Parks Consolidation: Will It Fly?
Over the past few months, a discussion topic on the blog has been opportunities for the consolidation of municipal/county government. The PPI currently has a study group working on the topic.
Just this week representatives from the Ocala City Council and County Commission have proposed a consolidation of city and county parks, effective October 1, 2008, under the provisions of an interlocal agreement. The draft agreement still requires workshop discussion and approval by the Council and BCC.
Basically, at the end of the fifth year of the agreement Marion County would assume total financial and operational responsibility for the city parks. The current annual city parks and recreation budget is a little over $5.9 million. The city would provide $5 million to the county in the first year of the agreement to help offset the initial costs of consolidation. Future payments due would decrease by 10% annually for five years. After that, the city would make no further contributions.
Obviously, the consolidation is not totally painless on the staffing side. Estimates are that the consolidated organization could be run with 7-10 fewer staff; most at the upper levels of the organization where there would be duplication of management positions.
While this is a small-scale consolidation project, it presents a good opportunity to test the will of our elected officials to address the issue of jointly, in partnership, improving efficiency and reducing budgets. If this opportunity doesn’t pan out, taxpayers probably shouldn’t hold out much hope for the completion of any larger and more complex consolidation efforts.
Tell us what you think?
UPDATE: For a Star-Banner editorial opinion on the parks consolidation, click on this link.....
http://www.ocala.com/article/20071216/OPINION/532383459/1008/OPINION&template=artwithcomments
posted by Blog Master @ 7:44 PM
132 Comments:
Forgot to include an article on the consolidation:
www.ocala.com/article/20071214/NEWS/212140329/1025/NEWS
Looks like King Ruse is saying NO WAY! That means it's dead on arrival.
Based on what the City Council thinks about City Employees work ethic, the County better be very suspicious about any City Employees they get in the deal. One way to get rid of dead wood, give it to the County.
Charlie Ruse will like the idea once he sees the long term cost savings. Besides as the Star Banner reported the draft interlocal agreement is just that an initial offer to discuss. Let's see how the politicians beat it up. As a city taxpayer if the County wants to cut waste then I'm all for it. Obviously they just got rid of a City Manager that didn't seem to find enough areas to cut.
If I was a City park worker I'd rather be working for the Couunty right now over the City.
Axing the big wigs in Ocala Recreation & Parks. Priceless!
Why? Are the City councilmen correct?
Belleview's parks department is basically a one man operation. It might also be good to consider bringing it under the county parks.
I bet Dunnellon could use some help too.
If the County is going to cut the number of jobs held by City park employees, you can bet that Councilwoman Rich will oppose the consolidation. Now if the County were to add 7-10 employees and agree to increase the budget for parks by 10% or so each, you might get her to vote for the County taking over the City parks.
The parks thing makes sense. Having the city take over the county utilities would also make sense.
Is the proposed interlocal agreement available to review?
Parks and Rec may be a good place to start the consolidation discusssion, but folks, if you want to look at the big picture, let's look at consolidation the way it should be looked at -- an overall consolidation -- but neither the city nor the county wants to look at it that way.
Neither does the Public Policy Institute at Central Florida Community College. PPI studies, generally speaking, have proven to be worthless and never implemented. Save for one or two good studies over the years most of them have been an accumulation of paper, and make-work that justify money from DC to pay the cost.
The one prominent exception that may prove to be valuable to all of us is the recent study on health care in the county; some of the others have been junk -- but the executive director still gets paid; maybe Ruse and Owen ought to look at them too.
The study of consoliodated government that is "on the table" at PPI could have been worthwhile, but they stuffed the ballot box with government types and whatever comes out of it, if anything, will be worthless, because it will be a "protect my turf" document.
A realistic discuission should not be based on the county taking over city departments. It should be based on a discussion of who operates the best department and who has the best proposal.
In parks and rec, there is a plan on the table for the county to merge the city department into the county, which may work out to be the best system. However, the county really has no recreation system today. So, who not ask the city to present a proposal to develop a recreation system for the county?
The same thing could be applied to law enforcement except that the Sheriff is a constitutional officer and the chief law enforcement officer in the county, so it would make good sense to look at a consolidation of the city of Ocala police into the Sheriff's Office. something that fiormer Police Chief Lee McGehee and Sheriff Don Moreland agreed to about 20 years ago and presented a plan to the county commission and city council. The chief then backed out of the deal and we wasted $7 million building a new police headquarters building. There would be substantial administrative savings and continued good law enforcement.
The county, on the other hand missed a bet when they did not ask the city, fully experienced and with administrative staff and expertise to handle it, to take over and expand the development of a county wide utility system which is costing millions, and has had more bosses than we have had county commissioners, but again, we were protecting turf. The failure to do better work on some of the purchase of utilit8es has cost us many, many dollars and the problesm with utility engineers and directors is well documented.
The County misoperated it's once cash rich solid waste department and drained its assets to pay for hurricane cleanup, and then boondoggle of hauling out of state, and when the time comes that we have to finally solve solid waste problems, we will not have the assets to pay for a new landfill (the likely result) or finance the expensive fancy technology then available.
If we wanted to really serve the metropolitian area of Ocala, we could merge fire departments but that again is a turf battle.
Now, we have the opportunity to have a transparent county wide ambulance service, and the city wants to spin off the city business to a private company, a move that should go no where, period. This should end up with a county wide system operated as a stand alone department. It is operating good, and shows signs of perhaps being a mdoel for others.
We should long ago have merged the growth management and planning departments into a single county wide department that would have protected all of us. For heaven's sake, who other than bureaucrats and elected officials would be so silly as to imagine that planning two blocks outside the city limits should be different than inside or vice versa.
Ocala no longer controls enough of the vote to guarantee enough seats at the table to rule Marion County government, and the idea that was expressed this morning by councilmen that Ocala ought to annex, annex, annex is a bunch of hooey.
While I am proud to live in Ocala, and was heavily involved in the fight to annex many years ago, I doubt I would want to annex into the city today unless I could see an difinitive improvement in service at a realistic cost.
But I would go for a general consolidation of governments and benefit from the resulting savings overall.
But the idea that the county ought to develop the proposals to take over city departments and not look at a similar proposal fro the city to take over county operations seems foolish and short sighted to me.
I realize the idea is if we can not make parks and rec work, there is no use trying the others, but if you really want to look at government as a whole, let's go. There are massive savings available. But it will mean some jobs won't be there. And perhaps some services will change too.--pwf
Sorry for the typing error.
I meant to say why not ask the city to present a plan to take over the development of a county recreation system, since the county today does not have a recreation system, just a director. --pwf
pwf
You are apparently not watching county government as much as you used to. The county does have a recreation system and while new it is doing just fine, advertising along side your friends in the city of Ocala and attracting lots of folks in areas outside the city. It's just not a big black hole of expenditures. Just when did you fall off the edge and start endorsing big inefficient government?
PWF....As someone just reminded you, the County is already delivering recreation services. A much expanded rec program is being offered by the County’s new Recreation Manager. Yes, the City has been doing recreation programs longer than the County but who says they do a better job of delivering them? The County’s experience in paying the City to run a summer rec program was less than satisfactory, and the funding to the City for that program was stopped. The summer program is now being carried out better and at less cost by the County.
Why not consolidate everything in one fell swoop you ask? Holy cow, if there is controversy and pushback on this small consolidation initiative with parks what do you think will happen if everything is tried all at once? You'll win the lotto before that happens! There is a saying that fits this situation: “how does a pygmy (not the Alabama toothless variety described by Councilman Ruse) eat an elephant?” The answer: “one bite at a time.” Consolidate the small stuff first, learn from your experiences and then go after the big stuff. You and I will be worm dust before everything you mentioned would ever be consolidated all at once!
The draft agreement is the work of two elected officials, Dan Owen and Andy Kesselring. By direction from City Council and the Commission, they produced what they were asked to produce. It is the first draft not the final draft. There will probably be changes to it to accommodate both sides.
First, I am aware the county is providing limited recreation services -- a first, and they just started, but they are not county wide, and I am sure they are good services. I am not slamming the county rec program, and I am sure it will grow to a point we will all be proud of it and it will be a model for the state, just as Ocala’s program ahs been for the 50 years I have been here..
Don't put words in my mouth -- I didn't suggest it was a dark hole for expenditures. We got rid of that dark hole several years ago.
And I have do friends in both city and county government and am willing to cross back and forth to consider what will work best for all -- how else can you ever make sure you have done a good deal. And I try to treat them all reasonable fairly – when they deserve it.
Second, I am not for inefficient government at any level, not now, not ever, and have fought that for 50 years.
Third, my point is who suddenly stepped up and said the county is the only body that can provide services, or who said the city can do likewise, or that either does poorly. I can show you some examples in county government that will equal the council’s sand pit.
The only thing we know for sure right now is that some city officials need to take a course in "cooth."
I do not know (yet) just how the draft was put together -- was it the off the cuff work of Dan Owen who has a record for pop off, or was it done with deep down hard work and study and Andy? How much input did county staff have in it? How much input did city staff have in it? How much work did administration of both city and county have.
Contrary to the popular belief of Mr. Owen and his colleagues on the Council and some county commissioners, administrators do occasionally have a brain and frequently they are somewhat smarter than councilmen and commissioners, and even occasionally than newspaperman and even some ordinary citizens, folks who watch the scene like me. (Gosh, I can't believe I said that!)
Fourth, I do not propose we incorporate everything at one time. I had hoped the Public Policy Institute would have created a study group that would have actually done a fair study. Any PPI study should be done from the standpoint of what is good for the community as a whole and not what is good for any specific group; in this case, it looks like they are protecting turf.
But at least we are having a discussion, a civil one. And no, unfortunately, I do not have a dog at this time, and I still have a few teeth left. -- pwf
Let’s eat the whole elephant at once! The heck with a bite at a time. A little heartburn is in order.
It’s time for government and that includes city and county to start living like the rest of us---cutting back on spending and living a bit lower on the food chain. Especially, the food chain provided by taxpayers.
It will NEVER FLY!
If the parks combination thing makes sense, why wait until next October? Get agreement next week and move forward with it. Typical government procrastination. And people wonder why our local government stinks.
The newspaper editorial was right on when it stated consolidation worked for our public library system. Just look at the progress that has happened with the construction of a new main library, Freedom Library, Belleview (under construction), and more new branches to come. There is no way the expansion of our libraries would have been financially possible if they were still under the control of Ocala city government.
I would like to read the proposed interlocal agreement, is it available to review online? If not, why not?
One more comment after reading the Banner editorial:
The last time the city and county were involved in a disagreement over an interlocal on parks, the county violated its side of the agreement and reneged on it's agreement on the west Ocala sportsplex.
And, as has been said on this blog, "that's a fact!"
County people can say all they want: I was involved in moving the West Ocala park to the site of the Sportsplex, and there was never any doubt that both governments knew it took the place of the one in the Interlocal agreement to have been built on airport road until time came for the county to pay up and my friend Randy harris didn't want to pay.
There have been other times when the county has not quite lived up to its agreements on interlocals, including some on parks so I am not sure I would believe them.
Further, if you believe the county can do it so much more efficiently and with fewer employees, why should the payment be $5 million, since much of the city's current budget is made up from interprise funds and not tax money. The agreement as I udnerstand it, would require the city to pay from its general fund $5 million, and since the county would be doing the operation, the county would have it's new parks department collect the revenue from the enterprise operations.
Understand, most of these guys ae friends of mine, but all of us have disagreements from time to time. The county is not pure anc lean on this deal. And I suspect there was about zero input from city parks people or from city administration people, so before I would be willing to sign on as a city taxpayer and a parks advocate, I'd want some unfettered comment from both city adm and city parks without the fear that my friend Mr. Owen so boldly brags about.
I don't share that need to have fear of an elected official who really has little background in parks. So let's get some input from the people at the city level who have expertise. --pwf
Friend---
Are you out of your mind! The County doing a better job running the Libraries than the City? You’ve got to be kidding! Look at the controversy they created a year or so ago about books in the Library. I would like to see the Library still part of the City. Might the Parks wind up being the same situation as with the Library?
pwf
Your friend Mike Finn and his "on the record" comments indicate that the West Ocala park was not part of any agreement. The county and your friend Randy Harris acted upon a clause allowing the dissolving of the agreeement you reference. However, with consolidation the County would be running your west Ocala park so you would get your way!
Working with the city was accomplished through the appointment of Owens and Kesselring as the negotiators. it's part of the public record. Involving the city parks people would probably have resulted in turf protection like you reference with the PPI folks so why don't you call your best friend Dan Owen and ask him how much interaction he had with city stff on this issue?
pwf, make up your mind but you can't talk out of both sides of your mouth. Maybe your buddy Creekbaum could do a little research for you on this issue!
The fact remains, the proposal shows the county, through consolidation, running the city parks cheaper than they are being run currently. Maybe it should be a ballot innitiative on January 29th?
What's this puffer wants us to pay for government inefficiency? Once a newspaperman always a liberal!
Well I'm not willing to pay for it!
Let the county run the parks. They will vote to change the hours they are open, closing them on weekends (and weekdays after 5pm). After the public outcry they will reconsider but will only allow baseball at one park.
If the city runs them they will sell annual use contracts at a discounted rate for city residents.
They are so predictable.
to anon at 11:43 . . .
The library has outlived the books and the libray board controvery. Yes, it is operated better today than under the city because the funding is there to support an countywide system. There is no question on this one.
Anon at 12:21 . .. I would like to see Mike Finn's public on the record comment that the west park was not part of the agreement. I will believe he said that when I see it.
I believe I know exactly how much intertaction Dan Owens had with city staff. That wasn't on his agenda. He just wants out of the parks business.
I do not talk out of both sides, but I want to know all of the facts, not just a one sided report from a friend, regardless of which one it is.
And there is no one, no one, who has worked more for consolidation of agencies and services in Marion County, dating back more than 25 years, than I. Show me where services can be provided better and cheaper and I am for it, but I want to see both sides.
Don't you wish you had looked more closely at the solid waste and utility situation in the county and had both sides of those issues.
That's all I want on this issue.
And I will do my research on my own, thank you. --pwf
Parks & Recreation Consolidation
Let’s start with the premise that we all want what’s best for the City of Ocala and Marion County.
I am in favor of reducing government, but confused about the Parks & Recreation consolidation. I admit that I have not had the opportunity to read the proposed agreement:, but it seems a little one sided:
1. How is the County’s budget reduced, by assuming $5,000,000 of additional expenses?
2. What happens if the city annexes a private subdivision that has parks and recreational facilities, will the county then assume the financial burden?
3. Why should the city have no future financial liability, shouldn’t some form of pro-rata cost sharing be part of the agreement?
4. Does Marion County assume ownership of the City’s parks?
5. Can Marion County change the use of the parks or sell the property?
It would be a lot easier to discuss or debate the issues if everyone had access to the interlocal agreement.
The City and County are working on the wrong thing. Consolidation is not what they should be doing. What they should be doing is elimination--elimination of City and County Parks and the County libraries. That would save citizens $15 million + and some additional money from the sale of some of the land the parks and libraries are on. Places like Horseshoe Park would fetch a good penny. Politicians do something really useful and save us money, don’t just play shell games moving expenses from the City to the County.
Consolidation--not the answer many taxpayers want.
Now you're talking something I can get on the wagon for.
For those who have been asking about seeing the draft interlocal agreement, you can do what I did on Friday. I bought a copy of this five page document from the City of Ocala Clerk for 75 cents as a public record. I didn’t see this listed as an agenda item for the next City Council meeting this coming Tuesday when I looked on Friday so I doubt you will find it as agenda backup, but if and when it is on the published agenda for the Ocala City Council, you can get the backup for the item on Ocala’s website under the section for the City Clerk. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the Banner reported that Owen would raise the issue, at least briefly, at the City Council meeting Tuesday.
anion at 6:38 . . .
Get real. Even conservatiues are for public schools, public libraris, andcpublic parks. We arent going to close them, and we sure aren't going to sell any more more land like the fairgrounds debacle, the single worst decision of county govt in 50 years!
If you want to make this a campaign issue, run for office next year and propose it. --pwf
The point PWF makes about the ability of the county to provide a broader base of financial support for the expansion of the library facilities is also a compelling reason to support the parks consolidation. The need for parks and libraries will increase as growth continues at a faster rate outside of the city of Ocala. It would seem to me that having the county manage the park resources, the way it does the libraries, would be a way to address the need for funds to support a growing need for parks. The city is going to be continually stretched for cash just to support the basic needs of city residents. Why not let the entire city/county parks inventory be handled in a more integrated way? PWF has convinced me that the consolidation makes sense.
pwf saying he likes to get all the facts on an issue before he speaks?
what a joke.
pwf is and always will be a commentator.
Sits on the sidelines, runs his mouth when something upsets him, and then tries to push his opinions as some sort of facts. Notice he says he likes to do his own homework. i can tell you firsthand his homework is not very thurough or complete.
i guess if owen and kesslering gets this pulled off and consolidation occurs they will have to give PWF all the credit
If money is a problem for Ocala parks, why not charge a special fee to anyone not an Ocala city resident when they use a city park or any recreation events? Make county residents pay more to use our city parks.
Ocala's about to stick it to the County big time. They are going to dump a department that needs more money in the future than Ocala has available or wants to make available. County residents hold on to your wallets--Ocala is coming after them!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian
You've "cut to the chase" and you're on target. Excellent research too!
I found a misplaced phrase in my post above to which someone has already responded so I’ve deleted the original and am posting again.
Since parks are being analogized here to public libraries, it might interest people to know what was the impetus for shifting governance and administration of the public library system to the county commission.
Here’s some relevant history from the public library’s website:
“In 1961 the City of Ocala, Citrus County and Levy County formed the Central Florida Regional Library. The City of Ocala operated and funded virtually all library service in Marion County until 1964 when Marion County, with existing libraries in Belleview and Dunnellon, joined the Library System. Citrus County left the system in 1987. On October 1, 1997 the Marion County Board of County Commissioners became the governing body of the Marion County Public Library System. By interlocal agreement, library personnel continued to be administrated by the City of Ocala until October 1999, when they became County employees. Also in October 1999, the Levy County Board of Commissioners created the independent Levy County Public Library System.”
Note that Citrus and Levy leaving the system are examples of de-consolidation.
The transition to the county commission governing and administering the library system was put in motion because Ocala city manager Scotty Andrews encountered resistance from the county commission in funding the public library system to the level he thought needed. Scotty believed the county commission would not provide adequate funding unless the county was governing and administering the system.
How do I know these things? Because I’m friends with a former library advisory board chairman who is close to Ken Scully and because I’ve talked to Scotty about this in the past year. Scully lives in Texas now but was a library advisory board chairman when this transition was put in motion.
Then county commissioner Randy Harris opposed the county taking over on the very grounds that Scotty supported the change. Harris feared that the county taking over would lead to greater county commission ownership in the public library system and sense of responsibility for it and a dramatic increase in county outlays for public libraries. History has shown that Harris’ fear was well-founded. Shifting the system to county governance and administration was a precursor to larger county commission outlays for libraries, including major library capital improvements. This all took place in an environment in which benchmarks indicated Marion County’s public library system compared poorly to others in the state.
The Star-Banner reported on April 1, 1997 that Scully and then county commissioner Larry Cretul and then city councilman Mike Amsden sat on the committee that recommended the county takeover, including establishment of a Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) for libraries. All three are quoted in the Star-Banner’s reporting that day favoring such an MSTU. To my knowledge, the MSTU has not yet come to pass.
Within this context, some folks may be interested to know that the county commission’s designated representative on parks consolidation, Andy Kesselring, floated the idea of a countywide MSTU for parks in the September 17, 2007 joint work session between the Ocala City Council and the Marion County Board of County Commissions in which city councilman Charlie Ruse raised the issue of parks consolidation and Kesselring and city councilman Daniel Owen were designated to work on this issue.
After county commissioner Jim Payton said the big issue would be a funding formula, Kesselring made the following statement:
“I mean, the mechanism is a countywide MSTU for recreation. I mean, cut to the chase and everything, that is what it really is. It takes all the funding out of the general fund from the City’s standpoint, but that way, the people that are non-city residents that come into the city, they are paying for those parks, and the people in the city… they go to Carney Island. They’re paying for that park.”
Payton and Ruse both spoke favorably about such an MSTU. Ruse said at the November 28 work session that he’s not interested in living in a low cost, low service community, so presumably we are talking about some serious revenue from such an MSTU.
Of course, Scully, as a big supporter of public libraries, was in favor of a dedicated funding source for libraries and park supporters likely would be attracted to a dedicated funding source for parks.
There is no mention of a countywide parks MSTU in the draft interlocal agreement being discussed here, but I thought folks might like to know where this could be headed.
The “increased efficiencies” consolidation proposal could be a move toward more robust funding for parks countywide.
Jess
Bad idea. How about if the County charged Ocala City residents a "special fee" to use the County libraries or to enter one of the County parks? Don't think so.
An MSTU for parks has been discussed by Lee Niblock, Stan Hanson (chairman of the county Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee -- PRAC) and myself for the past 18-24 months as the eventual and best way for the county to provide a long term financing method to continue to have funds for land purchases and to fund the operational costs of the department including recreational programs.
So an MSTU has been on the table for some time, but Andy was the first elected offiical to publicly talk about is as I recall.
The problem that all governments face is they are limited by the constitution as to what the general fund can raise, and, of course, limited to ten mills, so they utilize the MSTU mechanisms.
And as for library funding, had county commissioners through the years followed the mandate of the voters in a general election about 1963 or so, and funded library services with the one-half mill that the voters approved (I voted for it) in a ballot referendum that has not been overturned, the library would have been receiving millions more each year for the past 40-plus years!
But, in fairness, a mill in 1964 was worth about $100,000, and it is worth more than I want to try to remember, $15-$18 million maybe even more.
But while the half mill for libraries was approved in that election, sometime later, that same issue was on the ballot again, perhaps 20 years ago, and it was turned down by 65% or so as I recall. (I voted against that one.)
As for charging out of city residnts a fee, it seems like they did that for things like softball and that type of adult sports 20-30 years ago, but I am not real sure.
One of the problems the city argues is that 70 percent (their figure not mine) of the accidents they investigate are non-city residents, and they get nothing for that police work. They claim because of county people coming inside the city, it is actually a city of 200,000 durign the day time.
I am not sure I agree with that theory, but that is their argument.
But if the city is going to drop it's cash strapped agencies on the county, why not just consolidate and at least get the ones that make money? --pwf
What is an MSTU?
Municipal Services Taxing Unit.
It is a way for county government to levy a tax without it counting against their fgeneral fund operation.
Usually, it is used for a specific area, for instance the people of Silver Springs Shores and Marion Oaks have an MSTU for recreation, since there is not a general, countywide tax for recreation programs.
However, the county also has a MSTU for law enforcement for all areas outsiode the city limits of municipalities like Ocala, Belleview, Dunnellon etc to finance the patrol and law enforcement services of the Sheriffs Office other than the general operation of the agency which can be shown to have a benefit to the entire county.
Generally speaking an MSTU is used when the purpose is for a specific area. This would be a countywide MSTU for the whole county for recreation. And look for another one for the ambulance service soon. --pwf
Thanks for explaining the MSTU. One more question, do we get to vote on whether or not one can be established?
I believe the answwer is yes, but I will double check.
Perhaps Stan can answer this since he has done quite a bit of research on this point. --pwf
The power of a legislative and governing body of a county to create a municipal service taxing unit (MSTU) is described in Section 125.01, Florida Statutes. A county commission can do this by resolution without voter approval. A referendum is not required.
A county commission can unilaterally create an MSTU whose boundaries include only unincorporated areas of a county. Subject to the consent by ordinance of the governing body of the affected municipality given either annually or for a term of years, the boundaries of an MSTU may include all or part of the boundaries of a municipality. This is why you hear in the current discussion about emergency medical services that the county commission would need the consent of the Ocala City Council to have an MSTU for EMS that includes the City of Ocala. It is also why, in the September joint work session between the county commission and Ocala’s city council, county commissioners sounded out city council members about how they felt about a countywide MSTU for recreation.
Just to clarify, a municipality, such as the City of Ocala, is an incorporated area within a county.
If I'm understanding this correctly, voters of the City of Ocala don't decide on permitting an MSTU, the City Council decides?
That’s right. Additionally, I’m still learning about how MSTUs relate to millage caps, so I can’t speak at this time to what has been said here about that.
I spoke to an official at the Florida League of Cities about this. He says the county commission can levy up to 10 mills for county services and an additional 10 mills for municipal type services provided by MSTUs. All of this can be done without going to the voters.
As a municipality, he says Ocala can also levy up to 10 mills. He says the millage levied for a countywide MSTU against property in a municipality such as Ocala counts against the 10 mill cap for the city. He also confirms, as I posted earlier, that a countywide MSTU that included Ocala would have to be approved by our city council. A vote of the citizens is not required. A vote of the citizens would be required to exceed the 10 mill cap, but Ocala is not currently near that cap.
The question is will voters stand still for ANY increase of any kind of a tax with the huge accessment levels of the past two or three levels, for whatever good reason.
I has occasion to look at a small home the other day. The land three years ago was assessed at about $11,000, this year at #41,000. Residential properties that are not under amendment 10 are getting hit through the roof, and Gov. Charlie and the Legislature has done about nothing to help anyone I know.
My gut feeling is that this is not the time for anybody to be proposing any new tax or any tax increase of any kind for any purpose, Mr. Ruse's desire not to live in a low tax area to the contrary. Only time will tell. --pwf
2:31 PM
Thanks, I have a much better understanding of MSTUs.
No new taxes!
Shut down the parks and libraries if necessary but enough is enough with these new tax schemes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ferguson’s guts are hardly needed to tell us the attitudes of many in Marion County, especially in the unincorporated areas, toward taxes. They’ve been telling county commissioners loud and clear at meetings and at the ballot box for years, including last year when they voted down a sales tax for roads by about a 2 to 1 margin and threw out a county commissioner who supported it and barely retained a second county commissioner who supported it.
Now, the county commissioners turn right around and bring up a countywide MSTU for recreation. I’m sure the folks who don’t want to pay for roads are really looking forward to kicking in for a line item on their tax bill for a county volleyball program. Oh, yeah.
Look at the electoral map of rural precincts with low educational levels in which the incumbents had trouble last year and you will get an idea of what was behind the results. Then look at the precincts with more than ten votes cast in which the sales tax passed – all within the City of Ocala. Mixing people with such disparate attitudes toward taxes and service levels under one consolidated roof is asking for big time tension and disagreements.
The county already charges residents of the City of Ocala ad valorem taxes to support the county parks we use. As for non-Ocala residents using Ocala recreation and parks, at the September joint work session city councilman Ruse brought up charging non-residents higher fees as we now do with golf. He named some other areas in Florida that do this. In addition, the website for the City of Orlando shows higher recreation fees for non-residents. Ruse quickly pushed this aside in favor of looking at consolidation, however. I think we in Ocala need to ask our city council members why the idea of higher fees for non-residents isn’t being looked at more seriously.
Charging non-resident is a great idea! Let's really stick it to those hicks who live outside the Ocala city limits. Let's keep Ocala the elite community it is. We don't need to interface with those county creeps to survive. We can go it on our own without the county or its residents. I'm ready to go to war with the county, let's use park fees as the first shot. Just do it City Council!
RE: let's fight 8:47am
Spoken like a true "protect your turf" (however bloated it may be) city employee. First, before the city bellyaches about non-resident usage of their parks they should consider implementing a non-resident user fee. The city has resisted this simple solution in the past because they apparently find it easier to just ask the county for subsidy money.
Second an MSTU is not needed to fund the county's more efficient operation of all parks including the Ocala's. This, as Brian has stated, can be part of the ad valorem based tax bill.
The questions remains, how can the county operate city parks and recreation facilities cheaper by $1,000,000.00 than the city currently does? It looks like a lot of wasted tax dollars to me.
Here again we see another example of bogus anonymous postings from people trying to create strawman arguments to refute. I doubt the posting above is from a city employee. I doubt the person behind it even lives in Ocala. More likely it’s somebody affiliated with county parks who thinks we’re all dumb enough to take such contrived, insincere postings seriously.
What a bunch of tripe, this stuff about picking fights. I don’t see anyone suggesting that the county is picking a fight with city residents by charging city residents taxes to run parks in unincorporated Marion County. When I go to Wal-Mart and the goods aren’t all marked $0.00, I don’t conclude that Wal-Mart is picking a fight with me. Has the City of Orlando picked a fight with non-city residents in Orange County because they charge them more to participate in city recreation programs than they charge city residents who generally pay more tax than non-city residents to support Orlando recreation and parks? I haven’t heard about any war between Orange County and the City of Orlando over this. Did I miss something?
As for alleged cost savings, I recently spoke to a former city manager from a city elsewhere in Florida who said I should just expect the county bureaucracy to bloat after the parks consolidation, with the alleged savings disappearing. You have to admit, there are a lot of postings on this blog alleging that the county administration is bloated.
I’ll be interested, though, to see the county’s written analysis showing how alleged savings will be achieved. I’ll also be interested in how much of the alleged savings could be achieved without consolidation.
Who’s got the written plan? I hope it’s not on a server in Atlanta with only elites gaining access via the internet through secret codes and then making dubious claims about nobody being able to print a copy for the public.
My goodness Brian.
Your distrust of County government is legendary and now you, as a city resident, are content paying more to operate your city system regardless of cost.
Your beloved library system continues to thrive under county consolidated operation and has captital funding support far beyond anything the city could have provided. You have quoted from the joint city/county meeting tape that you apparently have. Listen again and report back to the bloggers whether it was the city or the county that brought up consolidation. I'll bet you your copy of "Eat Me" that it was the city.
If you don't support consolidation because you don't trust the county then at least admit the validity of non-resident user fees so we city taxpayers aren't subsidizing the county residents' usage of our parks and recreation system.
I doubt you will find a MSTU as the preferred method by elected officials to manage the financing of a proposed consolidated parks operation. They probably have other items higher on the list for consideration than the MSTU approach. Parks and recreation impact fees, ad valorem tax, dedicated sales tax (possibly including libraries and some other “quality of life” areas) are likely on their to-be-considered list.
With approximately 2/3 of Ocala city parks users being non-residents of the city, a user fee for non-residents would certainly seem in order. It’s hard to disagree with that. It’s also hard to disagree with Ocala city councilmen who question why not let the county manage and totally pay for something that is used mostly by county citizens, and at an increasing rate.
With consolidation of the two parks departments, just like when combining two similar businesses, there are many “two of the same positions” that are not needed in a combined unit. Eliminate some of these duplicate positions and you can generate much savings.
Those involved in making the consolidation decision will see the documented savings and better ways of operating that are available via consolidation; many already have. They can then balance the economics/efficiencies versus the politics of the situation and decide accordingly.
I know what I would do, but I’m not occupying an elected office.
The best savings--CLOSE ALL OF THE PARKS!!!!!
Good luck trying to collect fees from County residents at the kind of parks Ocala has. It will cost more to set up a collection system and run it than you will get in extra money. Of course the government is full of idiotic ideas like this. Harris wanted to do the same thing with gate access and other controls in some of the County parks and it was judged not feasible. If the City doesn't mind adding a few more employees to the park group, go ahead and try the fee collections. Might as well throw away more taxpayer money on policing the parks. Maybe they could just shoot any violators. Anyone in this town ever heard of cooperation and doing what's right for park goers, whether City or County? Doubt if those suggesting the fee idea have ever been in any parks.
Parks Fees?
Do you think the city and county parks are Disneylands?
So everyone wants free parks?
Use fee collection is already occurring in many parks now. Maybe those of you against fee collection should visit a city or county park and see how easy it is to collect the fees, for yourselves.
How about a toll booth at the entrance to the Library? That would give the County a little more money.
Let the City Council run the parks. They have demonstrated expertise in the building of very large sand boxes,(latest work on display downtown).
That's a good one!
Prediction.
Consolidation is a go and County runs combined Parks and Recreation system. How long before other Marion County cities get into the act?
What departments and operations will be next?
Bet on City taking over something bigger, much bigger, for the County.
I see mention of how much Ocala spends each year for parks, how about what the county spends. I'd like to know.
Just over half what the city does. More percentage on maintenance though. Check the Clerk's website.
Hard to believe that the County can run their parks for half as much as the City of Ocala. If I lived in the City, I'd be requesting an audit.
how about getting a PROPOSAL FROM CITY ON HOW THEY WUD RUN COUNTY PARKS? this is one sided deal with one guy trying to get rid of city departtments. we need to egt rid of owens and keep parks.
You mean like the city would bloat the budget and increase upper level management for the county parks? At the same time maybe they could get another proposal from Gutman to rennovate downtown?
The county has a plan to reduce the operating expenses of the parks:
The entrances will be closed.
A bus will take all would be park users to a central park transfer station for further transport to Georgia. They will then be "dumped" into GA's park system.
This will cut down on park operating expenses and that pesky need to find and equip new parks.
Some are saying that this will be a costly solution and that it would be far better to open the parks but to close them on weekends.
Others say this would never happen in Marion County.
I think we have heard that scenario before.
Also, there will be a dentist on the bus, but no dogs allowed! That is mostly to keep passenger numbers down on the return trip to "pairofdice."
You're really on a roll--LOL!!!!!
There is a comment that Ocala should take over the County Parks. I’m all for it if it is a similar arrangement to what the County is talking about. I would be glad to have Ocala taxpayers take over the total expense and running of the County Parks at the end of 5 years like the County is talking about doing. Should lower my County property taxes. However, glad I don’t live in the City and have to take on all that expense and have to pay for it.
it city pays county fuve mill, then county should pay city five mill and your city taxes be the same or lower since that would be profit.
The county should pay one million less than they do now---just like the city would be doing to the county and reduce that by 10% each year. Bottom line--start with a payment of $2 million to the city which is one million less than current. Now that would be a great deal for the county tax payers.
question: if county wants all the city parks and city wants out, why the hell should the city pay anything. just give the county the keys. they can do it better and cheaper so "let's just do it!"
The county doesn't want all the city parks. The city, in a joint public meeting, asked the county for a proposal and assigned a county commissioner and a city councilman the task of drafting a deal for review.
It's now under review by both sets of elected officials. I've heard the county doesn't have an opinion on the proposed deal. It's in the cities court now. It does save big bucks though, over what the city is currently paying if the county runs the parks.
Makes you wonder why the city couldn't find a way to save a million dollars doesn't it?
I see mention of including the libraries with parks in a possible tax to support them. Why libraries? Parks is fine with me but no way should the libraries be in there. That should be on its own and parks should be on its own. Don't confuse the issue.
who sez it saves a cool mill? the onkly grouop that is allowed the speak -- county aprks. City parks has been gagged by dan owens who knows all
I spoke to Ocala Recreation and Parks Director Dave Pritchard on December 21, well after the claimed $1 million cost saving figure appeared on this blog. Pritchard said he had not heard this figure or seen any analysis behind it.
Wait until the County higher ups find out how poorly the City Parks have been kept up and the expense to get them back in shape and the consolidation will be DOA. If the City wants to do something right with the City Parks they should axe the Parks Director for letting things get so bad.
Having early on in this thread peaved some county and city folk by questioning this plan, proposal, idea or whatever, let me close the year by saying:
1. County parks are being developed and maintained in a form we can take pride in. In five short years, we have done well.
2. City parks and rec have always been an area that stood out in Marion County, and, contrary to all of the flak taken on this thread, they are in pretty good shape, especially considering the use they get. If city parks are in such bad shape, it comes from heavy usage, a lot of it from county residents who come into the city because so few facilities have been available from a county that historically has not invested in infrastructure of any kind, especially niceties like parks. If c ounty parks had the uage of city parks, they would either have a much larger payroll, or show signs of wear and tear.
The city rec program is heavily used by both city and county folks, and has been a God send for parents for years, looking for something their crumb crunchers could do to stay out of trouble. By any standard it is a success.
3. Parks are important to the way of life of living in a community. They are not liberal or conservative. They are a need, and, like libraries, are a standard by which communities are judged, contrary to some who won’t put their names to their posts.
4. Eventually, we will have some form of consolidation of government in Marion County. It probably will come with the county taking over more of the functions now operated by the City of Ocala, but that brings additional problems since municipalities like Dunnellon and Belleview will saying "me too" and want to rid themselves of double taxation.
5. Any consolidation should come after a good study of the operation and a full understanding of what has been done and what is being proposed. A successful transition does not come from a proposal in a vacuum as is the current case where there is no proposal or comment allowed from the city, only one proposed by the county.
6. While I trust the intent of the county proposal and I will give them the benefit of the doubt as to the so called million dollar saving, I have watched these things for far too long, and that million dollar savings will shortly have another flavor as, because of usage and demand, we have to hire here and hire there to take care of this program and that one, and like all government, it will expand and the savings will come to be imagined and not real.
Always remember, government will expand in direct proportion to space provided and money available. It always has, it always will, regardless of whether you are the head honcho or I am. That is the nature of the beast.
7. None of this is intended to say anything negative about city or county or city or county pwersonnel, except perhaps for the failure on the part of city council to care about giving the county the benefit of the experience and expertise in operating a highly successful recreation program, but if the county wants to buy a single sided study, so be it. They bought similar studies on Silver Springs Shores Utilities and some other take overs, they refused to look at both sides of the transfer station and “haul out of state” situation, and we the taxpayers got stung. Let’s hope that does not occur on this first step toward consolidation.
See you in 2008! --pwf
Happy New Year to all of the bloggers who have made this Politically Homeless Blog so successful.
It is certainly the easiest to follow of any I watch. If you want a disaster, try to follow some of the threads on blogs covering the Episcopal church and it's slide to disaster.
Politically Homeless generally is spirited and yet does not contain blasphemy, generally is not personally offensive, and is frequently very informative.
My thanks to its creator, and for the work and expense it takes to keep it going. --pwf
pwf comments
A couple of responses. Combining two operations into one would have to create some savings because there will be cases, probably many, where you don't need two of some levels of positions.
Second, the city parks are, in many cases, a little rough around the edges. The problem is these parks are not being adequately maintained most likely because the city elected officals are not funding operations adequately.
I agree with the comments that the City should take over the County Parks. I would also like to see the City of Ocala take over all police activities throughout the County by merging the Sheriffs Department into the City. I believe Chief Sam Williams would do a much better job than Ed Dean in running a consolidated police operation.
re: 10:12am
I don't hear anyone in the County clammering to have the City take over the County parks. It's obvious the City is overextended in park operations and needs the County to help carry the costs. If the City can't do a better job of funding park maintenance what makes you think they'd do any better running the County parks?
As to Sam running the whole County's law enforcement efforts better you really haven't done your homework into what Ed Dean has done for professional law enforcement. Sam is a nice guy but that's about it. He came here to retire and succeeded!
Not sure where this stuff about city parks being poorly run comes from. Ones I visit look pretty good to me. I see some sloppy work on county parks too. pwf is right about needing a fair analysis of the idea, not just one side.
5:03pm
Poorly maintained city parks not necessarily poorly run. That's not the fault of city staff but of elected officals not properly funding on-going maintenance and operations. With this group in power now don't expect any changes either.
As to county parks call them if you have comments.
Keep the pervs out of the City parks and they'd be a lot better. Wouldn't trust my kids in several of them.
Rumor has it that the City Parks Director is leaving. Wonder if the consolidation proposal had anything to do with it? Maybe he saw the writing on the wall?
With Pritchard on his way out and the second in command already planning to leave this year what will the city fathers do now?
I don’t know what the city council will do, but if they had any sense, rather than handcuffing their new city manager by acting prematurely, they would let the new city manager lead this process for them.
I don’t know if Pritchard is leaving, but if he does, it might because he felt the knife in his back rather than because he saw handwriting on a wall.
That's true, he was stabbed in the back--by some of his own employees.
Dave Pritchard, Parks and Rec Director, and Tom Bolinski, the Assistant Director, have both announced their retirement. They have been with the city for many, many years, and as such, commanded large salaries and benefits.
Dave has managed one of the more successful city parks and recreation departments in the state, and will be missed. Tom likewise. People outside of government who have had contact with them know their value.
Their decisions to retire are easy to understand, just as was Paul Nugent's decision to retire. All were fully vested in the city retirement system, and are young enough to do something else with their lives rather than face a hostile city council.
Their departure will make the discussion of merging the city department into the county somewhat easier because a large measure of the cost that can be saved will some from their salaries and benefits and in my opinion the total savings will be a long way from any million dollars -- IF -- and it is a big IF -- city programs and services to residents of the city (and those outside the city who have for years come inside the city to use city facilities since the county has such limited programs and almost none in the immediate Ocala area).
So far, the county has not shared an analysis of the costy savings they propose other than cutting all the office administrative costs and that is way short of a million dollars. We will have to wait and see just how the figures work out.
It is sad to see valuable employees go, but they are in better space than most because they are able to retire, while many people will just be out of a job under the county's proposal.
--pwf
When pwf refers to people being out of a job, I wonder if he’s referring to recreation and parks employees or one or more Ocala city council members.
City council races are generally placid 4,000 vote affairs. It doesn’t take much in the way of resources to have a big impact on those races. The barriers to entry are low. We may have some city council members running way ahead of public support for their actions. Theoretically, if all five were subject to a vote of confidence right now, I think two of them would not survive.
pwf
I have not seen any figures on the county's estimated costs to run the city's recreation and parks operation. I understand that a complete zero based budget approach was employeed to come up with a prioritization of activties and services offered. I also understand some privitization costs were factored in for additional savings. That is from information gained from a county advisory board member.
As to the assistant director, Tom Bolinski from the city, retiring in September that has been planned for nearly a year and is not a result of any recent discussions on consolidation.
So pwf what if only a half million dollars could be saved, as a city taxpayer, are you suggesting that those tax revenues just be squandered on inefficiency? If not what backwards thinking are you using to judge when enough money is being saved? Unless you are an elected official I doubt your opinion counts for anything anyway because your approval is not required. As a city taxpayer I'd be happy with any real savings, even if it came from high paid bosses choosing retirement. Like you said they can find other work or just collect their taxpayer funded retirement check! I'll bet it will be more than your social security check!
One could just as easily ask if we should give up local control over our services in Ocala for $1 (that’s one, not one million) in annual savings. One could say that anyone who doesn’t favor doing this is against efficiency. After all, if we don’t we are forgoing a savings of $1 per year. How much would you need to save to be willing to have your services run out of the county, a scenario in which any fool knows we in Ocala will have less control over our stuff?
The problem with just looking at costs and saying that something cheaper is more efficient is that it ignores that under consolidation, we in Ocala are not likely to get the same thing. We will likely have less say over our services. Duplication between city and county government is part of the price we pay for autonomy. It’s part of the price of having more say over our services than other parts of the county. It’s part of the price of being more than just a population lump on a county map.
I find the comments above about privatization interesting because it begins to smell like some of the savings, as I suspected, do not depend on consolidation. If that turns out to be the case, it’s just one more reason to wait until the new city manager is onboard.
I'm shocked!!! You mean Ocala is not a population lump on a County map?
So brian as an expert on nothing now you're picky on how you want to save money? Your suspicion of county government is legendary because they've shown you the door more than once. Other than you have absolutely no understanding of modern, not old style, government function why in the world would you saddle the new manager with the possible role of hatchet person. Shouldn't organizational structure be decided by the elected officials and give the new manager a clean slate?
Once again Brian you exercise a quick self-serving opinion with no real research just a whiney novice opinion. Why don't you just go back to peddling porn? You weren't good at that either but at least it gave you something to do when you were alone!
A few excerpts from the chapter “Do Consolidation Entrepreneurs Make a Deal with the Devil?” by Feiock that appears in “City-County Consolidation and Its Alternatives” edited by Carr and Feiock and published in 2004:
“… the general conclusion of extant research is that consolidation has not delivered the goods. Advocates of consolidation confront both a cogent and well-developed theory for multiple competing and overlapping jurisdictions and a body of empirical evidence indicating that decentralized government results in greater efficiency than consolidated government…”
“A careful review of the evidence regarding the political, economic, and fiscal consequences of consolidation provides only weak support for consolidationist arguments. The ability of consolidation to produce the benefits attributed to it has not been clearly established and much of the evidence does not support the arguments of the reformers. The evidence with regard to the progressive reform model’s predictions that consolidation will reduce costs and enhance efficiency is particularly clear.”
“Progressive theory of city-county consolidation comes from a tradition of civic reform or traditional public administration, focused on service quality and efficiency. The progressives promised cost savings through economies of scale, reduced duplication of effort, and greater technical capacity in service provision. These arguments have been largely discredited in the last fifteen years.”
“Extant research demonstrates that local government generally costs less in areas where general purpose government is more decentralized.”
“The findings are reinforced by longitudinal studies and comparative and case analyses reporting that consolidation led to increased, not decreased, taxes and expenditures, higher personnel costs, and greater dissatisfaction among employees. Even studies that report some efficiency gains stemming from unified government conclude that these benefits are small and are at least partly offset by the increased costs resulting from consolidated government.”
The above excerpts concerning full government consolidation deserve consideration with respect to functional consolidation such as being discussed locally with respect to recreation and parks.
Creating a fat, dumb, and happy Soviet-style central bureaucracy down at the McPherson Complex may not be the way to go. Whatever the county claims it has achieved in parks has been done in an environment of competition with the City of Ocala. Ironically, consolidation could deprive both Ocala and non-Ocala residents of the benefits of competition by reducing competition in the county in this service area. It would be irresponsible for our city council to not carefully examine how much of the claimed savings could be achieved without consolidating and to more carefully consider the implications of creating a county monopoly in recreation and parks. This is an examination best carried out with our new “cost cutting” city manager onboard.
so creepbalm, Once again you've quoted out of date self serving research devised by folks against consolidation. You've also missed the major point that government is not the private sector and does get cheaper with competition. Rather that paying for duplicative services pay for one of something not two. These are tax dollar savings, not some corporate bottom line profits.
gjvjuyqCounty employee (AKA Anon at 7:35 Jan. 7)
I am glad to know that you used a zero based budget approach to prioritize the activities and services offered. Perhaps equally important would have been a careful examination of those activities and programs which was NOT done.
Further, since it was I who introduced privatization to the county park system several years ago, I am happy to understand that some privatization costs were factored in for some additional savings.
As for Tom Bolinski’s retirement, are you telling me that the one million in annual savings does NOT include any of Tom’s salary and benefits? Not so.
So, I am NOT suggesting that any tax money EVER be squandered on inefficiency. I will put my work against inefficiency and elimination of unnecessary programs against yours today, tomorrow and the next day. I just want to see the inefficiency detailed (it has NOT been), and I want to see exactly what is being proposed for programs and services (they have NOT been) before I agree with any proposal.
You are correct, I am not an elected official, and you can have your doubts about my opinion counting, but I suspect in the end, you will see that the counter proposal from the city will have more of my thoughts than yours, because it will have some guarantee that Ocala this time does not get the shaft from the county.
And since you are so eager to snipe at me, would you agree to sign over your assets (the city taxpayers’ park land) to the county, and give them money ($10 million over five years) with no guarantee they would continue to provide at least the same level of service and no guarantee they would continue after say another five years, and you are out your money ($10 million) and your assets (all the city’s land)? I didn't think so.
Finally, exactly how long do you think it will take the people in Salt Springs, Oak Run, The Villages, or On Top of the World to realize their county taxes are being used to finance a recreation program for the City of Ocala. And how about the people in Rainbow Lakes Estates, Marion Oaks and Silver Springs Shores who have MSTU taxes to finance their services.
I support consolidation of services. I support Charter Government. But I think people want to know what the deal is before they make their decisions. The county’s proposal was a non starter. -- pwf
pwf
The County's proposal? Hopefully you will recall that there were two elected officials appointed to come back with a proposal, Dan Owen and Andy Kesslering. This is not the County's proposal, as you state, but a joint draft proposal that will require scrutiny from both sides. Non-starter is not a correct label.
That being said we'll probably never know whose salary was in and whose was out because no named city employee is factored into the draft.
Also, although I know you're old you didn't invent privitization. In was successfully employed in many local and state government functions long before it was used in Marion County.
And if you're implying I'm a county employee, wrong again, however I do talk to many of them.
AMAZING!
Several anonymous posters have caused an historic event, the coming together of puffer, aka pwf the old newspaper warhorse long overdue for the glue factory and the original don't ask don't tell boyscout brian.
Looks to me that anonymous nose tweakers have caused an overreaction from two self-important bloggers. Now that pwf and brian have united in opinion and distrust of that which they obviously don't know much about I'm booking my ski trip in hell! It certainly has frozen over by now.
If anyone thinks the consolidation research I posted is out of date, I’ll be happy to read the supposedly up-to-date research that exists, but it’s a funny thing, I don’t see any such thing posted here. Name calling and other ad hominem attack such as appears in this thread is a device for distracting attention from the fact that the author(s) has (have) nothing of substance to say on the issue.
Anyone who can read can see pwf and I do not totally agree on this matter and to the extent that we do, anyone who knows either of us knows we will not be bullied into self-censorship because we agree in some areas.
Pwf’s comments on the county takeover proposal are dead on target. I busted out laughing when I read the draft interlocal. It looks like it was written under belief that the people of Ocala are the biggest suckers since P.T. Barnum was in his heyday. It’s so one-side it reads like a bad credit card agreement for pigeons who sign up for credit cards with sky high interest rates and tons of hidden fees. Well, let’s just go ahead and say it. You would have to have more dogs than teeth to think this proposed interlocal is in the interest of the City of Ocala.
Realize how meaningless the cancellation provisions are when you see that if we cancel we have no land or people to run a recreation and parks.
Find anywhere in the proposal where Ocala taxpayers have any guarantee whatsoever that they will ever see a dime of savings from consolidation. I’m not talking about how much savings exists, which itself is a question. I’m talking about any guarantee that any actual savings benefit the Ocala taxpayer rather than going toward funding the unincorporated county’s massive park deficit revealed in the county’s draft master plan, which should be getting a lot of discussion and which I recently obtained.
It’s a real eye opener, and you should read it if you have not already. It’s got a lot of expensive oversized color stuff in it that makes it a challenge to reproduce, but they have a copy in the lobby of the county commission offices for public inspection. Look at the county’s challenges in financing recreation and parks and you will see they could easily be the City of Ocala’s next Jorge Gutman. Big promises with no delivery. As my Dad told me in line at Morrison’s when I was kid: Your eyes are bigger than your stomach.
Without any bickering could someone accurately relate the financial details of the draft agreement? From what I have heard (on tv and in conversations), read in the paper and read on this blogsite it seems the county is asking $5M the first year and 10% less each year after for four more years. Then no direct city to county payment. That seems like an enorrmous savings to city taxpayers with the county eventually picking up the whole tab? Isn't that the real savings to the city, not the alledged analysis?. Maybe I'm missing something? Why are folks attacking the offer? Do some people just dislike the county, because if that's the case the responses are not based in savings but in emotions caused by soemthing else.
9:31PM---You state: "Do some people just dislike the county, because if that's the case the responses are not based in savings but in emotions caused by soemthing else."
The answer in one simple word:
PARANOIA!!!!
I will share this for anyone who thinks the draft interlocal agreement on consolidation of recreation and parks is a good thing for citizens in the City of Ocala. I previously posted that I spoke to Ocala’s Recreation and Parks Director Dave Pritchard shortly before Christmas. Now that he is resigning, I will add to my previous comment on this conversation the fact that Pritchard told me that all five members of the Ocala City Council told him the draft agreement was unacceptable. This is an interesting statement given that we’ve been led to believe by some that the draft is not a county proposal but rather a joint proposal worked out by one county commissioner and one city councilman who volunteered to work on this. They did volunteer to do that. It will be interesting to see whether that council member supports the draft, but I think anyone who thinks the draft agreement is good for Ocala should be given pause by the apparent widespread opposition to the draft among our city council members. I doubt that anyone on this blog familiar with this matter believes the Ocala City Council will approve the draft agreement. It was dead on arrival.
Yes, as widely reported, the draft calls for the City to make five annual payments to the County of $5 million the first year, with payments decreasing by ten percent annually thereafter. I’m amused that some people think this means that a Santa Claus type-entity called “The County” is volunteering to pay for our recreation and parks in Ocala starting five years from now. We must have a brisk local trade in adult diapers.
Under the draft agreement, the County becomes the owner of Ocala’s parks and recreation facilities immediately and all future improvements to them. There is no provision for them to revert to the City if the agreement is cancelled. Know what all that is worth? A whole lot.
Here are some other ways, consistent with the draft agreement, that Ocalans will or may bear costs for recreation and parks in Ocala:
-- Ocalans currently pay general ad valorem taxes to the County. The County could increase these taxes.
-- With approval from the Ocala City Council, the County could create a recreation MSTU that includes the City of Ocala. This would be additional ad valorem tax on Ocalans. Marion County’s draft Parks and Recreation Department Master Plan says the Department has proposed this.
-- Marion County’s draft Parks and Recreation Department Master Plan says that a half-cent quality of life sales tax that could be put in place when the school board tax in that amount sunsets in 2010 “requires serious and thoughtful consideration.”
-- Under the draft agreement, if the County wants to make capital improvements, this can be funded by the County, the City, or a private source. Guess which of the three the County will want to fund this when a private source is not available. The draft agreement provides for the City to incur related indebtedness.
-- Under the draft agreement, the City continues to pay debt service on facilities and properties that are funded through general obligation debt issues up to an amount allocated in the most recently adopted capital improvement plan or previously voted referendum.
-- Under the draft agreement, previous commitments for capital improvements approved by voter referendum remain the responsibility of the City.
-- Under the draft agreement, the County receives all revenues produced by the recreation areas and facilities including, but not limited to, user fees, rentals, concessions, instruction fees, and admissions. The County can increase these charges or institute them where they do not currently exist. The language concerning fee levels is vague and unenforceable. Hey, you thought there was no charge to park at Jervey Gantt. Think again.
I not currently know what effect a parks impact fee would have on Ocala, but creating such an impact fee is another option under consideration by the County.
Much of the language in the draft agreement, such as the commitment to maintenance standards, is vague and unenforceable. The County could make massive cuts in recreation services in Ocala or drastically cut back park hours in Ocala without explicitly violating the draft agreement.
When the s... hits the fan with the City and County budgets in 2008and 2009, why should the County be the bad guys in having to close City parks. Let the City shut down its own parks. They have made the mess in runnning them let them fix it themselves. The County is going to have enough challenges in closing library branches, its own park locations, etc. And it is going to happen but with much worse consequences to the City than the County. The City will be begging someone to take over several departments. County Commissioners, let the trash (parks) stay in the City don't transport it for them. Watch Creekbaum and his like cry like babies when their City services are reduced beyond what the County will have to do.
County-"just don't do it".
What I’ve found out from City Councilmen is that Creekbaum is a day late and a dollar short in what he’s telling us about the agreement. While he’s writing about it, old PWF has been doing something to correct some of the terms in the agreement. Seems old PWF hasn’t lost his touch or influence. He can get things done whereas Creekbaum can only moan and groan and write reams of words. If you want something done, PWF is the man. If you want something discussed to death with no action then get Creekbaum involved.
PWF is still the "go to guy"!
The last poster is correct, the city and county budgets will have the s.... , well let us say, reality will hit the fan in city and county budgets in 2008-09-10 budgets.
Long gone are the days when there was a batch of millions new cash that they had to look to find new ways to spend it all and still lower the millage rate.
And that is exactly what my problem with this county proposal has been from the start.
The city has operated a very good parks and recreation program for 40-50 years regardless of the spin from whomever. The county has not had parks department until maybe a dozen years ago and never had a recreation department until this year and only at one location now.
The city has new budget problems and they will not be able to sustain expenditures in the future.
Before we make decisions based on two elected officials sitting down and deciding that we will combine city and county parks, without a general and open discussion, and then allowing a county employee who I happen to like and support to write the proposal without allowing ANY input from the city parks department or administration is simply wrong.
And, yes, it was a county proposal. And yes, it was DOA. And yes, there will be a city counter proposal.
If, and it is likely, that there will be a downsizing of the city operation, so be it, but the public should have some say in how that is done and in what is done. I do not disagree with a downsizing of any government program but it needs to be fair and it needs to be open and puiblicly discussed.
And if public property will be sold as unnecessary (don't forget the terrible mistake of selling the fairgrounds and Maricamp properties by my Republican friends) the property should be in the hands of the peoeple who bought and paid for it -- the city taxpayers -- not in the hands of the county as under the terms of the county proposal.
All I want is a fair and open discussion with facts and figures from the city staff and the county staff and let the public decide.
And there needs to be some guarantee that the city property is city property and that if the county decides 7-8 years down the road to drop the city programs, they repay the city the money the city invested to get the county started. That would be fair.
And I suspect when all the negoiating is done between city and county officials they will come back with a proposal that will be reasonably fairt to both sides and one that I will join in and say let's give it a try.
Make that the 7:40 am poster. --pwf
Anon at 6:07 Jan 8 ---
In criticizing me, you neglected to answer my question which was:
"exactly how long do you think it will take the people in Salt Springs, Oak Run, The Villages, or On Top of the World to realize their county taxes are being used to finance a recreation program for the City of Ocala. And how about the people in Rainbow Lakes Estates, Marion Oaks and Silver Springs Shores who have MSTU taxes to finance their services."
Want to take a shot at providing an answer to that quetsion, or just smipe some more?
They'll react the same way city residents react to paying part of their county taxes for services they don't use (e.g., library, carney isl., wrigley field, veterans park etc). Maybe the county and city should just isolate themselves from one another and tax for only what each resident uses. Better yet just drop the tax and have each apply a user fee to services that overlap in the county and city. Randy Harris is beginning to make more sense every day.
I agree with pwf’s comments on the process being dysfunctional. Frankly, I don’t see how a city council member who has publicly stated he is not going to listen to city staff the rest of his time on the city council can credibly put together an agreement between the city and the county on anything.
It has been obvious from the start that the initial draft agreement would not be accepted. Even the relentlessly pro-consolidation Star-Banner editorial board did not get behind it. Pritchard told me before Christmas there would be a counter-proposal. Pwf has a perfect right to lobby city council members on this issue if it fits in his personal priorities. That having been said, it seems it may come as a shock to some, but I do not consider it my personal responsibility to operate the entire local government.
When the executive director of the Florida Association of Counties was in town a few weeks back, he said if the tax proposal on the ballot later this month passes that it will hit parks and libraries and to a lesser extent law enforcement. Interestingly, the executive director of the Florida League of Cities is in town today to talk about revenue sources for municipalities. That seems timely.
Brian has some good points about the inter-local agreement. I'd bet that several (not all--but the really important ones) will be part of the next edition of the agreement.
3-2 the County Commission vote against a financial bailout of the City Parks. They will decide it ain't worth it and let the City sink.
I disagree. It is not a financial bailout. The county needs to have the city facilities to be able to expand its very lacking facilities and to get a recreation program up and running. And the city sees ahead to the time that realism is setting in and xsince more than 50% of the users of the city recreation system come from outside the city, it should be operated by the county.
(And nothing herein conflicts with what I have said previously. My complaints have been that the county proposal was for the city to deed over property with no guaratee they would do a decent job operating it. With no property deeds and safeguards built in for operational quality, it will be a good deal.)
When we get this whole deal worked out, I suspect there will be a decent proposal for the county and for the city governments and more important, for the people. There is nothing wrong with consolidation; it can and does work and proof of it is the tremendous success of the library system the county operates.
The mistake made in this deal is that there was no citizen involvement in developing a plan, and that unfortunately there was little leadership and some arrogance on both sides of the equation.
But sit tight. Things are looking better, and I suspect will look even better in the days to come. --pwf
It sounds alot like pwf is loaded with accurate insider information. The big question is the unpredictability of some city elected officials.
I know I'm coming into this conversation a little late, but as a county resident this upsets me a little because of the logic behind it. Why does that crazy, D. Owen, act like there are only two goverment bodies in the county, the City of Ocala and Marion County. So let's say Dunnellon or another place in the county that they can't keep up their parks system, what happens then, do they ask for a bailout. There are too many elected officials in the area acting like Ocala is the only one that counts. It worries me even more that they have been notorious for fighting over the last 25-30 years, it's amazing the parking garage by the courthouse ever got done. Note, that originally the county had wanted to do it closer to downtown, but the elected officials dropped the ball on that one too.
That parking gargage got done for one reason -- it was required by the city before the county could get a certficate of occupancy for the new (now old) Judicial Center.
Before the county could start construction of the new judicial expansion, they had to buy the Ocala National Bank bldg and the lot north of it where they will provide for more parking -- else they do not get a certificate of occupancy from the city.
I am not sure where you got the idea the county wanted to built it closer to downtown. That is not so. The old downtown development commission manager had a plan to build one on the property northwest of the downtown square, but her planning was so bad that it fell apart.--pwf
pwf you're obviously very informed, but the parking garage was initially thought out to be more serving to the downtown area, than just the courthouse. But, the politicans killed that idea very quickly. The administrative staffs, on both sides, from that time did an amazing job, but the commisions squabbled over everything related to that project and now the garage is full everyday. This inability to work together is exactly my point.
Well, since I was involved in killing it, this is the first I I am aware that the officials squabbled over it. Actually, there was little planning at all. A handful of merchants wanted a garage, some thought the county ought to finance it, the city didn't have the money and the economics would not come close to making the numbers work. So when the judicial center came up needing more spaces, the county financed it where it should have been -- adjacent to the courthouse.
If the economics of a downtown parking garage combined with the county would have worked, certainly I would have wanted it -- it would have been across the street from out propety at the old, old post office parking lot. Maybe someday. -- pwf
Post a Comment
<< Home