Voter Guide 2001: Menlo Park -- $38 million for parks and recreation? Voter Guide 2001: Menlo Park -- $38 million for parks and recreation? (October 24, 2001)

By Pam Smith
Almanac Staff Writer

Menlo Park voters will decide November 6 whether to fund years of renovations and expansions for the city's parks and recreation facilities.

If Measure T is approved by two-thirds of Menlo Park voters, the city could issue a series of bonds to raise up to $38 million over the next several years. About $14 million is expected to be raised from the first bond issue in 2002.

The money would fund new facilities and improvements city-wide, affecting programs from childcare to swimming to sports teams, as well as community facilities such as parks, playgrounds, tennis courts and a skate park.

Both residential and commercial property owners would pay back almost twice the face value of the bonds that are issued, assuming a 4 to 5 percent interest rate, said City Manager David Boesch. If the city issues $38 million in bonds, the city could pay a total of $76 million, including interest.

It is expected that the entire debt would be paid off about 45 years from now, 30 years after the last projected bond issue, said Mr. Boesch.

Residential and commercial property owners would be taxed up to $14 per $100,000 of their property's assessed value each year until the debt is repaid.

Assessed value is often lower than actual market value. The average assessed value of a single-family home in Menlo Park is about $420,000, according to the county assessor's office. The tax on a home valued at $420,000 would be just under $60 a year.

Taxpayers would first see the tax on their November 2002 tax bills.

A large citizen's task force spent about 18 months comparing recreational resources and demand, and recommended a list of $62 million in projects. To implement that entire list would have required a tax of $42 per $100,000 assessed value.

A phone survey, commissioned by the city, showed voters would support no more than $22 per $100,000.

A smaller community advisory group weighed comments from residents and the changing economic climate, and cut the project list to $38 million, and a maximum tax of $14 per $100,000.

If Measure T passes, the city says it intends to:

**Build a new facility for two after-school programs and a childcare program, now housed in the recreation center and portable buildings outside it.

**Renovate the recreation center and pool at Burgess.

**Rehabilitate soccer and ball fields, tennis courts, basketball courts and playgrounds at various parks and schools throughout the city.

**Make improvements to Bayfront Park and the Onetta M. Harris Community Center.

**Build a new park at the old Fremont School site, as well as a new skate park at Flood Park.

Those projects are not set in stone if Measure T passes; each one would have to be individually approved by the City Council.

Also, the $38 million could be stretched further if some projects come in under budget, or if the city is successful in partnering with local organizations to build shared-use facilities.

The city has discussed the possibility of a gym or performing arts center with the Las Lomitas and Sequoia Union school districts, both of which have their own bond measures on the November 6 ballot.

Proponents of Measure T say the city's parks and recreation facilities are old and unable to meet increasing demand. They say many facilities are outdated or in a state of disrepair _ that Burgess Recreation Center was built in the 1950s, and that the Burgess gym has to call off activities on hot days because it has no air conditioning. They also say that increasing demand, such as for gymnastics, basketball and swimming programs, has led to a shortage of facilities.

Since the Menlo Park City Council voted unanimously in August to put Measure T on the ballot, no organized campaign has emerged to fight its passage, though it is one of 13 measures opposed by the Libertarian Party of San Mateo County.

Opponents say that parks and recreation improvements should either have a place within the city's regular budget, or be paid for by the people who use the facilities, including non-residents, through higher user fees. Paying back the money that would be spent on projects, plus interest, would add to taxes for decades, they say.

Proponents counter that general funds and user fees must pay for ongoing costs, and cannot support "significant capital investments." About $10 million in General and Redevelopment Agency funds have been set aside for parks and recreation projects, but without funds from the bond measure, proponents argue, the city's improvements will be minimal.

Higher user fees could make some programs too expensive for widespread community use, they say, arguing that even if the city raised fees it would take more than a decade to begin covering the costs of major remodeling and construction. They also say that the taxpayers' property value will increase with improved city facilities.

A handful of residents who live near parks or schools have expressed concern that impacts such as traffic and noise might increase around their homes if recreational facilities are added or improved. Not all of those people are opposed to the bond measure per se, but they do want to make sure the city reduces any negative impacts.

John J. Hickey, Margret Buckley Schmidt, and Christopher VA Schmidt signed the ballot arguments in opposition to Measure T. Mr. Hickey chairs the Libertarian Party of San Mateo County; Mr. Schmidt is vice chair, and Ms. Schmidt is treasurer.

Among those signing the rebuttal and argument in favor of Measure T were: Councilman Chuck Kinney of Menlo Park; Dee Tolles, former mayor of Menlo Park; Lee Duboc, former parks and recreation commissioner of Menlo Park; Karen Canty, trustee for the Menlo Park City School District; Linda Craig, on behalf of the League of Women Voters of South San Mateo County; Kerry Hoctor, signing on behalf of the Menlo Park Chamber of Commerce; and Ben Ray Parks, retired coach at Menlo-Atherton High School.