Perspective of Ashland Ballot Measures 15-210 and 15-211
Leslie Eldridge
Parks & Rec Commissioner Position 5
How would the passing of ballot measures 15-210 and 15-211 affect Ashland Parks and Recreation/City of Ashland?
The “short” answer:
The ballot measures are a blatant attempt to pull money and human resources OUT of trail development and parks. If you love trails and parks, you should vote no.
The “long” answer:
Measure 15-210 would take management of the Parks Director from elected Ashland Parks & Recreation Commissioners to an un-elected City Manager.
Last biennium, Parks Commissioners identified the need to review and potentially act on RVMBA Sustainable Trails Plan as a top priority for APRC. This resulted in a reconvening of the Trails Master Plan Subcommittee to adequately address mountain bike concerns in the city land holdings. The direct result of APRC Commissioners (particularly Rick Landt and Leslie Eldridge) prioritizing the needs of the mountain bike community, was the creation of a standing (permanent) Trails Subcommittee to address current and future trails modifications and additions in the watershed. That Trails Subcommittee has been meeting for almost a year and is in the process of:
Planning, flagging and mapping a one-way downhill beginner level bike-only trail off of lower Wonder
Working to improve drainage, rideability and access to the lower portion of Alice in Wonderland trail. Additionally, the group is working on single-track climbing routes to avoid the long, dusty Ashland Loop Road climb to White Rabbit parking lot.
A large working group has begun digging-in to the potential of the Imperatrice Property for pedestrian and biker recreation. (NOTE: Imperatrice is NOT currently Open Space managed by APRC. APRC has hopes of working with City Council to get this land transferred into APRC control and management, so it can be utilized as recreational open space. This could potentially happen through land swaps or other negotiations.) Here's the point: It is likely that NONE of this would be happening if the Parks Director and staff were managed by the City Manager.
Under our current structure, established by the citizens of Ashland in 1908 control and management of the parks is by an elected council of people who love parks, trails and access to wilderness and are elected directly by the citizens of Ashland.
Commissioner Eldridge is a member of RVMBA and coaches for Ashland Devo. Commissioner Landt regularly rides in the watershed. The makeup of the Parks Commission is more and more trail and mountain bike oriented every election-- democracy in action that RVMBA has worked hard for. Even if you have something that is currently frustrating you about parks or trails, do you really think that the city council, which doesn't hold this as a priority, will do a better job?
Measure 15-211 would allow 73% of food and beverage tax revenue to go into the General Fund, thereby routing it to virtually anything that the City Manager recommends to City Council.
The F&B tax was initially passed in 1993 to support APRC Capital Improvement Projects (CIP)-- because the community wanted to see a dedicated source of funding for land purchase and outdoor recreation- focused projects. Over the course of time, the tax was voted to be increased and used to pay off street and wastewater debt, but a portion has always gone to APRC. Now that those debts have been repaid, APRC thinks it is time for F&B to go back to its original intent.
APRC Commissioners have supported directing 73% of F&B revenue to APRC operating expenses, with the other 25% going to CIP.
Why does APRC want its funding through F&B?
It reflects the original intent of the tax, as passed by the Ashland voters
It provides a dedicated source of funding for parks. APRC will have greater predictability and security in where their funding comes from.
It moves APRC closer to its goal of creating a special taxing district for Parks and Recreation, separate from City Council budget and authority entirely.
The goal of APRC to create a special taxing district may be the only way land, trails and mountain bike- related park facilities will ever get built. At least 50 cities in Oregon alone have independent districts, such as the Bend, Sisters and Hood River Districts, to name a few. Districts have boards elected by the people and a dedicated, independent funding source. That is our long-term goal and it COULD be the best thing that ever happened to mountain biking in Ashland. Measure 15-210 moves APRC away from this goal.
What kind of impacts on construction of trails and infrastructure (for example, the Ashland Pumptrack/East Main Park) would you expect from the passage of one or both measures?
The trails projects listed in Question 1 AND the Waterline re-route trail (Snark) AND Ashland Dirt Jumps AND the East Main Park project have ALL been facilitated and are being currently fought for by APRC Commissioners. City Council has been cutting APRC budgets repeatedly for the past four years. Those cuts trickle down to all parts of APRC, including issues related to mountain biking.
Regarding East Main Park specifically: Two City Councilors want to continue to cut APRC funding and do not even think the East Main Park should be built. The land has been secured and planning for the park is in its final stages. APRC Commissioners and staff have worked with RVMBA and the community to continue planning for the bike skills park and pump track. There is a very high probability that passage of these two measures could jeopardize (and most certainly will delay) the building and funding of East Main Park.
What kind of impacts on decision making and authority related to planning and advocacy on Parks/City owned land (BTI, Lower Wonder, Lithia Hillside, etc) would you expect from the passage of one or both of these measures?
The passage of Measure 15-210 would throw APRC into turmoil sorting out who controls what and who is responsible. This would sap energy away from all the positive initiatives APRC is currently working on, including mountain bike related projects.
Lithia Hillside
Lithia Hillside is under APRCs control and management and is considered park land. If both measures were to pass, any decision-making and authority relating to changes on the Lithia Hillside would likely now have to go through TWO elected bodies. This would simply slow down the APRC process and add another layer of bureaucracy (aka the City Council) on top of that.
BTI and Lower Wonder
BTI and Lower Wonder are City holdings under Public Works. APRC, under an MOU with the city, maintains the trails and signage, as well as being in-charge of trail-user issues and conflicts. Authority related to trail planning on BTI and Lower Wonder would still fall to APRC, and still be subject to city approval. Currently, city standards (as it relates to trails) are extremely difficult and cost prohibitive—it is City Council and the city who demand costly engineering geologists and archaeologists to provide professional opinions on every proposal on city land. APRC has been working with non-profit user groups and City Council to find ways around these prohibitive rules. It is unlikely this authority would change with the passage of one or both measures.
What are the top two or three reasons to vote "no" on the ballot measures you would like to share with the mountain bike community?
APRC Commissioners have expertise, training and community ties to the mountain bike community. They are on the ground, making the changes happen. Don’t let an unelected city manager disempower your elected commissioners.
Without adequate funding, APRC cannot pay staff to work on East Main park and trail proposals. APRC needs a dedicated funding source and cannot be put into the same “pot” as police and fire. Quality-of-life values that APRC represents cannot be compared to what are perceived as “essential services”. History shows that public land and recreation will always come in last when this happens.
If both measures are passed, it will only ADD more layers of bureaucratic authority onto trails priorities. More hoops, more meetings, more people who would have to say yes for a project to be approved. And APRC will have less resources (due to being at the mercy of the General Fund and City Council for funding) to jump through these hoops.
Paula Hyatt
Ashland City Council Position 1
How would the passing of ballot measures 15-210 and 15-211 affect Ashland Parks and Recreation/City of Ashland?
15-210 (Parks Employees organizationally moving under the City Manager).
With the move to the City Manager form of government a challenging relationship between Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission and the City of Ashland has become even more complex.
The City Manager is generally responsible for all operations within a city. The charter change creating a city manager position carves out the management of Ashland’s parks and its recreation services, but APRC staff also do tasks that the city manager is accountable for, such as maintenance of vegetation at the plaza and on our major streets. There is a mismatch between accountability for specific tasks and the authority to ensure they are done the way the city manager wants them done.
In addition, this structure, which creates two autonomous governing bodies, has increased our insurance liability risk in terms of Human Resource lawsuits. Specifically, our insurance carrier has to assign two independent legal teams to any Human Resource lawsuit that involves the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission – one to represent the City of Ashland and one to represent Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission.
The relationship between APRC and the City of Ashland has been defined through a variety of charter amendments and Memoranda of Understanding over the years. It is confusing and there are areas that contradict each other. The community has said two very specific things in the past:
It wants the parks and recreation systems managed independently of city government (since 1908)
It wants to follow the council/manager form of government, which puts essentially a CEO in charge of city operations (since 2020)
In order to align accountability with authority, the Council needs to know from the community which of these two things is most important.
A yes vote means that the community wants the City Manager to manage all city operations, including parks and recreation staff. The Parks and Recreation Commission retains oversight of maintenance, repair, development and beautification of park lands and open space as they do today.
A no vote means that the community wants the management of parks and recreation programs to be managed by the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission.
15-211 (Allocation of Food and Beverage)
A vote YES means
Citizens will continue to fund Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission at 25% of F&B.
The remaining 73% of F&B revenues (2% goes to administration) can be allocated to the General Fund for public safety, wildfire prevention, and other essential City services.
APRC will not be restricted in the use of their 25% allocation funds and will be able to use the funds for maintenance and operations if they choose. This gives added flexibility to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
A vote NO means
The current F&B structure is retained.
Parks can use the 25% they receive on capital projects only, not on operations and maintenance
The balance of F&B funds is rendered unusable within the General Fund with only one more opportunity in May of 2023 to allocate this funding to a program in the General Fund before the start of the City of Ashland’s next fiscal year.
What kind of impacts on construction of trails and infrastructure (for example, the Ashland Pump track/East Main Park) would you expect from the passage of one or both measures?
The goals of the Parks and Recreation Commission, as they pertain to maintenance, repair, beautification and development of parks lands, (including capital project planning like the Pump Track,) continue to be directed by the Parks and Recreation Commission.
The City Council only directs the total budget allocation given to the Parks Commission and cannot dictate how the allocated funds are spent. Currently, the allocation to Parks comes from a combination of property tax revenues and Food and Beverage Tax revenues.
Neither ballot measure changes the funding sources.
Currently 25% of F&B revenues is allocated to Parks for capital projects ONLY.=
The funding is restricted by the ordinance and cannot be used for maintenance, including maintenance of trails.
Yes on 15-211 will allow the 25% from F&B to be used for maintenance AND capital projects as the Parks Commission sees fit.
What kind of impacts on decision making and authority related to planning and advocacy on Parks/City owned land (BTI, Lower Wonder, Lithia Hillside, etc) would you expect from the passage of one or both of these measures?
15-210 The Parks Commission retains its decision-making authority over maintenance, repair, beautification and development of park lands and open spaces.
15-211 (Food and Beverage Allocation) Has no impact on planning or advocacy related to parks lands.
What are the top two or three reasons to vote "yes" on the ballot measures you would like to share with the mountain bike community?
15-210 Parks Employee Alignment
A YES vote means:
Direct Council to move the ultimate hiring, firing, and performance assessment of employees under the City Manager.
This formally codifies responsibility for and control of key human resource functions of Parks employees under the City Manager.
Potentially reduces financial risk in the general fund as it eliminates the need for our insurance carrier to assign two different legal teams in the event of a lawsuit by parks and recreation staff.
Addresses issues of risk raised by our insurance.
A NO vote means:
Accepts the additional risk of the current structure
Retains confusion over responsibility specific to human resource functions as they pertain to Parks employees.
15-211 Food and Beverage Allocation
A YES vote means:
Citizens will continue to fund APRC at 25% of F&B.
The balance (73%) of F&B revenues can be allocated to the General Fund for public safety, wildfire prevention, and other essential City services.
APRC will not be restricted in the use of these funds for capital projects only.
APRC will be able to use the funds for maintenance and operations if they choose.
A NO vote means:
The current F&B structure is retained.
Parks can use the 25% they receive on capital projects ONLY, not on operations and maintenance.
The balance of F&B funds is rendered unusable within the General Fund with only one more opportunity in May of 2023 to allocate this funding to a program in the General Fund before the start of the City of Ashland’s next fiscal year.