|
218
<br />
<br />June 28, 1977
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Barnes and seconded by Mr. Oast, the ordinance was adopted on final
<br />reading, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Barnes, Early, Elliott, Oast, Wentz, Davis
<br />Nays: Holley
<br />
<br /> 77-173
<br />and read:
<br />
<br />The followingoordinance deferred from the meeting of May 31, 1977, was taken up
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO ~qEND CF~PTER 24 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH,
<br />BY ~4ENDING SECTIONS 24-100(a) AND (b), 24-126, 24-127, AND 24-140; AND BY
<br />ADDING SECTIONS 24-161,
<br />E~Ri.USE~iD~REGREAZIO~IAL~EAC-ILI!TI~$~?RE~:~AL'tN~RD-~NANE~fN0~i~?2-1i0.,,
<br />
<br /> Arthur Hughes, S708 Barberry Lane, spoke in.:.ge~feral about City'PackTGotf Course~ (fe~s,
<br />budge~t,~:an~ gp!Y~pro s d.u~es)~,'.~ ~ -_ ~
<br />
<br />The following report was submitted by the City Manager:
<br />
<br /> ~'In response to questions raised by members of the City Council regarding proposed
<br />fees to be charged for use of various recreational facilities, the fdltowing report is
<br />submitted. A primary concern centered around the City charging for certain facilities,
<br />e.g., swimming pools, picnic shelters; but not charg-ing a fee for other facilities, e.g.,
<br />tennis courts, little league ball. There is no exact way to determine when a user fee
<br />versus general taxes should be used to finance a particular activity. A major determinant
<br />is '~perceived' community preference/traditions. Other interrelated factors include; (1)
<br />degree of specialization, (2) need for control, and (3) administrative feasibility.
<br />
<br /> Short of a poll of every resident in Portsmouth, community preference can only be
<br />approximated. The proposed fee structure closely follows the recom~nendations of the Parks
<br />and Recreation Commission which is representative of the residents of the City. Based on
<br />the deliberations and unanimous actions of the CommissiOn,. -I?f~al that the proposed fee
<br />structure will be acceptable to the vast majority of residents. The Commission has held
<br />nu~:~s-~.u~t~e~i~e~i.~gs and implemented neighborhood forums in order to receive citizen
<br />input.
<br />
<br /> ~herever feasible, I do feel that a user fee should be cons~derea. In ~eneral, the
<br />more specialized an activity is perceived, the more likely a user fee will be acceptable.
<br />Golf, for example, is a specialized activity. I would say that few residents feel that their
<br />tax dollars should pa~y for the operation of a golf course. A user fee is not only acceptable, I
<br />but probably expected. Addit&~R~l~,the cost-user ratio is relatively high. On the other
<br />hand, little league ball is c0nsi~ered by many as a :fundamental recreational activity.
<br />I would speculate that many residents would object strongly to having to pay out-of-the-pocket
<br />money £or their child to participate in little league ball. "Afterall", they would argue,
<br />"what am I paying taxes for?" Equally important, little league ball enjoys widespread partici-
<br />pa~tion.
<br />
<br /> Some user fees are implemented for control purposes. The proposed fee for reservations
<br />of picnic shelters at Sleepy Hole Park resulted in part from persons reserving the shelters,
<br />and then not showing up. In order for a shelter to be reserved, the reservation fee would
<br />have to be received by a specified date. If a shelter were available at a particular time,
<br />a group would be allowed to use it without payment of the fee. The fee would be charged
<br />for reserving a shelter only. The fee for swimming pools was implemented to control the
<br />frequency of kids using the pool since the demand was too great. In using Title XX funds
<br />for kids whose families are income eligible, we are able to secure non-tscal revenues.
<br />
<br /> Another issue related to the possibility of charging for tennis courts, especially lighte~
<br />courts. On an experimental basis, we are proposing to implement a fee for reserving courts
<br />at City Park and at Churchland Park on weekends and weekday evenings. This proposal which
<br />was recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission, has receive~ the endorsement of the
<br />Tennis Patrons Assocation. Although this proposal will generate revenue, the primary purpose
<br />is to schedule courts (thereby eliminating long waits -for those who h~e reserved a court).
<br />Based on our experience, we may expand or perhaps restrict the reservation system. Even
<br />at the same location, we may have both open courts and reservation courts. Although charging
<br />at some courts, but not others, may seem inequitable, under the fee-reservation system a
<br />person is guaranteed a court for a specified time which may be well worth the $.50 to $1.00
<br />per person charge.
<br />
<br /> In summary, charging a fee for recreational activities which are not monitored on a
<br />regular basis is not feasible. However, where control is required to insure availability
<br />of the service to meet the demand, a user fee becomes necessary as well as feasible. My
<br />proposal was based largely on the recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission
<br />which, I feel, reflects a sense of the community. We will continue to investigate the possibi
<br />lity of implementing user fees where practical."
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Early and seconded by Mr. Barnes, to~jeliminate Section 24-100(a), and ~he
<br />ordinance was adopted on final reading, ~sd~.e~i~%~A~!~[i~h~ ~$1owing vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Barnes, Early, Blliott, Oast, Wentz, Davis
<br />Nays: Hotley
<br />
<br />
<br />
|