By Kim Siebert MacPhail
As town departments appear one-by-one before the Finance Committee (FinCom) to discuss their budgets in advance of Annual Town Meeting, a particular focus of last Thursday night’s presentations was the high balance in the Recreation Department’s revolving fund.
Recreation Director Amy Hamilton and Recreation Committee Chair Ron Richter presented an overview of FinCom of Recreation’s programs, its challenges and their assessment of why the revolving fund balance has climbed as high as $672,000 at one point during the current fiscal year. Saying that the account into which user fees for Recreation programs are deposited normally fluctuates depending on the time of year, Hamilton and Richter explained that while water clarity problems at Springs Brook Park has remained unresolved, they have been careful not to expend money too liberally on any program needs.
FinCom members, on the other hand, questioned whether program fees were set too high, resulting in the high revolving fund balance, and why fees for some programs should cover deficits in other, less self-sustaining programs.
Hamilton and Richter’s overview illustrated the wide range ofRecreation programs for Bedford youth, adults, and families, such as Kids’ Club day care, elementary age sports teams, The Corner(a middle-school-age after school program), Bedford Summer Adventures, science and music/theater camps, adult education classes,and Springs Brook Park. In FY2012, these programs together brought in about $1.6M. From this revenue, some salaries and instructor fees are paid and equipment and program supplies are purchased; expenditures totaled $1.562M in FY12. For clarity’s sake, the books are kept separately for each program, as sub-sets of a single Recreation revolving fund.
Hamilton and Richter provideda chart showingthat in the years since FY2004, the revolving fund’s lowest point was $141,000(FY2005) and its highest point was $672,000(FY2013).Theyexplained that Recreation’s rule of thumb is that the fund’s balance should not drop lower than $300,000, to ensure that the bills can always be paid.
“It’s hard to take a snapshot at any given time because fees may have come in, but expenses may not have gone out,” Richter said. “We didn’t make any investments in 2009 and 2010 because there were months where we were dipping below [the $300,000 balance]. In 2011 and 2012, we started to say ‘we should reinvest some of this.’”
But, Hamilton added, “We held off [reinvesting in some of the program needs] because we didn’t know what was happening at Springs Brook Park. . . .Recreation has always operated frugally.”
Additionally, according to Hamilton, fluctuations in enrollments make predicting staff needs and expenses difficult. Richter agreed, noting that, “Everything is fee-supported.”
But, FinCom member Ben Thomas said he found it difficult to see the large sums in the recreation revolving fund go unused, particularly in the face of the $1.87M synthetic turf project for which the town will now borrow funds.
“I’m not going to second guess the [$300,000] number,” Thomas said. “I just see large numbers [in the revolving fund] and look at the town spending large numbers on rec opportunities elsewhere and wonder why there isn’t some help there. . . .That [turf field] was sold as a town resource.”
Also, FinCon member Bob Kenney took exception to paying for a program, such as soccer, and having those funds used to subsidize another program, such as Springs Brook Park, saying that each program should cover its own costs.
“Why not reinvest the money in the program [the surplus came from in the first place]?” Kenney asked.
“That’s what we do,” Richter responded. “We get a report like this [that shows surplus funds], and we look at the balance in the soccer program. . . .We look at the line item, we talk to that committee, we try to set the fees, we try to re-invest in that program.”
Richter added, “We had a much better year at Springs Brook Park last year with the clarity [issue] and the opening and the safety. Not that we feel like [the water clarity issue at] Springs Brook Park is ever going to be behind us, but we feel like we can make some investments now. We don’t need to invest a big chunk in the Park.”
But Thomas replied, “The thing that scares me and bothers me is the sheer size of the amount of money that’s parked there, and its growth rate. The growth, except for 2008/2009, has been pretty impressive: 30% one year, 25% last year. That’s a lot of growth. That’s money that wasn’t spent for some reason and it’s just parked.”
Richter responded, “In 2005, [the Rec Commission] spent a number of meetings looking at the revolving fund. It was declining, Kids’ Club was declining—we were very worried. We just pulled it back in. We were worried about paying bills.”
When asked by FinCom member Barbara Perry what the plan is now for the surplus in the revolving fund, Hamilton responded, “Maybe we should take a little bit more risk in our fee structures. We have a shopping list [for equipment and supply purchases that have been deferred, but] Springs Brook Park scared us.”
“I do applaud your attempts to keep the fees reasonable for families,” said FinCom member Meredith McCulloch. “I think it’s really important.”
Finally, Thomas concluded that, “We asked a lot of questions. We think you guys do a great job and the programs are a gem and the service to the Bedford community is outstanding. I like that you keep on thinking up new stuff; I like that you adapt and change things; I think Springs Brook Park is awesome. We hope we’ve given you common sense, helpful suggestions.”
“It isn’t just your revolving fund we’re looking at,”FinCom member Stephen Steele told Hamilton and Richter. “We’re looking at all of them.”
Loading ...
