« The Summer of George | Main | The Latest Greatest Survey »
March 11, 2008
Pottycise
 |
| Image: Recreation on the potty might be possible. Last night the Bidwell Park and Playground Commission Master Management Plan Committee met. And since that committee has the longest name imaginable the meeting had to be led by city staffer Dennis Beardsley the Park Director General Services Director Interim Assistant City Manager, who has the longest title of any city employee. The committee is made up of Park Commissioners Steve Lucas, Mike Candela, and Jim Walker. Walker is the chair of the committee. For those of you not in the know I'll explain how committees work in city government. Commissions and the Council sometimes break into smaller working groups that cover specific areas. An example with the Council is the Finance Committee. The committees have 3 members and will discuss specific topics of interest and forward recommendations to the commission or council they are associated with. These committee meetings are often sparsely attended. This committee's primary topic of discussion was what to do with $222,000 of proposition 40 money that has become available for park use. The money is supposed to be used to support recreation. It cannot be used for studies. Some of the money could be used for maintenance if the thing being maintained were originally paid for with these funds. There really isn't anything that meets that description in the park. So essentially these funds are to be used for building something new that supports recreation. At least that was how it was described during the meeting. The funds became available when it was determined that a bridge proposed near Bear Hole couldn't be built before the grant period sunsets in 2011. Projects paid for with Prop. 40 funds in Chico One-Mile Irrigation and Lighting $223,000 City Plaza $34,885 One Mile Dam Replacement $145,101 Chico Creek Nature Center Building $200,000 Day Camp Bridge $222,000 (this is the project that won't be funded) TOTAL $824,986 The prop. 40 funds are actually for park and recreation projects, not just recreation. But you can see from the funding expenditures above that no recreation projects have been funded with this money. I suggested that the committee use $60,000 to fund disc golf. After all we've spent at least that amount studying it (perhaps much more than that). I even brought 147 signatures of people that agreed with that idea. The suggestion will be forwarded to the Commission as a whole for their March 31st meeting. The commissioners present seemed to prioritize a restroom refurbishment at 1-mile and an improved toilet at Horseshoe Lake above a recreation project. I like a good bathroom, but it looks to me like the city has completely avoided funding any recreation with this money. I've never considered going potty as recreation, but I suppose with the correct Mexican food you could give it a go. |
| Proposition 40: This proposition was approved by California
voters in 2002 by 57% yes and 43% no. The particular funds are RZH funds. Here is how RZH funds are described at one government web page. Program Overview Funds for this grant program are to be allocated for projects pursuant to the Roberti-Z'berg-Harris Urban Open Space and Recreational Grant Program (Public Resources Code Chapter 3.2 commencing with Section 5620) and are to be used for: High priority projects that satisfy the most urgent park and recreation needs, with emphasis on unmet needs in the most heavily populated and most economically disadvantaged areas within each jurisdiction. Projects for which funding supplements--rather than supplants ---local expenditures for park and recreation facilities and does not diminish a local jurisdiction's efforts to provide park and recreation services. Block grants allocated on the basis of population and location in urbanized areas. Need-basis grants to be awarded competitively to eligible entities in urbanized areas and in nonurbanized areas. Eligible Projects: Acquisition of park and recreation lands and facilities Development/rehabilitation of park and recreation lands and facilities Special Major Maintenance of park and recreation lands and facilities Innovative Recreation Programs Note: Special Major Maintenance and/or Innovative Recreation Programs may not exceed 30% of grant funds. Fiscal Impact from the Legislative Analyst: • State cost of about $4.3 billion over 25 years to pay off both the principal ($2.6 billion) and interest ($1.7 billion) costs on the bonds. Payments of about $172 million per year. • Costs potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments to operate or maintain property bought or improved with these bond funds. |
| Spotlight: The Red See: This Jenn Klein story covers the fact that a number of city funds, beyond the General Fund, are in the red. A couple of years ago I was on a committee that looked at the redevelopment agency spending. We concluded that the city needed to stop spending RDA money, reevaluate their priorities, and recognize that it was a limited asset. The council disbanded that group, and I don't feel like they took our advice. The RDA is now $11.4 million in debt and costing the General Fund $250,000 annually. Bob Best, Mark Sorensen, and others were on that committee and deserve a lot of credit for being fiscal watchdogs. Even if all they get to do now is say "see I told you so". Dull and Duller: Today's editorial suggests getting engaged in the Chico General Plan. Tonight's meeting, on land use and the local economy, is 6:30-8:30 p.m. at the Lakeside Pavilion, 2565 California Park Drive. Last night I attended a meeting where we discussed spending more than a half-million dollars on a plan (the new Bidwell Park plan) but there is no money to implement some of the things that plan addresses. I wonder if all of this navel gazing is just a symptom of something missing in our community. |
CI Challenge: Can you guess what it is? Winner: Nobody, see comments below for the answer. |
Posted by Lon at March 11, 2008 06:40 AM
Comments
Wow, I hadn't seen the overview and eligibility for the grant funds until now. It sure seems that the disc golf course improvements fit perfectly with this criteria.
I still think the planned bridge in Upper Park is actually the most important and appropriate use of the funds. It's what was originally planned. I can't help but wonder how $220K is not enough to span the creek. There are companies that sell recycled flatbed rail cars for bridges for less than $20K, delivered. They are already engineered to support incredible weight. Even a fire truck for example. Seems like there would be a way to make it work if there wasn't something else going on.
Posted by: Gregg Payne at March 11, 2008 09:35 AM
Gregg,
I don't think it's the basic cost of the bridge that was the problem. I think Dennis Beardsley realizes that building the bridge would be opposed and the EIR (that isn't complete or even started) would would be subject to endless legal arguments like disc golf has been.
The bridge isn't "cancelled" so much as they are looking for other funds to build it, and want to make sure this grant gets used before the sunset date.
I do think they should spend some of the grant money on recreation and not abdicate that role entirely to CARD. The City has never taken the position that it has no hand in providing recreation components to the public.
The skateboard park, horseshoe pits at 1-mile, and soccer fields at Wildwood Park, are good examples of recreation provided by the city.
Lon
Posted by: Lon at March 11, 2008 10:48 AM
And don't forget the special interest group that uses bathrooms.
Posted by: Gregg Payne at March 11, 2008 01:57 PM
Gregg,
There are times when I consider myself specially interested in restrooms. Other times I have less of a special interest.
Lon
Posted by: Lon at March 11, 2008 02:14 PM
That is the logo for the American Top 40 list.
Lon
Posted by: Lon at March 13, 2008 09:03 AM