A Year Makes A Big Difference
Recreation Director Dave Ianiro presented quite a different appearance at the Feb. 23rd Legislative & Finance Committee (L&F) meeting than he did a year ago.
A year ago, it took several attempts to get Dave Ianiro to show up at the meeting to discuss the Park & Rec budget, and when he finally appeared, he brought a great deal of “attitude” with him. The discussion proceeded with difficulty because Ianiro seemed unfamiliar with the details of his budget. In fact, Finance Director Tony Ianiro, his brother, had to answer many of the questions posed by L&F.
It was quite a different story when Dave Ianiro met with L&F this week. He came prepared to discuss and explain the Park & Rec budget, and did so in a suitably calm and respectful manner. The discussion was quite congenial and productive. It went quite smoothly.
A Year Makes No Difference
It seems pretty clear that Dave Ianiro has paid attention to the criticism leveled at the Parks & Recreation Commission (P&R) over the past few months and is making a concerted effort to address those concerns.
I have yet to see any signs that P&R has reacted in a similar fashion.
While P&R did recommend fee increases for summer programs this year (the first fee increase in six years), it did so reluctantly, bowing to reality only after it learned that Highland Heights ordinances require council to approve city recreation fees.
Dave Ianiro repeatedly emphasized, when talking about the 2010 P&R budget, that P&R “wants to maintain its programs the way they are;” and that it “wants to progress” further with spending on park. Indeed, nothing had changed--P&R submitted a deficit-spending budget similar to its 2009 budget.
Basically P&R seems to saying: “If you don’t want us to deficit spend, then give us more money to cover our deficit-spending.”
Cut back? Retool? Do something different? Those strategies clearly still aren’t a part of P&R’s playbook.
P&R’s latest financial plan apparently includes trying to reneg on its obligation to help pay off the bond used to finance the construction of the new swimming pool in 1997. The backstory is this: Apparently P&R was very anxious to get a new pool, but the city didn’t have the money to pay for it. So P&R cut a deal with council (Scott Coleman and Ed Hargate were members of that council): If the city obtained the financing, P&R would contribute $ 50,000 a year for 20 years (out of the 1 mil in property taxes that it receives each year) to retire the bond debt. The amount that P&R contributes is only a portion of the total bond debt; city taxpayers pick up the rest. Dave Ianiro told L&F that P&R wants council to rescind the ordinance memorializing the arrangement. P&R's rationale is twofold: 1) its revenue has decreased due to the elimination of the personal inventory tax (the city lost that extra tax money too); and 2) “there’s more money in the (city’s) general fund that in ours (the P&R fund)”.
In other words, P&R's position is: “The city has more money than we do, and we want some of it.”
Here are some P&R budget facts to consider:
- In 2009, P&R received over $ 645,000 in revenue (mostly from its 1 mil in property taxes) and spent over $ 733,000. This year, P&R is again planning to spend more than the $ 630,000 in revenue it is projected to receive--- further depleting their shrinking emergency reserve fund..
- The city and P&R are in the same boat with regard to decreasing tax revenues—the difference is that the city has to stretch its shrinking revenue to service the needs of an entire city, whereas P&R spends all of its money on just two things: the park and recreation programs. Even though it is the only group in the city with its own income source, P&R seems to believe that is being shortchanged because its revenues are not keeping up with its spending.
- One service department employee is assigned to work in the park fulltime during the summer to cut grass and help maintain the park’s physical environment. A couple of years ago P&R decided to hire students as additional groundskeepers and maintenance workers. According to Tony Ianiro, P&R spent $ 40,000 in 2009 for 8 fulltime seasonal maintenance workers in the park (wage: $ 11 an hour). The 2010 budget again includes $ 40,000 to pay for 8 fulltime seasonal workers to work along with the service department employee cutting grass, cleaning the bathrooms, and emptying garbage cans in the park.
- The 2010 P&R budget includes $10,000 for pool repairs. P&R has known about a worsening pool leak for several years, but despite all of its deficit spending on other items, P&R did not allocate the resources necessary to fix the problem. Nor did P&R bring the situation to council’s attention (it came to light only after an eagle-eyed council member noticed a vague reference to a pool leak in P&R minutes last fall). This year the P&R budget does include some repair money, but as Dave Ianiro acknowledged, the budgeted amount likely won’t be enough to fix the pool. (“If I had to bet, $10,000 will not be enough.”) P&R has no current plan in place for fixing the pool or for paying for any excess repair cost. One strategy they have suggested is to get through another swim season by capturing the leaking water and recycling it back into the pool through the pool filter system.
- Dave Ianiro told L&F that next year P&R hopes to replace the dirt on the park’s ballfields with expensive, specialized dirt (because apparently regular dirt is, well, too dirty).
Why not? I'm not a betting person, but if I was I bet P&R would tell you it’s because, with $ 600,000+ a year in revenue, they simply don’t have enough money to work with.
L&F is hoping to finalize the budget this weekend and discuss it at the March 2nd Committee of the Whole meeting.
end
