User fees or use for free?
Among the topics that brought residents out to last night's Council meeting was the resolution to amend Recreation Department fees. There's nothing like the fear of losing an entitlement to stimulate turnout, and people did indeed show up to try to head off an increase in user fees associated with Township programs and services. Frankly, this is insane.
The system as it stands bestows benefits unevenly among residents for no good reason. What is the compelling interest of the taxpayers in subsidizing below market rate childcare, lessons, or activities for the lucky few who manage to get in before these programs fill up? This is not about poor senior citizens or underprivileged youth needing the assistance of the community. If it were, the solution would be quite different.
It is clear that others share my discomfort. The search for a legal way to try to alter the formula so that it factors in need is on. Perhaps it's time to think bigger. A more fruitful course of action might be to either raise fees substantially so that they reflect the market price (or simply cut out this programming altogether), return money to the residents, and at the same time plan to hold an annual event to solicit private donations to provide programming for local seniors and youth in need.
In a time when the residents of this state are beginning to question whether each town even needs its very own public safety infrastructure or local school district, it seems rather absurd that Teaneck should go on operating an elaborate scheme whose direct consequence is that a handful of suburbanites can avoid having to pay full-price for Gymboree.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 11:16 AM
34 Comments:
When I worked for a social services agency, we used a sliding fee scale for everything. I see no reason, other than the Township attorney's initial hesitation to pursue it (which frankly I don't understand), that Teaneck shouldn't implement that type of system for ALL of its programs and services. We have wonderful programs that should stay and flourish, but those who can pay more, should, and those who cannot should be able to pay what they can. I would further suggest that all programs be run on a lottery basis, so that one person's chance of getting into a program is the same the the next.
A lottery is only necessary because these classes and services are a steal the way they are priced and therefore get oversubscribed. If the town needs to stay in the activities business, it should rationalize its pricing so the many are not footing the bill for the few.
I agree that Recreation Department programs are underpriced. It's interesting that the programs sponsored by the Board of Education are more expensive than the Recreation Department programs. Does anyone know if they have lower enrollment as a result. Camp Koos Koos, sponsored by the Board of Education, at about $1,500 per kid for six weeks of summer activities is booked solid.
I think the Recreation Department should increase the fees to something approaching their market value and create an opportunity for low-income township residents to pay a reduced fees with some type of uncomplicated means test.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I would certainly pay more for tap dance classes and KidSafe program at the Rodda Center.
I disagree that only the inexpensive nature of some classes is the reason they are oversubscribed. There are not, for example, many preschools around here that are not religiously affiliated. Also, it is convenient to have the programs here in town and many people attend for those reasons. In other cases, the teacher is really great & so consistently draws a crowd.
I really support sliding scale across the board. And, yes, that means for seniors, too.
Teaneck Blog,
I just re-read your initial post and feel that I need to add something that you left out. The bulk of the people who spoke last night were seniors, who did not want their free programming cut. Until last night I had no idea that all of the senior programming at the Rodda Center is free. Yes, a few people chimed in that we might not want to jack up the rates for kids, too, but mostly it was entitled seniors who felt they had paid into the system and wanted their fair share in return.
Another unintended consequence of the absurdly low prices for Rodda Center children's programming is that people sign up for the classes, attend the first one and then don't feel a lot of pressure to attend subsequent ones because "it only costs $25 for the whole session, so I don't care if we only make it to one or two classes." Meanwhile, that space in the program is now gone and someone who would have attended every week is shut out. Believe me, this does not happen with Music Together or Gymboree. I see a strong argument for offering Rodda Center children's programming at least at cost, rather than below cost and returning the saved money to the taxpayers. Even if the Rodda Center doubled or tripled its prices, the classes would still cost significantly less than for-profit programs do.
Right on, blarla. People don't value what they don't pay for.
I third that idea $25 for ten tap dancing classes is absurdly cheap. I say keep the programs. Jack up the prices.
So, are we jacking up the prices for everyone? Only for those who can afford to pay? Only for those who use youth programs?
Let me understand your perspective, Teaneck Blog. You see no value in having a community meeting place unless one has to pay market rates to attend its programs and use its services?
I hope that you realize that for some, the Rodda Center offers more than a genuine Gymboree alternative. At Gymboree prices, I never could have afforded to take my child there regularly. I'm not rich, and not poor -- stuck in the middle and getting squeezed. I got my forms in on time, paid the fees, and enjoyed the time spent with my child at several programs.
Should we get rid of the cut-rate town pool, too? Not everybody can fit in it at once, so it's not fair to have it, especially during these troubled times.
There has to be an intermediate level of cost. What we have now seems totally too cheap for the user and too expensive for the taxpayers.
Senior services are also spread out among various departments. The Fire department, for instance, sends out its expensive workers to check up on how older residents are doing. The senior busing program is free no matter what senior resources are; some seniors are frankly more financially secure than the younger people trying to afford Teaneck life.
All senior programs should be consolidated and rationalized and seniors should pay in accordance with their ability to pay.
Aren't seniors exempt from fees because a former councilman and several others fought for an exemption at a council meeting almost 10 years ago?
"Let me understand your perspective, Teaneck Blog. You see no value in having a community meeting place unless one has to pay market rates to attend its programs and use its services?"
There is a HUGE middle ground between $25 for a session of 10 classes and the market rate of at least $180. $75 would still be a great deal but my guess is that it would probably at least cover the costs of the teacher, etc. Also, who ever said that these kinds of classes for kids are such a necessity that taxpayers should foot nearly the entire bill? There are a lot of things that would be great to have for "free" (weekly recycling collection, for example) but that doesn't mean that we should spend taxpayer $s to get them.
Well, the proposition in the original post was to 1)raise prices to market rate; 2)cut them altogether and/or 3)raise private funds for the poor for those services. Halfway wasn't listed as an option.
I think the Rec Dir needs to research the cost of these programs and come up with more appropriate fees. While she's at it, she needs to develop a sliding fee scale based on need for all programs, including scholarships. It's inexcusable for this not to have happened a long time ago.
can somebody post the top 10 salaries in the rec dept.
that might put things in perspective...
The rec director won't do anything she doesn't have to do. She's been in that job forever.
At last nights meeting Councilmember Rudolph made a promise to vote against any fees for seniors.
I have been a supporter of his and I am retired. If Rudy bows to this kind of pressure he will lose his base.
A case study in the dangers of attempting to pander. Rudolph will not repair his image by enthusiastically taking up whatever cause has brought a few extra residents to a public meeting on a given night. Neither the tearing of the Master Plan nor this stunt will do anything to win the hearts of his detractors and they may well alienate those who had previously remained on his side.
No But To Continue To Think Outside oF The Box For TEANECK
Will. He Demonsrates At Every Meeting That He Has The Ability AND Desire To Improve Life For Our Residents
Rudolph demonstrates at every opportunity just how big a mistake it was to have him shoved on the ballot by his political puppetmaster, and what a disaster it was to push voters to elect him. The stunts with the master plan, voting to promote the police officer and promising to keep fees at zero for seniors are all shameless students designed to pander for another term in office.
I'm sure he's thinking out of the box all the time. What's the best way to help himself and only himself?
He has no understanding of what people in Teaneck want or need.
Anon 2:10 -- Is this a joke? Can you give some examples? I haven't seen anything from him but pandering.
Rudolph is responsible for getting the funds for Teaneck to build a handicapped assessible park. I don't consider that to be pandering.
Shouldn't the high priced Rec. Director have accomplished the park issue?
Rudolph is responsible for getting the funds for Teaneck to build a handicapped assessible park. I don't consider that to be pandering.
Actually, this is one of the better examples of pandering- thanks for bringing it up. If you noticed, certain Council members made a point of trying to show how Rudolph's new position with the County made it easier for Teaneck secure these funds. Evidently, this was supposed to be the payoff that would smooth over the feelings that gripped many in Teaneck when it got out that Rudolph had been appointed to a controversial new job by the BCDO machine.
its a good thing rudy doesn't find a cure for cancer, becuase then we would have to find a way to praise cancer and how it really is good and rudy shouldn't have fouind the cure.
PEOPLE- get a life- move on- he is working for the county- and for the first time teaneck is getting money back from bergen.
PEOPLE- get a life- move on- he is working for the county- and for the first time teaneck is getting money back from bergen.
And what is going the other way in return for all these favors? Perhaps it's all innocent, but given the track record of some of the figures involved, it remains a legitimate concern for the residents of Teaneck. Rudolph has earned the extra scrutiny on account of whom he has decided to associate with. He knows it, too.
Teaneck Blog- If facilitating the needed handicapped accessible park is pandering, than I would like to hear your opinion on Senator Weinberg. I heard that when she was asked to help Teaneck acquire the funds for the park, she said there was no available money.
This would be a very good time for Loretta to start pandering.
She doesn't think she needs to pander to Teaneck. She has most of the township fooled!
If facilitating the needed handicapped accessible park is pandering, than I would like to hear your opinion on Senator Weinberg.
It's not the inherent act of "facilitating" the park that is pandering, it is the way it is being presented that makes me view it that way- "You see people of Teaneck? Councilman Rudolph gets a cushy job with the County, and you get a handicapped accessible park for playing along nicely..."
As for Sen. Weinberg, it appears she may be embarking on a pandering campaign of her own as the elections approach (see an earlier post about apparent efforts to cozy up to the Orthodox Jewish community). I'm not sure why you want me to opine on that, but if it's because you suspect that I am trying to protect her in some way, you are way off base.
I echo the sentiment of the women who says she is stuck in the middle trying to make ends meet. if the classes were more expensive, then the people wouldnt be able to afford it even at $75.00
You know, I pay HIGH taxes, and send my kids to private school, so If I get a break on some town offered services, I dont see why everyone here is in a uproar.
I do agree that the Rec Center needs to implement some attendance policy. Say if you miss more than 3 classes, then u cant register for the same class next session. Right now as it stands, there are no consequences, AND people just dont show up and the classes are shut out. NOt fair...
Just to be clear about the township division of labor: the Rec Dept. creates, develops and runs programs. The DPW manages and maintains the parks.
I think Ms. Crockett, at the Rec Dept makes about 80k/yr, but I could be wrong.
Post a Comment
<< Home