02-22-07 PTRC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

GIE11 OE eaaaA MEMO To: Ken Vraa, Director of Parks and Recreation CC: Paul Olson, Superintendent of Parks FROM: Beth A. Wielde, Parks Research and Special Projects DATE: October 20, 2003 RE: APrC Findings-Alternative Funding Study COUNCIL CHARGE In recognition that funding through parks and trail dedication would not sustain the parks system indefinitely, Council charged the Advisory Parks Commission(APrC) with identifying alternative revenue streams for the Park Site Fund. In June of 2002, the APrC began a series of workshops to brainstorm ideas and determine which of these ideas would bring a continuous stream of funds to support parks projects. METHODOLOGY The APrC received the findings of a survey conducted nationwide to see what methods other communities with high buildout rates used to fund their parks projects. Survey results indicated that aside from user fees, General Fund contributions, and bonds, the 33 respondents had no long-range planning strategy for sustaining revenue sources. It became clear that Eagan was pioneering a study of this sort. The survey was also notable for the low response rate. 117 surveys had been distributed, 48 in Minnesota, 117 nationwide. The low response rate may indicate that people felt the survey asking about creative funding methods just didn't apply to them. Learning of the disappointing results of the survey, the APrC workshop participants brainstormed any idea that could possibly generate revenue for the Park Site Fund. Out of this first pool of ideas, the APrC identified 10 that they wanted to discuss further. These items were: • Park tax • Park renewal/replacement fee on • Volunteer"Check Off'on utility water bills bills • Charitable gambling proceeds • Volunteerism • Increase park dedication fees • Adopt-A-Park programs • Charge the Public Works • Tax levy funds department for utility easements in • Mandatory water utility"round up" parks