B2: A-Committee Member DePalma Presentation — original pdf

Backup

Park Districts Part I: An Overview A PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD’S FINANCE COMMITTEE R.DEPALMA 11.17.2021 1 What is the Purpose of this Presentation? Park funding is a challenge nationally but some entities, regardless of size, have figured out other ways to increase funding to meet the recreational needs of their community. This presentation is going to explore one way in which park systems are organized and funded and that is the park district. This presentation does not mean that the Parks Board or the City of Austin is moving down this direction. This is just a first step on a long trail. The Parks Board has and will continue to explore other funding as well. If the Parks Board takes another step, it will just be a step towards a long path that may or may not lead us to a parks district. Recently, I heard someone said that it was much easier to tear down a house rather than grab a hammer and build one. It is my hope that as we discuss new ideas, people bring their questions and their knowledge to help build whatever house our community decides on. Thank you for understanding, Rich DePalma Vice Chair City of Austin Parks and Recreation Board 2 What is a Park District? A Park District is a form of local special-purpose district / political subdivision created for the purpose of providing public parks and recreation in a geographic area. An important criteria for a parks district is that it has the governing body has the ability levy voter-approved property taxes on behalf of the district. Park districts allow greater visibility to tax payers on where the money is being spent since property tax funding goes directly into the parks budget and not part of the City’s General Revenue Fund. Other type of special districts include: Central Health, Austin Transit Partnership 3 Challenge Statement What issue are we trying to solve? 4 The Frustration Not Enough Money to Meet Austin’s Park and Recreation Needs “Why buy new property when it takes so long to develop?” “When is my park going to be improved?” “Why isn’t there a park ranger to address ….?” “When will there be funding for...?” “Why don’t we provide summer camps for more youth?” “We don’t have a park in our area.” We are a growing city and the issue is not that we are acquiring parkland or choosing not to fix and improve what is needed. The issue is that there is not enough funding to meet the infrastructure and programming needs of our growing community. The data supports that claim and every year we fall further behind. 5 City of Austin FY2022 Budget Parks and Recreation Performance Measures Hmmm… 35% not having park access is not success ParkScore dropped to 45 not 35 65% satisfied with parks is not success A long way to go with ADA 6 Our Park Infrastructure Issue We need to fix it and grow.  Austin has doubled in size since 1995 but we now have five less pools than in 1995.  Continued investment of parks and park improvements is needed along the I-35 corridor to address physical and mental health disparities, child development, and senior health.  Austin did not keep up with population growth and is severely behind in adding community/rec/senior centers, new playgrounds, and active recreation.  Austinites travel to surrounding communities every weekend to use fields in Leander, Manor and other cities.  Austin loses tourism and park infrastructure investment from not having regional and national tournament level facilities. Examples – swimming, rowing, softball, soccer, ultimate frisbee, tennis, pickle ball, etc...  We don’t help our children live up to their potential by not having facilities to meet their interests. When was the last time an Austinite participated in the Olympics?  State-mandated voter approval tax rate calculation from 8% to 3.5% took effect in fiscal year 2020-21. 7 City of Austin FY2022 General Fund Budget Allocation & Population Served Source: City of Austin 2022 Proposed Budget 8 Investment in Parkland Access Must be a Priority 9 Funding Needed to Reduce Urban Heat Islands In Priority Areas 10 Comparative Analysis How does our community compare to top park systems? 11 Comparing Park Systems Select Cities of Different Sizes and Regions TPL ParkScore (100 largest cities) Type of Park System Year of Data City Population Total Annual Park Spending Total Operations Capital and Land Acquisition Total Park Spend per Resident Park Operations Spend per Capital and Land Acquisition Spend per Resident Austin Arlington, VA Portland New York City Madison, WI Plano Henderson, NV Boise, ID Boulder 45/100 City Department 2020 4/100 City Department 2020 10/100 City Department 2020 11/100 City Department 2020 8,502,614 13/100 City Department 2020 15/100 City Department 2020 22/100 City Department 2020 29/100 City Department 2020 City Department 2020 985,370 232,588 656,300 264,742 306,426 314,232 239,077 105,673 $147,285,516 $99,079,722 $48,205,794 $149.47 $100.55 $96,036,620 $41,707,663 $54,328,957 $412.90 $179.32 $146,549,379 $1,593,924,391 $117,616,664 $1,196,771,560 397155831 $187.46 $140.75 $28,932,715 $223.30 $179.21 $48,761,452 $23,187,216 $25,574,236 $184.18 $87.58 $70,840,102 $34,780,729 $36,059,373 $231.18 $113.50 $48,071,946 $39,720,895 $8,351,051 $152.98 $126.41 $41,565,969 $30,615,416 $10,950,553 $173.86 $128.06 $56,781,005 $39,872,949 $17,908,056 $537.33 $377.32 $48.92 $233.58 $44.08 $46.71 $96.60 $117.68 $26.58 $45.80 $169.47 Source: Trust for Public Lands 2021 City Park Facts Data Tables Note: Boulder information was compiled from the City of Boulder Budget since it is not one of the largest 100 cities. 12 Comparing Park Systems Austin Compared to Select Park Districts Source: Trust for Public Lands 2021 City Park Facts Data Tables Note: Illinois park districts (with exception of Chicago) and Fargo were compiled through budgets and other summaries. 13 A Deeper Look Four different park district systems – Chicago, Minneapolis, Seattle, and Onion Creek Metropolitan Park District 14 A Brief Overview Taxing Authority Yes Yes Onion Creek Metro Seattle Minneapolis Parks Board Yes but rate is coordinated. Governance Commissioners Elected Commissioners Elected Commissioners Appointed by Mayor Budget Coordination Budget is based on coordinated tax rate. Improvements are agreed upon with the city. City Council serves as Parks Board Yes since City Council services as Parks Board Asset Ownership TBD City of Austin City of Seattle Chicago Parks District Yes No TBD Chicago Park District Chicago, IL • Chicago Park District Structure and Funding Overview In 1869, the Illinois State Legislature established three independent park commissions around Chicago. • • 1934, the Park Consolidation Act consolidated the 22 park districts and created the Chicago Park District (CPD), an independent government agency. The Chicago Park District Act provides that the Chicago Park District (the “Park District”) shall be governed by a board of seven (7) non-salaried Commissioners who are appointed by the Mayor of the City of Chicago with the approval of the Chicago City Council. • Under the Chicago Park District Code, the Commissioners have a fiduciary duty to act, vote on all matters, and govern the Park District in the best interest of the Park District. • The management and control of business and property of the Park District shall be vested in the Board of Commissioners. 16 Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Minneapolis, Minnesota In 1883, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board was created by an act of the Minnesota State Legislature and a vote of Minneapolis residents. MPRB was recognized by the Trust for Public Land in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 as the #1 urban park system in the United States. It serves as an independently elected, semi-autonomous body responsible for governing, maintaining, and developing the Minneapolis Park System. City of Minneapolis voters elect nine commissioners every four years: one from each of the six park districts, and three that serve at-large. The City of Minneapolis has an integrated budget process that includes the MPRB, Board of Estimate and Taxation and City of Minneapolis. 17 Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Minneapolis, Minnesota 18 Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board 19 Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Minneapolis, Minnesota 20 Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board 21 Seattle Metropolitan Park District Seattle, Washington How it Started (From the Report) “The parks system is Seattle’s common ground… These assets, when well cared-for and operating at full capacity, return value in more ways than we generally acknowledge: Our parks help to clean the air we breathe and the water we drink. They give us space to exercise our bodies and the tools to maintain our health. They bring us closer to our neighbors, and help us break through barriers of language, class, religion and culture. They strengthen our neighborhoods, add value to our property, and generate tax revenue for our city government. They create an overall quality of life that makes our city a desirable place to live and raise our families. But when these assets are not well cared for, the public benefits they generate can quickly be diminished and can become liabilities. That is the challenge we are facing today. For however much the people of Seattle love their parks, the fact is that the Seattle Parks and Recreation system lacks a consistent, sustainable source of funds to pay for operations, maintenance, rehabilitation and repair. In the absence of such a funding mechanism, the City government is unable to meet public expectations of the parks system and has been forced to postpone preventive maintenance, creating a growing backlog of necessary repairs. That is the challenge we are facing today. For however much the people of Seattle love their parks, the fact is that the Seattle Parks and Recreation system lacks a consistent, sustainable source of funds to pay for operations, maintenance, rehabilitation and repair. In the absence of such a funding mechanism, the City government is unable to meet public expectations of the parks system and has been forced to postpone preventive maintenance, creating a growing backlog of necessary repairs.” 22 Project Sponsors: Seattle Parks Foundation (Lead Sponsor), Arboretum Foundation, Association of Recreation Councils, Forterra, Museum of History and Industry, Seattle Aquarium Society, Seward Park Environmental & Audubon Center, and Woodland Park Zoological Society. Seattle Metropolitan Park District 2012 Report Recommendations 23 Seattle Metropolitan Park District Seattle, Washington On August 5, 2014 voters in the City of Seattle approved Proposition 1 which created the Seattle Park District. Property taxes collected by the Seattle Park District provides funding for City parks and recreation including maintaining parklands and facilities, operating community centers and recreation programs, and developing new neighborhood parks on previously acquired sites. The Park District is governed by the Seattle City Council acting ex officio as the District Board. The District Oversight Committee is a community board that will provide advice to the Mayor, City Council, and Superintendent of Parks and Recreation, related to the Seattle Park District. The DOC's role and responsibilities are outlined by ordinance #124468 which approved the Interlocal Agreement As established in an interlocal agreement between the City and the District, Seattle Parks and Recreation will provide services on behalf of the Park District. 24 The MPD provides access to new property tax revenue streams that are not in competition with other City departments, enabling Parks to increase their funding by a minimum of approximately $47 million per year. A clause in city ordinance 124468, that established the MPD, requires that MPD funding cannot supplant general fund funding, specifying that the level of general fund funding for the MPD cannot fall below the 2014 budget level, plus CPI increases annually. 25 Onion Creek Metro Park District Austin, Texas While the City purchased the land for the OCMP in the late 1990’s, due to the lack of available resources much of the park was still undeveloped 15 years later. To help fund capital improvements and operations and maintenance costs, S.B. 1872 was created in 2013. This bill established a special taxing district that would ensure a steady stream of maintenance revenue to be used towards both parkland within the District and OCMP. 26 An Austin Parks District? Starting off with the Texas Constitution The Texas Constitution, Article 16. General Provisions. Sec. 59. Conservation and Development of Natural Resources; Development of Parks and Recreational Facilities; Conservation and Reclamation Districts; Indebtedness and Taxation Authorized. (c-1) In addition and only as provided by this subsection, the Legislature may authorize conservation and reclamation districts to develop and finance with taxes those types and categories of parks and recreational facilities that were not authorized by this section to be developed and financed with taxes before September 13, 2003. For development of such parks and recreational facilities, the Legislature may authorize indebtedness payable from taxes as may be necessary to provide for improvements and maintenance only for a conservation and reclamation district all or part of which is located in Bexar County, Bastrop County, Waller County, Travis County, Williamson County, Harris County, Galveston County, Brazoria County, Fort Bend County, or Montgomery County, or for the Tarrant Regional Water District, a water control and improvement district located in whole or in part in Tarrant County. 27 Onion Creek Metro Park District (Municipal Management District) Austin, Texas  Momark Development begins process to create the municipal management district.  March 28, 2013 – The City of Austin approves resolution No. 20130328-016, consenting to the special legislation creating a municipal management district known as Onion Creek Metro Park. The resolution does not authorize the district to become operational, exercise powers, or hold elections at that time..  April 4, 2013 – Senators Zaffirini and Watson (with Rep. Rodriguez as a sponsor) file SB1872 to create the district.  June 14, 2013 - SB 1872 signed by Governor Perry  January – May 2014 – City staff negotiate consent agreement. Topics: standards, master planning, development, O&M  The creation fo the District was authorized by Chapter 3924, Subititle C, Title 4, Texas Special District Local Laws  In accordance with Section 54.016 of the Texas Water Code, land within the corporate limits may not be included within a district without the City’s written consent.  June 26, 2014 - City of Austin approves ordinance No. 20140626-031. Authorizes the creation of the Onion Creek Metro Park District and the execution of the consent agreement. http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=213765 28 Onion Creek Metro Park District (Municipal Management District) Austin, Texas  The Onion Creek Metro Park District was defined and authorized in by Chapter 3924, Subtitle C, Title 4, Texas Special District Local Laws.  The district was created under Section 59, Article XVI of the Texas Constitution. Section 59 is entitled “Conservation and Development of Natural Resources; Development of Parks and Recreational Facilities, Conservation and Reclamation Districts; Indebtedness and Taxation Authorized.”  The creation of the district is essential to accomplish the purposes of Sections 52 and 52-a, Article III, and Section 59, Article XVI, Texas Constitution, and other public purposes stated in this chapter. By creating the district and in authorizing the city, the county, and other political subdivisions to contract with the district, the legislature has established a program to accomplish the public purposes set out in Section 52-a, Article III, Texas Constitution.  Applicability of Municipal Management Districts Law. Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, Chapter 375, Local Government Code, applies to the district. In accordance with Section 375.001 (b), Chapter 375 of the Local Government Code, “the creation of the district is necessary to promote, develop, encourage, and maintain employment, commerce, transportation, housing, tourism, recreation, the arts, entertainment, economic development, safety, and the public welfare in the district.”  In accordance with Section 54.016 of the Texas Water Code, land within the corporate limits may not be included within a district without the City’s written consent. 29 Next Steps A framework and options 30 Pros and Cons and Other Likely transformative Pros • • Neighborhoods would elect their commissioner • Reduce the levels of government • Potentially increases funding • Keeps concession revenue with parks • Likely allow for areas to catch up on previously unfunded projects Increase the impact of parkland groups Likely increase in tax and expenditure transparency • • • Park commissioners would be the policy maker Neutral • Would still be operating under city codes. • Still have a close relationship with the city. Cons • Another taxing district • Effort will not be easy • Park advocates could possibly not be elected Unknown • Is our system too big for a volunteer, elected commission? • Would this negatively impact any park or greenbelt? 31 Questions To Be Explored Over Time and With Community Input 1. Do we want to start a process to investigate further? 2. What information is still needed? 3. 4. How do we initiate the process? Board resolution asking for a council directive to the city manager’s office for If we are interested in continuing the conversation, all our park partners must be brought on board. a study or is it forming a working group/task force? 5. Do we look towards the nonprofit community to initiate the study? 6. We need to make sure everyone feels comfortable with the goal of increasing funding for parks. This is not about taking other types of funding away from partners. 7. How do we ensure real equity at the decision-making process and on the implementation? 8. How can we ensure parks receiving TIFs are not impacted? 9. How can we ensure that H.O.T. will not be impacted? 10. Would the council be the board or would it be a separately elected board? 11. What would the commissioner districts look like? Mirror council districts? 32 End Questions? Email bc-richard.depalma@austintexas.gov 33 City of Austin 2021-22 Proposed Budget 34