Note to CAG members - if you have additions or corrections to this summary, you can add your comments below.
Thursday, January 10,
2013
Members present – Kris Gjerde (chair), Ebony Young, Clara
Ware, Christopher Dollar-Simmons, Erika Martin, Sandy Rosbacka, Stacey Van
Patten, Gwen Peterson (Parks), Kathy Korum (Parks), Kathy Lantry (City
Council); (excused members – Larry Lawrey and Mike Hahm (Parks))
Support members present – Ellen Biales (City Council), Eric
Thompson (Parks), Betsy Leach (D1 and scribe)
Purpose of the Conway CAG – This group will define the needs
of the community for recreation services at the Conway Rec Center in order to
advise the City on how best to make use of this vital community asset and
select a successful partner.
Results of Meeting 1:
The goal of the CAG is two-fold: 1) to act as a steward of
the current programming existing at Conway Rec Center so that it remains in and
available to the community; and 2) to develop a Request for Proposals from
potential partners to assure programming at this location that will meet the
needs of residents of both sexes and from a wide range of ages and economic
status, and that is culturally and socially appropriate. With respect to 2),
the CAG will evaluate submissions to the RFP and provide a recommendation to
the City. The programming at this location will have a recreational focus, assure
public access, and provide leadership development among participants. The
programming at Conway Rec Center should nurture our youth, support our
families, and honor our elders. The Conway Center will represent the heart of
this community.
How we got to these
results:
The meeting began with introducing the members to each
other. This step helps us to understand the resources and perspectives that
each member brings to the group (parents and grandparents of youth
participants, neighbors, coach/booster club leader, apartment complex management,
senior programming provider, parks staff, etc.). We also established ground rules
for the group that are based on respect for the diversity of our opinions and
the need to finish our work within the 6 month timeframe. We also acknowledged
that important issues that will be raised that may not be immediately relevant
to our task. These issues will be placed on the agenda for the district council
to address in other forums.
Establishing
the background – Parks presented several sets of data about usage of the
Conway Rec Center relative to other facilities. A summary of these data and
responses from Parks to community questions that were raised at the November 26
meeting will be provided in a subsequent blog posting (www.district1council.blogspot.com).
The members questioned how the data were collected, their accuracy, and their
relevance to the discussion. We all acknowledge that decisions must be made
with the best, most relevant data available. There are limitations on the data
we have about usage at Conway Rec Center.
Acknowledging
the constraints – We are operating under certain economic, political and
physical constraints. The Parks Department has had level or declining funding
over the past decade. It has developed a system plan that looks to reduce the
number of recreation facilities it needs to staff and maintain; approximately
85% of Parks budget is for staffing – the more facilities, the more staffing is
needed. So Parks has been using a model of establishing service partnerships
that provide staffing/programming, maintenance of facilities, payment of
utilities at those facilities and “rent” at facilities. These partnerships have
been variably successful. City Council outlined how the city budgeting process
occurs – with a strong mayor system of governing, the mayor develops a budget,
the city council can recommend shifts of the finite pot of money, but
departments manage their budgets according to the mayor’s priorities and in acknowledgement
of operational needs. So a major constraint for the CAG’s work is that the
mayor has said that for the Parks system to remain vital, Conway and McDonough
need to find partners that can provide the funding to support their existence and
public programming at their locations.
A further constraint is that a partnership
must meet certain requirements based on the City Charter. The programming must
have a recreational focus, be provided by a non-profit entity and must provide
public access, because the facility remains public property.
Finally, partners bring their own
constraints. Nonprofits are mission-driven – they must do work that advances
their mission, not someone else’s mission. It will be incumbent on the group
when reviewing RFP responses to assure compatibility between the partner’s
mission, the mission of Parks, and the objectives of the community. Additionally,
if a nonprofit is funding the maintenance of a facility, it needs the space to
do its work. Parks outlined this constraint when asked if a partner could be
found that would permit all existing programming to remain at Conway and simply
add their activities to those. Therefore, it will be impossible to retain all
current programming AT THIS FACILITY when a partner is brought in. However, the
CAG is committed to finding places within the community where all existing
programming can continue.
What is
important to the community (community “constraints”) – The community wants
to assure that there is a way to hold any partner accountable. We need to build
into the RFP what the community requires, including accountability measures. The
community should be a part of the evaluation of a partner’s accountability. The
RFP must outline the programming that the community wants but not be so
restrictive that there is no choice among those who submit a proposal. We need
a robust pool of potential partners.
We should think in terms of who is
in the community, who is using the facility now, who is not using the facility
but could be served, what resources we have already in place to meet the needs
and what resources need to be brought in. We need to think about what the
ultimate outcome is for recreational services. There is an identified need in
this area for youth based services, including among youth over 16 years of age.
But it is important that the facility address the full lifespan, therefore
retaining the senior program at this location will be important – it is
unlikely that youth programming will conflict for space needs with senior
programming even though it is unlikely that a partner who provides youth
programming will also provide senior programming. Most youth programming will
be during after-school hours. But Community Ed is already a successful partner
for senior programming and this programming occurs during school hours – it is
a priority to keep this partnership vital.
The likeliest source of conflict is
among different kinds of sports with competing demands for space inside the
facility and in the fields. A range of sports activities is an important
community priority, but the group recognizes that the activities can be
distributed across other parks (how can this also address concerns at Eastview,
for example?). But the main priority is in developing youth potential and
sports are only one way to do this. The group sets as a high priority that a
partner be fundamentally in the business of developing the potential and
well-being of our community members.
The partnership must provide
programming that is sustainable, effective and accessible.
What we will do at
the next meeting:
Does the goal need to be clarified or more focused? Do we
have data that helps us further define community needs?
How do we prioritize programming needs at Conway and in the
broader area?
Begin drafting an RFP that addresses community needs.
Upcoming Meetings:
Community update meeting at D1 January Board Meeting –
January 28, 6:30p at Conway Rec
NEXT CONWAY CAG MEETING – January 31, 6p at Conway Rec
Other scheduled CCAG meetings – February 11, 6p at Conway
Rec; February 21, 6p at Conway Rec
Community update meeting at D1 February Board Meeting –
February 25, 6:30p at Conway Rec
FINAL NOTES: 1) if community members or other community groups want
to meet with staff or CAG members to discuss the process, the goals, and/or the
community needs, please contact the District 1 office to set up a meeting (district1council@aol.com or district1cpc@aol.com or 651.578.7600). 2)
a youth advisory group is being established by Parks and community partners.
You can contact Kathy.Korum@ci.stpaul.mn.us
for more information.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment