Rec fee hike added to PTC agenda for tonight
Thursday, May 3, 2012 - 8:27am
Submitted by John Munford
Submitted by John Munford
Swim team fees to remain unchanged
A proposal to increase the seasonal recreation fees on sports associations has been added to tonight’s agenda for a formal vote by the Peachtree City Council.
The fee would increase from $5 to $15 for each Peachtree City resident, from $10 to $25 for Fayette County residents (who don't live in Peachtree City) and from $25 to $50 for out of county residents.
The fee increase would not apply to swim teams, however, as their fees were raised two years ago, city staff said.
At a workshop meeting Tuesday night, city staff explained that the fee increase is designed to cover routine maintenance at the facilities, particularly the sports fields. But several sports associations were skeptical the city would be able to adequately ramp up routine maintenance to meet their needs.
A representative of the soccer association said the city’s contractor has been unable to spray the fields on the scheduled date three consecutive times this season.
There are also concerns that the $50 fee for out of county residents would turn away a number of participants, thus raising the costs for all remaining players.
Several association representatives said the key will be making sure there is accountability for the field maintenance. In recent years, the associations have spent their own funds on additional field maintenance as the city’s recreation budget has tightened.
The city is proposing to take 80 percent of the recreation revenues to be used to offset maintenance costs. The remaining 20 percent would be set aside in a capital reserve fund for future projects to improve the facilities.
The new recreation fees would be enacted immediately and would not be applied retroactively, instead they will be applied to the next signup period for each various sports association, officials said.
Council will also vote on a staff proposal to raise facility rental rates by 20 percent and establish a tiered special event permit fee to help recover the significant amount of staff time associated with setting up for large events such as marathons and the like.
The recreation fee increase comes as the city is in the midst of a $3 million program to improve city facilities, most of which are under the recreation department.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 11:27am
#2
Rec fees
$25 for an ENTIRE season of soccer or little league sounds cheap to me. I spent $25 last weekend just to run one 5k. Even $50 sounds cheap. You can't even take your family to the movies for that anymore.
As far as out of county folks go; those free-loaders can take a hike. Several months ago I went to the Kendron fieldhouse for open volleyball and An out of county person actually combined to me about the $2 he had to pay at the door.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 11:37am
#3
Recreation does not equal revenue!
The city gets $15, $25, or $50 per season. Depending on the sport there can be 2, 3, or 4 seasons. In addition to the city fee you have to pay the registration fees for the sport.
Would you be willing to pay a fee to walk around the lake, stand on a boat dock, swing your child at the playground, or sit on a bench? I doubt it. Those amenities have costs too.
They are only going after associations because they are easy targets and wont get many complaints.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 12:24pm
#4
rec fees
The amenities we have in PTC help protect our property values and make our city a nicer place to live. For that reason we should all be required to chip in financially.
Your examples are very basic amenities that in my opinion do not require a usage fee. Organized sports are a much more advanced form of amenity. They require a lot more expense, planning and staff from the city. For that reason I don't think $15 per season is a lot to ask of local residents.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 1:28pm
#5
rec fees
The examples are basic. However most outdoor sports are just fields. They only require basics to maintain them. Sun, water, fertilizer, and mowing. No different than any other green space in the city.
As a resident I can use the fields or courts at Glenloch , Drake Field, Braelinn etc. with out paying an additional fees. I already pay taxes which cover their costs (or should). If I don't swim, I still pay for the pool and I am fine with it. So, why should I pay extra to the city to play an organized sport in the same facilities I can use for free?
Youth Sports Associations (all non-profit) already pass thousands of dollars to the city in maintenance fees, plus thousands of additional dollars of capital improvements through fundraising or donations from members.
Over the past 8 years the city has cut the recreation maintenance budget to nearly nothing. Most Associations have filled in the gaps with with funding or volunteerism to keep the facilities in useable shape. Now they want residents to kick in even more. It is not acceptable.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 3:11pm
#6
rec fees
The examples are basic. However most outdoor sports are just fields. They only require basics to maintain them. Sun, water, fertilizer, and mowing. No different than any other green space in the city.
Not True. We don't fertilize green spaces. Those fields are actually pretty expensive to maintain assuming Turf Lady didn't just make her numbers up during her sales pitch. All residents benefits equally from the city maintaining the landscape. Everyone also benefits from the city having sports facilities. However, the people who use those facilities more benefit more. If you use it more you pay more.
So, why should I pay extra to the city to play an organized sport in the same facilities I can use for free?
Sure you can use those fields and courts for free. But when you are part of a sports program you get exclusive privileges at specific times. Unlike the rest of us who get kicked out when it's time for a soccer game. You're paying for the exclusivity. The pools are not free. They have usage fees.
Thinking about things my wife and I do for entertainment: Average dinner for 2, about $50. Gym membership for 2 $60/month. 2 movie tickets $38 (WTH BTW). Occasional 5k $25ea. I ran a obstacle course race that cost $150 earlier this year. I am trying real hard here and I just can't find a way to sympathize with you and the outrageous $15 burden the city is contemplating placing on you.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 4:25pm
#7
rec fees
Well Michael, I am glad you are doing well. Your example expenditures have enlightened me. It obvious your finances are in order. Not everyone in PTC/Fayette County is in the same position as you are. There are many families who have to go through the embarrassment of requesting scholarships from Associations so their kids can participate. Not sure why I even mention this since I am sure you would have no sympathy.
Fri, 05/04/2012 - 6:46pm
#8
rec fees
My, apologies. It wasn't necessary for me to be so abrasive in my post. The point I was trying to make is that in comparison to many other leisure activities $15 is a pretty good value for a child to participate in a sports program.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 4:21pm
#9
Rec Fee Problem - Solved!
Well, here's a concept - if the associations are spending $x of dollars to improve the facilities out of their own pockets, and now the city is asking for the associations to give $x of dollars to the City instead to allow the City to do maintenance and improvements, who says it has to be an increase to the participants? The associations can just offset the increase by reducing the amount of the fees they were charging for maintenance, thereby not adding a dime to little Jimmy and Jenny's playtime.
I know a particular association that paid for their own scoreboard many years ago because it wasn't provided by the City. No problem - let the City pay for it now since they're collecting more money for maintenance and improvements. If a scoreboard costs $4,000 and there are 400 kids playing, that's $10 a participant savings right there.
In fact, the associations should only need to charge for what's absolutely necessary (the simplest uniforms, the simplest charges for officials, etc) and let the City maintain the facilities as they should be doing. A standard for simple recreational play conditions should be established - if the associations want anything beyond that, they have to pony up and donate the money to the City themselves.
Concession stands? That's silly and unnecessary - bring your own provisions, kids. This is for RECREATIONAL play only; if you really want something like that have a food truck sponsor your association.
Then take one "marquee" field for each sport for tournaments. Pay the school board to use their football fields and basketball courts for higher level play. If your sport doesn't have a marquee field or needs more than one, then if you want to have tournaments, the association should partner with the CVB to get the additional funding required to bring the facilities up to tournament quality, since tournaments should draw in tourist revenue.
Problems solved :)
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 4:27pm
#10
Rec Fees Problem Solved
You have it all figured out. Congratulations.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 5:23pm
#11
Thank you...
I appreciate your thoughtful, considerate responses to a position that is different from your own. I believe that your urging of Council to delay their decision to increase user fees on a segment of the population who use facilities that require additional maintenance beyond normal tax burdens is well reasoned. Your use of restraint and your lack of sarcasm demonstrate your altruistic and unbiased opinion on this matter.
Thank you for your genuine concern regarding the balance of common sense and concern over costs and benefits as they relate to your local government. Congratulations, fellow citizen, for being open to alternative views!
:)
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 8:46pm
#12
Sorry for the sarcasm..
I couldn't control it after the reference to the CVB. I cannot think of a more over inflated department. If PTC wants to cut something they should start there.
Your points are well taken, but are not realistic. It's true, associations can reduce their expenses if the city performs the work. Unfortunately there is very little credibility or accountability on their part. Based on the presentation Tues night the cost to aerate and top dress a field is about $3,900 each on an annual basis. That's a large expense for soccer, baseball, lacrosse, and football. I don't know the true number but I would guess there are between 25-30 fields which means $100 to $200k annually. That's a lot of money. Fayette county schools do not normally rent out their facilities and if they did it would not be free.
Anyhoo, it doesn't matter. By now they will have already voted. Cheers!!
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 9:50pm
#13
no worries, Rec Guy
The CVB - quality issues aside - does have a great deal of control over a large bit of tax revenue that the City cannot legally take on themselves, from what I recall reading in previous history. I think the key is to have quality facilities you need funding to keep them up, and the City is at a point where it has to figure out what it's going to do moving forward. In a perfect world, I would see them divesting themselves from BSC and consider privatizing it and Kedron and focusing truly on the "rec" part of recreation. Let a private company come in and take the risks and costs, and they'll turn the facilities into higher quality venues with the associations support.
I know that it's a polarizing discussion (or can be), but in the end it will all work out.
No harm done, no feelings hurt here (and I hope none there either).
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 12:00pm
#14
I do pay a fee...
it's called a tax.
When I walk around the lake, I don't damage the grass so it has to be replaced. When I stand on a boat dock, I don't use lights and have to pay the electric bill to stand on it after dark. When I sit on a bench, I don't have to pay for the chemicals, the cleaning, the parking, the traffic on "bench tournament weekends"...
And I'm all for sports - played them both as a child and an adult. And I paid the registration fees for them if I wanted to play. And if I can't afford it, or I think it's too high, I'll go do something else.
And where I used to live, I didn't have two (soon to be three) lakes/ponds, a variety of playgrounds and boat docks at all. I'm glad they are here, and if there were a donation box at the entrance to all of them, I'd probably drop a dollar or two in there each time I went.
If you can't afford to have things, you have to get money to have them somehow, else you get rid of them.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 12:13pm
#15
Which city employee are you?
Is that you Jim?
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 1:32pm
#16
Which city employee are you?
?
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 12:01pm
#17
..
duplicate
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 10:59am
#18
Recreation
We should remove all recreation from all government control and funding. If the folks wanting the service want it enough, it will be there.
I lived in a number of communities in the south and in Europe where recreation is not a public responsibility. These facilities are clean, well maintained and respected by users.
It is time for a new model.
Bob
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 12:48pm
#19
PTC is not what it is today
because of what we don't offer or didn't offer in the past. Meriwether County may be a better place for you.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 8:53am
#20
Another Sneaky Move by City Council
Here we go again, another last minute addition to the City Council agenda.They will tell you it was placed there 24 hours before the meeting, so they are following the rules. It is intentionally deceptive.
I would challenge the Mayor and Council to not act on this proposal until they receive adequate input from residents.
As residents, we pay taxes to support all recreation which includes: pools, parks, sports fields, tennis courts, playgrounds etc. All facilities require maintenance, but City Council is only targeting Sports Associations because they see dollar signs. The pools should be considered as well, they have never and will never pay for themselves. Raise their fees too.
PTC recreation budget is $1.68M and 42% is paid as salaries to city employees. Last year they fired Gaddo, Christopher, and Sherry retired. They eliminated their positions, and less than one year later they have created positions with new titles which perform the same job functions. What a waste of good talent. They should look hard at their employee count.
Mr. Pennington wants all recreation facilities to be revenue producers. Someone needs to tell him, it doesn't work that way.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 10:30am
#21
Council Schedule
The "cycle" for a council meeting played into this. We have a workshop on Tuesday and meeting on Thursday. Typically, a department can make a presentation and ask for guidance on Tuesday, this leaves Wednesday to place an item on the schedule for Thursday. This leaves a solid week for staff to prepare the next council packet (delivered and posted online Friday) and time to prepare for the following weeks workshop. This past Tuesday we had a 2.5 hour conversation on these fees, including representatives from various leagues and our rec committee. These meetings are open to the public and I invite you to attend them in the future. We, as a council, are always looking to hear your input.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 11:48am
#22
Blowhard 2.5 hour conversation
as in Blowhard blowing hot air. Why on earth would the public want to witness this baloney from the Chicago Thug. Sad day when he was elected. We deserve better here in PTC.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 10:38am
#23
Ok George!!
Yes. I know you followed the procedure. Just as I stated in my original post. It does not change my opinion.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 12:16pm
#24
And you don't have to!
I wasn't trying to change your opinion- just providing background as to the timing. Thank you for spending your Tuesday with us. A concerned and active citizenry benefits everyone who lives in PTC.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 1:30pm
#25
Not sure you have been around here long enough to know....
This tactic is used by city government quite frequently.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 9:40am
#26
Not Sneaky...and why increased user fees are ok by me.
In my opinion, I don't see this as sneaky or "last minute". They advertised and had a workshop to discuss this on Tuesday night, and they did.
Trying to get increased revenues to help offset costs for amenities like these is actually a good thing. The level of quality that is sought by the sports associations costs more than what the City has been able to provide - at some point something's gotta give.
The alternatives? If you live outside the City, you pay more to participate or you find another venue, but don't forget to come back and shop and eat here!
If you live in the City, you're already paying for the fact these facilities are here, but now you get to decide what level of quality you want - if you don't want the fields at "tournament quality", balk at the fees and let the City reduce the maintenance - I played soccer in this town at Drake Field and baseball at Riley (if you're that old, you remember what those fields were like!).
If you're the City and your citizenry continues to complain - sell or lease the amenities to private/semi-private corporations and let them run it themselves entirely (see the Senior Center and the Tennis Center).....pick your poison, but I think that increasing user fees is the right direction and is long overdue. The taxpayers get the benefit of the variety of recreational options available and don't have to pay as much in taxes to have the level of quality of those amenities (hopefully) improved or maintained well.
I think that the City should look out for what's best for its constituent base - the taxpayers as a whole - and focus on funding the most critical components with tax revenue first, then fund those "non-essential" elements with the least impact to tax revenue overall - recreation is great, but if the sports associations want it at a certain level, and the amenity is the City's, then the City should drive the revenue from the associations to pay for it, which is exactly what the user fee increases will do. The days of letting the associations "control the money" should be over in my opinion.
And with regard to the staffing - several of the "positions" were merged in, from what I recall seeing, so they are doing more work with fewer people.
In this case, I believe it was done above board and with public input - sorry that you missed the workshop. This doesn't smell fishy to me at all.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 11:36pm
#27
Agree...
I'm glad someone out there "gets it".
You wnat nice you have to pay for nice. When you don't pay for quality things go bad fast, when things go bad fast, your house value drops, when your house value drops, your city falls apart, when the city falls apart you have lost value and when that happens it will cost you a thousand times more than the rec fees you could have paid to keep value and quality.
However, We still have an un-equal distribution of city tax dollars to a variety of sports. Can't seem to understand while council thinks its okay for one kid to get a tax credit of $16.00 a month for their sport while the next door neighbor is only getting $1.00 for their sport. This is beyond comprehension.
The city has had many opportunities to fix the train wreck that is the Kedron Fieldhouse and pool. Use the $400,000 to $700,000 loss from Kedron and fund these more important areas where the tax-payer can justify their "return on investment". Trust me, no one decides to move or not to move to Peachtree City because we do or do not have a rec swimming pool. Rec pools were great for new city's in the 80"s but we are in 2012...wake up people.
Sat, 05/05/2012 - 8:30pm
#28
NO ONE???
"Trust me, no one decides to move or not to move to Peachtree City because we do or do not have a rec swimming pool."
Actually, one big reason we moved here from the city of Atlanta was the Kedron pool. We wanted our daughter to have a clean, safe environment for competitive swimming, and we were impressed by an article in the AJC about recreation opportunities for PTC kids; it included a write-up on the pool. (We also have a pool in our back yard, but the competitive pool was what we were looking for.)
Sun, 05/06/2012 - 1:42am
#29
Competitve Pool...Really
Our High schoold have to use Clayton County's pool for their COMPETITIVE tournament.
Furthermore, I said rec pool, you twisted the word and used "competitive pool". I would consider a competive pool as a permanent structure...a aquatic center...not a bubble.
Fri, 05/04/2012 - 10:09pm
#30
Rec pool?
Kedron is way more than a rec pool... how many high schools use that pool? It must be at least 4.
Sat, 05/05/2012 - 1:26am
#31
High Schools
Can not host tournaments...I'm okay with an aquatic center with a fitness component, something that would drive revenue.
Let me say this slowly...IT LOSES $700,000 per year. Who cares if 20 schools use it...IT cost the tax-payer $700,00 a year. There is no added value as no one moves to Pechtree City because we have a rec pool.
Sat, 05/05/2012 - 7:21am
#32
The high school swimmers (and
The high school swimmers (and Moms) took a vote--- "Should we give the pool to Dar and let him run it ?" How about a big NO !!!
Sun, 05/06/2012 - 1:56am
#33
ptctaxpayer
First of all it's not the high school moms or swimmers to decide3. It is not their pool.
I don't believe the issue "should we give the pool to Dar and let him run it" was never asked. Futhermore if was ever asked I would say NO!....It loses money...lots of money.The city should just collect $700,00 per year and burn it. You would have the same end results. Under the current conditions only a fool we be involved taking over the pool.
So some advise...save your time for something more constructive, something that actually makes sense.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 10:33am
#34
Not amenities, just basic!!
I did not miss the workshop, was there for 2.5 hours. Associations are not asking for amenities, just basic services. Maintenance costs are not equal between the various sports, so while baseball and soccer will pay for more than 50% of their maintenance costs, other sports will pay less than their fair share. This is not equitable.
The only "quality" experience provided has been through the efforts of thousands of volunteer hours and dedication of the association members, not from anything provided by the city. If you give these funds to the city without accountability, they will be free to use them in anyway they see fit. Just like they do now. A simple budget amendment.
While the issue was presented in council workshop Association representatives and at the council retreat, I do not believe the average PTC resident is aware their fees will be raised 10-15% next year. This means an additional $60 per year for a family with two children who play both fall and spring sports. Will they receive anything in return? The answer is NO. The Mayor and Council should give the average citizen adequate time before they act!
I understand the difference between essential and non essential. Associations are willing to pay more to have additional services provided and have been performing these functions for years. Why would anyone think the city government could do it better? If they had been doing their jobs over the years, the facilities would not be in disrepair,, and we would not have to incur another $3.0M in debt to just fix what is broken. Ten years from now, we will be back in the same place.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 11:48am
#35
I have four letters for you...
YMCA - I have seen it worked very well in areas where the government isn't providing recreation services.
Sounds like you might be representing one of the associations that would be affected by these increases - if you did, you probably could have informed those "average citizens" who will have to pay that $60 per year for little Jimmy and Jenny. That's $5 a month - someone's not getting a latte!
By the way, "basic services" are more than likely provided at your child's school. Playing a sport is not a basic service - providing an opportunity for physical fitness and exercise is.
And "if they had been doing their jobs over the years", would the staff members you previously referred to who no longer work at the City still work at the City? Or can we have it both ways?
What would you suggest the city do when expenses go above revenues and they have a variety of assets that need to be maintained for all to use?
How about a "recreation assessment fee" for all citizens to be "fair"? Would that work?
Fri, 05/04/2012 - 6:52am
#36
YMCA could have been a huge factor in the county
YMCA needs support from both private citizens and government. Fayette County Commission had a chance to step up and support the Y in a public/private partnership that would have gotten a huge aquatic facility and a performing arts center built which the YMCA would have managed. The Y was strung along for years (Thanks again, Mr. Dunn) and eventually rebuffed when Frady came in.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 12:06pm
#37
What are you talking about?
No need for attacks. I don't drink latte and I don't have the answer. Don't be so sensitive.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 12:12pm
#38
Apologies - context
I apologize if you interpreted my comments as "attacks". You claimed the Council was "sneaking one by" and that they can't do the job, so.....
If you don't have the answer, I'm confused as to what you want to have happen.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 12:18pm
#39
What I want is: for Council not to act on the fees tonight!
That is all.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 12:03pm
#40
the 'Y'
Sounds like you might be representing one of the associations that would be affected by these increases - if you did, you probably could have informed those "average citizens" who will have to pay that $60 per year for little Jimmy and Jenny. That's $5 a month - someone's not getting a latte!
The 'Y' and the Boys and Girls Clubs of America have done wonders throughout our country in providing young people with positive role models and meaningful recreation.
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 12:10pm
#41
David's Mom - I Agree!
I agree - it's a shame that the Fayette YMCA didn't get the backing it hoped for in its efforts for an arts and aquatics center.
My point was aimed at "government can't do it". Well, government has it, so they either try to do it right and implement fees (just like the YMCA does) or sell the amenities off.
Unfortunately, it IS simple economics if you can't afford to keep the amenities maintained at a safe and acceptable level.
in the right direction, but only a step. We still have an un-equal distribution of city tax dollars to a variety of sports. Can't seem to understand while council thinks its okay for one kid to get a tax credit of $16.00 a month for their sport while the next door neighbor is only getting $1.00 for their sport. This is beyond comprehension.
The city has had many opportunities to fix the train wreck that is the Kedron Fieldhouse and pool. Use the $400,000 to $700,000 loss from Kedron and fund these more important areas where the tax-payer can justify their "return on investment". Trust me, no one decides to move or not to move to Peachtree City because we do or do not have a rec swimming pool. Rec pools were great for new city's in the 80"s but we are in 2012...wake up people.