| Author |
Message |
    
doublea
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 853
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 10:27 am: | 
|
First of all, I want to thank your group for all the work you've been doing. Reading through your minutes, it certainly seems that CBAC is more involved than it had been in the past.
Last year, the CBAC made a recommendation to the BOT than more of the indirect costs associated with the various recreation programs be included in the fees. I realize there are good arguments on either side, but on balance it seems there could be some equitable way to do this. Has there been any further discussion on this suggestion?
Another question, which probably should be answered by the administration, is how will the new budget caps effect how the budget is introduced. In the past, the budget introduced has always called for a tax increase much higher than that actually adopted. This was done so that our request for extraordinary aid might receive more favorable treatment. With the new budget caps, anything beyond the 1% above cap which can be done by BOT ordinance must go to the voters, if I understand it correctly. I personally have always had a problem with introducing a budget calling with say a 10% increase, when all the time it was known that the increase would be in the 6% range. The public never really knew what kind of number we were talking about. Any thoughts? |
Pizzaz
Citizen
Username: Pizzaz
Post Number: 1405
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 11:42 am: |
|
Doublea: As a member of the Finance Subcommittee to the Recreation Advisory Board, I can tell you we are currently requesting an accounting of direct costs associated with the numerous programs offered at Baird. This review of the direct costs will also provide information as to number of participants involved in each program. We wish to compare the revenue flow of each activity to the cost incurred. Having some statistical comparative we will then be able to push down the indirect costs associated with the administration of the department.
We've been told that the administrative costs should not be allocated since they are fixed and the village will undertake programs and expenses irrespective of costs. I still have a wish to at least inform the advisory group of the fully loaded program costs associated with Baird.
I'll keep you posted as we proceed. |
doublea
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 854
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 12:32 pm: |
|
Thanks Pizzaz. This sounds like something you are well-equipped to do with your background. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 2023
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 2:08 pm: |
|
Pizzaz, I'm a member of the CBAC and served with its president, Harold Colton-Max, on the Recreation subcommittee that raised the issue of user fees. (I don't believe we actually made a recommendation that user fees be increased, by the way. What we recommended was that the BOT assess the pros and cons of funding indirect costs more through fees.)
I'm sure the CBAC would be interested in your analysis. |
Pizzaz
Citizen
Username: Pizzaz
Post Number: 1409
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 3:32 pm: |
|
Thanks, Doublea. J Crohn, I look forward to recommending a working relationship with the CBAC in this review. The chair to our Finance Committee is Neil Jasey. As you may know, some fees (such as pool fees) are restricted my nature due to a deed restriction imposed in the conveyance of Cameron Field to the Village, and also, the reasonableness of program fees in general. I believe the CBAC recommendation is right-on in that the BOT must make this judgment call. I hope our study allows for that consideration. |
doublea
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 855
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 4:58 pm: |
|
J.Crohn, Pizzaz - If I understand what you've said, the CBAC is suggesting some indirect costs, even though they would have been incurred regardless of the progrmas, be allocated to fees.
Pizzaz is saying the Recreation Committee is looking for an analysis that would characterize more of the indirect costs as direct costs, but would not be looking to allocate any of the indirect costs that could not be so allocated.
Is this correct, and if so, are the CBAC's postion and Recreation Committee's positions at odds?
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 2024
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 10:26 am: |
|
Doublea, the CBAC has not taken so strong a position as you suggest. That is, we have not recommended increasing fees; we haven't enough information to have come to a conclusion on the matter. Rather, we have said the issue of costs/fees be examined by the BOT, and we have offered to help in that process.
Here is the text of our recommendation:
3. Examining Whether Recreation Fees Should Cover Direct and Indirect Program Expenses.
The CBAC also recommends that the BOT consider altering fees for recreation programs and services to reflect actual costs. In the CBAC's research, we found that recreation fees cover direct costs but do not take into account indirect costs involved, such as administration. The indirect costs are subsidized through other revenue sources, including property taxes. Therefore, the CBAC offers to work with the BOT to examine whether, as a policy item, the Village should consider incorporating both direct and indirect costs in recreation fees, and, if so, what the actual fees should be.
Obviously, if any reduction in tax used to support Recreation indirect costs would be negligible relative to increases in fees, then it probably would not make sense to increase fees, unless some other substantial benefit accrued from doing so.
For instance, it occurs to me that if a bearable increase in fees could be used to subsidize necessary facilities improvement or add needed personnel, thus helping to hold down a future tax increase or indebtedness, then this might be a benefit.
Or it might not, depending on other variables. That's why I'm pleased to see Pizzaz's committee is looking into the matter from all angles.
As far as I know, the CBAC's position on Recreation is open and flexible, and thus not in conflict with any other committee's position.
|
doublea
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 858
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 10:31 am: |
|
J.Crohn - Thanks for the clarification. And thanks for the work you've been doing on the CBAC.
|
Pizzaz
Citizen
Username: Pizzaz
Post Number: 1413
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 10:56 am: |
|
Doublea: Are you an attorney? If so, perhaps you can review in some way the deed to Cameron Field. A proposal for further study is to allow a bubble on Cameron Field from October - April of each year. This facility would be privately owned and the operator would charge user fees of approx. $42 dollars an hour to play tennis (I find that amount excessive). I'm curious whether fees of that nature and the subletting of the land for private use, but with a quasi-public benefit, is permissible under the restrictive language of the deed. The contributions of dollars, once a reasonable price level is set, to the village's recreation programs could be worthwhile. |
Josh M.
Citizen
Username: Jmaxlaw
Post Number: 209
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 12:07 am: |
|
Pizzaz:
I am an attorney-- and while I have not seen the deed's language-- I have heard about the covenant. My guess is this: if the village goes through with the plan-- it will cease to have any rights to the property. I would like a chance to look at the deed. |
Harold Colton-Max
Citizen
Username: Coltonmax
Post Number: 35
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 9:39 pm: |
|
Pizzaz, doublea & Josh M. --
Thank you for raising these important questions and engaging in a dialogue about the Village's budget. As Chair of the CBAC and someone on the CBAC working on this issue, I thought that I should add my two cents on the subject.
Just to add a little more history to what Jennifer has already provided (quite eloquently, I might add): Last year, members of the CBAC met with the Directors of most of the Village Departments. Jennifer and I were two of the CBAC members who met with the Recreation Director, Andy Brady. During our discussion, he indicated that recreation fees cover direct costs (e.g., equipment, etc.) but not indirect costs (e.g., administrative/staff time, etc.).
This means that the taxpayers generally are subsidizing at least a part of the recreation programs that they are not using. The CBAC concluded that there was a reasonable question to ask about whether the users of the recreational services should pay the full cost.
As Jennifer indicated above, before we could offer a recommendation on this subject, we thought that it would be prudent to analyze how much the extra cost would be to recreation program users to pay for the entire cost. If the number is very high, then perhaps that would be too much of a deterrent for people to use the programs at all; at least, it might end up driving away those of more modest incomes. If the number is lower and/or there are "scholarships" for those of more modest means, perhaps passing along the costs to the program users might not be such a bad idea. Furthermore, we also felt the need what is the impact on taxpayers.
I am not trying to predetermine the answer to the subject of whether recreation fees should be raised to cover indirect costs as well as direct costs. I am suggesting that there is both data to collect and then philosophical issues to address before the CBAC can present a recommendation to the BOT.
Of course, the CBAC would be very happy to get your direct input on ths subject. Our next two meetings are scheduled for Thursday, February 24 and Thursday, March 24 at 7:30 p.m. at Village Hall. Perhaps, we'll see you there...
Thanks.
-- Harold |
Pizzaz
Citizen
Username: Pizzaz
Post Number: 1419
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 10:02 pm: |
|
Harold: Thank you. I do think many of the points you raise would benefit from an indepth study. I believe with the support of Andy Brady, the Recreation Advisory Board, the CBAC and the administration this could be done.
The tougher questions are the philosophical ones.  |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1671
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 10:22 am: |
|
First off, I do want to thank Harold and the CBAC for their work. I do find their comments very helpful and certainly looking forward to hearing about their thoughts on this years budget.
Pizzaz: I agree the toughest question is philsophical. |
Harold Colton-Max
Citizen
Username: Coltonmax
Post Number: 36
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 9:43 pm: |
|
Mark --
Thank you for your kind words. We at the CBAC look forward to working with you as well.
I also wanted to add that I appreciate your taking the time to post on Maplewood Online and engage in a public dialogue with Village residents about important issues.
-- Harold |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page