Uh, I've consistently advocated for a parks and rec. master plan and way better planning in this arena for years.

These days I'd argue that parks, land use, and transpo planning should be unified in one agency.

That a planning commission should be created, with direct oversight over these functions, and review planning activities of all the other agencies + responsibility for capital improvement planning and budgeting, and school closing and opening decisions.

by Richard Layman on Oct 14, 2011 11:55 am  

Mayor Gray and the (many in the) Council would love nothing better than the Grass Cutting Debate to go away entirely. As it is, they claim it's an artificial kerfuffle generated by out of town white people and/or the Washington Post Editorial Board.

by Kolohe on Oct 14, 2011 11:59 am  

Why does it have to be either/or? They are seriously overpaying for grass cutting, which hurts their ability to do other things AND they are underfunded.

by Kate W on Oct 14, 2011 12:32 pm  

How can anyone say that ANY department in DC in underfunded? The budget for DPR grows every year. Last year along the District budget grew 60%!

The problem is that the agencies are overfunded with crappy staff and facilities that were built with no plan for upkeep.

by DPRBoy on Oct 14, 2011 1:16 pm  

While DPRBoy's numbers are off, I agree with his sentiment.

DPR's operating budget saw double digit yearly growth from 2003 to 2009.

Of course we haven't even mentioned DPR's capital budget or the dozens of new and renovated DPR facilities and the nearly 300 million spent on them during Fenty's 4 years in office.

It is hard to convince anyone that because they've had a two lean years after 6 years of the flushist, no limits budgets of the agencys history, that they are suffering.

Frankly, it is about time that people have to start paying to use city pools, the maintenance and operation of which consume an enormous percentage of their funds.

I've lived in a lot of places where the municipal pools charged something. Doesn't have to be a lot. $10 bucks for the summer or something, but all all DC agencies have had to acknowledge, the time of yearly surpluses in spite of continued horrid fiscal mismanagement are over.

by freely on Oct 14, 2011 1:33 pm  

Mitch I don't neccesarily agree with your premise that the "Administration/Council's" focus on grass contracts detracts from other important thing. I think the Wpost Editorial board has turned this into an issue the administration and council "must" focus on. I do however agree that there are more important issues out there.

Tells you how many times I've used our public facilities. I thought people were already forced to pay for use of public pools. You mean to tell me that it's free? Not even 5bucks? Wow!

by HogWash on Oct 14, 2011 1:40 pm  

Why rec centers and libraries are closed on Sundays makes no sense to me. That's when my family can use them most. Shut them down for a day during the week instead of Sundays.

by michael D on Oct 14, 2011 1:51 pm  

@DPRboy - not sure what numbers you're looking at, but DPR's annual operating budget has NOT grown. In fact, its been cut consistently over the last 5 budget cycles.

@Freely - DPR's budget topped out in FY 2007, and has been in free fall ever since. Even though the number of people using DPR facilities had grown and the number of new and renovated recreation centers, new pools, new athletic fields has grown. Here''s the numbers from the DC CFO website over at cfo.dc.gov:

FY 2012:
• FY 2012 Proposed $35,802,037(a 15% from FY2011 and a 44% cut since FY 2007)

and prior years:
• FY 2011 Approved $41,664,621
• FY 2010 Actual $51,903,435
• FY 2009 Actual $59,401,922
• FY 2008 Actual $63,033,972
• FY 2007 Actual $63,560,503
• FY 2006 Actual $57,874,490
• FY 2005 Actual $47,276,999

DPR's Capital Improvement budget has gone up, but this is restricted money that is funded by bonds, and can only be used to build stuff or make improvements. This is money that is budgeted long term over 5 and 6 year plans, and a lot of these projects were completed under Fenty's term as Mayor.

Again, however, we're talking about Annual Operating Budget, and that's the money DPR gets to run and maintain all of the parks, pools, and centers, and staff them with programs and activities. That is the number that keeps getting cut and will prevent DPR and DC from properly maintaining all of these facilities.

by dcvoterboy on Oct 14, 2011 2:02 pm  

There was nice piece about the challenges facing DPR here on GGW a few weeks back as well:

"It's parks AND recreation, not just recreation"
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/11857/its-parks-and-recreation-not-just-recreation/

by dcvoterboy on Oct 14, 2011 2:08 pm  

@dcvoterboy,

This is where folks like you and I will probably never find common ground.

I am sorry, but narrowing your focus to a couple year period calling something freefall after having increased 34% in two budget years 05-07 just doesn't pass the smell test.

And DPR's budget in FY 2000 was 33.3 million, meaning it had also increased 42% by 2005 or what, ~10% a year. It had doubled between 2000 and 2007.

Yes, I agree that 36 million for FY-12 is low. I figure DPR's budget is probably more in line around 48 million, which would be where it had been if they had gotten a 4% yearly increase since 2000.

However, all this brings me back to what has been one of my biggest issue with the District the past decade when the RE boom was still producing yearly supluses even though the city was increasing spending by double digits every single year...that complaint being the programs they were starting, the "stuff" they were building did not have the accompanying yearly O&S funds to operate and maintain them.

Spending 300 million dollars on pools, rec centers is great, it makes everyone feel happy, until the next year when the bills to operate them comes due.

The easiest, fairest and cheapest way to rectify this particular problem? Start charging a nominal fee as I suggested above to use the facilities. I don't think that the tens of thousands of kids who use city pools every summer paying $10 bucks for the summer is onerous.

by freely on Oct 14, 2011 2:32 pm  

@michael D

I could not agree with you more about the impact of Sunday closures at DCPL and DPR.

“Sundays, hour-for-hour, are our busiest days,” said Marcia Warner, president of the nation’s Public Library Association, who is also the director of public libraries in Grand Rapids, Mich.

My earlier article covered DC Public Library leadership's current practice of closing all neighborhood library branches on Sunday:

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/8469/open-dcs-neighborhood-libraries-on-sundays/

by Mitch Wander on Oct 14, 2011 2:39 pm  

@freely - i think we agree more than we disagree. we have the same issue: everyone loves to build new shiny stuff, but nobody wants to pay to maintain it, or admit to what the real cost is to operate and maintain all of these facilities.

Put my usage of "freefall" aside - maybe not the best words - but if you look at when DPR's budget was boosted from FY2005-2007, that was Mayor Williams boosting DPR's budget to address previous under-funding of DPR and an ugly backlog of deferred maintenance. That said, nobody can say that it's responsible management or budgeting to have cut DPR's budget by 44%

The D.C. Council also isn't helping, as they've stopped DPR in recent years from raising or adjusting fees, and that's leaving much needed revenue on the table as well.

by dcvoterboy on Oct 14, 2011 2:45 pm  

Mitch -- DPR's FY 2012 operating budget reduction for maintenance -- as well as the associated personnel -- is actually a shift Of the funding to the newly established Department of General Services (DGS). Mayor Gray proposed DGS in his FY 2012 budget along with an increased budget (shifted from several cooperating agencies) to maintain all District facilities and implement capital improvements, and Council approved. For now DC Public Libraries, an independent agency, will continue to maintain and improve all libraries. The Mayor and Council are committed to better cyclical maintenance of the District's public facilities. With many new and costly buildings such as schools, libraries, and recreation centers, a comprehensive and well-funded maintenance program should prevent the gradual deterioration that has resulted in the need to rehab or replace so many facilities at a very high cost.

by John McGaw on Oct 15, 2011 9:53 am  

@John McGaw

Can you please clarify the exact amount of $$$ and FTE transferred from DPR to DGS for FY12?

by MItch Wander on Oct 15, 2011 11:25 am  

Placing park maintenance into a newly created general public services agency is a move that many Mayor's make in the name of efficiency and streamlining, claiming it creates centralized service with fewer costs. But the reality is that this is just cutting services, and placing accountability for maintenance into a separate agency, so the lines of accountablility and management of things like parks is blurred, and they usually suffer in quality.

I don't know why city managers are consistently combining these types of functions when all they do is make things worse. It is very poor decision making to completely rearrange city agency responsibilities that make sense, just because the current fiscal climate is weak.

by neb on Oct 17, 2011 1:17 pm  

There are other ways to raise funds, besides charging people to use facilities. DCPR is leaving a lot of money on the table by not having sponsorship of the meets and tournaments that often attract thousands of out-of-town visitors. Take the black history invitational swim meet, which had around 3000 parents sitting in stands for around 20 hours, spread out over three days -- a huge advertizing opportunity that DCPR has never taken advantage of.

by goldfish on Oct 17, 2011 2:29 pm  

Has anyone every noticed that there is no covered field available to adults in the winter in DC?

Has anyone ever noticed that absolutely every athletic facility in DC has a blanket kids-first priority but that most DCPS facilities are not available to kids in non school sanctioned sports?

Has anyone noticed that the "available hours" for facilities are all geared to hours when most kids and practically all adults are in school or working?

We undercharge kids, because we think it's the right thing to do (as if free, coached, structured athletics in modern America has become a Constitutional right), we undercharge young adults (because we think having a gym available will keep people from shooting one another), and we don't provide a dependable service to adults who could and happily would, PAY FOR IT ALL.

We don't have the money to pay for all the shiny things we want. If we want nice things, we have to pay for them. If we want to subsidize nice things for one group of people, we have to treat the people paying with some basic respect. That starts with making it easy to reserve a field at any time of the night or day with a CC and having a definite permit to print out. It also means providing adults with exactly what they need and will pay for, and then allowing kids to use them. Not vice cersa.

by ahk on Oct 17, 2011 2:48 pm  

DPR financial staff report that the actual number of FTEs transferred to DGS was 103. The total budget transferred was $8,860,985; $5,940,815 for personal services (staffing costs) and $2,920,170 for non-personal services (all other expenses).

by John McGaw on Oct 31, 2011 9:39 am  

@John McGaw

Thank you for the information. I posted a clarification at the end of the article based on your comments.

by Mitch Wander on Nov 8, 2011 8:26 pm