To many members of the Jefferson City Council, a potential increase in administration fees to the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Department is a simple issue of accountability and fairness.
As Jefferson City officials prepare for the 2016 budget, two areas of potential change are the administrative chargeback and rent for the parks department.
Because the department is funded by a dedicated sales tax, it is treated like an enterprise fund, receiving very little funding from the city's general fund with the small amount of general fund money allocated to parks being for a specific function or task, such as tree trimming in a city right of way. Enterprise funds, such as parking or wastewater, as well as parks, are self-sustaining funds and are charged annually for their use of general fund departments like human resources or finance in what's called an administrative chargeback.
But the way the parks department is charged is different from all other enterprise funds, which use a city-established formula to calculate the amount owed. For parks, the amount owed is equal to 5 percent of the department's previous years sales tax revenue.
In the 2015 budget, the parks department is expected to pay roughly $233,000 for its administrative chargeback, but under the formula used for all other enterprise funds, the department would have to pay roughly $452,000.
The parks department director, Bill Lockwood, has said such an increase could hurt the department's long-range plans and the Parks and Recreation Commission has never really agreed with the way the administrative costs are calculated.
Denise Chapel, commission president, said the current method was the result of an agreement from the commission and council of the time, and the commission has to be responsible with the parks funds. To that end, she said she wouldn't pay $450,000 to a contractor for the services the general fund provides, so why should the commission pay that amount now?
"We're not a cash cow," Chapel said. "Something's going to have to give."
Chapel said the commission also has an issue with the timing of the potential increases. The department is currently moving forward with a partnership with Lincoln University to build a $12 million multipurpose building on Lafayette Street. For that project, the council has agreed to extend a $1.5 million line of credit to the department for constructions costs, if needed.
"The commission is working hard to bring things to fruition for the city as a whole," Chapel said. "We just don't have the resources right now to assume that scope of a project on our own without assistance from the city."
Brad Bates, commission vice president, agreed the timing of the potential increases is unfortunate as the department seeks to bring a large, new facility to serve the public.
"We're answering the community's need to provide more courts and more activity space, and yet others are saying "Hey, they might have some extra money, maybe we could utilize that,'" Bates said. "It doesn't seem to fit hand-in-hand, in my opinion."
But for many City Council members, charging the department as they charge all other enterprise funds comes down to fairness and true accountability.
Third Ward Councilman Bob Scrivner said the current method used for parks equates to a "hidden subsidy," and the council, as well as the public, should have a full, accurate picture of what it costs to run each department.
Scrivner said if parks is not paying for the full cost of services or space provided by the city, then the general fund is, in essence, subsidizing the department, but that subsidy is not clear to the public.
"It's kind of a philosophical question for me," Scrivner said. "The bottom line is it's about openness to the public and a true accounting of cost."
Scrivner said another issue is ensuring the costs to all departments are consistent, and if parks is being treated differently, then the system in place may not be fair for all city departments.
"It should be consistent and fair," Scrivner said.
Third Ward Councilman Ken Hussey said it's become apparent parks pays a substantially less amount than other departments would have to, and he wants to ensure more equality in charges.
"It seems only fair to me to make sure that everybody is paying their fair share and that we're not necessarily subsidizing one department over another through chargebacks," Hussey said.
Hussey said without understanding the full, accurate costs of operating the parks department, it can be difficult to make long-term financial plans.
"It's not because the city is desperate to find other revenue sources," Hussey said. "I think of it more in the sense of ... to have a better understanding of what it actually costs to provide the services in our community and to be fair across departments."
Fourth Ward Councilman Carlos Graham said his goal is to make sure all charges are being applied in a fair manner and the council has a full picture of all costs involved in each department. Graham noted the council went through the transit budget last year to ensure all costs were accurately represented and looking at the parks department this year is no different.
Fifth Ward Councilman Larry Henry agreed, saying parks should not be treated any differently from other departments and the council needs to have as accurate an account of all costs as possible.
"The city has to look at every department across the board," Henry said. "Parks and Rec, to me, they shouldn't be any different."
Second Ward Councilman Rick Mihalevich said he doesn't see changing much at this point, as he needs to first understand the full scope of services parks offers with the level of funding they have. If the current charge does need to be changed, Mihalevich said it may need to be increased even beyond what's been previously discussed.
"We chargeback certain departments all with the same formula, it's the method we choose to use, but it may not be the best method," Mihalevich said. "Maybe we're not capturing the full cost."
Fifth Ward Councilman Mark Schreiber said he doesn't want to put any undue hardship on any city department, but it is important to treat all departments fairly and consistently.
First Ward Councilman Rick Prather said it's up the the city administrator to decide the appropriate level of administrative fees to charge parks, which would then be brought to the council for review. But, he added, the department should pay its share of the costs for use of general fund departments.
"They should pay their appropriate share of the administration fees," Prather said. "It's not just a fee that they're grabbing out of the air."
Fourth Ward Councilman Glen Costales said the issue is parks should be paying its fair share of the city's costs, though he noted any substantial increase could be phased in to allow parks to adjust to the new rate.
But Costales would prefer to go further than many other council members, adding he would like to see the parks sales tax repealed and put the council in full control of parks funding.
"My personal feeling is they need to be part of the city, just like every other department," Costales said of parks.
Costales said having parks funding controlled by the council would put decisions on city priorities back into the hands of elected officials.
First Ward Councilman Jim Branch said until he knows the specific numbers involved in the potential increases, he is unsure of what will happen.
"They are treated a little different, but that's because they do have their own money," Branch said. "We're going to end up having to talk about all of that during budget."
Mayor Carrie Tergin said she's ready to have the discussion with the council on what level is appropriate for the department to pay for administrative fees, as well as rent on the city annex. She said her goal is to ensure the council and public are receiving the best, most accurate information in a proposed 2016 budget.
"My interest is in being open with the information," Tergin said.
Nearly all council members said they have a great existing relationship with the commission and there are no concerns about the level of independence the commission has. Most said there is a good level of communication and transparency between the two groups, with many noting it appears the public also favors the current system.
Hussey did note that while the commission and council have worked well together, there have been few opportunities to communicate in his experience. He said he would be interested in looking at ways to ensure there is more accountability for the department and commission, as voters do not really have the option of making their voice known on the direction of parks through the ballot box, as the commission is appointed by the mayor with approval from the council.
"It can be a challenge at times, I think, for the council then to feel like we have direct oversight or the ability to influence the actions of the parks department in the same way that we do other city departments," Hussey said. "I think what gets lost sometimes is that the parks department is part of the city and that these are city tax dollars that are flowing there."
Second Ward Councilwoman Laura Ward did not return a call for comment.