Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks & Rec COMMITTEE REPORT CHARTER COMMITTEE REPORT FOR PARKS AND RECREATION (draft 1: 6-9-05 L. MacGraw) I. History and Explanation of the Park and Recreation Issue: A.Should the P and R Commission continue to be elected or be appointed by the City Council? B.Should the Director of P and R continue to be supervised by the elected commission or be under the supervision of the City Manager? C.Existing Charter Language and Ordinances: The Parks Commission is described in Article 19 of the Charter, Open Space in Article 19a and the Recreation Commission in Article 22 and Section 10.68 of the Municipal code. II. Research of this issue: P and R. White Paper: final revision dated 1-6-05, (see appendix 1). A. Background: 1. 1908: Ashland’s P and R Dept established with its own taxing authority 2. 1970: Charter revision kept P and R autonomous with tax authority. 3. 1980s: recreational serial levy established, yet discontinued with YAL . 4. 1990: Open Space Program established. 5. 1997: Ballot Measure 50 eliminated Park’s special levy, (property) tax levy, thus bringing P and R budget into the general fund. B. Interviews: Interviews were conducted with numerous individuals that have been directly and indirectly involved in City government, P and R, City Budget Committee and City Council. (see white paper). III. Summary of Public Input: (see appendix 2) A.Public Forum at SOU: 1-20-05 (citizen attendance, approx. 70). 1. Elected Commission issue: a. Approximately 90% of participating citizens voiced support for an elected commission: direct public access to government, keeps power with the people, protects P and R budget, avoids overload of City Council. b. A few people preferred an appointed board so to control spending power, increase expertise among board members and to keep personnel matters under City Administrator’s control. 2. Parks as an autonomous department: a. A majority of participants support P and R and a separate department of the City: dedicated to Parks thus committed to excellence, makes Ashland special, it has worked well for decades. b. A minority voiced strong preference against P and R autonomy: overlap of services with other City divisions, thus inefficient use of $, P and R is “...not special and is no different than the street dept.”. B. Public-Round Table Discussion at SOU: 5-19-05 (citizen attendance, approx. 6). 1.Elected Commission/Autonomous Dept issue: a.Proponents of an elected commission underscored points made in the 1-20-05 forum. b.One opponent demonstrated a distrust of the P and R system as a whole in terms of budgetary responsibility and public transparency. 2.Affordable Housing. This issue was discussed at some length in regard to budgetary priorities: $ spent on P and R vs $ available for affordable housing. Suggestions for further discussion about a Housing Commission served as a conclusion for that issue. IV. Summary of Deliberations and Committee’s Recommendation: A.Discussion: the degree of power that the P and Commission has was reviewed and questioned as to the level of expertise that is necessary to be on the commission. It was suggested that 2 or 3 commissioners be elected and 2 or 3 be appointed. Discussion also encompassed whether Ashland parks and recreational programs would suffer if the Department was managed under the city administration. The value of P and R for the City was also capitalized on in terms of Ashland’s character, esthetic beauty and quality of life. B.Alternatives: (see appendix 3): it was moved and seconded and motion passed 8-1 for Alternative 1. which states: “Leave reference to the Parks and Recreation Department in the Charter. Combine Articles 19 (Parks Commission) and 22 (Recreation Commission) and streamline language. Budget: Remove the funding formula as it is obsolete. Continue to fund Parks and Recreation as an autonomous department of the City. Accountability: Retain the elected Parks and Recreation Commission and Director under their supervision. C.Additional Recommendation to the Council: the preservation of the Park and Recreation budget is an integral part of the Park’s success. Consideration of an ordinance that would formalize park funding is recommended.