HomeMy WebLinkAboutLaurie Parks Issue Communicatio
Charter Review Committee
Parks and Recreation
Date: November 17, 2004
Sub Committee Member(s): Laurie MacGraw, Hal Cloer
Issue Statement:
Should the Parks and Recreation Commission continue to be elected and be autonomous?
Should the powers and duties of the commission be included in the city charter?
Pros and Cons:
Comments in regards to the autonomy of the Ashland Park’s and Recreation.
The following includes comments and input from Ken Michelson (KM) former Parks Director,
Don Robertson (DR) current Parks Director, Harvey Roth (HR) former Parks Director of 1000
Oaks, CA and Prof. of Recreation at Chico State, George Kramer (GK) Historian, Brian
Almquist (BA) former City Administrator, Gino Grimaldi (GG) current City Administrator,
Martin Levine (ML) chair Citizen’s Budget Committee, John McLaughlin (JM) City Planner,
Lee Turnberg (LT) City Accountant, Dave Williams (DW) current Citizen’s Budget Committee
member.
A. Parks as autonomous entity vs. a division of the city.
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.(KM.)
?
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.(KM)
?
Ashland Parks reflect the values of the P and R Commission that is elected by the citizens
of Ashland.(KM)
?
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.(LT)
?
If there is one unifying force/source of pride in Ashland, it is Lithia Park.(KM)
Will the quality of parks be diminished if Parks does 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
1
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.(DR)
?
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.(LT) 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.(DR)
?
Some citizen’s have come to believe that it is time for Parks to be brought into the City.
They believe that the park’s director should report to a city manager who would have
direct hire and fire authority over all department managers. (DW)
?
There is a belief that past management and commissions have been too expansion-
minded. They have not resisted the temptation to “gild the lily”; to further “improve”
what is already a gorgeous system. It all becomes a matter of efficiency and balance.
(DW)
?
There is a remarkable working relationship between the Parks and the City. This was
established by Ken Mickelsen, Don Laws, (City Councilman), and Brian Almquist.
Formalizing the gentlemen’s agreement regarding shared services and the budget is an
issue deserving discussion. (GG)
B.The Elected Commission.
?
An elected commission allows the public to access government. The commission invites
public participation which empowers citizens.(DR)
?
There is a perception that a special constituency exists because of the elected
commission. This could be a pro or a con.(GK)
?
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.(GK)
?
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.(BA)
?
The Park’s Commission should be retained, but only as an advisory board that makes
recommendations, yet does not have hiring and firing authority. The City Council and
senior City staff should have the authority to set priorities for all City Departments in a
balanced fashion. (DW)
?
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
2
only watchdog available now since the passage of ballot Measure 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.(BA)
?
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 member attends Park Commission meetings as a liaison.
Does this promote synergy between the two entities or redundancy?(DR)
?
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. (HR)
?
An elected commission brings more attention to the Parks and its budget. It is awkward
for the parks to have its own budget, yet the commission represents the community and
therefore validates the budget allocation. (ML)
?
It is possible that Ashland spends more money on parks than many other cities. This may
be desirable and certainly adds to the quality of life in Ashland, however; the budget
committee needs objective data that verifies the Park Commission’s requests. (ML)
?
Ashland has “grown up” in the last 100 years. It is more affluent and there is an
appreciation and sense of pride in our park’s system. An independent governing body is
no longer needed to maintain Parks and Recreation. (DW)
?
To date the City Budget Committee has never denied or reduced the Park’s budget. The
pre-Ballot Measure 50 arrangement has always been honored. (ML)
?
An elected commission provides a necessary balance between the administrative powers
of the City and the Parks Department. (GG)
Budget Implications:
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:
?
This fund utilizes a 5-year Capital Improvement Plan for long-range
planning.
C. Youth Activity Levy Fund:
?
Of the total expected levy, 6% ($123,000.00) is managed by the Park’s
Commission.
3
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.
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 Measure 50 passed so as to
honor Ashland’s dedication to the value of a healthy park’s system.
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,
4
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.
Summary:
The following considerations should be discussed by the full Charter Review Committee.
1.Edit the Parks and Recreation section of the current charter only in respect to the
language pertaining to taxing authority.
2.Remove from the charter the reference to the Parks and Recreation thereby allowing the
governing body to establish it as a department/division within the city Administration and
affording the governing body to appoint the commission.
3.Formalize the relationship between the City and Parks:
a.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.
b.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.
c.Amend or revise the charter so to provide an elected commission with a
formalized budgeted amount that continues to support Parks and Recreation as it
has been supported before Ballot Measure 50.
4.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.
5