Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe City of Ashland Parks and R The City of Ashland Parks and Recreation Department White Paper, (Draft), for City Charter Review 11-08-04 I. Background. The City of Ashland was incorporated in 1874, a new Charter was approved in 1898, and a state constitutional amendment giving cities Home Rule as passed in 1906. In 1908, the Ashland Parks Department was established along with its own taxing authority. This structure remained in effect until 1970 when the Ashland City Charter was revised and adopted. Voters again continued to support Parks as an autonomous department. In the early 1980s, a recreational serial levy was established that appropriated funds for recreational purposes, (i.e. Daniel Meyer Pool operation, swim programs, summer youth programs, etc.). When the Youth Activity Levy passed however, the recreational levy was discontinued. After a great deal of campaigning and controversy in 1990, the Food and Beverage Tax was instituted and thus a funding mechanism for the Open Space/Land Acquisition Program was established. There are two different models for managing parks in the State of Oregon: cities and parks districts. Within cities the parks are governed as separate department or as a division within a department. Park district structures include special districts, (i.e. school districts), with their own tax base, budget and commission or service districts that have their own tax base, yet a borrowed, legal, governing board. Ashland’s parks are managed by an autonomous/independent department with its own elected commission, and is possibly the only one of its kind in Oregon to date. Prior to the passage of Ballot Measure 50 in1997, the Ashland Park Commission had its own separate tax levy that could be used for parks, but not for recreational programs or for land acquisition. The Park’s tax levy was a property tax levy with a maximum of $2.34 that could be levied in any year. The highest it was ever levied was around $1.90 per $1000.00 of property tax. The City Budget Committee always had the right to deny the amount that the commission was requesting at budget time, but it did not have the authority to dictate how the levied funds were to be spent, nor could any of the property tax levy be used for city purposes. The passage of Ballot Measure 50 eliminated the park’s special tax levy. Ashland Park’s funding is now part of the general fund and the budget committee can allocate whatever amount of the general fund they want to the Park’s Commission. Thus far, funds have been allocated to Parks as if the levy was still in place. The commission has received whatever percentage of the overall property levy that they had received when that special levy existed. This has occurred primarily due to an understanding and informal agreement between the City Council and the Park’s Commission. Such an agreement originated in 1997, after 50 passed so to honor Ashland’s dedication to the value of a healthy park’s system. II. Park Funds. The Ashland Park Funds are divided into 3 categories: A. Park Funds: 1. Park division 2. Recreation division 3. Golf division B. Capital Improvement Fund: utilizes a 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan for long-range planning. C. Youth Activity Levy Fund: 6% of the total expected levy, ($123,000.00), is managed by the Park’s Commission. Each year the commission schedules 4 to 6 budget meetings to review expenditures, allocated funds for current and upcoming projects, receive public input for the capital improvement plan and prepare to a budget to submit to the city’s budget committee in the spring. III Current Government : The City and The Park’s Department. The primary common-ground between the City and Parks, aside from serving Ashland citizens, is a shared tax base. Parks however still generates its own budget that is interfaced into the city budget for review and processing. Presently, there are numerous services that are routinely provided between City and Parks to meet various needs of both entities. These services range from central services, (administrative, legal, general accounting, computer technology, workman’s comp. and vehicle maintenance), to Accounting, Central Area Patrol and Park Patrol. Services applicable to the Community Center, Senior Center, Band Shelter and The Grove are also shared. Landscaping, Ground Maintenance, (the Plaza, Siskiyou Blvd., Airport and Substation), and Ashland School District ground maintenance are also agreed upon services. Sharing the cost of operations and staff at various levels with a spirit of cooperation has served the community for many years even though such agreements are informal. IV. Pros and Cons/Misc. Comments in Regard to the Autonomy of the Ashland Park’s Department. A. Parks as a separate agency vs. A Division of the City Firstly, is there a predominate perception that a change is necessary in regard to Parks and the City?? If so, why does that perception exist, who wants a change and what needs to be changed?? ? The Parks, as a separate agency, has always been one of excellence because of its funding. Such funding has been supported via taxes or informal agreements.(k.m.) ? P and R no longer has any taxing authority. It is at the mercy of the budget committee/City Council that perhaps has no long-term historical understanding of past agreements.(k.m) ? Ashland Parks reflect the values of the P and R Commission that is elected by the citizens of Ashland.(k.m) ? Without any taxing authority, the Park’s department is technically a department directly under the city administration. Therefore, overlap and duplication of services is possible and consequently costly. ? If there is one unifying force/source of pride in Ashland, it is Lithia Park. ? Will the quality of parks be diminished if Parks did not have autonomy? ? P and R is critical to the quality of life in Ashland. Tourism, theater and education serve as Ashland’s economic engine. Many tourists and students are attracted to Ashland and many desire to live here. The parks, trails, viewscape and the charm and beauty of downtown are inherent in the Parks vision and mission statement.(d.r.) ? Management of P and R could be simplified if treated as a city division. Yet, in the typical city structure that oversees the park department, a parks budget often succumbs to fire and police needs. Would this affect the quality of life in Ashland? ? The present system allows for all the benefits of working for a city with the autonomy of working for a district.(d.r) B. The Elected Commission. ? An elected commission allows the public to access government. The commission invites public participation which empowers citizens.(d.r) ? There is a perception that a special constituency exists because of the elected commission. This could be a pro or a con.(g.k.) ? Ashland is well served by the separate election of Park’s Commissioners. Having elected officials specifically responsible for this aspect of the community has assured a strong focus and expertise toward park development throughout Ashland’s history. Transforming the Park’s Commission into an appointed body subject to council would inherently dilute our attention and commitment to our parks, or at a minimum put them at risk to other short-term goals.(g.k.) ? Ashland parks are an intrinsic and valuable part of Ashland’s character. This value could be maintained, enhanced or diluted by changing over to an advisory board versus the elected commission.(b.a.) ? An elected commission is able to focus exclusively on P and R issues and be directly accountable to its budget. An elected board is needed to fight for park’s funding. It is the only watchdog available now since B. Meas. 50. An advisory board is sometimes not listened to and doesn’t necessarily represent the diversity of the community. It is likely to change-over every time a new mayor is elected.(b.a) ? The Parks Commission and the City Council function together with various checks and balances as seen in joint study sessions, shared decision making duties for the Open Space Program and a council liaison on the Park’s Commission. Does this promote synergy between the two entities or redundancy? ? An elected commission and an appointed advisory board are not the same. An elected commission has political power to make changes, adopt budgets, appoint directors, set policy and be accessible and transparent to the public. An advisory board has the power to make recommendations, yet they are not as strong. (h.r) V. Options/Approaches/Perspectives A. Edit the Charter only in respect to the language pertaining to taxing authority. B. Revise the Charter so that the Parks and Recreation Department becomes a division within the City Administration. C. Transform the elected commission to an appointed, advisory board. D. Formalize the relationship between the City and Parks: 1. Pass a council resolution or ordinance that would provide the Parks Commission with the same portion of the property tax that was in the charter before Ballot Measure 50. 2. Amend or revise the charter so to provide an elected commission with same share of the property tax levy that was originally approved by the people and maintained in the charter in 1970. E. Transform the City of Ashland Park Department into a special park and recreation district that includes a larger area than the city limits and has a property tax base associated with the boundaries of the district, and has an elected policy making body associated with the same boundaries.