AgdaPkt 2005-12-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6A-b What is the Past and Future Timeline of Parks for the Future? The timeline below assumes a November 2006 election. That date has not been determined. It is simply the earliest the measure would go to the ballot. The measure may be delayed if sufficient progress towards the ballot language has not been made or if polling and other factors determine that November 2006 is not a good ballot for the measure. . March 2004 - Idea of collaborating on a dedicated funding source first presented. . March 2004-May 2004 - First legislative effort focused on formation of special district. Effort dropped in favor of more process first . November 2004 - Workshop #1 . December 2004 - Survey of likely voters to evaluate support levels for benefit assessment, parcel tax and sales tax . January 2005 - Workshop #2. Presentation of survey results. . February 2005 - Workshop #3 . March 2005 - Workshop #4 . August 2005 - Workshop #5 . September 2005 - SB 203 receives legislative approval . October 2005 - Governor approves SB 203 . Fall 2005 - Reports to City Councils and Park Commissions . February 2006 - Workshop #6 . February 2006 - Take the comments of Parks Commissions/City Councils and Workshops #5 and #6 to CCAG. . March-April 2006 - Preparation of ballot language by subcommittee . June-July 2006 - Opportunity to take positions on ballot measure . August 8, 2006 - County Board of Supervisors places measure on ballot . November 7,2006 - Election What Items still need to be addressed? While many key elements of a parks and recreation funding structure have been sketched out, additional input from city leaders and the public is desired. In particular, comments are sought on a proposed sunset date for the measure and how the public can be assured that funds dedicated to parks will be used to improve park programs rather than simply supplanting city funds (maintenance of effort). Sunset and Process for Renewal The duration of the tax and the renewal process has not been determined. Many have suggested 25 or 30 years while others have suggested 15 years. The use of these funds to pay bond debt by cities with major capital or acquisition needs is one consideration for length. It was suggested that a report be provided to the public every two years for both accountability and to build support for renewal. This would be included in the Governance Responsibilities services covered by that administrative fee. A citizen oversight committee should also be considered. Proposed Maintenance of Effort Concept Discussions in the workshops identified that cities may be reluctant to tie their hands, particularly as it relates to potential future reductions in funding for their parks and recreation departments. On the other hand, it was agreed that no maintenance of effort would probably doom the measure as the voters want accountability and want this money to supplement park and recreation budgets. 2005 City Agenda format