Laserfiche WebLink
not be best implemented with a "fee for service" approach and, <br /> therefore, the council is being asked for a decision on whether <br /> to fund it and how to fund it in 1993. <br /> Estimated cost: $800 /park or $1,600 <br /> Funding alternatives: <br /> 1. No fee charged. Operate it like the ice skating. The <br /> recreation leader offers game opportunities to children <br /> who come to the park on a drop -in basis. <br /> Revenue generated: 0 <br /> 2. Lump sum of $20 per child for three and half weeks. <br /> $20 X estimated 20 children X 2 sessions $800 /park <br /> Revenue generated: $1,600 <br /> 3. "pay as you participate" at $2 per time <br /> Pay $2 /day X 20 kids X 28 days $896 <br /> Revenue generated: $1,792 <br /> 4. Civic organization sponsorship or fundraising <br /> Revenue generated: $0 to $1,600 <br /> D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION <br /> Staff recommends alternative one, no fee charged, with the <br /> investigation into alternative four, revenue from civic <br /> organizations or fundraising, as the best approach for the <br /> following reasons: <br /> Pros: <br /> 1. It meets the city goal of meeting the community's <br /> changing park and recreation needs. <br /> 2. It creates the most open program with the fewest <br /> administrative hassles. <br /> 3. It provides 'no cost' recreation opportunities to <br /> families that may require assistance. <br /> 4. It allows for visitors, cousins, etc. to be part of a <br /> playground activity even if they are not registered. <br /> 5. It reduces the public perception that they "are paying <br /> for a service" which might be misconstrued to be <br /> closely supervising children not supervising the <br /> playground. (This is a fine line, obviously children <br /> won't be ignored by staff.) <br />