Ms. Matthews referenced the material provided in the agenda package. She said she hoped that the Council would spend time reviewing the various program summaries to get a sense of each program area, and to look at cost recovery. She said she hoped to get a clear sense of what the Council wanted to see in programming and what its policies would be. She was not expecting Council to give direction about specific programs, but did want to get a sense of that the Council would view as success and the level of subsidy to be provided to programs.
Recreation Department staff introduced themselves: Karla Kelly, teen programs; Neal Abels, recreation center; Paula Lisowski, senior programs; Carey Antoszewski, school age programs; Debra Haiduven, director.
Ms. Haiduven commented that she was striving to improve operations with help from the community and the City Council. She said the department was working to provide a broad range of programs serving a very diverse group of people. She noted the interest in more partnerships and said the department has made progress. In terms of cost recovery, Ms. Haiduven said the overall philosophy has been to subsidize youth and senior programs at nearly 100%.
Ms. Haiduven provided information on revenues for each division in the department.
Mr. Barry said he was interested in expanding the number of people who participate in recreation programs and was looking for growth. He said there was an opportunity for experimentation. The sports leagues are a good opportunity to bring in other ethnic and socioeconomic groups. He said he was also interested in leveraging the partnerships and see how to get the groups to do more themselves. He said the Council committees could provide an opportunity to do more programming. Mr. Barry said the reopening of the pool could bring in new participants through cross marketing and upselling. The auditorium, when refurbished, would be a magnet for new people.
Mr. Barry commented on the New Hampshire Avenue recreation center. He said it is an important facility and he would like to see it enhanced. He noted opportunities to partner with the apartment complex.
Mr. Seamens commented that he has heard varying comments from the community, some positive comments and some frustrations. Mr. Seamens noted his frustration with the recreation bus. He said the Council had talked about wanting to use the bus to pick up young people to bring them to the Community Center.
Mr. Seamens said he wanted to work together with the Council to define expectations, or goals for the department, and then have staff come back to Council with a plan for accomplishing the goals. He said he wanted to talk about how the Council will know when the goals have been accomplished.
Mr. Seamens distributed a list of proposed goals for the department (attached).
Ms. Clay commented that she has noted two kinds of constituents, those who have lived here for a long time and do not complain about taxes, and others who have moved here more recently, who pay a lot in taxes. She said there is a perception that the City built the Community Center and no one uses it. She noted that in the last six to nine months, she has heard fewer complaints.
Ms. Clay said that people want more quality programming and more diversity in their classes, and they are willing to pay more for quality programming.
Ms. Clay commented on cost recovery. She said she would like to have a real understanding of the true cost of programs and the opportunity cost. Ms. Clay commented on the Extreme Horizons program. She said there are programs that could be done without a long drive.
Ms. Clay described what she meant by opportunity cost. She said when you choose to do something, you choose not to do something else. If the department decides to use its administrative staff members in a program role, then it loses the opportunity to use them for other things.
Ms. Haiduven noted that she saw the opportunity to allow her senior staff to do direct programming as a motivational tool.
Mr. Barry suggested that the policy direction to the staff could be to think about how much it costs to do a project, including the intangibles.
Mr. Seamens said the policy should be what we want to accomplish, not how the expenses are tracked.
Ms. Matthews commented that, in her experience, there will always be those decisions where you try a program to see if it would work.
Ms. Haiduven said it would be easier if staff knew the ultimate cost goal.
Mr. Snipper said that not everyone feels that the cost recovery analysis is appropriate. He said the Council does not ask other departments for that kind of information. He said he does support the view that the department needs to have an outcome that it is looking for, whether it is outreach, for fun, because it is requested, or to make money. Once you know what you are looking for, then you can evaluate whether it accomplished the goal. He said staff should use its goals as a standard to evaluate the programs.
Ms. Clay said she hoped that every department would look at the capacity of the budget when making decisions, and determine what the trade offs are.
Mr. Wright said he did not want to know in detail about every program and its cost, but wanted to ensure that sound management tools are used to assess the programs. Mr. Wright said he thinks some of the questioning comes about because people what to know if the tools are being used, something that every department should be doing.
Mr. Snipper said that he believed the Police Department and Recreation Department have two of the hardest functions in the City. Both have a lot outside their control. He said he thought that the recreation programs are quite good in general. He said he would like to identify a small number of priorities and let staff figure out how to address them. He said he saw his role as trying to support the department in accomplishing its goals.
Mr. Robinson noted he was glad that Ms. Baker (city resident) had offered to help the department prepare meaningful numbers.
Mr. Robinson commented on the role of the Recreation Committee and wondered how it could help with keeping the public informed.
Mr. Robinson asked about the tax duplication issue and wondered how the department is leveraging county resources.
Mr. Wright said the Council and the staff are committed to recreation. He said he thinks the department has felt attacked and the Council has felt frustrated, but it comes from all wanting extremely high quality programming. Mr. Wright said he wanted to talk at the higher level, provide goals for the department, and to have staff come back with how to achieve the goals and how to measure progress in order to have an objective way to say what is success. Mr. Wright’s goals: 1) growth (reaching more people, greater engagement, richer experience); 2) serve customers in an intentional strategic way (current programs seem haphazard); 3) increase the use of volunteers; 4) set a clear cost recovery target (should understand the total cost of programs, including the opportunity cost). Mr. Wright indicated that he would also like to highlight events and opportunities in the area that are not offered by the City.
Mr. Williams commented on the recreation bus. He said he was aware that the larger bus, with the CDL requirement, has caused some frustration for the staff. He said he was hopeful that the City can continue to improve how it is used and how often it is used. He said he was interested in having it used to pick up and drop off young people, particularly in Wards 5 and 6.
Mr. Williams supported more partnerships, including with the County. He suggested that the department think about how people can be directed to the County for services sometimes. He asked if it is possible to do joint programming. Mr. Williams also said he was interested in making sure that partnerships with the sports leagues is as smooth as possible, including with the parent volunteers.
Mr. Williams said that he has heard generally that the recreation department offerings are better. He referenced the information provided by the recreation department and the survey results. He noted that the survey indicated that as income goes up, participation goes up. He said it means we have to redouble efforts to reach out to lower income people. He asked how this could be addressed and what are the difficulties.
Mr. Williams asked about revenues and expenses for the Community Center, which went down from 07 to 08.
Ms. Haiduven said that the department hires contractors for many of the classes, and that the contractual arrangements vary. She noted that two contractors opted out of using the recreation department registration system, which lifted them out of the system.
Ms. Ludlow made a comment on the lower income population. She said that a lot of the lower income households, particularly rental households on Maple Avenue, are single adults. The department has not geared a low of programs toward single adults.
After a scheduled break, the Council returned to continue the discussion.
Mr. Williams noted that the recreation staff would like feedback on service areas and what adjustments the Council thought were needed. Feedback on cost recovery and the resident/nonresident split was also desired.
Ms. Matthews said it would be helpful to know how the Council views the service area of the recreation department. She noted that a lot of the children go to school together in Takoma Park, but may live just across the line.
The Council discussed this issue and agreed that the department should bring a proposal to the Council on a two tier fee system, one for children who live or go to school in Takoma Park, and one for others. There was a strong interest in pursuing discussions with Prince George’s County regarding services provided by the City to Prince George’s County residents.
The Council discussed senior programs.
Ms. Lisowski noted that the majority of the senior program participants are residents, but the programs are attracting a wider circle. She said the City does not currently charge for senior programs.
After discussion, the Council did not express strong concern with lack of revenue generation by the senior programs. There was some interest in charging a minimal fee as a buy-in. Mr. Seamens was less enthusiastic about providing free programs for non-resident seniors.
Mr. Seamens addressed the goals he had distributed. He encouraged use of his document as a straw man.
Ms. Haiduven said the goals were generally consistent with the department’s objectives to increase participation and partnerships.
Ms. Haiduven said that there is a big budgetary impact in keeping the building open on Saturdays.
Mr. Wright suggested that she come back to the Council with a plan and measurements regarding the building.
Ms. Matthews noted that there is a difference between a community center and a recreation center. She said the recreation staff is not the only user of the building and suggested charging some of the committees with locating programs for the building as well.
Mr. Seamens said that the Council had a vision of programming the building for youth. He said a lot of his frustration is to see only desk staff and a handful of people in the building.
Ms. Matthews suggested scheduling a discussion about how the building is used at different times of the day. She said that is not just a recreation department discussion.
Mr. Wright agreed that recreation should not be responsible for 100% of the programming. He suggested that a percentage of programming could be a goal for the department.
Mr. Snipper said he would like to see a goal for all the facilities on the list.
The Council discussed diversity of program participants. Ms. Haiduven indicated that she was uncomfortable attaching numbers to the diversity goal. She said that is not information that the department collects.
Ms. Matthews said that the department tries to ensure appeal to the broader community through pricing and marketing. She said the City can provide opportunities but cannot force people to participate.
Mr. Wright said that if address and ward information is collected, that would give a sense of diversity. He said dots on a map would be a powerful measurement tool.
Mr. Clark described some of the efforts he had used in Prince George’s County to increase diversity, by marketing, targeting certain groups, and advertising in English and Spanish.
Ms. Haiduven noted that she had talked about this issue with the Recreation Committee to see if they could find out what the various groups in the City want.
Ms. Matthews suggested that the survey, if done every two or three years, could be another way to measure diversity.
There was general Council agreement that the list of goals presented by Mr. Seamens, but without the percentage goals for diversity in programs and overall. Ms. Matthews offered to craft a goal that addresses achieving a diverse population.
Ms. Matthews noted that the City has an engagement problem in some areas and suggested that a diversity goal should be broad based across the board, not just for the recreation department.
Ms. Matthews said she would like to talk with the staff about resources required to get where we need to be.
Ms. Clay suggested that staff come back with a range of ideas with cost, so that the Council can decide.
Following the discussion of goals, Mr. Wright moved to fund the senior manager position. The vacant position had been frozen during budget discussions. Seconded by Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Seamens noted that he had said if there was agreement on goals for the department, that would be enough. He said he felt the commitment to the goals was still a bit weak.
Mr. Snipper and Mr. Williams agreed with authorizing the hiring.
Ms. Clay said she still believed that the administrative staff of the department was still high for the level of service.
The majority of Councilmembers agreed with filling the senior recreation manager position and authorization was granted to advertise the position.
Mr. Seamens asked that as staff worked on the goals, they keep in mind multi-year steps.