HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 (3) eccfry
3 J.._
Vre 0v t ;ir. ° I t'�e wj -ec n-,�
INTERIM REPORT FROM INTER -MUNICIPAL RECREATION PLANNING GROUP
May 12, 1999
Purpose
The current inter -municipal agreement to provide 'access to shared recreation programs ends in
December 1999. In January 1999, the County Planning and Intergovernmental Relations and
Education Committee invited officials from all municipalities and the Ithaca School District to
jointly plan for 2000 and beyond. There was agreement at the initial meeting to find a clear and
fair system to maintain recreational programs that complement and supplement locally sponsored
services. A working group from all interested municipalities has been meeting bi-weekly.
Membership of the Working Group
Town of Caroline
Don Barber and Penny Boynton
Town of Danby
Joel Gagnon
Town of Dryden
Jim Schugg and Bambi Hollenbeck.
Town of Enfield
Jean Owens and Jane Murphy
Town of Groton
Teresa Robinson
Town of Ithaca
Cathy Valentino and Mary Russell
City of Ithaca
Mayor Alan Cohen, Joan Spielholz
Village of Lansing
Phil Dankert
Town of Ulysses
Doug Austic and Michel Vonderweidt
Issues being discussed
Joint activityfund Members agreed that any future partnership should be able to track its
expenses and revenues separately from the general budget of any sponsoring municipalities. The
model under consideration is currently used for several other inter -municipal partnerships locally
and is authorized under Article 5-G of the General Municipal Law.
Future structure and germs of agreement The current agreement was reviewed and several
areas relating to governance, membership, and programs were identified for later discussion.
Populations to serve Youth will continue to be the primary focus. The Recreation Partnership
Board has recommended that the future partnership include self-supporting services for adults
and senior citizens. The planning group needs input from communities on this issue.
Access to Ithaca School District facilities The planning group has reviewed the use of City
facilities by the school and school facilities used for recreational programs. The Ithaca School
District has initiated a memorandum of understanding that could function like a contract to allow
continued free access to school fields, buildings and swimming pool even if the school budget
fails and the district must operate on a contingency budget.
Service area The question of who should be served ( the whole county, those in the Ithaca
School District or those from current municipalities) is being discussed along with the question
of how costs should be shared.
Analysis of current costs and revenues A number of meetings have focused on this topic and the
planning group has requested that the City provide a detailed analysis for each of the 50
programs along with the total costs for administration and facilities used by the Partnership. This
analysis will be reviewed starting May 26, 1999.
Facilities Once the costs and revenues are fully understood, the planning group will need to
consider whether the current City facilities' should become jointly owned. If not, a fair price for
using City facilities for shared programs will need to be negotiated.
Deciding how services will be provided The need to balance and complement local programs has
been discussed along with various models for providing services. The planning group has agreed
that any new partnership should not be limited to using the City of Ithaca as the sole provider of
services.
Purchasing a full package ofservices or a smaller set of offerings Although there appears to
be interest in being able to offer a wide array of services, the cost of supporting a full package -is
likely to be a deciding factor. If the cost is too great, some municipalities expressed interest in
purchasing access to a smaller sub -set of programs most heavily used by their youth and
families. The planning group will discuss this more fully after it reviews the itemized program
budgets and the program recommendations to be made in late June by the current Recreation
Partnership Advisory Board.
Cost This is the biggest question that will be discussed more fully after_ the detailed budget
analysis is reviewed starting May 26e -
Extending the current agreementfor 2000 to finish planning Since there are several key
issues that still need to be negotiated, the planning group is asking all partners to extend the
current agreement for one more year with the understanding that a full set of services would be
availableat the current contribution levels.
Tentative Timetable
May -June Analysis of budget and discussion of costs and facilities
July -Sept. Discuss who the partners will be and methods for allocating costs among partners
October Develop governance structure and membership
November Set or adopt programming goals and develop draft proposal
Jan -Feb Share draft proposal and solicit feedback from municipalities
Mar -April Revise proposal to respond to concerns and incorporate 2001 cost estimates
Summer Submit final proposal to municipalities to enable them to prepare budgets
Fall Budget reviews and adoption
Jan 2001 Start up
PAYROLL RETURT
EMPLOYEE
HOURS
Yz A _i_
OW
t'
2 .040,00
LONER. MARGARET
77.
0
:_}••:.{-E:"i ! e- C) r: D:'--1:'. i_..1__f'a {-
z
C), _
cf
it
NOW
APRIL REC PSHIP REPORT
879 KIDS IN ENFIELD
1,182 HOUSEHOLDS
176 KIDS PARTICIPATE IN REC PSHIP PROGRAMNIlNG
GENERAL TOPICS COVERED/INTRODUCED
SERVICES
COSTS
FACILITIES
COST SHARING
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE
"LEMENTATION OF NEW RECPSHIP CONTRACT
cost sharing
How to divide Cass Park expenses? Costs of Capital improvements? Raise user fees?
How much of Cass Park is actually Rec Pship? But all Cass Park revenues go to rec pship
How to divide up recpship costs -- population? # kids? past usage of rec pship?
What is "fair share"?
actual costs of each program?
updated figures TO BE PROVIDED ON BUILDING usage, admin overhead, insurance
costs. Old figures outdated as were calculated prior to GIAC split from IYB.
Possibility of contracting out rec pship programs to provider other than IYB (unlikely)
Role of ISCD?
History -- situation with IYB as provider of services to municipalities came after rural
school consolidation in the 50's. ICSD did not provide rec programs, unlike other school
districts. In 70's, IYB accessed state and federal dollars to serve all the communities with
rec services.
Possibility of future State/federal. funds to offset local costs for capital improvement?
All city rec programming except GIAC included in Rec Pship costs. Is this fair? I think no
-- some programs used only by City kids.
What programs to include in rec pship?
O�_AA
1998
Participation
Among
Smaller
Municipalities
Rank
1998 Caroline
Danby
Enfield
Total
Total All 1% of Total
11Kiwanis
68
Q
61 Q
74
203
9401
22%-
2%2
2
Day Camp
51
Q
57: Q
32
140
10181
14%
3
Pre/Post Camp ®
24
Q
48
15
87 �
4311
20%
1 4
Tot Spot
18
55
14'
87
6371
.14%
1 5 Club Ithaca
31
38
11
M
6371
.130/0
6Softball
:33
27
22
82
349
23%
.
7jSoccer
8
39 (D
1171
64-
739
9%
8{Pool Season Pass
14
16 0
23
53
4391
12%
1998 Ulyssesdryden Total
Total All ;% of
Total
Rank
Program
j
1Soccer
, 135
25�
160
739,
22%
k
2 Tot Spot
13
(1 96
1091
6371
17%
3 Kiwanis
(3) 65
82
940
9%
E
4 Club Ithaca
....17
14
(t 67
81'
637
13%
F
5. Cass & Stewart DC
38
2159'
1018
6°l0
6 Family Swim
16
�y 37'1;
53'
1471
36%
7 Pool Season Pass
(y? 26
2111
47',
4391
111010:
8. Pre/Post Camp
C3? 29
15
44
431;
10%
9 Junior Olympics
14
27,
41'
2131
19%
101Softball
7
26
33,
3491
9%
111Swim Lessons20
4''.
24
145j
17%
121$ports Camp
10
11
21
2171
10%
f
f
ai
Rank 1998 UlyssesiDryden
"Caroline jDanby '18nfield jTotal Total all % of
Total I
Program
1
'
1
Kiwanis 1 17
_ 65
681
611
74
285°
940.1
30%
2
Soccer j 135
251
8'
391
171
224.
7391
30%1 .
31Cass & Stewart DC 1 38
21 ',
511
57',
321
199:
1018;
20%1
f 4jTot Spot 13
96.
181
55°
141
196
637;
31%I
51Club Ithaca
141
67
31I
381
11
161
6371
25%1
6 jPre/Post Camp
29
15
24;
48
151
_
131.
4311
30%1
1 7
Softball 7
26'
33
27:
221i
115'
3491
33%I
1 8
Pool Season Pass 26
21
14
16 ' i
231
100
43923%___ �
"
9
FamilySwim 16I
37
3
1
4'i
17;
- ---
77
147,
52%
10
Junior Olympics 141
27I
7'
5I
141
67
2131
31%1
111 Sports Camp , 10
11i
0
23'
6
50:
2171
23%I
121 Swim Lessons , 20
41,
3
8 �
10
45'i
1451
31%1
i
COST SIIARING Review current basis for cost-sharing to determine if the current system seems fair.
• If the current system seems reasonably fair, discuss how cost of living increases, new offerings, capital
improvements, and any shortfalls or surpluses would be handled.
• If the current system needs to change, consider a variety of factors on which costs could be based (e.g.
participation, population, households, assessed value etc.) County Youth Bureau can do scenarios.
• Consider whether there is a need or desire for a continuing County role. If so, what?
• If there is a revised cost-sharing plan, consider how cost of living increases, capital improvements and any
shortfalls or "surpluses would be handled.
GOVERNANCE What kind ofgovernance structure makes sense given the decisions made to date?
• How many seats on the governing board, how will they be allocated and filled?
• If there is a financial role for the County, the County would want voting representation on the. Partnership
governing board.
• What should the role of the Ithaca School District be?
• What would be the roles and responsibilities of elected officials?
• What would the roles and responsibilities of the governing board be?
• What would the general roles and responsibilities of contracted providers be?
• Who would oversee services and what is their relationship to the governing structure?
• if the Ithaca Youth Bureau is the sole or primary provider, what relationship will IYB staff have,to the City .
and the Partnership?
• What would a new partnership agreement need to include?
• Is the new partnership envisioned to be apermanent one (until members initiate a change) or is it time
limited- if so, what is a practical length? How would amendments be made?
• What would be the process and timetable for municipalities joining or leaving the partnership?
IMPLEMENTATION
• If there is agreement to change the shares significantly, would there be a transitional period?
• Decide whether to project out municipal contributions into the next few years.
• Review/develop the mechanics of how a joint activity fund would work.
• Would a joint activity fund affect the City roles as: member, current facility owner,_ and service provider?
SUGGESTED TIldE TABLE FOR PLANNING AND CRITICAL DECISIONS:
Bi -weekly meetings
February - March Focus on Services,,Costs; and)raciiities
April Focus on cost-sharing and governance and implementation
May If agreements can be reached on key elements, develop a proposal to circulate -for
feedback from elected boards, youth commission, County and City committees as_
needed. If not, a plan to renew for, 2000 while planning continues should be
considered.
June Modify proposal as needed to respond to feedback
July County and City departments must prepare their budgets
August - Sept. Supervisors begin town budgeting, Towns consider proposed budgets.
October Towns finalize budgets and County & City Budget Comm. propose drafts
November City and Countyadopt their budgets
December Transition to Joint Activity Fund
January Start up of new Partnership