READ MORE
LOREM IPSUM DOLOR
CONSEQUAT VENIAM NOSTRUD
Parks and Recreation Commissioners
Mike Gardiner
Jim Lewis
Rick Landt
RECALL
Ignored Audit Recommendations
The #5 Reason for the Recall of Ashland Parks Commissioners
APRC spent $49,000 on the 2016 Performance Audit which recommends, ‘Do a better job with what you have before making any changes.' and ‘Conduct a comprehensive community needs assessment before acting.’ Then they ignored these recommendations.
DANIEL MEYER POOL EXPANSION
2016 Performance Audit Recommended as critical priorities:
Recommendation 15: Develop a Recreation Division Five-year Comprehensive Recreation Strategic Plan that supports the goals and objectives of the APRC and identifies goals, objectives, performance measures and facility needs and priorities to guide the future direction of recreation programs and services provided by APRC.
Recommendation 16: Conduct a comprehensive community needs assessment process to identify underserved groups and future recreation program interests and needs in the community.
Recommendation 32: Consider a policy that concentrates on the maintenance of existing facilities before building new ones, unless staff resources and funds are available for maintenance.
Recommendation 33: Prior to funding capital improvements, the APRC should identify a source of funding to ensure the future maintenance of all new park structures and fixtures proposed to be added to the APRC Parks Division’s inventory.
What APRC is doing:
Parks is planning to put up a bond for a $3.5 million new competitive pool with cover to replace the existing Daniel Meyer pool. Director Black stated it would ‘double what we are spending on our pool right now plus the increment for the larger pool for all materials and costs.’
The new pool would almost double the operating costs - projected from $175,000 to $306,300 annually. While cost recovery through swim fees would remain at 50%; thereby increasing Park (taxpayer) subsidies.
The new pool with cover would only be open for 100 days of the year which is similar for the existing pool.
The new competitive pool will be 25 yards by 25 meters (75 feet by 82 feet) and at least 6 feet deep. This is not compatible to Ashland family needs. A much smaller “warming recreation pool” 35 feet by 35 feet would be for young children and seniors. Current pool is 75 feet by 45 feet.
Daniel Meyer pool is located in a quiet neighborhood. It is also next to the Senior Center; and the new pool will be within 10 feet of the Senior Center. The disruption from the new pool has not been addressed … increased noise, increased traffic including buses, parking. The nearby tennis courts may be in danger for conversion into parking. Elders at the Senior Center need quiet places to congregate.
The plan requires swim groups (school and private) to pay full usage costs and commit to a long term contract. School districts would need to add swim costs into their budgets. If a group drops out the Parks budget (and taxpayers) would take a big hit. No firm commitments have been made by the swim groups to date.
SOU did not renew funding for their pool; and they do not have a swim program or clubs.
No professional community needs assessment has been performed to verify the community need or desire for the new pool. Director Black only states that there is “potential” and ‘feels pretty comfortable about that.” No studies to project the anticipated pool use and rate of use.
The proposed Myrtha pool is made in Italy. The covering (tent) has only a one year warranty.
Parks is looking to attach its $3.5 million pool to the school bond; thereby endangering the passing of the school bond.
Better way to go would be to create a city (Ashland, Medford, Talent, Phoenix, etc.) and Jackson county buy-in to a Regional Aquatic Center. This way all cities and county taxpayers would share the costs; rather than Ashland alone.
Director Black's Pool Update memo dated 10/18/17
Conceptual Operations Budget Pie Chart
Conceptual Capital/Funding Budget
Link to RVTV video of 10/23/17 APRC Meeting for pool update presentation(starts at 49:45)
SENIOR PROGRAM/CENTER
2016 Performance Audit Recommended as critical priorities:
Recommendation 15: Develop a Recreation Division Five-year Comprehensive Recreation Strategic Plan that supports the goals and objectives of the APRC and identifies goals, objectives, performance measures and facility needs and priorities to guide the future direction of recreation programs and services provided by APRC.
Recommendation 16: Conduct a comprehensive community needs assessment process to identify underserved groups and future recreation program interests and needs in the community.
2016 Performance Audit noted as positive features and accomplishments of APRC:
The Ashland Senior Center program focuses on providing access to social service programs for seniors and the elderly.
2016 Performance Audit comments:
... the project team believes there are opportunities to expand the recreation and leisure experiences offered at the center ... The project team believes these recreational opportunities can be provided with support from existing center staff and volunteers but also recognizes that it is critical that additional revenues be generated to support the center.
What APRC is doing:
APRC never defined a problem and did not conduct a community needs assessment. The first actions APRC made was to destroy the senior program's integrated approach and effective social services. APRC laid off experienced Senior Center staff who have extensive knowledge and experience of its integrated social service senior program and replaced with inexperienced Parks and Recreation staff and volunteers. APRC also planned to move the senior center program management and physical oversight away from the Senior Center to the Grove; but later withdrew that recommendation due to public outcry. In addition, APRC cut the Senior Program personnel budget.
The impact was that it dismantled the DHS acknowledged model social services integrated program ... the hub of the integrated wheel ... and reduces the social services ... and removes the personnel who know the difference. Essentially shreds the seniors' safety net built up and maintained over 43 years.
APRC latest actions as of 1/22/18:
Concerns about the direction APRC and the ad hoc senior advisory commission is going includes:
• Ad Hoc committee recommendations may sound positive; however, they are mostly conceptual. How APRC implements them down the road is what matters. APRC has already showed their hand in wanting to scale back (and outsource) social services (information/referral and outreach services) and expand recreation programs where revenue generation from younger seniors is more possible.
• APRC has passed the ad hoc committee’s initial recommendations without doing an adequate evaluation of the budget implications. If the budget is not increased, everything is certainly window dressing.
• The ad hoc recommended administration, record keeping and structure are geared toward a large city (over 100,000 population) rather than a city of Ashland’s size (21,000). APRC and the ad hoc committee have not considered the costs of building the bureaucracy, supporting computer program technologies and additional staffing it will require. It will direct staff to do paper/computer work instead of dedicating time to provide direct services to those most in need.
• APRC enhanced the senior program responsibilities, position, and manager’s role without review of APR’s overall structure in order to cut back personnel in other areas that used to have such responsibilities, e.g., recreation department.
• APRC adds highly paid staff to its organization which is already top heavy.
• The program and job descriptions are all set up to outsource the information/referral and outreach to regional agencies that have slim staffing. Local staff for such services are more efficient and effective.
• The community survey is not statistically sound, slanted toward desired results and under-represents social services needs.
• With the current legal actions against APRC - senior manager wrongful discharge and contract violations, age discrimination, and ethics violation - APRC should not rush (delay) re-organization actions until outcomes of such actions become clear.
Seniors rally on September 6, 2016 to protest the Senior Program changes.
Flash Mob on Plaza Dec. 9, 2017
Video of Dec. 11, 2017
Senior Advisory Committee
Public Input/Demonstration
Ashland Sneak Preview's 27th Annual Readers' Survey
WORSE THING GOVERNMENT HAS DONE IN THE LAST YEAR?
"this year it was a runaway, as the Parks and Rec's Commission's handling of the Senior Center was viewed unfavorably by a lot of people."