Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Janesville council rescinds long-standing parks and recreation cost‑recovery policy after debate
Summary
The City of Janesville council voted 5–2 to rescind Council Policy 64, which set cost‑recovery targets for recreation programs, after staff said recent accounting and the Woodman Sports & Convention Center’s separate fund made the policy redundant with the annual budget review process.
The City of Janesville Common Council voted 5–2 on Nov. 24 to rescind Council Policy 64, a decades‑old policy that established cost‑recovery goals for parks and recreation programs.
Neighborhood and Community Services Director Jennifer Petrozzello told the council the policy—first adopted in 1988 and revised in 2019—set specific cost‑recovery targets such as 35% for the senior center, 90% for the ice arena and 50% overall for the recreation division. She said removing the Woodman Sports & Convention Center (the ice arena) into a separate fund reduced the recreation division’s overall cost recovery and that the city’s annual fee review and budget process now evaluate fee and cost recovery metrics.
"Using about $400,000 in ice arena revenues and expenses, the recreation budgets would see a decrease of 35% in revenues and a decrease in expenditures of only 20%," Petrozzello said, describing the arithmetic staff used to explain why the policy’s targets no longer matched the division’s structure.
Council members split on the policy’s future. Supporters said the separate accounting for the Woodman center and the routine budget‑driven fee review make a standalone council policy redundant and that existing committee review preserves oversight. "The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee voted unanimously and that’s the recommendation," one supporter said, citing the committee’s review.
Opponents warned rescinding the policy removes an easy, council‑level reference showing the city’s targets for how much participants should pay versus taxpayers. Council Member Urban argued the written policy offered a transparent year‑to‑year benchmark for future councils and said rescinding it risks relinquishing council guidance on recovery goals.
The motion to rescind was moved by Council Member Williams and seconded by Vice President Squire; it passed 5–2, with Council Members Miller and Erdman recorded as voting no. The council did not adopt replacement numeric targets; staff said fee and recovery adjustments will be handled through the annual budget and fee review processes.
The council’s action takes effect immediately; staff said they will continue to report recovery metrics through budget documents and committee briefings so members can track trends.
