While I am sure there may or may not be legitimate reason P & R pays a fee to these non-profits for their services, (approval of contracts, consent agenda, Item#1) it would be nice to HEAR what they are instead of hiding them in a consent agenda, and how that revenue to the orgs is assessed for what services.
If these funds go where stated, surprise the city does have a social services conscience. However, I suspect this is a place to temporarily locate money so Parks & Rec budget is not cut or later restate for the underfunded EC.
Let’s not speculate yet, I want to hear the (rehearsed) answer tomorrow night in the council meeting from Mr. Korny.
So – the alternative would be to hire staff – full-time, with benefits, etc. Outsourcing to private business (THE conservative way-dontcha know)- cheaper – supposed to make you a happy taxpayer.
No. The better choice would be to do neither.
Stop the world-I want to a: get off, b: kick someone else off.
Once you were a kid (in case you forgot), but I suppose WHERE you were a kid there were no afterschool programs, etc. One day you WILL be an old fart and from what I can tell re: your “government ought’ta do stuff for me” whines – you WILL still be demanding the city do stuff for you.
Yeah, there was an after school program, it was called riding a dusty bus for an hour, walking a half-mile to the farm and doing chores for 2-3 hours. You know what the towns of Parkston, Dimock, Milltown, Ethan and Alexandria (all in distance) called that? Work.
Guess what toto – this you ain’t in Dimock any more.
Oh, I forgot, SF is better then that, that is why the rest of the state dislikes us.
DL – just keep in mind most kids don’t qualify for your tax dollars, so these programs target at-risk youth and low income families. Studies have sown for every dollar we put into after school programs such as these, we get much more in return due to these kids turning into more productive members of society, less crime, less dependency upon social services as adults etc. etc.
Honestly – we should be spending MORE money on these types of programs… not less. It is the right thing to do and it isn’t fair to punish or hold back the potential of these kids just because their parents happen to be hovering at or near poverty level or because they are products of a broken home where mom works two minimum wage, no-benefit jobs just to keep a roof over their head.
Would agree. But shouldn’t it be coming out of School District funds? The kids are leaving school to go to these programs, and the School district is supplying the space. So why don’t they subsidize it also? Not sure how ‘after school programs’ are a responsibility of the city?