The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda CC 03.22.2022 WorkshopN otice of M eeting of the Governing B ody of the C ity of Georgetown, Texas M arch 22 , 20 22 The Georgetown City Council will meet on March 22, 2022 at 2:00 P M at Council and Courts Building, 510 W 9th Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (AD A). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the AD A, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. P lease contact the City Secretary's Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 808 Martin Luther King J r. Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Policy De ve lopme nt/Re vie w Workshop - A P resentation and discussion regarding the proposed P arks and Recreation Cost Recovery Study -- Kimberly Garrett, P arks and Recreation Director; and Teresa J ackson, GreenP lay B Overview, discussion, and direction regarding the possible creation of an Extraterritorial J urisdiction (ETJ ) Municipal Utility District (M U D) for the proposed Avery Bost Development -- Nick Woolery, Assistant City Manager C P resentation and discussion regarding the Municipal Court -- Debbie Landrum, Court Administrator; and Randall Stump, Municipal Court J udge D P resentation and discussion regarding sidewalks -- Wesley Wright, P E, Systems Engineering Director E Discussion and possible direction to staff on Downtown P arking Garage -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Exe cutive Se ssion In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. F Sec. 551.071: Consul tati on w i th Attorney Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Litigation Update - South Lake Water Line, P arcels 10 and 18 (Young) -- J im Kachelmeyer, Assistant City Attorney - Lease Agreement with Georgetown Health Foundation for 711 North College Sec. 551.086: Certai n P ubl i c P ow er Uti l i ti es: Competi ti ve M atters - P urchased P ower Update Sec. 551.072: Del i berati ons about Real P roperty - Block 27, property located near the corner of 6th Street and Austin Avenue - Berry Creek Interceptor P hases 1-3, P arcel 1 (P innacle Building Co.) -- J im Kachelmeyer, Page 1 of 175 Assistant City Attorney - Block 39, City-owned property located at the corner of 6th Street and Main Street and at 111 East 7th Street Adjournme nt Ce rtificate of Posting I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notice of Meeting was pos ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily ac cessible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2022, at __________, and remained so pos ted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary Page 2 of 175 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop March 22, 2022 S UBJEC T: P resentation and discussion regarding the proposed P arks and Recreation Cost Recovery Study -- Kimberly Garrett, P arks and Recreation Director; and Teresa J ackson, GreenP lay I T EM S UMMARY: The City Council approved a contract with GreenP lay, LL C, on M arch 2 3, 2021 to update the P arks and Recreation Master P lan. In conjunction with the master plan update, GreenP lay was approved to develop a cost reco very model and policy. At the J anuary 2 5, 20 22 City Council Workshop, a presentatio n to City Council was provided on the Cost Recovery Study including proposed tier target cost recovery rates. This presentation will provide an update on the Cost Recovery Study including propo sed tier target c ost reco very rates, recommendations and cost recovery goals. Next steps include adoption of the Cost Recovery P olicy at a future City Council meeting. The P arks and Recreation Advisory Board unanimously reco mmended approval of the Cost Recovery Study including the recommendations and cost recovery goals at their March 10, 2022 meeting. F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: N A S UBMI T T ED BY: Kimberly Garrett, P arks and Recreation Director AT TAC HMENT S : Description Draft C ost R ec overy S tudy P arks and R ec C ost R ec overy P resentaiton Page 3 of 175 Georgetown Parks and Recreation Cost Recovery Study March 2022 Page 4 of 175 Page 5 of 175 Mayor and City Council Mayor – Josh Schroeder Council District 1 – Amanda Parr Council District 2 – Shawn Hood Council District 3 – Mike Triggs Council District 4 – Steve Fought Council District 5 – Kevin Pitts Council District 6 – Jake French Council District 7 – Tommy Gonzalez Administration David Morgan, City Manager Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Wayne Nero, Assistant City Manager Nick Woolery, Assistant City Manager Parks and Recreation Board Katherine Kainer, Chair Chad Holz, Co-Chair Lindsay Cooper, Secretary Brazos Fielder Jack P. Flatau Jolene Melancon Peter Bahrs Parks and Recreation Staff Project Team Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director Eric Nuner, Parks and Recreation Assistant Director Robert Gaylor, Parks and Recreation Manager Traci Stengle, Parks and Recreation Manager Jamie Beran, Parks Superintendent Jill Kellum, Administrative Supervisor Consultant Team GreenPlay, LLC For more information about this document, contact GreenPlay, LLC At: 1021 E. South Boulder Road, Suite N, Louisville, Colorado 80027, Telephone: 303-439-8369 Email: info@greenplayllc.com www.greenplayllc.com Acknowledgments Page 6 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT 4 Cost Recovery Study Table of Contents Table of Contents I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................7 Why do this? .....................................................................................................................7 Study Objective .................................................................................................................7 The Pyramid Methodology ................................................................................................8 II. Study Approach ......................................................................................................9 Understanding Resource Allocation and Cost Recovery ..................................................11 Category of Service Development ...................................................................................12 Staff and Stakeholder Engagement .................................................................................13 A Consensus Pyramid ......................................................................................................14 Cost of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................15 III. Key Findings and Recommendations .....................................................................19 Cost Recovery Tier Targets ..............................................................................................20 Policy Actions ..................................................................................................................22 Administrative Task .........................................................................................................23 Cost Savings and Revenue Generation Strategies ...........................................................24 Suggested Policy Language ..............................................................................................30 IV. Conclusion ...........................................................................................................31 Appendices ...............................................................................................................32 Appendix A: The Pyramid Methodology Process ............................................................33 Appendix B: Georgetown Categories of Service ..............................................................39 Appendix C: Developing a Pricing Strategy ......................................................................43 Criteria for Establishing Fees ...........................................................................................46 Page 7 of 175 5 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study Table of Figures Figure 1: Georgetown Consensus Pyramid .....................................................................14 Figure 2: Georgetown Pyramid Model ............................................................................21 Table of Tables dĂďůĞ ϭ͗ FY21 Cost Recovery Distribution ........................................................................15 dĂďůĞ Ϯ͗ FY21 Cost Recovery by Category of Service .......................................................16 dĂďůĞ ϯ͗ FY21 Tier Aggregate ...........................................................................................17 dĂďůĞ ϰ͗ Cost Recovery Tier Targets .................................................................................18 dĂďůĞ ϱ͗ Policy Actions .....................................................................................................22 dĂďůĞ ϲ͗ Administrative Task ...........................................................................................23 dĂďůĞ ϳ͗ Cost Savings and Revenue Generation Strategies .............................................24 Page 8 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT 6 Cost Recovery Study THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 9 of 175 7 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study I. Introduction /Ŷ ƐƵŵŵĞƌ ŽĨ ϮϬϮϭ͕ ƚŚĞ ŝƚǇ ŽĨ 'ĞŽƌŐĞƚŽǁŶ͛Ɛ tĂƌŬƐ ĂŶĚ ZĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ ;ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚͿ͕ ďĞŐĂŶ ĂŶ ĞǆƚĞŶƐŝǀĞ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ƚŽ ƌĞǀŝĞǁ ŝƚƐ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ ĂŶĚ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ƉƌŝĐŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ͘ dŚŝƐ ƐŝŐŶŝĮĐĂŶƚ ƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬŝŶŐ ŝƐ ďƵŝůƚ ŽŶ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ ǀĂůƵĞƐ ĂŶĚ ŵŝƐƐŝŽŶͲďĂƐĞĚ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ͕ ĂŶĚ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐ Ă ĨŽƵŶĚĂƟŽŶĂů ƉŚŝůŽƐŽƉŚǇ͕ ƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ďĞƐƚ ƉƌĂĐƟĐĞ ŵŽĚĞů ǁŚŝĐŚ ǁŝůů ůŝǀĞ ŽŶ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƟŽŶ͘ /ƚƐ ŝŶƚĞŶƚ ŝƐ ƚŽ ďĞ ŇĞǆŝďůĞ ĂŶĚ ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝǀĞ ƚŽ ĐŚĂŶŐŝŶŐ ĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐ͕ ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ ƚŽ ĂůůŽĐĂƚĞ ŝƚƐ ƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ ǁŝƐĞůǇ ĂŶĚ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ ǀĂůƵĂďůĞ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ ĨŽƌ ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶͲŵĂŬŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ƐĞƫŶŐ ƉƌŝŽƌŝƟĞƐ ĨŽƌ ŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ system. Why do this? dŚĞ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ ĚĞƐŝƌĞƐ ƚŽ ĞǀŽůǀĞ Ă ůŽŶŐ ƚĞƌŵ ƐƚƌĂƚĞŐǇ͕ ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͕ ĂŶĚ ƐǇƐƚĞŵ ƚŚĂƚ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐ ĨŽƌ ŝƚƐ ĮƐĐĂů ŚĞĂůƚŚ ĂŶĚ ƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚǇ ĂŶĚ ŝƐ ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝǀĞ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͘ dŚŝƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐ Ă ŵĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐǇ ĨŽƌ ĐŽƐƟŶŐ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĂƐ ǁĞůů ĂƐ Ă ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ŵŽĚĞů ƚŚĂƚ ŝƐ ďĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͛Ɛ ŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ ŝƐ ĨĂŝƌ ĂŶĚ equitable. ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ŵƵƐƚ ďĞ ĚŽŶĞ ĐĂƌĞĨƵůůǇ͕ ǁŝƚŚ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ ĂŶĚ ŝŶƐŝŐŚƚ͕ ƐŽ ƚŚĂƚ ĂŐĞŶĐŝĞƐ ĐĂŶ ƌĞĐŽǀĞƌ ĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ ĐŽƐƚƐ ǁŝƚŚŽƵƚ ĐŽŵƉƌŽŵŝƐŝŶŐ ĞƐƐĞŶƟĂů ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ǁŝĚĞƐƚ ƉƵďůŝĐ͘ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ŶĞĞĚƐ ƚŽ ďĞ ƚŚŽƵŐŚƞƵů͕ ĚĞůŝďĞƌĂƚĞ ĂŶĚ ďĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐ Ͷ ŶŽƚ ƌĞĂĐƟŽŶĂƌǇ͘ dŚƌŽƵŐŚ ƚŚŝƐ ĞīŽƌƚ͕ ƚŚĞ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ ŝƐ ƐĞĞŬŝŶŐ Ă ŵĞĂŶŝŶŐĨƵů ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ƉŚŝůŽƐŽƉŚǇ ĂŶĚ ŵĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐǇ ƚŚĂƚ ŝƐ ďĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ community values and supported by City of Georgetown policy makers. Study Objective ZĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞ ƐƚĞǁĂƌĚƐŚŝƉ ŽĨ ƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ ĂůƐŽ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐ ƚŚĞ ĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ ĂŶĚ ŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ ŽĨ ĂīŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚǇ͕ ĨĂŝƌŶĞƐƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ĞƋƵŝƚǇ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ƐǇƐƚĞŵ͘ dŚŝƐ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐ ƉƌŽͲĂĐƟǀĞ ƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ Ă ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ ƚŽŽů ĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚ ĂƌŽƵŶĚ these principles, yet one that addresses a much more comprehensive picture than just pricing. Although ĨĞĞ ĂĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ ĂƌĞ ůŝŬĞůǇ͕ ƚŚĞ ŽďũĞĐƟǀĞ ŝƐ ŶŽƚ ƚŽ ƐŝŵƉůǇ ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞ ŶĞǁ ƌĞǀĞŶƵĞƐ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ĨĞĞƐ͕ ďƵƚ ƚŽ ensure a sustainable system into the future by using tax revenues and fees in the most appropriate ǁĂǇƐ͕ ƐƵƉƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚ ǁŚĞƌĞ ƉŽƐƐŝďůĞ ďǇ ŐƌĂŶƚƐ͕ ĚŽŶĂƟŽŶƐ͕ ƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐŚŝƉƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ŽƚŚĞƌ ƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ ŽĨ ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞ revenues. ,ĂǀŝŶŐ Ă ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ tŚŝůŽƐŽƉŚǇ͕ DŽĚĞů͕ ĂŶĚ tŽůŝĐǇ ĂƐƐŝƐƚƐ ŝŶ ĂŶƐǁĞƌŝŶŐ ĐŚĂůůĞŶŐŝŶŐ ƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ ĨƌŽŵ ŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƟŽŶ ůĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉ ĂŶĚ ĨƌŽŵ ĐŝƟǌĞŶƐ ƐƵĐŚ ĂƐ͗ • Are our programs priced fairly and equitably? • ,Žǁ ǁŝůů ǁĞ ĐŽŶƟŶƵĞ ƚŽ ĨƵŶĚ ĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐ ĂŶĚ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ŝŶ ƌĞůĂƟŽŶƐŚŝƉ ƚŽ ĨƵƚƵƌĞ ďƵĚŐĞƚ ĐŽŶƐƚƌĂŝŶƚƐ͍ • Are we using funding in a responsible manner? • ŽĞƐ ƚŚĞ ǁĂǇ ǁĞ ĐŚĂƌŐĞ ĨŽƌ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ;ĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐ͕ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ͕ ĞƚĐ͘Ϳ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ ŽƵƌ ǀĂůƵĞƐ͕ ǀŝƐŝŽŶ͕ ĂŶĚ mission? dŚĞ ƉƌŝŵĂƌǇ ŽďũĞĐƟǀĞ ŽĨ ƚŚŝƐ ƉůĂŶ ŝƐ ƚŽ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉ Ă ĨƌĂŵĞǁŽƌŬ ĂŶĚ ŵŽĚĞů ĨŽƌ ƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͕ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ͕ ďƵĚŐĞƟŶŐ͕ ĂŶĚ ƉƌŝĐŝŶŐ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ŝƚǇ͛Ɛ ƉĂƌŬƐ͕ ĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐ ĂŶĚ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ͕ ďĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ Ă ƐƚƌŽŶŐ ƉŚŝůŽƐŽƉŚŝĐĂů ĨŽƵŶĚĂƟŽŶ͘ Page 10 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT 8 Cost Recovery Study The Pyramid Methodology The Pyramid Methodology used in this study is built on a foundation of understanding who is benefiting from park and recreation services to determine how the costs for service should be funded. The model illustrates a pricing philosophy for establishing fees commensurate with a target Cost Recovery level based on the benefit received. Descriptions regarding each level of the pyramid are provided in Appendix A; however, the model is intended as a discussion point and is very dependent on agency philosophies to determine what programs and services belong on each level. Cultural, regional, geographical, and resource differences play a large role in this determination. The resulting pyramid is unique to each agency that applies this methodology. The development of a financial Cost Recovery philosophy and policy is built upon a very logical foundation rooted in Georgetown’s values. Mission and vision represent principles that create a philosophical framework to serve as the foundation for organizational decisions and processes. They also help determine those community conditions that the Department wishes to impact, guiding often difficult management decisions, substantiating them, and making them justifiable and defensible. The application of the pyramid methodology begins with the Mission of the organization, but must also address other considerations: • Who benefits from the service, the community in general or only the individual or group receiving the service? • Does the individual or group receiving the service generate the need (and therefore the cost) of providing the service? • Will imposing the full cost fee pose a hardship on specific users? • Will the level of the fee affect the demand for the service? • Are there competing providers of the service in the public or private sector? Page 11 of 175 9 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study II. Study Approach The study commenced in July of 2021; included three workshops in July, October, and January; and ĐŽŶĐůƵĚĞĚ ǁŝƚŚ ĮŶĂů ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐ Ăƚ ƚŚĞ ƐƚĂƌƚ ŽĨ ϮϬϮϮ͘ tƌŽũĞĐƚ dĞĂŵ ĐŽŵƉƌŝƐĞĚ ŽĨ ƐƚĂī ĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ ĂƐ ǁĞůů ĂƐ ƚŚĞ CŝŶĂŶĐĞ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ ǁĂƐ ĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚ ƚŽ ƌĞǀŝĞǁ ƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐ ĂŶĚ ĞǆŝƐƟŶŐ ƉŽůŝĐǇ͕ to become familiar with the Pyramid Methodology, and to work with the public to understand its values. dĞĂŵ DĞŵďĞƌƐ ĂƩĞŶĚĞĚ ĂŶ ŝŶŝƟĂů KƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶ ĂŶĚ dƌĂŝŶŝŶŐ tŽƌŬƐŚŽƉ ŝŶ :ƵůǇ ϮϬϮϭ͘ dŚŝƐ ǁĂƐ ĨŽůůŽǁĞĚ ďǇ ĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂů ǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉƐ͕ ǁŚĞƌĞ ƐƚĂī ŝĚĞŶƟĮĞĚ ŬĞǇ ƚŚĞŵĞƐ ďǇ ƌĞǀŝĞǁŝŶŐ ĞǆŝƐƟŶŐ ƉŽůŝĐǇ͕ ŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐ͖ ďĞĐŽŵŝŶŐ ĨĂŵŝůŝĂƌ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ tǇƌĂŵŝĚ DĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐǇ͖ ĂŶĚ ĞǆĂŵŝŶŝŶŐ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ ƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞ ĂůůŽĐĂƟŽŶ ƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐ͘ ^ƚĂī ĚĞĮŶĞĚ ĐĂƚĞŐŽƌŝĞƐ ŽĨ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ ĂŶĚ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ ƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂƚĞĚ ŝŶ ƐŽƌƟŶŐ ǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉƐ ƚŽ ƉůĂĐĞ ĐĂƚĞŐŽƌŝĞƐ ŽĨ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ŽŶ ĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ ƉǇƌĂŵŝĚ ƟĞƌƐ͕ ŚŽƐƚĞĚ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ ǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ƚĂĐŬůĞĚ ƚŚĞ ĐŚĂůůĞŶŐĞƐ ŽĨ ŝĚĞŶƟĨǇŝŶŐ ŵĞĂƐƵƌĂďůĞ ĐŽƐƚƐ ĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚ ǁŝƚŚ ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ ĂŶĚ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͘ dŚĞ ĞǆĞĐƵƟŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ŵŽĚĞů ŝƐ ďƌŽŬĞŶ ĚŽǁŶ ŝŶƚŽ ƚŚĞ ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ ƐƚĞƉƐ͗ ^ƚĞƉ ϭ͗ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ŽŶ ǇŽƵƌ ŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƟŽŶ͛Ɛ ǀĂůƵĞƐ͕ ǀŝƐŝŽŶ͕ ĂŶĚ ŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ^ƚĞƉ Ϯ͗ hŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ tǇƌĂŵŝĚ DĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐǇ͕ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ďĞŶĞĮƚƐ ĮůƚĞƌ ^ƚĞƉ ϯ͗ ĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƟŽŶ͛Ɛ ĂƚĞŐŽƌŝĞƐ ŽĨ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ ^ƚĞƉ ϰ͗ ^ŽƌƟŶŐ ƚŚĞ ĂƚĞŐŽƌŝĞƐ ŽĨ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ ŽŶƚŽ ƚŚĞ tǇƌĂŵŝĚ ^ƚĞƉ ϱ͗ ĞĮŶŝŶŐ ĚŝƌĞĐƚ ĂŶĚ ŝŶĚŝƌĞĐƚ ĐŽƐƚƐ ^ƚĞƉ ϲ͗ ĞƚĞƌŵŝŶŝŶŐ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ůĞǀĞůƐ ^ƚĞƉ ϳ͗ ƐƚĂďůŝƐŚŝŶŐ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ŐŽĂůƐ ^ƚĞƉ ϴ͗ hŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ƉƌĞƉĂƌŝŶŐ ĨŽƌ /ŶŇƵĞŶƟĂů CĂĐƚŽƌƐ ^ƚĞƉ ϵ͗ /ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƟŽŶ ^ƚĞƉ ϭϬ͗ ǀĂůƵĂƟŽŶ ĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚ ĚĞƐĐƌŝƉƟŽŶ ŽĨ ĞĂĐŚ ƐƚĞƉ ŝƐ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ ŝŶ Appendix A. Page 12 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT 10 Cost Recovery Study Step 1: Building on your organization’s values, vision, and mission Step 2: Understanding the Pyramid Methodology, and the benefits filter Step 3: Developing the organization’s Categories of Service Step 9: Implementation Step 8: Understanding and preparing for Influential Factors Step 7: Establishing Cost Recovery goals Step 6: Determining Cost Recovery levels Step 5: Defining direct and indirect costs 4&1 024*/( 4)& "4&(02*&3 0' &26*$& 0/40 4)& 82".*% Step 10: Evaluation Page 13 of 175 11 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study Understanding Resource Allocation and Cost Recovery ZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞ ĂůůŽĐĂƟŽŶ ŝƐ ŚŽǁ ůŝŵŝƚĞĚ ƚĂǆ ĚŽůůĂƌƐ ĂŶĚ ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞ ƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ ŽĨ ĨƵŶĚŝŶŐ ĂƌĞ ƵƟůŝǌĞĚ͘ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ŝƐ ƚŚĞ ƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĂŶŶƵĂů ŽƉĞƌĂƟŶŐ ďƵĚŐĞƚ ĐŽƐƚ ƚŚĂƚ ĐĂŶ ďĞ ŽīƐĞƚ ďǇ ĨƵŶĚŝŶŐ ŽƚŚĞƌ ƚŚĂŶ 'ĞŶĞƌĂů CƵŶĚ ƚĂǆƉĂǇĞƌ ŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ ;ǁŚĞƚŚĞƌ ĚĞƌŝǀĞĚ ĨƌŽŵ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͕ ƐĂůĞƐ͕ Žƌ ŽƚŚĞƌ ƐŽƵƌĐĞƐͿ͘ tĂƌŬƐ ĂŶĚ ZĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ ǀĂůƵĞ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ ŝŶ ƚĞƌŵƐ ŽĨ ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ͕ ĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů͕ ĂŶĚ ƐŽĐŝĂů ďĞŶĞĮƚƐ͘ dĂǆ ĚŽůůĂƌƐ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ ƚŚĞƐĞ ͞ĐŽƌĞ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͘͟ ĞǇŽŶĚ ƚŚŽƐĞ ďĞŶĞĮƚƐ ƌĞĂůŝǌĞĚ ďǇ Ăůů ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͕ ƚŚĞ ĂŐĞŶĐǇ ŝƐ ĂůƐŽ ĂďůĞ ƚŽ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ ƐƉĞĐŝĮĐ ĂĐƟǀŝƟĞƐ ĂŶĚ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ƚŚĂƚ ďĞŶĞĮƚ ŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůƐ͘ dŚĞƌĞ ĂƌĞ ŶŽƚ ĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞ ƚĂǆ ĚŽůůĂƌƐ ƚŽ ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůǇ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ ƚŚŝƐ ůĞǀĞů ŽĨ ĂĐƟǀŝƚǇ͕ ĂŶĚ ŝƚ ŝƐ ĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ ĂŶĚ ĐŽŵŵŽŶ ƚŽ charge at least minimally for these services. CŽƌ ĞǆĂŵƉůĞ͕ ŝĨ ĂŶ ŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂů ƚĂŬĞƐ Ă ƐǁŝŵŵŝŶŐ ůĞƐƐŽŶ Žƌ ƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂƚĞƐ ŝŶ Ă ƐĞŶŝŽƌ ĚĂŶĐĞ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͕ ƚŚĞƌĞ are certain levels of skill building, social engagement, or entertainment that accrue to that person, but ŝƚ ĐĂŶ ƐƟůů ďĞ ĂƌŐƵĞĚ ƚŚĞƌĞ ŝƐ Ă ďĞŶĞĮƚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ ĂƐ Ă ǁŚŽůĞ ďǇ ƚĞĂĐŚŝŶŐ ƉĞŽƉůĞ ƐĂĨĞƚǇ ĂƌŽƵŶĚ ǁĂƚĞƌ͕ ĂŶĚ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ƚŚĞ ƐŽĐŝĂů ĐĂƉŝƚĂů ĂŶĚ ŚĞĂůƚŚ ŐĂŝŶĞĚ ďǇ ŬĞĞƉŝŶŐ ƐĞŶŝŽƌƐ ĂĐƟǀĞ ĂŶĚ ŝŶ ƚŽƵĐŚ͘ dŚŝƐ ǁĂƌƌĂŶƚƐ ĐŽǀĞƌŝŶŐ Ăƚ ůĞĂƐƚ Ă ƉŽƌƟŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĐŽƐƚ ŽĨ Ă ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ Žƌ ĂĐƟǀŝƚǇ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ƚĂǆ ĚŽůůĂƌƐ͘ KƚŚĞƌ ŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐ͕ ƐƵĐŚ ĂƐ ƚŚĞ ƌĞŶƚĂů ŽĨ Ă ƐƉĂĐĞ ĨŽƌ Ă ƉƌŝǀĂƚĞ ƉĂƌƚǇ͕ ǁĂƌƌĂŶƚ Ă ĨĞĞ ƚŽ ĐŽǀĞƌ Ă ůĂƌŐĞƌ ƉŽƌƟŽŶ ŽĨ the cost of providing that space. Although fee adjustments are possible, the goal is not to simply generate new revenues through fees, but to ensure a sustainable system into the future by using tax revenues and fees in the most ĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ ǁĂǇƐ͕ ƐƵƉƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚ ǁŚĞƌĞ ƉŽƐƐŝďůĞ ďǇ ŐƌĂŶƚƐ͕ ĚŽŶĂƟŽŶƐ͕ ƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐŚŝƉƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ŽƚŚĞƌ ƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ ŽĨ ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞ ƌĞǀĞŶƵĞƐ͘ dĂǆĞƐ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ ͞ĐŽƌĞ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕͟ ǁŚĞƌĞĂƐ ĨĞĞƐ ĂŶĚ ĐŚĂƌŐĞƐ ĂƌĞ ĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ ĨŽƌ ĂĐƟǀŝƟĞƐ ĂŶĚ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ďĞŶĞĮƟŶŐ ŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůƐ͘ Page 14 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT 12 Cost Recovery Study Category of Service Development Prior to sorting each program and service onto the Pyramid, the project team took on the rigorous task of reviewing, analyzing, and sifting through many individual programs and services in an effort to create the Department’s Categories of Services, including definitions and examples. “Narrowing down” facilities, programs, and services and placing them in categories (groups of like or similar service) that best fit their descriptions allowed a reasonable number of items to be sorted onto the pyramid tiers using the Individual and Community Benefit filter. Thirty-seven (37) categories were identified as listed below. All Categories of Service with a full description and listing of programs and services within can be found in Appendix B. • Attractions • Cemetery Lot Sales and Locates • Concession, Vending, Merchandise • Equipment Rentals • Garey House Full-Service Rentals • Memorial Tree and Bench • Party Packages • Private/Semi-Private Lessons • Trips • Classes, Programs, Sports, Camps and Clinics – Advanced/Competitive • Department Organized Tournaments • Drop-in Childcare / Babysitting • Facility Rentals • Field Rental • Partnered Rental Agreement • Public Space Permits • Special Permits • Adapted Programs • Adult Classes, Programs, Workshops– Beginning/ Intermediate • Adult Leagues • Camps - Specialized • Drop-in Use • Facility Membership • Family Programs • Garey Park Pass • Park Pavilion Rentals • Senior Classes, Programs, Workshops– Beginning/ Intermediate • Camps - General Recreation • Mobile/Pop-up and Outreach Programs • Social Clubs/Affinity Groups • Youth Classes, Programs, Workshops– Beginning/ Intermediate • Youth Leagues • Department Produced Public Events • Non-Monitored or Non-Staffed Park/Facility Usage • Partnered Social Services • Public Education/Outreach Programs • Volunteer Program Page 15 of 175 13 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study StDŲ DQd StDNeKoOder (QJDJePeQt The Department hosted five workshops on October 11 and October 12, 2021 with the goal to gather input from staff and citizen stakeholders. The charge to both was to sort the Department’s Categories of Service onto appropriate levels of the pyramid model based on who they benefited (the benefit filter). Those categories ranged from mostly benefiting the Community as a whole, to programs and services mostly providing an Individual benefit. The effort is based on a community values-based conversation. During public workshops 32 community members each dedicated 1.5 hours of their time. This approach, providing 48 hours of meaningful volunteer deliberation, allowed staff to understand the values of the community, and allowed participants to better understand their fellow citizens’ perspectives. The sorting process is where ownership is created for the philosophy, while participants discover the current and possibly varied operating histories, cultures, missions, and values of the organization. This process develops consensus and allows everyone to land on the same page. The effort is ultimately a reflection of the community and the mission of the Department. The sorting process was a challenging step and was led by objective and impartial facilitators in order to hear all viewpoints. The process generated discussion and debate as participants discovered what others had to say about serving the community, about adults versus youth versus seniors, about advanced versus intermediate and beginning programs, about special events, athletic fields, and rentals involving the general public, non-profit and for-profit entities, etc. It was important to push through the “what” to the “why” to find common ground. Page 16 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT 14 Cost Recovery Study A Consensus Pyramid Through the use of the Pyramid framework, a consensus pyramid from the staff and public sorting process was created with each Category of Service placed in the appropriate tier of the pyramid based on the benefits filter. By using feedback from the community to look at programs and services in this way, staff can set a program’s cost-recovery goal relative to the amount of community benefit a category of service provides. Figure 1 represents the Department’s consensus pyramid. Programs and services considered to have higher individual benefits will be recommended to have a higher Cost Recovery ratio. Figure 1: Georgetown Consensus Pyramid Page 17 of 175 15 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study Cost of Service Analysis For this study, GreenPlay engaged the services ŽĨ ŵŝůŝĂ͕ Ă tĂƌŬ ĂŶĚ ZĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ ^ŽŌǁĂƌĞ Company. Amilia specializes in helping agencies ŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĞ ĂŶĚ ƐŽƌƚ ƚŚĞŝƌ ĚĂƚĂ ĞĸĐŝĞŶƚůǇ ďǇ ŐƵŝĚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞŵ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ƵƐĞ ŽĨ ŵŝůŝĂ͛Ɛ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ƐŽŌǁĂƌĞ ƚŽŽů͘ ŽƐƚ ŽĨ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ǁĂƐ ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞĚ using FY21 data to provide a baseline of data for ƐĞƫŶŐ ĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ƚĂƌŐĞƚƐ͘ EŽ ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ŝƐ ƉŽƐƐŝďůĞ ǁŝƚŚŽƵƚ Ă ĐůĞĂƌ ĚĞĮŶŝƟŽŶ ŽĨ ǁŚĂƚ ŝƐ ďĞŝŶŐ ĐŽƵŶƚĞĚ ĂƐ ͞ĐŽƐƚ͘͟ dŚĞ ĚĞĮŶŝƟŽŶ ŽĨ ĚŝƌĞĐƚ ĂŶĚ ŝŶĚŝƌĞĐƚ ĐŽƐƚƐ ĐĂŶ ǀĂƌǇ ĨƌŽŵ ĂŐĞŶĐǇ ƚŽ ĂŐĞŶĐǇ͘ dŚĞ ŵŽƐƚ important aspect to understand is that all costs associated with running a program or providing a service ĂƌĞ ŝĚĞŶƟĮĞĚ ĂŶĚ ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚůǇ ĂƉƉůŝĞĚ ĂĐƌŽƐƐ ƚŚĞ ƐǇƐƚĞŵ͘ ŝƌĞĐƚ ĐŽƐƚ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐ Ăůů ƚŚĞ ƐƉĞĐŝĮĐ͕ ŝĚĞŶƟĮĂďůĞ ĞǆƉĞŶƐĞƐ ;ĮǆĞĚ ĂŶĚ ǀĂƌŝĂďůĞͿ ĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚ ǁŝƚŚ ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐ Ă ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ Žƌ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͘ dŚĞƐĞ ĞǆƉĞŶƐĞƐ ǁŽƵůĚ ŶŽƚ ĞǆŝƐƚ ǁŝƚŚŽƵƚ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ Žƌ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ĂŶĚ ŽŌĞŶ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ ĞǆƉŽŶĞŶƟĂůůǇ͘ /ŶĚŝƌĞĐƚ ĐŽƐƚ ĂƌĞ ƚŚŽƐĞ ĐŽƐƚ ƚŚĂƚ ĂƌĞ ŶŽƚ ĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇ ĂƩƌŝďƵƚĂďůĞ ƚŽ Ă ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ Žƌ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ͕ ďƵƚ ĂƌĞ ŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇ ƚŽ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ ƚŚĞ ĞīŽƌƚ ĂŶĚ ĂƌĞ ŝŶĐƵƌƌĞĚ ĨŽƌ Ă ĐŽŵŵŽŶ ŽďũĞĐƟǀĞ͘ For the study, the Department evaluated the direct and indirect costs associated with programs and ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĂƐ ǁĞůů ĂƐ ƉĂƌŬ ĂŶĚ ĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇ ŽƉĞƌĂƟŽŶƐ͘ /ĚĞŶƟĨǇŝŶŐ ĐŽƐƚ ǁĂƐ ŚŝŐŚůǇ ŝŶƚĞŶƐŝǀĞ ĂŶĚ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ Ă ĚĞĞƉ ĚŝǀĞ ŝŶƚŽ ƚŚĞ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͛Ɛ ĮŶĂŶĐŝĂůƐ͘ ůů ƌĞǀĞŶƵĞ ĂŶĚ ĞǆƉĞŶƐĞ ĚĂƚĂ ǁĞƌĞ ĐŽŵƉŝůĞĚ͕ ƚŚĞŶ ƵƉůŽĂĚĞĚ ŝŶƚŽ ŵŝůŝĂ͛Ɛ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ƐŽŌǁĂƌĞ ƚŽŽů͘ ƵƌƌĞŶƚ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ ƌĞƐƵůƚƐ ǁĞƌĞ ƵƐĞĚ ĂƐ ƚŚĞ ďĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĨƌŽŵ ǁŚŝĐŚ ƚŚĞ ĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ ĐĂŶ ũƵƐƟĮĂďůǇ ĂŶĚ ƌĂƟŽŶĂůůǇ ƐĞƚ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ŐŽĂůƐ ĂŶĚ ƚĂƌŐĞƚƐ͘ Table 1 ƐŚŽǁƐ ƚŚĞ ĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ĂĐƌŽƐƐ Ăůů ϭ͕ϮϮϵ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ ĞǀĂůƵĂƚĞĚ͘ Table 1: FY21 Cost Recovery Distribution Page 18 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT 16 Cost Recovery Study According to 2021 NRPA Agency Review the typical parks and recreation agency in the United States recovers 26 percent of its operating expenditures from non-tax revenues. The FY21 cost recovery for the Department was 31 percent. Table 2 is a listing of FY21 Cost Recovery percentages for each Category of Service once programs and services have been assigned to their respective Categories. The percentages listed here are based on the actual costs to provide the service. Table 2: FY21 Cost Recovery by Category of Service Category of Service Current Cost Recovery % T5 - Trips 33% T5 - Private/Semiprivate 32% T5 - Memorial Tree and Bench 70% T5 - Garey House 36% T5 - Concession, Vending, Merchandise 92% T5 - Cemetery Lot 96% T4 - Public Space Permits 26% T4 - Programs Advanced/Competitive 33% T4 - Field Rental 26% T4 - Facility Rental 55% T3 - Senior Programs - Beginner/Intermediate 10% T3 - Park Pavilion Rental 68% T3 - Facility Membership 38% T3 - Garey Park Pass 51% T3 - Family Programs 46% T3 - Drop-in Use 15% T3 - Camps - Specialized 53% T3 - Adult Programs - Beginner/Intermediate 27% T3 - Adult Leagues 54% T3 - Adapted Programs 30% T2 - Youth Programs - Beginner/Intermediate 27% T2 - Youth Leagues 47% T2 - Mobile/Pop-up and Outreach Programs 39% T2 - Camps - General Recreation 48% T1 - Public Education 0% T1 - Non-Monitored Parks, Trails, Open Space Use 0% T1 - Department Produced Public Events 0% Page 19 of 175 17 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study Table 3 ĚŝƐƉůĂǇƐ ƚŚĞ CzϮϭ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ĂŐŐƌĞŐĂƚĞ ĨŽƌ ĞĂĐŚ dŝĞƌ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƉǇƌĂŵŝĚ͘ ĞƚǁĞĞŶ dŝĞƌ Ϯ ĂŶĚ dŝĞƌ ϱ ƚŚĞ ǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞ ŝŶ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ŝƐ ŽŶůǇ ϱ ƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ͘ dŚŝƐ ŝƐ ƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƟǀĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚ ĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚ the Department uses to price programs. The Department has strived to maintain 50-60 percent Cost ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ĂĐƌŽƐƐ Ăůů ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ͘ dŚŝƐ ŐŽĂů ĚŝĚ ŶŽƚ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ĐŽƵŶƟŶŐ ŝŶĚŝƌĞĐƚ ĐŽƐƚ ĂƐ ƚŚĞ ^ƚƵĚǇ ĚŽĞƐ͘ tŝƚŚ ƚŚŝƐ ŝŶ ŵŝŶĚ ƚŚĞ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ ŚĂƐ ďĞĞŶ ƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵů Ăƚ ƌĞĂĐŚŝŶŐ ƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ŐŽĂůƐ͘ Table 3: FY21 Tier Aggregate Tier Revenues Expenses Category CR Actuals Median Service CR T5 $404,051.77 Ψϴϲϱ͕Ϭϲϳ͘ϱϱ 47%35% T4 Ψϰϭϴ͕ϭϯϮ͘ϯϯ Ψϭ͕ϭϱϴ͕Ϭϯϳ͘ϱϮ 36%26% T3 Ψϭ͕ϭϱϯ͕ϴϴϴ͘ϱϬ ΨϮ͕ϴϮϳ͕ϬϮϬ͘ϲϵ 41%34% T2 ΨϯϮϴ͕ϭϳϮ͘Ϭϯ Ψϴϯϯ͕ϮϱϮ͘ϵϱ ϯϵй ϰϵй T1 $6,625.50 Ψϭ͕ϴϱϬ͕ϵϮϱ͘ϰϳ 0%0% Page 20 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT 18 Cost Recovery Study THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 21 of 175 19 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study III. Key Findings and Recommendations The main purpose of this endeavor has been to create a fair, equitable, and transparent approach for ĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ĂĚũƵƐƟŶŐ ĨĞĞƐ ĂŶĚ ĐŚĂƌŐĞƐ͘ ,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ ŝƚ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ďĞ ŶŽƚĞĚ ƚŚĂƚ ĂĚũƵƐƟŶŐ ĨĞĞƐ ŝƐ ŽŶůǇ ŽŶĞ ŵĞĐŚĂŶŝƐŵ ĨŽƌ ŵĞĞƟŶŐ ƚĂƌŐĞƚ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ůĞǀĞůƐ͘ KƚŚĞƌƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ƵƐŝŶŐ ŽƚŚĞƌ ĨƵŶĚŝŶŐ ƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ ;ƐƉŽŶƐŽƌƐŚŝƉƐ͕ ƐĐŚŽůĂƌƐŚŝƉƐ͕ ĚŽŶĂƟŽŶƐ͕ ŐƌĂŶƚƐ͕ ĞƚĐ͘Ϳ͕ ĂŶĚ ĐƌĞĂƟŶŐ ĐŽƐƚ ĞĸĐŝĞŶĐŝĞƐ͘ dŚĞ ĞǆƚĞŶƐŝǀĞ ĞīŽƌƚ ƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶ ĚƵƌŝŶŐ ƚŚŝƐ ƐƚƵĚǇ ŚĂƐ ďƌŽƵŐŚƚ ƚŽ ůŝŐŚƚ ŬĞǇ ĮŶĚŝŶŐƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĂƌĞ ĐƌŝƟĐĂů ƚŽ ĂĚĚƌĞƐƐŝŶŐ ĮŶĂŶĐŝĂů ŐŽĂůƐ͕ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ƚĂƌŐĞƚƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ĨĞĞ ƐĞƫŶŐ ĂŶĚ ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶͲŵĂŬŝŶŐ͘ <ĞǇ ĮŶĚŝŶŐƐ ĂŶĚ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐ have been developed and grouped into the following themes: A. tŽůŝĐǇ ĐƟŽŶƐ B. ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƟǀĞ dĂƐŬ C. ŽƐƚ ^ĂǀŝŶŐƐ ĂŶĚ ZĞǀĞŶƵĞ 'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶ ^ƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ dŚĞ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐ ǁŝůů ĂĐƚ ĂƐ ƚŚĞ ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƟŽŶ ĐĂƚĂůǇƐƚ ĂŶĚ ŝŶƚĞƌŶĂů ǁŽƌŬ ƉůĂŶ͕ ĂŶĚ ĂƌĞ ŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ ƚŽ ŐƵŝĚĞ ŐŽĂůƐ͕ ŽďũĞĐƟǀĞƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶͲŵĂŬŝŶŐ͕ ǁŚŝůĞ ĐƌĞĂƟŶŐ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚǇ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͘ ^ŽŵĞ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐ ĂƌĞ ƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚ ƚŽ ŽĐĐƵƌ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ŶĞĂƌ ĨƵƚƵƌĞ͕ ĂŶĚ ŽƚŚĞƌƐ ǁŝůů ƚĂŬĞ ƟŵĞ ƚŽ ƉƵƚ ŝŶƚŽ ƉůĂĐĞ͘ ^ĞŶƐŝƟǀŝƚǇ ƚŽ ĨĞĞ ƚŽůĞƌĂŶĐĞ ůĞǀĞůƐ ŵƵƐƚ ďĞ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚ ĂƐ ĨĞĞ ĂĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ ĂƌĞ ŵĂĚĞ͘ dŚĞ ĮƌƐƚ ǇĞĂƌ ŽĨ ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƟŽŶ ǁŝůů ĐŽŶƟŶƵĞ ƚŽ ďĞ Ă ůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ ǇĞĂƌ ĂƐ ŵŽƌĞ ĚĂƚĂ ŝƐ ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚ ĂŶĚ analyzed. It is likely that some adjustments will be made during or at the end of year one including: • CƵƌƚŚĞƌ ĐůĂƌŝĮĐĂƟŽŶ Žƌ ĂĚĚŝƟŽŶ ŽĨ ĐĂƚĞŐŽƌŝĞƐ • tŽƐƐŝďůĞ ŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ Ă ĐĂƚĞŐŽƌǇ ƚŽ Ă ŵŽƌĞ ĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ ƟĞƌ • tŽƐƐŝďůĞ ŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ Ă ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ Žƌ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ƚŽ Ă ĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚ ĐĂƚĞŐŽƌǇ • ZĞĂƐƐŝŐŶŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ ĐŽƐƚƐ Žƌ ƌĞĐĂůĐƵůĂƟŽŶ ŽĨ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ůĞǀĞůƐ • ZĞĮŶĞŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ ƚĂƌŐĞƚƐ ďĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ ĂŶǇ Žƌ Ăůů ŽĨ ƚŚĞƐĞ ďƵůůĞƚĞĚ ŝƚĞŵƐ Page 22 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT 20 Cost Recovery Study Cost Recovery Tier Targets After the data collection and import into the Amilia software concluded, staff viewed the agency’s Cost Recovery Tool and the results of the cost-of-service analysis. This data and supplemental reports included the cost to provide (both direct and indirect) each individual service in the system and current Cost Recovery performance results. The Cost Recovery software provided an analysis of where the department is currently and delivered true metrics to help the department move forward in a fiscally responsible manner. Current Cost Recovery performance results will guide the agency in establishing fees and making other informed financial decisions moving forward. The current and target Cost Recovery ranges by Tier are shown in Table 4 below. As costing of services is a very revealing process, realistic and feasible targets have been recommended to align with the pyramid model and also to meet specific financial objectives for Cost Recovery. The following targets ranges are recommended: Table 4: Cost Recovery Tier Targets Tier Current Minimum Goal Range Max Category Cost Recovery vs Range Minimum T5 45%90%100%-45% T4 37%65%89%-28% T3 41%41%70%0% T2 39%11%40%28% T1 0%0%10%0% The Georgetown Pyramid Model with current Cost Recovery by Category of Service is shown in Figure 2. Current Cost Recovery will be refined over the first year of implementation as steps are taken to more accurately account for revenues and expenditures by Category of Service. The Tier aggregate is simply a measure of all of the services on each tier. Page 23 of 175 21 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study CŝŐƵƌĞ Ϯ͗ 'ĞŽƌŐĞƚŽǁŶ tǇƌĂŵŝĚ DŽĚĞů Page 24 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT 22 Cost Recovery Study Policy Actions Table 5: Policy Actions Key Finding One: The Department does not have a comprehensive financial policy regarding Cost Recovery and program pricing 1.1 Seek approval of the proposed Cost Recovery Policy by the Parks Board and City Council. Recommended policy language is provided. 1.2 Recognize the Georgetown Cost Recovery Pyramid (Figure 2) as a fundamental component of the Cost Recovery philosophy. 1.3 Review existing policy and procedure to assure full integration with the overall Cost Recovery philosophy. Key Finding Two: There appears to be an access barrier for scholarship opportunity 2.1 Develop a marketing campaign and written scholarship program guidelines to provide better access, identifying eligibility requirements, allowable uses, and individual and family limits. Employ tracking mechanisms for scholarship use and seek funding sources. Key Finding Three: Partnered Rental Agreements (on-going field and facility use) should be updated to support the Cost Recovery recommendation in this study. Some agreements do not reflect the true nature of the desired partnership 3.1 Develop a Partnership Policy and philosophy to create equity and consistency while maximizing and leveraging resources of the Department. Distinguish partnerships from simple use agreements. The criteria for partnership should establish the premise of a true partnership with the Department, with mutual goals and outcomes desired. Facility use costs should be addressed in the guidelines as a cost of the endeavor and calculated as a value of what the City offers in the partnership. A partnership should not be represented first and foremost as a method of waiving or discounting fees. Page 25 of 175 23 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study $dPLQLstrDtLve 7DsN Table 6: Administrative Task Key Finding Four: Cost accounting at the activity level is challenging 4.1 Further refine the expenses for programs and services and continue to investigate expanding cost accounting functions in Workday, or through Cost Recovery soft- ware solution to create a systemic approach to establishing Cost Recovery levels more efficiently. 4.2 Use Cost Recovery philosophy, model, and policy as a department-wide staff train- ing tool, and incorporate specific recommendations into annual staff work plans as appropriate. Key Findings Five: Deliberate and timely fee setting and adjusting is necessary for a sustainable system. 5.1 Review the performance toward Cost Recovery goals on an annual basis. 5.2 Adjust fees to reflect the Department’s Cost Recovery philosophy, being sensitive to fee tolerance, and implementing over time as necessary. 5.3 Set initial pricing for programs and services at a fee level that considers Cost Recovery targets, market rates and willingness to pay. 5.4 Manage program life-cycles through monitoring registration, attendance figures, and Cost Recovery goals on an ongoing basis. Cancel, retool, and/or replace under-performing services. 5.5 Review all fees for annual adjustments at the staff level and provide an update to City Council through the budget process. All fees should be considered for an annual adjustment in order to keep up with the increasing cost of providing the service. 5.6 Consider the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) when considering price adjustments. The CPI is generally the best measure for adjusting fees when the intent is to allow consumers to purchase at today's prices. Page 26 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT 24 Cost Recovery Study Cost Savings and Revenue Generation Strategies Table 7: Cost Savings and Revenue Generation Strategies Key Finding Six: Low Cost Recovery could be an indicator of high expenses 6.1 Continue to review internal management practices to identify cost savings. Expenses may be minimized through avenues such as restructuring of programs, management efficiencies, and partnering. 6.2 Engage staff in budget development and discussion of annual expense budget and revenue goals. Partner with the Finance Department to provide annual staff training on the budget process. 6.3 Explore alternative funding sources that strategically align with the Department missions including potential partnerships. Page 27 of 175 25 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study <ĞǇ CŝŶĚŝŶŐ ^ĞǀĞŶ͗ dŚĞ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ ŵĞƚŚŽĚ ŽĨ ƐĞƫŶŐ ĨĞĞƐ ŝƐ ŶŽƚ ĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚ ƵƐŝŶŐ Ă ŵĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐǇ ƚŚĂƚ ĂůŝŐŶƐ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ĂŶĚ ƉƌŝĐŝŶŐ ǁŝƚŚ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ ǀĂůƵĞƐ͘ ϳ͘ϭ dŝĞƌ ϱ͗ DŽƐƚůǇ /ŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂů ĞŶĞĮƚϳ͘ϭ͘Ă͘ Tier 5 represents activities determined to provide a very high level of individual benefit. These programs are the least related to the fundamental purpose of the Department, although they complement other activities. For this reason, these categories should require full Cost Recovery. Review the structure of programs in all categories on Tier 5 to increase Cost Recovery to a minimum of 90 percent by 2027. ϳ͘ϭ͘ď͘ 'ĂƌĞǇ ,ŽƵƐĞ ;ƵƌƌĞŶƚ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ϯϲйͿ͗ Garey House is a full-service banquet facility. The fee structure at the Garey House is below market rate and should be evaluated. Annually the Department should benchmark similar sized facilities and increase the fee to the prevailing market rate. While moving from 36 percent to 90 percent cost recovery will take time, it should be noted that FY21 revenue did not reach its full potential due to COVID-19 restrictions. Additionally, it will take time for the recently opened facility to establish itself. It can take 7 to 10 years for a facility to realize its full potential; furthermore, reservations are typically made 9 to 18 months in advance, so increased Cost Recovery will take time to be realized. ϳ͘ϭ͘Đ͘ tƌŝǀĂƚĞͬ^ĞŵŝͲtƌŝǀĂƚĞ ;ƵƌƌĞŶƚ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ϯϮйͿ͗ Most programs in this category are facilitated by contracted instructors. Continued cost of service accounting to accurately align Department staff time for contracted programs is needed. This Service Category also includes the Challenge Course. Cost Recovery for Adventure Programs is 21%. Tier performance should be set to reach a minimum of 90% Cost Recovery by 2027. The Department will need to explore cost avoidance and revenue enhancement strategies, as well as partnerships possibilities or divestment. ϳ͘Ϯ dŝĞƌ ϰ͗ ŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂďůĞ /ŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂů ĞŶĞĮƚϳ͘Ϯ͘Ă͘ The categories of programs on Tier 4 represent considerable individual benefit and should not be reliant on tax resources to support them. Modify program delivery to Increase Tier 4 Cost Recovery to a minimum of 65% by 2027. Page 28 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT 26 Cost Recovery Study Key Finding Seven (cont.) 7.2 Tier 4: Considerable Individual Benefit (cont.) 7.2.b Field Rental (Current Cost Recovery 26%): Current circumstances: A. Total costs associated with providing fields in FY21 was approximately $700,000. B. Total revenue generated in FY21 was less than $200,000. C. Total Cost Recovery ranges from 17 percent to 36 percent, depending on the field and user group. The median Cost Recovery is 23 percent. D. Associations primarily use volunteers to manage programs/services. If they did not exist, the Department would need to manage the programs and services, so a cooperative relationship is highly advantageous to the Department and the community. E. The Department wants Associations to continue to operate these programs, as their volunteers and supplement Department services. Charge a fee that will increase Cost Recovery to 65% over time. A. Ensure 100% of light fees are recovered from all user groups. B. Evaluate and benchmark the all-day field rental rate and consider restructuring. The current rate is over incentivized. C. Develop a stand-alone fee structure for Tournament play. D. Ensure fees for field prep are recouping 100% Cost Recovery and are being applied consistently to Field Use Contracts. E. The GYGSA hourly field rental rate is below the rate of other user groups. The GYGSA rate should be increased $2.00 an hour annually for the next 5 years. The hourly rate should not go below 50 percent of what other users pay for field use. Additionally, the fee GYGSA pays for field lights should be increased to the full rate paid by other users. Page 29 of 175 27 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study <ĞǇ CŝŶĚŝŶŐ ^ĞǀĞŶ ;ĐŽŶƚ͘Ϳ ϳ͘Ϯ dŝĞƌ ϰ͗ ŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂďůĞ /ŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂů ĞŶĞĮƚ ;ĐŽŶƚ͘Ϳ ϳ͘Ϯ͘Đ CĂĐŝůŝƚǇ ZĞŶƚĂů ;ƵƌƌĞŶƚ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ϱϱйͿ͗ Current circumstances: A. Total costs associated with providing facility and pool rentals in FY21 was $413,988. B. Total revenue generated in FY21 was $228,712. Over 70% of the revenue is generated from the Community Center. C. Cost Recovery ranges from 15 percent to 100 percent, depending on the facility and user group. The median Cost Recovery is 21 percent. D. Facility Rental fees at the Recreation Center have not increased since 2009. E. Cost Recovery for aquatic rentals is driving the overall Cost Recovery of the Category of Service down. Cost Recovery associated with a pool or lane rental is 15%. Expenses exceed $300,000 and Revenue is less than $50,000 annually. Implement fee adjustments that will increase the Tier aggregate Cost Recovery to 65 percent by 2027. A. Benchmark similar sized rental facilities to determine if current fee structure is at market rate. Consider moderate fee increases for buildings and pools. B. Increase the number of rentals at the Recreation Center by creating “peak” and “off-peak” pricing. C. Continue the annual incremental increase of the hourly rate paid by the Swim Teams to cover increasing cost of operations and staffing to meet Cost Recovery objectives. Consider a differential rate at the Williams Drive Pool due to the additional staffing requirement. Evaluate and benchmark the fee charged for swim meets. Consider moving from an all-day rental rate to an hourly rate. The current rate is over incentivized. Page 30 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT 28 Cost Recovery Study Key Finding Seven (cont.) 7.3 Tier 3: Balanced Individual and Community Benefit 7.3.a. Tier 3 has variety of programs and services, and a large capacity for volume, which results in an acceptable aggregate Cost Recovery level for the tier. However, within each Category of Service, there are areas that suggest a closer look at program structure, consistency, and refinement of cost accounting. 7.3.b. Facility Membership (Current Cost Recovery 38%): A. Membership rates have not been increased at the Recreation Center or Tennis Center since 2014. Evaluate the structure and rates of similar, neighboring facilities. Consider implementing the following to reach and maintain a minimum of 41% Cost Recovery: B. Eliminate the “Membership” concept and fee structure in favor of an “Admissions” and “Passes” concept. Membership implies restrictions and public agencies are moving away from this concept; all Georgetown residents are “members” of all facilities as age appropriate. Evaluate and update Admission pricing structure: A. Simplify and mimic admission structure at all facilities (daily, monthly, summer, annual passes etc.). B. Passes or daily admissions should be facility-specific (Tennis Center, Pools, or Recreation Center). C. Increase the age of a Senior from 55 to 60. D. Implement an auto renew process for passes. E. Move forward with fee increases for admission and passes if supported through benchmarking assessment. F. Institute a 5% fee increase to occur every 3 years. 7.3.c. Drop-in Use (Current Cost Recovery 15%) Cost Recovery for this category is driven by drop-in use at the Tennis Center. Few programs at the Recreation Center were categorized as Drop-in Use. Current circumstance for drop in use at the Tennis Center: A. Total costs associated with Tennis Center drop-in use in FY21 was $79,021. B. Total revenue generated for drop-in use at the Tennis Center in FY21 was $19,966. C. Cost Recovery for drop-in use at the Tennis Center is 25 percent. D. The current two-dollar drop-in fee has not increased since 1999. Increase the drop-in rate at the Tennis Center: A. The cumulative inflation from 1999 to date is 68% percent. If the fee would have kept up with inflation it would be $3.38. It is recommended that the drop-in rate be increased to $2.50. This adjustment will increase Cost Recovery for drop-in use at the Tennis Center to approximately 32 percent. The proposed fee is equivalent to other area service providers. Page 31 of 175 29 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study <ĞǇ CŝŶĚŝŶŐ ^ĞǀĞŶ ;ĐŽŶƚ͘Ϳ ϳ͘ϰ dŝĞƌ Ϯ͗ ŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂďůĞ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ ĞŶĞĮƚ ͬdŝĞƌ ϭ͗ ŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂďůĞ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ ĞŶĞĮƚ ϳ͘ϰ͘Ă Focus the use of General Fund Subsidy on those activities, primarily found in Tier 1 and Tier 2 of the Pyramid Model, that provide mostly community benefit to the taxpayers of the City. ϳ͘ϱ Continue to provide ongoing opportunities for community input. In order to gauge perceptions about programs and service over time, a survey or similar tool may be used. Surveys should be administered at least every other year. ϳ͘ϲ Cost Recovery targets may need refinement over the first year of implementation, so preliminary targets should be re-evaluated prior to year two. These targets are set to be in addition to what is needed just to keep up with inflationary expenses and will have to be carefully considered in the wake of the impact of COVID-19. Page 32 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT 30 Cost Recovery Study Suggested Policy Language A formal policy regarding pricing and Cost Recovery levels for services does not exist. This begins with a foundational statement of policy that articulates the philosophical underpinnings and addresses the financing and service provision strategies by looking at them through a different lens. The following overarching policy language is suggested. As a publicly financed park system, the Georgetown Parks and Recreation Department provides a basic level of Parks and Recreation services for the public, funded by tax dollars. However, fees and charges and other methods to recover costs are considered a responsible and necessary means to supplement tax revenue and regulate park use where appropriate. Critical to the success of service delivery is affordability, fairness, and equity. It is the intent of this policy to ensure that the approach in the use of tax dollars as well as alternative forms of revenue will result in these qualities. In establishing fees and charges, the Department will determine the costs of providing services based on an identified and consistently applied methodology. This calculated cost will be used to measure current and future levels of Cost Recovery and to help establish appropriate Cost Recovery goals to support services. The appropriate level of Cost Recovery will be based on an assessment of who is benefiting from the service provided. If the benefit is to the community as a whole, it is appropriate to use taxpayer dollars to completely, or primarily fund the service. Examples of services that primarily provide community benefits are trails, play areas, parks, and signature community events. The Cost Recovery goals are used to establish and/or adjust fees to reach these goals. As the benefit is increasingly offered to an individual or select group of individuals, it is appropriate to charge fees for the service at a decreasing level of subsidy and an increasing rate of Cost Recovery. Supervised or instructed programs, facilities, and equipment that visitors can use exclusively, as well as products and services that may be consumed, provide examples where fees are appropriate. The Department shall also consider available resources, public need, public acceptance, and the community economic climate when establishing fees and charges. In cases where certain programs and facilities are highly specialized by activity and design, and appeal to a select user group, the Department shall additionally consider fees charged by alternative service providers or market rates. The Department may further subsidize services for persons with economic need or other targeted populations, as allowable, through tax-supported fee reductions, scholarships, grants, or other methods. Page 33 of 175 31 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study IV. Conclusion dŚŝƐ ƐƚƵĚǇ ŚĂƐ ďĞĞŶ ĂŶ ĞǆĂŵŝŶĂƟŽŶ ŽĨ Ăůů ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ ĂŶĚ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĨƌŽŵ Ă ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ƉĞƌƐƉĞĐƟǀĞ͘ <ŶŽǁŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ ƐƚĂƚƵƐ ĂůůŽǁƐ ƚŚĞ ƐĞƫŶŐ ŽĨ ƐƉĞĐŝĮĐ ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ĨƵƚƵƌĞ͘ /Ŷ ĂĚĚŝƟŽŶ ƚŽ ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ŽƚŚĞƌ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐ ǀĂůƵĂďůĞ ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌƐ ŽĨ ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ ƚŚĂƚ ŵƵƐƚ ďĞ considered as well. dŚŝƐ ĮƌƐƚ ǇĞĂƌ ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƟŽŶ ǁŝůů ĂůůŽǁ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƟŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƉŚŝůŽƐŽƉŚǇ ĂŶĚ ƉŽůŝĐǇ͕ ĂŶĚ ĂĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ ĨĞĞƐ ĂƐ ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞĚ ďǇ ƚŚĞ DŽĚĞů͘ /ƚ ǁŝůů ĂůƐŽ ĂůůŽǁ ĨŽƌ ƐƚĂī ƚŽ ƐĞĞ ƚŚĞ ŝŵƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶƐ ĨŽƌ ŽǀĞƌĂůů ŽƐƚ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ͖ ŝĚĞŶƟĨǇ ĂŶǇ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇ ƵŶŬŶŽǁŶ ŵĂƌŬĞƚ͕ ŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂů͕ ĂŶĚ ƉŽůŝƟĐĂů ĮůƚĞƌƐ͖ ĂŶĚ ĂůůŽǁ ƐƚĂī ƚŽ experience using the methodology. ,ĂǀŝŶŐ ďƌŽŬĞŶ ĚŽǁŶ ƚŚĞ ĮŶĂŶĐŝĂů ƉŝĐƚƵƌĞ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ĂĐƟǀŝƚǇ ůĞǀĞů ǁŝůů ĂůůŽǁ Ăůů ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ ƐƚĂī ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞ ĨŽƌ ďƵĚŐĞƟŶŐ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ƚŚĞǇ ĚĞůŝǀĞƌ ƚŽ ďĞ ƉƌŽĂĐƟǀĞůǇ ĞŶŐĂŐĞĚ ŝŶ ƌĞĂĐŚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ĚĞƐŝƌĞĚ ƌĞƐƵůƚ͘ dŚĞ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ ǁŝůů ŶĞĞĚ ƚŽ ƌĞŵĂŝŶ ŇĞǆŝďůĞ ŝŶ ƌĞĮŶŝŶŐ ƚĂƌŐĞƚƐ ĂƐ ƐǇƐƚĞŵƐ ĨŽƌ ƚƌĂĐŬŝŶŐ ĞǆƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐ ǁŝůů ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ Ă ŵŽƌĞ ĂĐĐƵƌĂƚĞ ƉŝĐƚƵƌĞ ĂƐ ĞĂĐŚ ǇĞĂƌ ŐŽĞƐ ďǇ͕ ĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůǇ ƚŚĞ ƐŚŝŌ ĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞ ĮƌƐƚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ƐĞĐŽŶĚ ǇĞĂƌ͘ dŚĞ tǇƌĂŵŝĚ ŵŽĚĞů ŚĂƐ ĂůůŽǁĞĚ ƚŚĞ ĂůŝŐŶŝŶŐ ŽĨ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ďĞŶĞĮƚƐ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ĨŽƌŵ ŽĨ ƌĞǀĞŶƵĞ ďĞƐƚ suited to support the service whether taxes, fees, or other forms of revenue. It has been our pleasure to assist the City of Georgetown and work with the Department to support its ĮƐĐĂů ŚĞĂůƚŚ ĂŶĚ ƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚǇ͘പ Page 34 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT 32 Cost Recovery Study32 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 35 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study The GreenPlay Pyramid Methodology, used in the development of the Subsidy ĂŶĚ ZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞ ůůŽĐĂƟŽŶ DŽĚĞů͕ ŝƐ ďƵŝůƚ ŽŶ Ă ĨŽƵŶĚĂƟŽŶ ŽĨ ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐ who ŝƐ ďĞŶĞĮƟŶŐ ĨƌŽŵ ƉĂƌŬ ĂŶĚ ƌĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ƚŽ ĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞ how the costs for service should be paid. The Model illustrates a pricing philosophy based on establishing fees ĐŽŵŵĞŶƐƵƌĂƚĞ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ďĞŶĞĮƚ ƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚ͘ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƟŽŶƐ ƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐ ĞĂĐŚ ůĞǀĞů of the pyramid are provided; however, the model is intended as a discussion point and is very dependent on agency philosophies to determine what programs and services belong on each level. Cultural, regional, geographical, ĂŶĚ ƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞ ĚŝīĞƌĞŶĐĞƐ ƉůĂǇ Ă ůĂƌŐĞ ƌŽůĞ ŝŶ ƚŚŝƐ ĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƟŽŶ͘ dŚĞ ƌĞƐƵůƟŶŐ pyramid is unique to each agency that applies this methodology. ƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƉǇƌĂŵŝĚ ŵĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐǇ ďĞŐŝŶƐ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƟŽŶ͕ ďƵƚ ŵƵƐƚ ĂůƐŽ ĂĚĚƌĞƐƐ ŽƚŚĞƌ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƟŽŶƐ͗ •tŚŽ ďĞŶĞĮƚƐ ĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ Ͳ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ ŝŶ ŐĞŶĞƌĂů͕ Žƌ ŽŶůǇ ƚŚĞ ŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂů Žƌ ŐƌŽƵƉ ƌĞĐĞŝǀŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ service? •ŽĞƐ ƚŚĞ ŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂů Žƌ ŐƌŽƵƉ ƌĞĐĞŝǀŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞ ƚŚĞ ŶĞĞĚ ;ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ ƚŚĞ ĐŽƐƚͿ ŽĨ ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐ the service? •tŝůů ŝŵƉŽƐŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ĨƵůů ĐŽƐƚ ĨĞĞ ƉŽƐĞ Ă ŚĂƌĚƐŚŝƉ ŽŶ ƐƉĞĐŝĮĐ ƵƐĞƌƐ͍ ;dŚĞ ĂďŝůŝƚǇ ƚŽ ƉĂǇ ŝƐ ĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚ ƚŚĂŶƚŚĞ ďĞŶĞĮƚ ĂŶĚ ǀĂůƵĞ ŽĨ Ă ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͕ ĂĐƟǀŝƚǇ͕ Žƌ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ͕ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ďĞ ĚĞĂůƚ ǁŝƚŚ ĚƵƌŝŶŐ ƚŚĞŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƟŽŶ ƉŚĂƐĞ ŽĨ ƉƌŝĐŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ŵĂƌŬĞƟŶŐ͘Ϳ •Ž ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ ǀĂůƵĞƐ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ ƚĂǆƉĂǇĞƌ ŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ĐŽƐƚ ŽĨ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ĨŽƌ ŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůƐ ǁŝƚŚ ƐƉĞĐŝĂů ŶĞĞĚƐ;ĨŽƌ ĞǆĂŵƉůĞ͕ ƉĞŽƉůĞ ǁŝƚŚ ĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƟĞƐ Žƌ ůŽǁͲŝŶĐŽŵĞͿ͍ •tŝůů ƚŚĞ ůĞǀĞů ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĨĞĞ ĂīĞĐƚ ƚŚĞ ĚĞŵĂŶĚ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ͍ •Is it possible and desirable to manage demand for a service by changing the level of the fee? •ƌĞ ƚŚĞƌĞ ĐŽŵƉĞƟŶŐ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƌƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ƉƵďůŝĐ Žƌ ƉƌŝǀĂƚĞ ƐĞĐƚŽƌ͍ THE PYRAMID METHODOLOGY The application of the model is broken down into the following steps: Step 1: ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ŽŶ ǇŽƵƌ ŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƟŽŶ͛Ɛ ǀĂůƵĞƐ͕ ǀŝƐŝŽŶ͕ ĂŶĚ ŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ Step 2: hŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ tǇƌĂŵŝĚ DĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐǇ͕ ƚŚĞ ďĞŶĞĮƚƐ ĮůƚĞƌ͕ ĂŶĚ ƐĞĐŽŶĚĂƌǇ ĮůƚĞƌƐ Step 3: ĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƟŽŶ͛Ɛ ĂƚĞŐŽƌŝĞƐ ŽĨ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ Step 4: ^ŽƌƟŶŐ ƚŚĞ ĂƚĞŐŽƌŝĞƐ ŽĨ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ ŽŶƚŽ ƚŚĞ tǇƌĂŵŝĚ Step 5͗ ĞĮŶŝŶŐ ŝƌĞĐƚ ĂŶĚ /ŶĚŝƌĞĐƚ ŽƐƚƐ Step 6: ĞƚĞƌŵŝŶŝŶŐ ;Žƌ ĐŽŶĮƌŵŝŶŐͿ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ ƚĂǆ ŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚͬĐŽƐƚ Step 7: ƐƚĂďůŝƐŚŝŶŐ ƚĂǆ ŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ ŐŽĂůƐͬƐƵďƐŝĚǇ ůĞǀĞů ƚĂƌŐĞƚƐ Step 8: hŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ƉƌĞƉĂƌŝŶŐ ĨŽƌ ŝŶŇƵĞŶƟĂů ĨĂĐƚŽƌƐ ĂŶĚ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƟŽŶƐ Step 9: /ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƟŽŶ Step 10: ǀĂůƵĂƟŽŶ 33 Appendix A Page 36 of 175 Step 1: Building on Your Organization’s Values, Vision, and Mission Critical to this philosophical undertaking is the support and buy-in of elected officials and advisory board members, staff, and ultimately, citizens. Whether or not significant changes are called for, the organization should be certain that it philosophically aligns with its constituents. The financial resource allocation philosophy and policy is built upon a very logical foundation based upon the theory that those who benefit from parks and recreation services ultimately pay for them. Envision a pyramid sectioned horizontally into five levels: Step 2: Understanding the Pyramid Methodology and Filters The philosophy and policy are key components to maintaining an agency’s financial control, equitably pricing offerings, and helping to identify core services including programs and facilities. The principle of the Pyramid is the Benefits Filter. The base level of the pyramid represents the core services of a public parks and recreation system. Services appropriate to higher levels of the pyramid should only be offered when the preceding levels below are comprehensive enough to provide a foundation for the next level. The foundation and upward progression are intended to represent public parks and recreation’s core mission, while also reflecting the growth and maturity of an organization as it enhances its service offerings. 3434 Page 37 of 175 MOSTLY COMMUNITY Benefit Level One is the foundation of the pyramid and therefore the largest, and encompasses those services, including programs and facilities, that MOSTLY benefit the COMMUNITY as a whole. These services may increase property values, provide safety, address social needs, and enhance quality of life for residents. The community generally pays for these basic services via tax support and they are generally offered to residents at a minimal charge or with no fee. A large percentage of the agency’s tax support funds this level. Examples of these services could include: the existence of the community parks and recreation system (park maintenance), the ability to visit facilities on an informal basis, park and facility planning and design. NOTE: All examples given are generic – individual agencies vary in their determination of which services belong on which level of the Pyramid based upon agency values, vision, mission, demographics, goals, etc. CONSIDERABLE COMMUNITY Benefit Level Two represents services that promote community and individual physical and mental well-being, and may begin to provide skill development. They are generally traditionally expected services and/or beginner instructional levels. These services are typically assigned fees based upon a specified percentage of direct (and may also include indirect) costs. These costs are partially offset by both a tax investment to account for CONSIDERABLE COMMUNITY benefit and participant fees to account for the Individual benefit received from the service. Examples of these services could include: staffed facility and park use, therapeutic recreation programs and services, senior services, etc. BALANCED INDIVIDUAL/COMMUNITY Benefit Level Three represents services promoting individual physical and mental well-being and providing an intermediate level of skill development. There is a more balanced INDIVIDUAL and COMMUNITY benefit and should be priced accordingly. The individual fee is set to recover a higher percentage of cost than those services falling within lower Pyramid levels. Examples of these services could include: summer recreational day camp, youth sports leagues, summer swim team, etc. 35Page 38 of 175 CONSIDERABLE INDIVIDUAL Benefit Level Four represents specialized services geared toward individuals and specific groups, and services that may have a competitive focus. These are not highly subsidized and may be priced to recover full cost, including all direct expenses. Examples of these services could include: Trips, advanced level classes, competitive leagues, etc. MOSTLY INDIVIDUAL Benefit At the top of the Pyramid, Level Five represents services that have potential to generate revenues above costs, may be in the same market space as the private sector, or may fall outside the primary mission of the agency. In this level, services should not be supported by subsidy, should be priced to recover full cost, and may generate revenue in excess of cost. Examples of these activities could include: Private lessons, company picnic rentals, other facility rentals for weddings or other services, concessions and merchandise for resale, restaurant services, etc. Step 3: Developing the Organization’s Categories of Service Prior to sorting programs and services onto the Pyramid, each must be reviewed, analyzed, and sifted through to create the agency’s Categories of Services, including definitions and examples. “Narrowing down” facilities, programs, and services and placing them in categories (groups of like or similar service) that best fit their descriptions, allows a reasonable number of items to be sorted onto the pyramid tiers using the Individual and Community Benefit filter. There is not a pre-determined number of categories, however, ultimately every program and service offered must fit within a category, so carefully naming, describing, distinguishing, and providing examples for each category is critical to a successful effort. 36 Page 39 of 175 Step 4: Sorting the Categories of Service onto the Pyramid The sorting process is where ownership is created for the philosophy, while participants discover the current and possibly varied operating histories, cultures, missions, and values of the organization. The process develops consensus and allows everyone to land on the same page. The effort must reflect the community and align with the mission of the agency. The sorting process is a challenging step led by objective and impartial facilitators in order to hear all viewpoints. The process generates discussion and debate as participants discover what others have to say about serving the community; about adults versus youth versus seniors; about advanced versus intermediate and beginning programs; about special events; athletic fields; and rentals involving the general public, non-profit and for-profit entities; etc. It is important to push through the “what” to the “why” to find common ground. There is also the consideration of additional filters (discussed in Step 8), which often hold a secondary significance in determining placement on the Cost Recovery Pyramid. Step 5: Defining Costs The definition of direct and indirect costs can vary from agency to agency. The most important aspect is that all costs associated with directly running a program or providing a service are identified and consistently applied across the system. Direct costs typically include the specific, identifiable expenses associated with providing a service. These expenses would not exist without the service and may be fixed or variable costs. Indirect costs are costs shared among services. It is up to each agency to determine how best to allocate indirect costs, and the default is often the consequence of the agency’s accounting software’s ability to track and assign costs at the programmatic level. Step 6: Determining (or Confirming) Current Tax Investment/Subsidy Levels The agency will confirm or determine current subsidy allocation levels by category of services based upon the definition of costs. Results of this step identify what it costs to provide services to the community, whether staff has the capacity or resources necessary to account for and track costs, whether accurate cost recovery levels can be identified, and whether cost centers or general ledger line items align with how the agency may want to track these costs in the future. Staff may not be cost accounting consistently, and these inconsistencies become apparent. 37Page 40 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study Step 7: Establishing Cost Recovery/Tax Investment Targets dŚĞ ƐƚĞƉƐ ƚŚƵƐ ĨĂƌ ǁŽƌŬ ƚŽ ĂůŝŐŶ ǁŚŽ ŝƐ ďĞŶĞĮƟŶŐ ĨƌŽŵ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ ĂŶĚ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ ŽĨ ĨƵŶĚŝŶŐ ƵƐĞĚ ƚŽ ƉĂǇ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞŵ͘ dŚĞ ƚĂǆ ŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ ŝƐ ƵƐĞĚ ŝŶ ŐƌĞĂƚĞƌ ĂŵŽƵŶƚƐ Ăƚ ƚŚĞ ďŽƩŽŵ ůĞǀĞůƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƉǇƌĂŵŝĚ͕ ƌĞŇĞĐƟŶŐ ƚŚĞ ďĞŶĞĮƚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ ĂƐ Ă ǁŚŽůĞ͘ Ɛ ƚŚĞ ƉǇƌĂŵŝĚ ŝƐ ĐůŝŵďĞĚ͕ ƚŚĞ ƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ ŽĨ ƚĂǆ ŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ ĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞƐ͕ ĂŶĚ Ăƚ ƚŚĞ ƚŽƉ ůĞǀĞůƐ͕ ŝƚ ŵĂǇ ŶŽƚ ďĞ ƵƐĞĚ Ăƚ Ăůů͕ ƌĞŇĞĐƟŶŐ ƚŚĞ /ŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂů ďĞŶĞĮƚ͘ dĂƌŐĞƚƐ ƚĂŬĞ ŝŶƚŽ ĂĐĐŽƵŶƚ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ ƐƵďƐŝĚǇ ůĞǀĞůƐ͘ Ɛ ĐŽƐƟŶŐ ŽĨ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĂŶĚ ŵĂƚĐŚŝŶŐ ƌĞǀĞŶƵĞƐ ŝƐ Ă ǀĞƌǇ ƌĞǀĞĂůŝŶŐ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͕ ƌĞĂůŝƐƟĐ ĂŶĚ ĨĞĂƐŝďůĞ ƚĂƌŐĞƚƐ ĂƌĞ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚ ƚŽ ĂůŝŐŶ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ƉǇƌĂŵŝĚ ŵŽĚĞů ĂŶĚ ĂůƐŽ ƚŽ ŵĞĞƚ ƐƉĞĐŝĮĐ ĮŶĂŶĐŝĂů ŽďũĞĐƟǀĞƐ ĨŽƌ ƌĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ŽĨ ĚŝƌĞĐƚ ĂŶĚ ŝŶĚŝƌĞĐƚ ĐŽƐƚ͘ dŚĞƐĞ ƚĂƌŐĞƚƐ ǁŝůů ďĞ ŝĚĞŶƟĮĞĚ ĨŽƌ ĞĂĐŚ ƟĞƌ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĂŐĞŶĐǇ͛Ɛ tǇƌĂŵŝĚ DŽĚĞů͘ Step 8: Understanding and Preparing for Influential Factors and Considerations /ŶŚĞƌĞŶƚ ƚŽ ƐŽƌƟŶŐ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ ŽŶƚŽ ƚŚĞ tǇƌĂŵŝĚ DŽĚĞů ƵƐŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ĞŶĞĮƚƐ ĂŶĚ ŽƚŚĞƌ ĮůƚĞƌƐ ŝƐ ƚŚĞ ƌĞĂůŝǌĂƟŽŶ ƚŚĂƚ other factors come into play. This can result in decisions to ƉůĂĐĞ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ŝŶ ŽƚŚĞƌ ůĞǀĞůƐ ƚŚĂŶ ŵŝŐŚƚ ĮƌƐƚ ďĞ ƚŚŽƵŐŚƚ͘ These factors can aid in determining core services ǀĞƌƐƵƐ ĂŶĐŝůůĂƌǇ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͘ dŚĞƐĞ ŵĂǇ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂŶƚ ĐŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚ͕ ƚƌĞŶĚƐ͕ ƉŽůŝƟĐĂů ŝƐƐƵĞƐ͕ ŵĂƌŬĞƟŶŐ͕ ƌĞůĂƟǀĞ ĐŽƐƚ ƚŽ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ ƚŚĞ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ;ĐŽƐƚ ƉĞƌ ƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂŶƚͿ͕ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ ĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ĮŶĂŶĐŝĂů ŐŽĂůƐ͘ Step 9: Implementation dŚĞ ĂŐĞŶĐǇ ƐĞƚƐ ŐŽĂůƐ ďĂƐĞĚ ƵƉŽŶ ŝƚƐ ŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͕ ƐƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌ ŝŶƉƵƚ͕ ĨƵŶĚŝŶŐ͕ ĂŶĚͬŽƌ ŽƚŚĞƌ ĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂ͘ ŽŵƉůĞƟŽŶ ŽĨ ƐƚĞƉƐ ϭͲϴ ƉŽƐŝƟŽŶ ƚŚĞ ĂŐĞŶĐǇ ƚŽ ŝůůƵƐƚƌĂƚĞ ĂŶĚ ĂƌƟĐƵůĂƚĞ ǁŚĞƌĞ ŝƚ ŚĂƐ ďĞĞŶ ĂŶĚ ǁŚĞƌĞ ŝƚ ŝƐ ŚĞĂĚŝŶŐ ĨƌŽŵ Ă ĮŶĂŶĐŝĂů ƉĞƌƐƉĞĐƟǀĞ͘ ^ŽŵĞ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐ ĂƌĞ ƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚ ƚŽ ŽĐĐƵƌ ŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇ͕ ĂŶĚ ŽƚŚĞƌƐ ǁŝůů ƚĂŬĞ ƟŵĞ ƚŽ ƉƵƚ ŝŶƚŽ ƉůĂĐĞ͕ ǁŚŝůĞ ƐŽŵĞ ǁŝůů ďĞ ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚ ŝŶĐƌĞŵĞŶƚĂůůǇ͘ /ƚ ŝƐ ŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ that fee change tolerance levels are considered. Step 10: Evaluation dŚŝƐ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ ŝƐ ƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶ ƚŽ ĂƌƟĐƵůĂƚĞ Ă ƉŚŝůŽƐŽƉŚǇ͕ ƚƌĂŝŶ ƐƚĂī ŽŶ Ă ďĞƐƚ ƉƌĂĐƟĐĞ ŽŶŐŽŝŶŐ ĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚ ƚŽ ƐƵďƐŝĚŝǌŝŶŐ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ŝŶ ƉƵďůŝĐ ƉĂƌŬƐ ĂŶĚ ƌĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ͕ ĂŶĚ ĞŶŚĂŶĐĞ ĮŶĂŶĐŝĂů ƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚǇ͘ tĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐ ĂƌĞ ĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ƐƵďƐŝĚǇ ůĞǀĞů ƚĂƌŐĞƚƐ͕ ƐƉĞĐŝĮĐ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐ ĂƌĞ ŵĂĚĞ ĨŽƌ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĨŽƵŶĚ ƚŽ ďĞ ŽƵƚ ŽĨ ĂůŝŐŶŵĞŶƚ͕ ĂŶĚ ĞǀĂůƵĂƟŽŶ ŽĨ ŐŽĂů ĂƩĂŝŶŵĞŶƚ ŝƐ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚ ƚŽ ƚĂŬĞ ƉůĂĐĞ ĂŶŶƵĂůůǇ͘ 38 Page 41 of 175 39 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study Appendix B ĂƚĞŐŽƌǇ ŽĨ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ dŝĞƌ ĞĮŶŝƟŽŶ ǆĂŵƉůĞƐ ƩƌĂĐƟŽŶƐ ϱ Ŷ ĂĚŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ĞŶƟƚůŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ƵƐĞƌ ƚŽ ĂĐĐĞƐƐ ĂŶ ĂƩƌĂĐƟŽŶͬƉĂƌŬͬĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇͬĂĐƟǀŝƚǇ ƚŚĂƚ ŝƐ ĞŝƚŚĞƌ ƌĞŐŝƐƚĞƌĞĚ Žƌ ǁĂůŬ ƵƉ ĂŶĚ ŝƐ ĂĐƟǀĞůǇ ŵĂŶĂŐĞĚ͕ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĞĚ͕ Žƌ ĂƩĞŶĚĞĚ ďǇ ĂŐĞŶĐǇ ƐƚĂī Žƌ ǀŽůƵŶƚĞĞƌƐ ŚĂůůĞŶŐĞ ŽƵƌƐĞ ŽƉĞŶ ƉůĂǇ͕ <ĂǇĂŬ ZĞŶƚĂůƐ ĞŵĞƚĞƌǇ >Žƚ ^ĂůĞƐ ĂŶĚ >ŽĐĂƚĞƐ ϱ tƌŽǀŝĚĞ ĐĞŵĞƚĞƌǇ ůŽƚ ƐĂůĞƐ͕ ůŽƚ ůŽĐĂƚĞƐ͕ ƌĞĐŽƌĚƐ ƌĞƚĞŶƟŽŶ ĂŶĚ ŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ /KKC ĞŵĞƚĞƌǇ͘ ƐƐŝƐƚ D ǁŝƚŚ ůŽƚ ůŽĐĂƚĞƐ ƌĞĐŽƌĚƐ ƌĞƚĞŶƟŽŶ ĂŶĚ ŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ ŽĨ ŝƟǌĞŶ͛Ɛ DĞŵŽƌŝĂů Cemetery. Cemetery lot sales and locates ŽŶĐĞƐƐŝŽŶ͕ sĞŶĚŝŶŐ͕ DĞƌĐŚĂŶĚŝƐĞ ϱ CŽŽĚ͕ ďĞǀĞƌĂŐĞ ĂŶĚ ŵĞƌĐŚĂŶĚŝƐĞ ĐŽŶǀĞǇĞĚ ƚŽ ŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůƐ ĨŽƌ ƵƐĞ Žƌ ĐŽŶƐƵŵƉƟŽŶ͘ DĂǇ ďĞ ĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚĞĚ Žƌ ƐĞůĨͲŽƉĞƌĂƚĞĚ͘ sĞŶĚŝŶŐ Ăƚ ZĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ ĞŶƚĞƌ ĂŶĚ dĞŶŶŝƐ ĞŶƚĞƌ͘ tŽŝŶƚ ŽĨ ^ĂůĞ Ăƚ ƚŚĞ ZĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ ĞŶƚĞƌ͕ dĞŶŶŝƐ ĞŶƚĞƌ͕ ĂŶĚ 'ĂƌĞǇ tĂƌŬ CŽŽĚ dƌƵĐŬƐ͕ concessions at VFW and McMasters ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ ZĞŶƚĂůƐ ϱ sĂƌŝŽƵƐ ĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚͲŽǁŶĞĚ ĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ ĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ ƚŽ ƌĞŶƚĞƌƐ ĨŽƌ ĞǆĐůƵƐŝǀĞ ƵƐĞDŝĐƌŽƉŚŽŶĞƐ͕ ds͛Ɛ͕ tƌŽũĞĐƚŽƌƐ͕ Ăůů DĂĐŚŝŶĞ͕ Ăůů ĂƐŬĞƚƐ͕ Kayaks 'ĂƌĞǇ ,ŽƵƐĞ CƵůůͲ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ ZĞŶƚĂůƐ ϱ CƵůůͲƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇ ƌĞŶƚĂů ƚŚĂƚ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐ ƚŚĞ ƉƌĞƐĞŶĐĞ ŽĨ ƐƚĂī ĂŶĚ ŝŶƚĞƌŶĂů ĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƟŽŶ͘ 'ĂƌĞǇ ,ŽƵƐĞ ǁĞĚĚŝŶŐƐͬĞǀĞŶƚƐ DĞŵŽƌŝĂů dƌĞĞ ĂŶĚ ĞŶĐŚ ϱ ŽŶĂƟŽŶ ŽĨ ŵĞŵŽƌŝĂů ƚƌĞĞƐ ĂŶĚ ďĞŶĐŚĞƐ ĨƌŽŵ ŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůƐ͘ Memorial trees and ďĞŶĐŚĞƐ ƉůĂĐĞĚ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ ƉĂƌŬƐ͘ Party Packages ϱ /ŶĐůƵĚĞƐ ĂŶ ŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĞĚ ĂĐƟǀŝƚǇ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ ďǇ ƐƚĂī ĂƐ ǁĞůů ĂƐ ƵƐĞ ŽĨ ƐƉĂĐĞ͖ ĐŽƵůĚ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ĨŽŽĚ͕ ĐĂŬĞ͕ ĚĞĐŽƌĂƟŽŶƐ͕ ĞŶƚĞƌƚĂŝŶŵĞŶƚ͕ ĂŶĚ ĨĂǀŽƌƐ ZĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ ĞŶƚĞƌ ǀĞŶƚ ZŽŽŵ tƌŝǀĂƚĞͬ^ĞŵŝͲtƌŝǀĂƚĞ >ĞƐƐŽŶƐ ϱ >ĞƐƐŽŶƐ ĂƌƌĂŶŐĞĚ ĨŽƌ ŽŶĞ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚ͕ Žƌ Ă ƉƌŝǀĂƚĞ ŐƌŽƵƉ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ ǁŝƚŚ Ă ƐƉĞĐŝĮĐ ŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŽƌ ĂŶĚͬŽƌ ƟŵĞ ƚŚůĞƟĐ dƌĂŝŶŝŶŐ͕ tĞƌƐŽŶĂů dƌĂŝŶŝŶŐ͕ dĞŶŶŝƐ tƌŝǀĂƚĞƐ͕ tŝĐŬůĞďĂůů tƌŝǀĂƚĞƐ͕ tƌŝǀĂƚĞ ^ǁŝŵ >ĞƐƐŽŶƐ͕ ĂŶĐĞ >ĞƐƐŽŶƐ͕ ŽŵƉƵƚĞƌ >ĞƐƐŽŶƐ dƌŝƉƐ ϱ ĂǇ͕ ŽǀĞƌŶŝŐŚƚ͕ ĂŶĚ ĞǆƚĞŶĚĞĚ ƚƌŝƉƐ ƚŚĂƚ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ ŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐ ĨŽƌ ƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂŶƚƐ ƚŽ ǀŝƐŝƚ ƐĞůĞĐƚĞĚ ĚĞƐƟŶĂƟŽŶƐ ^ĞŶŝŽƌ ĚƵůƚ ĂǇ dƌŝƉƐ͕ ĚǀĞŶƚƵƌĞ dƌĂǀĞů ĂŵƉƐ͕ ŽůůĞƩĞ sĂĐĂƟŽŶƐ Georgetown Categories of Service Page 42 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT 40 Cost Recovery Study Category of Service Tier Definition Examples Classes, Programs, Sports, Camps and Clinics –Advanced/ Competitive 4 Focus on advanced activities/ instruction, certification, or competitive activities; children, youth and adults with prior skills and registration required to participate Athletic Skills Development, Athletic Camps, Fee Based Fitness Department Organized Tournaments 4 Scheduled one-time sporting and/ or multi-game events for various age groups that are organized and/or managed by staff Tennis, Pickleball, Soccer, Softball Drop-in Childcare / Babysitting 4 Drop-in on-site childcare for participants using agency facilities and/or programs Recreation Center Childcare (Kids Club) Facility Rentals 4 Temporary and exclusive use of spaces and facilities including centers, pools, parks, on a one-time or one season basis by a private individual, group, organization, or business, etc. Community Center, Recreation Center, Tennis Center, Pools, Garey House Room Rentals Field Rental 4 Field rentals for exclusive use on a one-time or one season basis McMaster, San Gabriel, VFW, Recreation Center Gym, Tennis and Pickleball Court Fees Partnered Rental Agreement 4 Temporary and exclusive use of spaces and facilities including centers, fields, pools, picnic areas, and parks, on a one-time or one season basis through a formal agreement to groups identified as having allied interests with the agency, fulfills a core service in lieu of the agency, and serve the community at large Georgetown Youth Girls Softball Association, Georgetown Baseball Association, Texas Gold, Georgetown Independent School District, Aquadillos Public Space Permits 4 Use of park for private organizations or businesses to conduct a special event. These events require special event permit(s), and may require rental fees Events may be admission based or open to the public Special Permits 4 Non-rental allowable services that require a permit by the city Vendor Fees, Booth Fees, Photography Fees Adapted Programs 3 Specialized opportunities for people with disabilities. These are not reasonable accommodations required as inclusionary services. Special Needs Dances, Adaptive Camp. Adult Classes, Programs, Workshops– Beginning/ Intermediate 3 Entry or multi-level group recreational and/or instructional programs and activities requiring registration with no prior skills required Learn to Swim, Dance, Arts, Martial Arts, Water Aerobics, Outdoor Adventure, Nature Based Programs Page 43 of 175 41 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study ĂƚĞŐŽƌǇ ŽĨ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ dŝĞƌ ĞĮŶŝƟŽŶ ǆĂŵƉůĞƐ ĚƵůƚ >ĞĂŐƵĞƐ 3 ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚ ŵƵůƟͲŐĂŵĞ ĂƚŚůĞƟĐƐ ĨŽƌ ĂĚƵůƚƐ ŽĨ ŵƵůƟͲƐŬŝůů ůĞǀĞůƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĂƌĞ ŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĞĚ ĂŶĚͬŽƌ ŵĂŶĂŐĞĚ ďǇ ĂŐĞŶĐǇ Žƌ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐ͕ ŵĂǇ Žƌ ŵĂǇ ŶŽƚ ďĞ ŽĸĐŝĂƚĞĚ ĂŶĚͬŽƌ ũƵĚŐĞĚ͕ ĂŶĚ ŵĂǇ Žƌ ŵĂǇ ŶŽƚ ďĞ ƐĐŽƌĞĚ͕ ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐ Ă ƚĞĂŵ ĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ ĨŽƌ ƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂŶƚƐ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ŝŶͲƚĞŶƚ ƚŽ ƉůĂǇ Ă ŐĂŵĞͬŵĂƚĐŚͲĨŽƌŵĂƚ Žƌ ƚŽ ĐŽŵƉĞƚĞ ŽŶ Ă ƌĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶĂů ůĞǀĞů͘ sŽůůĞǇďĂůů͕ ^ŽŌďĂůů͕ ^ŽĐĐĞƌ͕ ĂƐŬĞƚďĂůů͕ dĞŶŶŝƐ͕ tŝĐŬůĞďĂůů ĂŵƉƐ Ͳ ^ƉĞĐŝĂůŝǌĞĚ 3 dĂƌŐĞƚĞĚ ĂŶŶƵĂů͕ ŶŽŶͲƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů ĐĂŵƉƐ ƌĞƋƵŝƌŝŶŐ ƌĞŐŝƐƚƌĂƟŽŶ ƚŚĂƚ ĂƌĞ ƚǇƉŝĐĂůůǇ ŽīĞƌĞĚ ŽŶ Ă ŽŶĞͲƟŵĞ Žƌ ůŝŵŝƚĞĚ ďĂƐŝƐ ^dD ĂŵƉƐ͕ ^ƉŽƌƚ ĂŵƉƐ͕ ĂŶĐĞ ĂŵƉƐ͕ ,ŽŽƉ ĂŵƉƐ͕ dĞŶŶŝƐ ĂŵƉƐ͕ KƵƚĚŽŽƌ ĚǀĞŶƚƵƌĞ ƌŽƉͲŝŶ hƐĞ 3 ƌŽƉͲŝŶ ƵƐĞ ŽĨ Ă ZĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ ĞŶƚĞƌ͕ dĞŶŶŝƐ ĞŶƚĞƌ͕ tŽŽůƐ ZĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ ĞŶƚĞƌ͕ dĞŶŶŝƐ ĞŶƚĞƌ͕ tŽŽů ĂŝůǇ ĚŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐ CĂĐŝůŝƚǇ DĞŵďĞƌƐŚŝƉ 3 KŶͲŐŽŝŶŐ ƵƐĞ ŽĨ Ă ZĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ ĞŶƚĞƌ ǁŝƚŚ ŶŽ ŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ͕ ďƵƚ ŝƐ ŵŽŶŝƚŽƌĞĚ ďǇ ĂŐĞŶĐǇ ƐƚĂī ZĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ ĞŶƚĞƌ͕ dĞŶŶŝƐ ĞŶƚĞƌ͕ tŽŽů Passes Family Programs 3 tƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ ǁŚĞƌĞ ƉĂƌĞŶƚ Žƌ ŐƵĂƌĚŝĂŶ ƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂƟŽŶ ŝƐ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ tĂƌĞŶƚͬĐŚŝůĚ Ɛǁŝŵ ůĞƐƐŽŶƐ͕ CĂŵŝůǇ CŝƐŚŝŶŐ͕ tĂŝŶƚ zŽƵƌ KǁŶ tŽƩĞƌǇ͕ ^ƚĂƌ 'ĂǌŝŶŐ 'ĂƌĞǇ tĂƌŬ tĂƐƐ 3 ĂǇ ƉĂƐƐ Žƌ ĂŶŶƵĂů ƉĂƐƐ ƚŽ Ă ƉƌĞŵŝĞƌĞ Regional Facility 'ĂƌĞǇ tĂƌŬ tĂƐƐ tĂƌŬ tĂǀŝůŝŽŶ ZĞŶƚĂůƐ 3 dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇ ĂŶĚ ĞǆĐůƵƐŝǀĞ ƵƐĞ ŽĨ Ă ƉĂƌŬ ƉĂǀŝůŝŽŶ͘tĂǀŝůŝŽŶ ZĞŶƚĂůƐ ^ĞŶŝŽƌ ůĂƐƐĞƐ͕ tƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ͕ tŽƌŬƐŚŽƉƐʹ ĞŐŝŶŶŝŶŐͬ Intermediate 3 ŶƚƌǇ Žƌ ŵƵůƟͲůĞǀĞů ŐƌŽƵƉ ƌĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶĂů ĂŶĚͬŽƌ ŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶĂů ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ ĂŶĚ ĂĐƟǀŝƟĞƐ ƌĞƋƵŝƌŝŶŐ ƌĞŐŝƐƚƌĂƟŽŶ ǁŝƚŚ ŶŽ ƉƌŝŽƌ ƐŬŝůůƐ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ ^ĞŶŝŽƌ ĚǀĞŶƚƵƌĞ͕ tŝĐŬůĞďĂůů͕ ĂŶĐĞ͕ zŽŐĂ͕ CŝƚŶĞƐƐ͕ dĂŝ Śŝ͕ tĂƚĞƌ ĞƌŽďŝĐƐ͕ ^ĞŶŝŽƌ ĚƵůƚ ĂŶĐĞƐ ĂŵƉƐ Ͳ 'ĞŶĞƌĂů ZĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ 2 'ĞŶĞƌĂůŝǌĞĚ ĂŌĞƌ ƐĐŚŽŽů ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ ĂŶĚ ďƌĞĂŬ ĐĂŵƉƐ ǁŝƚŚ Ă ƐƵƉĞƌǀŝƐĞĚ ƐŽĐŝĂů͕ ƚĞĞŶ͕ ƌĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶĂů Žƌ ĞŶƌŝĐŚŵĞŶƚ ĨŽĐƵƐ ĂŵƉ 'ŽŽĚǁĂƚĞƌ͕ ,ŽůŝĚĂǇ ĂŵƉƐ DŽďŝůĞͬtŽƉͲƵƉ ĂŶĚ KƵƚͲƌĞĂĐŚ tƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ 2 ǀĞŶƚƐ ĂŶĚ ĂĐƟǀŝƟĞƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĂĐƟǀĂƚĞ ƉĂƌŬƐ ĂŶĚͬŽƌ ĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐ͕ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ ĞǆƉŽƐƵƌĞ ĨŽƌ ŶĞǁ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ĞŶŐĂŐĞ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ E Ăƚ ƚŚŝƐ ƟŵĞ͕ ƉŽƐƐŝďůĞ ĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ ůĞĚ ƉŽƉ ƵƉ ƐƉŽƌƚƐ ĂŶĚ ĮƚŶĞƐƐ ŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐ͘ ^ŽĐŝĂů ůƵďƐͬĸŶŝƚǇ 'ƌŽƵƉƐ 2 ŝƚǇ ƌĞĐŽŐŶŝǌĞĚ͕ ƐĞůĨͲŵĂŶĂŐĞĚ ƐƉĞĐŝĂů ŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚ ŐƌŽƵƉ ŵĞĞƟŶŐƐ ĂŶĚ ŐĞƚͲƚŽŐĞƚŚĞƌƐ <ĞĞƉŝŶŐ zŽƵŶŐ ŽŝŶŐ ^ĞŶŝŽƌ ^ƚƵī͕ ŽŶƵƚ ,ĂƉƉǇ ,ŽƵƌ͕ ĂƌĚ ůƵďƐ Page 44 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT 42 Cost Recovery Study Category of Service Tier Definition Examples Youth Classes, Programs, Workshops– Beginning/ Intermediate 2 Entry or multi-level group recreational and/or instructional programs and activities requiring registration with no prior skills required Learn to Swim, Dance, Cooking, STEM. Multisport, Beginner Sports, Nature Based Programs Youth Leagues 2 Scheduled multi-game athletics for youth of multi-skill levels that are organized and/or managed by agency or through partners, may or may not be officiated and/or judged, and may or may not be scored, providing a team experience for participants with the intent to play a game/match-format or to compete on a recreational level. Youth Soccer, Youth Basketball, Youth Volleyball Department Produced Public Events 1 Community-wide events typically produced by the Department and offered on an annual basis Sunset Movie Series, Family Nature Fest, K9 Kerplunk, Fall Festival, Swim with Santa, Fishing Derby, Hay Day, Arbor Day, Cupids Chase 5K Non-Monitored or Non- Staffed Park/Facility Us-age 1 Drop-in use of a park/facility/activity that is non-registered and non- instructed, and is NOT monitored by agency staff/volunteer supervision Trail use, play-grounds, passive and active park areas, pick-up games, dog exercise areas, skate park, self-guided tours, public art, splash pads, etc. Partnered Social Services 1 Services provided by contracted companies and/or government agencies or service organizations that improve the community and individual well-being. Alzheimer’s Awareness Classes, Tax Prep, Public Education/ Outreach Programs 1 Department driven community engagement in a structured or non- structured setting Water Safety Month, Georgetown Swims, Health Fair Volunteer Program 1 Projects-based volunteer programs managed or overseen by staff initiated by the City or outside entities On-boarding, training and appreciation Page 45 of 175 43 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study Appendix C tƌŝĐŝŶŐ ŽĨ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ŵƵƐƚ ďĞ ĚŽŶĞ ŽŶ Ă ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞͲďǇͲƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ďĂƐŝƐ͘ Ɛ ƚŚĞ ĮŶĂů ƐƚĞƉ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ the comprehensive Cost Recovery Study, pricing strategies were considered. This discussion should ĐŽŶƟŶƵĞ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĨƵƚƵƌĞ͕ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ ƚŽƉŝĐ ĂƌĞĂƐ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ďĞ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚ ĂŶĚ ĂƉƉůŝĞĚ͘ Understanding Financial Trends dŚĞ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐ ĐŽŵƉůĞǆŝƚǇ ĂŶĚ ƌĞƐƵůƟŶŐ ƐŚŝŌƐ ŽĨ ŽƵƌ ƐŽĐŝĞƚǇ͛Ɛ ĞĐŽŶŽŵǇ ŚĂǀĞ ůĞĚ ƚŽ ǁŚĂƚ ĐĂŶ ďĞ ĚĞĞŵĞĚ ĂƐ ĐŽŶƐƚĂŶƚ ĮƐĐĂů ĐŚĂŶŐĞ ŝŶ ŐŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚ͘ tƵďůŝĐ ƐĞĐƚŽƌ ĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŽƌƐ ĂŶĚ ŵĂŶĂŐĞƌƐ ŵƵƐƚ ďĞ ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚ ƚŽ ƌĞƐƉŽŶĚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ĮƐĐĂů ƌĞĂůŝƟĞƐ ƚŚĂƚ ŚĂǀĞ ƌĞƐƵůƚĞĚ ĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞƐĞ ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ ƐŚŝŌƐ͘ dƌĞŶĚƐ ŝŵƉĂĐƟŶŐ ĮƐĐĂů ĂŶĚ ƉƌŝĐŝŶŐ ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ͗ • Increased governmental accountability • /ŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚ ĚĞŵĂŶĚ ĨŽƌ ƉĞŽƉůĞ͛Ɛ ͞ůĞŝƐƵƌĞ ĚŽůůĂƌ͟ • KŶŐŽŝŶŐ Žƌ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚ ĚĞŵĂŶĚ ĨŽƌ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ǁŝƚŚ ŶŽͬůŝŵŝƚĞĚ ĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂů ĨƵŶĚŝŶŐ͕ Žƌ ĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞĚ funding • ŝƐŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚ ŝŶ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ƌĞĚƵĐƟŽŶƐ Žƌ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚ ĨĞĞƐ ĂŶĚ ĐŚĂƌŐĞƐ • /ŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚ ŽƉĞƌĂƟŶŐ ĞǆƉĞŶƐĞƐ ;ƵƟůŝƟĞƐ͕ ĨƵĞů͕ ƉĞƌƐŽŶŶĞů͕ ƐƵƉƉůŝĞƐ͕ ĞƚĐ͘Ϳ Understanding the budget process and fiscal year cycle ƵĚŐĞƚƐ ĂƌĞ ǀŝĞǁĞĚ ĂƐ ĂŶŶƵĂů ĮŶĂŶĐŝĂů ƉůĂŶƐ ĂŶĚ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ĨŽƌĞĐĂƐƟŶŐ͕ ĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚŝŶŐ ƉƌŝŽƌŝƟĞƐ͕ ĂŶĚ Ă ǁĂǇ ƚŽ ŵŽŶŝƚŽƌ ĮƐĐĂů ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘ dŚŝƐ ŽǀĞƌǀŝĞǁ ĂůůŽǁƐ ĨŽƌ ĂŶ ĂďďƌĞǀŝĂƚĞĚ ůŽŽŬ Ăƚ ƚŚĞ process and how it is impacted by pricing. Understanding the costs of service provision tƌŝŽƌ ƚŽ ŵĂŬŝŶŐ ƉƌŝĐŝŶŐ ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶƐ͕ ŝƚ ŝƐ ŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ ƚŽ ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚ ƚǇƉĞƐ ŽĨ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ƉƌŽǀŝƐŝŽŶ ĐŽƐƚƐ͘ ,ĂǀŝŶŐ ŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ǀĂƌŝŽƵƐ ƚǇƉĞƐ ŽĨ ĐŽƐƚƐ ĂůůŽǁƐ ƐƚĂī ƚŽ ŵĂŬĞ ďĞƩĞƌ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĞĚ ƉƌŝĐŝŶŐ ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶƐ͘ dŚĞ ĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚ ƚǇƉĞƐ ŽĨ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ƉƌŽǀŝƐŝŽŶ ĐŽƐƚƐ ĂƌĞ ĂƐ ĨŽůůŽǁƐ͗ • Direct costs ඵ Fixed costs ඵ ŚĂŶŐŝŶŐ ĮǆĞĚ ĐŽƐƚƐ ඵ Variable costs • Indirect Costs Understanding the purpose of pricing There are many reasons to develop service fees and charges. These include, but are not limited to, the following: • ZĞĐŽǀĞƌ ĐŽƐƚƐ • Create new resources • Establish value • /ŶŇƵĞŶĐĞ ďĞŚĂǀŝŽƌ • tƌŽŵŽƚĞ ĞĸĐŝĞŶĐǇ Developing a Pricing Strategy Page 46 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT 44 Cost Recovery Study Differential pricing Differential pricing is grounded in the notion that different fees are charged for the same service when there is no real difference in the cost of providing the service. There may be many reasons the Department may wish to consider this pricing strategy including: • To stimulate demand for a service during a specified time • To reach underserved populations • To shift demand to another place, date, or time Alternative funding sources In general, there has been a decrease in the amount of tax support available to public Parks, Recreation, and Senior Services agencies across the nation. The Department is forward thinking in its planning. As such, the need to look at alternative funding sources as a way to financially support services has become commonplace. Alternative funding sources are vast and can include: • Gifts • Grants • Donations • Scholarships • Sponsorships • Collaborations • Volunteer contributions Examining the psychological dimensions of pricing In addition to the social and environmental issues surrounding pricing, the human elements of pricing must be considered. Regardless of how logical a price may seem; customer reactions and responses are their own and can be vastly different than what one might expect. The psychological dimensions of pricing include: • Protection of self-esteem (pricing in such a way as to not offend certain users) • Price-quality relationship (value received for every dollar spent) • Establishing a reference point (worth of service in comparison to others) • Objective price (price has a basis in fact, is real, and impartial) • Subjective price (price is not biased or prejudiced) • Consistency of image (perception of the brand and identification with product or service) • Odd pricing (perception of arbitrary or incongruent pricing) Page 47 of 175 45 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study ƐƚĂďůŝƐŚŝŶŐ ŝŶŝƟĂů ƉƌŝĐĞ Establishing an actual price for a program can be based upon a variety of strategies including: Arbitrary pricing: basing fees on a general provision such as raising all fees $.25 to meet budget goals which ignores market conditions and Cost Recovery goals. Arbitrary pricing is not encouraged, as it is impossible to justify. • Market pricing: a fee based on demand for a service or facility or what the target market is willing to pay for a service. The private and commercial sectors commonly use this strategy. One consideration for establishing a market rate fee is determined by identifying all providers of an identical service (Examples: private sector providers, municipalities, etc.), and setting the highest fee. Another consideration is setting the fee at the highest level the market will bear. • Competitive pricing: a fee based on what similar service providers or close proximity competitors are charging for services. One consideration for establishing a competitive fee is determined by identifying all providers of an identical service (Examples: private sector providers, municipalities, etc.), and setting the mid-point or lowest fee. • Cost Recovery pricing: a fee based on Cost Recovery goals within market pricing ranges. hŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐ ƉƌŝĐĞ ƌĞǀŝƐŝŽŶƐ Once a price is established, there may be the need to periodically review it and examine the need for revision. In some cases, “revised” may be viewed as “increased”; therefore, a systematic approach to pricing revision is important. Factors to consider in pricing revision include: • Customer tolerance: the degree to which small increases in price will not encounter client resistance. • Adjustment period: the period of time where the value of the service is assessed by the customer in relation to the price increase. The value of the service from the customer’s perspective must meet or exceed the impact of the increased cost. Adjustment periods may lead to diminished participation or termination of participation altogether based upon customer loyalty and other factors. • Customers’ perceived value of the service: the degree to which services including programs, facilities, and parks impact the public (individual and community), or in other words, the results or outcomes of services. Value is the judgment or perception of worth or the degree of usefulness or importance placed on a service by personal opinion. The intent or intention of a service is the purpose, aim, or end. dŚĞ ƉƌŝĐŝŶŐ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ ʹ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐ Ă ŵĞƚŚŽĚ Staff participating in the series of workshops engaged in interactive exercises that applied the Cost Recovery goals of their respective service areas. The workshops prompted discussions leading to recommended changes to selected current pricing practices with the intention of attaining recommended Cost Recovery and tax investment allocation goals and establishing a new method for setting fees and charges. This method is based upon using Cost Recovery goals as a primary pricing strategy, followed by either market pricing (for services with low alternative coverage – few if any alternative providers) or competitive pricing (for services with high alternative coverage – other alternative providers offer similar or like services). Page 48 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT 46 Cost Recovery Study The following guideline provides criteria used to determine if a service should be included in the tier, keeping in mind that a service does not have to meet every condition. High or Full Tax Investment = Low or No Cost Recovery Tier 1 • The service is equally available to everyone in the community and should benefit everyone • Because the service is basic, it is difficult to determine benefits received by one user • The level of service attributable to a user is not known • Administrative costs of imposing and collecting a fee exceed revenue expected from the fee • Imposing the fee would place the agency at a serious competitive disadvantage • The service is primarily provided by the public sector Partial Tax Investment = Partial Cost Recovery Tiers 2 and 3 User fees may recover only partial cost for those services for which the agency desires to manage demand, from those individuals who cannot pay full cost due to economic hardship, and if competitive market conditions make a full cost fee undesirable. • Services benefit those who participate but the community at large also benefits • The level of service use attributed to a user is known • Administrative costs of imposing and collecting the fee are not excessive • Imposing a full cost fee would place the agency at a competitive disadvantage • The service may be provided by the public sector but may also be provided by the private sector Low Subsidy = High Cost Recovery Tier 4 User fees should recover a substantial portion of the cost of services benefiting specific groups or individuals, and for those services provided to persons who generate the need for those services. • The individual or group using the service is the primary beneficiary • The level of service use attributed to a user is known • Administrative costs of imposing and collecting the fee are not excessive • Imposing a substantial fee would not place the agency at a competitive disadvantage • The service is usually provided by the private sector but may also be provided by the public sector No Tax investment = Full Cost Recovery Tier 5 User fees should recover the full agency cost • Individuals or groups benefit from the service and there is little community benefit • The level of service use attributable to a user is known • There is excess demand for the service; therefore, allocation of limited services is required • Administrative costs of imposing and collecting the fee are not excessive • The service is provided at market price by the private sector Criteria for Establishing Fees Page 49 of 175 47 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study Page 50 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT 48 Cost Recovery Study Page 51 of 175 49 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study Page 52 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT 50 Cost Recovery Study Page 53 of 175 51 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study Page 54 of 175 DRAFT DRAFT 52 Cost Recovery Study Page 55 of 175 53 DRAFT DRAFT Cost Recovery Study Page 56 of 175 Cost Recovery Study Recommendations City Council Presentation March 22, 20022 Page 57 of 175 Discussion Topics Pyramid Methodology & Process Current Cost of Service Recommendations and Cost Recovery Goals Next Steps Page 58 of 175 Pyramid Methodology & Process •Based on who benefits •Basic level of service is free (supported by tax revenues) •Fees are a responsible and necessary supplement •The greater the individual benefit the higher cost recovery rate Page 59 of 175 Cost Recovery Workshop Two October 11 –12, 2021 37 Categories of Service 32 community members 48 hours of meaningful volunteer deliberation Page 60 of 175 Tier Revenues Expenses FY 21 Category Cost Recovery T5 $404,051.77 $865,067.55 47% T4 $418,132.33 $1,158,037.52 36% T3 $1,153,888.50 $2,827,020.69 41% T2 $328,172.03 $833,252.95 39% T1 $6,625.50 $1,850,925.47 0% Page 61 of 175 Page 62 of 175 Tier Current Minimum Goal Range Max Category Cost Recovery vs Range Minimum T5 45%90%100%-45% T4 37%65%89%-28% T3 41%41%70%0% T2 39%11%40%28% T1 0%0%10%0% Page 63 of 175 Recommendations A. Policy Actions B. Administrative Task C. Cost Savings and Revenue Generation Strategies Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended approval on March 10, 2022 Page 64 of 175 A. Policy Actions Page 65 of 175 B. Administrative Task Page 66 of 175 C. Cost Savings and Revenue Generation Strategies Page 67 of 175 C. Cost Savings and Revenue Generation Strategies Page 68 of 175 C. Cost Savings and Revenue Generation Strategies Page 69 of 175 Next Steps Acceptance of the Cost Recovery Study and Tier Targets Adoption of the Georgetown Consensus Pyramid and Cost Recovery Policy Implementation and Evaluation Page 70 of 175 Thank you ! Page 71 of 175 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop March 22, 2022 S UBJEC T: Overview, discussion, and direction regarding the possible creation of an Extraterritorial J urisdiction (E TJ ) Municipal Utility District (M U D) for the proposed Avery Bost Development -- Nick Woolery, Assistant City Manager I T EM S UMMARY: The City previously brought this item to a Council Workshop on April 2 7, 2021. Council agreed with the project and directed staff to move forward with ne gotiations. Ho wever, during negotiations the waste water element of the project has changed significantly, and staff would like to update the Council on negotiation status. B ackground The City has received a re que st to create a ne w E TJ M unicipal Utility District (M U D). We are seeking Council’s preliminary direction on whether the request conforms to the City’s M UD P o licy, the te rms currently under discussion between City staff and the Developer are satisfactory, and/or the re are specific elements or focus areas yo u would like to be addressed in a Consent Agreement or any other agreement related to the proposed project. D R Horton is currently negotiating the purchase of approximately 4 22 acres of land located in the southeast quadrant of the City’s ETJ , just west of SH130 and bordered by C R 105, C R 110 , and C R 107. The land is not contiguo us to the city limits of Georgetown as you will see in the presentation. If D R Horton acquires the land, D R Horton intends to develop the property as a mixed-use development as shown on the attached Concept P lan (see Attachment 1 ). D R Horton propo ses approximately 1,3 36 re side ntial units along with 21 acres of commercial/retail development, 21 acres of public parkland, a private amenity center, and additional open space. In addition, D R Horton is wo rking with Georgetown ISD on a site for an elementary school. The residential portion of the deve lo pment will include a mix of housing including up to 839 single-family homes, 159 duplexes, and 338 detached rear-load homes. This mix of uses is consistent with the City’s Future Land Use P lan (see Attachment 2). M U D P ol i cy Eval uati on The purpose of this presentation is to discuss whether or how DR Horton’s request for a M U D comports with the City’s J uly 24, 2018 M UD P olicy and whether the City Council believe s that staff should move forward to nego tiate a Consent Agreement and other agreements related to the proposed project. P O L IC Y 1: B asi c Requi rements for Creati on of M U Ds This po licy states,” … Before consenting to the creation of a district, the City Council should consider whether the creation of the district is feasible, practicable, and necessary for the p rovision o f th e p rop osed services and would be a ben efit to th e land, and th erefo re warrants the City’s consent, con sistent with the other co nsid e ra tion s in this policy. A. The City’s basic requirements for creation of a M UD are generally as follows, and discussed in more detail below: 1. Quality Development. 2. Extraordinary Benefits. 3. Enhance Public S ervice and S afety. 4. City Exclusive Provider. 5. Fiscally Responsible. 6. Finance Plan. 7. Annexation. P O L IC Y 2: P rovi de exampl es of “uni que factors justi fyi ng [M U D] creati o n or amendments" to gui de determi nati ons made i n the U D C P R EV I O U S : D R H orton is proposing to construct an oversized wastewater interceptor line at no cost to the City. T he larger wastewater interceptor line would serve other tracts east of S H 130. T he estimated Page 72 of 175 total cost of the larger wastewater interceptor line is $14M M U P D ATE: D R H orton is proposing to construct an oversized wastewater interceptor line with City participation in an amount not to exceed an amount of $5.258M M . C ity participation will be given through impact fee credit for the interceptor and pumping portion as well as $2M M or an equivalent percentage of the M aster D eveloper F ee. T he larger wastewater interceptor line would serve other tracts west and east of S H 130. D R H orton, in collaboration with city staff, proposed this new solution to improve the financial feasibility of the project while still improving the regional wastewater capabilities. D R Horton is agreeing to signalize future intersections on C R 105 (Westinghouse Road) & C R 110. P O L IC Y 3: Address provi si on of publ i c servi ces, and address publ i c safety matters i n the Consent Agreement Water = Jonah S U D Wastewater = City Electric = Oncor Solid Waste = City P O L IC Y 4: Address uti l i ty servi ce i ssues, and i ncl ude those uti l i ty servi ce provi si ons i n the Consent Agreement See “P olicy 2” regarding wastewater See “P olicy 3” regarding which utility services the City is authorized to provide to this area P O L IC Y 5: Speci fy the amount of debt i ntended to be i ssued, the purpose of the debt, and the debt servi ce schedul e, and i ncl ude those fi nanci al provi si ons i n the Consent Agreement Bonds to be I ssued (M aximum Amount) – $120,000,000 B ond Maturity (Maximum) – 25 years [M U D P olicy guide is 25 years] B ond Issuance P eriod (from first to last bonds issued) – 10 years [M U D P olicy guide is 10 years] District Only Tax Rate (M aximum) – $0.95/$100 assessed valuation P O L IC Y 6: Address future muni ci pal annexati on of the M U D, w hen l ocated i n the E TJ . P R EV I O U S : T he land is not contiguous to the C ity and so cannot be annexed for full purposes, however staff recommends that the land be annexed for limited purposes through a S trategic P artnership Agreement between the City and the future M U D. P R EV I O U S : D R H orton has agreed that the future M U D consent to limited purpose annexation of the land through a Strategic P artnership Agreement. P R EV I O U S : Limited purpose annexation allows the City to impose its imposition and collection of sales taxes, and applying planning, zoning, health and safety ordinances in the area. P R EV I O U S : With regard to sales and use taxes, it is proposed that, similar to other such agreements, revenue from the C ity’s 1% General S ales and U se Tax to be split between the C ity and D R H orton (e.g., 80% city/20% Developer) as C ity C ouncil directs and the M U D agrees. U P D ATE: Emergency Services D istrict N o. 8 has an election this upcoming M ay for the full 2 cents, which will not allow room for the C ity to impose their full 2 cent sales tax through a S trategic P artnership Agreement, which must be fully executed by the City and M U D . P O L IC Y 7: Requi re devel opment i n a M U D to exceed mi ni mum U D C l and use and devel opment standards, and address the l and use provi si ons i n the Consent Agreement or rel ated agreement Residential development be subje c t to enhanced architectural features o ver and above City requirements, including exterior finishes having 85% masonry finishes of brick, stone, and/or stucco (exclusive of roofs, eaves, dormers soffits, windows, do ors, gables, garage doors, deco rative trim and trim work). All walls must include materials and design characteristics consistent with those on the front. Lesser quality materials o r details for side or rear walls are prohibited; Page 73 of 175 Nonresidential development shall be subject to architectural standards exceeding the U D C; Developer committed to providing higher standards in streetscape, parks and landscape design; and Design and construct a minimum o f one private amenity center that will contain a clubhouse and po ol for District residents use o nly. The private amenity center will be owned and maintained by the Co mmunity homeowner ’s association P O L IC Y 8: Requi re devel opment i n a M UD to exceed U DC parkl and requi rements (not just meet U D C standards or l ess than U D C standards), and address parkl and provi si ons i n the Consent Agreement P rovide approximately 20 acres fo r neighborhood parkland and develop the site for trails, recreational, and playground features P O L IC Y 9: Address transportati on i ssues and i ncl ude transportati on provi si ons i n the Consent Agreement Fully fund the design and construction for multiple traffic signals located on CR 105 & CR 110 P O L IC Y 10: Ci ty Operati ons Compensati on F ee (M aster Devel oper F ee) The City will receive a percentage of developer net of each bond sale, less $2 M M or an equivalent percentage to be reimbursed to the Master Developer for the City’s participation in the wastewater infrastructure. In consi derati on of the creati on of the Di stri ct, D R Horton i s supporti ve of fol l ow i ng publ i c i mprovements and/or contri buti ons: 1. Construct an oversized wastewater interceptor line 2. Regional P arkland Fund Contribution 3. G IS D school site 4. Master Developer Fee 5. SIP Fee (E S D 8) F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: P roposed F i nanci al Terms (based on esti mated assessed val ues) Bonds to be Issued (Maximum Amount) – $120,000,000 Bond Maturity (Maximum) – 25 years [M U D P olicy guide is 25 years] Bond Issuance P eriod (from first to last bonds issued) – 10 years [M U D P olicy guide is 10 years] District Only Tax Rate (Maximum) – $0.95/$100 assessed valuation Facilities Bonds may be issued to finance: Water, Wastewater, Drainage, Roads, Recreational Facilitie s, and associated fees S UBMI T T ED BY: Nick Woolery, Assistant City Manager AT TAC HMENT S : Description Avery Bost MUD P resentation Page 74 of 175 Avery Bost MUD Potential Creation of a New ETJ MUD and Land Use Plan Presented by Nick Woolery, Assistant City Manager March 22, 2022Page 75 of 175 22 Purpose Staff is seeking Council’s feedback and direction on a request for creation of a new ETJ Municipal Utility District (MUD), Avery Bost, to negotiate agreement and a corresponding Land Use Plan. •Does Council support an ETJ MUD (roughly 420 acres) under the updated terms as presented? •Does Council have comments on the proposed Land Use Plan? Page 76 of 175 33 Purpose The City of Georgetown finds thatthepurposeofaMunicipalUtilityDistrict(MUD)is to assist in closingthefinancialgapwhenadevelopmentisseekingtoexceedminimumCitystandards,provide arobustprogramofamenities,and/orwheresubstantialoff-siteinfrastructureimprovementsarerequiredthatwouldservetheMUDandsurroundingproperties. Quality Development Extraordinary Benefits Public Service/Safety Exclusive Provider Fiscally Responsible Finance Plan Annexation MUD Policy Page 77 of 175 44 Current Service Area Avery Bost Development Page 78 of 175 AVERY BOST MARCH 22, 2022 Page 79 of 175 CONTEXT MAP AVERY BOST TRACTPage 80 of 175 OVERALL LAND USE PLAN AVERY BOST TRACTPage 81 of 175 PARKS AND TRAILS MASTERPLAN AVERY BOST TRACTPage 82 of 175 TRAILS AND WALKWAYS AVERY BOST TRACTPage 83 of 175 CENTRAL PARK AVERY BOST TRACTPage 84 of 175 CENTRAL PARK BEEKEEPER ASSOCIATION AND COMMUNITY GARDENS AVERY BOST TRACT WILLIAMSON COUNTY BEEKEEPERS ASSOCIATION COMMUNITY GARDEN Page 85 of 175 CENTRAL PARK BUTTERFLY GARDEN AVERY BOST TRACTPage 86 of 175 PLAY AREA OPEN PLAY LAWN CENTRAL PARK RECREATION AREA AVERY BOST TRACTPage 87 of 175 KAYAK LAUNCH / FISHING PIER CENTRAL PARK AMENITY LAKE AVERY BOST TRACTPage 88 of 175 ROADWAY LANDSCAPING AVERY BOST TRACTPage 89 of 175 PROTOTYPICAL COLECTOR ROAD AVERY BOST TRACTPage 90 of 175 PROTOTYPICAL COLECTOR ROAD ENTRY AVERY BOST TRACTPage 91 of 175 Wall and Fencing Exhibit AVERY BOST TRACTPage 92 of 175 SH 130 LANDSCAPE BUFFER AVERY BOST TRACTPage 93 of 175 AMENITY CENTER AVERY BOST TRACTPage 94 of 175 PHASING PLAN AVERY BOST TRACTPage 95 of 175 2222 Key Project Benefits •Enhanced Architectural Standards •Commercial Tracts •Streetscape Enhancements •Significant Parkland & Open Space •SIP Fee •Future Impact Fees •Master Developer Fee (MDF) •Regional Wastewater Improvements Page 96 of 175 2323 SH 29 Future Mankins WWTP site Page 97 of 175 2424 Bond Information: •Maximum Amount of Bonds to be Issued: $120,000,000 •Maximum Bond Maturity: 25 years [MUD Policy guide is 25 years] •Bond Issuance Period: 10 years [MUD Policy guide is 10 years] •Refunding Bonds: No deviation from policy requested •District Only Tax Rate (Minimum):$0.xx/$100 in Assessed Value •District Only Tax Rate (Maximum):$0.95/$100 in Assessed Value Finance Plan Page 98 of 175 2525 Strategic Partnership Agreement •PREVIOUS: Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA). Staff supports an SPA annexing the entire MUD for limited purposes, the limited purposes being imposition and collection of sales tax. •UPDATE: Will not enter into Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA). Emergency Services District No. 8 has an election this upcoming May to impose their full 2 cents, which will not allow room for the City to impose it’s 2 cent sales tax through a Strategic Partnership Agreement, which must be fully executed by the City and MUD. Page 99 of 175 2626 Feedback & Direction Staff is seeking Council’s feedback and direction on a request for creation of a new ETJ Municipal Utility District (MUD), Avery Bost, to negotiate agreement and a corresponding Land Use Plan. •Does Council support an ETJ MUD (roughly 420 acres) under the updated terms as presented? •Does Council have comments on the proposed Land Use Plan? Page 100 of 175 2727 Next Steps •Should Council direct staff to proceed with an ETJ MUD, the next steps would include: •Continue negotiations with DR Horton •Staff will bring forward required MUD agreements to Council Page 101 of 175 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop March 22, 2022 S UBJEC T: P resentation and discussion regarding the M unicipal Court -- Debbie Landrum, Court Administrator; and Randall Stump, Municipal Court J udge I T EM S UMMARY: Overview of what Municipal Court: who we are, what we do F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: . S UBMI T T ED BY: Sharon P arker AT TAC HMENT S : Description P resentation Page 102 of 175 Municipal Court Debbie Landrum: Court Administrator Page 103 of 175 22 •Introduction •General information •Teen Court Program •Performance Measures •COVID-19 affect on Court •Looking Forward Overview Page 104 of 175 33 The mission of the Municipal Court is to assist the public in a positive and friendly manner that assures effective, fair, impartial and unbiased administration of justice; and to build trust by providing quality service that is timely, consistent and accurate. Municipal Court Mission Statement Page 105 of 175 44 Municipal Court Staff Presiding Judge: Randall Stump Associate Judge: David Scott Court Administrator: Debbie Landrum, CMCC CCM Senior Deputy Court Clerk/Juvenile Case Manager: Tina Heine Deputy Court Clerk: Angelica Lombardi Associate Deputy Court Clerk: Erica Marroquin Associate Deputy Court Clerk: Darlena Wills Page 106 of 175 55 Clerks -Years of Experience and Certifications Over 56 years of combined experience working in the Georgetown Municipal Court. •Each of the clerks are certified through the Municipal Court Clerk Certification Program: •One certified at Level III (Certified Municipal Court Clerk) •Three certified at Level II (CCCII) •One certified at Level I (CCCI) •Required to complete continuing education requirements in order to maintain their level of certification. Page 107 of 175 66 •Randy Stump –Judge •Presiding Judge since 2000 •Mid-1980’s, served as the City Attorney •Presides over all Municipal Court Dockets, including Teen Court •Lucas Wilson –Municipal Prosecutor •Prosecutor since January 2000 Judicial & Legal Staff Page 108 of 175 77 Background Information •In 1899, the Legislature by statute created Municipal Courts in each incorporated City in the State •Also defined by our City charter –“shall be deemed always open for the trial of causes, with such jurisdiction, powers, and duties as are given and prescribed by the laws of the State of Texas” •Judge is controlled by same rules as all other state judges •Processing of cases is pre-determined by the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Judicial Conduct Page 109 of 175 88 Types of Cases •Class “C” misdemeanors that originate within the territorial limits of the City of Georgetown. •Class “C” Misdemeanor = fine-only offense •More than 1,300 defined by State law •Others created by City ordinances Texans are more likely to have contact with a Municipal Court than all other Texas courts combined. Page 110 of 175 99 Types of Cases 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY17/18 FY18/19 FY19/20 FY20/21 FY21/22 Cases Filed by Year Traffic State Law City Ordinance Parking Page 111 of 175 1010 Court Dockets Arraignment Hearings Show Cause Hearings Court Interpreter Hearings Minor Arraignment Hearings Juvenile Arraignment Hearings Juvenile Show Cause Hearings Pre -Trial Hearings Bench/Jury Trials Animal Appeal Hearings Teen Court Page 112 of 175 11 Teen Court Program Page 113 of 175 1212 Teen Court Program •Established during 1992-1993 school year •Spotlight Award winner in 2008, 2010, 2015, 2019 •State Mock Trial Competition –1st place in 2016 and 2019 •Hosted international visitors from China, Afghanistan, Czech Republic, Nepal, Nigeria, Slovenia, and Tunisia. Other cities and counties throughout Texas have also visited. •Texas Municipal Courts Education Center hosts annual Teen Court seminar where other cities observe our program as part of seminar. •Judge Stump and Tina Heine have assisted with teaching and served as guest speakers for multiple agencies. Page 114 of 175 1313 Performance Measures •Case file audit •Access and Fairness Survey •Clearance Rate •Docket Timeline Page 115 of 175 1414 Case File Audit –Consistent and Accurate Page 116 of 175 1515 Access and Fairness Survey -Quality Service that is Timely Page 117 of 175 1616 Clearance Rate -Quality Service that is Timely Page 118 of 175 1717 Docket Timeline -Quality Service that is Timely Page 119 of 175 1818 COVID-19 and Court •Maintained access to judiciary during COVID-19 closures •Assisted customers electronically –adjusted processes to accommodate •Resumed docket proceedings virtually •Implemented a “Compliance Drive-Up” process for certain cases that cannot appear virtually •Court Supervisor position held vacant in the FY2021 budget for savings in the General Fund, position has now been removed Page 120 of 175 1919 Court Revenue •Revenue is the by-product of administering justice. •Statutes require alternatives to payment in full •Where does the revenue go? •State Comptroller •City General Fund •City Special Revenue Funds Page 121 of 175 2020 Looking forward •As of March 1, 2022, the court has transitioned back to in- person proceedings / dockets •Continue use of virtual dockets as needed •Continuing Education –virtual trainings = more opportunities Page 122 of 175 2121 •Questions? Page 123 of 175 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop March 22, 2022 S UBJEC T: P resentation and discussion regarding sidewalks -- Wesley Wright, P E, Systems Engineering Director I T EM S UMMARY: This presentation is intended to update Council on the status of various sidewalk project and to discuss priorities moving forward. F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: Included in presentation. S UBMI T T ED BY: Wesley Wright AT TAC HMENT S : Description S idewalk P res entation Page 124 of 175 Sidewalks March 22, 2022 | City Council Workshop Page 125 of 175 22 •History of Sidewalk Master Plan efforts •Status of Sidewalk Work –Completed & In Progress •Current Plan/Schedule •New Additions •Schedule/Direction Going Forward Purpose Page 126 of 175 33 Sidewalk/ADA Master Plan •https://sidewalksandfacilities.georgetown.org/ •2014 windshield survey of all sidewalks in the city •$100MM total noted missing/deficient 2015 Voter Approved Road Bond •Priority 1 Sidewalks (estimated $10MM) •$10MM ($1MM per year) 2021 Voter Approved Road Bond •Priority 2 Sidewalks (estimated $7.5MM) •$10MM in allocations (including sidewalks, bike lanes, and intersections) History Page 127 of 175 44 History Priority 1 (pink) Ongoing •2015 Road Bond •$10MM total •$1MM per year •Downtown, Old Town, Intersections, SH29 Priority 2 (blue) Coming Soon •2021 Road Bond •$10MM ‘allocations’ (P2 sidewalks, Bike Plan, Intersections •Old Town, Williams, Shell, Leander Page 128 of 175 55 •IH35 Frontage Road (SH29 to Leander Road) •Pedestrian signal enhancements (Williams Drive) •Austin Ave (Leander to SH29) •7th Street (Downtown to Southwestern) •Downtown (Square/Rock) -active Sidewalks Completed Page 129 of 175 66 Construction •Downtown FY21 •Various locations, 7th Street, Square, Rock St. Design •Downtown FY22 •Bid Late 2022 •Square, Main, Austin, Church, Rock Sidewalks In Progress Page 130 of 175 77 Downtown Priority 1 2015 Road Bond Approximately $4.5MM estimated remaining •2023 •2024 •2025? Current Plan Page 131 of 175 88 Priority 2 (blue) 2021 Road Bond Approximately $7.5MM •IH35 Frontage -Completed •Old Town –FY23 •Austin Ave –with bridge work •Shell/DB Wood –with road projects •Leander –with road project •Williams Drive/Lakeway Area –with Williams Drive Corridor Improvements Current Plan Page 132 of 175 99 Additional Priority 1 2015 Road Bond Full Scope TBD San Jose/Maple/15th University (IH35 to SH130) •2023 –Design San Jose •2024 –Construct San Jose •2024 –Design University •2025 –Construct University Current Plan Page 133 of 175 1010 •San Jose Neighborhood Plan Additional Sidewalk –San Jose Page 134 of 175 1111 Additional Sidewalk –TRG •Schedule/Prioritization •Cost/Funding •Staffing Page 135 of 175 1212 Additional Sidewalk –Original Town •Schedule/Prioritization •Cost/Funding •Staffing Page 136 of 175 1313 •2023 •Design & Construct Downtown •Design San Jose (*scope) •Design Priority 2 Old Town (Phase 1) •2024 •Design & Construct Downtown •Design University (*scope) •Construct San Jose •Construct Priority 2 Old Town (Phase 1) *Williams Dr/Lakeway, Leander, Austin Ave, Shell Road –with Roadway Projects Looking Forward –Tentative Plan •2025 •Construct/Finish Downtown •Construct University •Design TRG (*identify funding & scope) •Design Priority 2 Old Town (Phase 2) •Master Plan Update (*identify funding) •2026 •Construct TRG •Construct Priority 2 Old Town (Phase 2) •Design Original Town (*identify funding & scope) Page 137 of 175 Sidewalks March 22, 2022 | City Council Workshop Page 138 of 175 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop March 22, 2022 S UBJEC T: Discussion and possible direction to staff on Downtown P arking Garage -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager I T EM S UMMARY: Council directed staff on J uly 2 7, 2 02 1 to utilize the prior work and studies, completed 2015-2020 to accelerate the analysis of potential sites for a downtown parking garage. On August 1 0, Council directed staff to include additional sites for an update d analysis to be performed by W G I Engineering, the firm that has done wo rk o n downtown parking for Georgetown since 2 01 5. On November 9 , 2021, Co uncil directe d staff to provide public engagement o n the sites at 9th & Main, 6th & Main and the Tamiro lot at (6th & Austin/east). Staff will provide an overview and summary of the public feedback re c e ive d from the outreach presentations, re vie w site summaries and updated cost info rmation and seeks fe e dback and confirmation o n sites, funding co nsideratio ns and the next steps and timeline. F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: . S UBMI T T ED BY: Danella Elliott AT TAC HMENT S : Description P resentation After-Action R eport - P arking G arage Engagement Page 139 of 175 Council Strategic Goal | Downtown Parking Garage Site March 22, 2022| City Council Workshop Page 140 of 175 22 Agenda/Purpose •Provide update of public feedback on sites identified by Council in November 2021 •Downtown Master Plan calls for multiple garages to be built as demand increases •Review Site Summaries and updated cost information •Council discussion, feedback and confirmation: •Sites •Funding considerations •Timeline/Next steps Page 141 of 175 33 Previous Work on Downtown Parking Garage (resources/background) •Mainstreet.Georgetown.org/downtown-parking-garage-project/ •Links to various resources/history of the parking garage project including •2015 Downtown Parking Study •2019 Parking Garage Survey •2019 Stakeholder Design Committee •2020 –links to 4 Council workshops •2021 –public engagement results Page 142 of 175 44 Agenda –2021 Council Goals - Downtown •Direction from November 2021 Council meeting –Provide public engagement on following sites for potential garage •(South/Red Poppy) 9th and Main •(Central/Bluebonnet)6th and Main •Tamiro (6th and Austin –East) Page 143 of 175 55 Public Engagement Opportunities •Kicked-off Public Engagement on November 27 –Small Business Saturday •Staff were available at Visitors Center to receive feedback and provide educational information •Feedback on Garage Sites •Location •Levels above ground •Business space at first level •Use of property taxes for construction •Educational Info •Graphics showing shape of the garage in relation to surrounding buildings •One sheet summary, cost, long term parking plans, where to find more info Page 144 of 175 66 Public Engagement Opportunities •Kicked-off Public Engagement on November 27 –Small Business Saturday •Surveys open Nov. 27 and close Dec. 31 (online and printed) •Distribution and Promotion •Website, news releases, social media, Reporter, advertisements, e- mails •Educational material and printed surveys were available at the Georgetown Visitors Center for the month of December Page 145 of 175 77 Outreach Efforts Page 146 of 175 88 Public Engagement Results –1266 surveys Page 147 of 175 99 Public Engagement Results –1266 surveys Page 148 of 175 10 475 Comments Page 149 of 175 1111 Public Engagement Results Page 150 of 175 Sites and Cost Review Updated from Fall 2021 Page 151 of 175 1 2 3 Tamiro Plaza1 2 6TH & Main 3 9TH & Main Page 152 of 175 1 2 3 Tamiro Plaza1 Page 153 of 175 6TH & Main 1 2 3 2 Page 154 of 175 9TH & Main 1 2 3 3 Page 155 of 175 1717 •Construction costs were developed and reported in Fall 2021 •10% construction contingency was included in original estimates •CIP Manager’s current updated construction costs include 2.5% escalation year over year –around 7.5% total escalation from Fall 2021-2024 •Soft costs for design, geotech, surveying, etc. = 18% Site Analysis –Cost Considerations Page 156 of 175 1818 Site Estimated Cost Comparison Parking Structure 3 Levels Above Grade + Basement 4 Levels Above Grade, No Basement 3 Levels Above Grade + Basement 4 Levels Above Grade+ Partial Basement 3 Levels Above Grade , No Basement 4 Levels Above Grade, No Basement Number of Spaces 231 292 207 219 464 650 Existing Parking Spaces 60 60 48 48 136 136 Dimensions of Parking Structure 126' x 236'126' x 236'126' x 170'126' x 170'244' x 247'244' X 247' Area of Parking 107,500 106,750 76,000 76,000 159,800 220,100 Area of Business Space 4,900 6,300 15,100 15,100 Preliminary Construction Costs (Including Escalation)$12,222,284 $11,751,970 $8,030,982 $8,434,957 $17,854,315 $23,386,323 Preliminary Soft Costs (Demolition, Asbestos Abatement, Design, Survey, Geotech, Etc.) $2,200,011 $2,115,355 $1,204,647 $1,265,244 $2,678,147 $3,507,948 Project Cost $14,422,295 $13,867,324 $9,235,629 $9,700,200 $20,532,462 $26,894,272 Site 1: Tamiro Site Site 2: 6th & Main Site 3: 9th & Main Cost Summary –Updated estimates Page 157 of 175 1919 •Small garage at lowest cost -$9.7M •Least desirable location by public and neighborhood stakeholders 6th and Main -Summary Page 158 of 175 2020 •Full block provides opportunity for mixed use with parking •Highest cost -$26.8M •Opportunity for P3 •Will increase parking pressure when site is offline for construction •Reviewing for phasing opportunity, but phasing likely will not reduce this pressure •Excellent potential for future development when timing is right for partnership –Downtown Master Plan calls out potential for multiple garages 9th and Main Page 159 of 175 2121 •Provides parking in the NE quadrant with most current parking pressure •More development on the near term horizon in this quadrant •Opportunity for mid-sized garage as a first •Will be a reliever for parking when future garage(s) are built •Less costly than 9th and Main -$9.7M •Visibility to visitors •Council authorized negotiation for possible land swap on 2/22/22 Tamiro/Austin Avenue and 6th Page 160 of 175 22 +/-.6605 acre +- .49 acre +- .169 acre Potential Swap – Developer owned property (yellow) for city owned lots (red) Page 161 of 175 23 Encumbrances & easements on city owned properties Page 162 of 175 2424 •Council authorization to negotiate for the land swap due to approximate equal size of the total two city owned lots versus the larger Tamiro lot •Adjustments for easements •Transformer relocation on 6th and Main lot (allowance) •Value of the public parking places that would help Tamiro meet Area 2 parking requirements after construction (due to removal of surface parking) •Additional 6’ of property towards north on Tamiro site to best suit garage design •Usage agreement to allow to continue public use during garage construction Land swap –main points Page 163 of 175 2525 Funding Considerations •Funding from America Rescue Plan and other Council Funds •Current Balance Council SRF (undesignated) $5.4 million •Current Balance ARPA $7.8M •Downtown TIRZ generates $415K annually •Consider a portion that would allow TIRZ to continue to fund other improvements •$4M in bonds would = $270,000 in debt service, or 65% of the current TIRZ rev •Parking is considered a transportation project and eligible for certificates of obligation •$5M= $340,000 debt service or $0.005 or less on current non-ceiling tax rate •General bond referendum •Timing; next opportunity for November 2022 or May 2023 •$14M = $950K or appx $0.01 on current non-ceiling tax rate Page 164 of 175 2626 Timeline for a Garage Earliest Est. Completion •Design -estimated 9-10 months Spring 2023 •Bid/Construction (15-18 months)Fall 2024 Page 165 of 175 2727 Council Feedback •Site discussion •Timing •Funding direction/sources •Design funding needed in current year if council desires fastest timing •Construction funding in FY23 •Design •Utilize previous design work completed by stakeholder committee •Materials, facades, other design elements •Opportunity for Council to help select the architect/engineering firm Page 166 of 175 Downtown Parking Garage Engagement Report January 2022 Page 167 of 175 Summary p 03 p 03 p 04 p 05 p 06 01 Table of Contents Outreach efforts02 Survey results03 Survey comments04 Postcard comments05 Downtown Parking Garage Engagement Report 02 p 07-08Demographic info06 p 09Project team07 Page 168 of 175 Summary Tamiro Plaza, southwest corner of 6th Street and Austin Avenue 9th and Main streets, entire square block 6th and Main streets, southwest corner The City of Georgetown has been working to evaluate and address parking concerns for the downtown area for several years. Research and recommendations for parking solutions have been informed by several factors, including numerous City Council discussions and presentations, the 2014 Downtown Master Plan update, a Downtown Parking Study from 2015, land-use codes, public engagement about the design, a stakeholder steering committee, and our consulting firm, Wantman Group Inc. (WGI). In 2021, after WGI conducted a review of several potential locations for a downtown parking garage, City Council identified three locations to consider: Council directed staff to collect public input to help inform its decisions moving forward, including preferences for the potential locations of a parking garage, whether any levels should be underground, and if they would support using property taxes to fund its construction. City staff solicited feedback from Nov. 27 to Dec. 31, 2021, through a number of ways, including at the Shop Small Saturday event (Nov. 27, 2021), via comment postcards available at the Visitor's Center, and through a virtual survey. The survey was promoted several ways, including yard signs placed around the Square, social media posts (as well as a targeted Facebook ad to reach demographics who hadn't taken the survey half- way through the campaign), the weekly e-newsletter, emails to about 20 stakeholder groups, a news release, and the City website. 03Downtown Parking Garage Engagement Report Outreach efforts 22,149 T o t a l i m p r e s s i o n s o n F a c e b o o k 8,143 T o t a l i m p r e s s i o n s o n T w i t t e r 1,815 N u m b e r o f Q R c o d e s c a n s & w e b p a g e v i e w s 4,007 T o t a l i m p r e s s i o n s o n N e x t d o o r 915 L i n k c l i c k s i n f i v e G e o r g e t o w n W e e k l y s t o r i e s $2,400 A m o u n t s p e n t o n c a m p a i g n Page 169 of 175 Survey Results Downtown Parking Garage Engagement Report 04 1,266 c o m p l e t e d s u r v e y s Location 9th and Main 57.3% 6th and Main 12.3% Tamiro Plaza 30.4%4 above 76.9% 3 above, 1 below 23.1% Levels above ground Business space Extremely important 7.2% Very important 12.9% Somewhat important 23.4% Not so important 21.9% Not at all important 34.6% Using property taxes to pay for construction Yes 56.7% No 43.3% Page 170 of 175 Downtown Parking Garage Engagement Report 05 Survey Comments 475 c o m m e n t s s u b m i t t e d Sentiment Example comment# of comments Location 108 Many comments advocated Tamiro or 9th and Main. Miscellaneous 85 "Security in a parking project is a major consideration. An underground area would leave an individual in a vulnerable situation. The parking project needs to be well-lit, have security cameras and be designed for safety." Support 63 "We desperately need more parking around the square!!" Oppose 42 "Please don’t make our historical downtown ugly. We don’t need a parking garage." Design 38 "I do not want to see or have tall parking structures in downtown Georgetown." 6th & Main 32 "DO NOT build at 6th and Main." Timeliness 20 "We definitely need more parking now, today" Accessibility 18 "Need more handicap parking spaces both with the garage and downtown." Strategy 7 "Project should have a 30-yr vision. Costs and needs will only increase. Overbuild it so we aren't doing this again in 2025." Cost 62 "Charge for parking, no new property tax. " Page 171 of 175 Downtown Parking Garage Engagement Report 06 Postcard Comments 72 p o s t c a r d s s u b m i t t e d 9th and Main 27 Tamiro Plaza 21 6th and Main 15 Opposed 7 Page 172 of 175 Demographic Information Downtown Parking Garage Engagement Report 08 White/Caucasian 980 Hispanic/Latino 83 Another race 28 Race/Ethnicity 55-64 184 65+ 430 45-54 201 35-44 172 25-34 144 18-24 16 Age Group Female 630 Male 489 Other 8 Gender Collecting demographic information is standard best practice for public engagement, particularly non-scientific surveys, to help ensure we have some understanding of who provided feedback. This way, we know a) whether feedback is reflective of our community and b) can perform targeted messages before it closes to reach those audiences that aren't appropriately represented. In this instance, we boosted the survey on Facebook to Georgetown residents younger than 65. Page 173 of 175 Demographic Information Downtown Parking Garage Engagement Report 07 Resident 1080 Works in Georgetown 287 Lives near the Square 223 Works near the Square 148 Business owner 106 Other 83 Square business owner 76 Relationship to Georgetown Don't know 366 6 169 3 105 N/A 101 2 100 5 91 4 85 7 56 1 54 Council district 78626 387 78633 349 78628 319 Other 78 Zip code Page 174 of 175 Name RoleTitle David Morgan, Laurie Brewer, Wayne Nero City Manager's Office Approvals Eric Johnson Public Works Director Approvals Kim McAuliffe Sr. EcoDevo Program Manager Website, event, approvals Michaela Dollar EcoDevo Director Approvals, event Sofia Nelson Planning Director Approvals Judie Mattocks Public Engagement Coordinator Survey Aly Van Dyke CAPE Director Campaign content, strategy Britin Bostick, Jennifer DeRoeck, Danielle Dutra Additional event support Downtown Parking Garage Engagement Report 09 Contact information Communications and Public Engagement Department pio@georgetown.org Project webpage https://mainstreet.georgetown.org/downtown-parking-garage-project/ Project Team Page 175 of 175