Parks and Recreation Subcommittee's Final Report with Mayor Uchitelle's comments
Posted on March 12, 2007
Parks and Recreation Final Report (will be presented on 3/28/07 at JSC General meeting)
(42 pages)
Comments from Mayor Ben Uchitelle:
March 6, 2007
To: the Members of the JSC Committee
Re: Parks and Recreation Subcommittee Report.
Friends:
I now have had an opportunity to read carefully the excellent report by the Parks and Recreation Subcommittee. They did a fine job studying all aspects and I commend them for their efforts.
In their conclusions (see pages 7-8) they state that under the more likely “conservative projections” the gain from combining the departments would be $370,021 in the first three years and $1,453,670 over ten years. Under the “best case scenario”, combining the programs could result in a gain of $1,382,505 in the first three years of combined operations and more than $5,000,000 over the first ten years! That is a lot of money.
Apparently the “more conservative projections” were based upon the possibility of either Maplewood or Brentwood leaving the existing partnerships with Richmond Heights in the event of combining or merging. What is this based on? Why would either City want to leave an arrangement which is obviously beneficial to all three cities? Couldn’t contractual arrangements be sought out to ensure that combining all of these services would continue on a beneficial basis for all concerned? There is a huge amount of funds to be realized in this area and I would urge that we thoroughly consider these matters.
Again, this was a truly excellent effort of the Parks and Recreation Subcommittee.
Thanks, Ben
posted by Merger Study Web Site Administrator
2 COMMENTS
2 Comments:
(The following comments were authorized for publishing by the author, Andy Rochman)
Report Excerpts
"The discontinuance of Richmond Heights’ partnership arrangements [regarding park usage] with Maplewood and Brentwood would produce a substantial adverse financial impact for the new combined entity due to loss of revenues from Maplewood and Brentwood residents. The net negative impact in the first year following the combination of the Richmond Heights and Clayton departments would be $690,000 under this scenario."
"Our Subcommittee determined that the citizenry of the two cities would not enjoy significant improvements in facilities and services if the two departments are combined, whether resulting from a merger of the cities or otherwise."
" . . . the potential financial advantage from a merger is not, in the view of the subcommittee, sufficient to justify risking the present Parks and Recreation offerings of the two cities."
"Conclusion and Recommendation The Parks and Recreation Subcommittee does not see any significant advantages or benefits to a merger of the cities or combining of their Parks and Recreation Departments. Without compelling evidence of increased services and program levels, the Subcommittee felt that the risks associated with loss of partnerships outweighed the advantages to merging. With that said, the Subcommittee strongly encourages ongoing exploration of collaborative efforts with each other and possibly other cities as well that will expand services and recreational opportunities for the residents of Richmond Heights and Clayton."
Commentary
Mayor Uchitelle speaks as if it is a certainty that "there is a huge amount of funds to be realized," though such quantifications have not been professionally validated. Mayor Uchitelle also speaks as if continuing to partner with Brentwood and Maplewood is easily achievable, and yet the report does not state that the Subcommittee even discussed partnership continuation with either Brentwood or Maplewood. Finally, his comments do not address the Subcommittee's carefully assembled findings and conclusions against consolidation.
The P&R Subcommittee report represents a titanic thoughtful effort, solid analysis, and presents the "pros" and "cons" of consolidating the Parks & Recreation departments in a fair and balanced manner. The report cogently justifies the feasibility of their conclusion to encourage "ongoing exploration" of collaborative partnership. The report speaks for itself.
To spin the report in behalf of consolidation flouts a process that continually is heralded as unbiased. To cheerlead "to further consider these matters" before the JSC has even discussed the report presumes that without coaxing, the JSC would fail to act on the report's recommendation of further exploration, or that there may be members of the JSC who will not read the report. A truly unflawed process would have allowed the JSC to review the report and draw its own conclusions without first trying to influence them. Then, as an ex-officio member of the JSC, it certainly would have been in order for Mayor Uchitelle to voice his personal opinion.
- Andy Rochman
Clayton, MO resident
(The following comments were authorized for publishing by the author, David R. Bales)
I've read pages 7-8 of the Parks and Recreation report, as posted, and Mayor Uchitelle's posting regarding these pages on the website.
The final paragraph entitled "Conclusions and Recommendations" DOES NOT at all agree with his analysis of the P & R report.
I would encourage you and others to compare one with the other.
If the Mayor means his comments are "his interpretation" of the report, rather that the Committee's analysis----so be it.
- David R. Bales
Clayton, MO resident
Post a Comment
<< Home