Park Board take over of the Springfield Skatepark

It was planned to be a done deal

When I wrote "The Stage is Set for Springfield-Greene County Parks to Take Over the Skatepark" back in May, I didn't know how right I was. I don't know the exact date the Park Board, or Parks Director Jodie Adams decided not to renew the agreement with the Springfield Skatepark Association but what I do know is the Springfield City Charter, in Section 5.6 states:

"The fiscal year of the City of Springfield unless otherwise provided by ordinance, shall begin on the first day of July and shall end on the last day of June of each calendar year...."

So, when I was doing some unrelated research tonight, I was a bit surprised to learn that in 2007, no later than June 30, 2007, the Park Board requested budgeting and budgeting was included for the running of the skatepark:

Public Parks Sales Tax Fund--2001 Parks Sales Tax Priority Number 1:

"NEW PARK OPERATIONS-SPRINGFIELD SKATEPARK-- Springfield Skatepark Association, Inc., is the organization currently operating the Springfield Skatepark. They are expected to cease operations and management of this facility in October 2007. As a result, the Springfield-Greene County Park Board anticipates operating the facility at that time. To operate this facility, three full time positions are necessary to cover this seven day per week operation and includes the following: (FTE) Community Recreational Coordinator, and two full-time contractual supervisors. To operate this facility, requests for all necessary, operational budget items are included within the budget necessary to begin operating the facility effective October 1, 2007. Total budget for operating this new facility is funded from operating revenues and the 2001 Parks Sales Tax revenues.

Estimated Costs: $339,405. This priority is funded in the 2007-08 budget." - [PDF] CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MO 2007 - 2008 ADOPTED BUDGET

June 4, 2008, as the city and City Council were budget crunching for fiscal year 2008-09, I wrote, "Springfield Skatepark Association/Springfield-Greene County Parks Mitigation: Example of Open and Transparent Government." In that entry, I quoted from Jason Wert's blog, "Life of Jason,*" an update in which he quoted, in part, Public Information Director Louise Whall as making this statement:

"We have another round of mediation scheduled for January 8 (2008) and we are hopeful this matter can still settle. We want to work with these guys if at all possible. But we don’t feel its appropriate to air any details on the matter until we make this further attempt at mediation. After the January 8 meeting we should be in a position to discuss it more fully.”

We all know now that the city ended up filing suit to try to take ownership of the skatepark.

This story just gets more and more wicked.

We're supposed to believe the city and Park Board were seriously trying to negotiate and work with "these guys" in January, 2008, when they'd already budgeted to take over management of the skatepark 4 months before the agreement was even due for renewal and had stated outright the Skatepark Association was, "expected to cease operations and management of this facility in October 2007" in the budget document for fiscal year 2007-08?

I wonder what happened to that estimated $339,405 that was budgeted for running the Springfield Skatepark last year? Hmmm.

Update: The bus rode around the block on this one:"TWO PLUS TWO MAKES FIVE!"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*The author (Jason Wert) gives permission for electronic, print or broadcast media to use information from any posting ONLY if a link to this blog site is provided and printed identification of the location of the information provided or the full web address of the site, www.lifeofjason.com, is mentioned as the source of the information."

Springfield Skatepark Association/Springfield-Greene County Parks Mitigation: Example of Open and Transparent Government

(sic)

First, read this, from the News-Leader, where an astute commentator noted:

"Near as I can tell, there is no News-Leader "position" in this editorial. I think it might be a story. Or a re-hashing of a story."

Heh, see: JackeHammer: The Stage is Set for Springfield-Greene County Parks to Take Over the Skatepark.

Now, from: Life Of Jason, Pythian Castle & Skatepark Update, posted December 29, 2007, apparently, this statement, made by Springfield's Public Information Office around that time, according to Jason, must have been written before it was decided that all parties would be bound by confidentiality agreements prohibiting them from discussing the negotiating mitigation, Jason wrote:

"The response from the public information office was “You are correct, there is another side to this story. However, while the Springfield Skatepark Association has attempted to try this case in the media, we felt it was not appropriate to air all issues surrounding this matter in an attempt to keep lines of communication open between the parties. We have another round of mediation scheduled for January 8* and we are hopeful this matter can still settle. We want to work with these guys if at all possible. But we don’t feel its appropriate to air any details on the matter until we make this further attempt at mediation. After the January 8 meeting we should be in a position to discuss it more fully.”"*

Sure, thanks for all the detailed information on the negotiating mitigation. The public owes you one.

*emphasis mine, and note: The source of the above quote was http://www.lifeofjason.com/, Jason has given permission to:

"...use information from any posting ONLY if a link to this blog site is provided and printed identification of the location of the information provided or the full web address of the site, www.lifeofjason.com, is mentioned as the source of the information."

The Stage is Set for Springfield-Greene County Parks to Take Over the Skatepark

First, the park board* decided not ro renew an operating agreement with the Springfield Skatepark Association. That contract ran out October 31, 2007, according to a City of Springfield news release, leaving one to conclude that the operating agreement the park board "elected not to sign," was an agreement all parties had been satisfied with for at least one year.

Now, again, according to the City's news release, the public is informed that "the Springfield Skatepark Association has elected not to sign a new operating agreement for the Skatepark facility."

The Park Board proposed changes to the original agreement in 2006, when the Park Board and the Skatepark Association began meeting "to try to work out a new agreement in anticipation of the contract expiring on Oct. 31, 2007."

In the meantime, the City's news release reminds us that, "In late 2007, the Springfield R-12 Board of Education offered to donate the property on which the majority of the Skatepark facility is located at 945 W. Meadowmere St. to the City."

It was recommended the City Council approve acceptance of the donated property. When City Council approved it, the donation, the news release reports, "eliminated the need for a lease agreement between the Park Board and the R-12 Board, which streamlined the ownership process."

"After receiving the donation offer, a third mediation session was scheduled in January 2008 based on these new circumstances and as an opportunity to possibly resolve this matter with the Skatepark Association."

It seems, to me, those "new circumstances" could have had the effect of taking all leverage away from the Springfield Skatepark Association and putting all the leveraging weight at the end of the Park Board's citizen-approved-1/4-cent-sales-tax-sponsored-teeter-totter. Not such a good position from which the Springfield Skatepark Association was forced to negotiate.

But, the Park Board and the City Council attended the third mediation session in January 2008, "to demonstrate their commitment to resolving the matter, to attempt to keep the Association involved in operating the facility, and to avoid unnecessary litigation."

As long as the Park Board and the City Council attended the mediation session, "to demonstrate their commitment to resolving the matter, to attempt to keep the Association involved in operating the facility, and to avoid unnecessary litigation," what can any disgruntled, dissatisfied, Skate Park Association Board member or supporter say?

The Park Board attempted, they really attempted, to negotiate a new and improved agreement with the Springfield Skatepark Association and that Springfield Skatepark Association, "has elected not to sign a new operating agreement for the Skatepark facility," you know, that agreement based on those new circumstances?

According to this News-Leader story, Springfield Skatepark Association President Annette Weatherman said, "In those mediations, they never conceded one thing to us," she said. "They didn't want to work with us. They just simply wanted to take the skate park."

The city's news release touted all the money taxpayers have spent on the Skatepark as the Parks Department used "voter-approved Parks and Recreation Sales Tax," but didn't bother to outline the expenditures of the Skatepark Association, only noting the Springfield Skatepark Association, "showed a loss of $9,371 for 2002; and a loss of $8,176 for 2003," and then, the news release further noted, "the Springfield Skatepark Association could not or has not provided IRS forms for 2004-2007."

I'd have to verify it, but I believe, unless a business shows a profit, they aren't required to file IRS forms, so just file that away in your take it with a grain of salt file, meaning, since I haven't verified it, you should verify it, yourself, before accepting it as fact.

Now, "The Park Board and City regret that no resolution has been reached with the Skatepark Association and that the Board has been left with no choice except to take legal action to regain possession of the facility in order to address park policy, safety and liability concerns."

Again, from the News-Leader story, Public Information Director Louise Whall was reported to have said, "the city and the park board worked hard to reach an agreement with the Skatepark Association," adding, "The most important thing we want to stress is that we don't want to close the skate park," she said. "We want to make it a great experience for the people who are currently using it and bring more people into the facility."

The most important thing to stress to whom, Louise?

There are, certainly, some things that trouble me about the way this news was reported, by the city's public information office, to have failed due to the Springfield Skatepark Association's election not to sign a new operating agreement. The city might even have good reason to take over Skatepark operations, but since all parties "signed confidentiality agreements regarding the actual mediation," the public isn't likely to receive answers to questions regarding this matter.

Springfield Skatepark Association members, employees and/or volunteers of the Springfield Skatepark have no reason for dismay, however, there is a silver lining. Anyone working there now can always apply for a job working at and for the Park Department's new operation. All applicants will be "considered."

You know, it isn't my intention to question everything the city/city-county park's department does as suspect, (well, yeah it is, but only because they seem to set it up that way, leaving more questions than answers in many cases, and that isn't my fault). I just really think it's important to consider both sides of the story. In this case, we really can't. If the Springfield Skatepark Association shares their side of the story, they'll be breaking a confidentiality agreement they signed. We don't even know the circumstances of that signing, was it a condition of the negotiations? It's doubtful the Skatepark Association could even tell us that, because, if it was a condition of the negotiations, then the circumstances under which it was signed by the parties also falls under the confidentiality agreement. All I can say is, if the city of Springfield wants to be perceived by the public as being open and transparent, this isn't the way to accomplish that goal.

If you'd like to read the city's news release in its entirety, Community Free Press has made it available on their website, where you can read all the City's news releases, any time, by clicking on their City of Springfield link.

Jim Lee of busplunge also has it posted at his blog, "Park Board / Skatepark Association At Impasse: Sk8rs Run Risk Of Losing Say In Operation," where he weighs in with his opinion.

Also, be sure to read the News-Leader story, as linked above. The Springfield Skatepark Association doesn't appear to be taking this news lying down. There's more on that at in the News-Leader story.

*All emphasis mine