If passed, Ashland parks department would get more funding from food and beverage tax instead of from city general fund

By Stephen Floyd, Ashland.news

Supporters of Measure 15-214 say it would expand the use of tax dollars within the Ashland Parks and Recreation Department (APRD), while those opposed argue it should be a referendum on department management.

Advocates for and against the measure spoke Tuesday during a virtual forum hosted by the League of Women Voters. 

Measure 15-214 will be decided during the May 16 election, with ballots scheduled to start being delivered Friday, April 28.

During Tuesday’s forum, David Runkle, a writer for The Ashland Chronicle and author of a dissenting opinion in the Jackson County voter’s pamphlet, said concerns about recent lawsuits and allegations of sexism against APRD were reason enough for voters to reject the measure.

“The parks department is the last department in city government that should be given unfettered access to tax dollars,” said Runkle.

Former Ashland Parks & Recreation Commissioner Mike Gardiner, speaking in the pro position, did not engage Runkle on these specific allegations, saying the forum was “not a debate.” When pressed on the matter, Gardiner said he did not respect Runkle’s comments, but the forum was about department finances and not department management.

“We’re talking about a ballot measure for funding,” he said.

The proposed measure would change the way food and beverage taxes are used to fund APRD. Currently, the majority of the tax can be used for park capital improvements and paying off road repair loans. Measure 15-214 would allow up to 73 of revenue to be used for operations and maintenance, while 25 percent would remain dedicated to capital improvements.

If the measure is rejected, the current system of allocating the funds would remain.

Measure 15-214 differs from Measure 15-211, which voters rejected by a 60 percent margin during the Nov. 8, 2022, election. Measure 15-211 would have reallocated 73 percent of food and beverage tax revenue to the city’s general fund.

City Manager Joe Lessard explained during the forum the goal of Measure 15-214 is to free up revenue in the general fund that would otherwise be spent on APRD operations. He said the City Council would still retain control over how APRD expenses are budgeted.

Lessard said the food and beverage tax is estimated to generate $3.2 million in revenue this year, while APRD’s annual department budget is $8 million.

When asked if the City Council would have the option to overturn Measure 15-214 if it was approved by voters, Lessard said the council retains the ability to reduce the tax rate or to stop collecting it entirely. He said the tax, if the measure is adopted, is set to expire Dec. 31, 2040.

Lessard made a point of noting he was not endorsing Measure 15-214 one way or the other, but was simply providing the facts of how it would impact city finances and policy.

Speaking for the measure, Gardiner said it would not increase the budget of APRD, but would change how existing department funds can be allocated. He said the food and beverage tax has already been a staple of department revenue for three decades. 

“It does not create any new money,” said Gardiner. “This is all money the city has used over the last 30 years.”

He said part of the reason this proposal is coming up now is because the city recently paid off its wastewater treatment plant, and a portion of food and beverage tax was used to repay these loans. Now that the loan is paid, the City Council proposed reallocating these dollars so APRD could depend less on the city’s general fund.

“It was an appropriate time to move forward and look at the ordinance and make the necessary changes,” he said. “It actually takes pressure off the city’s general fund, because that’s where parks’ budget comes from.”

Runkle argued it would be imprudent to dedicate funds to APRD at a time when the department is staving off an $850,000 lawsuit by a former employee. Former Oak Knoll Golf Course Superintendent Laura Chancellor claims she and numerous other women were subjected to career-ending levels of sexual harassment by multiple APRD employees, including Director Michael Black.

Recent legal payouts include a legal settlement in 2019 when the city agreed to pay former Senior Center Director Christine Dodson $538,000 for alleged retaliation and discrimination.

Runkle said, even without these allegations, it would be “unfair” to dedicate tax revenue to a single department and argued the food and beverage tax should instead go into the general fund. He said, while certain departments have dedicated revenue streams such as utility fees for public works and traffic fines for law enforcement, this income is specific to the services these departments provide while food and beverage taxes are not directly linked to parks.

“It’s our view that this money should just go into the general fund instead of being given to one department,” said Runkle, adding approval of Measure 15-214 would be “the wrong thing to do.”

Gardiner said he had “nothing to say” in response to Runkle’s statements about the legal actions against APRD. Gardiner was a commissioner during the payouts to Smeenk and Dodson and the actions alleged in Chancellor’s lawsuit, and was chair of the Ashland Parks & Recreation Commission when he resigned abruptly in January of 2022.

Gardiner encouraged support for Measure 15-214 by saying many people come to Ashland for its parks, and said the city has set a goal for every neighborhood to have a city park within reasonable walking distance.

Runkle said the City Council has the final say in how city funding is allocated and should have “all resources available to them,” and Measure 15-214 would limit budget flexibility.

To view a video recording of the League of Women Voters webinar discussion of Ashland Ballot Measure 15-214, go to https://youtu.be/WjlT7MzPbR0. Email Ashland.news reporter Stephen Floyd at sfloydmedia@gmail.com.

April 28 update: Ballot delivery and election day dates corrected, and mention of one legal settlement removed as it had to do with an employee of the city, not Ashland Parks & Recreation.