Parks funding

Priority should be on need, not location

The ballot referendum approved by voters in November to fund maintenance and improvement of city parks was controversial from the start, and implementing the measure seems headed for more disagreement among city council members.

Two members want the money collected from the new city parks tax to be equally divided among the nine council districts. The proposal is contrary to the intended use of the new revenue stream, which is to fund city parks on a needs basis, and should be rejected.

Council members Deb Gross and Anthony Coghill, who both opposed the referendum, sponsored a bill to create a Parks Trust Fund that would be governed by the nine council members. Included in the bill is a provision that each of the nine council districts would get an equal share of the tax money for use on their respective parks.

The half-mill tax increase on real estate, expected to generate about $10 million a year, would go toward funding the nearly $400 million backlog in needed repairs and nearly $13 million in routine maintenance for the city’s 165 parks.

Dividing the money equally among council districts ignores the fact that some districts may have more parks with greater needs than others. The proposal could further delay attention to the many small parks in the city that do not receive funding from the Regional Asset District. Last year, $6.7 million in RAD funds went toward the city’s five largest parks — Frick, Emerald View, Highland, Riverview and Schenley.

The Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy, which spent more than $700,000 in direct funding and in-kind donations campaigning for the ballot referendum, has created a list of parks in need of immediate attention based on an “equitable” and “investment priority score.” At the top of that list are Baxter Park in Homewood, McKinley Park in Beltzhoover, Spring Hill Park in Spring Hill, Kennard Park in Terrace Village and Ammon Park in Bedford Dwellings.

That’s the approach council should take; the parks with the greatest needs should be the top priority regardless of what district they are in.

Council President Theresa Kail-Smith, who also opposed the park tax, said a task force — three council members, the mayor or his designee, the city controller and representatives from Public Works and the Office of Management and Budget — would work with Ms. Gross and Mr. Coghill to draft a final plan that council and residents can support.

Ultimately, council members should be willing to consider the needs of all city parks and work toward compromise on which should get funding first.