PARK DISTRICT Officials: Cutbacks are possible

The current levy expires at the end of 2005.
By JOHN W. GOODWIN JR.
VINDICATOR STAFF WRITER
BOARDMAN -- Park officials say a failed replacement levy here will not mean immediate cutbacks in park services, but those cuts could be a future possibility.
Boardman Township Park District placed a 0.6-mill levy on the ballot Tuesday that would have replaced an existing 0.6-mill levy for park operations. That levy has been in place since 1980. The replacement would have increased the amount of revenue the park generates from the levy because, unlike the old levy, it would be assessed on the full value of all real estate built since 1980 in the district.
40 percent of budget
Dan Slagle, executive director of the park, said the 0.6-mill levy represents about 40 percent of the park's operations budget. Voters rejected the replacement levy by 177 votes out of 23,657 votes cast.
The park has a 0.3-mill operating levy in addition to the 0.6-mill levy. Slagle said the park has operated on the same two levies, which have generated the same amount of revenue, for the last 24 years.
"After operating on the same two levies for 24 years, the park board decided we needed additional revenue," he said. "There is no inflation increase" billed into funds generated by the levy, he added.
The replacement levy would have taken effect in calendar year 2006, generating $573,000 a year. The current 0.6-mill levy generates about $303,000 annually; the 0.3-mill levy generates $238,000 annually.
Replace or renew
Slagle said park officials will have to decide whether to again ask voters to approve a replacement levy or ask voters to renew the 0.6-mill levy as it is. The levy expires at the end of calendar year 2005. Slagle said officials have not yet discussed the issue.
Slagle said the park will eventually need additional funds to continue normal operations.
If the levy is not replaced with a levy that generates more money, he said, those visiting the park will see some cuts in operations. He did not say what those cuts would be.
Should voters choose not to renew the levy as it is, Slagle said, cuts in operations could be drastic.
Slagle said it is likely that some voters did not approve the levy because they were not aware of how important the funds are to park operations.
Slagle alsosaid some voters, because of several improvements to the grounds, may have assumed the park has more money for operations than it actually does. Those improvements, he said, were made possible by grants and donations from the community.
jgoodwin@vindy.com