📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado

Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.

Sacramento County Grand Jury • 2019-2020

ELK Grove Parks:

Published: August 06, 2020 22 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 10 findings

F1
The current multiple funding mechanisms are neither effective nor sustainable for managing Elk Grove’s parks.
F2
Public confusion and misunderstanding are evidenced by the need for extensive and repeated community outreach meetings and the mixed success in securing timely voter approval for needed revenue increases. Contributing to this confusion are: the division in roles for Elk Grove’s parks between the City of Elk Grove and Cosumnes Community Services District (CCSD); priorities among neighborhood and district-wide facilities; and the challenge of managing and understanding the park system as an integrated program.
F3
The 19 different Landscape and Lighting (L&L) district assessment rates, varying by as much as a factor of four, cause significant inequities for Elk Grove residents in terms of payments they make and benefits they derive from Elk Grove parks. 27
F4
The practice of contributing revenue from individual benefit zones to district-wide facilities as a priority ahead of funding parks within each benefit zone compounds the revenue shortages experienced by certain benefit zones.
F5
The requirement in Proposition 218 to secure a public vote in order to increase funding in excess of a Consumer Price Index (CPI) index is an unwieldy restraint that impedes adequate funding to maintain, repair and restore Elk Grove parks.
F6
The existing L&L assessment rates are insufficient to sustain maintenance, repair, and restoration for parks indefinitely. Specifically, in the short term, revenue from L&L assessment rates in BZ3 and BZ4 is insufficient to maintain, repair, and restore all parks in those benefit zones.
F7
The emphasis on individual benefit zones and overlay districts creates a complex and costly administrative burden requiring fragmented budgeting and management, and voter approvals to generate adequate revenue.
F8
The baseline budget for park maintenance, repair and restoration does not take into account, nor is it adequate to fund future park modifications or maintenance associated with new parks and programs.
F9
CCSD’s practice of attempting to increase voter understanding and acceptance of financial responsibility for the parks program through various outreach efforts has had uneven results in terms of gaining greater voter participation and potentially influencing additional funding for this program.
F10
The City of Elk Grove and CCSD have not collaborated effectively to reform and restructure the system.

Recommendations 7