Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Riverton council to revisit recreation contract funding after citizen pleas; no change made May 20
Summary
Council members and residents urged the City Council to reconsider funding levels for the city’s recreation programs; council agreed to place the item on a future agenda for further discussion and possible amendment to the $240,000 ceiling.
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents told the City Council on May 20 that Riverton’s recreation programs play a central role in youth activities, and several council members said they want to revisit the allocation for contract services after recent work-session discussion.
Councilwoman Karen Johnson said she had received many emails and phone calls about recreation funding and asked how to amend the city’s recommended amount. City attorney/administrator staff advised that the council could place the item on a future regular meeting agenda so the public and other organizations could provide feedback prior to final budget action.
Council indicated a preference to retain the $240,000 ceiling discussed at an earlier work session but to consider fully funding (or increasing) the recreation allocation within that limit before the final budget adoption. Staff noted the need to advertise public hearings at least one week before a meeting and suggested a June 3 date or a special meeting for later in the month to allow changes before the June 10 budget adoption.
During the public comment period, two Riverton residents addressed the council in favor of increased recreation funding. Kristen Marshall described her son’s path from city summer academy to graduating from Central Wyoming College and said the programs “changed Noah’s direction completely.” Kurt Gallitz urged the council to account for inflation in the rec budget, saying the program has effectively operated on the same funding for about 15 years and that rising costs may equal roughly $57,000 in increased expense.
No formal appropriation or vote to change funding occurred at the May 20 meeting; council directed staff to put the contract-for-services funding question back on a future agenda where council could consider amendments and hear representatives of other organizations that receive city funds.

