Petition to Oppose Parks and Recreation Service Tax District

To quote Harvey:
I cannot imagine the outcry if the fire department or EMS charged before use of their services. Taxes pay for them and they support the ENTIRE COMMUNITY. Ever wonder why the volunteer fire department has to have fund drives and they sell those family picture packages? Because they don't have enough money. From taxes.

Which is why we should have bingos at local VFDs. You can have children work selling specials and delivering food/drinks teaching them the value of hard work and for heaven sake, HOW TO GIVE CHANGE.. Adults run the kitchen and all other aspects.
I've seen BRAND NEW buildings and fire equipment and trucks purchased with revenue from bingos. It helps the community by keeping taxes lower, helps teens learn job skills, social skilll and such, and provides entertainment in the area. It'll never happen here, but I'm all for it.

 

The fire tax pays for all the FD needs. The firemen raise money for their own personnel for eating together and such by selling photo sittings. The tax money pays all the fire dept bills.

 

There is also some a**hat destroying the anti-park signs, tearing them down...

 

Hold up there mystery writer. Why would you come to the conclusion that it's long time residence instead of move ins ? The long time residents are the ones footing the bill and promoting the Park. Your assumption is not appreciated.

 

Posted to the Cleveland parks Facebook page:

A letter to the Commissioners that we felt brought up questions and concerns others may be having, so we are posting the letter to the Commissioners and the reply that the Association was asked to answer if possible.

Dear Commissioners,
I would love the opportunity to speak at the meetings for the proposed McLemore Tax district but I am not sure how that will be handled so I thought I would reach out via email with my questions and feedback.
I am concerned about how realistic it is to take on the task of building parks with the proposed 4 cent tax. At that rate it will take years to even acquire land. Is the plan for the tax district to immediately go into debt to acquire land and develop it? I am pretty sure this tax district is still deeply in debt for the purchase of our ladder truck for the fire department. I have a serious objection to accumulating more debt. Also is there a limit on how much tax can be assessed for the parks and rec district? I know many people want a big beautiful park and they probably want it soon. I have a fear that this tax would double or triple to accommodate making a tax payer funded park a reality.
I am concerned about safety for a park. Has the Johnston County Sheriffs Department been contacted about how they will handle the need for patrol of this park and how it will affect their resources. I have been told that Clayton parks are patrolled every 30 minutes by Clayton Police. I doubt that the sheriffs office can provide that type of coverage with their current resources The proposed site is not in a very populous area. I worry that normal patrols would not be in that area and there may be long wait times if assistance is needed from the sheriff.
Has 50/210 been contacted to see how this will affect their response time in when emergency services are needed? I know all the resources are very stretched and I want to be sure that the additional resources that will be needed for a park from county and community agencies have been considered.
I have a concern for GCAA Currently as I understand it Johnston County owns the land that GCAA uses and leases it to the organization for $1 per year. This is great for GCAA as it gives the organization exclusive use. This allows GCAA to provide opportunities for its sports programs as well as provide a safe environment. If this tax districts is passed I have been told that the land GCAA uses would be given to the Parks district. It then becomes public property. GCAA would no longer have exclusive use of the facilities. The use of the gym and fields would have to be split between any number of groups that would like to use the facilities and of course the Parks District would have to do what is in the best interest of the tax payers so it could be that the facilities are rented out for tournaments which would produce revenue more that they would be available for GCAA. Since the Park Tax District would not be running the rec sports league, anyone who wanted to use the facilities for a rec league would have equal opportunity. GCAA already struggles to have enough space for practices and games. They do not need competition for this space.
In reference tot he GCAA use issue, I have questions about Pop Warner use. I have seen a lot about this park being a good thing for Pop Warner but I have not heard anything about the Greater Cleveland Football Association. This a a growing top notch football program in our area. As much as I would love to protect the use of facilities for GCAA, on tax payer funded public land this cannot be the case.I don't think it is fair that one football or sports organization in the area would get special treatment over another.
Another concern is that currently The GCAA facilities are leased by a private group. This means we can restrict who is on the property and ask anyone to leave at any time. If this becomes public land we no longer have that authority. You can't place a no trespassing sign at a public park. I hate to sound crude, but I don't like the idea of any weirdo coming in to watch the girls play volleyball. There would be no one with the right to ask someone who doesn't really need to be around our kids to leave.
This reiterates the need for Sheriff patrol. I think the sheriff does a great job, but I know they are already stretched. Last year we had and unruly fan at a GCAA game it and took 30 minutes for a deputy to arrive. Luckily we had parents who helped diffuse the situation and we had the authority to make the man leave. If this had happened at a public facility there would be not authority to remove a person causing problems. I am not sure what would have happened if we has waited for the sheriff in that situation.
I am definitely not against parks for the area. I know that as a result of this push to get the tax district started the Cleveland Community will be getting at minimum a 12 acre open space developed into some sort of usable park space. I am excited to see that become a reality. I just have concerns about the feasibility of this plan working the way it is proposed. We need an overall Parks Department that can address safety, security and programming. I think we just need to take a more realistic view of what will be needed. I am not in support of this tax district being created.
Regards,

 

And the reply:

Jeff Carver asked me if I could address some of your questions, at least from what I know at this point about how the recreation tax district might work. We are plowing new ground and many of your questions are simply issues that will have to be worked out if the Commissioners allow us to move forward with a recreation tax district. I would be happy to sit down with you and have further discussion if we can arrange that. Your level of interest and knowledge would be very useful to the eventual governing board, and I hope you will continue providing input.

*The proposed 4-cent tax can certainly move us WAY beyond where we are in preserving open space and building parks in our community. The cumulative tax value of properties in the McLemore Fire District in the 2018 – 2019 tax year was about $2.2 billion, yielding about $880,000 in annual tax at 4 cents. Ultimately the County Commissioners would set the tax rate. The 4-cents is a level that seems affordable and would yield sufficient tax to get a lot done in the coming years. Because the tax base in Cleveland is continuing to grow at a rapid rate, the total fire tax and recreation tax (7 ¼ plus 4) will be less than some citizens in Jo Co pay for fire tax alone (12 cents). The fire tax and any debt the fire department might carry is completely separate from any tax or debt that we might incur for recreation, but I clearly share your concern. I too am averse to significant debt and the interest cost of that debt. The 82-acre property that is being acquired for a possible future park has a net purchase cost of $1.6 million. It was appraised at $1.9 million two years ago. The seller offered the $300,000 discount as a naming right for the future park. Because we were committing to purchase this property before we know if a tax district will be set up, to preserve the seller’s tax deduction, we also agreed to create a small park (12.8 acres) if the entire property cannot be made into a park, which could happen if Commissioners do not agree to provide the recurring tax revenue. As one of the guarantors for the $1.6 million loan necessary to preserve this property, the bank required that we have a back out plan IF the tax district was not approved. If the tax district is approved, that would open up many opportunities to leverage the recurring tax revenue so that both the purchase and development of the property could happen concurrently. For instance, last year we met with the NC State Director at the USDA Rural Development office in Raleigh. It is possible they would approve a 2% or 3% loan that could be used to both purchase the property ($1.6M) and advance an equal amount ($1.6M) to begin making immediate improvements on the property, which we believe taxpayers will demand. Payments on a $3.2M loan at 3% would leverage about $162,000 a year over 30 years for payments, leaving $718,000 in annual tax receipts for ongoing operations, additional improvements, and past due maintenance on existing facilities. This is a 22% loan to revenue percentage, a very conservative number, that would allow the governing authority to begin work immediately on the park. Let me caution you that these are simply ideas on how to get started, and much more input from the community would be required before any plan was put in place. Without a tax district the entire conversation is mute, so it is difficult to put any plan in motion until that question is resolved. As the overall tax district continues to grow, the 4 cents would likely yield more revenue as new homes and businesses are built, making the loan to revenue an even smaller percentage. In addition, as a non-profit 501c(3) organization, the Cleveland Community Parks and Recreation Association can receive gifts of land and facilities. The recurring revenue will allow the organization to seek matching grants from park-friendly foundations and corporate partners, adding to the funds we pay as taxpayers.


*Your comment regarding safety is an interesting one, and is something we have considered. The 50/210 Rescue Squad is looking for property in the Cleveland Area to build a rescue station and we have had some conversations with members of their board. The fire department and rescue squad have outgrown using the combined facilities they currently share. We have not talked with the Sherriff yet, but we intend to do so if the tax district is approved. How cool would it be if we could build a “Safety Center” on the park property that would house the rescue squad and an outpost for the Sheriff’s department?


*Throughout the two years we have been seeking County Commissioner assistance in acquiring open space and building parks for our community, we have been in lockstep with GCAA and Pop Warner. We have not been coordinating efforts with the Greater Cleveland Football Association, but anything we can do to add open space and fields to play and practice on will be to the benefit of all. Without a tax district it is unlikely we would see any addition to athletic facilities in the community in the near term. GCAA would be under no compulsion to surrender their lease for current facilities to the Parks and Recreation organization if a tax district was created. We have simply had those conversations with GCAA in order to do what would be best for our community. They are excited about the possibility of assigning those leases to the Parks and Recreation Association in order to have deeper pockets for pent-up and ongoing maintenance. The GCAA ballfields, parking, rest rooms, fencing, lighting, etc. are in dire need of maintenance, and GCAA only has enough capital each year to make minor improvements. Our conversations have been that a great partnership will be needed with GCAA, Pop Warner, GCFA, and others where all of the existing and new facilities could be acquired, developed, and maintained by the Parks and Recreation organization, and the many organizations that provide youth sports will manage the programs. These youth organizations would undoubtedly have priority for field scheduling. In the future it will be important for all of these stakeholders to work together to provide the widest range of opportunities for our youth. And what about adults? If a tax district is formed and additional recreation fields can be added, wouldn’t it be exciting to see adult softball and other sports start up? None of that is possible if we don’t support the self-funding that a recreation tax district would give us.


*The GCAA facilities are public property today. They are owned by the County. The Parks and Recreation Association would have the same authority as GCAA to control unauthorized access.


*Like you, a majority of the community support the idea of parks, but many questions remain about governance. I think we all look forward to working with our county leaders to work through the operating process and oversight. However, let’s don’t lose sight of the BIG question while we’re working through the small ones: without a tax district there are no future questions to answer.

I certainly hope you will reconsider your support for the tax district. If Commissioners don’t approve the tax district, there is no other path forward, and all of our planning and conversation is for naught. The 12 acre park that would be built if a tax district is not created would have to be built with profits from the sale of the 70 acre tract. This sale would likely be to a developer who would build more houses and create more stress on existing facilities. There will no joy if all we ever have is a new 12 acre park, with no plans to preserve additional property from developers. You don’t have to look far to see what progressive communities are doing. Garner just announced they are buying 72 acres for $2.4 million just to set aside for future parks. You have to ask yourself why aren’t we doing that in Cleveland!

Thanks,

Denton Lee
:

 

Keep in mind....Harvey used to spout his tax and spend nonsense on The Political Pit til he got run out of there.

No surprise here.

 

Okay, I'll bite. Take you off ignore long enough to respond. I left the Political Pit voluntarily due to stuff just like this. Tax and spend? Seriously? Even with this park tax, your taxes will be lower than surrounding areas. Tax and spend? What are you supposed to do with taxes after collected. Your issue is with taxes, fine. How much of an issue can you have with a tax collected for a singular, specific purpose, dedicated to that purpose? It actually doesn't get any simpler than this. Just like the fire district tax. You know where exactly your money is going. You continue to over generalize things in a way that self serves your anti-establishment views. Go ahead and tear down the community you are not even part of. You live north of Clayton, you have no stake here.

 

“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” “Or the one.”

 

I actually saw one of those today. Interesting. It said, "Taxation without representation = SCAM". Does this sound right to you? I really don't think so. Given that the County will appoint a local board to oversee the project removes the 'without representation' issue. Also, the tax is collected here and spent here. I hope people can see what an opportunity that is to have control over your own community. Also, the "SCAM" part of this is bewildering. How does that work when there are public meetings, Facebook pages, a website, etc. and an effort to have everything out in the open, above board, and discussed in public forums?

You know when election season rolls around and you see all of the disgusting ads on TV (from both sides) really stretching the truth and just trying to frighten people. This is kind of that. It is a $0.04 tax. Not much for a reinvestment into our community. Would we see opposition if there was a $0.20 (5 times) tax earmarked for road improvements, schools, etc. in our immediate area?

 

I'm indifferent towards this issue....and you obviously have no idea where I live which I consider a good thing.

 

Do any of these things excuse anyone from fulfilling their responsibilities as a tax paying citizen or member of the community?

Anyone can spend their money however they choose, but unless you want live completely off the grid outside of governmental boundaries then you are responsible for certain things like taxes that provide services and amenities for you and your community. I can totally get your argument about exorbitant taxes and out of control spending, but this parks proposal is neither of those things. It is a modest tax, from an established base, that will be spent in the immediate community it comes from for the direct benefit of that community. No different than the already established fire district tax. Is anyone exempt from this? What if I never need those services? It still benefits the community, by keeping people alive and protecting property. Recreational facilities have communal benefits as well in quality of life, increased property values, etc.

 

I'm about ready to put you all in the corner if you can't play nice...

 

Lake Benson park in Garner is 64 acres and White Deer Park is 90 acres. The Cleveland park would be somewhere between that. Lake Benson is where Garner does their July 4th celebration. It has the NC Symphony, food trucks, bouncy houses, etc. and is a well attended event with plenty of room to spare. I believe they also do their Easter Egg hunt as well as a number of other events there.

In contrast, Cleveland's July 4th celebration is crammed into the GCAA / JCC Campus parking lot. Again, there is some opportunity here to make our community better.

 

Again...I don't have a dog in the fight. I think there is merit to a park and I don't believe it is a "handout" to GCAA as someone mentioned earlier.

I think those that are opposing this are scared it will become repetitive...now we need "this"...now we need "that". I can't speak for anyone specifically but I imagine that is why most are leaning against it.

 

And this is a valid point for those who make it. It is also why the JoCo Commissioners will have oversight and why the Cleveland Parks people have been so transparent about it. This is not going to be some rogue, quasi-gov't department that doesn't report to anyone and can grab more taxes whenever they want to. There will likely be periods of adjustment after the initial set point of the tax versus needed budget and/or continued growth of the tax base, but this will be guided by County gov't oversight and not an unusual occurrence in local gov't operations.

I would also say that many of the people directly involved are community leaders. They are folks who have held position in this area through local business, civic duty, etc. for a number of years if not decades. They are not upstart, whipper-snappers, or danged yankees trying to change what we are used to. Many of these folks have likely been involved in decades of planning for the Strawberry Festival, Chamber of Commerce, etc. Not saying any one person is going to know what is best for anyone else, but this is a good group.

 

I agree that our community really needs a park just like the one that you are describing here and just as you described with the Dix Park. However the Cleveland Park is so heavily sports oriented that I don't believe that this will be like the Garner Parks. If the approach of this project was to repair the existing facililties and the existing ball fields and then construct an open area without ballfields the support may have been different in the community. If we had a focus on the Community Center with picnic areas, walking trails, and just an area for everyone to enjoy and not just sports then we probably wouldn't be so divided. This project also wouldn't look like a handout to the organized groups that exist in the area if the focus was different.

 

Valid argument except for one thing...if we add more sports facilities, games can be more spread out, or tournaments can be played regionally. It's been done before..yeah, I know in the North where we are free thinkers naturally...no one said that if we build 4 ballfields that the ones at GCAA will go unused. I imagine you could host baseball and softball at the new fields, and t ball at GCAA (because pelicans is the go to place after a game). Personally, I don't understand why games are not held at the high school and middle schools in the area. They are all public property. That would eliminate the need for ballfields essentially. But placing 4 new ballfields would allow an adult softball league to open up, as more facilities are available to host games.
And then there is a tri use soccer/football/rugby field. Add in some tennis courts with lights, and a volleyball area. Add a splash pad if feasible...that would allow many people to participate. And make the park handicap friendly. A good example of this is North Belle Vernon Community Bank Park. It was a private venture with community support...it's thriving with a dek hockey rink(something we could use) and special swings accessible to wheelchair bound people. www.nbvpark.com We can have anything we want in this park, because it isn't built yet.

Everyone is arguing over the money. It's not set in stone. It's only proposed taxes. And honestly, it's not that bad. Or arguing that it's only for the sports teams, when it is for EVERYONE.

And to the person arguing that the other parks are all within a 15 minute drive, try driving from the end of Matthews Road to Clayton Community Park in 15 minutes...if you don't get arrested, you will likely be given the finger a few times.

I think this project, if we all came together with a positive attitude, would prove beneficial to all, and we could include things that other parks don't have.

I'll try to be there at the next meeting.

 

GCAA pays a fee to the county (pretty sure) to have the ability to ask local schools to use their facilities...from there, it is 100% up to the administration of each school to allow it or not.

Exactly....this is a proposal, a vision if you will. Lots of folks don't understand the difference in "proposal" and "project". Nothing is final, nothing is being voted on...this is all discussion to see what the public does/does not want.