Are parks worth the price?
Photo
The Janesville City Council is taking a harder look at the city’s park department budget during budget study sessions. Among the options being discussed is the selling of a few smaller parks, such as Parker Park off of East Court Street.
JANESVILLE — Janesville is known as "Wisconsin's Park Place," but some city council members question the cost.
The city boasts more parkland per capita than any other state city.
Councilman DuWayne Severson noted a recent survey shows half the city's residents would reduce park services to avoid raising taxes. Only 11 percent said they would pay more taxes to maintain services.
Tom Presny, parks director, said Janesville's parks and open spaces "speaks to and complements our community."
City Manager Eric Levitt told council members at a recent budget study session he didn't ask the parks department to make more cuts in 2013 after reductions in previous years.
The city would have to eliminate parkland to squeeze any more from the budget, Levitt said.
"We do have lists to downsize parks, and that would be one way to reduce service levels," Levitt said. "(The city would) have parks that people are proud of while reducing areas."
Council members asked for the list of city-owned land that could be put up for sale, including parks.
Severson and Councilman Russ Steeber said council members could analyze the list and possibly find parks that could benefit from partnerships with residents.
The list developed by city parks staff in 2011 recommends selling seven city parks.
This isn't the first time a council has talked about shedding parkland.
In 2001, a suggestion to sell River Valley Park was defeated because of neighborhood opposition. The parks department continues to recommend that park be sold.
In 2003, staff recommended eight parks be sold. The council took up the issue at a study session. No parkland was ever sold.
Councilman Sam Liebert said he has lived in Janesville for 23 years. Sometimes, he sees a park and had no idea the park was there, he said.
"There might just be a little path and a bench," Liebert said. "Maybe they are utilized a lot, but I don't know. When I see random parks, there's no one in them."
Steeber wondered if the council is creating future problems by requiring developers to set aside open spaces and parkland in their subdivisions.
"Are we taking and, by our own growth, enhancing the problem?" Steeber asked.
The 2013 parks budget is $1.5 million, $1.1 million of which is devoted to mowing 666 acres in 64 developed parks.
The 2013 budget adds $107,575 to the parks budget—a 9 percent increase—to deal with the infiltration of the emerald ash borer. The insect will likely destroy 30,000 trees in the city over the next three years. The cost to manage the destruction is expected to grow.
Of the $1.1 million in the 2013 grounds maintenance budget, labor is about $800,000, or about 85 percent of the budget, Presny, parks director, said.
The council in 2012 cut mowing to every eight days, and the parks department last summer hired six fewer seasonal employees.
Presny said noted that the reduced mowing might not have be noticeable after grass went dormant because of the drought.
Presny told council members the department had eight more full-time employees when he started working here 28 years ago.
The city purchased more efficient mowing equipment to reduce staff, Presny said. It cut weed control and geese management. It has increased its partnerships with volunteer groups that help maintain parks, Presny said.
In 2011, the department reduced a full-time employee by ceding upkeep to the American Legion of its baseball facility in Riverside Park.
Levitt lauded the community groups who help the city maintain its parks. Janesville could not offer the services it does without those groups, but several groups "feel the city's not coming forward enough," Levitt said. "It's kind of a balancing act."
Presny said the city has held back developing three parks, including the Northeast Regional Park, until surrounding subdivisions are at least 50 percent developed.
"For some, that can be quite a while," Presny said.
PARKS IN QUESTION
City staff for nearly a decade have recommended a handful of city parks be sold. A 2011 parks staff memo given to the city council at a council member's request Oct. 18 recommends the following parks be sold:
-- Greendale Park, 327 Greendale Drive. Two to three residential lots possible. The nearby daycare mows the lot and uses it for programming, so the land requires very little maintenance. Staff have been unable to locate title, so the property first must be offered to the heirs of the people who donated the land.
-- River Valley Park, 2300 Kellogg Ave. A previous suggestion to sell this park met with neighborhood opposition.
-- Southside Park, vacant land at the corner of Washington Street and Kellogg Avenue. The land was purchased for a fire station that was never built.
Park staff recommends the sale of the following park, but the city attorney's office advises against selling because a clear title cannot be conveyed:
-- Parker Park, 801 E. Court St. Three to five residential lots might be possible in the space. The park is a high maintenance area for parks staff.
-- Rushmore Park, 2012 Wolcott St. Four residential lots possible. Lustig Park is nearby.
-- Industrial Park at Rockport Road and Oakhill Avenue. This is a wooded setting surrounded by industrial buildings. The site has a history of illegal dumping. Land must be leveled for future construction.
-- Ardon Park, 2120 Refset Drive. The steep property is used for sledding. The city considered eliminating the park in 1998 but met with neighborhood opposition, especially because some see it as a buffer from the nearby mall. The city reduced mowing in 2010.
Park staff has no strong preference about:
-- Blackhawk Meadows Park, 460 Lexington Drive. It is a hillside prairie that provides sledding in the winter. Opposition is expected from neighbors. Many consider the park an extension of nearby Palmer Park. It was dedicated for park purposes in 1960. The city must offer the property to the heirs of the people who donated the land.
Nov 1, 2012 at 10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
You tell em there bigguy ...Keep up that constant confrontational non-sense no one squeezed from your head. I'm done listening to you fools you're going nowhere which is obvious considering town this newspaper resides in!
Oct 31, 2012 at 7:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Big difference between New York city and Janesville. lol
Central park offers things Janesville's park could never dream of offering!
As usual there is absolutely no logic from Janesville voting body who support this non-sense. Say whatever you want until you're blue in the face but we will never go to a Janesville park! It's a massive waste of money to have as many parks as Janesville does. I would keep palmer, riverside, & traxler but axe the rest. If you have any concerns or comments with my opinion you can address them to the nearest brick wall!
Oct 31, 2012 at 10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Not only is this a excellent idea because of the significant savings in expenses, The Ciy should go one step further and send out an RFP to private landscapers to maintain the rest of the parkland and the greenbelt space. This could result in a signficant savings in terms of employee salary and benefits
Oct 31, 2012 at 10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Motorman -- we will all need them as a place to live if Obama gets a 2nd term.
Oct 31, 2012 at 9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Motorman:
Great idea, but who will pay for the labor and materials; and who will maintain them? There are not many volunteer groups out there with a lot of money!!
Oct 29, 2012 at 6:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
And Jeffris park is used when????
Oct 28, 2012 at 12:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Blog about the same topic...and many more posts
http://www.gazettextra.com/weblogs/lates...
Oct 27, 2012 at 4:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Janesville can't sell the parks because if they do they will have to change their slogan. "Janesville: Wisconsin's Park Place" to what? Not only that they will spend thousands of dollars coming up with a new slogan.
Oct 27, 2012 at 3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
I have a proposal:
Go to New York City and take away Central Park and all the other dime sized parks. Seems they have all the coffee and ice cream joints imaginable, which should satisfy couples. Bet they won't like it.
=They're creating new parks all the time where buildings once stood via the NY Restoration Project: http://www.nyrp.org/
=They're creating their High Line where rails used to run--very park like: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/0...
--
What we need is a happy middle ground. Select a few parks that will remain parks under the City of Janesville's jurisdiction/budget - those that have large capacity for school picnics, church gatherings, family reunions. Let neighborhoods select if they want to keep their parks as parks, but they need to help with the maintenance. (If they don't, the city as a whole gets to decide what to do with the land.) Once we're solvent again, and all the ash trees are gone, we'll want our parks back. If a house or business is built on them now, they're gone.
--
If the police need to be called to some of these parks, then that's what they're here to do. If they need to be called to Main Street or Court Street or Milton Avenue, that is their job, too. Seems to me that the gentrified Monroe Street and (the new and improved) Willy Street aren't immune from police patrols for a reason. Perhaps if the people causing problems on these streets--and those in our parks--had had more family/community time in parks there would be less need for such patrols. Maybe, just maybe, if we could get more jobs in our own liveable-viable community, the Fourth Ward would have less crime... Not sure that would solve the drug and alcohol issues amongst our higher income neighborhoods, though - the crowd that doesn't need to 'steal' to buy drugs. Get your priorities in check folks - what do you want?
Oct 27, 2012 at 3:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
When my family wants to go on a picnic, we'd rather not spread out our blanket in front of a Michael's Frozen Custard or the Dairy Bar by Camp Randall. I'd rather that kids ride their bikes off the road than down sidewalks in more urban settings like Monroe Street. When they want to do cartwheels and play tag, I'd rather it be in Orton Park than on Willy Street. When our law office has it's annual barbeque, we'd rather do it in a friendly open space for families like Burrows Park, than go to the Edgewater for a stuffy reception and no children.
--
But, I can see your point. It's practical for "the new American". Perhaps we should remove all the parks from town because they cost money. We should remove swimming pools/beaches and boat ramps, as they cost money. We should remove sidewalks as they deteriorate on public property, as everyone drives, but no one walks...except IronMan wannabes who want to run on sod anyway. Today, everyone drinks coffee and tweets, spending how much for that cup of 'joe'? Children that have Siri to use when they ask "Why" don't need a park, they just need a bench. We, as "the new American", have different priorities - we'd rather pay Apple and China for expensive toys each year, than to share that same amount with our community for a better quality of life for all.
Oct 27, 2012 at 2:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
We will never use these parks and have no interest in them. As a couple we prefer to sit in front coffee places, shopping outlets, etc. Monroe street in Madison near Edgewood College (just outside Camp Randall) northeast is a good example of what I am talking about. That or the strip in Lake Geneva off the lake with the ice cream shops. Many cities in this country have much more inviting places for family to visit and relax and enjoy outdoor at a fraction of the cost of parks in Janesville. I personally see these parks as nothing more than a money pit for tax payers. I think they also attract the wrong type of person and are an ongoing expense requiring all kinds repair. With less of them our police could focus more of their energy on patrolling other things instead of frivulous disputes between kids or neighbors and vandalism.
Oct 27, 2012 at 11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Southside Park is a joke ..right ?? It looks to me as a parking lot and a cut through for the business in front of it.Is it really a park ??
Oct 27, 2012 at 10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Don't sell the parks, sell the city.
Oct 27, 2012 at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
If we are reinventing Janesville, that it is no longer a 'GM blue collar' town, we need to atract good jobs and with good jobs come good residents...who want quality of life in their neighborhoods. No one wants to live in dense housing tracts with no place to sit with the kids.
If we're reinventing Janesville, it's time for long term vision, not just our current bank account. How can we get through this time without "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."
Query: Do parks add to a neighborhood's home values, thereby raising the tax revenue? Just askin'.
Oct 27, 2012 at 9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
parks:
http://www.cityofmadison.com/neighborhoo...
Oct 27, 2012 at 9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.cityofmadison.com/neighborhoo...
Oct 27, 2012 at 9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Speaking of community... are there any neighborhood associations here in Janesville? At what point does a small neighborhood park not benefit a neighborhood, but a city? For those 'city parks' the city can maintain. For those neighborhood parks, the neighborhood can maintain. How many parents have sent the kids to the park? Well, parent... take care of your parks or there won't be any to send your kids to!
Oct 27, 2012 at 9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ardon Park? It has a name? I thought it was "Pimple Park".
Oct 27, 2012 at 9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Where will we (ultimately) put the statue of Paul Ryan? Will someone maintain that spot until used for this purpose, if the city won't? Just askin'.
Oct 27, 2012 at 8:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
The sense of "community" is really strong here (sarcasm).
Oct 27, 2012 at 8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
disappointed to see so few value open undeveloped spaces in our area...not only do they serve as open spaces for people, but also as groundwater recharge areas, and as wildlife habitat that was displaced by the development of Janesville...if they really want to get rid of city parks, they shouldn't be offering them up for development, but to be kept as green spaces...as a taxpayer I would gladly pay more taxes to maintain city and county parks...
When the Last Tree Is Cut Down, the Last Fish Eaten, and the Last Stream Poisoned, You Will Realize That You Cannot Eat Money
Oct 27, 2012 at 8:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
*sigh*
Oct 26, 2012 at 8:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
NO I DON'T THINK PARKS ARE WORTH IT!
Oct 26, 2012 at 7:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Some of the so called "parks" in this city are just empty lots with a trashcan.
Oct 26, 2012 at 6:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Rushmore Park? Leave Rushmore park alone!!
You guys destroyed Lustig park when you built that frisbee golf course!
Oct 26, 2012 at 6:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
I thought Janesville has so many parks because when people busted for "possesion" can be fined more on their ticket for being within so many feet of a park.
Oct 26, 2012 at 4:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
A healthy discussion was begun in the news blog post from this morning:
http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/latest-ne...
Oct 26, 2012 at 4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Rushmore Park was recommended to be sold? Didn't they just put in new playground equipment a few months ago?
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.