My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/22/1998
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
10/22/1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/13/2020 3:28:27 PM
Creation date
4/13/2020 1:52:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
Documnet Type
Packet
Supplemental fields
Date
10/22/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
tightening up and the need for an actual plan to run the building started fast to approach, the <br />Council sought outside altematives. Requests for management proposals were advertised. The <br />City received proposals from the YMCA, the -City of New Brighton and from Innovative Images, <br />a business owned and run by Mounds View resident Sharie Linke. <br />Budgeting <br />Before reviewing the proposals, some understanding of the need for considering proposals <br />should be reviewed. First, the real concern about not being able to balance the operations budget <br />is where to take the funds to pay for those operations if the building cannot break even on its <br />own. The general fund is the most likely and logical source for those funds, but recognizing the <br />potential for competing with other city services for the tax levy is a serious concern. The city has <br />put general fund money aside over the past two years which can act as a cushion for start up <br />shortfalls. Second, the existing personnel in Parks and Recreation come mostly from the general <br />fund and therefore evaluating how the city conducts recreation services and adjusting to meet the <br />needs of the community center would affect the general fund budget as well as the community <br />center budget. However, it would mean looking at traditional parks and recreation services and <br />staffing differently. Knowing that the community center would be open more hours than existing <br />staff could cover, additional personnel would need to be hired and the additional responsibilities <br />of managing the activities of the building would require some change in management approach <br />by the city. Additional programming within the community center would be expected and <br />activities designed to generate revenue for the building would be needed. In essence, the facility <br />and the department would have to run as a business would, always considering revenue options <br />in tandem with service and expense options. This meant understanding the potential for revenue <br />create from the building like banquets, receptions, business meetings, and making time and space <br />available for city residents for programs, recreation and gatherings. Other communities' <br />experiences showed that a balance could be achieved that met with local preferences and that <br />gradually the community could improve on narrowing the gap between revenues and expenses. <br />This would be a goal of the Mounds View community center. <br />Management Options <br />The City of New Brighton submitted a thorough proposal that was based on their experience in <br />building and operating the New Brighton Family Service Center. Their proposal was clear in <br />outlining their abilities to manage a building. They also capitalized on the economies of sharing <br />building management staff. With their ability to- utilize their existing management to oversee and <br />direct a Mounds View facility staff', administrative savings would be incurred for both <br />communities. But their proposal also brought up some larger questions. First, while the <br />administrative cost savings would assist both communities, the same could be said if the two <br />communities could share recreation programming costs. But this seemed a separate and larger <br />discussion item for the two city councils at a later date. Recognizing the unique qualities of each <br />community and the desire for self identity, muddling the discussion of community center <br />management with a joint department seemed premature. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.