My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 2018 11 05
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
2010-2019 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
2018 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 2018 11 05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:12:29 PM
Creation date
11/13/2018 9:32:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Original Hardcopy Storage
8D6
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 2018 11 05
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
766
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
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />October 12, 2108 <br />Page 4 of 10 <br />rate should be considered. He thinks we need an annual rate. He stated that in the short <br />run this is all about the marketing. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Lipton stated this is a market -driven enterprise and we should have <br />some ability to give the Manager some discretion on ways to get people in the facility. <br />City Manager Balser stated work was done so that these rates do include the cost of <br />services and the Green Play estimates, but they will need to be adjusted as we have <br />more data when the facility opens. <br />Councilmember Stolzmann stated it is inappropriate to say that cost was included in the <br />model as there are no projected number of users and we did not look at the impact on <br />the General Fund of each of these scenarios. We don't have good information on which <br />to base these fees. This is a heavily subsidized enterprise and we have to determine <br />what costs we are trying to cover as this is not 100% cost recovery. This is an arbitrary <br />decision. We should already have the information. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Lipton stated this in an informed decision with the information we have <br />now. It is not perfect but it is an informed decision. <br />Councilmember Leh stated if we create a good revenue model we will be able to <br />manage the costs but if we focus too much on costs it will be detrimental to revenue. He <br />thinks based on the information we have, this is reasonable and that is our goal. <br />Mayor Muckle suggested using the October 4 proposal with a change to the family rate <br />to option B (resident $74/nonresident $99) for both resident family and nonresident <br />family and allowing staff to work on group rates and introductory rates. <br />Councilmember Maloney agreed we don't know the costs and what our subsidization <br />rate is, but for today he supports the Mayor's proposal and will continue to work on <br />these issues. <br />Councilmember Keany supported the proposal with some work on a family daily rate. <br />Mayor Muckle stated some combination of the Finance Committee and the Rec Board <br />will work on the cost study as we move forward. <br />Members agreed to Mayor Muckle's proposal. <br />CAPITAL AND GENERAL FUND CONTRIBUTIONS/TRANSFERS TO THE <br />RECREATION AND GOLF FUNDS <br />RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE RECREATION AND <br />GOLF COURSE FUNDS <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.