HomeMy WebLinkAboutLaurie second draft 12 10 04
Charter Review Committee
Parks and Recreation
Date: November 17, 2004; Revised December 7, 2004
Sub Committee Member(s): Laurie MacGraw, Hal Cloer
Issue Statement:
The Ashland Parks Commission, so named in the charter creating it, in 1908, says (Article 19,
section 3), that it (APC), “has control and management” of all lands dedicated, (or hereafter acquired), by
the city for such park purposes....and “control and management...of park funds...whether obtained by
taxation, donation or otherwise...”
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? Is there a predominate
perception that a change is necessary in regard to Parks and the City?
Maintaining the parks commission as an elected body:
Pros
:
?
An elected commission allows public access to government. It invites public participation, which
empowers citizens.
?
Having elected officials specifically responsible for parks assures a strong focus and expertise
toward park development, maintenance and recreation.
?
An elected commission has political power to make changes, adopt budgets, fight for funding,
appoint directors, set policy and be accessible and transparent to the public.
?
An elected commission provides a necessary balance between the administrative powers of the
City and the Parks Department.
Cons:
?
Management of P and R could be simplified if treated as a city division. The City Council and
senior City staff would have the authority to set priorities for all City Departments in a balanced
fashion.
?
Ashland is more affluent than it was in the past and there is an appreciation for parks. An
independent governing body is no longer needed to maintain Parks and Recreation.
?
An advisory, (non-elected), board has the power to make recommendations to the City Council,
thus lessening the work load of the Council, yet it doesn’t demand political attention.
Maintaining the parks department as a separate agency:
Pros:
?
Ashland parks, as a separate agency, have always been one of excellence because of its funding.
Such funding has been supported via taxes or informal agreements.
?
In the typical city structure that oversees the park department, a parks budget often succumbs to
police and fire needs.
1
?
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
identification of shared services for the community.
Cons:
?
P and R no longer have any taxing authority. It is technically a department directly under city
administration. Therefore, overlap and duplication of services is inefficient and costly.
?
There is a belief that past park management has been too expansion-minded and that Ashland
spends more money on parks than many other cities. Shrinking what the city spends on parks
would reduce taxes paid by citizens.
(See Appendix 1 for specific comments from former and current city officials, pg. 5.)
Budget Implications:
The Ashland Park Funds are divided into 3 categories:
A. Park Funds:
?
Park division—includes all “natural areas” of park land
?
Recreation division
?
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.
(Please see Appendix 2 for expenditures by division, fiscal year 2003-2004, pg. 7)
Each year the commission schedules 4 to 6 budget meetings to review expenditures, allocate funds for
current and upcoming projects, receive public input for the capital improvement plan and prepare 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. Funds for this program do not cover maintenance or operational costs. Such expenditures
are covered by the “Park Fund” division of the overall Park Budget. The O.S. Program expires December
31, 2010, unless extended by a vote of the electorate.
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
2
commission or service districts that have their own tax base, yet a borrowed, legal, governing board.
Ashland’s park’s 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 in 1997, 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 levies 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. (See Appendix 3 for pre and post Measure 50 rate allocations to Parks, pg. 8).
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. Identifying exact budgetary savings for the City
by having the Parks as a department of the city would require a great deal of research and documentation.
Such a project has not been ordered by the Council or the Budget Committee. However, it can be
assumed that there would be some savings. For example, Parks pays approximately $10,000.00 for its
own annual audit. Separate filing fees, ($300.00 to $400.00 each), are also paid by City and Parks for
filing with the State and the Federal Government. If there was one agency, then one audit fee and one
filing fee would incur and labor costs would also be reduced.
Summary:
The following considerations/possible options should be discussed by the Charter Review Committee.
A. Edit the Parks and Recreation section of the current charter only in respect to the language pertaining
to taxing authority.
B. 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.
C. Formalize the relationship between the City and Parks:
3
?
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.
?
Amend or revise the charter so to provide an elected commission with the same share of the
property tax levy that was originally approved by the people and maintained in the charter in
1970.
?
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.
D. 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. This
would involve transferring the park to the ownership or control of the district and would be in conflict
with the traditional restraint in the current Charter, (See Article 19, Section 1), that the parks “are
hereby reserved and forever dedicated to the people of the city for park purposes and shall never be
sold, leased, etc...”
4
Appendix 1
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 Community Development Director, Lee Turnberg (LT)
City Finance Director, Dave Williams (DW) current Citizen’s Budget Committee member.
A. Parks as autonomous entity vs. a division of the city.
?
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 have 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) Is the quality of
parks dependant on the autonomy of the parks commission?
?
P and R are 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.(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
5
gentlemen’s agreement regarding shared services and the budget is an issue deserving discussion.
(GG)
The Elected Commission.
B.
?
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 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)
6
?
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)
Appendix 2
Ashland Park Commission
Expenditures by Division
Fiscal Year 2003 - 2004
Parks and Recreation Fund
Park Operations Division $ 3,022,863
Recreation
Division 207,829
Golf Division 327,763
Capital Outlay Division 270,841
Debt Service
Division 21,738
3,851,034
Capital Improvement Fund
233,006
Youth Activities Levy Fund
1,972,496
Total
Expenditures $ 6,056,536
7
Appendix 3
Levied Taxes Pre and Post Ballot Measure 50
Prior to Measure 50, Parks was authorized to levy up to $4.25 per $1000.00 assessed value in property
taxes. The city was authorized to levy $4.29. Neither entity ever levied the full amount. The chart below
shows that pre-measure 50, Parks levied $2.23 per $1000.00 assessed value and the city levied $1.75 per
$1000.00 assessed value. That levy rate is approximately the same today; fiscal year 2004-2005 allows
$1.47 for the city and $2.09 for parks.
2004-Measure
pre 50 post 50 2005 50
Rate
1997-98 1998-99 Levied Rate Limit
City Funds 1.17320 1.45291 1.4719
Parks 2.23623 2.25600 2.0928
3.40943 3.70891 3.5647 4.2865
Local Option Levy:
Youth Activities 1.3800
Total 4.9447
8