Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldwingnut
For the sake of accuracy the actual number in the budget for the Rec News is $208,656 north of CR466 and $448,224 south of CR466 for a total of $656,880. The remaining amount in the budget is for the printing and publication of the rest of the printed materials, forms, and paperwork necessary to run the amenities.
The Recreation News is included in the Amenity Purchase as an asset and has certain intrinsic values that add to the value of the amenities. The paper Rec News has the ability to reach 100% of the population/target audience and does not rely on the user possessing the hardware and ability access the media unlike an on-line version. Without residents using the amenities they lose much of their value, value that is of primary interest to the bond holders and the underwriters.
The Rec News is available on-line and efforts are being made to improve it as an on-line resource. Even putting it on-line has significant costs that cannot be avoided, layout and design of the publications represent a substantial portion of the costs involved in its production and distribution. The technology side of making it available on-line is also very expensive to ensure usability and reliability. While the internet may be free for the end user, the content providers pay significant costs to provide their content. Most websites rely on advertising dollars to offset this cost, no advertising is included in the districtgov.org website and therefore all costs must be paid directly.
|
Well said.
Something that I have not seen in the 'Great Rec News Debate of 2019' is:
1. Just how much would be saved by elimitaing a portion of the printing? Most agree that printed copies in rec centers makes sense. I wonder if the savings are as much as we might think.
2. Do the savings justify removing a service that some residents have said they use, and would like to keep. Perhaps a small percentage of residents, but they are there.