The park millage will not be renewed any time soon
What the powers that be don't understand, is that the voters gave the park a chance at life some years ago with the first millage.
When the first park millage was passed it was done so to clean up fiscal issues that still have not been taken care of. The park was to be a viable entity that would help draw tourism, and companies that were looking to place their business' in a more progressive community.
Neither has happened. The park has not shown any progress in becoming a viable moneymaker for the people of the county. As a matter of fact it has actually chased away popular organized events.
Promises of growth were overstated, and politics has soured the community to giving money to such an albatross. It should be cut loose and run as a not for profit. In that case there would likely be more money from endowments, and government programs. Not the voters, or non-voters fault here, they gave it a chance and it did not perform.
9 comments:
Fred’s editorial regarding Charlton Park is basically correct. I think that “deliberate deception” would be giving the Park folks too much credit. I don’t think they know what they are doing.
One of the Thornapple Trail advocates railed at the few voters for defeating the “trail millage”. Where did he get the idea that the second millage was a “trail millage”? I suppose he read the letters to the Banner by Ken Neil and others who claimed the millage would “complete the development of the Paul Henry Trail”. Maybe he was foolish enough to believe the large print in the ¾ page ad that claimed the same thing in outline form so we would all understand.
Fred was not fooled by these acts of puffery. In his third paragraph he calls the second millage a “proposed increase” of the Park money. At the meetings I attended, the Park chairman stated very clearly that there was no intention to spend this doubled up welfare money outside of the Park.
In his 8th paragraph, Fred tells of attending a millage presentation “put on” by the “parks committee”. I’ve been accused of being caught up in “semantics”, but frequently words define things that seem to be the same but are altogether different. I suspect that the “parks committee” is a group of people, including Dave Hatfield, who appointed themselves as advocates of the “proposed increase” in Park millage. They are not the official statutory “Barry County Parks & Recreation Commission”, and are not legally required to tell the “whole truth”. Dave is not appointed and is not a member of a “parks committee” that has been created officially.
Back to the shell game. Charlton Park needs to have its own official Charlton Park Board. You can look under all the shells, but you won’t find any Board or Committee that is focused on Charlton Park. In the Administrative database you will find a “Parks & Recreation Board”. It is probably a typo. Listed on this Board are the statutory members of the official “Barry County Parks & Recreation Commission” which was set up on June 13, 1967 by the Board of Commissioners, as described and authorized by P.A. 261 of 1965, as amended. I have done my homework and encourage you to do the same.
The “BCP&RCommission” should immediately create a “Charlton Park Board”. This will solve all of the problems Fred describes.
The County Commissioners, Clare Tripp and Don Nevins, are part of the statutory “BCP&R Commission” and should stay on it.
Those dedicated Park advocates on the “BCP&RCommission” could resign from the commission and be appointed to the Charlton Park Board with no shame or embarrassment. Under the direction of the Park Director, Dr. George Shannon, they have their work cut out for them. Ken Neil was a Commissioner, but there is no reason that he can’t continue to serve the Charlton Park Board, and do it with great enthusiasm. He has more Park knowledge than many other ordinary citizens. I know a few other people who would be wonderful additions to this Board, who have no interest in the general issue of recreation in Barry County. I would think it would be logical to recruit a member of the Hastings Area School Board as well as educators and historians.
Fred says “The Parks & Recreation Commission made a horrible mistake….”, regarding the Civil War re-enactors. No, they made a “horrible mistake” by not creating a Charlton Park Board that could have made an intelligent and well-informed decision. They made a “horrible mistake” by micro-managing the Park. They made a “horrible mistake” by not requiring a Charlton Park Board to do a statutorily mandated “needs survey” and by not requiring a Park “business plan”. They made a “horrible mistake” by allowing a shameful excuse for a plan be referred to as a “business plan”, and now even Mrs. Adams is convinced that one exists. The sorry excuse for a plan is a wish-list that totals over $3,600,000!
I would debate part of Fred’s conclusion that the “Parks & Recreation Commission” needs to make “a persuasive case” to a “skeptical public”. This is only the specific task, as he says, of “Charlton Park”, and “its director”. The sooner a proper Board is created, the sooner they can get to work. The longer it takes to form this Board the less time they will have to create a real and convincing “business plan” and make a persuasive case.
I don't have the Banner in front of me, and I honestly only had a chance to glance his editorial, but I really got the impression that Mr Jacobs didn't have his heart in it. It may be an impression I got from his previous call (before the election) for passage of the renewal and the demise of the proposed increase. Usually he will give the "lets do it for the community" speech and I got the impression in both editorials he was taking the renewal for granted, while he made hay attacking the commission.
Just the way it struck me.
There is an interesting "semantic" to watch. Certain people refer to the second millage request as a "proposed increase" (which means the Charlton Park folks get two blank checks), and other people refer to it as the "trail millage" which means they got sucked into believing the big ad and the letters to the editor.
I wonder if I could jump to the conclusion that the folks who fall for media expenditures will vote for Little Dick and the ones who like big welfare checks will vote for the Democratic favorites?
Just trying to be cute.
I've had quite a few conversations with the new kids who are trying to get their arms around the multifaceted County. They seem to get it. The only discussion seems to be centered around the choices between an outright slaughter of the P&R Commission (show no mercy, take no prisoners) and an attempt to get the non-statutory members (Ken Neil, etal) to walk away quietly and gracefully.
The assumption is that the current County Commission doesn't have the will or expertise to salvage the millage proposal in November. From that you get permission to commence the carnage.
After that, with a new BCP&RC and a new Charlton Park Board (and any other recreational Boards that are appropriate)the new folks have a year (Jan-Nov) to earn the respect of the populace. By next November (07) we should see the Park earning its own significant revenue stream and a "business plan" that demonstrates the ability to cover much of the operating cost needs. With that accomplished, the voters would be willing to subsidize operations and even perhaps fund some Capital investments.
The future millage, of course, would be under the control of the new BCP&RC and would be doled out with a great deal of accountability required. Perhaps a system that is similar to grants for specific and well documented requests.
They should realize that if the millage does not pass in this round, it will have a harder time swimming up stream a year from now.
How apt are the voters to have a change of heart a year from now, when the park is running much the same as it had been before the renewal had been turned down for the second time in November? The perception will be that the money asked for was never needed. Those that continue "the park will close" rhetoric will be vilified by the voters, and that will be the best chance for restructuring of the BCP&R. Until then keep in mind what may be happening a year from now.
Again I must bring up the effect the dismantling of the SBT will have within a year on the area. Nobody knows what will likely be its replacement, and how that will effect the outcome of many more millages in the future.Who will vote for a park millage if the schools, and other public sevices are fighting for their own millage due to cuts in money from the state?
Sorry for the pessimism, but things are likely to be dark around here in the near future.
Fiscal populism is a bitch!
You overestimate the awareness of the current County Commission power structure. They truly think that the millage will pass without changing any of the management or policymaking structures. The near future will indeed be dark, but there are hands holding the light cord even as we discuss the issue. Listen for a distinct "click" in November, and a bright flash in January.
If the park continues to run without change it will deserve to be closed in 14 months. My prediction is that the new County Commission will not tolerate "business as usual" and those that resist change will have a lot more time on their hands.
I would encourage you to glance at my blog, el-grillo.blogspot. Much of the Park problem is that it has been illogically structured as a part of the janitorial Facilities & Grounds Committee, and not part of the more proactive County Development & Planning Committee.
Skip from the top postings to the bottom posting on County Development. I would appreciate your observations. You seem to dig deeper than many.
I like the concept of a 501(c)3 for Charlton Park. Keep in mind that the waters are a bit muddy and the "whole truth" is interesting. There is a "Charlton Park Foundation", and I don't know the legal structure (assuming it has one) and also there is a separate account called "Museum Building" which seems to operate under some separate rules. It would be nice for the public to know all the facts. There should be some documents around, but you have to have the right questions to get the right answers. You would expect to find some sort of explanation in the "Plan", especially if it is presented as "the business plan", but what is missing from that thick document is more valuable than what it includes.
I have received an actual business plan from Dr. Shannon. He considers me a pain in the buttocks, according to another source. The real business plan was submitted to Michael Brown in required format. The structure of the County Board allowed this information to get to Michael without the knowledge or oversight of the County Board, including the Chairmarm who is the Park Secretary and Mrs. Adams who insists that the five-year plan is a business plan.
If the five-year wish-list was a business plan, the Park would be $3,600,000 in the red by 2008 (if costs remained static and we continued to subsidize with $514,000 a year millage).
Anything new Nosti?
According to Dr. Shannon in the latest Reminder, he now has a "five-year business plan" that they are using to guide them. I dare you to ask him for a copy. I'll bet you would get the same 3-pound pile of paper that Mrs. Adams is waving.
I noticed today that the high scholl Introduction to Business class has a chapter on writing a business plan. Maybe the Park could hire an intern to set George straight.
Post a Comment