The Sacramento Bee—which inexplicably, does not like Gibson Ranch Park being operated as a forprofit, even though it is now open and being highly utilized by area residents, whereas before it was closed—ran an editorial yesterday, entitled “Back at Gibson Ranch, little county oversight”, which is apparently not quite accurate, as the response in the comments section from Doug Ose notes:
His response.
“Dear Pia -
“Once again you nitpick based on ignorance. You really should just pick up the phone and call me if you have questions.
“First and foremost, the County has received a monthly statement detailing all income and expenses including the names and amounts paid for all checks issued. The information forwarded to the County contains a precise breakdown of the monies collected for the Equestrian Trust Fund as well as a detailed listing to the penny of any expenditures made therefrom. This is precisely what was agreed to when the lease was executed. The reporting being provided dwarfs by orders of magnitude any reporting being provided to the County under any other existing County park lease with any of your beloved nonprofit organizations. I request that you cease and desist from impugning my character by suggesting that I am engaged in financial shenanigans.
“Second, the park is open every day, something that was not occurring prior to April 1, 2011. I fail to understand why you continue to object to the park being open.
“Third, the park is clean, the grass is mowed, the bathrooms are clean. I wonder how that compares to the parks you are operating.
“Your comments regarding the open ditches reflect the fact that you still have not visited Gibson Ranch since my team took it over. Prior to April 1, under the supervision of the former Parks Director, the irrigation ditches were dredged by the County, significantly enlarging the ditches and turning them into public hazards. The project being contemplated would eliminate the public hazard while preserving the ability to irrigate the pastures on the property. There are no marshlands within the area being irrigated by the ditches in question.
“The main challenge to local government remains that their obligations exceed their revenues. At Gibson Ranch, the County was budgeting over $200,000 per year to keep the park closed. The lease with me requires the County to pay up to $100,000 per year to correct deferred maintenance that accumulated prior to April 1, 2011. That is a net savings to the County of over $100,000 per year. And, the park is open. And, the accumulated deferred maintenance is being repaired.
“When we had lunch at the Crocker Art Museum prior to the Board's action to approve the proposed lease, I asked you what was the plan you wished to propose as an alternative to the one I was proposing. I appreciated your candor in admitting that you had no plan and that it was not your responsibility to create a solution that opens the park. Six months later, it is clear now that your only plan has been to use the bullhorn of the Sacramento Bee Editorial Page to advocate for new taxes dedicated to parks maintenance and operations on the November 2012 ballot. It must be frustrating for you to see my team PROVING EVERY DAY THAT NO SUCH NEW TAXES ARE NEEDED.
“Have a nice day..”
Showing posts with label Gibson Ranch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gibson Ranch. Show all posts
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
Funding Parks
With the current funding problems with California state parks and locally with county and city parks, this report from the Property and Environment Research Center about using private management—as is successfully being done locally with Gibson Ranch Park—is timely.
The summary enclosed and, full pdf report here.
“Some state park systems rely on tax dollars provided through state general funds. When state budgets are tight, park funding is a lower priority than projects such as schools and hospitals. Hence park budgets are quick to hit the chopping block, leading to threats of park closures or reduced services.
“Rather than ride the roller coaster of state budgets, some parks have leased their operational activities to private managers. These private entities have proven they can operate the parks more efficiently, and sites that were once a drain on agency funds are now generating revenue.
“Private management can provide consistent, quality stewardship as well as more customer service.”
The summary enclosed and, full pdf report here.
“Some state park systems rely on tax dollars provided through state general funds. When state budgets are tight, park funding is a lower priority than projects such as schools and hospitals. Hence park budgets are quick to hit the chopping block, leading to threats of park closures or reduced services.
“Rather than ride the roller coaster of state budgets, some parks have leased their operational activities to private managers. These private entities have proven they can operate the parks more efficiently, and sites that were once a drain on agency funds are now generating revenue.
“Private management can provide consistent, quality stewardship as well as more customer service.”
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
Studying Tax Increase for Parks
The direction the County Supervisors took, to further study the issue of how to take care of our parks rather than immediately sign on to the tax increase strategy offered by the Grassroots Working Group—which our organization opposes—is appropriate.
The recent article in the Sacramento Bee opposing further study and encouraging the County Supervisors to immediately accede to the Grassroots Working Groups plan contains its own negation, in that generally, whenever a group stresses immediacy over further study, it’s because they suspect their plan won't stand up to that study, which it won't.
Taxpayers love their parks but realize that increasing taxes so essentially the same strategies can continue, is not just a bad idea, it’s a horrible idea.
The best solutions for the regional parks we’ve seen proposed are those offered by Doug Ose, and for the Parkway in particular we suggest our strategy.
An excerpt from the Bee article.
“Sacramento County's Board of Supervisors and county executive dealt another crushing blow to the operating budget of their Regional Parks system in June. What is the future of parks, trails and open space in this region? Is there a path to stable, secure funding and governance of Regional Parks?
“While city and county park agencies have faced extreme challenges during the four-plus years of the economic downturn, the only governance structure faring well is the special district. Because they receive a set percentage of property taxes, their operating budget fluctuates very little compared with the more than 50 percent cuts facing city and county park agencies. Could special district governance with a secure and stable funding source rescue Sacramento County Regional Parks?
“The groundwork for this shift has already been accomplished. For more than a year, the Grassroots Working Group, an organization of community leaders and park advocates have worked tirelessly and raised private funds to have the Trust for Public Land study options for funding and governance for Sacramento County's regional park system. Polling was also done as a companion to their study. All of this clearly pointed to the recommendation for a ballot measure to create a regional special district for parks and fund the district with a 0.1 of 1 percent sales tax increase….
“Unfortunately, the Board of Supervisors and the county executive want to spend another six months studying various options with community stakeholders, most of whom have been involved in the Grassroots Working Group effort over the past year. New options or "business models" do not exist if this community wants free, accessible, safe, protected, well-managed and commercial-free parks, trails and open space.”
The recent article in the Sacramento Bee opposing further study and encouraging the County Supervisors to immediately accede to the Grassroots Working Groups plan contains its own negation, in that generally, whenever a group stresses immediacy over further study, it’s because they suspect their plan won't stand up to that study, which it won't.
Taxpayers love their parks but realize that increasing taxes so essentially the same strategies can continue, is not just a bad idea, it’s a horrible idea.
The best solutions for the regional parks we’ve seen proposed are those offered by Doug Ose, and for the Parkway in particular we suggest our strategy.
An excerpt from the Bee article.
“Sacramento County's Board of Supervisors and county executive dealt another crushing blow to the operating budget of their Regional Parks system in June. What is the future of parks, trails and open space in this region? Is there a path to stable, secure funding and governance of Regional Parks?
“While city and county park agencies have faced extreme challenges during the four-plus years of the economic downturn, the only governance structure faring well is the special district. Because they receive a set percentage of property taxes, their operating budget fluctuates very little compared with the more than 50 percent cuts facing city and county park agencies. Could special district governance with a secure and stable funding source rescue Sacramento County Regional Parks?
“The groundwork for this shift has already been accomplished. For more than a year, the Grassroots Working Group, an organization of community leaders and park advocates have worked tirelessly and raised private funds to have the Trust for Public Land study options for funding and governance for Sacramento County's regional park system. Polling was also done as a companion to their study. All of this clearly pointed to the recommendation for a ballot measure to create a regional special district for parks and fund the district with a 0.1 of 1 percent sales tax increase….
“Unfortunately, the Board of Supervisors and the county executive want to spend another six months studying various options with community stakeholders, most of whom have been involved in the Grassroots Working Group effort over the past year. New options or "business models" do not exist if this community wants free, accessible, safe, protected, well-managed and commercial-free parks, trails and open space.”
Monday, August 29, 2011
Public/Private Partnerships
We believe strongly in the efficient governing of public lands and waters, as expressed in this editorial in the Sacramento Bee; but rather than defaulting to government solutions, efficient governing can also be obtained by partnering with business, as we are seeing with the new partnership between Sacramento County and Gibson Ranch Park LLC, which we noted previously.
Perhaps the public lands lease program can be contracted out more efficiently than managed in-house.
An excerpt from the Bee editorial.
“The people of California own the waters and beds of the state's rivers, streams, lakes, bays and estuaries. They own the waters and tidelands along the 1,100-mile coastline, out to three miles offshore. And they own lands granted by the federal government in 1853 to benefit public education.
“The State Lands Commission – composed of the current lieutenant governor (Gavin Newsom), controller (John Chiang) and finance director (Ana Matosantos) – manages these public lands.
“Some lands bring in considerable revenue from leases – $426.5 million last year. But, as a recent Bureau of State Audits report shows, they could bring in even more.
“Though California halted new offshore drilling leases after the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill, existing leases continue to be the big revenue-generator for State Lands – $402 million in 2010-11. Most of the rest comes from marine terminals, industrial wharves, commercial marinas and pipelines.
“Yet the time lag between expiration of old leases and finalization of new leases means outdated rents can go on for years, a loss to the state.
“California's aggressive safety program – better than Texas and Louisiana – causes some of the lag; the state doesn't renew a lease without comprehensive environmental analysis. But, as the state auditor points out, expiring leases should have provisions for rent updates, so that delays in the lease renewal process don't cost the state revenue.
“For example, at the Tesoro Amorco and Avon marine oil terminals at Martinez, which have complicated issues, rent reviews have been approved and rent is up to date, though new leases aren't yet in place. Do this consistently.”
Perhaps the public lands lease program can be contracted out more efficiently than managed in-house.
An excerpt from the Bee editorial.
“The people of California own the waters and beds of the state's rivers, streams, lakes, bays and estuaries. They own the waters and tidelands along the 1,100-mile coastline, out to three miles offshore. And they own lands granted by the federal government in 1853 to benefit public education.
“The State Lands Commission – composed of the current lieutenant governor (Gavin Newsom), controller (John Chiang) and finance director (Ana Matosantos) – manages these public lands.
“Some lands bring in considerable revenue from leases – $426.5 million last year. But, as a recent Bureau of State Audits report shows, they could bring in even more.
“Though California halted new offshore drilling leases after the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill, existing leases continue to be the big revenue-generator for State Lands – $402 million in 2010-11. Most of the rest comes from marine terminals, industrial wharves, commercial marinas and pipelines.
“Yet the time lag between expiration of old leases and finalization of new leases means outdated rents can go on for years, a loss to the state.
“California's aggressive safety program – better than Texas and Louisiana – causes some of the lag; the state doesn't renew a lease without comprehensive environmental analysis. But, as the state auditor points out, expiring leases should have provisions for rent updates, so that delays in the lease renewal process don't cost the state revenue.
“For example, at the Tesoro Amorco and Avon marine oil terminals at Martinez, which have complicated issues, rent reviews have been approved and rent is up to date, though new leases aren't yet in place. Do this consistently.”
Monday, August 15, 2011
Retool the Message?
In this editorial from the Sacramento Bee, the proponents of a regional parks district to take over the parks that Sacramento County has not been able to take care of for years (to be funded by a sales tax increase) are urged to retool their message, which is apparently not yet resonating with taxpayers.
Our advice, on the other hand, would be to drop this adventure in futility—extracting yet more taxes from an already over-taxed public during one of the worst economic times in memory—and instead examine the real-world success of the type of innovative parks management noted by Doug Ose in a recent article, which we blogged on, and visit Gibson Ranch.
Here is the response from Doug Ose to the current editorial on the comments page:
“As often as the editorial board opines on the issue of regional parks in Sacramento County, they have yet to visit Gibson Ranch and see the success that private management has achieved. The editorial board of the Bee has consistently opined about what an evil turn of events it is that private management was given the opportunity to operate Gibson Ranch. Now, the editorial board argues that the only way to preserve regional parks is to adopt an operating system developed for the Bay Area. The editorial board does not talk about creating revenue by offering programs and services that the public wants and thereby having the park system support itself. The editorial board does not talk about reforming maintenance practices. The editorial board does not talk about revamping work rules that dictate narrow job classifications and employee compensation far in excess of what is paid in the private economy. The editorial board only talks about increasing taxes so as to give more money to a new governmental bureaucracy probably run by the very same people who proved incapable of sustaining the parks in the first place.
“Let's just review the facts. Gibson Ranch Regional Park was closed by the County Parks Department the day after Labor Day 2010. Prior to that, it was open only on Saturdays and Sundays, except on summer Fridays when the Rio Linda Elverta Recreation and Parks District stepped in and operated the facility. Little if any maintenance was performed and the facility deteriorated almost beyond repair. Rental cabins and camping spaces and the swim hole were closed to the public. The Ranch House was closed. No programs or services were offered to the general public. The bathrooms weren't being cleaned for weeks on end. The garbage sat moldy and uncollected in the garbage cans from months previous. The grass was being cut about every five weeks. The pastures were unkempt. The Hmong community moved their cultural events to another location. Country in the Park relocated to Capitol Mall. A new $400,000 entry gate was installed. The public was not able to use the park.
“Compare that with now. The park is open every day. The bathrooms are cleaned every day. The garbage is collected and removed every day. The grass is regularly cut. Camping is slowly growing into an everyday occurrence. Civil War Days is back and thriving with over 3,000 people attending on May 21/22. The Hmong community has returned and held a large cultural event on July 9/10 that attracted about 18,000 people over two days. The Midnight Mass Car Show was held on July 30 and attracted over 12,000 people. Country in the Park will be held at Gibson Ranch on September 11. In addition, companies are holding their annual picnics at Gibson Ranch. Families are holding reunions at Gibson Ranch. Birthday parties abound. BBQs every weekend. The rental cabins are on the verge of being completely remodeled after 15 years of no use. The lake has been stocked with trout and people are pulling fish out every day. The contrast is startling from just over four months ago to today.
“The plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors is working at Gibson Ranch. Under the lease arrangement approved by the Board, the County manages a contract. Services and programs are funded and delivered by a private operator subject to certain performance standards. The park is open and people are using it.
“The editorial board is getting ready to "sell" you on the need for new taxes and a new governmental bureaucracy. There is no need for either. Come to Gibson Ranch and see for yourself.” (highlighting added)
Doug Ose August 12, 2011 @ 1:04 AM
Our advice, on the other hand, would be to drop this adventure in futility—extracting yet more taxes from an already over-taxed public during one of the worst economic times in memory—and instead examine the real-world success of the type of innovative parks management noted by Doug Ose in a recent article, which we blogged on, and visit Gibson Ranch.
Here is the response from Doug Ose to the current editorial on the comments page:
“As often as the editorial board opines on the issue of regional parks in Sacramento County, they have yet to visit Gibson Ranch and see the success that private management has achieved. The editorial board of the Bee has consistently opined about what an evil turn of events it is that private management was given the opportunity to operate Gibson Ranch. Now, the editorial board argues that the only way to preserve regional parks is to adopt an operating system developed for the Bay Area. The editorial board does not talk about creating revenue by offering programs and services that the public wants and thereby having the park system support itself. The editorial board does not talk about reforming maintenance practices. The editorial board does not talk about revamping work rules that dictate narrow job classifications and employee compensation far in excess of what is paid in the private economy. The editorial board only talks about increasing taxes so as to give more money to a new governmental bureaucracy probably run by the very same people who proved incapable of sustaining the parks in the first place.
“Let's just review the facts. Gibson Ranch Regional Park was closed by the County Parks Department the day after Labor Day 2010. Prior to that, it was open only on Saturdays and Sundays, except on summer Fridays when the Rio Linda Elverta Recreation and Parks District stepped in and operated the facility. Little if any maintenance was performed and the facility deteriorated almost beyond repair. Rental cabins and camping spaces and the swim hole were closed to the public. The Ranch House was closed. No programs or services were offered to the general public. The bathrooms weren't being cleaned for weeks on end. The garbage sat moldy and uncollected in the garbage cans from months previous. The grass was being cut about every five weeks. The pastures were unkempt. The Hmong community moved their cultural events to another location. Country in the Park relocated to Capitol Mall. A new $400,000 entry gate was installed. The public was not able to use the park.
“Compare that with now. The park is open every day. The bathrooms are cleaned every day. The garbage is collected and removed every day. The grass is regularly cut. Camping is slowly growing into an everyday occurrence. Civil War Days is back and thriving with over 3,000 people attending on May 21/22. The Hmong community has returned and held a large cultural event on July 9/10 that attracted about 18,000 people over two days. The Midnight Mass Car Show was held on July 30 and attracted over 12,000 people. Country in the Park will be held at Gibson Ranch on September 11. In addition, companies are holding their annual picnics at Gibson Ranch. Families are holding reunions at Gibson Ranch. Birthday parties abound. BBQs every weekend. The rental cabins are on the verge of being completely remodeled after 15 years of no use. The lake has been stocked with trout and people are pulling fish out every day. The contrast is startling from just over four months ago to today.
“The plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors is working at Gibson Ranch. Under the lease arrangement approved by the Board, the County manages a contract. Services and programs are funded and delivered by a private operator subject to certain performance standards. The park is open and people are using it.
“The editorial board is getting ready to "sell" you on the need for new taxes and a new governmental bureaucracy. There is no need for either. Come to Gibson Ranch and see for yourself.” (highlighting added)
Doug Ose August 12, 2011 @ 1:04 AM
Monday, July 25, 2011
Parks Innovation by Ose
What Doug Ose has been able to accomplish at Gibson Ranch Park is exactly the type of innovation needed to be part of any discussion around other regional parks, including the American River Parkway.
His recent article in the Sacramento Bee is a must read.
An excerpt.
“For the past year, observers from the Grassroots Working Group to the editorial board of The Bee have consistently suggested that there are significant operational problems within the Sacramento County Department of Regional Parks and Open Space. I couldn't agree more.
“The primary argument has been that there is inadequate funding being allocated by the Board of Supervisors to the parks department to properly maintain the parklands under their control, and voters should therefore pass an increase in local sales taxes dedicated to parks. I couldn't agree less.
“In my view, the essential problem is that the world has changed and the parks department hasn't. Years ago, the department's charter was to acquire land and provide services funded by the county's general fund. In the last few years, it has become apparent that such an approach is not sustainable. The department has been slow to change – or actively resisted it – and now is in a financial corner. On top of that fiscal challenge, the department is saddled with work rules that constrain how it can respond to changing conditions.
“Here are the basic facts. The department controls more than 15,000 acres. Some years ago, a policy decision was made that county parklands shall not be allowed to have any commercial activities within their boundaries. Subsequent public outcry in favor of golf courses and raft rentals and the like has caused that policy to evolve over time, so we now have a hybrid policy where certain commercial activities are allowed but others aren't.
“Why are some commercial activities allowed and others not? If a proposal to develop a portion of the 15,000 acres noted above were to generate significant net revenue to Sacramento County, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
“This is the crux of the problem.
"Somebody" determined that accumulating vast acreages of land is a good thing.
"Somebody" determined that revenue-generating enterprises located within publicly owned parklands is a bad thing.
“Now, "somebody" is struggling with how to fund the maintenance and operations of these vast acreages.
“Fortunately, there is a path out of this morass.
“First, stop making the problem larger. Place an immediate moratorium on further parkland acquisition/development or acceptances of parkland donations, which cost the county money.
“Second, decide what you want to be as a parks department. Given the long-term challenges of funding for collective bargaining agreements, health care and pensions, the department should evolve into a contract manager of partnerships with third-party operators that meet defined operating standards.
“Third, determine on a case-by-case basis which currently owned parklands are meeting a minimum level of active and passive recreational use by the public. Use actual numbers rather than estimates. Don't game the system to favor "treasured icons." Categorize each property as high-cost/low-use, low-cost/low-use, high-cost/high-use or low-cost/high-use. Keep the low-cost/high-use properties. If you have a property that is not meeting expectations, then get rid of it.
“Fourth, use proceeds from the sale of underutilized properties to fund the necessary repairs and/or maintenance for the retained properties. Concurrently, seek out a partner or partners who can operate the properties more efficiently – the agreement covering Effie Yeaw can serve as a model for such partnerships – and make a business deal with those partners.”
His recent article in the Sacramento Bee is a must read.
An excerpt.
“For the past year, observers from the Grassroots Working Group to the editorial board of The Bee have consistently suggested that there are significant operational problems within the Sacramento County Department of Regional Parks and Open Space. I couldn't agree more.
“The primary argument has been that there is inadequate funding being allocated by the Board of Supervisors to the parks department to properly maintain the parklands under their control, and voters should therefore pass an increase in local sales taxes dedicated to parks. I couldn't agree less.
“In my view, the essential problem is that the world has changed and the parks department hasn't. Years ago, the department's charter was to acquire land and provide services funded by the county's general fund. In the last few years, it has become apparent that such an approach is not sustainable. The department has been slow to change – or actively resisted it – and now is in a financial corner. On top of that fiscal challenge, the department is saddled with work rules that constrain how it can respond to changing conditions.
“Here are the basic facts. The department controls more than 15,000 acres. Some years ago, a policy decision was made that county parklands shall not be allowed to have any commercial activities within their boundaries. Subsequent public outcry in favor of golf courses and raft rentals and the like has caused that policy to evolve over time, so we now have a hybrid policy where certain commercial activities are allowed but others aren't.
“Why are some commercial activities allowed and others not? If a proposal to develop a portion of the 15,000 acres noted above were to generate significant net revenue to Sacramento County, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
“This is the crux of the problem.
"Somebody" determined that accumulating vast acreages of land is a good thing.
"Somebody" determined that revenue-generating enterprises located within publicly owned parklands is a bad thing.
“Now, "somebody" is struggling with how to fund the maintenance and operations of these vast acreages.
“Fortunately, there is a path out of this morass.
“First, stop making the problem larger. Place an immediate moratorium on further parkland acquisition/development or acceptances of parkland donations, which cost the county money.
“Second, decide what you want to be as a parks department. Given the long-term challenges of funding for collective bargaining agreements, health care and pensions, the department should evolve into a contract manager of partnerships with third-party operators that meet defined operating standards.
“Third, determine on a case-by-case basis which currently owned parklands are meeting a minimum level of active and passive recreational use by the public. Use actual numbers rather than estimates. Don't game the system to favor "treasured icons." Categorize each property as high-cost/low-use, low-cost/low-use, high-cost/high-use or low-cost/high-use. Keep the low-cost/high-use properties. If you have a property that is not meeting expectations, then get rid of it.
“Fourth, use proceeds from the sale of underutilized properties to fund the necessary repairs and/or maintenance for the retained properties. Concurrently, seek out a partner or partners who can operate the properties more efficiently – the agreement covering Effie Yeaw can serve as a model for such partnerships – and make a business deal with those partners.”
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Tax Increase for Parks is a Bad Idea
The Sacramento Bee continues to tout this as the solution to County Park’s problems, in the Sunday editorial and an article from Saturday.
Fortunately, the County Board of Supervisors has turned one park over to a forprofit—Gibson Ranch—and another facility over to a nonprofit—Effie Yeaw Nature Center—both of which were excellent strategic ideas.
We hope they will therefore look askew at asking residents to increase taxes during such horrible economic times without exploring more innovative strategies instead.
Fortunately, the County Board of Supervisors has turned one park over to a forprofit—Gibson Ranch—and another facility over to a nonprofit—Effie Yeaw Nature Center—both of which were excellent strategic ideas.
We hope they will therefore look askew at asking residents to increase taxes during such horrible economic times without exploring more innovative strategies instead.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Tax Increase for Regional Parks
There are so many reasons why a tax increase, touted in the Sacramento Bee, is a terrible idea and in our recent article we noted two, but here are a few more questions.
If it is truly a 'regional' parks tax, then the entire region using the parks needs to also vote, which would bring in El Dorado, Placer & Yolo counties.
If it is truly a 'regional' parks tax, then why are virtually all the articles focusing on the American River Parkway? Answer, because it is the only true regional park that attracts visitors from beyond the immediate area still subject to the county parks department mismanagement, Gibson Ranch having been wisely transferred to effective management.
How can we expect any better management from the new entity—which will almost certainly be a staff transfer of the existing entity to the new—to justify an increase of taxes?
How can we guarantee that the new funds raised from a tax increase will not just result in a decrease in support from existing funding sources?
Finally, there are serious questions being raised about the survey results quoted in the Bee article, which said a substantial majority favor the new taxes.
These results, considering the history of recent local tax increase voting (which failed widely) is highly questionable.
Since the survey results are being proposed as a reason for public leaders to make a decision, the details about the survey should be made available (routine in public surveys) which to this point they have not been.
This is a lack of transparency which should, in itself, always raise questions.
If it is truly a 'regional' parks tax, then the entire region using the parks needs to also vote, which would bring in El Dorado, Placer & Yolo counties.
If it is truly a 'regional' parks tax, then why are virtually all the articles focusing on the American River Parkway? Answer, because it is the only true regional park that attracts visitors from beyond the immediate area still subject to the county parks department mismanagement, Gibson Ranch having been wisely transferred to effective management.
How can we expect any better management from the new entity—which will almost certainly be a staff transfer of the existing entity to the new—to justify an increase of taxes?
How can we guarantee that the new funds raised from a tax increase will not just result in a decrease in support from existing funding sources?
Finally, there are serious questions being raised about the survey results quoted in the Bee article, which said a substantial majority favor the new taxes.
These results, considering the history of recent local tax increase voting (which failed widely) is highly questionable.
Since the survey results are being proposed as a reason for public leaders to make a decision, the details about the survey should be made available (routine in public surveys) which to this point they have not been.
This is a lack of transparency which should, in itself, always raise questions.
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Sector Shifting
Nonprofit to private, private to nonprofit, government partnering with nonprofits and forprofits—for example the recent partnership between Sacramento County and Gibson Ranch Park LLC—and combinations of all; what matters is the mission (in Gibson Ranch’s case, keeping the park open and vibrant, which they are accomplishing superbly) and the best way to get it done.
In this case, its all about farming and gardening education, as reported by the Tacoma News Tribune from Bellingham, Washington.
An excerpt.
“EVERSON - Cloud Mountain Farm is going through big changes, but they're not yet visible to passers-by.
“Owners Tom and Cheryl Thornton plan to sell their popular business to a yet-to-be-determined entity that will convert their 20-acre farm into a nonprofit center to provide education and hands-on training to new and experienced farmers and gardeners.
“The couple, who started Cloud Mountain as a commercial orchard in 1978, will continue to work and live at the farm, and Cheryl Thornton will sit on the center's new board of directors.
“They're already well-known for offering workshops and other educational programs, and for experimenting with crops and growing techniques, all while diversifying their farm nestled against the western flank of Sumas Mountain.
"It's a continuation and expansion of what we're already doing," Cheryl Thornton said. "The center brings it full circle."
“The transaction is being handled by Whatcom Community Foundation, which manages numerous funds, including at least two geared to helping local agriculture - the Sustainable Whatcom Fund and the Whatcom Farm Incubator Fund.”
In this case, its all about farming and gardening education, as reported by the Tacoma News Tribune from Bellingham, Washington.
An excerpt.
“EVERSON - Cloud Mountain Farm is going through big changes, but they're not yet visible to passers-by.
“Owners Tom and Cheryl Thornton plan to sell their popular business to a yet-to-be-determined entity that will convert their 20-acre farm into a nonprofit center to provide education and hands-on training to new and experienced farmers and gardeners.
“The couple, who started Cloud Mountain as a commercial orchard in 1978, will continue to work and live at the farm, and Cheryl Thornton will sit on the center's new board of directors.
“They're already well-known for offering workshops and other educational programs, and for experimenting with crops and growing techniques, all while diversifying their farm nestled against the western flank of Sumas Mountain.
"It's a continuation and expansion of what we're already doing," Cheryl Thornton said. "The center brings it full circle."
“The transaction is being handled by Whatcom Community Foundation, which manages numerous funds, including at least two geared to helping local agriculture - the Sustainable Whatcom Fund and the Whatcom Farm Incubator Fund.”
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Gibson Ranch
A Gibson Ranch volunteer wrote an informative article about the ranch—making some excellent points—in response to a recent Sacramento Bee editorial and cartoon.
It is a good to have a debate about the future of parks, with the Bee editorial board apparently on one side, against public/private partnerships, and Gibson Ranch supporters for public/private partnerships, on the other.
We have been supporters of the Ose Proposal for Gibson Ranch and our January 5, 2011 Press Release on our website news page describes the benefits we feel will result.
We believe the debate will be won when the Ose proposal proves successful (as we are certain it will be) and Gibson Ranch Park becomes the renewed and bustling public recreational venue the community desires and deserves.
An excerpt.
“Re "Will parks in the region go to the sharks?" (Editorial, March 26):
“Parks are not going to the sharks. The cartoon and editorial have given a very misleading picture of what has happened to get Gibson Ranch open.
“There are more than a few community members and horse boarders working to get the park open. Doug Ose has the support of the Rio Linda/Elverta, North Highlands/Antelope Chamber of Commerce, the Rio Linda Park District, Lions Club from the Sacramento area and many community members who do not own horses.
“The horse boarders are not in support of Ose and L&M Concession Management in order to get cheap board. The board at Gibson Ranch is at the high end of the median range for the area, especially since it does not have a covered arena. Without a covered area one is limited as to riding in the winter months.
“Contrary to what The Bee printed, I am not a horse boarder. I am a volunteer. Therefore, I could not be fighting this cause for cheap board for a horse I do not own.
“The tree farm issue was presented to the Dry Creek Parkway Advisory Committee and the park commissioners, and was passed to remain on the future services and programs for 2011-12. One person has an issue with this – one person! Ose agreed to come back before the advisory committee and give them an informal briefing as to where the trees would be put and what type they would be. That was all that was asked of him from the chair of the committee.”
It is a good to have a debate about the future of parks, with the Bee editorial board apparently on one side, against public/private partnerships, and Gibson Ranch supporters for public/private partnerships, on the other.
We have been supporters of the Ose Proposal for Gibson Ranch and our January 5, 2011 Press Release on our website news page describes the benefits we feel will result.
We believe the debate will be won when the Ose proposal proves successful (as we are certain it will be) and Gibson Ranch Park becomes the renewed and bustling public recreational venue the community desires and deserves.
An excerpt.
“Re "Will parks in the region go to the sharks?" (Editorial, March 26):
“Parks are not going to the sharks. The cartoon and editorial have given a very misleading picture of what has happened to get Gibson Ranch open.
“There are more than a few community members and horse boarders working to get the park open. Doug Ose has the support of the Rio Linda/Elverta, North Highlands/Antelope Chamber of Commerce, the Rio Linda Park District, Lions Club from the Sacramento area and many community members who do not own horses.
“The horse boarders are not in support of Ose and L&M Concession Management in order to get cheap board. The board at Gibson Ranch is at the high end of the median range for the area, especially since it does not have a covered arena. Without a covered area one is limited as to riding in the winter months.
“Contrary to what The Bee printed, I am not a horse boarder. I am a volunteer. Therefore, I could not be fighting this cause for cheap board for a horse I do not own.
“The tree farm issue was presented to the Dry Creek Parkway Advisory Committee and the park commissioners, and was passed to remain on the future services and programs for 2011-12. One person has an issue with this – one person! Ose agreed to come back before the advisory committee and give them an informal briefing as to where the trees would be put and what type they would be. That was all that was asked of him from the chair of the committee.”
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Parks Confusion
Confusing the future (park innovation) with the past (park stagnation) the Sacramento Bee editorial today misreads the good that occurred this week when Gibson Ranch Park was allowed to reopen after a lease was approved with a forprofit organization led by a long-time public servant strongly supported by the adjacent community of long-time park users.
An excerpt.
“The deal is done.
“County supervisors have turned over a public park to a private developer.
“For a mere $1, Doug Ose will get to run Gibson Ranch for 10 years.
“For weeks, it was clear there was little way of stopping supervisors from pursuing "this laboratory of experimentation." Ose is tight with several of the supervisors, and has helped fund some of their campaigns.
“Ose also had the backing of a group of equestrians who – while they genuinely care for Gibson Ranch and are rightly angered by the county's neglect and mismanagement of this park – have a narrow self-interest in the outcome. They want to maintain a cheap place to board their horses.
“Since Ose was willing to deliver this promise, they are willing to overlook his plans for transforming much of Gibson Ranch into profit-making ventures.
“We had hoped that open space advocates who value the tradition of publicly owned parks, open to all, would press supervisors to consider other options.
“Sadly, not enough did. Many are busy tending to parks in their neighborhoods, which is understandable. But when the lifeguards are missing, the sharks move in, as the cartoon on this page illustrates.
“Although there is no turning back now, there is still a need for parks advocates to pay attention to Ose's ongoing plans.”
An excerpt.
“The deal is done.
“County supervisors have turned over a public park to a private developer.
“For a mere $1, Doug Ose will get to run Gibson Ranch for 10 years.
“For weeks, it was clear there was little way of stopping supervisors from pursuing "this laboratory of experimentation." Ose is tight with several of the supervisors, and has helped fund some of their campaigns.
“Ose also had the backing of a group of equestrians who – while they genuinely care for Gibson Ranch and are rightly angered by the county's neglect and mismanagement of this park – have a narrow self-interest in the outcome. They want to maintain a cheap place to board their horses.
“Since Ose was willing to deliver this promise, they are willing to overlook his plans for transforming much of Gibson Ranch into profit-making ventures.
“We had hoped that open space advocates who value the tradition of publicly owned parks, open to all, would press supervisors to consider other options.
“Sadly, not enough did. Many are busy tending to parks in their neighborhoods, which is understandable. But when the lifeguards are missing, the sharks move in, as the cartoon on this page illustrates.
“Although there is no turning back now, there is still a need for parks advocates to pay attention to Ose's ongoing plans.”
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Gibson Ranch to Open!
A great outcome in this innovative way to provide for Gibson Ranch Park and perhaps a way forward for the other parks in our region suffering from lack of funding and dedicated management.
Congratulations to all involved: Doug Ose for a great proposal, the Dry Creek Parkway Advisory Committee, the County Parks Commission and the County Parks Department, for seeing the potential and supporting the plan, for the County Board of Supervisors who helped create a great final product which they approved unanimously, and most of all, for the many residents of the communities adjacent to Gibson Ranch who came out in force to advocate for their beloved park.
Here is an excerpt from the Sacramento Bee article.
“Sacramento County supervisors approved an agreement Wednesday that will give developer and former U.S. Rep. Doug Ose control of Gibson Ranch.
“Supervisors voted unanimously in favor of the 10-year lease. Ose will lease the park for $1 a year and be able to charge the public for a variety of services. Any profit will eventually be split with the county. The county will pay $100,000 a year on deferred maintenance for five years.
“Ose plans to reopen Gibson Ranch on April 1. The park was closed last year due to budget cuts.
“Before supervisors voted, Ose told the board that he had booked a long list of events for this year at the 350-acre park near Elverta. A Civil War re-enactment, birthdays, weddings, running events, fireworks, an Easter egg hunt and more are planned, he said.
"I could go on and on with all kinds of things people are ready for at Gibson Ranch, and I can deliver," Ose said.
“The park will be open for horse riding, hiking, picnics and other uses.
“The board directed county officials to negotiate with Ose in December. There were some disagreements about whether he would have to get additional approval for some new projects.
“But Ose and county officials eventually agreed that proposals that potentially would conflict with the county's long-term plan for the park would have to get future approval from two advisory boards and supervisors.
“With once-controversial ideas such as an RV park and a pet motel not immediately under consideration, Ose's plan received a warmer welcome than it did last year, when both advisory boards and county staff opposed it.
“Supervisors did learn that there was some opposition to one part of his plan: a tree farm. An advisory board considered a motion to reject that idea, but the vote failed.
“Ose said he is considering a farm for Christmas trees and trees for new development, among other things.
"If you strip down to the basics of the problems at Gibson Ranch, we don't have enough revenues," he said.
“Supervisor Phil Serna, who was the only board member to oppose the plan in December, switched his vote Wednesday. He said it was the right decision then to call for the county to open up the process for other parties interested in running the park.
“Now that the county had decided to negotiate only with Ose, Serna said he was willing to support the project. He was able to get the board to include some provisions, including that Ose will bring the tree farm idea back for informal review when he's ready to start it.”
Congratulations to all involved: Doug Ose for a great proposal, the Dry Creek Parkway Advisory Committee, the County Parks Commission and the County Parks Department, for seeing the potential and supporting the plan, for the County Board of Supervisors who helped create a great final product which they approved unanimously, and most of all, for the many residents of the communities adjacent to Gibson Ranch who came out in force to advocate for their beloved park.
Here is an excerpt from the Sacramento Bee article.
“Sacramento County supervisors approved an agreement Wednesday that will give developer and former U.S. Rep. Doug Ose control of Gibson Ranch.
“Supervisors voted unanimously in favor of the 10-year lease. Ose will lease the park for $1 a year and be able to charge the public for a variety of services. Any profit will eventually be split with the county. The county will pay $100,000 a year on deferred maintenance for five years.
“Ose plans to reopen Gibson Ranch on April 1. The park was closed last year due to budget cuts.
“Before supervisors voted, Ose told the board that he had booked a long list of events for this year at the 350-acre park near Elverta. A Civil War re-enactment, birthdays, weddings, running events, fireworks, an Easter egg hunt and more are planned, he said.
"I could go on and on with all kinds of things people are ready for at Gibson Ranch, and I can deliver," Ose said.
“The park will be open for horse riding, hiking, picnics and other uses.
“The board directed county officials to negotiate with Ose in December. There were some disagreements about whether he would have to get additional approval for some new projects.
“But Ose and county officials eventually agreed that proposals that potentially would conflict with the county's long-term plan for the park would have to get future approval from two advisory boards and supervisors.
“With once-controversial ideas such as an RV park and a pet motel not immediately under consideration, Ose's plan received a warmer welcome than it did last year, when both advisory boards and county staff opposed it.
“Supervisors did learn that there was some opposition to one part of his plan: a tree farm. An advisory board considered a motion to reject that idea, but the vote failed.
“Ose said he is considering a farm for Christmas trees and trees for new development, among other things.
"If you strip down to the basics of the problems at Gibson Ranch, we don't have enough revenues," he said.
“Supervisor Phil Serna, who was the only board member to oppose the plan in December, switched his vote Wednesday. He said it was the right decision then to call for the county to open up the process for other parties interested in running the park.
“Now that the county had decided to negotiate only with Ose, Serna said he was willing to support the project. He was able to get the board to include some provisions, including that Ose will bring the tree farm idea back for informal review when he's ready to start it.”
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Gibson Ranch Needs to Open
Though the vote was delayed until today, as reported by this article in the Sacramento Bee, the most important thing to remember about this whole process is that the communities adjacent to Gibson Ranch want their park back and Doug Ose has presented the only plan to accomplish that.
His plan is supported by our organization, American River Parkway Preservation Society, as noted in our January 5, 2011 Press Release on our website’s news page.
The opposition meanwhile, comes from other communities not adjacent to Gibson Ranch, and seems to be based on an organized attempt to raise taxes to pay for regional parks, which will suffer if Gibson Ranch is no longer part of their tax increase scheme.
Support the Ose proposal, and open Gibson Ranch.
An excerpt from the Bee article
“For the second time, Sacramento County supervisors have delayed a vote on a proposal that would give developer and former congressman Doug Ose control of Gibson Ranch.
“On Tuesday, supervisors decided they would vote on the plan today at 2 p.m. They held off because details of the proposed lease weren't made public until late Sunday, Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan said.
“The decision was put off earlier this month because the county and Ose couldn't reach a tentative agreement to bring to supervisors.
“About 25 supporters of Ose's project showed up Tuesday, wearing bright-yellow buttons exhorting supervisors to "Get'r Done." Many of the supporters are horse riders, and they're eager to have the park reopened for riding.
“A budget shortfall led the county to close Gibson Ranch last year, with supervisors voting in December to start negotiations with Ose to reopen the park as a for-profit business.
“County officials said they initially couldn't get Ose to agree that he would need additional approval from two county advisory boards and supervisors should he want to add major projects to the ranch.
“Ose eventually relented, and the two advisory boards, which were previously opposed to his plan, have given it their blessing.”
His plan is supported by our organization, American River Parkway Preservation Society, as noted in our January 5, 2011 Press Release on our website’s news page.
The opposition meanwhile, comes from other communities not adjacent to Gibson Ranch, and seems to be based on an organized attempt to raise taxes to pay for regional parks, which will suffer if Gibson Ranch is no longer part of their tax increase scheme.
Support the Ose proposal, and open Gibson Ranch.
An excerpt from the Bee article
“For the second time, Sacramento County supervisors have delayed a vote on a proposal that would give developer and former congressman Doug Ose control of Gibson Ranch.
“On Tuesday, supervisors decided they would vote on the plan today at 2 p.m. They held off because details of the proposed lease weren't made public until late Sunday, Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan said.
“The decision was put off earlier this month because the county and Ose couldn't reach a tentative agreement to bring to supervisors.
“About 25 supporters of Ose's project showed up Tuesday, wearing bright-yellow buttons exhorting supervisors to "Get'r Done." Many of the supporters are horse riders, and they're eager to have the park reopened for riding.
“A budget shortfall led the county to close Gibson Ranch last year, with supervisors voting in December to start negotiations with Ose to reopen the park as a for-profit business.
“County officials said they initially couldn't get Ose to agree that he would need additional approval from two county advisory boards and supervisors should he want to add major projects to the ranch.
“Ose eventually relented, and the two advisory boards, which were previously opposed to his plan, have given it their blessing.”
Monday, March 14, 2011
Gibson Ranch
Hopefully the ongoing negotiations, reported in yesterday's Sacramento Bee, will not disturb the plans former Congressman Ose has for the Ranch—nor lead to the process called for in today’s Sacramento Bee editorial—either of which would ruin what is an excellent plan.
The Ose group’s work will rejuvenate funding and maintenance, enhance the recreational base, and restore the historical Gibson Ranch Park to the community status the adjacent neighborhoods deserve.
The Open Gibson Ranch petition has, as of 9:00 AM today, 1,122 signatures, and a perusal of the comments reveals the very positive mood of the adjacent neighborhoods to the Ose Proposal.
An excerpt from yesterday's article in the Sacramento Bee.
“Sacramento County officials and developer Doug Ose are struggling to come to an agreement to turn over historic Gibson Ranch to the former congressman as a for-profit enterprise.
“While both sides say they're optimistic they will reach an agreement, the Tuesday due date to bring a proposal to supervisors has been moved to March 22.
“Ose said some county officials need to adopt new thinking about the 350-acre park near Elverta.
“The county's master plan for the park lays out a vision of an early-California working ranch. But critics say Ose has proposed additions, such as a skateboard park (now discarded) and a pet motel, that clash with the county plan.
"Preserving the character of the park, consistent with what was offered prior to (the park's closing) Aug. 1, doesn't work financially," Ose said.
“Sacramento County Regional Parks Director Janet Baker said Ose originally wanted to be able to make additions to the park without approval from supervisors and two other county boards. She said any proposals not included in the park's long-term plan would have to receive such approvals.
“Recently, Ose agreed that any new building at the ranch would have to receive additional approvals, Baker said.
“The need for such approvals was part of an agreement made when the county and Ose started negotiations, said Interim County Administrator Steve Szalay. He said he's not willing to change the requirement.”
The Ose group’s work will rejuvenate funding and maintenance, enhance the recreational base, and restore the historical Gibson Ranch Park to the community status the adjacent neighborhoods deserve.
The Open Gibson Ranch petition has, as of 9:00 AM today, 1,122 signatures, and a perusal of the comments reveals the very positive mood of the adjacent neighborhoods to the Ose Proposal.
An excerpt from yesterday's article in the Sacramento Bee.
“Sacramento County officials and developer Doug Ose are struggling to come to an agreement to turn over historic Gibson Ranch to the former congressman as a for-profit enterprise.
“While both sides say they're optimistic they will reach an agreement, the Tuesday due date to bring a proposal to supervisors has been moved to March 22.
“Ose said some county officials need to adopt new thinking about the 350-acre park near Elverta.
“The county's master plan for the park lays out a vision of an early-California working ranch. But critics say Ose has proposed additions, such as a skateboard park (now discarded) and a pet motel, that clash with the county plan.
"Preserving the character of the park, consistent with what was offered prior to (the park's closing) Aug. 1, doesn't work financially," Ose said.
“Sacramento County Regional Parks Director Janet Baker said Ose originally wanted to be able to make additions to the park without approval from supervisors and two other county boards. She said any proposals not included in the park's long-term plan would have to receive such approvals.
“Recently, Ose agreed that any new building at the ranch would have to receive additional approvals, Baker said.
“The need for such approvals was part of an agreement made when the county and Ose started negotiations, said Interim County Administrator Steve Szalay. He said he's not willing to change the requirement.”
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Parks Management Innovations
We have called for the American River Parkway to be managed by a nonprofit, and we support the Ose Proposal for privatizing Gibson Ranch.
This article from the California Chamber proposes these types of strategies and other innovative ideas for the struggling California State Parks.
An excerpt.
“February 7, 2011) The prospect of California State Park closures is again in the news as the State of California deals with its continuing budget crisis. There are, however, private alternatives that should be considered before closing the parks.
“Increased public funding of the parks just isn’t an option. The failure of Proposition 21 last November made that clear. By soundly defeating the proposition, voters declared their opposition to increasing taxes to maintain state parks as they are today. Countless surveys and actual park use demonstrate that while Californians love their state parks, they also want them managed within available resources.
“The State of California has exhausted the governmental solutions to the dilemma. And so, California State Parks have no alternatives other than to close parks or find non-governmental funding solutions to sustain them.
“In the past, privately funded solutions have been dismissed out of hand. Today, however, no solution that would keep our state park system viable should be discarded. So, let’s consider these alternatives:
“Private Sector Alternatives
“• Close Some State Parks. As a park professional, it is difficult for me to even mouth the obvious, but some parks don’t belong in the state park system. Most of these are among the smallest of our parks and lack any semblance of statewide historical, natural, cultural, recreational or economic significance. They often were added in response to political influence, when funding was more available or when state government was on an acquisition spree.
“California needs an independent task force (similar to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission) to assess which parks should be retained and which should be buttoned up and maintained until times are better.
“The task force might also recommend which parks are likely candidates for adoption by non-profits, local park districts or other sympathetic entities that are able to operate and maintain them. Potential savings from this assessment could be substantial.
“• Private Management. Many parks could be packaged on a regional basis for private-sector management, while others have sufficient real or potential revenues to be managed on their own. Private enterprise has shown it can accrue operating savings on an average of 30 percent better than government while managing park facilities comparably.
“Under this scenario, supervision and protection (public safety, natural resource protection, etc.) of the parks would remain under the direction of a California State Parks superintendent. Depending upon need and appropriateness, functions like maintenance, janitorial, fee collection, interpretation, and limited and contracted security could be assumed by private contractors. These functions represent the lion’s share of the overall costs to keep parks open.
“There is significant precedent for this type of arrangement across the country. The savings (both human and financial) could be substantial and could support and manage more effectively parks still directly operated by the California State Parks.”
This article from the California Chamber proposes these types of strategies and other innovative ideas for the struggling California State Parks.
An excerpt.
“February 7, 2011) The prospect of California State Park closures is again in the news as the State of California deals with its continuing budget crisis. There are, however, private alternatives that should be considered before closing the parks.
“Increased public funding of the parks just isn’t an option. The failure of Proposition 21 last November made that clear. By soundly defeating the proposition, voters declared their opposition to increasing taxes to maintain state parks as they are today. Countless surveys and actual park use demonstrate that while Californians love their state parks, they also want them managed within available resources.
“The State of California has exhausted the governmental solutions to the dilemma. And so, California State Parks have no alternatives other than to close parks or find non-governmental funding solutions to sustain them.
“In the past, privately funded solutions have been dismissed out of hand. Today, however, no solution that would keep our state park system viable should be discarded. So, let’s consider these alternatives:
“Private Sector Alternatives
“• Close Some State Parks. As a park professional, it is difficult for me to even mouth the obvious, but some parks don’t belong in the state park system. Most of these are among the smallest of our parks and lack any semblance of statewide historical, natural, cultural, recreational or economic significance. They often were added in response to political influence, when funding was more available or when state government was on an acquisition spree.
“California needs an independent task force (similar to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission) to assess which parks should be retained and which should be buttoned up and maintained until times are better.
“The task force might also recommend which parks are likely candidates for adoption by non-profits, local park districts or other sympathetic entities that are able to operate and maintain them. Potential savings from this assessment could be substantial.
“• Private Management. Many parks could be packaged on a regional basis for private-sector management, while others have sufficient real or potential revenues to be managed on their own. Private enterprise has shown it can accrue operating savings on an average of 30 percent better than government while managing park facilities comparably.
“Under this scenario, supervision and protection (public safety, natural resource protection, etc.) of the parks would remain under the direction of a California State Parks superintendent. Depending upon need and appropriateness, functions like maintenance, janitorial, fee collection, interpretation, and limited and contracted security could be assumed by private contractors. These functions represent the lion’s share of the overall costs to keep parks open.
“There is significant precedent for this type of arrangement across the country. The savings (both human and financial) could be substantial and could support and manage more effectively parks still directly operated by the California State Parks.”
Friday, January 28, 2011
Gibson Ranch Petition
It now has—as of 9:45 am today—732 signatures, going for 1,000, indicating very strong community support.
It is an issue we support wholeheartedly, as noted in several earlier posts, including here and here,
The petition site notes:
An excerpt.
“1. We the undersigned want Gibson Ranch open now.
“2. We want Gibson Ranch Park open as soon as possible because this historic ranch belongs to the taxpayers, community members, and the children. As soon as possible means before April 2nd, 2011.
“3. The "Ose proposal" was submitted on time, in accordance with all the requirements of the "request for proposal," and has fulfilled all of the requirements for the best community benefit.
“4. The "Ose proposal" Gibson Ranch LLC" saves Sacramento County $100,000 per year in the first 5 years, will assure that our park is open 7 days a week, and will immediately start bringing measurable benefits and assets back to community members. We believe that this will bring real social and financial benefits to Gibson Ranch as well as free up scarce funding which could be used in other parts of Sacramento County.”
It is an issue we support wholeheartedly, as noted in several earlier posts, including here and here,
The petition site notes:
An excerpt.
“1. We the undersigned want Gibson Ranch open now.
“2. We want Gibson Ranch Park open as soon as possible because this historic ranch belongs to the taxpayers, community members, and the children. As soon as possible means before April 2nd, 2011.
“3. The "Ose proposal" was submitted on time, in accordance with all the requirements of the "request for proposal," and has fulfilled all of the requirements for the best community benefit.
“4. The "Ose proposal" Gibson Ranch LLC" saves Sacramento County $100,000 per year in the first 5 years, will assure that our park is open 7 days a week, and will immediately start bringing measurable benefits and assets back to community members. We believe that this will bring real social and financial benefits to Gibson Ranch as well as free up scarce funding which could be used in other parts of Sacramento County.”
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Privatizing Government Services
Also being considered by Sacramento County in relation to Gibson Ranch (which we support) it can lead to substantial cost savings, as well as unique problems—with solutions to match—as reported by Governing in this examination of ten years of experience by a city who contracted out their trash collection.
An excerpt.
“As the city of West Des Moines, Iowa, was preparing to make a substantial investment in automated trash trucks in 2000, Mayor Steve Gaer asked, "Is there a better way?" At his insurance firm, they had saved money by outsourcing backroom operations. "Why shouldn't we see if there are similar opportunities for West Des Moines?"
“But rather than just outsource, Gaer wanted to give the city's Public Works Department, which was the incumbent trash collector, the opportunity to bid as well. After all, what matters is delivering value for the taxpayers, not tired assumptions about the private or public sectors.
“To ensure a fair process, the city hired a consultant to write the RFP. Gaer also warned the Public Works Department that this would potentially be a 10-year deal, and if they were awarded the contract, they would have to abide with the terms they offered, including the financial terms.
“When the bids were opened, the Public Works Department was surprised that their bid was $1.4 million over the winning bid by Artistic Solid Waste (now Waste Management) for the 10-year contract option. But given the level of savings -- almost 14 percent -- it was hard for the in-house bidders to argue with the results.
“There was, however, some internal grumbling about whether the new provider would deliver the same level of service. Gaer was also concerned, so "we built performance standards into the new contract, and have been ready to enforce them." Mainly, monetary adjustments could be made for performance-related issues that include missing household collections, failing to provide performance reports on a timely basis or failing to provide the city with a list of complaints.
“West Des Moines recently arrived at the end of their 10-year agreement with Waste Management. The service has worked well, costs were lower and Public Works was able to focus on other responsibilities. The only challenge has been managing an external operation. For example, the city found it difficult to respond to special requests such as late set-outs or special collections after extraordinary events.
“In 2010, West Des Moines applied what it learned when it issued a new RFP and negotiated a new contract. A solid waste consultant who specializes in these contracts helped the city get what it wants, including responsiveness to unique customer circumstances and individual service requests. The new contract also addresses more "what ifs," like fuel cost adjustments and specific consequences for performance failures. It also includes customer service standards like callers getting to a live person within one minute. This level of specificity also helped ensure apples-to-apples bid comparisons. Waste Connections won the new contract, which began on January 1.”
An excerpt.
“As the city of West Des Moines, Iowa, was preparing to make a substantial investment in automated trash trucks in 2000, Mayor Steve Gaer asked, "Is there a better way?" At his insurance firm, they had saved money by outsourcing backroom operations. "Why shouldn't we see if there are similar opportunities for West Des Moines?"
“But rather than just outsource, Gaer wanted to give the city's Public Works Department, which was the incumbent trash collector, the opportunity to bid as well. After all, what matters is delivering value for the taxpayers, not tired assumptions about the private or public sectors.
“To ensure a fair process, the city hired a consultant to write the RFP. Gaer also warned the Public Works Department that this would potentially be a 10-year deal, and if they were awarded the contract, they would have to abide with the terms they offered, including the financial terms.
“When the bids were opened, the Public Works Department was surprised that their bid was $1.4 million over the winning bid by Artistic Solid Waste (now Waste Management) for the 10-year contract option. But given the level of savings -- almost 14 percent -- it was hard for the in-house bidders to argue with the results.
“There was, however, some internal grumbling about whether the new provider would deliver the same level of service. Gaer was also concerned, so "we built performance standards into the new contract, and have been ready to enforce them." Mainly, monetary adjustments could be made for performance-related issues that include missing household collections, failing to provide performance reports on a timely basis or failing to provide the city with a list of complaints.
“West Des Moines recently arrived at the end of their 10-year agreement with Waste Management. The service has worked well, costs were lower and Public Works was able to focus on other responsibilities. The only challenge has been managing an external operation. For example, the city found it difficult to respond to special requests such as late set-outs or special collections after extraordinary events.
“In 2010, West Des Moines applied what it learned when it issued a new RFP and negotiated a new contract. A solid waste consultant who specializes in these contracts helped the city get what it wants, including responsiveness to unique customer circumstances and individual service requests. The new contract also addresses more "what ifs," like fuel cost adjustments and specific consequences for performance failures. It also includes customer service standards like callers getting to a live person within one minute. This level of specificity also helped ensure apples-to-apples bid comparisons. Waste Connections won the new contract, which began on January 1.”
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Versailles & Gibson Ranch, Addendum
As noted in an earlier post, ARPPS supports the Ose proposal to manage Gibson Ranch as it represents the type of innovative management—by a forprofit—congruent with social enterprise strategies utilized by innovative nonprofits.
Social enterprise—see Wikipedia—is exactly the type of thinking able to bring market-level funding to bear on essentially social goals; which the Ose proposal, at its core, is: revitalizing a valuable community resource which will remain part of the public commons, but benefit from private market strategies.
An extended version of our post has been posted to the Sacramento Press and the original, shorter version is on our website.
Gibson Ranch has set up a website to allow those who support the proposal to sign a petition of support and we urge all those who support this innovative proposal for a major part of our regional parks system to do so.
Remember, if it’s good enough for Versailles, it’s good enough for Gibson Ranch!
Social enterprise—see Wikipedia—is exactly the type of thinking able to bring market-level funding to bear on essentially social goals; which the Ose proposal, at its core, is: revitalizing a valuable community resource which will remain part of the public commons, but benefit from private market strategies.
An extended version of our post has been posted to the Sacramento Press and the original, shorter version is on our website.
Gibson Ranch has set up a website to allow those who support the proposal to sign a petition of support and we urge all those who support this innovative proposal for a major part of our regional parks system to do so.
Remember, if it’s good enough for Versailles, it’s good enough for Gibson Ranch!
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
ARPPS Supports Ose Proposal for Gibson Ranch
The ARPPS Board of Directors voted to approve the Ose proposal for Gibson Ranch at our meeting of 1/3/11.
In The Sunday, December 26, 2010 issue of the New York Times, we are informed that:
“Versailles, one of the most visited monuments in the world, will soon be able to offer tourists a place to rest for the night…
“The Hotel du Grand Controle, an annex building on the edge of the Versailles estate, will be transformed into a 23-room hotel, administrators of the publicly owned palace announced recently.
“The restoration and modernization of the 17th-century building will be overseen by a Belgian company called Ivy International, which has taken out a 30-year lease on the property. The project is a rare transfer of control of a French public heritage site to the private sector.
“It’s a pioneer initiative,” Jean Jacques Aillagon, the chairman of the Versailles palace, said in a news conference in Paris. “The building was given to us in a dilapidated state; my concern was to save it.” (page TR. 2, highlighting added)
Saving shuttered Gibson Ranch from further dilapidation and whether the County should approve management by a forprofit entity led by former Congressman Doug Ose is the issue.
It is an issue which has been of interest to our organization as it addresses much of what we have also found lacking in local government management of the American River Parkway.
Our organization has long called for the use of innovative funding and management practices for the Parkway that are being used successfully with other parks and the concepts embedded in the Ose proposal are congruent with those practices.
When the board of supervisors agreed to study the privatization proposal in November of 2010, the opposition—County Parks and aligned nonprofits—appeared to build their case primarily from the damage it might do to their in-house regional park proposal, which would increase taxes, while the Ose proposal would save taxpayers money.
The proposal to open the Ranch to the public under a lease management agreement comes from a family with a long-established record of public service and philanthropy, is supported by many locally, and is aligned with standard lease management agreements involving some form of privatization.
Given that, the opposition—especially that voiced in the editorial pages of the Sacramento Bee —seemed overwrought.
We were very pleased when the county agreed to move forward in their consideration of the plan to turn over management of the park to a forprofit entity.
With final approval, which we wholeheartedly support, it will be refreshing to see innovation and creativity become part of the mix of local parks management which, if it is as successful as we anticipate, may also impact future decisions regarding the American River Parkway.
If it’s good enough for Versailles, it’s good enough for Gibson Ranch!
In The Sunday, December 26, 2010 issue of the New York Times, we are informed that:
“Versailles, one of the most visited monuments in the world, will soon be able to offer tourists a place to rest for the night…
“The Hotel du Grand Controle, an annex building on the edge of the Versailles estate, will be transformed into a 23-room hotel, administrators of the publicly owned palace announced recently.
“The restoration and modernization of the 17th-century building will be overseen by a Belgian company called Ivy International, which has taken out a 30-year lease on the property. The project is a rare transfer of control of a French public heritage site to the private sector.
“It’s a pioneer initiative,” Jean Jacques Aillagon, the chairman of the Versailles palace, said in a news conference in Paris. “The building was given to us in a dilapidated state; my concern was to save it.” (page TR. 2, highlighting added)
Saving shuttered Gibson Ranch from further dilapidation and whether the County should approve management by a forprofit entity led by former Congressman Doug Ose is the issue.
It is an issue which has been of interest to our organization as it addresses much of what we have also found lacking in local government management of the American River Parkway.
Our organization has long called for the use of innovative funding and management practices for the Parkway that are being used successfully with other parks and the concepts embedded in the Ose proposal are congruent with those practices.
When the board of supervisors agreed to study the privatization proposal in November of 2010, the opposition—County Parks and aligned nonprofits—appeared to build their case primarily from the damage it might do to their in-house regional park proposal, which would increase taxes, while the Ose proposal would save taxpayers money.
The proposal to open the Ranch to the public under a lease management agreement comes from a family with a long-established record of public service and philanthropy, is supported by many locally, and is aligned with standard lease management agreements involving some form of privatization.
Given that, the opposition—especially that voiced in the editorial pages of the Sacramento Bee —seemed overwrought.
We were very pleased when the county agreed to move forward in their consideration of the plan to turn over management of the park to a forprofit entity.
With final approval, which we wholeheartedly support, it will be refreshing to see innovation and creativity become part of the mix of local parks management which, if it is as successful as we anticipate, may also impact future decisions regarding the American River Parkway.
If it’s good enough for Versailles, it’s good enough for Gibson Ranch!
Friday, December 17, 2010
Gibson Ranch
The editorial in the Sacramento Bee lamenting the decision by the County Board of Supervisors to turn over management of the shuttered Gibson Ranch to a group headed by a long time public servant and prominent philanthropist, whose history in the area is substantial, seems oddly inappropriate considering the park will now reopen with a very good chance it will be well-cared for and even enhanced.
An excerpt.
“It is hardly surprising that Sacramento County supervisors have agreed to pursue an ill-advised deal with developer Doug Ose over the future of Gibson Ranch. Supervisors have been making reckless financial decisions for years. On Tuesday, they added to their legacy.
“The deal negotiated between Ose and interim County Executive Steve Szalay would allow Ose to take over Gibson Ranch, a 345-acre public park, and operate it for 10 years as a profit-making entity. Ose would pay $1 a year to take over this historic ranch. The county, in turn, would commit $500,000 over five years to upgrade facilities in this privatized park that Ose would control.
“Szalay and Ose touted the deal as the best way to get Gibson Ranch reopened in a short period of time. They both claim it would save the county money in the long run, because the cost of mothballing Gibson Ranch is about $212,000 yearly.
“While those arguments have some merit, Szalay and supervisors who voted for the deal – Roberta MacGlashan, Susan Peters, Don Nottoli and Jimmie Yee – utterly ignored the potential risks to the county. In particular, the deal, as now written, allows Ose to invest whatever amount of money he wants in profit-making businesses – ranging from a pet motel to an RV park. If the county wanted to end the agreement before 10 years, it would have to repay Ose for his investment costs and percentage of lost revenue. That could add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and possibly more.”
An excerpt.
“It is hardly surprising that Sacramento County supervisors have agreed to pursue an ill-advised deal with developer Doug Ose over the future of Gibson Ranch. Supervisors have been making reckless financial decisions for years. On Tuesday, they added to their legacy.
“The deal negotiated between Ose and interim County Executive Steve Szalay would allow Ose to take over Gibson Ranch, a 345-acre public park, and operate it for 10 years as a profit-making entity. Ose would pay $1 a year to take over this historic ranch. The county, in turn, would commit $500,000 over five years to upgrade facilities in this privatized park that Ose would control.
“Szalay and Ose touted the deal as the best way to get Gibson Ranch reopened in a short period of time. They both claim it would save the county money in the long run, because the cost of mothballing Gibson Ranch is about $212,000 yearly.
“While those arguments have some merit, Szalay and supervisors who voted for the deal – Roberta MacGlashan, Susan Peters, Don Nottoli and Jimmie Yee – utterly ignored the potential risks to the county. In particular, the deal, as now written, allows Ose to invest whatever amount of money he wants in profit-making businesses – ranging from a pet motel to an RV park. If the county wanted to end the agreement before 10 years, it would have to repay Ose for his investment costs and percentage of lost revenue. That could add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and possibly more.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)