Amenity Fees and Recreation News

[TOTV Specialist]

Back in May, the Amenity Authority Committee and the Project Wide Advisory Committee decided to collectively spend over $600,000 in amenities fees on Recreation News for the 2019-2020 fiscal year. Yet two months later, a debate around the publication of Recreation News still persists.

The AAC who is responsible for amenities north of County Road 466 will spend $208,656 to publish and distribute Recreation News, which is released weekly. Whereas the PWAC, which holds responsibility for amenities south of County Road 466, is preparing to spend $448,224 for Recreation News. Based on last year, the PWAC will see a one percent decrease. By the end of this fiscal year, the two committees combined are looking at spending $656,880 towards publication.

The printing and distribution of Recreation News comes with some debate from Villagers. There are advocates who push for the publication of Recreation News to continue, but for it to be published less frequently. Whereas others find no need for any change.

“[It’s] Very useful when visitors need good information,” Wrote Villager, John H.

For this very reason, realtors are among those in favor of the publication, as it acts as a valuable tool for promotion of all of the Villages many recreational activities.
However, those who stand on the other side of the debate argue that the publication is redundant and no longer necessary.

“[It is a] Waste of paper, many events are not listed. A comprehensive and up-to-date web site would be much easier and would reduce waste,” wrote Villager, Penny T.

As of now, John Rohan, The Villages Recreation Director, reported that there is currently work being done to create an online database for Villagers to access. Rohan did not specify on a completion date; however, an online database does already exist on Talk of The Villages through their Activities and Clubs directory.

Villagers seeking an alternative from Recreation News can take advantage of TOTV’s extensive online database of clubs through the Villages Activities page. On this page, users can find activities dates, times, clubs, location of recreation center, and more. As for now, work continues to be by Recreation News to create an online database.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

There are not just two sides. Why does everyone need to think that life is always a matter of "this, or that?" There is middle ground, and there have been MANY people who have suggested a variety of middle-ground options on this and other TV-related fora.

Here's mine (again):

Make home-delivery of the weekly Rec News be available in the Daily Sun, for an added fee, collected by the Daily Sun. Make it minor - just an extra 50 cents, it won't kill anyone, it's just $26 extra per year for the privilege. For Snowbirds a seasonal subscription could be made available.

Then, add a plexiglass or acrylic-covered bulletin board to every postal station in The Villages. You can put it under the shelter next to the package delivery door. Under lock and key, like they do in most private communities that have community events. On this board you can put a quarterly Rec Center news, with a weekly "change page" to indicate which of those millions of club meetings is changing for that week. No need to reprint the whole thing every single week, if only a couple dozen of them will differ from their usual schedule. New clubs can be added to that week's page, and the next quarter, a new, updated full listing can replace the previous one.

The same thing can be done in the actual Rec Centers. In addition, any special events for that specific rec center can be featured in a dedicated spot on the bulletin board. Things like "Happy birthday to our pool manager Sue" or "The janitor thanks you all for respecting the recycle bins!" Or whatever.

IN ADDITION: make sure each of the Sales Offices has some copies of the quarterly Rec listings, and at least one copy of the weekly change sheet. They can make their own copies on demand. They can also pull it from a PDF file that's provided company-wide to anyone who wants to print it out for their clients and potential buyers.

SUMMARY: these should only be printed on demand, not in bulk. Anyone who wants them delivered should have to pay extra for them.

[hifred123]

Juzuela, sounds like a fair approach.

[Mikeod]

There are not just two sides. Why does everyone need to think that life is always a matter of "this, or that?" There is middle ground, and there have been MANY people who have suggested a variety of middle-ground options on this and other TV-related fora.

Here's mine (again):

Make home-delivery of the weekly Rec News be available in the Daily Sun, for an added fee, collected by the Daily Sun. Make it minor - just an extra 50 cents, it won't kill anyone, it's just $26 extra per year for the privilege. For Snowbirds a seasonal subscription could be made available.

Then, add a plexiglass or acrylic-covered bulletin board to every postal station in The Villages. You can put it under the shelter next to the package delivery door. Under lock and key, like they do in most private communities that have community events. On this board you can put a quarterly Rec Center news, with a weekly "change page" to indicate which of those millions of club meetings is changing for that week. No need to reprint the whole thing every single week, if only a couple dozen of them will differ from their usual schedule. New clubs can be added to that week's page, and the next quarter, a new, updated full listing can replace the previous one.

The same thing can be done in the actual Rec Centers. In addition, any special events for that specific rec center can be featured in a dedicated spot on the bulletin board. Things like "Happy birthday to our pool manager Sue" or "The janitor thanks you all for respecting the recycle bins!" Or whatever.

IN ADDITION: make sure each of the Sales Offices has some copies of the quarterly Rec listings, and at least one copy of the weekly change sheet. They can make their own copies on demand. They can also pull it from a PDF file that's provided company-wide to anyone who wants to print it out for their clients and potential buyers.

SUMMARY: these should only be printed on demand, not in bulk. Anyone who wants them delivered should have to pay extra for them.
I think that plan creates unnecessary additional complications. The DS now has to have two different subscription rates and that adds accounting steps. And the distribution people have to have two different stacks for the delivery people. They now have to have two different bundles of papers in the car/truck and remember which house gets the insert and which doesn't.


To me, the better solution is to remove the Rec News from the paper entirely. Create an online edition that is updated weekly and publish print copies to be distributed to all the rec centers, sales offices, and any other business that wishes to have them. This allows those that have online capability to get theirs and those who prefer to hold a paper copy to have theirs.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I think that plan creates unnecessary additional complications. The DS now has to have two different subscription rates and that adds accounting steps. And the distribution people have to have two different stacks for the delivery people. They now have to have two different bundles of papers in the car/truck and remember which house gets the insert and which doesn't.


To me, the better solution is to remove the Rec News from the paper entirely. Create an online edition that is updated weekly and publish print copies to be distributed to all the rec centers, sales offices, and any other business that wishes to have them. This allows those that have online capability to get theirs and those who prefer to hold a paper copy to have theirs.

That would work too! Thing is, there's no need to think that there are only two options: online only, or the way it is now.

As in most things, there are usually more than just two options. More than just black or white, more than just yes or no.

The OP's post implies that there must only be two possible outcomes, and this is unfair to the majority of residents, visitors, and potential buyers.

[TOTV Specialist]

That would work too! Thing is, there's no need to think that there are only two options: online only, or the way it is now.

As in most things, there are usually more than just two options. More than just black or white, more than just yes or no.

The OP's post implies that there must only be two possible outcomes, and this is unfair to the majority of residents, visitors, and potential buyers.

Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't intend to portray the content in that manner, and should have quoted an additional person who stands in the middle on the issue. I will go back in and edit this content to help change the tone of the material. Thanks again!

[Bogie Shooter]

I think that plan creates unnecessary additional complications. The DS now has to have two different subscription rates and that adds accounting steps. And the distribution people have to have two different stacks for the delivery people. They now have to have two different bundles of papers in the car/truck and remember which house gets the insert and which doesn't.


To me, the better solution is to remove the Rec News from the paper entirely. Create an online edition that is updated weekly and publish print copies to be distributed to all the rec centers, sales offices, and any other business that wishes to have them. This allows those that have online capability to get theirs and those who prefer to hold a paper copy to have theirs.
This continues to make the most sense. Saves a lot of money and doesn't create another bunch of options.
BTW mine goes in the recycle bin without ever being opened.
If thousands of tee times can be scheduled weekly, an online Rec News should be a piece of cake!

[biker1]

The current addition of the Rec News is on-line at thevillagesdailysun.com. There is a search facility if you are looking for something specific.


To me, the better solution is to remove the Rec News from the paper entirely. Create an online edition that is updated weekly and publish print copies to be distributed to all the rec centers, sales offices, and any other business that wishes to have them. This allows those that have online capability to get theirs and those who prefer to hold a paper copy to have theirs.

[Goldwingnut]

In May, the Amenity Authority Committee and the Project Wide Advisory Committee decided to collectively spend over $800,000 in amenities fees on Recreation News for the 2019-2020 fiscal year. However, this decision from May is still receiving mixed views.

The AAC who is responsible for amenities north of County Road 466 will spend $245,306 to publish and distribute Recreation News, which is released weekly. This will cause a four percent increase from the previous year. Whereas the PWAC, which holds responsibility for amenities south of County Road 466, is preparing to spend $565,020 for Recreation News. Based on last year, the PWAC will see a one percent decrease. By the end of this fiscal year, the two committees combined are looking at spending $810,326 towards publication.

The printing and distribution of Recreation News comes with some debate from Villagers. On one side, Villagers find the content relevant and helpful.

“[It’s] Very useful when visitors need good information,” Wrote Villager, John H.

For this very reason, realtors are among those in favor of the publication, as it acts as a valuable tool for promotion of all of the Villages many recreational activities.
However, those who stand on the other side of the debate argue that the publication is redundant and no longer necessary.

“[It is a] Waste of paper, many events are not listed. A comprehensive and up-to-date web site would be much easier and would reduce waste,” wrote Villager, Penny T.

As of now, John Rohan, The Villages Recreation Director, reported that there is currently work being done to create an online database for Villagers to access. Rohan did not specify on a completion date; however, an online database does already exist on Talk of The Villages through their Activities and Clubs directory.

Villagers seeking an alternative from Recreation News can take advantage of TOTV’s extensive online database of clubs through the Villages Activities page. On this page, users can find activities dates, times, clubs, location of recreation center, and more. As for now, work continues to be by Recreation News to create an online database.

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.

[eyc234]

This continues to make the most sense. Saves a lot of money and doesn't create another bunch of options.
BTW mine goes in the recycle bin without ever being opened.
If thousands of tee times can be scheduled weekly, an online Rec News should be a piece of cake!


It is easy to say just build it but no one has yet to ask how much that will cost. How much did it cost to develop the tee time system and maintain it? It may sound cheaper but it also could wind up costing more in the long run. The rational of "I do not use it so do away with it" is not a good litmus test for need or use of something. How about a real survey, poll or vote of Villagers with input into how they would like to proceed forward. The Daily News page is not a data base and is not user friendly.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Goldwingnut, the paper version has the ability to reach MUCH more than 100%, and that is exactly the problem with it. How many of these inserts are actually read, every week, by the entire 100% of possible people it is able to reach?

How many of these inserts are read by 100% of the number of issues printed?

What is the numeric difference, the math, between the number of issues printed and the number of readers who read it, every week?

How many people not only don't read it, but just dump it in the trash? How much paper, ink, energy, electricity, effort, man-hours, machine maintenance cost, is wasted by all that excess, every year?

And there are people who do NOT live all year round in the Villages, but would like to keep up with the goings-on in the rec centers where they live. Maybe they're members of multiple clubs and don't want to have to go to each club's individual website every week just to find out IF there's news. And some clubs don't HAVE websites of their own, making it even more important for snowbirds and people who just aren't there for a month, to maintain a connection to those clubs and activities.

They don't need to subscribe to the entire Daily Sun just so they can find out about a handful of clubs in their own rec center.

So the online edition, as a separate entity not directly connected to the Daily Sun, seems pretty important. Especially since you have to pay extra for the paper version of Daily Sun, and as you said - rec center news is an amenity that comes out of your amenity fee.

Paper copies should be made available but it stands to reason, if you are interested in rec center activities, it's because you actually go to them once in awhile. So there should be no hardship in going to a rec center to get a paper copy, if you don't have internet access or a printer to print your own out.

Agreed that there is absolutely an expense involved in having a dedicated webpage, but even that could be attached to TheVillages.com main website, available to the public. And the expense would be less. Even if it's only $5000 less per year, that's $5000 less PLUS how much paper that gets wasted. I get that a lot of folks don't seem to give a hoot about waste. Throwing things away, who cares, trees will grow, not my problem. But some people DO care, and this would satisfy people who care and want to do their part to conserve when practical. It is a practical solution to eliminate automatic weekly delivery of the weekly rec news, and implement any of a myriad of alternatives.

[Bogie Shooter]

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/recreation-news-insert-daily-sun-news-again-260664/?highlight=recreation+News

[njbchbum]

Will some IT professional or 'on-line proponent' please identify the annual cost to design, test, implement and maintain publishing the Recreation News on its own website? How can anyone be a proponent for an on-line version if that cost is going to be higher than paper and ink publication? TIA

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Will some IT professional or 'on-line proponent' please identify the annual cost to design, test, implement and maintain publishing the Recreation News on its own website? How can anyone be a proponent for an on-line version if that cost is going to be higher than paper and ink publication? TIA

Why would it need its own website? The Villages has a website. It can be made a page on that site. They already own the domain.

[eyc234]

Why would it need its own website? The Villages has a website. It can be made a page on that site. They already own the domain.

:shocked: And poof it just appears from the CLOUD! Get a cost of this work, then see if it feasible.

[justjim]

I think that plan creates unnecessary additional complications. The DS now has to have two different subscription rates and that adds accounting steps. And the distribution people have to have two different stacks for the delivery people. They now have to have two different bundles of papers in the car/truck and remember which house gets the insert and which doesn't.


To me, the better solution is to remove the Rec News from the paper entirely. Create an online edition that is updated weekly and publish print copies to be distributed to all the rec centers, sales offices, and any other business that wishes to have them. This allows those that have online capability to get theirs and those who prefer to hold a paper copy to have theirs.

:mademyday: I like your proposal.:clap2:

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

:shocked: And poof it just appears from the CLOUD! Get a cost of this work, then see if it feasible.

It'd take around 40 hours total to create the interactive database template for anyone who isn't already a web designer, maybe 10 hours for anyone who is.

It might take 20-40 hours total to fill in the initial data in the database, including all the clubs, contact names/numbers, any events that don't typically change and those schedules, etc.

It'd take around 1 hour per week to feed new data into the template and press the "update" button.

There's really not a lot of work involved, beyond the initial page creation.

[Goldwingnut]

Why would it need its own website? The Villages has a website. It can be made a page on that site. They already own the domain.

Can't use Thevillages.com web site, that is a privately owned commercial enterprise that has no affiliation with the amenities that are owned by the local government Sumpter Landing Community Development District.

Can't mix the public and private money.

[Marathon Man]

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.

[CWGUY]

Can't use Thevillages.com web site, that is a privately owned commercial enterprise that has no affiliation with the amenities that are owned by the local government Sumpter Landing Community Development District.

Can't mix the public and private money.

:) What about...... Village Community Development Districts (https://www.districtgov.org/) or
VCDD Rec News (https://www.districtgov.org/departments/Recreation/recevents.aspx)

and

No P in Sumter

Do people realize it's online already. Recreation News (https://www.thevillagesdailysun.com/app/recnews/index.html)

[anothersteve]

:)
Do people realize it's online already. Recreation News (https://www.thevillagesdailysun.com/app/recnews/index.html)


I love the way you get to turn the pages:coolsmiley:

Steve

I say publish it once a month.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Can't use Thevillages.com web site, that is a privately owned commercial enterprise that has no affiliation with the amenities that are owned by the local government Sumpter Landing Community Development District.

Can't mix the public and private money.

They already do use the Villages.com website. Or rather, that website already includes a link to it.

I didn't even notice that til just now, reading the posts directly below yours.

So it's already there. It's even updated weekly, which is awesome.

Now all that needs to be done, is a notice sent to EVERY household in the Villages, that it's available online already, and here's the link to it...

AND if they want a printout they are welcome to do so..

AND if they don't have computer access or printer access, the Rec centers themselves have physical copies available. Sales offices obviously already have access to them, since they can access the website.

I would suggest, however, that a PDF or printable version be made available to anyone who wants it. I don't think the version on TheVillages.com is printable.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

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.

From Goldwingnut's post:
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.

If, as you suggest, maybe only "a small percentage" of residents even appreciate and use the copy brought to them every single week, well let's say that "small percentage" is a whole 25%. That's pretty significant, and not small at all. Let's say that only $500,000 of that $656,880 is for the printed version, and the other $156,880 is for the web-based version.

$125,000 is what you'd need accommodate that 25% who actually want the Rec news delivered to them, meaning you'd save $375,000 per year, and however many pieces of paper are in one week's worth of bulletin times 3/4 of however many households are in the Villages.

[fw102807]

Maybe it should not be part of the weekly paper but a separate subscription for those who want it, decreasing the number of copies that need to be printed and subsidizing the cost.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Maybe it should not be part of the weekly paper but a separate subscription for those who want it, decreasing the number of copies that need to be printed and subsidizing the cost.

I suggested that, but someone pointed out the logistics in keeping "people who want it and subscribe to the Daily sun" and "people who don't want it and subscribe to the Daily sun" separate in their trucks and remembering which package to put in front of whose house.

As it stands now, they have addresses, and everyone gets one of whatever is in the truck/car.

Personally I don't see the issue; up here people have all types of subscriptions: "monday through friday only," "weekend only, "Sunday only," "Weekend plus Thursday only." If the driver can figure out who gets what when for all those options, surely he can figure out in the Villages which house gets which package once a week.

But I can see that it would be an additional responsibility so I conceded the point.

[Marathon Man]

From Goldwingnut's post:


If, as you suggest, maybe only "a small percentage" of residents even appreciate and use the copy brought to them every single week, well let's say that "small percentage" is a whole 25%. That's pretty significant, and not small at all. Let's say that only $500,000 of that $656,880 is for the printed version, and the other $156,880 is for the web-based version.

$125,000 is what you'd need accommodate that 25% who actually want the Rec news delivered to them, meaning you'd save $375,000 per year, and however many pieces of paper are in one week's worth of bulletin times 3/4 of however many households are in the Villages.

Delivering the rec news to 1/4 of the people would cost more than 1/4 of the current cost.

[Viperguy]

FREE Website!

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Delivering the rec news to 1/4 of the people would cost more than 1/4 of the current cost.

Nitpicking and totally obfuscating the point.

The point, is that there will be "a savings" to subscription-only. Whatever that savings is, whether $50 or $50,000 or $350,000 - can be used on other things.

Currently they cannot be used on other things, because they're busy being used on waste (meaning - the savings portion of the expense - is being used on printing and distributing something to people who don't actually want it).

[CWGUY]

FREE Website!

Here it is..... all 56 pages.

Recreation News (https://www.thevillagesdailysun.com/app/recnews/index.html) :)

[Bogie Shooter]

Here it is..... all 56 pages.

Recreation News (https://www.thevillagesdailysun.com/app/recnews/index.html) :)

So, what is wrong with this? Does John Rohan know about this site??

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

So, what is wrong with this? Does John Rohan know about this site??

Not all Villagers have internet access.
Some Villagers want a printed version for whatever reason, and that is not a printable version.
Some Villagers (even some here) don't even realize that it's available on the internet, and won't know to look for it there.

A printed, or at least printable, version should be made available to all Villagers who want it. I don't feel a printable/printed version should actually be printed, to every single household, because not "all Villagers" want it.

[pacjag]

Not all Villagers have internet access.
Some Villagers want a printed version for whatever reason, and that is not a printable version.
Some Villagers (even some here) don't even realize that it's available on the internet, and won't know to look for it there.

A printed, or at least printable, version should be made available to all Villagers who want it. I don't feel a printable/printed version should actually be printed, to every single household, because not "all Villagers" want it.

Perhaps offering printed copies at the rec centers would be a good alternative.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Perhaps offering printed copies at the rec centers would be a good alternative.

They already do that. The main argument of this entire thread is that since some people like having this newsletter delivered to their house directly, that everyone should have it - and the cost of delivery to every house should be fully funded by the amenity fee.

The argument against that idea, is that only a small percentage of people who get it automatically, actually want it, and a large percentage is wasted. Wasted paper, wasted man-hours, wasted ink and natural resources to run the machines, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in amenity fees being tossed, unwanted, into the trash.

A suggestion to appease both sides of the argument, is to allow people who DO want it, to continue to get it - for an additional fee. And everyone else stops getting it, thus being ecologically more responsible adults, and saving amenity fee money that can be spent on other things.

[Bogie Shooter]

In addition to the full weekly rec news with todays paper...…
On Page two of the Lifestyles Section was the schedule of todays activities at all rec centers.
There may be just too much hand holding going on with these schedules.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

In addition to the full weekly rec news with todays paper...…
On Page two of the Lifestyles Section was the schedule of todays activities at all rec centers.
There may be just too much hand holding going on with these schedules.

I agree. Cutting back significantly is a great idea. Also a great idea is to promote the existing online option, AND implementing a PDF or other printable online version.

As Goldnutwing reminded us, the Daily Sun is a Villages-corporation-owned entity. The rec news bulletins are owned by the CDDs and paid for by the amenities. It begs to wonder how much the Corporation is charging the CDDs to carry their bulletin in their newspaper.

[Marathon Man]

Nitpicking and totally obfuscating the point.

The point, is that there will be "a savings" to subscription-only. Whatever that savings is, whether $50 or $50,000 or $350,000 - can be used on other things.

Currently they cannot be used on other things, because they're busy being used on waste (meaning - the savings portion of the expense - is being used on printing and distributing something to people who don't actually want it).

But here is my point. There are a lot of people who do want delivery. They have said as much. If eliminating delivery results in a small saving of funds, then why remove the service from those who want it. So far, I have not seen that number. I have only seen current costs, and some assumptions that the savings would be large.

[Moderator]

Several off topic posts have been removed. The topic of this thread is the use of amenity fee funds to publish a print copy of the Recreation News weekly for distribution through the Daily Sun. Further off topic posts will be removed.

Moderator

[eyc234]

They already do that. The main argument of this entire thread is that since some people like having this newsletter delivered to their house directly, that everyone should have it - and the cost of delivery to every house should be fully funded by the amenity fee.

The argument against that idea, is that only a small percentage of people who get it automatically, actually want it, and a large percentage is wasted. Wasted paper, wasted man-hours, wasted ink and natural resources to run the machines, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in amenity fees being tossed, unwanted, into the trash.

A suggestion to appease both sides of the argument, is to allow people who DO want it, to continue to get it - for an additional fee. And everyone else stops getting it, thus being ecologically more responsible adults, and saving amenity fee money that can be spent on other things.


By this logic the trash cans should be removed from the postal areas due to the amount of waste that people put in them from mail and not recycling the mail at home. There are a lot of things that are wasted by a lot of people in TV. There should be a survey to determine how many people want to receive it, use it vs do not. Then offer alternatives to be voted on, not forced upon everyone by what could be a minority of people. Adding charges would be just as hard as giving discounts because I do not have a dog, so why should I pay for a dog park.

Also need hard, real numbers and facts about what the savings or lack of, would be for each alternative provided. Do not know the answer but unsubstantiated hyperbole is for sure not the answer.

Just my humble opinion, for what it is worth.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

By this logic the trash cans should be removed from the postal areas due to the amount of waste that people put in them from mail and not recycling the mail at home. There are a lot of things that are wasted by a lot of people in TV. There should be a survey to determine how many people want to receive it, use it vs do not. Then offer alternatives to be voted on, not forced upon everyone by what could be a minority of people. Adding charges would be just as hard as giving discounts because I do not have a dog, so why should I pay for a dog park.

Also need hard, real numbers and facts about what the savings or lack of, would be for each alternative provided. Do not know the answer but unsubstantiated hyperbole is for sure not the answer.

Just my humble opinion, for what it is worth.

The creation of a park is not a recurring yearly expense. Once it's there, it just gets maintained.

Printing a newspaper incurs recurring expenses. Once it's printed, it gets discarded, and then printed again a week later.

There will be *A* savings. How much of a savings? I don't know. But it will be money saved that can be used for other things.

As someone said - just because something has been done the same way for years, doesn't mean it can't be improved and do it even better in the future. It doesn't mean that old ideas for improvement that were not addressed, are useless ideas.

It's a matter of saving money AND of being less wasteful with our natural resources. Why would you feel we SHOULD waste all the paper from people who just toss it in the trash, when there are ways to reduce that waste, that would actually save money in the process?

Why are people so dead set against that? I'm really confused and perplexed about that.

[eyc234]

The creation of a park is not a recurring yearly expense. Once it's there, it just gets maintained.

Printing a newspaper incurs recurring expenses. Once it's printed, it gets discarded, and then printed again a week later.

There will be *A* savings. How much of a savings? I don't know. But it will be money saved that can be used for other things.

As someone said - just because something has been done the same way for years, doesn't mean it can't be improved and do it even better in the future. It doesn't mean that old ideas for improvement that were not addressed, are useless ideas.

It's a matter of saving money AND of being less wasteful with our natural resources. Why would you feel we SHOULD waste all the paper from people who just toss it in the trash, when there are ways to reduce that waste, that would actually save money in the process?

Why are people so dead set against that? I'm really confused and perplexed about that.

You must have skipped the part where I said get the true facts and see what people want in the majority. It has been said multiple times that most people do not want the Rec News, where does all this data reside so it can be submitted to the powers that be for a cause to effect this change. I really do not care how it is done as long as it is done well with savings that are worth it now and in the future. None of the supposed savings everyone keeps coming up with, has been confirmed or for that matter truly quantified. If it is truly a huge savings it will not be hard to get people to get behind it. We currently have two electronic examples that I would dare say you could not get even a consensus that they are well done and people would want to pay for them. If you tell people that the savings is $10,000, how much agreement do you think that will garner.

A park is a one time cost to develop but the ongoing maintenance is not by any stretch of the imagination free or at a fixed rate. As far as change, should it not be for the better and not just for change sake? If you want to attack the waste of natural resources & waste how about eliminating grass for lawns that waste water and fill up the land fill with grass clippings. Not to mention the chemicals that are poured on them.

I agree the Rec News process could be changed for the better but have not heard anything factual, except the $800,000 to print it, that shows positive movement forward.