B1: Presentation — original pdf

Backup

Austin Parks and Recreation Department Financial Services Division August 18, 2021 1 PARK MAINTENANCE FEE  The purpose of a park maintenance fee would be to provide for the operation and maintenance of the parks and facilities within the City of Austin Parks & Recreation Department.  A parks maintenance fee would be paid by the responsible part for each developed property within the corporate limits of the city.  Collection of the fee would be made by a monthly charge included on the City Utility Bill.  Fees collected would be deposited into a City special revenue park fee account. *Source Central Point Oregon Parks & Rec Ordinance 2 PARK MAINTENANCE FEE OPTIONS MODELS  Option One – Fixed Monthly Fee, similar to the Clean Community Fee  Possible charge of $8.95/residents and $20.75/commercial per month  Option Two – Dwelling Type Allocation, similar to the Transportation User Fee  Possible charge of about $12.79/residents and $63.99/commercial per acre per month 3 CITIES WITH PARK MAINTENANCE FEES Population Served* Number of Homes Monthly Fee Estimated Annual Collection Type Canby, Oregon 18,000 6,600$5 per dwelling $396,000 Central Point, Oregon Longmont, Colorado Rocklin, California San Antonio, Texas 18,000 7,000$3 per dwelling $252,000 95,000 36,800$2 per dwelling $883,200 65,000 23,146$10-30 per dwelling $8,332,560 1,530,000 550,000$1.50 per dwelling $9,900,000 Austin, Texas 950,807 415,000$8.95 per dwelling $44,820,000 Austin, Texas 950,807 415,000$11-13 per dwelling $63,700,000 Monthly Fixed Fee Monthly Fixed Fee Monthly Fixed Fee Based on Dwelling type Monthly Fixed Fee Monthly Fixed Fee Based on Dwelling type 4 PARK DISTRICT A Park District is a form of local special- purpose district for providing public parks and recreation in or near its geographic boundaries. Some park districts also own or maintain related cultural facilities such as monuments, zoos, sports venues, music venues, or museums.  The Park District would be separate from the General Fund  Park Districts allow taxes to be levied separate from the traditional city property taxes  Admission and registration fees would supplement the Park District 5 PARK DISTRICT MODELS  Model #1: Independent governance  Stand-alone government entity separate from COA  Dissolve current structure of board and PARD leadership structure  Board of Commissions/Chief Operating Officer/Personnel Board  Workforce: District hired vs. COA  Park District fee could be used to create expanded programming including concession programming, sponsorship, advertising & promotion programming  Model #2: Under City umbrella  Revenue collected in Special Revenue Fund to help address deferred capital projects  Under the responsibility and care of the City of Austin’s Park and Recreation Department 6 CITIES WITH PARK DISTRICTS Park District Year Chartered Model Type Budget Highlights Population Served Parks and Facilities  8,800 acres of green space  28 indoor pools, 50 outdoor pools  28 miles of lakefront Independent Governance FY2021 Operating Budget: $476.9M Property Tax: $287.4M (4.73% Property Tax assessed or $215.22 per year for property valued at $265,000) Corporate Tax: $42M Other Sources: $147.5M FY2021 Operating Budget: $39.4M Chicago, IL 2,700,000 1934 Naperville, IL 148,000 1966  2,400 acres  136 parks Independent Governance Property Tax: $23.5M Other Sources: $15.9M Seattle, WA 762,800 2014 Great Falls, MT 57,800 2017 FY2021 Seattle Parks & Rec Budget: $228M  6,400 acres  485 parks  4 golf courses Under City Umbrella General Fund: $97M Parks & Rec General Fund: $38M Seattle Park District: $56M Other Sources: $37M  1,200 acres  66 parks  2 golf courses Under City Umbrella FY2020 City Budget: $33M Parks & Rec General Fund: $2.9M Park District: $1.5M 7 CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT EXAMPLE: 8 Estimated timeline to establish Austin Parks Maintenance Fee or Park District • Propose to City Management Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 • Hiring of Consultant(s) • Drafting of Ordinance • Outreach – City Council, State Government, Austin Year 3-4 Community • Present to City Council for Adoption Year 3-4 9 CONSIDERATIONS  Community acceptance  Likelihood of city management approval  Legal hurdles  State legislature approval  Length of time  Cost benefit analysis 10