mg hearing irk a dif%reut persp vI What they l;ire 111 e excerpts from that ��eru letter center, Bela,h I spat � Couldbe a recreati� � nice der the ice r1°h a meteacr ronsidererl feel free to consi �,�,3tiile each of these may be � e� � these As -You read on; AD camPlea: W" be ,riled, should in,.^ m ,ports fields: a P n to what can eater good, AAVI*W to Ira ueslirms 1eally cow ov 3nd issues that affect ifre �.� tba 4 nitiPes tromp the imposing At= should gm eminent s reafilr end h What do you think after reading the article? Did anything you read resonate with you? Did anything you read make you uncomfortak Your key takeaway? L -.,00 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility Investment, value & return 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in pottibilily If taxpayers can't or won't pay more what options exist? r WE JU NEED MORE MONEY! err. 10 i 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. belleee In possibility mm Apt`" MCAUN & "'C"ATIOM TA IN 1ST What is Lr KI CT Distr i,6 o " Mountain Par k and A quasi g°ve fnm an i �t�ton sPecial•Purlwse enrol entity, that is separately fr°rn mmental unit that a Pendant local n7uniri g°1 emrrr vests Palitig and mwnsh, 5 sum as the cnu dry, What are the Distrtict Boundaries? District 6°undaries mirror the Basalt �atrict and incl ud -SoFire el h Villago willit ��rnhld � ass, Ton of and t, 9 ts, Emma El Jebel, and Holland Ponr°n of Missouri Hills. Blue Lake fire tone, &� Creek Now is the pistrict funded? Property [axg ar With aPlxoxl a the District's proPe matelyilr0 pnMary funding source taxes to t 6istnct residents who homeowners pay is baDistrictQTha amount District Pay ed °� mill 1 e MiM Can ll e ;s ain the mill levy? value of a tax r includes home. ate that applied to es Service prop tax bill r, the assessed pr the CxnOral F oIresourc District sen icg maintenance Fund (ongoin g to build the Park) and NO ) pebtse g°Perationsarrd by 12/3112022. rV+ce on the Park will 6e what they pay? see a 25 Percent reductiona result, paid in tot Prop" tax N4 tax bill. Payers Will w Muth A's an.. t a District resident Current) property taxes to the Di S,ioo, D *ill pay $ 0 2 to hassessed home value of in District• Now Muth will tax to the n;Ury 20Ct resident ident pa In Property astri reduction mentioned ahn,re? based As an exam ulbn the $500 Otlp Will Pay $107 to the messed home value of District. ve County °w wn Mountain Parkland? Mountain Park and Rec s the lreatdand ion Districts Itto the crown for $1 Per year, the lease a[ reefri includ DeaeloPnrent (PUD) which Ea 8 Planned Unit Are there a g Counlygoverns. included In 'he lease? Assetsnotinclud dIntssets a �WnWuntalnP,atknot Caun ed in the lease i EI Jebel t '% located at the entrInclude the Eagle Jebel t Processing abandoned bei °nd D' once of the Park, nand D ces' he porei� build- to de nd e the native land south the 11-S °fen;enrice what is a Plano ii'nit dev�ened unit '�opment (PUD,? thatdefinbevelopmentisa type g p any. The RUD ft h frond uses alto o �1e zooid am or u ed in 2012 and the P n wontain Park w e fast Plating the PUp f°r 2I cs rn the Process 1lfhat is the atrea*L of Cro 128 acres. +nrn �'►°°`main Park? What is Goti„n Mountain P annually? Partici ark s participation patbnsare individual uses and Crown Mountain Park Participations Ir°m Current individuals 76,O individuals. i4p registered local Pon Participation artic� total blrke ParticciiPationjgO,OQt1 d r,iriparns total, own Mountain Park totals annually, Why The Cry,W n Mountain pa,* 4U continue main Park arrd Recreation l fan? ues in its efforts to Provide Park and rerr bn District eatlnn needs and int r sts o that Mountain ecrea meet the stewards of val District yvhile of the Crow, takin esourc being responsible g stePs to develo es- Currst ernN, the Mountain Park that is Plan for Cro Distritt is rnnovative,actionabisle, Intentionallycolla wn co a planf�betlg d and based PartPon Current evelo Current realities, rnmun' staff feed�ck. °n a foundation of 0 7n6'jA4,r,, RuralandrFire��Frage, 1hts111t},sOof e3r1d�Emmar EIJebel rij F.trrti��of It� Hellar�,d Hill . , GI►ue �akea ire Is Lan Blue �0w is the �'1stri Pro rope t-V tax � funded t� +with aAAroxi� tre the �i�tri�t Pra a elf t 0 Pr"i a tun�din U �'- �' �xe� t , �'� L3i�trict resi,d�,nt� � hOeo n,Pr� # District. Who pay AaY is based off of �e amount L�istri�t a mill �art ,�`,� �e,�lain t . The mill lets► i a tax �` Mill Icy, �. ivalue Of a hor►'e• .4 P�rO a tit app�li d to t ude. de ht Ae� tax he a��e��ed service bill for L lStri the Genera/ I� �resn ie �aintenar� ur'�1 tUn�`ing �� to build tl� Dark fu116 ' -I� rer- I?eht se�ice Unerati,en aad and �►�e 1 1202'�- � a the park a 25 percent redU result+ r ,tax be Paid in rtiUn P' ►apert� to their tax Dill_ Aare 'w'ill Mnw ,'nuch dn., Oropert"y ta,,, , # �istri" resident AS an exarnple.+ ;n 00he District? Urr� It 1 �r Willer, an messed h � to�Y�� the ai�tri�t. �e 'low rnuch ti.�:u _ -F uW 1�IUra� lugEIJebe1 trG�Ar�Cedatthe'ItIn, beYond�District ��ir�abandoned duitFe native IandMces" thL* OS Forestith Of the pond. Whir' IS a Rl amrleb -4 Planned unit knit �� device "eveli)pment i l�` i' n1 that defines th a t I)e rf f rope, 7-he PC'D fore aid Uses allUy*d a ended in rW n up tiro �� r"�ntair� pa g the P'�L the Park is i►� the r 023 1� r What 1 2$ ac r thacr'� �►fr io w►� 11+ Ounta in What is annually�� A'f��nt�,w Park-r P'a��ci ' �rti i P�ati as are ind i - �'rU�n ��3 stain, Park �d ual u�e� and not 'participati ris fre, rUrrei�tly set '76 in�li 140r00Ei t Pstered local �r000 Part icil�at at _ hike part icip,,, _ yal sport Aa rti ri 1 40r 41-1•�L� tal n total'. �'d�i71 ��u 0� dn�' F�a►tieipat'iU�� ritai� park �e� Why ar~nuall.. The r' -- .. i1 Mo' .t.i. rs- .. L*J 0 jo resiaents whey} f he • •r_ 1 11 1 h residents V "urrs residents�yug eatianserye� Mansfield t4Wnll as those who wo v✓elcorne all & Rer actively Partin rk in and reation q Rate in Mansfie fd parr it Parks asses ra trails. and Other faciliti snd events'and use Why is there a SPeciat town of 141ansffeld S to ,ityCenter{MCCjme tt ers d and Ij Wngton r others Pike mhershlp rate for Caluntbia r esidents and not far Center was tlevelOPed an land previous Regional High Scly orl la nis? The Camrnunity a condition of oaf 191E.t7 Smith High owned bV the T°wn Mansfield ac gh School, a Me er�hfrate Hrhehoollg as 9uering Eand Ashfex Peeial►w1CC was Caf 7nb is st 1Vi1lingm � eC t to be o h d to and students are S. t an that is ement was created h d servrtl. town When What is DID woo KMow� Is Mansfield Ho11 on Nat MSPw s afM'411d? ark jMHSF) managed pubflr Land. e owned, Operated, and maintained what or, PriMa Propsupport n MOn Old Park nding sources that y taxes antl various and R user feeseation? What are the and rt�arges Rftreatfon fees &Oyr , 2423j? Depannsent bldg.,for the Parks g O {Fscal Year 2!)2L ratln gutl et n s1er Fede es {general use A? resrrd; bershl s!A non, MCC&Iern �^resitlent -2T.596C*nerafFund '53%residents, 2.55 Dona tlons {proPerty taxes) Mansfield a relationship bet What are the an {A4CC)? and the Mansfield C en 1ha,rown of rerreatlon amwtlpg Partiewtion rates • T Retreath°,t Rctivit P. inrktding the fvr he Mansfield 4Y Center Fy MCC? oPerat C°rn''nunl 2018.2014 (pre rtrci at . and tY Cer"er (MC ry 2021 [ta2,t 1 g lOns • !%'ar1� and Recr�d4nl�tl by the r Is ow 2422 4,g ) "9,14D Other r. pa Own Of Mansfield � yC Partl€i tions.� rac{Titles p d1 of man y fa ti, 011s, nag F�I ehutl not �e Pa't i i.2022 {105 p4prD 1g3 `214,4170 and Retreation and services nR'emd MCC IS Just One users Capons are total What by Mansfield Parks A107E• rbe visits and da not t f are same of the other Man3field Parks and Re{r * s writes ON Pa's. trolls, 'Ideation? by playgrounds °pen spaces Skatepark " '*nary Hall Community Srh 9lceMennlal P • OOi Of the q,� Southeastp ondRecreatlon • ark {baseball fl l Area i:Ons Club Park (Soccer fi efds j A number of retreat) elds} seasonal pr° r °nactivities residents) gam brochures (listed in mailed is roan mdiv dual and ope^ sporeitntl° ues not trnrk corks 1ralls, TO 2021.d a �andRecrration?�ente"ribute to the Parks 2022, SS310 pro a medianand Retreat � takes was allocate horn* value of 2 D*Panment based upon d Whya fyta 5�.546, r° btio, nsinld Park ad Rerreada a legacy of high value services far Manst}efd n Master Pfan? and it an don* th-ugh rreatin hut. rhis;s a tte rOn rtlon and orders g stronger d ditlans and r Iffid estam., analygl�mmunity r Ponsihle atilt det ng currant Sustal �eof erntlnirgthe noble road r°urces sO an Informed a^d°st map for the futur e can he developed. `d r4jal nt,,,, , W17 YIs.there as CoMm pecial Ta ��►t�''�C`rit -�..dS are +er �lC wn Of i`ansfield` I�r€rrrsr3r i�ue� c'th+e�r Ashford an'd illir� } mem'h'ershi p �� anshelrf l'Hrics rf�ag fur like C0lu gt+an resi�y p rat r 1r taxas an as Ces'►at entef m 34 reside ents aad A ariv Sri f'ecReatinn? tit Region'a gh 5 In nn ian �tvj rtity. What are the r User fees and cta,�g s a Can eoi 191E.Q- 5rnit 4� owln,ed b'r' Recreation Dt- Ctretlue seufC4DS f ditic�n of frorn Ile the T titre artsfiel ►gh C €�I, A; 2023)? par m nt b +get for the p,&,ks 6tonal ryigh School Cquirir, ' rat„� ��ts al +ear metn6efsh%-i/jj, ate rI 19 a gland Bud eta. shford,��'a- ex C'Cialh9cr '�°f►,erFees l L {gC.Ct�IWmbiagtOr7 reSid be efye�red tC fiery . Is C iU�6ia Students t d nts are sefved r R,e i�°ugh a° 'residents) 6ershi� reS4dent�r t,, +e agFCement , n ►dentitie F' raeral Fvnd r+esid, •+'as Create j. erV Ce tIDWO when � r�at►a�s Apr l taxcs� What is the r ansfr,ead a e1atiensl�i "'hat are '�� the a het Cr7 the r "�atl the aa�va! Participation �'Mccp nsf►e1d r�` 'n of n ac t/ tins including ryes f tht� °h'►�0nitg Center acr°at�e►r the artisfl eld e Act►vit paer perat a mrrivnit� er►t 1 (pre at;aa's- (pa6 d+ a�rtai� F� `��1 �� CC)�1�,19) -, Arid F'ecr• ed br the AMC Is ed,� ,1,Op Other eatl�ry wri of �� FartiC► 110ns+ To d Ckepa,ea Ala►7sfl,eldt}i, Facilities,. PUN'rt ""Its inciudl �rlth sUpiport fro., 2014 f, CCi �trnan "c'►' er3�rid tnit!i 2021• � I 19 �21� end �`,000 _CF.L tifl�y and services ofrer" PI'lani� cc IS lust � � Users 5 � icip Bans. a�eC�°0� es►ts and do r)at r at ark ns�eld 'arks ' 7F: 1` a �,pc]x affect ►nd,uid,, ansfi ld P m'e'°f the rh+er s is opera '�°r1. �r0es spave wi5i 170t tref*,Oarksr tref,C� �rr1 and Kerr es offe,�'tierxs +eatiw Y dt,r parlrs, trails, aril much * pla�,greUnds C`►�crt s�'arvs to �'►anshal �� does a �a�ns rt skate field resident C�rrtril�Ule park arl� a LtF,a�-d d- to the p��1��`��r �53d7 pr��tJon� al rA.-._ �!I t:+ r►i,r�an:r �r� A and 1$�... _ _ p`arh' taws. I "What is most important to you? You can only have two." more sere i ces uantity) Stabilize taxes/fees -. High level of s49 ervice (qualit © 2024110% Inc. All rights reserved. 1 What doesit cost? O��o believe in possibility SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. Why do we not ensure that development generates enough resource so that it can pay for itself 1 O��o belle�e In possibility ji 91, DWI oa- ■ SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. r t *:' rri I t _ h ` lle #1 1 i %J 1 ' # 1 as ARV 1 1 r L IDL L 1 � �• r p 3rd STREET IMPROVEMENTS Cost of Reps i r�= $87 5, 000 Life Cycle- 20 years Iand Use Fiscol Anolysr5 roylor, TX TotsI TaxabIa vaI ue of Adjacent Prope rde5 5106900893 Avg. p rope r#y Va lug 112,726 Tax Rate 0.788000 Annual Property Tax Ruvunue 13r 24 I Time to Pay Off Project If 100 of the property tax revenue as dedicated to this project, it would take 65 Years to pay off the investment, around 3X the life of the prof ect. SLOW AND COMPACT 4 FAST AND SPREAD OUT MAP 6 ANNEXATION HISTORY LEGEND - 1830 airy Lim is - 1910 Freeway - 1M Primary Arterials - 1930 Semnda ry lute na is - 1940 Railroad 1950 Creek(F6erkake 1960 1970 ® im - 1990 - 20M - 2010 Victoria, TX Pfun2035 010%0" believe in possibility Increasing cast per capitajhousehold 1 1950 and 2015, Victoria's irea grew by 13X, while the on only grew by 4X. New residential service area (17.36 acres) Property Tax Revenues/Acre = $4,660 Downtown multi -use (10.46 acres) Property/Sales Tax Revenues/Acre = $12,307 t MEN ' . The ROI of Community Development 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. ".... a In P...lity Facility sq ft. = 80,000 Programmable sq ft. = 53,000 ,,- 1 L Facility sq ft. = 42,000 Programmable sq ft. = 36,000 The ROI of P & R Facility Development 0% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. bellewe In possibility Human hab � Streets/Roads � Bridges � Dams � Water/Sewer � Schools � Parks � Environmental � Social EL 10% cots - -1 1-0 --M -A A 1111-0-1 -4 - ■ A -1 1. U lI Li lid 4074:-: SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. 9' Community goal =INFINITE GAME Long term objectives Indiiii �lua gI�Tq'�WFINITE GAME Short-term okjeaives There is an inherent conflict between the collective goal of the community to endure and the goals of individuals to "win" SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. Designing strategy 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility . . }sqr�. L L r �f � h L I r OO/O believe in pottibiliLy NK L i 5 ,r . Sr �S L Yi ".A r A 1 •_ „ t L y R 1 4 i � x _ }r 5."•r 5 covr hisioso• _ yesterday f �jia L• � — - Jr - - - _ � L r. �+Y L L ' i� F' L. L q� ' '��' '-R]ryI• Jra SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. z . r4 '- - w 1+ dp. To F; dF J� pow 4 -P ..b Aqd Z-t V Parks & Trails IM,-,% Youth S p o rts"-.-..{��1 Adult Spor. s. Aquatics,.... Arts Day Camps, P1 Scial Events �� Teens SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. Financial Sustainability Three-legged Stool Service Categories — Tax Use/Revenue � Enhancement Philosophy Beneficiary of Service Cost of Service © 2024110% Inc. All rights reserved. Whatis a park & recreation SERVICE? Activities, courses, classes, events, rentals, and other types of leisure experiences, l" 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. bellewe In possibility or What is a park & recreation SERVICE AREA? Where "likeness" of service is the principal consideration in the coordination and/or organization of various services. 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. Whatis a park & recreation SERVICE CATEGORY? Where "like purpose" is the principal consideration in the cataloging of services. 10% m s SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. Why Service Categories? Eliminates arbitrary goal setting. Discourages attempts to make cost recovery decisions based upon special interests or social values. Aligns with interests in equity -based decision making —age, interest, etc. become irrelevant. It's all about "purpose". 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. bellewe In possibility Service Categories Seniors (Intro to Fitness) Cost recovery goal = 25%? Aquatics (learn to swim) Cost recovery goal = 40%? Youth Sports (t-ball) Cost recovery goal = 50%? reserved. Service Category: Beginner Level Activities Similar purpose = Same CR goal R reserved. Beneficiary of Service Masters Swim Cost recovery goal = 75%? Service Area: Aquatics CR goal = 75% Learn to Swim Cost recovery 7CO/ el f goal 2024110% Inc. All rights reserved. Service Category: Beginner Level Activities Service Category: Competitive Level Activities 2024110% Inc. All rights reserved. "D Beneficiary of Service Activity 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility Take 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in pottibilily 1 Take with your new team 0% believe in possibility 7311 SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. 1. Share your ranking with one another 2. Why did you make the placement decisions you did? 3. After hearing other perspectives, would you change any of your rankings? 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. bellewe In possibility MWM — d CL ca� N o aU e � s rn y 3 = to o z J C C O V se t�O '9 lac SO`,d'd?d, I ° c e Q a\ �e,N ed5 �Nj2o c v Coot a °.e' Jai 0 <�Se d Se��\c`eS�c°S �°,�S\ d\ce� �\3S\��eda �t\Jaye OxNes J,a,J►°o ate, Qacc.,�GO J�c'e Ve � ale Beneficiary of Services Common Good O 2024 110% Inc. All rights reserved. Individualized 71 Understanding Cost of Service 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility DIRECT COST Direct costs can be traced directly to the provision of a service. This cost would not be incurred if the service ceased. INDIREC11I&ST Indirect costs are incurred with or without the provision of a service. These costs are not traceable to any particular service, benefit the system as a whole and do not benefit any one single service. 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. bellewe In possibility I y .. � 3, :ter• _ , �� x � � f � 30 I AlW 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility Sell one thing — ice cream cones • 50,000 ice cream cones sold Direct Costs • Ice cream, cones, napkins • Costs = $50,000 ($1/cone) Additional costs • Utilities, management, landscaping, equipment • Costs = $100,000 last year Calculate cost of service • Cost of service = $150,000 • To cover all costs, they need to sell cones for $3/each (100% cost recovery). .A CREgM 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility Chain of Shops Multiple locations • Varying revenue by store • Varying costs by store Some shared resources between locations • Senior Managers • Finance • HR • Landscaping contract • etc. NOTE: Cost of service at separate locations becomes a bit more challenging to calculate Iw rr�_ �, i 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe . possibility Quality of Life Services Hundreds or thousands of services offered Many unique direct costs for each service ti Globally shared costs/resources across the system (indirect costs) • Senior Managers, Finance, HR, Landscaping, etc. Location based shared costs/resources • Facility maintenance, Utilities, Custodial, Front desk staff, etc. s IL -k - +— 1 L16RARY ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ `■■--V■■ ■■—V■■ A- f Qr • iJ �� IIIIIIIIII� —�. i• 1• r ,a $r • C �r s s! 7 rMh1k6 - 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility 1 Attributing INDIRECT COSTS - aamine.amPle Exec Director Total organization budget = $1M Parks Mgr. PARKS = $600K JJ60K (60% of total salary + budget) bennies $60K of ED's salary is attributed to PARKS Of the whole method Rec Mgr. REC = $400K mm"M $60K (40 % of total salary + budget) 7 bennies $40K of ED s salary is attributed to REC Aquatics Coord, Aquatics = $280K (70% of Rec's total budget) $70K of ED & RM's salaries attributed to Aquatics Sports Coord. Sports = $120K (30% $40K of Rec's total budget) salary $30K of ED & RM's nie salaries attributed to Aquatics 0% jjr SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility Attributing INDIRECT COSTS - faalitie,e.amPle $1M budget Utilities Maintenance Staff Telecom-Com Security Custodial Marketing Office Supplies Training & Dev Equipment Grounds mtc Fleet O% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. belle- M potflbillly Attributing INDIRECT COSTS - facilitiese.amPle $1,000,0000 budget 5120 open hrs/yr. (360 days @ 16 hrs/day) $195.31/open 10% RECREATION INDUSTRY. Attributing INDIRECT COSTS - facilitiese.amPle $1,000,0000 budget 5120 open hrs/yr. (360 days @ 16 hrs/day) $195.31/open hour ❑ANVIkkE CoMmuNITY c Distribute by Alsquare feet? 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility Attributing INDIRECT COSTS - facilitiese.amPle $195.31 per hour 50,000 sq. ft .004/foot/hour ogNvilkE COMMUNITY "L'�N T q R ': Distribute by talsquare 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility Attributing INDIRECT COSTS - facilitiese.amPle $195.31 per hour 30,000 sq. ft .007/foot/hour ogNvilkE COMMUNITY "L'�N T q R jar �: Distribute programmab/e� y total quare 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility Attributing INDIRECT COSTS - facilitiese.amPle 4 weeks 2 x per week 1 hour class 8 occurrences 8 contact hours Multi -purpose room = 600 sq. ft. 600 x. 007 per sq. ft./hour x 8 hours _ $336 10% class SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. Attributing INDIRECT COSTS - facilitiese.amPle $336 facility cost/ min. 20 = $16.80 per person class 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility CL c�N o aU e � s rn y 3 = to o z J C C O V wr Q0 c`ax 6ONP ° c°e otSl � c eedt, a�et O O�vj a\� .,,,e \\Lfa. - O'0" Nceet�c° eQ°tS\ %ulS c S J,a�i►ao ate, Qacc,�GOa�a GaXPIZ cue'-` e6, 0* e e S � ale Transformation From Beneficiary of Services Financial Sustainability Strategy Common Good O 2024 10% Inc. All rights reserved. Individualized i� C C O V -1>1 COST RECOVERY STRATEGY example* a`SOG �deadS1�\oeSeo �\ 'c° vO`e O��e' a�d�oy, \<` 't? ��S �j� 3G 6l0 \ e., e\t° e� arc` ZP�o G00&-'�y e eP �p o pQ e55 O' L� GG 0( GQ' Common Good ,SP. ■ S I se'`ce5 Sc� c �e a Y �acA' ace \ a d \Sct°t \�e dt, y9 d,o \' test ire `P etas o d``tie ea C, 10 ova`` GQ, sec "Coo Q,e ��610 0 G� �d10 <P GQ' *heavy reliance upon the GF; no self reliance; no re -investment in the organization O 2024 110% Inc. All rights reserved. Individualized i� .0 C O V -1>1 FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY example* Goa` e d,°� ° cc O' S OOa`SO dS,� See `-sue dt`eed \�a�e c�\d 5 �1 S (� O r �e (�O L't o (rO e�o��e�°� Pt° �t0Q c�e5 2�� (,Q' t \ e �c Z�Ao � 610 eP GQ' Common Good *continue to subsidize the majority of services; remain largely dependent upon the GF; some re -investment in the organization; increasing self reliance O 2024 110% Inc. All rights reserved. Individualized a •N �' a� a FA v C 0 y s� x E O U -1� .i.i .a N I v a y V CA G� m3 xCD COMMUNITY INVESTMENT STRATEGY example* OS� o��a\o\ Goa`dNO 0\11 � oC; 01 Oa`SO �e�deedS �eSeG c�\d Cis ,SP. ■ < d e e S se -A\ ce 5 S e, ` �e NO S�,e' d a ��a �\o�a �e .,�\��' e6 cloy i�a•, \Sege '\red Q�o�\ ec`\`� `'S 30�° \\e d�S 0deco eye �r et 511- o9 �4 CIO GJS�oo�a\��-e5 '� sec Q �` �° d� et` 5� O� eta c0a Off° ea Q�e y`a�ti Go5'c. ,� Off° Jet`1 OC° �tiea Q`eco Go'`,``e5 a 'A- C�� a� 6\0 (r0 SSe� �,�e ado OtoQ -n4l �y� O� d �•� `tie tt` 5 2 yid e oA° a *reduce reliance on the GF; re- o9Ge55 Jya`ti investment in the organization; a` �oo�°red increase self reliance; emphasize how taxpayer dollars are spent LJ.. Common Good O 2024 110% Inc. All rights reserved. Individualized Tax Use & Reven Enhancement Continuu for public & non-profit O� ate X ' BOG �ea © 2024110% Inc. All rights reserved. 1 0% believe in possibility A Commitment to Financial Discipline a case study worth celebrating SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. ,.r yam= _,�- - �- .�,. _.. � _ � _ - - __ . - _ �-�-- r. z� _ � - -- -- -• �.a�c,�: --"`� r_s't=- - -��. '=� .T :�- �=-=:7+�� - - µ- ;ram-.* = - _-�eP - _ -.r.. � •.cam . -.�. -f P. yr, a.S I�L•:... � ..?S ��•� �. � � 4 •w# - '-< ':Y n]ip r �rk�itJARi] fiz 4J f "4 f kill. A. mom il .-"e A.. s - =., '.: %' 'V snow �, =- ► , opor tirif r,y�f �' 1 CITY OF: NAPA 06 i yyyyPPP4yy��] C " � t �� 4 • !' { i vv 4 f F11 � ij� �✓ as f.d _ � _ y � � ` I i I p li . /: Y "- � n "� � d 1 � S'� 1 C� �. � 'Gy "J i�..• I ' ° i r lV �I. y .^"•: "i N,C�.�. _. .Ka.,_ r,Jk�_--`��-.-Tt�! - ri� : �.1" �-- --- �:. .., Jt �rL •i Napa's Realities tv CITY OF NAPA 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility City of Napa - Parks& Recreation Department S12,IDDOJODD 610,ODD, DDD Sg,'D D Dj D DD S6,000JODD S4,CODJODD S2,0DO,ODD 5- ..... Rev enue � Expenses City of Napa CA Parks & Recreation Services 2013-2021 C I P TOTAL (2013-2021) 9 year total $ 6,4501,877 9 year average $ 806,360 OPERATING TOTAL 9 year total $ 47,535,600 9 year average $ 5,941,950 9-year Total CIP % 12% OPERATING 88% TOTAL $ 53,986,477 9-year Average CIP % 12% OPERATING 88% TOTAL $ 6,748,310 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility I$'F: CITY OF APA $225M+ backlog 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. belieee in pottibilily Obesity rates by state, 2030 (projected) 20% 30% 40% 50% 50% r r Obesity is defined as a BMf over 30 Map: Elijah Wolfson for TIME • Source: N Engl J Med 2019-381.2440-50. • Created with ❑atawrapper digP_ :15 Park SERVICE CATEGORIES Commun Ity Events: Events designed to appeal to our board and diverse community regmdfess of age, ability. famity composition, etc. (Exampled Juiy4" , FugerPark Summer Concerfs, Napa Lighted Ad Festival) Drop -In: Access to activity areas et recrealion fecilKieswhioh do not requia registration but require staff supervision and actfvity is sett -directed by the user. (Example_: drop -in voA9ybaWbaskefbc?9 in gyrn: recreation $rwm, preschool wiggle room, Senior Center d wge) Education & Enrichment Programs: Classes, program, and instructed auli i es designed to provide education, enhance life skills. and provide socialization. (Examples: monthly senior seminars, summer day damps, presetrooidasses_ ranger guided! aches) Human Services: Prevention end remediation of life chegenges and maintaining quality of life, independence, and connection to the community by linking andror providing resources for those in need_ (Exampled {:r3NVmeal services, fax support oaunsehi ig; x2ferrals) Intenn�diaWAdvance;Competitive Programs: Classes, programs, and instructed activilies dE*rked to advance flr maslef a skill or provide competition between participants. (Examples: swirn dessvnslevels 4A adub solfbahrXeague, Jr. Warriorsbask-etballLeague, inferrnediale paenfahg) • i ILIA lr 4t�� rf - T - r �� d r � Leam to Programs: eaeon l programs, and list parrd acts sties designed to learns new 1� ` ` skill. (Examples: swim seasons levels 4-3,' f�e9inrrirtg Aamdiny_ ffpfra to karate, mini sparfs) Open Access: Access to parks and perk amenities which do not requirestaff oversight and activity is self-direatEd by the user. (EranWke: playagmunds, *afepark, ou& oor &pods oourfs, opera lariareaA ba0la, boat launches, puNic art) Rentals: Facility or park rentals which are for exclusive use by and individual oar group. (Examples: sports fieldrantais, senior centerrerrlafs, piducsheldermrrfafa) SpeCial EventS: Events designed to appeal to a target market or market niche'. (Examples: adult speofalneeds dance. senior ceraferfa Mayfurwhearr. Tuba ChhbbrraA BarrFrarvcisco fheater trap) Specialized Business Services: Services that ere commercial in nature and WhQSe operations align mosf with !hose offered by the private sector. (Examples: Main Street boat dock, tree services. trotairba.Voon permits, memcdalbench safes] i a� y Ga y02 �ca _n x Beneficiary of Service Model a e" Ge c �o�a��1 rOV►`�aeee�� 5�e��\aQaG� G° Je e P 09 ee55 ,aG a Ge5 5e e�e4-1 dot 00 Parks 11 & , Re c ra i o yt CITY Of: # swl"CeS Common Good O 2021 110% Inc. All rights reserved. Individualized Why did Napa do a Cost of Service Analysis? ✓ Understand current cost recovery levels ✓ Understand how taxpayer dollars are currently being spent ✓ Help support difficult decisions and provide the data/info to help tell their story ✓ Help staff, board, and council understand the current financial condition of the organization Napa Parks & Rec Cost Recovery 2019 ® Memberships $ Discounts and fees ® Accounting and finance O��o SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. `1 believe in possibility 15 services that are the furthest from their cost recovery target CI-t V 0I~ NAPA The Smart Approach to Cost Recovery TAKING ACTION SUCCESS STORIES The story... Hanging flower baskets in downtown Napa, while contributing to the city's beautification efforts, require daily watering in a part of the country that is bleeding water resources. They also consume significant staff time. The Business Improvement District (BID) provides a $100K contribution annually yet taxpayer investment is very high and in conflict with environmental concerns and priorities. Overall subsidy is also a point of contention given the prevalence of social equity concerns in Napa and the investment needed to address equity interests. The plan = use public art instead of live flowers and save more than $160K annually. Financial Sustainability Strategy 2023-2025 Oa e�e�,�5 �o�a01 %OSIG fie\�aGGe�� \' Op 104 Go Je S� e � polo Geoe�y a 10 �S`aa y��e��5 gyp'' S`a�1 S,P Boa 00 5e� polo S ��- `ae�e�� A 1 ea O°I° 4"I 11 0", � 5 i J cp e ZeJ°I ° Nil S�a� tip 17Y or l P A Common Good 0 2021 110% Inc. All rights reserved. Individualized raga Parks�y� Recreation Services 100% 90% 80% 70% 60 % 50% 40 % 30% 20% 10 0% ■ Actual CR % ■ Target CR o SERVICE CATEGORIES ACTUAL TO TARGET COST RECOVERY MActua1CR% ■TargetCR% $842K subsidy Common Good Individualized 0 0 Open Access Community Events 0% 42% 0% 8% 9 LM A ZA k rM � I r+1 � I f Drop -In Human Education & Learn Specialty IntfAdv/Comp Rentals Specialized Services Enrichment Programs Events Programs Servi es 3% 1% 25% 52 22% 31% 26% 449b 13% 18 28% 50 58% 68% 88% 9096 W\ or Katrina Gregory, City of Napa p Napa City Council work sessions ✓ 1:1 and 1:2 sessions ✓ City administrators part of the conversation ✓ 2 hours in length 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility ti'rtpn it,rtr.-, Q Search Napa Valley Register E-Edition News Obituaries Opinion Sports Wine lifestyles Homes u' 55- Mostly Cloudy d= Fl- Napa parrs commission considers sustainability strategy Edward Booth 6rc % 2021 dpd ted 17 hrs p 0- 1 W Subscribe for $S-99 *1 g Log In 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in potiibilily •� -- "The cost recovery process is the singlobb 1 most important thin I have done in m 15+ year career in parks & recreatio i t Our organization gained invaluable i- ti•'• insights about our current operations and now have the tools to create long-'', ' lasting and impactful change for our ,-department and community. .Mao: By taking a deep dive and analyzing how we are spending taxpayer dollars, we are fully committed to being the responsible fiscal stewards of the resources that have been entrusted to us." Katrina Gregory Recreation Manager City of Napa, CA • 01010 ies 10% 1. Financial Sustainability Policy 2. Capital Investment Policy 3. Social Equity Policy d 7ka410 Parks � CIIY PA Se M" SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. 0- Parks Recreation • �'• Services 100% 130% 50% 3 2-0% 10% 0 ■ Actual CR % ■ Target CR % SERVICE CATEGORIES ACTUAL TO TARGET COST RECOVERY .Actual CRoTargetCR% $412K subsid A Open Access Corn rn unity Drop- In Hu rna n Events Services 0% 42% 5% 1% 0% R 13% 18% 9 9 Education & Enrichment 28% 28% 4A 9 MM Darn to I Specialt+{ In#/,4drr/ CamR Rentals Program} Events Erograrrns 34% I 56% 16% 55% 50% 58% 68% 88% Wchlized Serwkes 44% 90'K ��:. Parks MOST INDIVIDUALIZED SERVICE CATEGORIES ReCreA�f'OV� �'• services ORIGINAL TO IM PRE VED EI B I D A EI SIT $248,015 Specialized Seri $243,091 $72pO5O Rentals $276p963 Int/ /comp $84,096 Programs 197+293 $8,324 Specials Event 411 $134F798 Origi real S Ubsidy Amou n# 0 1 m p roved S ubsidy A mou nt • Capital Investment Data Layers System Data Layers 9 Park Acreage * Location &Access • Conditions Assessment • Social Equity Pending,: Park Usage 0 Total Park Visliallon by Year & Park Type 010 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023YRA -R TOTAL Community Parks 1 Fuller Park 93,502 93,391 60,441 75,986 91,770 106,244 86,889 521.334 2 Kennedy Park 310,019 303,890 352,037 371,023 365,814 367,438 345,U37 2.070,221 3 O'Brien Park 12,882 21,738 21,833 35,436 31,218 27,337 25,U74 150.444 4 Ce atury Oaks Park 31,507 27,496 38,719 34,454 28,764 23,434 30,729 184.374 5 1 Las Flores Park 55.067 69,490 39,296 39,569 41.306 65,037 51,711 310265 TOTAL 502,977 516,805 1 512,326 556,468 559,372 589,490 539,440 3,236,638 Op en Sp aces & Natural Areas 1 Oxbow Preserve 8,765 8,363 10,825 13,456 20,870 14,294 12,762 76.573 2 Oxbow Commons 58,082 72,087 54,073 107,943 112,363 120,591 87,523 525.139 3 Trancas Crossing 14,628 6,603 11,825 17,185 24,383 21,704 16,U55 96.328 4 Westwood HiLLs 45,792 36,258 57,695 51,360 58,719 46,481 49,384 296.305 5 ALstonPark 124,203 96,017 142,535 156,149 112,558 96,171 121,272 727.633 6 TimberhiL 1,197 1,798 4,318 4,265 5,326 4,172 3,513 21,876 TOTAL 252,667 221,126 281,271 350,358 334,219 303,413 290,509 1,743,054 Neigborhood Parks 3 3hurtlefF Park 4,837 3,932 8,19". 6,160 9,259 9,288 7,278 43.669 4 Lake Park 9,974 9,483 14,578 8,481 16,057 11,888 11,744 70.461 5 3olomonPark 10,811 6,797 6,359 7,555 7,977 11,611 8,518 51.110 6 3utherLand Park 11,915 13,455 14,767 16,984 16,686 15,134 14,824 8U41 7 KLamath Park 6,697 4,732 7,845 12,380 10,728 9,235 8,603 51.617 8 Monarch Park 3,239 2,658 3,167 2,744 3,721 5,172 3,450 28,781 TOTAL 174,365 140,375 180,403 179,874 205,359 206,291 181,128 833,763 D P1acr.ai 1W 5 6 s;, 30 1 14.01 Competitive advantage - public sector Competitive advantage - N Polprivate sector • I a N J no rQ No rA 0 u N 0= N O U J Q�SQ+°G\a\ S�``ad duo co e otS� \e t 4aS�eSa 0 o / G e. e r Common Good Rohnert Community Services Taxpayer Investment O 2024110% Inc. All rights reserved. Strategy Individualized Good work and good intentions are never fully realized. It's about showing up — rising above the rest and doing important, impactful, and profession altering work. This topic and its value have nothing to do with a radical change in behavior. This is about aspiring to improve how we do what we do. Its about being better in service to our communities. It's aspirational work for the profession — it is necessary and . given today s realities, non-negotiable. . .."�, i --� s�.• % },' ..,.,+'+`�""'�T�`�- �" _ �`��e+wais sfY. ¢`r Nc.�, ��'� ti�� ,t�'��a3�� ^��, � r F� •.r_2 � �;; ., ,. ,. ,...-...., �, -�... t � � �" ' �� F'� x§ v' t,�v� �,� � �37 � '> .� 5ft+` K� The 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility Thoughts, comments,, questio 10% SERVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY. believe in possibility 01 Mi �k -NW Aho .. M 10 Jamie Sabbach, Presid t & Principal jsabbach@ilopercent.net Thank you 1 %0% believe in possibility www,110percent.net